Drones being operated in UK attacking Afghanistan

[Hillpig]

Who started it? Very good question. It seems to me that it is part of a process that dates back to the foundation of the Muslim religion.

 

There are certain dates that are important, fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims from the Orthodox Byzantines in (about) 650. The Crusades, the fall of Constantinople to the Turks 1483. Many other episodes of conflict leading up to the current situation exemplified by the attacks on the twin towers 7/7 etc.

 

The difference, it seems to me, is fundamentalism. In the past the Muslims have been very tolerant of other religions particularly Judaism and Christianity. Certainly they were more tolerant than Christians.

 

This latest manifestation seems to be the result of Wahabeism (not sure of the spelling) a sect who have a very strict interpretation of the Koran and are very strong in Saudi Arabia, where they are able to utilize the vast wealth of that country to sponsor terrorism world wide. Bin Laden was a Wahabi and even by their standards was an extremist.

 

So, who started it, we did, mankind, our utter failure to tolerate the others opinion, beliefs and world view. We are no different to those who 1500 years ago slaughtered each other because we were "different" and whose road to god was not the same as ours.

[syne]

Someone wrote ''what should we do, all sit down together and sing kumbyah''?

I suppose the answer is yes we should (maybe not kumbyah tho)

 

The original question was about drones being flown from afar, from a sensible standpoint its no different from a gun.

But I think the moral ground is well and truly lost when you start flying drones into hordes of women and children on purpose.

 

Would you rather be the bully or the bullied?

[mjw47]

Hillpig. Double post there for some reason . Agree with you in principle though.

 

Do you find it a little strange that some of the most extreme people involved in all of this (including the pilots on 9/11) are Saudis?

Why is no action being taken against them? They have one of the most repressive Regimes in the world, treat their women like property & carry out public executions in the squares in front of the Mosques after prayers.

 

It surely cannot be because we are too busy buying their oil & selling them armaments to upset them can it?

[Hillpig]

Hillpig. Double post there for some reason . Agree with you in principle though.

 

Do you find it a little strange that some of the most extreme people involved in all of this (including the pilots on 9/11) are Saudis?

Why is no action being taken against them? They have one of the most repressive Regimes in the world, treat their women like property & carry out public executions in the squares in front of the Mosques after prayers.

 

It surely cannot be because we are too busy buying their oil & selling them armaments to upset them can it?

 

Sorry about the double posting, I am on a new computer and still getting used to it.

 

You answer your own question correctly. There is no doubt whatsoever that we are totally hypocritical in our dealings with the Saudis. But that is the reality of life.

 

I have recently read the History of Venice by John Julius Norwich (recommended) . In it he details the trading that went on between the Muslim world and the Venetian Republic during the Muslim expansion. The level of hypocrisy in the 15th century and beyond was no different in principle to what is happening now. Its "realpolitik" but its not right.

 

By the way, thank you for introducing me to Smedley Butler a very interesting man. I once had the opportunity of meeting David Sterling, founder of the SAS. Smedley Butler reminded me of him, completely different politics and operating at different times but the mindset was similar, ethical, honest men sick and tired of politicians and being used by vested interests.

[mjw47]

Someone wrote ''what should we do, all sit down together and sing kumbyah''?

I suppose the answer is yes we should (maybe not kumbyah tho)

 

The original question was about drones being flown from afar, from a sensible standpoint its no different from a gun.

But I think the moral ground is well and truly lost when you start flying drones into hordes of women and children on purpose.

 

Would you rather be the bully or the bullied?

 

Agreed. I think the use of drones for reconnaissance in order to prevent harm to our troops is excellent.

However once you start using them as a weapons delivery system you are increasing the hatred of the ordinary innocent civilian when the inevitable 'collateral damage' occurs.

 

Incidentally don't you find it's always a bit of a give away that something dodgy is taking place when the authorities start using euphemisms?

 

Collateral damage = Killing innocent people

Friendly fire = Killing you own comrades or Allies

Extraordinary rendition = Kidnapping people outside the rule of law, transporting them across International borders & torturing them.

 

Still,thank heavens we're the good guys in all of this.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2013 at 11:54 ----------

 

Sorry about the double posting, I am on a new computer and still getting used to it.

 

You answer your own question correctly. There is no doubt whatsoever that we are totally hypocritical in our dealings with the Saudis. But that is the reality of life.

 

I have recently read the History of Venice by John Julius Norwich (recommended) . In it he details the trading that went on between the Muslim world and the Venetian Republic during the Muslim expansion. The level of hypocrisy in the 15th century and beyond was no different in principle to what is happening now. Its "realpolitik" but its not right.

 

By the way, thank you for introducing me to Smedley Butler a very interesting man. I once had the opportunity of meeting David Sterling, founder of the SAS. Smedley Butler reminded me of him, completely different politics and operating at different times but the mindset was similar, ethical, honest men sick and tired of politicians and being used by vested interests.

 

Yes, I believe both men operated under the extraordinary principle that the Armed forces should be there to provide protection for their country & the citizens of that country.

For some reason they objected to their comrades & themselves being used to increase the wealth of individual private citizens who were already rich beyond most peoples dreams. What were they thinking?

 

David Sterling must have been an interesting man to meet. Were you aware that the original concept of the 'long range desert group' was, in part, based upon the IRA 'flying columns' used successfully during the Irish war of Independence 1916 to 1922? These tactics were the brainchild of Michael Collins whose methods are still taught at Sandhurst.

[buck]

Well said Mecky!! The post I wrote in a similar way seems to have disappeared!

 

In my book they deserve all they get. War is war, and civilians get killed, rightly or wrongly.

Before the dawn of the 20th Century, every effort was made by civilized nations to keep war carried out man on man, out of touch with women and children. It didn't always work. After the airplane was invented it all changed. It has been an unequalled killer of anyone under its bombs regardless of age, sex, or status. The drone is merely the same thing without a pilot there to feel guilty or scared. None but the guilty deserve it.

[Hillpig]

Agreed. I think the use of drones for reconnaissance in order to prevent harm to our troops is excellent.

However once you start using them as a weapons delivery system you are increasing the hatred of the ordinary innocent civilian when the inevitable 'collateral damage' occurs.

 

Incidentally don't you find it's always a bit of a give away that something dodgy is taking place when the authorities start using euphemisms?

 

Collateral damage = Killing innocent people

Friendly fire = Killing you own comrades or Allies

Extraordinary rendition = Kidnapping people outside the rule of law, transporting them across International borders & torturing them.

 

Still,thank heavens we're the good guys in all of this.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2013 at 11:54 ----------

 

 

Yes, I believe both men operated under the extraordinary principle that the Armed forces should be there to provide protection for their country & the citizens of that country.

For some reason they objected to their comrades & themselves being used to increase the wealth of individual private citizens who were already rich beyond most peoples dreams. What were they thinking?

 

David Sterling must have been an interesting man to meet. Were you aware that the original concept of the 'long range desert group' was, in part, based upon the IRA 'flying columns' used successfully during the Irish war of Independence 1916 to 1922? These tactics were the brainchild of Michael Collins whose methods are still taught at Sandhurst.

 

He did not mention Collins by name but he did acknowledge the value of the lessons learned from guerillas, he did mention Wingate and his Burma campaign. I have spent a great deal of time in Burma and for anyone, particularly not of the country to operate effectively in that environment is quite an accomplishment.

[skinz]

Before the dawn of the 20th Century, every effort was made by civilized nations to keep war carried out man on man, out of touch with women and children. It didn't always work. After the airplane was invented it all changed. It has been an unequalled killer of anyone under its bombs regardless of age, sex, or status. The drone is merely the same thing without a pilot there to feel guilty or scared. None but the guilty deserve it.

 

 

 

"Before the dawn of the 20th Century".

 

Richard Burton is not dead folks.

[Hillpig]

Before the dawn of the 20th Century, every effort was made by civilized nations to keep war carried out man on man, out of touch with women and children. It didn't always work. After the airplane was invented it all changed. It has been an unequalled killer of anyone under its bombs regardless of age, sex, or status. The drone is merely the same thing without a pilot there to feel guilty or scared. None but the guilty deserve it.

 

In antiquity, if a city under siege submitted within an allotted time the citizens may well be spared from execution or slavery, if they did not and the city was taken by force all living things were subject to the will of the conquerors. Usually the men were killed and the women and children taken in slavery. The idea of a chivalric code in which it was men v men is incorrect.

 

Human beings have always slaughtered each other. The old testament records Joshua and his army killing all living things when they conquered Jericho. The fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders saw Muslims and Jews butchered by Christians, the fall of Constantinople saw Christians butchered by Muslims.

 

Their is nothing new in human vileness. I must challenge you on your last sentence. The majority who die whether it be by drone, medieval knights, Roman infantry or Vikings are innocent.

[mjw47]

In antiquity, if a city under siege submitted within an allotted time the citizens may well be spared from execution or slavery, if they did not and the city was taken by force all living things were subject to the will of the conquerors. Usually the men were killed and the women and children taken in slavery. The idea of a chivalric code in which it was men v men is incorrect.

 

Human beings have always slaughtered each other. The old testament records Joshua and his army killing all living things when they conquered Jericho. The fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders saw Muslims and Jews butchered by Christians, the fall of Constantinople saw Christians butchered by Muslims.

 

Their is nothing new in human vileness. I must challenge you on your last sentence. The majority who die whether it be by drone, medieval knights, Roman infantry or Vikings are innocent.

 

Not all Rulers behaved in this manner. Suleiman the Magnificent for instance allowed the Christian Knights of Rhodes to leave & settle in Malta after he had captured the walled City of Rhodes.

He was an exceptional person however & known for the fair & just manner in which he treat people despite the fact that he was an outstanding soldier & conqueror of huge parts of Africa & Europe.

 

He was also infatuated with his wife Roxelana & treat her as his equal, even discussing plans with her & taking her advice.

Which kind of shows up all this modern day nonsense with Muslims treating their women as possessions.

It is obvious that they act in that way simply because they wish to do so & not because of any religious requirement.