Truck plows through Berlin market, 12 dead

[shadowofchaos]

First, yes I can. Second, this isn't an art or writing thread. Criticism isn't part of this. Discussion/debate is.

...uh, Ana. Discussion is criticism and challenging of each others different views. It is commenting and analysis. It is dialogue. I don't know what you think discussion and debate is.

Expecting people to agree with you when you post your opinion is naive and ASKING to get chewed out.

And what people have been saying is that no one knows the facts about who is behind this. Your radical suggestions of nukes has diplomatical consequences you clearly haven't thought about... as shown by your interactions with Hylian Air Force.

Edited December 20, 2016 by shadowofchaos

[ping]

Did the US invent a atomic bomb that only targets BAD PEOPLE yet? Because I've met a few Syrian refugees and they seemed like nice folks and I would assume that there are still more of those decent people over in Syria.

Because Wikipedia tells me that the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed between 129,000 and 246,000 people, civilians being the overwhelming majority. Seriously, Ana, did you have any fucking idea what you suggested there?

Edited December 20, 2016 by ping

[Anacybele]

I'm wondering how this discussion went to so quickly.

It's not even clear who did this attack.

I think it's rather appropriate to relate on the facts... we don't have many of them yet unfortunately... than to spread rumors and wrong conclusions too early.

That was probably my fault, sorry if it was a problem. >_< It's not entirely clear who did the attack, no, but since evidence points to it being a terror attack, I kinda jumped on that. So yeah, my mistake. I wasn't trying to start rumors or anything, I swear.

EDIT: Ping, yes I did. I'm fully aware of how many people died in those bombings, and it's sad that their lives had to be taken. But the fact is that if the bombings hadn't happened, many more innocent lives would've been taken anyway. It's not possible to have zero casualties in a war. You can only minimize them.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Anacybele

[Tryhard]

To be honest, the wars that the US got into subsequently brought far more unneeded death and suffering than 9/11 did, because a nation huffed up on jingoism isn't going to think any more rationally (which is why many Democrats felt as if they had to vote for an invasion of Iraq, but even Republicans have a hard time defending Iraq and Bush in general now). Which also involves the fact that weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq nor was there any real connection to the terrorism they purported to fight.

Edit: Not discounting Europe and the UKs role in this, as Tony Blair who followed Bush himself said that "God told him to go to war" ala Bush, which is a terrifying thought in itself.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Tryhard

[shadowofchaos]

EDIT: Ping, yes I did. I'm fully aware of how many people died in those bombings, and it's sad that their lives had to be taken. But the fact is that if the bombings hadn't happened, many more innocent lives would've been taken anyway. It's not possible to have zero casualties in a war. You can only minimize them.

Here is the thing, Ana:

You simply suggested it without any weight to your statement. You handed it in that post as the end-all solution.

If you didn't mean that, then the burden is on you to make sure you don't get misunderstood.

So, I would kindly suggest that you stop painting me as some bad person trying to always badger you and look at the implications of your own post.

[ping]

An atomic bomb is the absolute opposite of keeping casualties at a minimum. It kills or severely (and permanently) injures everyone in the vicinity.

An atomic bomb is completely pointless against an organisation as ISIS that works decentralized. It's not a group of fighters cuddled together somewhere in the flat desert. It would be even do the exact opposite of ending ISIS: it would convince even more people that the USA are the literal devil, trying to genocide the Arabian culture and the muslimic faith. And if the US actually started to nuke the middle east, they wouldn't be exactly wrong. It would create way, wayyy more potential terrorists than it would kill, by killing friends and families and leaving the survivors with little more than their drive for revenge.

(also - to reach the number of casualties of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, you'd have to combine between 13 and 26 attacks equal to 9/11. Minimizing casualties, are we?)

Edited December 20, 2016 by ping

[Anacybele]

Here is the thing, Ana:

You simply suggested it without any weight to your statement. You handed it in that post as the end-all solution.

If you didn't mean that, then the burden is on you to make sure you don't get misunderstood.

So, I would kindly suggest that you stop painting me as some bad person trying to always badger you and look at the implications of your own post.

I didn't mean to suggest it without any weight, that's my mistake.

I do try to look at how my posts could be interpreted, but even then I sometimes still don't see interpretations that end up happening anyway. I can't really help that, but I'm sorry for it anyway. I can only do my best and think as well as I can before posting.

An atomic bomb is the absolute opposite of keeping casualties at a minimum. It kills or severely (and permanently) injures everyone in the vicinity.

You misunderstand what I said. Yes, it kills everyone in its vicinity. But in the long run, more battles would've ensued and it would've resulted in more lost lives than either A-bomb could've taken. Japan wouldn't have surrendered, the war would've continued is what I'm saying. They were refusing to surrender. The US wasn't planning to use the bombs if it could be avoided, they were a last resort.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Anacybele

[Moblin Major General]

Which also involves the fact that weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq nor was there any real connection to the terrorism they purported to fight.

No, there were WMDs there, just that they had my country's name on them, meaning that if we admitted they were there, we would be considered hypocrites for making them. Surprise, they ended up in Syria and Assad used some of what Saddam had left. America needs to leave the Middle and Near East alone, as well as North Africa.

[Res]

Al Qaeda was a Saudi terrorist group. And we invaded Afghanistan, not Iraq for that reason, when we should've overthrown the House of Saud instead of the Taliban regime. And the Middle East in general sees us as the aggressor, so there's that.

Iraq was invaded because Cheney told Bush that he should finish the job his dad couldn't. It was totally unnecessary, given Saddam would probably have been toppled in the Arab spring.

This.

But also, U.S. involvement in the Middle East is messy and dates back to post-war WW2 (prior to WW2 the U.S.'s relationship with the Middle East was viewed much more favorably, and they didn't interfere in the way other western countries did). And before WW2, you had the UK and other western countries interfering in Middle Eastern affairs stretching back before WW1. There is a tremendous amount the west is responsible for - and it's largely been in the name of oil.

Al-Qaeda's origins date back to at least 1979. U.S. troops' presence in Saudi Arabia was one motivator for the 9/11 attacks. It's hugely complicated.

To be honest, the wars that the US got into subsequently brought far more unneeded death and suffering than 9/11 did, because a nation huffed up on jingoism isn't going to think any more rationally (which is why many Democrats felt as if they had to vote for an invasion of Iraq, but even Republicans have a hard time defending Iraq and Bush in general now). Which also involves the fact that weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq nor was there any real connection to the terrorism they purported to fight.

Edit: Not discounting Europe and the UKs role in this, as Tony Blair who followed Bush himself said that "God told him to go to war" ala Bush, which is a terrifying thought in itself.

The first words out of my mother's mouth on 9/11 were 'well, here's an excuse for the U.S. to start another war in the Middle East, and the UK will follow'.

And yeah, it's always worth keeping in mind that in any conflict it's only a small handful of people who are really wanting the war; the rest are people no different from the rest of us, who are drafted or persuaded or forced into fighting. And the Middle East is hardly some backwards primitive corner of the world (although some media might suggest otherwise) - we're talking about a region that has all the technology and amenities and innovation that you'd expect of any western country.

No, there were WMDs there, just that they had my country's name on them, meaning that if we admitted they were there, we would be considered hypocrites for making them. Surprise, they ended up in Syria and Assad used some of what Saddam had left. America needs to leave the Middle and Near East alone, as well as North Africa.

Yes!

Edited December 20, 2016 by Res

[shadowofchaos]

I didn't mean to suggest it without any weight, that's my mistake.

I do try to look at how my posts could be interpreted, but even then I sometimes still don't see interpretations that end up happening anyway. I can't really help that, but I'm sorry for it anyway. I can only do my best and think as well as I can before posting.

The least you could do is stop your personal beef with me in the forum serious discussion.

Especially when you're advocating using nukes.

[UNLEASH IT]

No, there were WMDs there, just that they had my country's name on them, meaning that if we admitted they were there, we would be considered hypocrites for making them. Surprise, they ended up in Syria and Assad used some of what Saddam had left. America needs to leave the Middle and Near East alone, as well as North Africa.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I genuinely believe that there are people in America (and possibly Europe) who benefit from the Middle East and the Arab World being in a state of constant turmoil and therefore wish to keep it that way.

Edited December 20, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[shadowofchaos]

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I genuinely believe that there are people in America who benefit from the Middle East and the Arab World being in a state of constant turmoil.

Care to elaborate?

[Anacybele]

The least you could do is stop your personal beef with me in the forum serious discussion.

I'd love to, because you really don't seem like a bad guy at all and you're really helpful with Japanese stuff. But when you're constantly criticizing me, it's hard.

[UNLEASH IT]

Care to elaborate?

It's actually not a point that I can defend. It's just that so many times, throughout the past 50 or so years, America has assisted coups in Middle Eastern countries with said countries rarely (if ever) being left in a better state than they were before.

[shadowofchaos]

I'd love to, because you really don't seem like a bad guy at all and you're really helpful with Japanese stuff. But when you're constantly criticizing me, it's hard.

Unless you haven't noticed, others constantly criticize you. You just choose to focus on me.

90% of the time, someone else has also criticized you when I post. You choose to ignore it, only choosing to focus on saying "SoC, stop badgering me."

Moving on.

I'm pretty sure eclipse is gonna have a fun time splitting the topics.

Addressing the original subject before it got turned into "nuke them or not to nuke them"...

The article particularly addressed the fact that people assume this is a terrorist attack... As demonstrated by derailment earlier... and that they take careful care not to use the word "Attack".

[Moblin Major General]

Unless you haven't noticed, others constantly criticize you. You just choose to focus on me.

90% of the time, someone else has also criticized you when I post. You choose to ignore it, only choosing to focus on saying "SoC, stop badgering me."

Moving on.

I'm pretty sure eclipse is gonna have a fun time splitting the topics.

Addressing the original subject before it got turned into "nuke them or not to nuke them"...

The article particularly addressed the fact that people assume this is a terrorist attack... As demonstrated by derailment earlier... and that they take careful care not to use the word "Attack".

It's a lot easier on the psyche to criticize authorities on being cautious. If they had outright said this was a terrorist attack, it could've caused a mass panic. They assessed the situation from a neutral standpoint, because I can honestly see a similar incident coming from a drunk, especially if it happened in America.

[Lord Raven]

Care to elaborate?

I always assume it has to do with arms dealers. I've heard this conspiracy before (namely from my dad).

[shadowofchaos]

It's a lot easier on the psyche to criticize authorities on being cautious. If they had outright said this was a terrorist attack, it could've caused a mass panic. They assessed the situation from a neutral standpoint, because I can honestly see a similar incident coming from a drunk, especially if it happened in America.

Fair enough.

Haha, half my post got cut off on mobile. Oh well.

[Phoenix Wright]

You misunderstand what I said. Yes, it kills everyone in its vicinity. But in the long run, more battles would've ensued and it would've resulted in more lost lives than either A-bomb could've taken. Japan wouldn't have surrendered, the war would've continued is what I'm saying. They were refusing to surrender. The US wasn't planning to use the bombs if it could be avoided, they were a last resort.

just so you know, it's more subtle than this. i recommend further reading.

though, obviously, war shouldn't happen, atomic bombs are in a class of their own. they are to never be used, for any circumstance.

also, this is essentially a guerrilla war, not a conventional war, so bombing a single target will likely do nothing. isis, as others have pointed out, is likely in its dying breath. where do we strike, then? syria? iraq? what sorts of repercussions does that have internationally? at home? these are questions you need to ask and educate yourself on before the thoughts should even cross your mind.

[Anacybele]

You know, those of you saying ISIS is in its dying breath. Can you source this for me? You guys keep saying it, but I've seen nothing to suggest this so far. Can you elaborate? Then I'll concede, kay? Honest, this would be a lost discussion/debate for me. Not questioning this, not pretending, not anything like that. All truth, cross my heart.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Anacybele

[Phoenix Wright]

before i get to that, i'd like to stress that even if they had twice the amount, maybe even 5x the amount than they originally started with (i'm talking around 100,000 able-bodied fighters), a nuke still would be ill-advised. do you agree? the reason for bombing falls apart no matter how big isis can realistically get.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-syria-iraq-fighters-number-us-military-campaign-impact-how-many-soldiers-a7184886.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/18/world/middleeast/isis-control-places-cities.html?_r=0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/04/size-isis-army-remains-same-since-last-year-us-official-says.html

the last source is a funky one. but it goes into detail that even if the numbers are the same, they are still a crippled fighting force.

[Anacybele]

Okay, I see then. Thanks for showing me, I understand the claims now. And I have nothing more to add then, since yeah, in these circumstances, an A-bomb wouldn't be wise at all. I just thought ISIS still had a lot of power.

[Yojinbo]

Why are we talking about IS and refugees here? As far as I know there's next to no information on the assasins' background.

[ping]

Okay, I see then. Thanks for showing me, I understand the claims now. And I have nothing more to add then, since yeah, in these circumstances, an A-bomb wouldn't be wise at all. I just thought ISIS still had a lot of power.

But the claim people in this thread make is that dropping an atomic bomb would be a terrible idea no matter how powerful ISIS is right now. It can't be defeated by a nuke and a nuke would make even more recruits join their ranks because they would now be even more certain that the US is trying to murder them and their families. And I personally still claim that using nuclear weapons is morally reprehensible, no matter whether or not there is a chance of success.

It's a lot easier on the psyche to criticize authorities on being cautious. If they had outright said this was a terrorist attack, it could've caused a mass panic. They assessed the situation from a neutral standpoint, because I can honestly see a similar incident coming from a drunk, especially if it happened in America.

The police very quickly (5 AM in this timezone) stated that the incident was likely an attack: "Our investigators assume that the truck has been steered deliberately into the crowd at the christmas marked at the Breitscheidplatz."

Why are we talking about IS and refugees here? As far as I know there's next to no information on the assasins' background.

I actually just started to type about that. The young Pakistani who was arrested shortly after the attack has been released, meaning that right now the police doesn't have any clue about the murderer.

[Yojinbo]

Reminder that we already have a thread about ISIS.