Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US drone strikes 'raise questions' - UN's Navi Pillay

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



you say( I don't believe your introduction)


It's alright. There are more than enough traces of me on the internet to compile an ID enabling anyone interested to show up at my doorstep if they so desire. Would be complicated, currently, due to being deployed - but stateside, they could.


I posted references
mil docs at that


With all due respect - you don't know what you're looking at.

Further - this isn't a scientific or legal issue. It's a critical analysis issue. You're not going to be able to post much in the way of facts regarding "use of nazi drones to enslave population" outside of fear-mongering blogs - which have as much credibility as I do (and there exist blogs with people explaining why it's a retarded suggestion that can be linked to).

You need to be able to think logically about a problem rather than be able to sling a bunch of drivel in an attempt to put together a display of intelligence.


just for starters smartboy:


That's the use of non-lethal weapons against violent crowds or hostile individuals on foot.

You, also, completely missed my point.

The drones are supplied, maintained, and operated by people living in or with families in the United States. The operational readiness of those drones is going to be affected by the opinions of those individuals. Even if you had a single person in control of the world's combat drones.... what power do they have if no one shows up to re-arm, re-fuel, repair, etc said drone army?


but you already know all this you are an xpert


You're confused; blinded by your own genius on the matter.

How do you use an army, enabled by the population of a country, to subject it? If the population is no longer willing to enable the army (regardless of whether it is manned or automated) - it is disabled, and therefor no longer capable of being used as a subjugating force.

Drones wouldn't last more than a single sortie without millions of individuals actively supporting their operation. Even if you could somehow conscript a bunch of civie-haters into your O-level maintenance - you are looking at about two to three days of operation before fuel reserves start getting tight and weapons start running low. If you could get regional supply chains to continue supplying people suppressing their families - then you might be looking at a week to two weeks of operations (depending upon which region and exactly what kind of strain is being placed upon it).

Of course - with that, it's not just the squadron. Each squadron operates out of a base that has hundreds to thousands of other supporting individuals. From your base security (the guys in the military with guns... most in the military are not even qualified to operate a firearm, interestingly enough) to your DFAQ staff (usually civilian contractors) various administrative staff, and -other- squadrons with manned/unmanned aircraft.

The documents you cite are talking about issues involving dangerous escapees (who should have been executed to begin with - if their escaping is that big of an issue, they shouldn't be around to escape in the first place), riots, and other issues involving the defense of public interests (while the people participating in a riot may think they are doing the popular thing because they are surrounded by a bunch of other assholes - most people do not like having their # torn up and set on fire, surprisingly).

Your paranoid delusions spin that into "OMG! They are going to push-button us into nazi prison camps!"

Get real. Imprisoned populations wreak havoc on corporate profits - the same corporations making the lethal and non-lethal munitions will have their profits plummet six feet under if your whole nazi paranoia scheme were to play out. Which is exactly why it won't happen.

The mark of an intelligent person is the ability to think and analyze a situation.




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

In the case of Anwar Al-Awaki for example, the justification for this killing is that it was an act of self defence, which does not constitute assassination. It is an extension to the same morality that justifies a police officer shooting an armed and dangerous criminal who is going to kill innocent civilians. This comparison can be difficult to comprehend and I admit that it is a difficult concept to accept as being the morally right thing to do. Weather one believes this is the correct course of action is a personal judgement as currently the American administration is legally justified in its current use of covert drone strikes to neutralise perceived terrorist threats by successfully claiming that these operations are acts of self defence against an enemy of the state. It would be absurd to claim that each and every one of these drone strikes is legally justified in this way; however one would have to go through each individual operation and judge its legality, Al-Awaki was legal.


Just to point out your comparison, in the case of police officer, if he was shooting armed and dangerous criminal on the street full of the innocent people (and killing some in the process), then, yes - we can compare it and view it that way.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

With all due respect - you don't know what you're looking at.



And with all due respect your attempt at defelction is extremely apparent.

The fact is Obama is the POTUS, and he is also the first POTUS to be
a United Nations Security Council Chair.

This is an election year.

The Drone Warrior POTUS is attempting to garner support for his
re-election hopes attempting to boost his ratings with these drone stikes.

The complicit media is desperately trying to portray Obama as this
steely commander-in-chief: ruthlessly defending America as he
decides in secret who lives and dies according to his personally approved
'kill list'.

The Drones used in these strikes are CIA drones, they are not ordinary
military drones.


Meanwhile, the same White House that insists in court that it cannot confirm the existence
of the CIA's drone program spent this week anonymously boasting to US news outlets of the
president's latest drone kill in Pakistan. And government emails ordered disclosed by a federal
court last month revealed that at the same time as they were refusing to disclose information
about the Bin Laden raid on the grounds that it is classified, the Obama administration was
secretly meeting with, and shuffling sensitive information to, Hollywood filmmakers, who are
producing what is certain to be a stirring and reverent film about that raid, originally scheduled
to be released just weeks before the November presidential election.www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 8-6-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

You think I'm not outraged at suicide bombings and executions without trial?

Why on earth would you think that? Because it simply doesn't suit your argument that I am? Because I don't type it in every other sentence? Because I'm capable of seperating out logic from bias maybe?

Did it not occur to you - obviously not, actually - that the reason I'm raising this is because I AM outraged at such things?

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.


I completely agree with you.

What is more important, those drone attacks might help take some key top people in terror network, but unfortunately for us, it also creates ground for masses of new terrorist, who's relatives/friends were killed lawlessly (which drone attacks really are).

I believe that we will witness changes and stronger regulations that will limit drone use, but it will take couple more mass killings of innocent people to get there... unfortunately. Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 



I feel sure then that you've heard of DARPA.


An idle gesture of an organization, really.


You must also know that they aren't all about fluffy cuddly toys. They and others even nastier than they are have all sorts of toys that you guys don't get to play with.


Then they are really not much in the way of a relevant factor.

DARPA is mostly a think-tank. They may build 5% of the # they get paid to write about. Most of their work is in assessing the viability of technology past, present, and future - exploratory research: what is worth building and what may be worth looking back into ten years down the road?

Either way - their restricted access programs and technology demonstrators are not really relevant to the issue of "nazi-esque plans to enslave the population." These are specifically low volume productions intended for use by special operators or merely as a pilot of technology that may be put into production ten to fifteen years down the line for standard inventory.

A duo of "super drones" is of very limited impact when considering the goal of subjugating an entire population by military force. Even if you have the support staff and supply chains to keep them in operation - you are looking at a very small number of units to cover millions of square miles with over three-hundred-fifty million people in it.

When you consider that task - even our entire armed forces are inadequate (active, reserve, national guard combined) - and good luck gaining compliance from people to subjugate their own families and friends.

If you want to argue that some of their "toys" could be used once they enter full scale production - you have the same issue. What's to say the maintenance crews of drones will put up with using them to subjugate their families?

I'm a very versatile tech person. I can handle any maintenance task on a drone and operate its command systems (I'm rusty on my programming - but I could pick that up as well). In a sense - the drone is less corruptible than a human. The maintenance crews of a manned aircraft can keep its pilot from flying a mission they don't agree with. The crews of a drone aircraft can reprogram it to run operations against corrupt commands.


I feel absolutely certain that there are drones that don't ask any questions whatsoever. I'm just waiting for the announcement that some weapon that was meant to do A, B, and C is now doing X, Y, and Z and it doesn't want to talk to us anymore. You know what I mean?


In that case - I would not give it a weapon. I would give it only enough fuel to crash in the barren wasteland I'm operating it from (or land at the base it is assigned).

And I would decide that the older drones were more practical. Weapons that can spontaneously kill you are not a sound strategic investment.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Congress Approves 30,000 Spy Drones Over America As US Police State Tightens

theintelhub.com...
guess they gotcha covered eh?


there goes the supply line argument
edit on 8-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I feel sure then that you've heard of DARPA. You must also know that they aren't all about fluffy cuddly toys. They and others even nastier than they are have all sorts of toys that you guys don't get to play with. Those toys bear a more than passing resemblance to any sci-fi book you might remember reading in your youth. I assume you read that sort of thing, right?

I feel absolutely certain that there are drones that don't ask any questions whatsoever. I'm just waiting for the announcement that some weapon that was meant to do A, B, and C is now doing X, Y, and Z and it doesn't want to talk to us anymore. You know what I mean?

Be careful who you call "Master". Remember whose side you're on.


yeah DARPA is insignificant



Active projectsACTUV - A project to build an unmanned Anti-submarine warfare vessel.
Adaptive Vehicle Make - Revolutionary approaches to the design, verification, and manufacturing of complex defense systems and vehicles.
ArcLight (missile) - Ship based weapon system that is capable of striking targets nearly anywhere on the globe. It is based on the Standard Missile 3.
Battlefield Illusion[19]
BigDog - a legged robot protoytpe, "gallops" 18 mph and has completed more rigorous field tests.[1]
Boeing X-37
Integrated Sensor is Structure
Boomerang (mobile shooter detection system) - an acoustic Gunshot Location Detection System developed by BBN Technologies for detecting snipers on military combat vehicles.
CALO or "Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes" - software
Combat Zones That See - "track everything that moves" in a city by linking up a massive network of surveillance cameras
DARPA XG - technology for Dynamic Spectrum Access for assured military communications
EATR An autonomous tactical robotic system
FALCON
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System
High Productivity Computing Systems
Human Universal Load Carrier battery-powered human exoskeleton
MAHEM Molten penetrating munition
MEMS Exchange MEMS Implementation Environment
Mind's Eye - A visual intelligence system capable of detecting and analysing activity from video feeds.[20]
Persistent Close Air Support
Protein Design Processes
Proto 2 - a thought-controlled prosthetic arm
Remote-controlled insects[21]
DARPA Silent Talk - A planned program attempting to identify EEG patterns for words and transmit these for covert communications.[22]
Satellite Remote Listening System - a satellite mounted system that can eavesdrop on a targeted area on the surface of the planet in coordination with satellite cameras. This project is in its infant stage.
SyNAPSE - Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics
System F6 - Fractionated Spacecraft demonstrator
XOS - powered military exoskeleton
Transformer - flying armoured car[23]
UAVForge[24]
Vulture
WolfPack[25]
[edit] Past ProjectsProject AGILE
ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet
Aspen Movie Map
ASTOVL, precursor of the Joint Strike Fighter Program[26]
Boeing X-45
CPOF - the command post of the future - networked information system for Command control.
DAML
DARPA Grand Challenge - driverless car competition
DARPA Network Challenge[27]
DEFENDER
High Performance Knowledge Bases
HISSS
Hypersonic Research Program
I3 (Intelligent Integration of Information),[28] supported the Digital Library research effort through NSF
Internet
Project MAC
Luke Arm, a DEKA creation
MOSIS
MQ-1 Predator
Multics
NLS/Augment, the origin of the canonical contemporary computer user interface
Northrop Grumman Switchblade - an unmanned oblique-wing flying aircraft for high speed, long range and long endurance flight
Onion routing
Passive radar
Policy Analysis Market
POSSE
Rapid Knowledge Formation
Sea Shadow
DARPA Shredder Challenge 2011[29] - Reconstruction of shredded documents
Strategic Computing Program
Synthetic Aperture Ladar for Tactical Applications (SALTI)
SURAN (1983–87)
Project Vela (1963)


en.wikipedia.org...
not to mention what they don't say



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



And with all due respect your attempt at defelction is extremely apparent.


I was at least expecting you to be able to use the term 'deflection' correctly.

I think you should revisit your choice of verbs.


The fact is Obama is the POTUS, and he is also the first POTUS to be
a United Nations Security Council Chair.


Speaking of deflection - Obama is deflection incarnate. He's got the "grass roots" movements by the balls, having them so preoccupied with attacking him that they can't actually focus on resolving the problems this country has.


This is an election year.

The Drone Warrior POTUS is attempting to garner support for his
re-election hopes attempting to boost his ratings with these drone stikes.


Drones are nothing new - they have been used since the Reagan administration (actually, long before that - but those were not much more than milspec R/C aircraft) - though the Predator program (the one most are familiar with when they think of drone) came about during the Bush administration.

These drone strikes and operations really lay outside of the President's responsibility. He may be the Commander In Chief - but he did little more than continuing what was already set up by Joint Chiefs and other regional command authorities years ago.

He isn't actively trying to make the drone strikes more prevalent for his political gain. His campaign staff may be making a much greater effort to publicize the drone operations to try and make him appeal to the more military conservative segments of the population - but the President's direct involvement is so minimal as to not be a factor in their operations.


The Drones used in these strikes are CIA drones, they are not ordinary
military drones.


Son, they are the same drones: the RQ-170, MQ-9 "Reaper" (Predator B), and -possibly- low-volume production of the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems "Avenger" ("Predator C").

The CIA doesn't have the budget to operate its own in-house development of drones. Further - all of those drones meet any requirements the CIA has, especially considering some of their EW packages are customizable.

There's no need for them to build their own independent drone that relies on a separate support structure and supply chain. The Bush Administration went to great lengths to unify the various branches of the service to create a more joint and economically viable military.

It was more successful than no child left behind - but that leaves a lot of open territory, to be sure.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



theintelhub.com...
guess they gotcha covered eh?


You... really don't understand the bill, do you? Probably haven't even read it.

www.govtrack.us...


Requires the FAA Administrator to: (1) develop plans to accelerate the integration of unmanned aerial systems into the National Airspace System, and (2) report to Congress on progress made in establishing special use airspace for the DOD to develop detection techniques for small unmanned aerial vehicles and to validate sensor integration and operation of unmanned aerial systems. Directs the DOD Secretary to establish a process to develop certification and flight standards for military unmanned aerial systems at specified test sites.


Section 320.

UAVs are going to become far more common in the skies as they are commercially viable for weather research, traffic reporting, and small cargo delivery.

The bill essentially mandates that the FAA establish plans to be able to handle this growth and not have a crisis as manned aircraft compete for flight and holding patterns with unmanned aircraft. FAA systems will be responsible for issuing air traffic instructions to both manned and unmanned aircraft... would be a good idea to have a plan on how to do this, no?


Authorizes the FAA Administrator to: (1) arrange with the NAS to assess unmanned aircraft systems; and (2) establish three two-year cost-shared pilot projects in sparsely populated, low-density Class G air traffic airspace new test sites to conduct developmental work and service testing to improve unmanned aircraft for safe integration into the National Airspace System. Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2011. Directs the FAA Administrator to make available on the FAA's website a five-year "roadmap" for introduction of unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System. Prohibits the FAA Administrator from promulgating rules or regulations on model aircraft flown strictly for recreational, sport, competition, or academic purposes, and meeting certain other criteria.


Section 607.

Basically outlines that the FAA is responsible for conducting tests on its planned systems in low population areas.


there goes the supply line argument


You'll note that this is not a procurement bill. It does not authorize the procurement of drones - spy or otherwise. While the number 30,000 is thrown out - that is the number of UAVs the FAA is being told to be able to handle across the nation (and that number is likely to be adequate for ten years or more).

Neither does it invalidate the supply line argument.

Those drones will still require maintenance and crews to operate them. If the families of the people maintaining and operating these aircraft start getting blown up by these aircraft.... do you think they are going to put fuel and weapons in the aircraft when they return from their sorties?

Do you understand how aircraft work? Missiles don't magically spawn on them - and drones -may- carry as many as eight hellfire missiles (depending upon which aircraft).

They aren't going to be able to do much before they have to return home to their crews to rearm them. ... And if said drone just blew up their best friend's wife... do you think they're going to be very keen on the idea of putting more weapons on it?

Belay the operation of your mouth pending the functioning of your brain.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



yeah DARPA is insignificant


They really are.

defensesystems.com...


The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) $2.8 billion budget would drop only $1.4 million under the Obama administration's fiscal 2013 budget — less than a half-percentage point drop and much less than other parts of the Defense Department, Noah Shachtman reports in Wired's Danger Room.


Their budget is absolutely tiny - a fraction of NASA's 17 billion dollar budget (which is horridly under-funded).

Which is why most of their "projects" are done on a dry-erase board with industry consultants.

They may get funding from some of the special operations commands to do a prototype build - but they don't have the budget to build their own stuff. They have to partner up with other commands to even think about prototypes.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.



Agreed, if the UN would stand up and put an embargo on the United States, both economically and trade embargo. It would greatly reduce terrorism in the world. All the deformed children in Iraq, might even have been born normal.

But it's much easier to put an embargo on North Korea, than the US. Because North Korea is basically just an empowerished nation, whose only valuta is pride, and the notion of single nationality. The desire to defend their culture against foreign invaders.

It would be impossible to put such an embargo on the US, they'd just nuke the entire world ...

So much for "we don't deal with terrorists". We are forced to listen to the US every day, because of their active threat against the entire world ... "do what we say or we'll nuke you".

There isn't much you can do, against such terrorists ... is there.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 



Agreed, if the UN would stand up and put an embargo on the United States, both economically and trade embargo. It would greatly reduce terrorism in the world. All the deformed children in Iraq, might even have been born normal.


Interesting glasses you have, there. Polarized against reality, I see.

The Kurds would have to disagree with you.


But it's much easier to put an embargo on North Korea, than the US. Because North Korea is basically just an empowerished nation, whose only valuta is pride, and the notion of single nationality. The desire to defend their culture against foreign invaders.


You'd feel right at home.

While you're there, be sure to give constructive criticism to the government. They have special programs designed specifically to expedite the handling of any discrepancies one might have.


It would be impossible to put such an embargo on the US, they'd just nuke the entire world ...


That doesn't make any sense. "Give us the consumerism you are not giving us - or we'll blast you all into the next dimension!"

.... So... start trading the stuff we are not getting (and presumably need) ... or we'll just blow you (and said foreign trade) up.

..... What's the up side of the argument?

The real reason why people don't place embargoes on the U.S. is because we tend to buy more of their goods than they do of ours. It would be economic suicide for most countries to declare an embargo or sanction on the U.S.

International business has further complicated the issue of embargoes. While companies may be based out of one country or another - goods are manufactured and assembled in various parts of the world. U.S. assemblies have parts manufactured in India, the Philippines, Taiwan, Germany, etc.


So much for "we don't deal with terrorists". We are forced to listen to the US every day, because of their active threat against the entire world ... "do what we say or we'll nuke you".


You're a little confused. The U.S. has been consistently downsizing its strategic nuclear arsenal.

Further - I'm not aware of any threat of "do what we say or we'll nuke you." Even if the U.S. was a gestapo attempting to treat the rest of the world as peons; such an arrangement only works in comics. In terms of country relationships - there are only so many countries out there. It's a limited pool of minions (as compared to the nearly limitless pool comic book villains seem to have access to). If you want something from a minion - the threat and/or act of killing them is really counter-productive to the attempt at extortion.

If you want a country to help you in a war... you can't very well nuke them off the face of the planet for deciding not to. You're still going into the war without them.

Same with trade. Or with attempts at micro-managing their country.

Seriously... do you all apply any thought to your views before you form them?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned DARPA. That may be their budget but simple policy changes in funding requests will take care of their needs. You know as well as I do that "budget" means precious little in government.

My mentioning DARPA was to illustrate that although they seem like a fairly benign agency that just looks at cool stuff and figures it out for testing and eventually perhaps even production, there are many, many other very malevolent agencies with massive black budgets. The mention of DARPA was only pointing in a general direction. Don't get too caught up in it.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
the pakistani gov't has specifically outlawed drone attacks

the US just doesn't care

I'm torn on it. pakistan seems like an ally one day, an enemy the next

but still, where else on earth would the US even dare to do it without the gov't blessings ?

or maybe pakistan just publicly condemns them but privatley just accepts payouts for allowing them ?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 

Pakistan is a country of three types of people. Those who are Progressive and understand that the Father of Pakistan...JINNAH...formed Pakistan as a SECULAR NATION...not a ISLAMIC NATION. Then you have the people of the Poor Tribal Regions that abide by an ancient code that all and any Guests must be protected. Many Taliban or al-qaeda Leaders have used this ancient code.
The Third Group is a combination of the New Civilian Government and about half the Military as the other Half has been infiltrated by Islamic Extremists which seem to be concentrated on he Afghanistan boarder.

The U.S.has told the Pakistan Leadership in no uncertain terms that if Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal should fall into the wrong hands that the U.S. would immedeatly invade. As a term of agreement...the Pakistani Leadership allows CIA Drone strikes but at the same time condemns them after they occur.
So...there you have it! Split Infinity



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
You think I'm not outraged at suicide bombings and executions without trial?

To date your response suggests you have issues with US policy and thats about it. Based on your lacking for seeing both sides of the issue I stand by my observation.


Originally posted by neformore
Why on earth would you think that? Because it simply doesn't suit your argument that I am? Because I don't type it in every other sentence? Because I'm capable of seperating out logic from bias maybe?

No none of those. See above.
Secondly accusing me of making a straw man argument and off topic counter argument goes back into that. If you wer remotely interested in both sides of the issue and having an iopen discussion about it, you would not have so quickly tried to dismiss it. As far as separating logic from bias, your bias in this case is obscuring your logic.


Originally posted by neformore
Did it not occur to you - obviously not, actually - that the reason I'm raising this is because I AM outraged at such things?

I think you are outraged at the drone strikes and the US policy behind it. I dont think you are outraged about the other side of the coin though.


Originally posted by neformore
What is killing someone by missile strike from a drone if not execution without trial?

Your bias is once again clouding your logic. We are not engaged in a criminal trial with these people, but an actual war. While I applaud the amicus brief effort on your part the current setting we are in does not afford that effort. In wr there are alwasy deaths without trials, hence the reason its called war.

War


1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete: weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic: soldiers armed and equipped for war

2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end


Governed by -
Laws of Warfare
Charter of the United Nations - Article VII

If you could see through your bias you would have noted this -

Lawful conduct of belligerent actors

Modern laws of war regarding conduct during war (jus in bello), such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, provide that it is unlawful for belligerents to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform is unlawful perfidy, as is the taking of hostages.


resulting in -

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.

So dont lecture me bout the law or how it applies. Its very evident you do not understand it,the person at the UN pushing this dribble is making a political point and nothing more, and again your bias is blocking your logic.



Originally posted by neformore
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?

Again your bias is confusing your logic. We are a war, not at a criminal trial. Using your "logic" anytime armies engage each other they are violating "your" view and not actual laws of warfare. Artillery, tanks, air attacks - all used and all lawful under the laws of war. All occur without prior notice to the enemy who, by the way, is trying to kill us in kind.

The difference between a suicide attack and drone strikes is the difference between a biased viewpoint using illogical assertions and a filaure to understand the situation where as the other sides actions are consistent with the rules fo war.

Which is to say your bias and failed logic is blocking out the fact we are at war and not in some court setting.


Originally posted by neformore
When you ignore due process, and turn murderous vigilante, you become as bad as those you condemn.

And when you dont understand the situation or accept the fact we are at war while trying to somehow convince yourself this is occuring in a court room setting makes you as dead as the terrorists killed in drone strikes.

As with war, the other side has the ability to negotiate and end hostilities. We have tried on several occasions, where as the other side killed the peace negotiator.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Here is something to think on and do it with sanity instead of sold out generalizations and propaganda.

It is illegal to murder anyone.

Explain that to 9th century Islam howver before you do it make sure you have a aplce to hide. They dont take kindly to people telling them their ways are backwards and archaic. By the way their religion allows for the murder of people.


Originally posted by Unity_99
Those drones are used in countries where no war has been declared.

Incorrect - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - 09/14/2001

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


What part of that confuses you?


Originally posted by Unity_99
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.

I agree the terrorists are targeting civilians, and first responders.. All the more reason to stop them using drone strikes. As far as murder without oversight again dont lecture me on that until you first understand that we are A. at war, and B. use the rules of war and not an amicus brief based on a highminded notion that takes none of that into account.


Originally posted by Unity_99
AND YOU CONDONE THIS AND CALL THIS SELF DEFENSE>>>>

I can condone the actions against the terrorists....
I do condone the actions against the terrorists...
I fully support any and all measures to take them out until such time as we win the war or they surender.

All completely within their control.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperFrog
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So in other words, terror gives us right to answer it with terror?

Interesting...


Uhm no...

Terror give us the right to answer it with self defense...

We do not have to wait for a person who is pointing a gun at us to pull the trigger before ending their existence.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
You literally have no shame.

What should I be shameful about?


Originally posted by SyphonX
You know why the UN doesn't do anything? Because the US and other military superpowers are already doing something. You know what they're doing? They're bombing civilian populations with drones and other munitions. Oh, I'm sorry, it's only an "unfortunate accident" when that happens.. because we all know incompetence is a valid means of defense.

Incompetance being a valid means of defense would apply to you and several others since by your posts its very evident you have absolutely no idea that we are fighting a war and not a legal challenge in a court. When you grasp that concept and understand it get back to me.



Originally posted by SyphonX
I suppose your argument is that the UN should "piss on the burning man", so to speak?
edit on 8-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

I think the UN should be booted out of the US and defunded completely. Its a failed organization that likes to think its a world government when in fact its nothing more than a water cooler for some nations to bitch about anything and everything.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the pakistani gov't has specifically outlawed drone attacks

the US just doesn't care

I'm torn on it. pakistan seems like an ally one day, an enemy the next

but still, where else on earth would the US even dare to do it without the gov't blessings ?

or maybe pakistan just publicly condemns them but privatley just accepts payouts for allowing them ?


Then Pakistan should get their butts in gear and control the armed groups operating inside pakistani area along the Afghan border. If Pakistan is not going to prevent their attacks across the border then, again under artivle VII, we have a right to defend ourselves.

As for their response to drone strikes all politics are local. They complain in public and support it in private. Drone strikes attack the groups that pose a threat to the pakistani government. God forbid the Pakistani government denounce the terrorists in their netherreaches as unbelievers hijacking a religion in order to justify jihad.






top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join