US drone have murdered 1000's

[mjw47]

Would it have been better if we had sacrificed lots of our troops/airmen? If we had, and considering g where these people embed themselves, do you think there would be less colataral damage? Or should we leave them to plan the next 9/11 or bomb and kill people in their own countries? Do we know how many people these 41 targets have killed or planned to kill?

 

No, we obviously don't know much about these 41 ( some of whom are still alive ) at all, that's the problem.

 

The areas where these deaths took place are not the most law abiding in the world, a great deal of 'black market' crime goes on.

 

If you wanted to get rid of a competitor and didn't want to get involved in a blood feud what would be the simplest way?

 

Let it be known to the allies that he was a terrorist boss and planning an imminent attack.

 

The comings and goings and meeting which would be a part of his black market business would look suspicious and away you go.

 

In the five years up until January 2014 drone strikes had killed 2,400 people hundreds of whom were children.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2014%2F01%2F23%2Fobama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html&ei=p6EmVf-MLoXqaI-mgOAB&usg=AFQjCNHRAPtB2tpkWJ-Qh7rKqEgFUIa4_Q&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

A Washington Post report from 2013 referring to Yemen.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFgQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Fnational-security%2Fdrone-strikes-killing-more-civilians-than-us-admits-human-rights-groups-say%2F2013%2F10%2F21%2Fa99cbe78-3a81-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html&ei=p6EmVf-MLoXqaI-mgOAB&usg=AFQjCNFcA2dAdfafiLHoQVw-QDeick2MNA&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

Do you think that these killings are a proportionate response?

 

Because at the moment state terrorism is more of a threat to life than what we refer to as terrorism.

[Harleyman]

Offering a truce would have made America look magnanimous and would have done away with all of the hand wringing and criticism which happened afterwards.

 

The Japs were led by some serious fanatics, so yes they would probably have turned it down ,but America would have emerged with the image that they so carefully try to project to the world, the men in the white hats riding to the rescue BS.

 

Now, you were the one who suggested returning to the thread at post 121 above, since which you have avoided doing so.

 

So what is your opinion on the drones you love so much and ' 41 men targeted but 1,147 killed by drone strikes' ?

 

My contention has always been that the use of unmanned drones to kill with the inevitable ' collateral damage' which it would entail will make matters worse and is simply playing into the terrorists hands.

 

Any views?

 

So pull the drones and return to airstrikes with jet aircraft. Less death, less collateral damage? Is that your point? If so prove it

 

I neither love nor hate drones. I see them as being very useful in many ways in the future. On the other hand I wouldn't be very pleased to see one hovering outside my bedroom window while I'm copulating with the missus

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 16:54 ----------

 

Would it have been better if we had sacrificed lots of our troops/airmen? If we had, and considering g where these people embed themselves, do you think there would be less colataral damage? Or should we leave them to plan the next 9/11 or bomb and kill people in their own countries? Do we know how many people these 41 targets have killed or planned to kill?

 

I don't think he has a realistic solution to the situation. I've already mentioned that an all out land war would result in thousands more deaths and far more destruction.

The campaign seems to working satisfactorily, if slowly so far. Airstrikes are gradually degrading the ability of ISIS to hold on to the territory they currently occupy while Iraqi, Kurdish military and a coalition of Syrian rebels are making progress in evicting them from the ground. Tikrit is already out of ISIS hands

[mjw47]

So pull the drones and return to airstrikes with jet aircraft. Less death, less collateral damage? Is that your point? If so prove it

 

I neither love nor hate drones. I see them as being very useful in many ways in the future. On the other hand I wouldn't be very pleased to see one hovering outside my bedroom window while I'm copulating with the missus

 

Drones are fantastic in many ways and extremely useful in warfare.

 

Instead of having to send out troops on patrol in enemy country with nothing but their own observational skills - and blind luck - preventing them walking into an ambush you can carry out a pre- surveillance of the route to be taken.

 

Using both standard and infrared cameras the information supplied should help in reducing casualties.

 

There are also drones with helicopter type abilities, equipped with standard and infrared cameras and drawing their power from mini solar panels you could land them and leave them in prearranged spots and triangulate an area you want to watch without risking troops lives.

 

They just shouldn't be used for delivering bombs in my opinion. All the current available evidence points to them being too indiscriminate.

 

Targeting 41 men, not killing all of them, but killing 1,147 people - a number of whom were children - is simply not acceptable.

 

The hatred and desire for vengeance engendered by those actions and replicated again and again is counter productive to say the least.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 18:19 ----------

 

[quote=Harleyman;10966424

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 16:54 ----------

 

[/color]

 

I don't think he has a realistic solution to the situation. I've already mentioned that an all out land war would result in thousands more deaths and far more destruction.

The campaign seems to working satisfactorily, if slowly so far. Airstrikes are gradually degrading the ability of ISIS to hold on to the territory they currently occupy while Iraqi, Kurdish military and a coalition of Syrian rebels are making progress in evicting them from the ground. Tikrit is already out of ISIS hands

 

You don't think I have a realistic solution to the situation?

 

No s**t Sherlock! And neither does anyone else, including the morons that are being paid to come up with a solution some of whom got us into this mess in the first place.

 

I, and many thousands more, could have told Dumb and Dumber how not to get into this mess in the first place but they obviously thought they knew better.

 

Look how that turned out for them.

 

This thread is about drones and I have given my views, they are exacerbating the problem and are a liability rather than a help in the way that they are currently being used.

[tinfoilhat]

Drones are fantastic in many ways and extremely useful in warfare.

 

Instead of having to send out troops on patrol in enemy country with nothing but their own observational skills - and blind luck - preventing them walking into an ambush you can carry out a pre- surveillance of the route to be taken.

 

Using both standard and infrared cameras the information supplied should help in reducing casualties.

 

There are also drones with helicopter type abilities, equipped with standard and infrared cameras and drawing their power from mini solar panels you could land them and leave them in prearranged spots and triangulate an area you want to watch without risking troops lives.

 

They just shouldn't be used for delivering bombs in my opinion. All the current available evidence points to them being too indiscriminate.

 

Targeting 41 men, not killing all of them, but killing 1,147 people - a number of whom were children - is simply not acceptable.

 

The hatred and desire for vengeance engendered by those actions and replicated again and again is counter productive to say the least.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 18:19 ----------

 

 

You don't think I have a realistic solution to the situation?

 

No s**t Sherlock! And neither does anyone else, including the morons that are being paid to come up with a solution some of whom got us into this mess in the first place.

 

I, and many thousands more, could have told Dumb and Dumber how not to get into this mess in the first place but they obviously thought they knew better.

 

Look how that turned out for them.

 

This thread is about drones and I have given my views, they are exacerbating the problem and are a liability rather than a help in the way that they are currently being used.

 

I'd suggest letting them operate unhindered is far more damaging to other Muslims considering the body count in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan. But if you want to keep letting them doing what they're doing - go it.

[loraward]

Offering a truce would have made America look magnanimous and would have done away with all of the hand wringing and criticism which happened afterwards.

 

The Japs were led by some serious fanatics, so yes they would probably have turned it down ,but America would have emerged with the image that they so carefully try to project to the world, the men in the white hats riding to the rescue BS.

 

Now, you were the one who suggested returning to the thread at post 121 above, since which you have avoided doing so.

 

So what is your opinion on the drones you love so much and ' 41 men targeted but 1,147 killed by drone strikes' ?

 

My contention has always been that the use of unmanned drones to kill with the inevitable ' collateral damage' which it would entail will make matters worse and is simply playing into the terrorists hands.

 

Any views?

 

 

The Japanese were offered the opportunity to surrender before the bomb was dropped, and the US air force dropped leaflets over japan warning them of the impending doom if they didn't surrender.

[Harleyman]

Drones are fantastic in many ways and extremely useful in warfare.

 

Instead of having to send out troops on patrol in enemy country with nothing but their own observational skills - and blind luck - preventing them walking into an ambush you can carry out a pre- surveillance of the route to be taken.

 

Using both standard and infrared cameras the information supplied should help in reducing casualties.

 

There are also drones with helicopter type abilities, equipped with standard and infrared cameras and drawing their power from mini solar panels you could land them and leave them in prearranged spots and triangulate an area you want to watch without risking troops lives.

 

They just shouldn't be used for delivering bombs in my opinion. All the current available evidence points to them being too indiscriminate.

 

Targeting 41 men, not killing all of them, but killing 1,147 people - a number of whom were children - is simply not acceptable.

 

The hatred and desire for vengeance engendered by those actions and replicated again and again is counter productive to say the least.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 18:19 ----------

 

 

You don't think I have a realistic solution to the situation?

 

No s**t Sherlock! And neither does anyone else, including the morons that are being paid to come up with a solution some of whom got us into this mess in the first place.

 

I, and many thousands more, could have told Dumb and Dumber how not to get into this mess in the first place but they obviously thought they knew better.

 

Look how that turned out for them.

 

This thread is about drones and I have given my views, they are exacerbating the problem and are a liability rather than a help in the way that they are currently being used.

 

Yeah I see your argument . If only they'd done this, if only they hadn't done that, crying over spilt mill. Well it's okay to keep banging on about the mistakes of the past but what has to be done now is to deal with the present consequences.

 

As I have already mentioned the current operations against ISIS are having success and probably under the circumstances the best possible option to a bad situation.

 

As for drones if they're knocking off terrorist leaders and degrading their ability to organize terror attacks that's what they were designed to do. Yes always civilians unfortunately victims but that was always the case in all wars and under ISUIS rule they were slaughtered by the thousands.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 18:58 ----------

 

The Japanese were offered the opportunity to surrender before the bomb was dropped, and the US air force dropped leaflets over japan warning them of the impending doom if they didn't surrender.

 

The aim of going to any war is to use all and any necessary means to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible and bring it to an end.

 

It was Japan's idea to go to war against America in the first place. I can well understand the hatred that the Chinese of whom 500,.000 were slaughtered during the rape of Nanking and Americans of whom 10,000 died on the 15 mile Death March in Bataan felt toward the little bustards. not to mention the thousands of Aussies, Brits, Dutch and Yanks who were beaten, starved, crucified, burned and worked to death on the Burma-Thai railway.

 

On V.J Day in Europe and across America it's pretty safe to assume that there wasn't one single tear shed for the demise of Japan

[mjw47]

The Japanese were offered the opportunity to surrender before the bomb was dropped, and the US air force dropped leaflets over japan warning them of the impending doom if they didn't surrender.

 

Did they really?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.nuclearsecrecy.com%2F2013%2F04%2F26%2Fa-day-too-late%2F&ei=WcwmVfnxJcrOaKn3gIgL&usg=AFQjCNGiF_MUcGuJDwRqVbKVCDc4kCy5LQ&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s&cad=rja

[loraward]

Did they really?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.nuclearsecrecy.com%2F2013%2F04%2F26%2Fa-day-too-late%2F&ei=WcwmVfnxJcrOaKn3gIgL&usg=AFQjCNGiF_MUcGuJDwRqVbKVCDc4kCy5LQ&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

Yes it would appear so.

 

The United States and Japan had been at war since Japanese forces bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941. After the United States successfully detonated the world’s first atomic bomb in a July 1945 test, President Harry S. Truman and fellow Allied leaders, Josef Stalin and Clement Attlee, issued the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum for Japan to surrender unconditionally or face “prompt and utter destruction.”

 

When Japan refused to accept the terms on July 29, Truman authorized the use of the atomic bomb. On Aug. 6, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, destroying over 60 percent of the developed city and killing between 70,000 and 80,000.

 

On August 1, 1945, over one hundred US B-29 Superfortresses flew over Japan at around 20,000 feet. At this height they dropped 500-pound containers, each holding leaflets that warned the Japanese civilians of the necessity of surrender. At around 4,000 feet the containers opened and released millions of leaflets that fluttered down to the people below.

 

 

 

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/aug-9-1945-u-s-drops-atomic-bomb-on-nagasaki-japan/?_r=0

 

http://www.smv.org/blog/2011-01-12/lemay-bombing-leaflet

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/500065/The-bombs-that-changed-the-world-Japan-marks-69th-anniversary-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki

[mjw47]

Yeah I see your argument . If only they'd done this, if only they hadn't done that, crying over spilt mill. Well it's okay to keep banging on about the mistakes of the past but what has to be done now is to deal with the present consequences.

 

As I have already mentioned the current operations against ISIS are having success and probably under the circumstances the best possible option to a bad situation.

 

As for drones if they're knocking off terrorist leaders and degrading their ability to organize terror attacks that's what they were designed to do. Yes always civilians unfortunately victims but that was always the case in all wars and under ISUIS rule they were slaughtered by the thousands.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 18:58 ----------

 

 

The aim of going to any war is to use all and any necessary means to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible and bring it to an end.

 

It was Japan's idea to go to war against America in the first place. I can well understand the hatred that the Chinese of whom 500,.000 were slaughtered during the rape of Nanking and Americans of whom 10,000 died on the 15 mile Death March in Bataan felt toward the little bustards. not to mention the thousands of Aussies, Brits, Dutch and Yanks who were beaten, starved, crucified, burned and worked to death on the Burma-Thai railway.

 

On V.J Day in Europe and across America it's pretty safe to assume that there wasn't one single tear shed for the demise of Japan

 

The USA was formed with the most noble of intentions. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Gettysburg address, all documents laying down aspirations for a country that would be an example to all.

 

Well that didn't last long did it, not when pure human greed and averice took over.

 

The US is now no better than all the previous empires it despised.

 

A corrupt thieving murderous entity that cares more for it's wealth than any concern over right or wrong.

 

The US went to war for profit.

 

Of course you don't want to discuss how we got here, because it was your scummy bunch of political villains ably abetted by our own greedy arseholes that caused all this grief.

 

Things in the area were bad enough when dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi were in control, but at least they were in control.

 

Now because of our interference for profit the place is chaos and no longer contained.

 

Dick Cheney former CEO of Halliburton ( and holder of 400,000 stock options ) Vice President of the USA the man who 'advised' ( pulled the strings of ) Dummy Dubya.

 

In 2010 Cheney was named in a 2010 corruption complaint by the Nigerian government, Halliburton settled for $250 million.

 

Halliburton has made billions from the Iraq war.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businesspundit.com%2Fthe-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers%2F&ei=K9QmVdvjN8vkaJL-gZgL&usg=AFQjCNHB86Z2nXCF0ezAjmkmh3YkBU9_fw&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s

 

One of it's subsidiaries made even more

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibtimes.com%2Fwinner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905&ei=TdImVc-9EpDtaN_RgLgC&usg=AFQjCNEmeRZaOYyKeyk3Mf4sf8RKPcvz9Q&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

They're not the only ones.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fmoney%2Fbusiness%2F2013%2F03%2F10%2F10-companies-profiting-most-from-war%2F1970997%2F&ei=4NQmVcGOO4O8adPtgfgD&usg=AFQjCNGUvc8noII8H7euVDrYpN4PE_wqRA&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s

 

As has already been pointed out to you on previous threads, wars a racket and big business run the world.

 

And they just love gung ho wrap the star spangled banner around me types like you who can't see beyond the end of their noses.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 21:26 ----------

 

Yes it would appear so.

 

The United States and Japan had been at war since Japanese forces bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941. After the United States successfully detonated the world’s first atomic bomb in a July 1945 test, President Harry S. Truman and fellow Allied leaders, Josef Stalin and Clement Attlee, issued the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum for Japan to surrender unconditionally or face “prompt and utter destruction.”

 

When Japan refused to accept the terms on July 29, Truman authorized the use of the atomic bomb. On Aug. 6, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, destroying over 60 percent of the developed city and killing between 70,000 and 80,000.

 

On August 1, 1945, over one hundred US B-29 Superfortresses flew over Japan at around 20,000 feet. At this height they dropped 500-pound containers, each holding leaflets that warned the Japanese civilians of the necessity of surrender. At around 4,000 feet the containers opened and released millions of leaflets that fluttered down to the people

 

You do realise that this was going on regularly?

 

We were dropping leaflets on the Germans and they were dropping leaflets on us.

 

As toilet paper was in short supply I'm sure everyone was suitably grateful.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEEQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fww2propaganda.eu%2Fstart.html&ei=J94mVYOLMMrxaML3gFA&usg=AFQjCNHm9wv4altV4zadKKHeCcCFX9xMQQ&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

The point is that dropping leaflets on the civilian population was a pretty daft idea supposedly designed to effect morale.

 

You say the US dropped leaflets on !st of August and the atomic bomb on 6th August?

 

What precisely were the civilian Japanese population supposed to do in that time?

 

As this crap was going on on a regular basis they wouldn't take much notice, and even if they did what do you think the response of the authorities would have been to someone turning up with a leaflet saying " Hey, this is a bit scary, let's call the whole thing off" ?

[psynuk]

The Japanese were offered the opportunity to surrender before the bomb was dropped, and the US air force dropped leaflets over japan warning them of the impending doom if they didn't surrender.

 

Oh that makes it all alright then,

 

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/04/26/a-day-too-late/

 

The japanese people killed weren't exactly free to do as they pleased.