Syria

[Gemmill 34638]

Fair enough, I think you've nailed it in your last two sentences. Probably not right to equate the two, but I'm getting a strong sense here that some are. And once you do that, well it's pretty clear how and why Paris happened. And that links straight in with J69's objectionable posted (to me I mean) on the Paris thread. Always considered myself as left wing and progressive, sadly I just can't agree with a lot of the opinions on this board at all.

I'm not trying to claim the two are the same, I'm just amazed that you can have this view of Paris as an utterly heinous act (which it is), but shrug your shoulders and go "it was an accident, shit happens" when presented with the bombing of a hospital.

[Park Life 70]

2nd load of cruise strikes by Russia.

 

[Happy Face 29]

But as far as I'm aware, the west has never d deliberately massacred innocent people anywhere.

 

What was "shock and awe" about from it's very conception?

 

It's authors had the stated aim "to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese"

 

Haditha, Nisour Square, Dasht-i-Leili, Shinwar, Panjwai ...

[aimaad22 3472]

I'm not trying to claim the two are the same, I'm just amazed that you can have this view of Paris as an utterly heinous act (which it is), but shrug your shoulders and go "it was an accident, shit happens" when presented with the bombing of a hospital.

 

Sums up my feelings on the matter too. Indiscriminate killing in both instances as far as Im concerned.

[Happy Face 29]

You also have to wonder about the morality of telling your citizens:

 

"there hasnt been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities weve been able to develop." (John O. Brennan)

 

When the drone papers leaked by people within the CIA who don't like the program showed 90 percent of people killed in recent drone strikes in Afghanistan "were not the intended targets" of the attacks and Brennan knew it, as they all did.

 

So, if you think either can be labelled in any way moral, or that you can quantify the morality, the best you can say is that the western attacks are 90% as immoral.

[Renton 17828]

You also have to wonder about the morality of telling your citizens:

 

"there hasnt been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities weve been able to develop." (John O. Brennan)

 

When the drone papers leaked by people within the CIA who don't like the program showed 90 percent of people killed in recent drone strikes in Afghanistan "were not the intended targets" of the attacks and Brennan knew it, as they all did.

 

So, if you think either can be labelled in any way moral, or that you can quantify the morality, the best you can say is that the western attacks are 90% as immoral.

I'm not saying drone attacks are moral, but it's the intention that's the distinction which you surprisingly can't seem to grasp. Are the US intentionally setting out to kill civilians? No, imo. Were the Paris attackers intentionally setting out to kill civilians? Yes they were. Amazing you can't see the difference, and pointless really discussing this further. Edited November 21, 2015 by Renton

[Gemmill 34638]

You can't point to intention when they repeatedly kill civilians. If I go out in my car every day and accidentally plough it through a group of school kids, at some point you have to look beyond whether or not I intended to do it.

[Gemmill 34638]

You also need to, again in your own good time, question whether it's really plausible that I can keep doing this without actually intending to. I mean surely I have better control over my vehicle than this.

[trophyshy 6434]

Probably not tbf.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm not saying drone attacks are moral, but it's the intention that's the distinction which you surprisingly can't seem to grasp. Are the US intentionally setting out to kill civilians? No, imo. Were the Paris attackers intentionally setting out to kill civilians? Yes they were. Amazing you can't see the difference, and pointless really discussing this further.

 

I've given many examples of the acts of western aggression in the middle east that HAVE targeted citizenry exclusively, from indiscriminate shock and awe to massacres in multiple villages.

 

Where drone and military strikes do have a belligerent target, the impression I get fromm your argument is that there is a justification where the terrorist has none, but the Geneva convention is unequivocal in saying that it's a war crime to attack a hospital. The difference is that neither me, or Gemmill or Aimad or NJS are making any attempt whatsoever to defend anything about Paris, we've only ever discussed motives. I think we're all surprised that you would try to defend attacks on innocent citizens in the middle east with any justification.

[Renton 17828]

 

I've given many examples of the acts of western aggression in the middle east that HAVE targeted citizenry exclusively, from indiscriminate shock and awe to massacres in multiple villages.

 

Where drone and military strikes do have a belligerent target, the impression I get fromm your argument is that there is a justification where the terrorist has none, but the Geneva convention is unequivocal in saying that it's a war crime to attack a hospital. The difference is that neither me, or Gemmill or Aimad or NJS are making any attempt whatsoever to defend anything about Paris, we've only ever discussed motives. I think we're all surprised that you would try to defend attacks on innocent citizens in the middle east with any justification.

I haven't tried to defend or justify anything. My stance against military intervention in the Middle East on here is over a decade old. However, the distinction I'm making could be easily grasped by a primary school children, and whatever Gemmill thinks, actually underpins our fundamental laws in this country (eg difference between murder and manslaughter, or dangerous driving and murder). Shock and Awe didn't attack civilian (non-military and non-governmental) targets as far as I am aware. Show me evidence that the US specifically ordered the slaughter of innocent people at a top level and you'd have a point, if you can show this, these people are no different to the Paris terrorists. In fact though, it makes no sense for the US to do this. Of course I'm aware atrocities have happened on the ground, but again that's something different.

[Happy Face 29]

I haven't tried to defend or justify anything. My stance against military intervention in the Middle East on here is over a decade old. However, the distinction I'm making could be easily grasped by a primary school children, and whatever Gemmill thinks, actually underpins our fundamental laws in this country (eg difference between murder and manslaughter, or dangerous driving and murder). Shock and Awe didn't attack civilian (non-military and non-governmental) targets as far as I am aware. Show me evidence that the US specifically ordered the slaughter of innocent people at a top level and you'd have a point, if you can show this, these people are no different to the Paris terrorists. In fact though, it makes no sense for the US to do this. Of course I'm aware atrocities have happened on the ground, but again that's something different.

 

Not only have they ordered exactly that sort of slaughter, they have also changed the definition of a combatant to encompass any military aged male where their bombs land so that they can point to them as successful hits.

 

Another specific example? They slaughterd a 16 year old American citizen with no links to terrorism (Abdulrahman al-Awlaki) - as well as anyone in his vicinty - then said he should have had a more responsible dad.

[Dr Gloom 19841]

There is a blatant distinction between collateral damage and the deliberate targeting of civilians.

 

Both are awful, but suicide bombing densely populated civilian areas is truly evil. I keep hearing people say you can't bomb an ideology but it worked in the war against nazi Germany, didn't it, where there was also clearly massive collateral damage. It's one of the truly awful things about wars, but do you avoid ever waging war because of it?

 

You can compare a war with Isis with the war against nazi Germany because they have territory, and were looking to illegally expand it, using force. Al Qaeda is a splinter network, operating in the shadows in many different countries, which is why the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were so pointless.

 

I'm not advocating bombing Syria, incidentally.

 

Excellent read in the nyt about the Saudi role in all of this

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referer=

Edited November 21, 2015 by Dr Gloom

[Gemmill 34638]

Routine acceptance of collateral damage is still the indiscriminate killing of civilians. The fact that you might land one high value target in the mix doesn't make it ok. I'm really confused as to how anyone could disagree with this. Would you accept collateral damage in this country if our opponents were targeting military targets?

[RedfernMag 0]

Timely piece to the current discussion here

 

In an unprecedented open letter to President Obama, four U.S. Air Force servicemembers who took part in the drone war say targeted killings and remote-control bombings fuel the very terrorism the government says it’s trying to destroy. Two of the signatories, former sensor operator Stephen Lewis and former Air Force technician Cian Westmoreland, tell us why they are speaking out for the first time about what they did. "Anybody in the Air Force knows that an air strike has collateral damage a significant amount of the time," Westmoreland says. "I’m saying it wasn’t all enemies. It was civilians, as well."

[Howmanheyman 26982]

Routine acceptance of collateral damage is still the indiscriminate killing of civilians. The fact that you might land one high value target in the mix doesn't make it ok. I'm really confused as to how anyone could disagree with this. Would you accept collateral damage in this country if our opponents were targeting military targets?

Of course they wouldn't. This is getting like a game of 'compare the atrocity'. Both acts are appalling in my view, the absolute deliberate murder of civilians by terrorists, or put more simply, murderers, shouldn't let off the hook countries who think it's ok to just 'take out' suspected targets and hard lines to any fucker that happens to be around who are innocent civilians. Like you say, see if they would bomb a western building if they thought some target was in there. Of course, you have to factor in the bollocks getting dropped which probably match the bombs.

[Renton 17828]

Routine acceptance of collateral damage is still the indiscriminate killing of civilians. The fact that you might land one high value target in the mix doesn't make it ok. I'm really confused as to how anyone could disagree with this. Would you accept collateral damage in this country if our opponents were targeting military targets?

But in war there's always the possibility of collateral damage. The US will obviously want to avoid this though as it fuels retaliatory terrorism. What's an acceptable figure? Absolutely no idea, 90% civilians is obviously not acceptable but is 10%? Would it be acceptable to kill 100 civilians in order to wipe out Baghdadi? Again, no idea. What I am clear if though is the moral distinction but it's clear we will never agree.

 

Here's another thing though. The Paris terrorists clearly wanted to massacre as many people as they could. If they had a nuclear bomb, I've absolutely no doubt they'd use it. Do you agree? Well, the west has the ability to completely wipe Raqqa off the map, by conventional or nuclear means. If we're as evil as IS, tell me, why don't we do it?

[Rayvin 4964]

I read an article in the Graun the other day about drone pilots. From what I read in there, they have a license to kill anyone they deem suspicious, including children who they refer to as 'fun size terrorists'. They have no way of verifying that these people are terrorists in many cases. At the end of their drone career they get an envelope stating how many deaths they were responsible for or assisted in - one guy opened his and had a figure in excess of 2000.

 

I see no moral distinction between that and terrorism.

[Renton 17828]

I read an article in the Graun the other day about drone pilots. From what I read in there, they have a license to kill anyone they deem suspicious, including children who they refer to as 'fun size terrorists'. They have no way of verifying that these people are terrorists in many cases. At the end of their drone career they get an envelope stating how many deaths they were responsible for or assisted in - one guy opened his and had a figure in excess of 2000.

 

I see no moral distinction between that and terrorism.

.

 

That's interesting. Did the article provides solid proof of this? Because if true I agree with your last sentence.

[Rayvin 4964]

But in war there's always the possibility of collateral damage. The US will obviously want to avoid this though as it fuels retaliatory terrorism. What's an acceptable figure? Absolutely no idea, 90% civilians is obviously not acceptable but is 10%? Would it be acceptable to kill 100 civilians in order to wipe out Baghdadi? Again, no idea. What I am clear if though is the moral distinction but it's clear we will never agree.

 

Here's another thing though. The Paris terrorists clearly wanted to massacre as many people as they could. If they had a nuclear bomb, I've absolutely no doubt they'd use it. Do you agree? Well, the west has the ability to completely wipe Raqqa off the map, by conventional or nuclear means. If we're as evil as IS, tell me, why don't we do it?

We would never publicly get away with nuking anyone. Massive international outcry would follow, and very likely a global destabilization. Let alone the fact that the government would have zero support from its people.

 

I don't know if IS would, but the more desperate side would be the ones who turned to it. If they were mercilessly bombing the UK and we had mass evacuations of the country, perhaps we would use it.

[RedfernMag 0]

I read an article in the Graun the other day about drone pilots. From what I read in there, they have a license to kill anyone they deem suspicious, including children who they refer to as 'fun size terrorists'. They have no way of verifying that these people are terrorists in many cases. At the end of their drone career they get an envelope stating how many deaths they were responsible for or assisted in - one guy opened his and had a figure in excess of 2000.

 

That piece/interview i linked to earlier is worth a look to also see the effects these actions also have on the operator of those devices, looks like they're taken from this documentary.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNdxhnjAvug

[Rayvin 4964]

[quote name="Renton" post="1374167" timestamp="144810593"

 

That's interesting. Did the article provides solid proof of this? Because if true I agree with your last sentence.

 

It was from the mouths of the drone pilots but beyond that, no. I think they were wracked by guilt, hence the confessions. Presumably it is public knowledge though or they would have been prevented from stating it? They were all named.

 

It was a grim article.

[NJS 3986]

But in war there's always the possibility of collateral damage. The US will obviously want to avoid this though as it fuels retaliatory terrorism. What's an acceptable figure? Absolutely no idea, 90% civilians is obviously not acceptable but is 10%? Would it be acceptable to kill 100 civilians in order to wipe out Baghdadi? Again, no idea. What I am clear if though is the moral distinction but it's clear we will never agree.

 

Here's another thing though. The Paris terrorists clearly wanted to massacre as many people as they could. If they had a nuclear bomb, I've absolutely no doubt they'd use it. Do you agree? Well, the west has the ability to completely wipe Raqqa off the map, by conventional or nuclear means. If we're as evil as IS, tell me, why don't we do it?

The point we're making is they make no attempt to avoid it and in most cases relish it. There were disgusting comments made about the 16 year old HF mentioned along the lines of "well he would probably grow up to be a terrorist so no loss" which I think were made by Obama himself.

 

It's not a new thing either - have you ever read the story of how Nixon and Kissinger ordered the bombing of Cambodia after a being out on the town?

[Renton 17828]

We would never publicly get away with nuking anyone. Massive international outcry would follow, and very likely a global destabilization. Let alone the fact that the government would have zero support from its people.

 

I don't know if IS would, but the more desperate side would be the ones who turned to it. If they were mercilessly bombing the UK and we had mass evacuations of the country, perhaps we would use it.

Sorry, I have to laugh. You seriously are suggesting that if Obama could get away with it, he would? That the West is as morally bankrupt as IS jihadists? This is too much.

[Park Life 70]