Syria

[toonotl 2480]

Western morality is superior in that they don't intentionally target innocent people who they know are innocent.

 

This is not complicated. My position is really really simple.

[Park Life 70]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/francois-hollandes-war-with-isis-wont-stand-in-the-way-of-frances-arms-deals-with-saudi-arabia-a6738546.html

With these moral high grounds you are spoiling us.

[Park Life 70]

Dialectically western 'morality' ceased to exist after Nietzsche wrote 'Beyond Good and Evil'. He knew his chocolates.

 

In other news ground crews were caught writing 'moral high ground' on 500lb bombs with a 300m blast radius.

 

In the Gulf wars about 10% of the munitions were precision guided so we can drop that pretense.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

Western morality is superior in that they don't intentionally target innocent people who they know are innocent.

 

This is not complicated. My position is really really simple.

 

If they don't know ANYTHING about their targets, then yes, you can legitimately claim that they don't KNOW they're innocent. You see the problem with how you've rephrased your position though right? Again, watch those fat fingers of yours don't accidentally dial up anyone that's being monitored by Mi6, one visit to Nigeria and you could be toast.

[Park Life 70]

They're hitting civilians night and day for ffs! All this whacky terminology has been cooked up so they can sleep nights. Fukin 23yr olds sitting in Utah doing 12 hr shifts hitting people with no real idea who most of them really are. My Afghan friend told me that children wet their trousers when they hear the drone whirr. That other children who have a kind of gift are posted at high points round gatherings like weddings cause they can hear a drone a mile away. This is the nature of the life they live.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[toonotl 2480]

Fat fingers? Ok.

 

 

I don't accept they know nothing about their target. If that were true, then random people would be getting killed. Not the sons of Al-Qaeda leaders who are reported to have asserted their desire to follow in their father's terrorist footsteps.

 

Where is the evidence they know literally NOTHING about their targets?

 

 

[Happy Face 29]

They're hitting civilians night and day for ffs! All this whacky terminology has been cooked up so they can sleep nights. Fukin 23yr olds sitting in Utah doing 12 hr shifts hitting people with no real idea who most of them really are.

 

See the 4 former bug zappers that have come out with an open letter to Obama on it

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/obama-drone-war-isis-recruitment-tool-air-force-whistleblowers

 

 

“We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone program has overseas and at home,” they wrote.

[Park Life 70]

Others like them have come out over the last few years and honestly some look like broken men. Subconsciously the human spirit is aware of its actions regardless of the methodology. Isis are insane and cowards and we must not do anything that helps them recruit.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[toonotl 2480]

 

Can we maintain focus on the collection of metadata of suspected terrorists leading to the completely random killing of suspected terrorists?

 

'We mustn't do anything that helps them recruit'. Ok. That's completely unachievable based upon a simple analysis of the causes of human behaviour.

 

We must not do anything that leads to morally bankrupt individuals becoming offended. Fuck sake man. Get a grip.

 

I'm done here. Chez, Renton? Would you like to take over?

[Happy Face 29]

Fat fingers? Ok.

 

 

I don't accept they know nothing about their target. If that were true, then random people would be getting killed. Not the sons of Al-Qaeda leaders who are reported to have asserted their desire to follow in their father's terrorist footsteps.

 

Where is the evidence they know literally NOTHING about their targets?

 

 

Random people ARE getting killed. The Alwaki were only high profile as US citizens

 

This will help you quantify the number of named targets the US is killing compared to the volume of strikes.

 

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/index.html

[Park Life 70]

 

Can we maintain focus on the collection of metadata of suspected terrorists leading to the completely random killing of suspected terrorists?

 

'We mustn't do anything that helps them recruit'. Ok. That's completely unachievable based upon a simple analysis of the causes of human behaviour.

 

We must not do anything that leads to morally bankrupt individuals becoming offended. Fuck sake man. Get a grip.

 

I'm done here. Chez, Renton? Would you like to take over?

Obviously you know a lot more about it than the actual drone pilots themselves. Unreal. They quit in large numbers cause they can't live with themselves.

 

The U.S. drone war across much of the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa is in crisis and not because civilians are dying or the target list for that war or the right to wage it just about anywhere on the planet are in question in Washington. Something far more basic is at stake: drone pilots are quitting in record numbers.

There are roughly 1,000 such drone pilots, known in the trade as “18Xs,” working for the U.S. Air Force today. Another 180 pilots graduate annually from a training program that takes about a year to complete at Holloman and Randolph Air Force bases in, respectively, New Mexico and Texas. As it happens, in those same 12 months, about 240 trained pilots quit and the Air Force is at a loss to explain the phenomenon. (The better-known U.S. Central Intelligence Agency drone assassination program is also flown by Air Force pilots loaned out for the covert missions.)

 

 

The Air Force explains the departure of these drone pilots in the simplest of terms. They are leaving because they are overworked. The pilots themselves say that it’s humiliating to be scorned by their Air Force colleagues as second-class citizens. Some have also come forward to claim that the horrors of war, seen up close on video screens, day in, day out, are inducing an unprecedented, long-distance version of post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).

But is it possible that a brand-new form of war—by remote control—is also spawning a brand-new, as yet unlabeled, form of psychological strain? Some have called drone war a “coward's war” (an opinion that, according to reports from among the drone-traumatized in places like Yemen and Pakistan, is seconded by its victims). Could it be that the feeling is even shared by drone pilots themselves, that a sense of dishonor in fighting from behind a screen thousands of miles from harm’s way is having an unexpected impact of a kind psychologists have never before witnessed?

 

 

**The British army in Afghanistan had a completely different strategy and that inc befriending locals and deploying what in army parlance is 'low kinetic' posture. ie Winning with intelligence and patience not shooting the fuck out of everything.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[Park Life 70]

@HF that's even worse that I thought I had it in my head the value target rate was at 8%.

 

We shouldn't be mixed up with the Americans with all this horseshit. Mi6 has historically advised against every single misadventure we've cooked up in recent times and been duly ignored by Ministers. Cause recent Govt aren't there for us. They are basically PR guys for the Banks, the arms and energy industries. America is done for but Eng and Europe still have it in them to build a more humane and sustainable broad left coalition with traditional ideas of justice and fair play.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[Howmanheyman 27448]

Had a politically charged conversation with an asian taxi driver tonight. What'll I'll say is that they they seem to know what's going on on far more than any CT, like character on here.

[ewerk 26762]

Well that's 99% of the population.

[Renton 18013]

 

Can we maintain focus on the collection of metadata of suspected terrorists leading to the completely random killing of suspected terrorists?

 

'We mustn't do anything that helps them recruit'. Ok. That's completely unachievable based upon a simple analysis of the causes of human behaviour.

 

We must not do anything that leads to morally bankrupt individuals becoming offended. Fuck sake man. Get a grip.

 

I'm done here. Chez, Renton? Would you like to take over?

No thanks, I've actually been out today watching our team being RAPED in the flesh. I'm aware however that I'm not supposed to use such terminology any more, of course.

 

Personally I'm beginning to feel this forum us like the twilight zone. It's just so contrary to real life. Obviously intelligent posters wrap themselves on knots trying to outdo each other in the right on stakes, with no sense of irony about the privilege that allows them to do this.

 

I'm a socialist. I'm left wing. I believe in universal care and education, paid for by high earners. I don't believe in foreign intervention in the Middle East. I also don't believe in immigration from these countries, mainly because i know this will impact negatively on my ideas of a cohesive society. I want to scrap the monarchy and destroy privilege. I recognize, imo, that the time and place I'm fortunate to exist in is the best we've ever had. I want my kids to live in an even better place.

 

And yet.... I have wasted far too much of my life already arguing the most basic concepts of morality that would make a sixth former cringe on this forum. It's clear though this is simply pointless on this very strange forum.

[Park Life 70]

Don't be silly Renty. You've been worthwhile reading in this thread and clearly a person who thinks cogently and deeply about various issues. Our core beliefs are basically the same and the left wouldn't be the left if we didn't discuss everything into the ground.

[Renton 18013]

Aww shucks. Then I get my tummy tickled and I'm back the next day! Goodnight comrades!

[toonotl 2480]

 

You see the problem with how you've rephrased your position though right?

 

By the way, I haven't 'rephrased', or altered, my position in any way. My position has been that, "the West doesn't deliberately kill innocent people", from the outset. That point has been spectacularly obvious to almost everyone except you. So that's not my problem.

 

 

If they don't know ANYTHING about their targets, then yes, you can legitimately claim that they don't KNOW they're innocent.

 

The impotence of the example you've chosen as your best attempt to refute my position is, once again, your problem, not mine. You had the ability to pick any example you wanted. If you knew the example of the drone strikes, the way you yourself frame them, contains an inherent flaw in the attribution of intent, that's your problem. You chose the example. You referred to it as a 'clear documented' example prior to bringing it up. Your problem. I don't govern the information you use to try, and fail, to prove a point with.

 

If there is a causational difficulty in establishing that the actions of the US are morally equivalent with IS, based upon the example you yourself have give, then you shouldn't have used it as your 'proof' after having referred to it as 'clear documented' evidence.

 

In any case, you've already accepted that it was a 'mistake' on the part of the US. Regardless of the details, there will be no such admission forthcoming from the other side.

 

I really shouldn't keep coming back to this debate, its a waste of my time, but the constant misrepresentation of my position, and the misrepresentation of the information available is simply deplorable.

 

I, like almost everyone on here, am anti-war. I'm a liberal. I will, however, not accept crazy misrepresentations of information driven by ideology. It makes you, as a liberal, look disconnected from reality. You are making everyone else look bad by association. You embarrassment.

[Happy Face 29]

 

By the way, I haven't 'rephrased', or altered, my position in any way. My position has been that, "the West doesn't deliberately kill innocent people", from the outset. That point has been spectacularly obvious to almost everyone except you. So that's not my problem.

 

 

The impotence of the example you've chosen as your best attempt to refute my position is, once again, your problem, not mine. You had the ability to pick any example you wanted. If you knew the example of the drone strikes, the way you yourself frame them, contains an inherent flaw in the attribution of intent, that's your problem. You chose the example. You referred to it as a 'clear documented' example prior to bringing it up. Your problem. I don't govern the information you use to try, and fail, to prove a point with.

 

If there is a causational difficulty in establishing that the actions of the US are morally equivalent with IS, based upon the example you yourself have give, then you shouldn't have used it as your 'proof' after having referred to it as 'clear documented' evidence.

 

In any case, you've already accepted that it was a 'mistake' on the part of the US. Regardless of the details, there will be no such admission forthcoming from the other side.

 

I really shouldn't keep coming back to this debate, its a waste of my time, but the constant misrepresentation of my position, and the misrepresentation of the information available is simply deplorable.

 

I, like almost everyone on here, am anti-war. I'm a liberal. I will, however, not accept crazy misrepresentations of information driven by ideology. It makes you, as a liberal, look disconnected from reality. You are making everyone else look bad by association. You embarrassment.

 

It's not a problem at all. You think that hitting a 16 year old lad with no connection to terrorism is either legitimate or an understandable mistake. I don't. You've shown you won't be convinced, no matter how I show people in the room justifying the target & the killing - "he should have had a more responsible dad". I'll not badger you, calling you an embarrassment or shameful for not being able to provide any justification for him being targeted or any evidence that another claimed target was supposed to be there.

 

I'm not aware that i've misrepresented your view either. You rephrased a similar sentiment of your own, I made a distinction between the way you chose to express yourself in each instance.

 

I've tried to move the debate on in good faith, provided other evidence to support the fact that the US doesn't even know WHO they're bombing, let alone being able to prove their links to terrorism. Drone operators have told us this. Leaked official documents have also "described SIGINT capabilities in these unconventional battlefields as “poor” and “limited.” Yet such collection, much of it provided by foreign partners, accounted for more than half the intelligence used to track potential kills in Yemen and Somalia".

 

In 12 years, over about 400 documented drone attacks in Pakistan only 52 named targets have been killed from 3341 deaths. 1.6%.

 

THAT is the reality. I'm not misrepresenting it and I'm not disconnected from it. It's entirely your choice how you interpret these facts. I've said there is no comparison between terrorism and state military overreach. That's just basic asymmetric warfare. It's clear that the "targeted killing" program has very few known targets though.

[Dr Gloom 20103]

@@Happy Face

 

So if you put the drone programme aside for a moment as an example of a pretty horrific form of modern warfare - can you still compare traditional war waged by the west with the Islamist suicide bombing and indiscriminate massacre of innocent civilians?

[toonotl 2480]

I'll not badger you, calling you an embarrassment or shameful for not being able to provide any justification for him being targeted or any evidence that another claimed target was supposed to be there.

 

You are the one making a claim.

 

This claim:

 

They aren't random, but they are innocent. Obama knew Al Awaki's son had done nowt. Just killed him in case.

 

You are yet to provide even a shred of evidence that the above is true.

 

Provide some evidence for your claim and I'll accept it. Just one piece of evidence. So far we have Obama being 'angry' and 'shocked' at a 'mistake', and you ignoring that because it is directly contrary to your claim.

 

"Obama knew Al Awaki's son had done nothing, but killed him just in case". Prove it. That's all I've been asking for. I don't have to prove shit. I haven't claimed anything. So put the goalposts back, and let's play HF attempts to prove something he knows is complete bullshit, shall we?

[Park Life 70]

Morning Comrades.

 

Some Russian on Syria and Immigration etc..Terrorism...

 

He says American/UK strategy is to keep Europe weak and mass immigration is part of the tactics.

 

Edited November 22, 2015 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

@@Happy Face

So if you put the drone programme aside for a moment as an example of a pretty horrific form of modern warfare - can you still compare traditional war waged by the west with the Islamist suicide bombing and indiscriminate massacre of innocent civilians?

I think the cruise missile campaign that Clinton waged was probably based on far more trustworthy intelligence. I think it's that legwork which is imperative rather than the technology of the killing device.

 

Obviously 9/11 predates drone strikes and the nutbags will be plotting against us as long as there's any western presence whatsoever, but there's an irony to calling it targeted killing when it's far less discriminate than it was in the 90s.

[RedfernMag 0]

Kenan Malik's piece in todays Guardian is worth a read.

 

There appears, nevertheless, to be something especially potent about Islam in fomenting terror and persecution. Contemporary radical Islam is the religious form through which a particular kind of barbarous rage expresses itself.

So, to understand why jihadis have been drawn into a moral universe that allows them to celebrate inhuman acts, we have to understand why political rage against the West takes such nihilistic, barbaric forms, and why radical Islam has become the primary vehicle for such rage.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/islam-terror-morality-paris

[Park Life 70]

Hot and sexy.

 

"A Pakistani living in London thinks that Syria is part of Islamic land"....

 

Edited November 22, 2015 by Park Life