I think you'd have to put morals aside, rather than just politics.
As we've seen, many of the people with these devices were in public places, and so it becomes a totally indiscriminate act of violence.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pagers can kill
- Thread starter jazzy
- Start date
I think you'd have to put morals aside, rather than just politics.
As we've seen, many of the people with these devices were in public places, and so it becomes a totally indiscriminate act of violence.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I think you'd have to put morals aside, rather than just politics.
As we've seen, many of the people with these devices were in public places, and so it becomes a totally indiscriminate act of violence.
agreed - nobody said the Warrington Bombings were an audacious targeted attack did they? The worlds morality and legality is at a huge low point.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
agreed - nobody said the Warrington Bombings were an audacious targeted attack did they? The worlds morality and legality is at a huge low point.
You are comparing the Warrington bomb targeting JUST civilians to terrorists targeted through their own communication devices?
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 19,967
A more accurate comparison would be Russia carrying out poisonings with no concern for the potential effects it could have on nearby innocent civilians. Except that this is on a huge scale and that was a far more targeted, isolated incident (okay, two incidents).You are comparing the Warrington bomb targeting JUST civilians to terrorists targeted through their own communication devices?
PPT
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2021
- Messages
- 2,922
- Team supported
- Manchester City
No. Terrorists were targeted. Yes, there was collateral damage to civilians, but that’s an unfortunate consequence of all wars.I think you'd have to put morals aside, rather than just politics.
As we've seen, many of the people with these devices were in public places, and so it becomes a totally indiscriminate act of violence.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
A more accurate comparison would be Russia carrying out poisonings with no concern for the potential effects it could have on nearby innocent civilians. Except that this is on a huge scale and that was a far more targeted, isolated incident (okay, two incidents).
I accept that comparison as being a LOT nearer. Looks like both sides of this particular argument couldn't give a toss who gets in the way.
No. Terrorists were targeted. Yes, there was collateral damage to civilians, but that’s an unfortunate consequence of all wars.
If you have no idea where the target is, or who they are standing next to, then it's not "unfortunate".
We all know wars are morally very messy, but accepting this would be a hugely dangerous precedent. It's almost certainly illegal, and in all likelihood a terrorist act in itself.
Is Israel at war with Lebanon as well now?No. Terrorists were targeted. Yes, there was collateral damage to civilians, but that’s an unfortunate consequence of all wars.
If not not then it is more Israeli terrorism.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
Is Israel at war with Lebanon as well now?
If not not then it is more Israeli terrorism.
Nope but they are in a conflict with Hezbollah who yet again have managed to install themselves within a civilian population.
More death to the west cunts being protected by some on here.
I don't understand your second line, you might want to think about the use of some punctuation.Nope but they are in a conflict with Hezbollah who yet again have managed to install themselves within a civilian population.
More death to the west cunts being protected by some on here.