Torture

[Seth]

Don't worry about it. The words tasted good so I spat em out.

Okay, just checking. Thanks for letting me know you were being utterly irrational.

[Jason]

Don't worry about it. The words tasted good so I spat em out.

Okay, just checking. Thanks for letting me know you were being utterly irrational.

How long have we known each other? 9 years?

You ought to know by now: I'm always being utterly irrational. I'm Mr. ZeroFucksGiven.

[JimC]

I think it is fairly unlikely that the hospital was targeted deliberately. However, it is still indicative of a callous disregard for the possibility of damage to civilians.

"There only rag-heads, who gives a shit..."

[Svartalf]

Well, following the Paris attacks, we launched a series of strikes on "ISIS installations" (supposedly training camps, ammo depots and whatnot) near Raqqah... 3 days later, we were supposed to have killed only about 30 people, and given that the estimate came from NGOs I guess some of those were civilians... me, I think that if we spend that much to do so few casualties, we're doing it wrong, because the training camps, depots and whatnot can be rebuilt, and we're not crippling them... we have either to kill them, or hit them where it really hurts... like their money making traffics.

[Jason]

If we could stop governments and corporations from funding terrorism that would certainly go a long way. Then we'd only have to worry about the gangsters, drug traffickers, arms dealers, prostitution rings, pirates, ... well you get the idea. Knocking off their funding has been on the anti-terrorism agenda since before it was cool.

The problem is these Islamic fundamentalists are little better than prostitutes for hire except they're hypnotized by their felonious religion into thinking they're doing the work of Allah. They're excellent tools, anyone can pick them up and point them almost anywhere if they're not kept in hand. They're loaded guns in the public square waiting for someone with a real agenda to point them at something and pull their trigger. And there's always someone willing to reload them to do that - bullets aren't all that expensive anyway. If you destroy them new ones are put in place - guns aren't expensive either. Self-replicating weapons you only have to reload cheaply to do your enemies harm and make the world bleed.

The real 'battlefield' is cultural - and what is Paris but a jewel of western culture. The real war is social intercourse with the 'enemy' - they join our side we join theirs and we're all just people at the end of the day. Then, eventually, the source of the self-replicating guns of Islam is neutralized. If we can survive the Jihadis in the mean time - western and middle-eastern.

That's the idea anyway.

[Seth]

I think it is fairly unlikely that the hospital was targeted deliberately. However, it is still indicative of a callous disregard for the possibility of damage to civilians.

That's the question isn't it? What was the intel that triggered the attack? We are under no obligation to lose the war to avoid all civilian casualties.

"There only rag-heads, who gives a shit..."

That's "They're" not "there."

You want to blame somebody, blame Doctors Without Borders for mixing civilians with terrorists. We kill terrorists wherever they are, so if you don't want to get killed with them, don't hang around with them.

[Seth]

Well, following the Paris attacks, we launched a series of strikes on "ISIS installations" (supposedly training camps, ammo depots and whatnot) near Raqqah... 3 days later, we were supposed to have killed only about 30 people, and given that the estimate came from NGOs I guess some of those were civilians... me, I think that if we spend that much to do so few casualties, we're doing it wrong, because the training camps, depots and whatnot can be rebuilt, and we're not crippling them... we have either to kill them, or hit them where it really hurts... like their money making traffics.

Destroying supplies and infrastructure is just as important as killing terrorists.

[laklak]

The real war is social intercourse with the 'enemy'

I ain't fucking nary a one till they take off those bin bags. God only knows what they look like underneath.

[Seth]

The real 'battlefield' is cultural - and what is Paris but a jewel of western culture. The real war is social intercourse with the 'enemy' - they join our side we join theirs and we're all just people at the end of the day. Then, eventually, the source of the self-replicating guns of Islam is neutralized. If we can survive the Jihadis in the mean time - western and middle-eastern.

That's the idea anyway.

You're right, the battlefield is cultural, and the Muslim culture is simply and completely antithetical to any sort of civilized secular culture, by deliberate design of it's cultural rulers and therefore the only option is that Islam must be destroyed if the rest of the non-Muslim world is to peacefully coexist with one another.

Or, Islam must show the world that it eschews it's imperialistic roots and the supposed commandments of it's deity and chooses to live in peace without any attempt at cultural imperialism.

And I think the chances of that happening closely approach zero, because that would be a complete repudiation of the entire Islamic culture, which has as its fundamental precepts that it is the only true religion and culture and all others must genuflect before it or be destroyed.

Therefore I see a long, ugly and bloody war with Islam in the offing.

[Seth]

The real war is social intercourse with the 'enemy'

I ain't fucking nary a one till they take off those bin bags. God only knows what they look like underneath.

Well, you should probably get used to the Muslim solution to that problem: "Who cares what they look like, I just fuck them through that hole in the back of the burka and never have to look at them anyway. Could be a boy or a girl for that matter, who knows and who cares...if it was good enough for Mohammed, it's good enough for me.

Burkas are the Islamic version of the public toilet Glory Hole.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

You want to blame somebody, blame Doctors Without Borders for mixing civilians with terrorists. We kill terrorists wherever they are, so if you don't want to get killed with them, don't hang around with them.

The remit of Doctors without Borders is to provide medical care to anyone in third world countries who needs it. They don't give them a questionnaire on ideology before they treat them...

Also, this is happening in Afghanistan, a sovereign country where the US has just destroyed one of its relatively few hospitals. US arrogance yet again...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

You want to blame somebody, blame Doctors Without Borders for mixing civilians with terrorists. We kill terrorists wherever they are, so if you don't want to get killed with them, don't hang around with them.

The remit of Doctors without Borders is to provide medical care to anyone in third world countries who needs it. They don't give them a questionnaire on ideology before they treat them...

I guess they should either change their policies or stop serving terrorists in war zones.

Also, this is happening in Afghanistan, a sovereign country where the US has just destroyed one of its relatively few hospitals. US arrogance yet again...

The latest info indicates that the hospital was not properly marked to give notice to pilots that it's a hospital. That's unfortunate. DWB should pay better attention to the ROE.

[rainbow]

Seth wrote:

You want to blame somebody, blame Doctors Without Borders for mixing civilians with terrorists. We kill terrorists wherever they are, so if you don't want to get killed with them, don't hang around with them.

The remit of Doctors without Borders is to provide medical care to anyone in third world countries who needs it. They don't give them a questionnaire on ideology before they treat them...

I guess they should either change their policies or stop serving terrorists in war zones.

People who bomb hospitals are terrorists.

Should Medecins sans Frontieres refuse to help US soldiers in need?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

You want to blame somebody, blame Doctors Without Borders for mixing civilians with terrorists. We kill terrorists wherever they are, so if you don't want to get killed with them, don't hang around with them.

The remit of Doctors without Borders is to provide medical care to anyone in third world countries who needs it. They don't give them a questionnaire on ideology before they treat them...

I guess they should either change their policies or stop serving terrorists in war zones.

People who bomb hospitals are terrorists.

They didn't know it was a hospital, they thought it was an abandoned government building reoccupied by ISIS and it was not marked as a hospital.

Should Medecins sans Frontieres refuse to help US soldiers in need?

Yes, please. We have our own doctors thank you very much, we don't need a bunch of sub-par leftist fucks meddling in caring for our wounded, who get the finest battlefield care on earth, and the finest medical care on the planet when they get home.

[rainbow]

Seth wrote:

You want to blame somebody, blame Doctors Without Borders for mixing civilians with terrorists. We kill terrorists wherever they are, so if you don't want to get killed with them, don't hang around with them.

The remit of Doctors without Borders is to provide medical care to anyone in third world countries who needs it. They don't give them a questionnaire on ideology before they treat them...

I guess they should either change their policies or stop serving terrorists in war zones.

People who bomb hospitals are terrorists.

They didn't know it was a hospital, they thought it was an abandoned government building reoccupied by ISIS and it was not marked as a hospital.

Another "Intelligence Failure" by the Merkins?

I actually can't work out which is dumber. Those that make this excuse, or those that believe it.