It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Xcathdra
Strawman and off-topic deflection.
Again, we're talking about the actions of the US here.
Why are you so intent on trying to deflect this topic into something its not?
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its not a straw man argument nor is it off topic. What I am doing is presenting a point of view from the opposite side of the fence, which you seem eager to ignore. Where is your, or the UN for that matter, outrage at the suicide bombings? Executions without due process or trial?
What is killing someone by missile strike from a drone if not execution without trial?
And when its done without warning, or chance to lay down arms and surrender - whats the difference between it and a suicide bomb attack that kills indiscriminately without warning?
When you ignore due process, and turn murderous vigilante, you become as bad as those you condemn.
The drones are being used on a weekly basis still to destroy "targets of opportunity" in Pakistan, despite the Pakistani's asking for it to stop.
Why are you referring to this in the past tense? Its very much happening now.
The terrorist US government will have YOU fighting for YOUR life
and you will loose....
perhaps you missed this:
the relevent docs are in there
kinda makes it look like you have no clue about what you are driviling about
Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone
The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union.
“It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC.
Crump feels one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from.
External bioenergy (EBE, energy emitted from a human body) has been shown to increase intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca2+]i, an important factor in signal transduction) and regulate the cellular response to heat stress in cultured human lymphoid Jurkat T cells. In this study, we wanted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. A bioenergy specialist emitted bioenergy sequentially toward tubes of cultured Jurkat T cells for one 15-minute period in buffers containing different ion compositions or different concentrations of inhibitors. [Ca2+]i was measured spectrofluorometrically using the fluorescent probe fura-2. The resting [Ca2+]i in Jurkat T cells was 70 ± 3 nM (n = 130) in the normal buffer. Removal of external calcium decreased the resting [Ca2+]i to 52 ± 2 nM (n = 23), indicating that [Ca2+] entry from the external source is important for maintaining the basal level of [Ca2+]i. Treatment of Jurkat T cells with EBE for 15 min increased [Ca2+]i by 30 ± 5% (P le 0.05, Student t-test). The distance between the bioenergy specialist and Jurkat T cells and repetitive treatments of EBE did not attenuate [Ca2+]i responsiveness to EBE. Removal of external Ca2+ or Na+, but not Mg2+, inhibited the EBE-induced increase in [Ca2+]i. Dichlorobenzamil, an inhibitor of Na+/Ca2+ exchangers, also inhibited the EBE-induced increase in [Ca2+]i in a concentration-dependent manner with an IC50 of 0.11 ± 0.02 nM. When external [K+] was increased from 4.5 mM to 25 mM, EBE decreased [Ca2+]i. The EBE-induced increase was also blocked by verapamil, an L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channel blocker. These results suggest that the EBE-induced [Ca2+]i increase may serve as an objective means for assessing and validating bioenergy effects and those specialists claiming bioenergy capability. The increase in [Ca2+]i is mediated by activation of Na+/Ca2+ exchangers and opening of L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channels. (Mol Cell Biochem 271: 51–59, 2005)
Key words lymphoid cells - intracellular calcium - intracellular signal - calcium channel - Na+/Ca2+ exchanger - bioenergy
terrorist [ˈtɛrərɪst] a
. a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
b. (as modifier) terrorist tactics terroristic adj
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by jannerfish
US and partners operate under the legitimacy of a mass comfort zone. If it makes enough people feel cosy then legitimacy is secured, whatever the discomfort to those outside the zone.
And when people outside the zone are executed for dancing and singing at weddings because of an archaic religious belief / viewpoint? When you can launch attacks from within civilian populations because those civilians know if they object / challenge / complain they are going to be killed anyways by the Taliban / terrorists its not comfort, its terror.
We cannot not respond, and they know this, which is how the civilian body count gets run up.
Yet drone strikes by the US only seems to be the one on the UN's radar.
It is illegal to murder anyone
And they target civilians, first aid responders to those civilian casualties and then to really ensure that everyone knows they are deliberately targetting said civilians and declaring their right to murder without oversight, they show up at the funerals and murder civilians yet again.
AND YOU CONDONE THIS AND CALL THIS SELF DEFENSE
Distinction and proportionality are important factors in assessing military necessity in that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective.
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by neformore
The difference would be the UN is incapable of doing anything about the suicide bombers. In case people have not noticed the UN goes after the parties that have law and order while ignoring / remaining inactive against those who do not. Its like going after the US because of our no food stance towards North Korea. Its easier to go after us rather than the North Korean Regime.
If the UN did more to prevent terrorism and engage those countries that harbor and fund it we wouldnt need to invoke article VII to defend ourselves against it.
While I recognize their lofty goals of human rights are admirable, its nothing more than a joke. They are concerned about our drone strikes yet remain silent on those killed by the Taliban for singing and dancing at a wedding? For protesting in Syria and Dubai..... They will go atfer Israel and her policies yet remain silent on the policies of Hamas, Hezzbullah, Lebanon, Iran Syria etc etc...
The UN either needs to act in a consistent manner or it needs to find another country to leach of off. I am a bit tired of the US bearing the brunt of financial and military burdens while at the same time being the brunt of their indigination and criticism.