Innocent shooting

[RioDeLeo]

l think the assumption that we, the "West", don't target civilians is wrong. When we attack 'legitimate' targets and kill innocent civilians we cause terror, this is a military tactic. Maybe someone can explain the fire bombing of places like Dresden in a purely military sense? The idea was to spread terror amongst the German population to help bring an early end to the war. The same is true of the only two times nuclear weapons have been used, both on civilian targets.

Now we have places like Israel, killing 'insurgents' with rocket attacks in crowded streets, and C130 gunships shooting up weddings, men, women and children, on the off-chance that a senior member of the taliban may have been there.

Why is this not as shocking as killing people in London?

[Busyman]

l think the assumption that we, the "West", don't target civilians is wrong. When we attack 'legitimate' targets and kill innocent civilians we cause terror, this is a military tactic. Maybe someone can explain the fire bombing of places like Dresden in a purely military sense? The idea was to spread terror amongst the German population to help bring an early end to the war. The same is true of the only two times nuclear weapons have been used, both on civilian targets.

Now we have places like Israel, killing 'insurgents' with rocket attacks in crowded streets, and C130 gunships shooting up weddings, men, women and children, on the off-chance that a senior member of the taliban may have been there.

Why is this not as shocking as killing people in London?

Who were the targets in London?

[RioDeLeo]

Who were the targets in London?

Are you referring to WW2? If you are; first off, all the targets were 'military', the initial target in London was the docks. However, this soon turned to random bombings, and, with the introduction of the V1 and V2, the pretense of military targeting was dropped.

If you're referring to the latest bombings, the target, in my mind, was to terrorize. As RF said, if it was solely to kill people they could have bombed many better targets, Live8 for instance, or the cricket match between Australia and England, or London Bridge in the rush hour. London is very important to Britain, it's the centre of so many things, on any working day there are twenty million people in London, disrupting the transit systems and stopping people getting to work would have a profound effect on the country, as witnessed by the drop in the Financial Times Index. l'm not saying that was the intention, l don't know, no-one does, except the people who planned and carried it out.

[bigboab]

l think the assumption that we, the "West", don't target civilians is wrong. When we attack 'legitimate' targets and kill innocent civilians we cause terror, this is a military tactic. Maybe someone can explain the fire bombing of places like Dresden in a purely military sense? The idea was to spread terror amongst the German population to help bring an early end to the war. The same is true of the only two times nuclear weapons have been used, both on civilian targets.

Now we have places like Israel, killing 'insurgents' with rocket attacks in crowded streets, and C130 gunships shooting up weddings, men, women and children, on the off-chance that a senior member of the taliban may have been there.

Why is this not as shocking as killing people in London?

Are you sure about the C130. I thought that was a Hercules Transport Aircraft. That would be a sitting target if it came down low.

[RioDeLeo]

Are you sure about the C130. I thought that was a Hercules Transport Aircraft. That would be a sitting target if it came down low.

C130 Gunship Video.

[bigboab]

Are you sure about the C130. I thought that was a Hercules Transport Aircraft. That would be a sitting target if it came down low.

C130 Gunship Video.

It does not really matter in the great scheme of things. But I think the Gunships you are referring to are AC-130 and not the massive transport C-130.

[RioDeLeo]

It does not really matter in the great scheme of things. But I think the Gunships you are referring to are AC-130 and not the massive transport C-130.

"The AC-130 Gunship is armed variant of the Lockheed C-130 Hercules."

Source

[Barbarossa]

The main aim of a terrorist is to instill fear in their enemies. That's where the word "terrorist" comes from.. To the terrorist, their "enemies" are anyone that supports the system they themselves are against, which includes what we call innocent civilians.

By setting of the bombs at the time they did, and on the chosen targets, they have achieved their main goal, which is to cause terror and panic. I can't think of many things more terrifying than travelling in a train in a tunnel below the city, and not knowing if it's going to explode at any time.

That is going to be the lasting effect of these attacks, people are never going to truly feel safe again going about their normal business. Especially while the perpetrators of last weeks failed attempt remain at large.

Al Qaeda and their copy-cats are very VERY good at terrorism. Especially large-impact co-ordinated attacks. It's sickening how good they are in fact. Look at how successful 9/11 was, and Bali, and the Madrid bombings, and now the London bombings. And I'm sure there are others I've forgotten.. (which is even more sad)

All of this makes me think we were incredibly lucky last thursday that they made a mistake and the bombs failed to detonate properly. However, even the fact that a second attempt was made has increased the levels of terror in the city. So again, their failure is a kind of a success too.

[Busyman]

Who were the targets in London?

Are you referring to WW2? If you are; first off, all the targets were 'military', the initial target in London was the docks. However, this soon turned to random bombings, and, with the introduction of the V1 and V2, the pretense of military targeting was dropped.

If you're referring to the latest bombings, the target, in my mind, was to terrorize. As RF said, if it was solely to kill people they could have bombed many better targets, Live8 for instance, or the cricket match between Australia and England, or London Bridge in the rush hour. London is very important to Britain, it's the centre of so many things, on any working day there are twenty million people in London, disrupting the transit systems and stopping people getting to work would have a profound effect on the country, as witnessed by the drop in the Financial Times Index. l'm not saying that was the intention, l don't know, no-one does, except the people who planned and carried it out.

It's pretty easy.

You all go through the paragraphing and whatnot.

The target was infrastructure and people. The tubes were bombed when it was busy not just before rush hour.

People were not just stopped from going to work, some of them were stopped cold.

[RPerry]

The target was infrastructure and people. The tubes were bombed when it was busy not just before rush hour.

People were not just stopped from going to work, some of them were stopped cold.

This makes more sense to me. The same was true with what happened in NY September 11th. Yes, lots of lives were lost, but it could have been much more worse if those buildings had been hit later in the afternoon. instead of over 3,000, it could have been more than 30,000