Pritt Stick Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Perhaps those in power should take a lead. But they won't. Because they a) don't want to be accused of caving to terrorism, b) in many ways they don't need to; after all, our lives here aren't massively impacted by this global violence. The people that do suffer the most are those living in Afghan., Iraq, etc. Obama and others will respond to public opinion though. More than anything they don't want to be THOUGHT of as being uncaring. We need to give the power brokers here a way to change policy without them losing face. Sad, I know, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Jemima Khan's documentary "Unmanned-America's Drone Wars" about US drone attacks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74vZ5c6OoDk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Jemima Khan's documentary "Unmanned-America's Drone Wars" about US drone attacks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74vZ5c6OoDk Do drones cause more civilian deaths than conventional methods? Or is Drone being used as a buzz word that means nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Do drones cause more civilian deaths than conventional methods? Or is Drone being used as a buzz word that means nothing? Drones a every expensive way of reducing civilian casualties, it would be much cheaper to carpet bomb them, but I guess the US and Britain care enough to justify spending the extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Do drones cause more civilian deaths than conventional methods? Or is Drone being used as a buzz word that means nothing? Did you speed watch the documentary Wex, it's over an hour long? ---------- Post added 13-12-2013 at 13:47 ---------- Drones a every expensive way of reducing civilian casualties, it would be much cheaper to carpet bomb them, but I guess the US and Britain care enough to justify spending the extra money. Hmm..if I closed my eyes I could be listening to the western equivalent of Osama bin Laden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonkatoy Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Do drones cause more civilian deaths than conventional methods? Or is Drone being used as a buzz word that means nothing? The number of innocent people killed accidentally by drones is likely to be far lower than the number of innocent lives saved by those targeted by drones. I would also be very careful about believing the tales of the innocents who have been killed by the drones. It suits the terrorists very well to pop a few wedding clothes around vehicles and claim they were civilians. I wouldn't rule out bodies of folk who were murdered by the terrorists being dumped at drone strikes to increase propaganda value. One thing we do know is true the Islamists are murdering thousands in the villages and towns and dead bodies aren't exactly difficult to get hold of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Drones a every expensive way of reducing civilian casualties, it would be much cheaper to carpet bomb them, but I guess the US and Britain care enough to justify spending the extra money. No, I afraid this statement is just wrong, because it's not a straight choice between the US and the UK using drones or carpet bombing suspected terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonkatoy Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Hmm..if I closed my eyes I could be listening to the western equivalent of Osama bin Laden. Why. Do you record your posts on tape and play them back at night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 The number of innocent people killed accidentally by drones is likely to be far lower than the number of innocent lives saved by those targeted by drones. I would also be very careful about believing the tales of the innocents who have been killed by the drones. It suits the terrorists very well to pop a few wedding clothes around vehicles and claim they were civilians. I wouldn't rule out bodies of folk who were murdered by the terrorists being dumped at drone strikes to increase propaganda value. One thing we do know is true the Islamists are murdering thousands in the villages and towns and dead bodies aren't exactly difficult to get hold of. ..laughable, and you don't believe the west is just as capable of a little spin and propaganda? Why are drones crashing on the Yemen in the first place? ---------- Post added 13-12-2013 at 13:54 ---------- Why. Do you record your posts on tape and play them back at night? Stunning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 What you are trying to ask is "are you a simpleton?". The answer is no but you clearly are. What has it got to do with you defending Muslims? Everything. You are the one who has a problem differentiating between religion and nationality and between soldiers and terrorists. So let me help you out here. A soldier is someone in the employ of a state. He will go off and fight wars on behalf of a recognised government and folk who get killed during these conflicts are casualties of was. A terrorist is someone who decides for himself or others to commit acts of terrorism not sanctioned by a legitimate government (or at least not one that will admit to it). They rarely fight on behalf of a country but kill on behalf of a self appointed group. The people they kill are victims of terrorism. If a country has terrorists based within its borders, that country's government has a duty to deal with that problem, because if they don't they run the risk of being seem as harbouring terrorists, and can hardly be surprised if nations targeted by those terrorists decide to take matters into their own hands. So what you are basically saying is that a soldier joins an army which receives it's orders from a Government? That soldier then carries out those orders whatever the perceived rights or wrongs of the situation? Should he be instructed to go to another mans land -to which he couldn't even point at on a map if requested to do so- & be prepared to kill if ordered to do so, he will? For this he receives a wage, three square meals a day & a pension. A terrorist on the other hand is a man or woman who sits down, thinks the situation through & decides that their particular cause is just. They then take up arms against well trained & armed troops who have the backing of a Government. No pension. Now unless you believe that Governments & only Governments have the right to take lives, innocent or otherwise, it does appear that the terrorist at least has the moral upper hand, in having consulted their own conscience before taking up arms. The soldier on the other hand is merely carrying out orders, & doesn't care about the rights & wrongs of the situation. Obviously a lot depends on the cause being fought for. Is there genuine oppression & is the cause therefore a just one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.