US drone have murdered 1000's

[mjw47]

A very long time because they have no air force or navy and can't buy one. They pose no military threat to us in the West.

 

What they do have however is access to fanatical religious lunatics who are prepared to die for the cause.

 

There are parts of the former USSR that have Muslim populations, and some that have access to nuclear ' Dirty Bomb' suitcase devices.

 

With the amount of cash they have at their disposal ( I strongly suspect they are not paying tax ) there is little to stop them getting hold of a device and paying some unscrupulous ships captain/ lorry driver/ freight operator to transport it to the city of their choice.

 

I believe that they do pose a threat to us in the west.

 

As for drones why do you require an airforce or navy? Perhaps for the ones western armed forces are using but you could deliver a reasonable size bomb or germ warfare device with one of these.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drones+for+sale&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=MsMjVduWAYrpUtSfg5gB&ved=0CCEQsxg&biw=1024&bih=667

[Zamo]

What they do have however is access to fanatical religious lunatics who are prepared to die for the cause.

 

There are parts of the former USSR that have Muslim populations, and some that have access to nuclear ' Dirty Bomb' suitcase devices.

 

With the amount of cash they have at their disposal ( I strongly suspect they are not paying tax ) there is little to stop them getting hold of a device and paying some unscrupulous ships captain/ lorry driver/ freight operator to transport it to the city of their choice.

 

I believe that they do pose a threat to us in the west.

 

As for drones why do you require an airforce or navy? Perhaps for the ones western armed forces are using but you could deliver a reasonable size bomb or germ warfare device with one of these.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drones+for+sale&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=MsMjVduWAYrpUtSfg5gB&ved=0CCEQsxg&biw=1024&bih=667

 

Your flitting between terrorist tactics and conventional warfare tactics. IS cannot bring any conventional war to the West e.g. bomb us using drones. Yes we are vulnerable to terrorism but that threat comes from within (Muslims living here already) and will not be reduced by trying (and failing) to kill the bad guys in the Muslim world.

 

Radical Islam can't be killed off with bullets and bombs. The way to kill it off is to isolate it and the misery of that way of life will result in Muslims eventually rejecting it themselves. All we are doing at the moment is offering ourselves up as the bad guys and providing a glamorous cause for young Muslims to blame and rebel against. Remove the excuse and let them live the dream until they realise it is actually a nightmare.

[mjw47]

Your flitting between terrorist tactics and conventional warfare tactics. IS cannot bring any conventional war to the West e.g. bomb us using drones. Yes we are vulnerable to terrorism but that threat comes from within (Muslims living here already) and will not be reduced by trying (and failing) to kill the bad guys in the Muslim world.

 

Radical Islam can't be killed off with bullets and bombs. The way to kill it off is to isolate it and the misery of that way of life will result in Muslims eventually rejecting it themselves. All we are doing at the moment is offering ourselves up as the bad guys and providing a glamorous cause for young Muslims to blame and rebel against. Remove the excuse and let them live the dream until they realise it is actually a nightmare.

 

You think that conventional warfare and terrorism are mutually exclusive?

 

I sincerely hope that you are right but don't see it that way myself.

 

If I was an ISIS commander I would want to wreak as much damage as possible on my perceived enemy.

 

With the amount of funds available to me I would be looking for volunteers weapons and targets.

 

There are enough Islamic fanatics with a western background who are familiar with our cities and who can blend in to provide a viable threat.

 

None of which would require the planning and training that went into 9/11.

 

Hit a few high profile targets and it would cause chaos and maybe even an implosion of the financial markets, especially if The City or Wall St were involved.

 

This would also effectively open up a 'second front' - if it could be maintained for a significant amount of time - and dilute our resources.

 

Right now they may have a bit too much on their hands but if they succeed in achieving their Caliphate that may be their next move.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-27905425&ei=d-sjVbGYEIe7UbnHguAC&usg=AFQjCNEIkY1e3jjzXX73gJXpD5dvHPidXw&bvm=bv.89947451,d.d24&cad=rja

 

We need to find a way of containing them, but easier said than done.

Edited April 7, 2015 by mjw47

[Zamo]

You think that conventional warfare and terrorism are mutually exclusive?

 

Where have I said that? I simply responded to your question with the correct answer... it will be a very long time before IS can launch drone attacks on the West because they do not have the military capability, can't buy it and don't have the means to make it.

 

If I was an ISIS commander I would want to wreak as much damage as possible on my perceived enemy.

 

With the amount of funds available to me I would be looking for volunteers weapons and targets.

 

There are enough Islamic fanatics with a western background who are familiar with our cities and who can blend in to provide a viable threat.

 

None of which would require the planning and training that went into 9/11.

 

Hit a few high profile targets and it would cause chaos and maybe even an implosion of the financial markets, especially if The City or Wall St were involved.

 

This would also effectively open up a 'second front' - if it could be maintained for a significant amount of time - and dilute our resources.

 

Right now they may have a bit too much on their hands but if they succeed in achieving their Caliphate that may be their next move.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-27905425&ei=d-sjVbGYEIe7UbnHguAC&usg=AFQjCNEIkY1e3jjzXX73gJXpD5dvHPidXw&bvm=bv.89947451,d.d24&cad=rja

 

We need to find a way of containing them, but easier said than done.

 

Now you are back onto terrorism, which they could of course orchestrate if they are so inclined. However, the notion that we can prevent terrorism by going and killing bad guys in the Muslim world is pure fantasy. The West has tried that and it has made the extremist problem far worse. We need to simply leave the Muslim world to sort its' own problems out.

[johncocker]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/01/anti-drone-television-ad-us-air-force-bases-california-nevada

What are your thoughts? With any luck this message will get through to enough people and the drone attacks will stop. Its unlikely though and i know its just wishful thinking but how bad must it be for American veterans to speak out?

Its murder plain and simple and it has to stop!

 

 

my thoughts are why is it you and the rest of the sf muslims don't post threads about about muslims killing muslims?

q/11 million muslims killed by muslims since the end of WWII: https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/

 

q/Islamists today kill far more muslims than non-muslims: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-on-terrorism-al-qaida-kills-eight-times-more-muslims-than-non-muslims-a-660619.html

 

do you realize that for every citation of a wedding party droned, I can cite ten instances of barrel bombs dropped indiscriminately by the Syrian Arab Army on civilian neighborhoods, car bombs set off in markets by one branch of Islam to wreak havoc on another branch, or Yaizidi men, women and children executed summarily or sold into slavery.

...

[Timeh]

my thoughts are why is it you and the rest of the sf muslims don't post threads about about muslims killing muslims?

q/11 million muslims killed by muslims since the end of WWII: https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/

 

...

 

Im not muslim and i dont need you to tell me where i can post thanks.

[Harleyman]

Christ on a bike! Pilgrim? Dude?

 

Are you for real?

 

How in blue blazes do you expect anyone to come up with a satisfactory solution to the absolute pile of crap that we have managed to get ourselves into, in a large part through our own actions?

 

If anyone could they wouldn't be sat discussing it on a forum would they?

 

They'd be running the 'free world' wouldn't they?

 

There is no obvious solution.

 

' past history and how it all came about not to be mentioned'

 

Yes, that'll work.

 

If it wasn't for past history we wouldn't have the problem would we?

 

Do you think the other side will agree to that proviso?

 

The motto which should be engraved on all government buildings involved in this is;

 

'Semper in excretia, solon profundum variat'

 

All we are doing is giving our opinions which are worthless.

 

However I will give this opinion, not only are drones not a solution they are exacerbating the problem.

 

Try to put yourself in the place of an innocent civilian in one of the areas concerned.

 

You are not a terrorist, you just want to live a peaceful life and raise your kids.

 

You have never been out of the country and have no knowledge or particular interest in foreign lands.

 

Then one day out of the blue some young guy who has never left his country operates a drone from over 7,000 miles away and kills half your family.

 

Now you're interested.

 

People who support drone strikes are not thinking it through, if you could 100% guarantee that only combatants and terrorists would be killed they would be a brilliant solution.

 

They can't and never will, so what they are actually doing is creating new terrorists and increasing the problem.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gq.com%2Fnews-politics%2Fbig-issues%2F201311%2Fdrone-uav-pilot-assassination&ei=AKkjVa_iDYLsasT9gfAF&usg=AFQjCNHAcXEgZjjPSF7mBIzyfxQHgiXR6Q&bvm=bv.89947451,d.d2s

 

So you dislike drones because some Air Force man thousands of miles away pushes a button? Therefore methinks you just have hard on for the particular means of delivery.

What's the difference between an airstrike by drone or an air strike by an F-18 with a Navy pilot in the cockpit? An innocent civilian still killed in the latter case.

How many innocent civilians were killed by bombers on a carpet bombing mission in past wars? If there's anything at all good to say about wars then at least the mortality rate among civilians has been drastically reduced by the advances in weapons technology as it specifically applies to war by air.. In Iraq and Syria the ground war has killed more civilians than drones ever did. There is nothing more deadly than artillery fire and rocketry when it comes to mass destruction and death

 

I may be wrong but I think that a lot of propaganda against drones has it's origins on websites sympathetic to extremist groups. They don't like em. They can no longer hide out so well. There's no warning. It must be hard on the neck having to keep looking up at the sky or living a lot of hours in some cave.

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2015 at 15:59 ----------

 

You think that conventional warfare and terrorism are mutually exclusive?

 

I sincerely hope that you are right but don't see it that way myself.

 

If I was an ISIS commander I would want to wreak as much damage as possible on my perceived enemy.

 

With the amount of funds available to me I would be looking for volunteers weapons and targets.

 

There are enough Islamic fanatics with a western background who are familiar with our cities and who can blend in to provide a viable threat.

 

None of which would require the planning and training that went into 9/11.

 

Hit a few high profile targets and it would cause chaos and maybe even an implosion of the financial markets, especially if The City or Wall St were involved.

 

This would also effectively open up a 'second front' - if it could be maintained for a significant amount of time - and dilute our resources.

 

Right now they may have a bit too much on their hands but if they succeed in achieving their Caliphate that may be their next move.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-27905425&ei=d-sjVbGYEIe7UbnHguAC&usg=AFQjCNEIkY1e3jjzXX73gJXpD5dvHPidXw&bvm=bv.89947451,d.d24&cad=rja

 

We need to find a way of containing them, but easier said than done.

 

And killing a lot of civilians in the process who just want to live a peaceful life (sound familiar?) And don't worry, ISIS have already achieved that in spades

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2015 at 16:08 ----------

 

That is unfortunately a Hydra strategy... you cut off one head and two grow back. Just think how a Muslim invasion (to save us from our heathen ways) would unite people of different religions and politics in the West... we'd all unite and fight against the common enemy. It is no different for Muslims when the West seeks to impose itself on the Muslim world.

 

The West needs to mind its' own business and stop offering itself up as the enemy. Seal up the borders and leave them to it.

 

I agree. We should start to mind our own business. but it's a bit too late for that. The fit has already hit the shan Seal up the borders? Given the vast size and geography involved how would we even start to do that?

Edited April 7, 2015 by Harleyman

[mjw47]

So you dislike drones because some Air Force man thousands of miles away pushes a button? Therefore methinks you just have hard on for the particular means of delivery.

What's the difference between an airstrike by drone or an air strike by an F-18 with a Navy pilot in the cockpit? An innocent civilian still killed in the latter case.

How many innocent civilians were killed by bombers on a carpet bombing mission in past wars? If there's anything at all good to say about wars then at least the mortality rate among civilians has been drastically reduced by the advances in weapons technology. In Iraq and Syria the ground war has killed more civilians than drones ever did. There is nothing more deadly than artillery fire and rocketry when it comes to mass destruction and death

 

I may be wrong but I think that a lot of propaganda against drones has it's origins on websites sympathetic to extremist groups. A terrorist leader or terrorist group is now under almost exact geographic location and can be eliminated without any warning whatsoever. Many scumbags have already found that out.

If drones keep the bestards preoccupied much of the time looking up at the sky or hiding in caves then drones are doing what they were designed to do

 

Unlike some people ( you perhaps? ) I do not become aroused by killing in whatever form it takes.

 

George Orwell once said " People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. "

 

What he failed to take into consideration was that if there were no 'rough men' there wouldn't be a problem, and the rest of us could live our lives in peace.

 

'Roughly' speaking there are three main types of men,

 

1, Those who want to fight and will look for an opportunity to do so and are not overly worried as to the rights or wrongs of the situation

 

2, Those who would prefer not to fight but will reluctantly do so if the circumstances demand it and they believe the cause is just.

 

3, Those who will not fight for reasons ranging from honourable reasons of conscience to less honourable ones of fear.

 

I admire the second and respect the honourable amongst the third. As for those described in number 1, I couldn't care less what happens to them.

 

As for drones the ability to kill your enemy whilst removing all risk to yourself should be correctly described in my view as murder.

 

What else could it be? There is no direct threat to anyone and the victims are killed without trial or chance to defend themselves either physically or verbally.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-27905425&ei=d-sjVbGYEIe7UbnHguAC&usg=AFQjCNEIkY1e3jjzXX73gJXpD5dvHPidXw&bvm=bv.89947451,d.d24&cad=rja

 

If you look at the first section of that link under the title Non-combatant and read the part that refers to Article 3 in would seem that (d) would make the use of drones against people who can't be positively identified as combatants an offence against the Geneva convention.

 

Maybe that doesn't unduly bother you, and if you are content to see your country behave in a manner not acceptable to civilized peoples then that is your choice.

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2015 at 17:52 ----------

 

.

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2015 at 15:59 ----------

 

 

And killing a lot of civilians in the process who just want to live a peaceful life (sound familiar?) And don't worry, ISIS have already achieved that in spades

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2015 at 16:08 ----------

 

 

 

My comment was 'If I was an ISIS commandant' going on past performance that is how they think isn't it?

 

If we manage to bring this situation under some form of control then we need to learn from the past few years.

 

Experience however tells us we won't, everyone I know that had some basic knowledge of history agreed with me back in 2003 that the Iraq invasion would end in disaster.

 

There was no surprise involved whatsoever, except perhaps to dumb and dumber, Bush and Blair.

 

Still, as the greatest US Marine that ever lived said all those years ago, " Wars a Racket "

Edited April 7, 2015 by mjw47

[Tommo68]

Should the middle east be left to ISIS then? How long before the west is inundated with millions of ethnic middle easterners fleeing the Caliphates?

 

I have absolutely no objection to the destruction and removal of any group or groups that wish to impose their will on anyone else, especially if they are driven by mythology, folk tales or religion.

 

The US it appears with some, albeit limited assistance from 'western poweres' , has been helping some middle eastern countries in their struggle against ISIS.

 

However I do not think the US or any other western power wants ISIS to be eradicated. It is my belief that this is because the continuance of the conflicts in the middle east is in the opinion of those in control of western goverments is somehow in their best interests.

 

I have reached this hypothesis because of three things.

 

1) The west is not fully committing to the destruction of isis.

 

2) If the US was fully committed to the destruction of isis then they would be attacking their bases. The US is more than capable of locating the isis support bases then taking them all out. These bases are where their followers, food medical and military supplies are gathered, stored and distributed from, where they train both their killers and suicide bombers etc. Without them isis would have great difficulty in continuing in their path of murder and destruction of anyone that thinks differently.

 

3) If the west and the US were serious about eradicating isis they would have identified where isis get their supplies from and brought an end to that.

 

 

Of course this ia only a hypothesis and I could be wrong and would welcome some satisfactory alternate explanations.

.

.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Yes I would, its mathematics.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2015 at 11:13 ----------

 

The governments of the civilized world should use all in its power to destroy our enemies wherever they are. We should use "boots on the ground" sparingly.

 

If drones can be used or other forms of airpower we should be ruthless in its use.

 

Failure to do so will lead to our children and grandchildren having to defend themselves on our home ground due to our weakness and indecision at this time.

 

I concur.

 

Angel1.