Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Islamic State leader Abu Ibrahim al-Qurayshi killed in Syria - BBC News" video.

@pregerzoreo4886 The second terrorists know you will not attack if children are present, they'll stick their homes in the middle of Disneyland. Blame the terrorists.
34
@phillmaf7319 If terrorists use civilians as human shields, then civilians are going to die. What about all the civilans the TERRORIOSTS killed.
21
You don't seriously believe that story do you? That's pure US propoganda. The house has been blown in not out.
20
@yoloswaggins7121 You clearly don't understand the idea of collateral damage. If terrorists knew that all that had to do to stay alive was surround themselves with civilians, they've always do it. When America fought against Hitler do you think that they lost too much sleep if civilians were killed? Sometimes, not taking out the threat is the greater evil.
3
@yoloswaggins7121 No, it's absolutely not the same and you are wrong. According to the Geneva conventions, targeting civilians is not permitted in war (America routinely ignores that rule). However, civilians who happen to be in a war zone and are killed due to their proximity to the action are collateral damage. Seriously, do you really think the world should not attack terrorists if they hide among civilians? So this man could go on to murder thousands more people because we're squeamish about the safety of his family? Literally every terrorist on the planet would just go to war surrounded by civilians and they'd be untouchable. This is NOT the same as me getting killed because there's a violent STRANGER living next do. This is literally this man's family. If he chooses to endanger them by living among them whilst fighting a war, that's on him. The greater question is, was he truly the danger he has been portrayed as in the first place? He was living in a squalid house in the middle of nowhere. Maybe he was directing a war by radio, or maybe he had retired, or maybe this was preventative, but I don't trust the US ever.
2
@yoloswaggins7121 Nope, again, your logic is faulty. If one terrorist responsible for 100,000 deaths uses a human shield - especially one consisting of his own family, it's a lesser of two evils situation. Why should the people fighting him risk THEIR lives simply to meet YOUR sense of morality? Fighting on the ground is MUCH more risky. If I was the partner of a US soldier killed on the ground, knowing they could have just drone striked the whole building, I'd be outraged at the loss. Again, the point that you are missing IN THIS CASE, is that these civilians were his FAMILY. HE was the one that placed them in the fire zone. America simply pulled the trigger. Civilians were NOT targeted - they happened to be in kill zone. That's HIS fault. I passionately HATE that children were killed, but do you think that they were ever going to grow up to be peaceful, democracy loving adults? Terrorists frequently specifically TARGET civilians - that's often what terrorism is all about - creating a sense of terror among the populace to bring about political pressure for action. And again, with Hiroshima, your comparison is totally faulty. Neither Hiroshima OR Nagaaki were MILITARY targets so there is no collateral damage justification. The US uses a lesser of two evils argument, but even if you considered murdering 100,000 people to be a fair exchange to get a single nation out of the war, Japan was already making overtures to surrender. That was a crime against humanity AND terrorism pure and simple. Which is why America constantly waves the Geneva convention at its enemies but refuses to be bound by its terms itself.
2
Just a reminder - ISIS and Al Quada members deliberately murdered civilians at concerts, shopping centres, holiday resorts and other non-military locations all over the world.
2
@- EVIL I'm saying that it is reasonable that civilians are killed when the terrorists deliberately live among them. At least the US did not deliberately target civilians like ISIS' suicide bombers and drivers have all over the world.
1
@yoloswaggins7121 No soldier (or policeman) signs up to take NEEDLESS risks. Yes, killing innocent children is unfair. War is unfair. Terrorism is unfair. If they don't like their kids getting killed, don't become a terrorist. Yes, I am absolutely talking about this case. You don't seriously believe he blew himself up do you? They dropped a bomb on the house from altitude then went in on the ground. And I'm 100% satisfied with that, because he was a terrorist. Then they tried to make it that HE killed all those people to appease well meaning liberals like you who are high on morality and low of prosaic practicality. In any action where civilians may become collateral damage, there is a cost benefit equation. Blowing up an entire hospital in Gaza because a single terrorist may be inside is outrageous. However, if half the hierarchy of Hamas were being treated there, then killing 100 innocent civilians could save the lives of thousands more so a reasonable exchange. The reason I didn't answer your Kabul attack was because it was going to take us down a whole lot of routes about the justification of terrorism as a tactic in the first place. I absolutely DO think it's justified. It's the weapon of the underdog. The Taliban had zero chance fighting toe to toe with America, yet they still forced them to withdraw. They fought smart. We can debate whether or not they are good people, but they had more right to be there than America did. I say this with respect, but idealists like you are all very well meaning in principle, thinking in absolutes and high-minded morality, but when yuo've been around a while, you realise that the world doesn't work like that. If you throw your soldiers lives away cheaply to protect the lives of terrorist families, you'd lose the political fight at home, and the confidence of the troops. That's EXACTLY what happened with Vietnam. America was on the verge of WINNING militarily, but the media footage of body bags and mass student protests, meant that the government, that was more concerned about its OWN survival, caved to public sentiment and withdrew. You cannot operate a war by public approval, which is why journalist access in Iraq was so restricted. And yes, I 100% think that killing 1 innocent child to kill a terrorist who has killed 10s of thousands is a fair trade. I suspect that you would be the one faced with the trolley problem, would choose to kill 10 because you refused to take the action that would kill 1. Ultimately, that is a failing of YOUR reasoning. Morality isolated from real world practicality is useless.
1
I'm assuming he's blind
1
@Jorj X. McKie I agree with you broadly Jori, but when of those megalomaniacs arises and starts to oppress people, other people need to resist them. We don't run to war happily, but to avoid it often creates a worse situation. I would just add that theological war is far worse than war of greed or dominance. When people fight a war in the name of god, they believe they are doing so in the name of the most powerful being in the universe and their immortal souls are at stake. A war over greed can never match that in term sof motivation.
1
@Jorj X. McKie America has be hitting up against Russian and Chinese dominance all over the world. The age of US dominance is at an end, and centuries of accountabilty are coming. Sadly, as always, the innocent will pay the price. "Gluttony will be our downfall." Yes, absolutely. Capitalist gluttony.
1