This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I thought this was quite an interesting report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36253518
and the statement, 'The US says it is in a global armed conflict with IS, so the Law of War applies and lethal force can be used anywhere in the world' combined with a possible Trump presidency, quite chilling.
It strikes me that we really have entered into a sphere where George Orwell's imagined 'thoughtcrime' has become reality: 'he might have done X so we killed him/them'.
And the quote from the drone operator, 'During your first couple of times you do think about killing someone. But after that you just want to get it right, so you don't think about that' was also interesting. I can sort of see that, in a conflict like Afghanistan (was it a 'war' or a 'police action' - I've genuinely forgotten?), the use of drones is the deployment of just another weapon.
But to 'take out' perceived enemies of OUR state in countries with whom we are not at war?
Post edited at 13:22
In reply to Andy Say:
Haven't extra judicial killings always been committed by states and this is just a different (more efficient) weapon to achieve it? The US is known to have done all sorts with its CIA snipers etc. Russians with their radio active umbrellas etc.
Haven't extra judicial killings always been committed by states and this is just a different (more efficient) weapon to achieve it? The US is known to have done all sorts with its CIA snipers etc. Russians with their radio active umbrellas etc.
2
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Wasn't it the Bulgarians with their ricin-tipped umbrellas, the Russians with their radioactive Breakfast Blend?
Wasn't it the Bulgarians with their ricin-tipped umbrellas, the Russians with their radioactive Breakfast Blend?
2
In reply to Andy Say:
It seems like the beginning of sensible discussion. The idea of binary war, or peace, doesn't reflect the modern world, with terrorism, hybrid war and so on. Personally I quite comfortable with ISIS being targeted, they are clearly mass-murderers in their region and do threaten us.
It seems like the beginning of sensible discussion. The idea of binary war, or peace, doesn't reflect the modern world, with terrorism, hybrid war and so on. Personally I quite comfortable with ISIS being targeted, they are clearly mass-murderers in their region and do threaten us.
6
In reply to MG:
But doesn't that mean that 'we' shouldn't get humpy when they strike back at us? They haven't got drones; just bombers.
> It seems like the beginning of sensible discussion. The idea of binary war, or peace, doesn't reflect the modern world, with terrorism, hybrid war and so on. Personally I quite comfortable with ISIS being targeted, they are clearly mass-murderers in their region and do threaten us.
But doesn't that mean that 'we' shouldn't get humpy when they strike back at us? They haven't got drones; just bombers.
7
3
In reply to balmybaldwin:
But I do think its appropriate to discuss whether that is 'right'. I'd say extra-judicial killing is 'wrong' but its maybe just the way I was brought up.
And a poison tipped umbrella is, by its nature, quite targeted and with a limited possibility of 'collateral damage': that euphemism we use to refer to the killing of people we didn't actually mean to kill.
> Haven't extra judicial killings always been committed by states and this is just a different (more efficient) weapon to achieve it? The US is known to have done all sorts with its CIA snipers etc. Russians with their radio active umbrellas etc.
But I do think its appropriate to discuss whether that is 'right'. I'd say extra-judicial killing is 'wrong' but its maybe just the way I was brought up.
And a poison tipped umbrella is, by its nature, quite targeted and with a limited possibility of 'collateral damage': that euphemism we use to refer to the killing of people we didn't actually mean to kill.
2
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Not really. Intentions matter. When drones are used in targeted strikes against enemies, lengths are gone to to as far as possible minimise the risk of 'collateral damage'. If and when ISIS strikes back against us they go to great lengths to create as much collateral damage as possible. Indeed, for them widespread, indiscriminate non-targeted killing is the aim. The two aren't morally equivalent, however repugnant you may find the use of drones.
> But doesn't that mean that 'we' shouldn't get humpy when they strike back at us? They haven't got drones; just bombers.
Not really. Intentions matter. When drones are used in targeted strikes against enemies, lengths are gone to to as far as possible minimise the risk of 'collateral damage'. If and when ISIS strikes back against us they go to great lengths to create as much collateral damage as possible. Indeed, for them widespread, indiscriminate non-targeted killing is the aim. The two aren't morally equivalent, however repugnant you may find the use of drones.
9
In reply to Andy Say:
No.
There is a difference between killing a guy orchestrating attacks and planting a pressure cooker behind the legs of a 6 year boy watching a race..
It is interesting, you can imagine the operators get very desensitized. It should be done carefully, and with any war there is always innocents killed, but I don't at all think it is comparable to what ISIS or others do.
> But doesn't that mean that 'we' shouldn't get humpy when they strike back at us? They haven't got drones; just bombers.
No.
There is a difference between killing a guy orchestrating attacks and planting a pressure cooker behind the legs of a 6 year boy watching a race..
It is interesting, you can imagine the operators get very desensitized. It should be done carefully, and with any war there is always innocents killed, but I don't at all think it is comparable to what ISIS or others do.
3
3
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Nah, we've all seen the film, drone pilots are a bunch of Kantians.
> It is interesting, you can imagine the operators get very desensitized. It should be done carefully, and with any war there is always innocents killed, but I don't at all think it is comparable to what ISIS or others do.
Nah, we've all seen the film, drone pilots are a bunch of Kantians.
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Hmmm. The 'Moral equivalence' of death by drone vs death by 'terrorist bomb' is an interesting discussion to be had.
We certainly do have 'form', of course in what was described as 'shock and awe' in Iraq (that was 'terrorism' with another name wasn't it?). Going back to the bombing of the German cities in 1945 is probably going too far into history?
You say 'intentions matter'. What we intend is to kill people. What they intend is to kill people. We 'choose' our victims; they don't. Is that the essential difference?
And if we were to tot up the number of dead inflicted by each 'side' on the other would we still be talking about equivalence?
> Not really. Intentions matter. When drones are used in targeted strikes against enemies, lengths are gone to to as far as possible minimise the risk of 'collateral damage'. If and when ISIS strikes back against us they go to great lengths to create as much collateral damage as possible. Indeed, for them widespread, indiscriminate non-targeted killing is the aim. The two aren't morally equivalent, however repugnant you may find the use of drones.
Hmmm. The 'Moral equivalence' of death by drone vs death by 'terrorist bomb' is an interesting discussion to be had.
We certainly do have 'form', of course in what was described as 'shock and awe' in Iraq (that was 'terrorism' with another name wasn't it?). Going back to the bombing of the German cities in 1945 is probably going too far into history?
You say 'intentions matter'. What we intend is to kill people. What they intend is to kill people. We 'choose' our victims; they don't. Is that the essential difference?
And if we were to tot up the number of dead inflicted by each 'side' on the other would we still be talking about equivalence?
4
1
In reply to Andy Say:
As an additional thought maybe the concept of trial 'in absentia' could be used as a means of legitimising sanctions against individuals?
The difficulty, of course, is that as a civilised nation we have decided to administer justice, internally, without the death penalty. Could a UK judge sentence someone in Syria to death?
As an additional thought maybe the concept of trial 'in absentia' could be used as a means of legitimising sanctions against individuals?
The difficulty, of course, is that as a civilised nation we have decided to administer justice, internally, without the death penalty. Could a UK judge sentence someone in Syria to death?
1
1
In reply to Andy Say:
Eye in the sky, where many unlikely things happen but the central theme is how the rights of an individual, who might be killed by a drone launched missile, take precedence over those of the community.
> Mike, I haven't! Could you explain, please?
Eye in the sky, where many unlikely things happen but the central theme is how the rights of an individual, who might be killed by a drone launched missile, take precedence over those of the community.
1
In reply to Andy Say:
There's no time for that. It's a nice idea and yes has issues as we are effectively giving death sentences, but we are at war, just with modern tools. Is it any different to the SAS executing members of the IRA?
> As an additional thought maybe the concept of trial 'in absentia' could be used as a means of legitimising sanctions against individuals?
> The difficulty, of course, is that as a civilised nation we have decided to administer justice, internally, without the death penalty. Could a UK judge sentence someone in Syria to death?
There's no time for that. It's a nice idea and yes has issues as we are effectively giving death sentences, but we are at war, just with modern tools. Is it any different to the SAS executing members of the IRA?
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Questions of moral equivalence and of intentions are certainly interesting in the sphere of warfare. To get back to first principals, intentions matter because they're the best indicator we have of what a person is likely to do next. For example, I back over you in my car as you walk past. While the outcome is the same (you in hospital) we all recognise that there is a moral difference between me seeing you coming, waiting until you were right behind me and reversing, and me just not noticing you were there as you came by too quickly between my mirror checks (or whatever). The reason it's important and that we recognise that distinction is because my intention tells us whether I'm likely to be a danger in the future. The person who purposefully reverses over someone presents a future danger to society that the remorseful accidental reverser doesn't. Indeed they're likely to be a lot more careful in future. Even though the outcome is the same, there is a moral difference between the two.
Another thought experiment is to consider what the world would look like if ISIS had our resources, and we had theirs. If ISIS had nuclear weapons and a modern military the equivalent of the USA, how safe do you think the world would be? How much restraint would they show in their drone strikes and other military actions? Intentions matter.
>You say 'intentions matter'. What we intend is to kill people. What they intend is to kill people. We 'choose' our victims; they don't. Is that the essential difference?
Yes, we both intend to kill people. Can I assume you're not a pacifist? If you are a true pacifist there's not much more to discuss, as it means you're happy to stand by while the worst monsters of the world have free reign to kill and subordinate the rest of us. If however you just find war and killing unpleasant, good. I think it is too, but I accept its necessity. If the targeted killing of an ISIS fighter (sadistic religious zealot member of an apocalyptic death cult), with all the baggage that involves, and the indiscriminate killing of a twenty-something at a concert in Paris are the same to you, then I'm not sure I can be bothered to elaborate further.
Questions of moral equivalence and of intentions are certainly interesting in the sphere of warfare. To get back to first principals, intentions matter because they're the best indicator we have of what a person is likely to do next. For example, I back over you in my car as you walk past. While the outcome is the same (you in hospital) we all recognise that there is a moral difference between me seeing you coming, waiting until you were right behind me and reversing, and me just not noticing you were there as you came by too quickly between my mirror checks (or whatever). The reason it's important and that we recognise that distinction is because my intention tells us whether I'm likely to be a danger in the future. The person who purposefully reverses over someone presents a future danger to society that the remorseful accidental reverser doesn't. Indeed they're likely to be a lot more careful in future. Even though the outcome is the same, there is a moral difference between the two.
Another thought experiment is to consider what the world would look like if ISIS had our resources, and we had theirs. If ISIS had nuclear weapons and a modern military the equivalent of the USA, how safe do you think the world would be? How much restraint would they show in their drone strikes and other military actions? Intentions matter.
>You say 'intentions matter'. What we intend is to kill people. What they intend is to kill people. We 'choose' our victims; they don't. Is that the essential difference?
Yes, we both intend to kill people. Can I assume you're not a pacifist? If you are a true pacifist there's not much more to discuss, as it means you're happy to stand by while the worst monsters of the world have free reign to kill and subordinate the rest of us. If however you just find war and killing unpleasant, good. I think it is too, but I accept its necessity. If the targeted killing of an ISIS fighter (sadistic religious zealot member of an apocalyptic death cult), with all the baggage that involves, and the indiscriminate killing of a twenty-something at a concert in Paris are the same to you, then I'm not sure I can be bothered to elaborate further.
5
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Are we? At 'war'? Just who are we at war with?
We do live in slippery times don't we!
Not a great deal, to be honest, but that (if you are referring to 'Death on the Rock' and not other extra-judicial killings committed in Northern Ireland), obviously was a crime that needed investigation.
> we are at war, just with modern tools.
Are we? At 'war'? Just who are we at war with?
We do live in slippery times don't we!
> Is it any different to the SAS executing members of the IRA?
Not a great deal, to be honest, but that (if you are referring to 'Death on the Rock' and not other extra-judicial killings committed in Northern Ireland), obviously was a crime that needed investigation.
1
1
In reply to Andy Say:
Oh, and if you're still only measuring the moral actions of groups by body count then I think you've fallen for a Chomskyite error of moral judgement. The only reason the whole world isn't in flames is because ISIS doesn't have the technology that we have. We could destroy the world and everything and everyone in it, but don't. They can't, but would love to if they could. That's a pertinent difference, so yes, let's keep discussing moral equivalence.
> And if we were to tot up the number of dead inflicted by each 'side' on the other would we still be talking about equivalence?
Oh, and if you're still only measuring the moral actions of groups by body count then I think you've fallen for a Chomskyite error of moral judgement. The only reason the whole world isn't in flames is because ISIS doesn't have the technology that we have. We could destroy the world and everything and everyone in it, but don't. They can't, but would love to if they could. That's a pertinent difference, so yes, let's keep discussing moral equivalence.
3
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
How many times can you do that though and use you defence of "intent"?
Just how many innocent people are worth one bad man?
> Questions of moral equivalence and of intentions are certainly interesting in the sphere of warfare. To get back to first principals, intentions matter because they're the best indicator we have of what a person is likely to do next. For example, I back over you in my car as you walk past. While the outcome is the same (you in hospital) we all recognise that there is a moral difference between me seeing you coming,
How many times can you do that though and use you defence of "intent"?
Just how many innocent people are worth one bad man?
2
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
I can completely agree with that argument. However killing someone (and lets be honest killing just an individual is going to be fluky) by drone strike cannot really be equated with someone reversing without looking. Can it?
I think we'd probably be at 'proper war'. And living in an unsafe world. Because 'we' would not allow that.
Not really sure what that means to be honest. I could see myself fighting for principles I believe in. I don't believe that we are empowered to kill people because we want to.
Are you sure they all are? All those kids and women who we are told have gone to join them?
And, I'll be honest, I struggle to not equate the killing of a wedding party by drone strike (there really have been too many 'accidents') with a bomb in Paris. I'm bloody sure the bombers don't.
> The reason it's important and that we recognise that distinction is because my intention tells us whether I'm likely to be a danger in the future. The person who purposefully reverses over someone presents a future danger to society that the remorseful accidental reverser doesn't. Indeed they're likely to be a lot more careful in future. Even though the outcome is the same, there is a moral difference between the two.
I can completely agree with that argument. However killing someone (and lets be honest killing just an individual is going to be fluky) by drone strike cannot really be equated with someone reversing without looking. Can it?
> If ISIS had nuclear weapons and a modern military the equivalent of the USA, how safe do you think the world would be? How much restraint would they show in their drone strikes and other military actions? Intentions matter.
I think we'd probably be at 'proper war'. And living in an unsafe world. Because 'we' would not allow that.
> >You say 'intentions matter'. What we intend is to kill people. What they intend is to kill people. We 'choose' our victims; they don't. Is that the essential difference?
> Can I assume you're not a pacifist?
Not really sure what that means to be honest. I could see myself fighting for principles I believe in. I don't believe that we are empowered to kill people because we want to.
> If the targeted killing of an ISIS fighter (sadistic religious zealot member of an apocalyptic death cult)
Are you sure they all are? All those kids and women who we are told have gone to join them?
And, I'll be honest, I struggle to not equate the killing of a wedding party by drone strike (there really have been too many 'accidents') with a bomb in Paris. I'm bloody sure the bombers don't.
3
1
In reply to Andy Say:
If you believe they are in the right and their philosophy doesn't lead to untold misery, then yes. Otherwise, no. I know where I stand.
> But doesn't that mean that 'we' shouldn't get humpy when they strike back at us? They haven't got drones; just bombers.
If you believe they are in the right and their philosophy doesn't lead to untold misery, then yes. Otherwise, no. I know where I stand.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
You think? Where is ISIS? What country/ies are we bombing?
Who is ISIS? What racial/ethnic group? Where do they come from? How do we identify them?
It's messy isn't it?
> I think we are at war with ISIS.. We're actively bombing them at the moment.
You think? Where is ISIS? What country/ies are we bombing?
Who is ISIS? What racial/ethnic group? Where do they come from? How do we identify them?
It's messy isn't it?
1
3
In reply to Andy Say:
In the case of ISIS, not really. They are in large parts of what was Syria and Iraq. They are an extreme Islamic Sunni group. We identify them by subtle things such as ISIS buildings, courts, militia, flags, YouTube channels and so on.
> You think? Where is ISIS? What country/ies are we bombing?
> Who is ISIS? What racial/ethnic group? Where do they come from? How do we identify them?
> It's messy isn't it?
In the case of ISIS, not really. They are in large parts of what was Syria and Iraq. They are an extreme Islamic Sunni group. We identify them by subtle things such as ISIS buildings, courts, militia, flags, YouTube channels and so on.
Post edited at 15:39
4
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Apparently the yanks have a fairly high burn out rate. Going from launching missiles to driving back through Las Vegas buggers up peoples heads.
> It is interesting, you can imagine the operators get very desensitized.
Apparently the yanks have a fairly high burn out rate. Going from launching missiles to driving back through Las Vegas buggers up peoples heads.
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
>The only reason the whole world isn't in flames is because ISIS doesn't have the technology that we have. We could , destroy the world and everything and everyone in it but don't. They can't, but would love to if they could. That's a pertinent difference, so yes, let's keep discussing moral equivalence.
I'd agree that there would be flames if ISIS had equivalent military power to the USA. 'This town ain't big enough for both of us pardner...'. But are you really sure that what 'they' want is to 'destroy the world and everything and everyone in it'? I thought that what they wanted was to establish a universal caliphate underpinned by religious observance and obedience?
> measuring the moral actions of groups by body count then I think you've fallen for a Chomskyite error of moral judgement.
I think I was considering culpability rather than making a judgement. But surely you can see that if we take out 1,000 of them (with collateral damage) for every 50 of 'us' they kill then we really are on a treadmill?>The only reason the whole world isn't in flames is because ISIS doesn't have the technology that we have. We could , destroy the world and everything and everyone in it but don't. They can't, but would love to if they could. That's a pertinent difference, so yes, let's keep discussing moral equivalence.
I'd agree that there would be flames if ISIS had equivalent military power to the USA. 'This town ain't big enough for both of us pardner...'. But are you really sure that what 'they' want is to 'destroy the world and everything and everyone in it'? I thought that what they wanted was to establish a universal caliphate underpinned by religious observance and obedience?
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Cheers. 'Does conscience still figure in modern warfare?' (Rolling Stone review).
> Eye in the sky, where many unlikely things happen but the central theme is how the rights of an individual, who might be killed by a drone launched missile, take precedence over those of the community.
Cheers. 'Does conscience still figure in modern warfare?' (Rolling Stone review).
1
1
In reply to Andy Say:
As roadrunner5 says we are at war with ISIS.
I have no problem whatsoever with using drones to eliminate members of an organisation that murders people on tube trains, buses, airports, night clubs. An organisation that burns captured enemy pilots in a cage. An organisation that beheads off duty soldiers, hostages and hundreds of captured people who oppose them. An organisation that hurls homosexuals off high buildings. An organisation that films and publishes it's murderous acts to the world.
None of these murders are so called collateral damage or misidentified targets, they are cold bloodedly planned and executed.
ISIS shows no mercy or remorse whatsoever, for it's revolting uncivilised behaviour.
I can't understand why you are resurrecting a subject which has been discussed ad infinitum on these threads before by you?
As roadrunner5 says we are at war with ISIS.
I have no problem whatsoever with using drones to eliminate members of an organisation that murders people on tube trains, buses, airports, night clubs. An organisation that burns captured enemy pilots in a cage. An organisation that beheads off duty soldiers, hostages and hundreds of captured people who oppose them. An organisation that hurls homosexuals off high buildings. An organisation that films and publishes it's murderous acts to the world.
None of these murders are so called collateral damage or misidentified targets, they are cold bloodedly planned and executed.
ISIS shows no mercy or remorse whatsoever, for it's revolting uncivilised behaviour.
I can't understand why you are resurrecting a subject which has been discussed ad infinitum on these threads before by you?
6
In reply to krikoman:
Good question. It sort of gets to the heart of the matter here I suppose. If you know that however good your intentions are, you're going to regularly take out innocent people, for how long can you justify using it? I don't know.
As a side note, again I'd say intentions matter here, in that the current situation is the result of technical limitations. If we had the 'perfect weapon' that could target an individual and him alone, causing no other damage to any person, I believe that we (I find myself naturally eliding us and the USA, without rational justification here) would certainly use it. And again, I don't think the same can be said of our opponents. In a way all war is a question of technical limitations. What's the alternative to drone strikes on our enemies? Boots on the ground? How many lives are we willing to lose and cost with that method? Would it be more efficient, more effective? I reckon, unlikely.
I'm not particularly an advocate of drone strikes, though I do support the use of asymmetric force against an group I consider the 'bad guys'. In other words I think 'thank goodness we're the ones with the superior technology and force, and the institutional structures in place which hopefully, ideally, lead to them being used ethically, as far as is possible in what in reality is always going to be a flying cluster f*ck. i.e. combat.'
Perhaps the answer to that is easy and obvious, or perhaps it's for cleverer people than me to discuss.
> How many times can you do that though and use you defence of "intent"?
Good question. It sort of gets to the heart of the matter here I suppose. If you know that however good your intentions are, you're going to regularly take out innocent people, for how long can you justify using it? I don't know.
As a side note, again I'd say intentions matter here, in that the current situation is the result of technical limitations. If we had the 'perfect weapon' that could target an individual and him alone, causing no other damage to any person, I believe that we (I find myself naturally eliding us and the USA, without rational justification here) would certainly use it. And again, I don't think the same can be said of our opponents. In a way all war is a question of technical limitations. What's the alternative to drone strikes on our enemies? Boots on the ground? How many lives are we willing to lose and cost with that method? Would it be more efficient, more effective? I reckon, unlikely.
I'm not particularly an advocate of drone strikes, though I do support the use of asymmetric force against an group I consider the 'bad guys'. In other words I think 'thank goodness we're the ones with the superior technology and force, and the institutional structures in place which hopefully, ideally, lead to them being used ethically, as far as is possible in what in reality is always going to be a flying cluster f*ck. i.e. combat.'
> Just how many innocent people are worth one bad man?
Perhaps the answer to that is easy and obvious, or perhaps it's for cleverer people than me to discuss.
In reply to Andy Say:
I wasn't drawing an equivalence between those things. I was just using an analogy to demonstrate the importance of intentions.
No, we'd all be dead or slaves in a caliphate. And I think that's something worth avoiding, and fighting with every means at our disposal.
Fighting for principals you believe in? As long as you accept that in reality that probably means killing people for principals you believe in, we're cool.
Is said ISIS fighters. The rest may be religious zealot members of an apocalyptic death cult, but not sadistic, or tragically they are just children dragged into hell.
I assume that by putting 'accidents' in inverted commas you mean that we have targeted wedding parties? If that's the case we should have the structures in place to bring to justice those who organised a drone strike on a wedding party. Unlike ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc for whom suicide strikes on wedding parties is par for the course.
> I can completely agree with that argument. However killing someone (and lets be honest killing just an individual is going to be fluky) by drone strike cannot really be equated with someone reversing without looking. Can it?
I wasn't drawing an equivalence between those things. I was just using an analogy to demonstrate the importance of intentions.
> I think we'd probably be at 'proper war'. And living in an unsafe world. Because 'we' would not allow that.
No, we'd all be dead or slaves in a caliphate. And I think that's something worth avoiding, and fighting with every means at our disposal.
> Not really sure what that means to be honest. I could see myself fighting for principles I believe in. I don't believe that we are empowered to kill people because we want to.
Fighting for principals you believe in? As long as you accept that in reality that probably means killing people for principals you believe in, we're cool.
> Are you sure they all are? All those kids and women who we are told have gone to join them?
Is said ISIS fighters. The rest may be religious zealot members of an apocalyptic death cult, but not sadistic, or tragically they are just children dragged into hell.
> And, I'll be honest, I struggle to not equate the killing of a wedding party by drone strike (there really have been too many 'accidents') with a bomb in Paris. I'm bloody sure the bombers don't.
I assume that by putting 'accidents' in inverted commas you mean that we have targeted wedding parties? If that's the case we should have the structures in place to bring to justice those who organised a drone strike on a wedding party. Unlike ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc for whom suicide strikes on wedding parties is par for the course.
In reply to Trangia:
Because a parliamentary committee has raised the concern that what is happening might not be justified in law. OK?
> I have no problem whatsoever with using drones to eliminate members of an organisation that murders people on tube trains, buses, airports, night clubs. An organisation that burns captured enemy pilots in a cage. An organisation that beheads off duty soldiers, hostages and hundreds of captured people who oppose them. An organisation that hurls homosexuals off high buildings. An organisation that films and publishes it's murderous acts to the world.
> None of these murders are so called collateral damage or misidentified targets, they are cold bloodedly planned and executed.
> ISIS shows no mercy or remorse whatsoever, for it's revolting uncivilised behaviour.
> I can't understand why you are resurrecting a subject which has been discussed ad infinitum on these threads before by you?
Because a parliamentary committee has raised the concern that what is happening might not be justified in law. OK?
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Again, 'But are you really sure that what 'they' want is to 'destroy the world and everything and everyone in it'? I thought that what they wanted was to establish a universal caliphate underpinned by religious observance and obedience?'
> I said ISIS fighters. The rest may be religious zealot members of an apocalyptic death cult, but not sadistic, or tragically they are just children dragged into hell.
Again, 'But are you really sure that what 'they' want is to 'destroy the world and everything and everyone in it'? I thought that what they wanted was to establish a universal caliphate underpinned by religious observance and obedience?'
In reply to Andy Say:
Not sure I quite understand the treadmill thing. You mean we'll keep on killing them but not make any advances in our goals of eliminating them? Unfortunately we could kill every ISIS fighter in the area, but I don't it would get rid of radical Islam, or the desire of many highly motivated people to re-establish a caliphate. I don't have an answer to world peace I'm afraid The situation is almost unbearably messy, and there is no 'correct' solution. Only different shades of crappy non-solutions.
Yes, agreed, but there is also an apocalyptic element to their aims. This Atlantic article touches on that http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/...
> I think I was considering culpability rather than making a judgement. But surely you can see that if we take out 1,000 of them (with collateral damage) for every 50 of 'us' they kill then we really are on a treadmill?
Not sure I quite understand the treadmill thing. You mean we'll keep on killing them but not make any advances in our goals of eliminating them? Unfortunately we could kill every ISIS fighter in the area, but I don't it would get rid of radical Islam, or the desire of many highly motivated people to re-establish a caliphate. I don't have an answer to world peace I'm afraid The situation is almost unbearably messy, and there is no 'correct' solution. Only different shades of crappy non-solutions.
> I'd agree that there would be flames if ISIS had equivalent military power to the USA. 'This town ain't big enough for both of us pardner...'. But are you really sure that what 'they' want is to 'destroy the world and everything and everyone in it'? I thought that what they wanted was to establish a universal caliphate underpinned by religious observance and obedience?
Yes, agreed, but there is also an apocalyptic element to their aims. This Atlantic article touches on that http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/...
In reply to Andy Say:
I should wind back and clarify that I agree with you that that is their primary aim.
[edit: while nuancing it by noting that based on their current behaviour, there is a strong genocidal thread through their actions, and I don't think there are many people that would escape the chopping block should they apply their standards throughout the world. Very little room for architecture, culture, music, art, happiness, razor blades, atheists, homosexuals etc. Sounds like hell on earth to me, even if it's clearly attractive to very many people.]
I should wind back and clarify that I agree with you that that is their primary aim.
[edit: while nuancing it by noting that based on their current behaviour, there is a strong genocidal thread through their actions, and I don't think there are many people that would escape the chopping block should they apply their standards throughout the world. Very little room for architecture, culture, music, art, happiness, razor blades, atheists, homosexuals etc. Sounds like hell on earth to me, even if it's clearly attractive to very many people.]
Post edited at 16:11
In reply to Andy Say:
They seem pretty keen on dying fighting non-ISIS members. But does it really matter? Are you saying because "all" they want is a universal caliphate with extreme Islamic practice imposed on all with death in horrible ways for those who don't comply, fighting them is unjustified?
They seem pretty keen on dying fighting non-ISIS members. But does it really matter? Are you saying because "all" they want is a universal caliphate with extreme Islamic practice imposed on all with death in horrible ways for those who don't comply, fighting them is unjustified?
1
In reply to MG:
No. But I would prefer 'opposing' them. (We fought the IRA for generations and then made peace).
> They seem pretty keen on dying fighting non-ISIS members. But does it really matter? Are you saying because "all" they want is a universal caliphate with extreme Islamic practice imposed on all with death in horrible ways for those who don't comply, fighting them is unjustified?
No. But I would prefer 'opposing' them. (We fought the IRA for generations and then made peace).
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
See: you DO understand the treadmill thing. And I would guess that, in fact, if we keep on killing them as we are we are actually sowing the dragon's teeth. WE are declaring that it is a religiously based war and hence recruiting for them from within our own societies.
That has happened in oh so many 'asymmetric' conflicts. But we just don't seem to learn that a genuine 'hearts and minds' campaign is possibly more effective than bombing them 'back to the stone age' do we?
The minute that we can start to acknowledge that they are PEOPLE with aspirations, families. ambitions, a desire for a stable society is the minute we can maybe start to defuse what is going on?
> Not sure I quite understand the treadmill thing. You mean we'll keep on killing them but not make any advances in our goals of eliminating them? .
See: you DO understand the treadmill thing. And I would guess that, in fact, if we keep on killing them as we are we are actually sowing the dragon's teeth. WE are declaring that it is a religiously based war and hence recruiting for them from within our own societies.
That has happened in oh so many 'asymmetric' conflicts. But we just don't seem to learn that a genuine 'hearts and minds' campaign is possibly more effective than bombing them 'back to the stone age' do we?
The minute that we can start to acknowledge that they are PEOPLE with aspirations, families. ambitions, a desire for a stable society is the minute we can maybe start to defuse what is going on?
2
In reply to MG:
No. I don't think its about of 'right' or 'wrong' (and they ARE perceptions - they move and shift); because they may have diametrically opposed views to mine. And when you get into 'I am right and they are wrong: no discussion', I think you are sowing the seeds of conflict.
> If you believe they are in the right and their philosophy doesn't lead to untold misery, then yes. Otherwise, no. I know where I stand.
No. I don't think its about of 'right' or 'wrong' (and they ARE perceptions - they move and shift); because they may have diametrically opposed views to mine. And when you get into 'I am right and they are wrong: no discussion', I think you are sowing the seeds of conflict.
1
In reply to Andy Say:
Err it is a religious war! Any Shia, Yazidi, Christian or wrong type of Sunni in ISIS controlled territory is killed or enslaved. Has this passed you by?
> See: you DO understand the treadmill thing. And I would guess that, in fact, if we keep on killing them as we are we are actually sowing the dragon's teeth. WE are declaring that it is a religiously based war and hence recruiting for them from within our own societies.
Err it is a religious war! Any Shia, Yazidi, Christian or wrong type of Sunni in ISIS controlled territory is killed or enslaved. Has this passed you by?
1
In reply to MG:
In practical terms I think I might desist from killing people that I believed were bad.
It was off the cuff, but my above suggestion for trial in absentia might be productive. What is the evidence, where is the proven intent?
I might talk to them? Not sure exactly how much negotiation has been attempted.
> So in practical terms, what would you do differently?
In practical terms I think I might desist from killing people that I believed were bad.
It was off the cuff, but my above suggestion for trial in absentia might be productive. What is the evidence, where is the proven intent?
I might talk to them? Not sure exactly how much negotiation has been attempted.
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Frankly that's pathetic. Arguing we can;t or shouldn't do anything, or certain things, is one thing. Being unable to condemn mass murder for holding a fractionally different set of religious beliefs as wrong is just absurd.
Frankly that's pathetic. Arguing we can;t or shouldn't do anything, or certain things, is one thing. Being unable to condemn mass murder for holding a fractionally different set of religious beliefs as wrong is just absurd.
1
In reply to MG:
Nope. But, of course, the easy interpretation is that 'we' are just killing muslims. And, of course, we are!
And that is a recruitment tool.
> Err it is a religious war! Any Shia, Yazidi, Christian or wrong type of Sunni in ISIS controlled territory is killed or enslaved. Has this passed you by?
Nope. But, of course, the easy interpretation is that 'we' are just killing muslims. And, of course, we are!
And that is a recruitment tool.
1
In reply to MG:
I'm not sure I have?
> Frankly that's pathetic. Arguing we can;t or shouldn't do anything, or certain things, is one thing. Being unable to condemn mass murder for holding a fractionally different set of religious beliefs as wrong is just absurd.
I'm not sure I have?
1
In reply to Andy Say:
What is the evidence, where is the proven intent?
Have you actually read any news in the last few years? There is ample evidence of murder, rape,burning people alive, cultural destruction, mass-evictions, slavery, suicide bombings and god knows what else undertaken by ISIS
What is the evidence, where is the proven intent?
Have you actually read any news in the last few years? There is ample evidence of murder, rape,burning people alive, cultural destruction, mass-evictions, slavery, suicide bombings and god knows what else undertaken by ISIS
Post edited at 16:55
3
In reply to Andy Say:
"No. I don't think its about of 'right' or 'wrong'...because they may have diametrically opposed views to mine."
> I'm not sure I have?
"No. I don't think its about of 'right' or 'wrong'...because they may have diametrically opposed views to mine."
Post edited at 16:55
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Chris,
thanks for the civilised nature of your posts. I don't know where 'right' and 'wrong' lies here but I am really uncomfortable about extra-judicial killing in other countries 'in my name'.
Andy
Chris,
thanks for the civilised nature of your posts. I don't know where 'right' and 'wrong' lies here but I am really uncomfortable about extra-judicial killing in other countries 'in my name'.
Andy
1
In reply to Andy Say:
OK, wasn't sure as I hadn't heard that one before. It's clearly a good analogy if even I can 'get it' without needing it explained
Anyway, I disagree that it's a religiously based war from our perspective. They pose an existential threat to countries in the region, and a potential serious threat in European countries/USA if they can carry out more mass killings of the sort they've demonstrated themselves capable of so far. If they were to combine this willingness to murder with the availability of a dirty bomb or other WMD (oh god, here we go) I don't doubt their motivation to do so. I admit this analysis is borderline useless given the complexity of the geo--religio-political situation but it'll have to suffice for now.
No, we don't. But, bombing is easier, even if it's less productive which is why politicians fall into temptation so readily. However, the 'hearts and minds' approach isn't easy with people who genuinely believe the things they say the believe. You're not going to reach them. Which is why we see people coming from Europe, Australia, USA etc with engineering degrees, who've enjoyed every luxury and benefit of the western world, and who could have no conceivable grievance against it, beyond that which is manufactured by a genuine belief in god, martyrdom and the necessity of restoring a religious caliphate. Personally I think greater levels of literacy, internet access, education, etc coupled with support for minority voices and dissidents in the middle east are the keys the a more stable future. Those markers tend to be negatively correlated with religious belief and positively correlated with higher standards of living which should make religious messages less appealing...anyway, that's a bit of a side note.
Not sure that completely applies here. As I wrote above, there's nothing stopping a UK educated engineer with a high quality of life, family etc from going to join ISIS. There's something else at play here specifically that goes beyond what most people want from life.
> See: you DO understand the treadmill thing. And I would guess that, in fact, if we keep on killing them as we are we are actually sowing the dragon's teeth. WE are declaring that it is a religiously based war and hence recruiting for them from within our own societies.
OK, wasn't sure as I hadn't heard that one before. It's clearly a good analogy if even I can 'get it' without needing it explained
Anyway, I disagree that it's a religiously based war from our perspective. They pose an existential threat to countries in the region, and a potential serious threat in European countries/USA if they can carry out more mass killings of the sort they've demonstrated themselves capable of so far. If they were to combine this willingness to murder with the availability of a dirty bomb or other WMD (oh god, here we go) I don't doubt their motivation to do so. I admit this analysis is borderline useless given the complexity of the geo--religio-political situation but it'll have to suffice for now.
> That has happened in oh so many 'asymmetric' conflicts. But we just don't seem to learn that a genuine 'hearts and minds' campaign is possibly more effective than bombing them 'back to the stone age' do we?
No, we don't. But, bombing is easier, even if it's less productive which is why politicians fall into temptation so readily. However, the 'hearts and minds' approach isn't easy with people who genuinely believe the things they say the believe. You're not going to reach them. Which is why we see people coming from Europe, Australia, USA etc with engineering degrees, who've enjoyed every luxury and benefit of the western world, and who could have no conceivable grievance against it, beyond that which is manufactured by a genuine belief in god, martyrdom and the necessity of restoring a religious caliphate. Personally I think greater levels of literacy, internet access, education, etc coupled with support for minority voices and dissidents in the middle east are the keys the a more stable future. Those markers tend to be negatively correlated with religious belief and positively correlated with higher standards of living which should make religious messages less appealing...anyway, that's a bit of a side note.
> The minute that we can start to acknowledge that they are PEOPLE with aspirations, families. ambitions, a desire for a stable society is the minute we can maybe start to defuse what is going on?
Not sure that completely applies here. As I wrote above, there's nothing stopping a UK educated engineer with a high quality of life, family etc from going to join ISIS. There's something else at play here specifically that goes beyond what most people want from life.
1
In reply to Andy Say:
With the deepest of respect to those who had family members or friends killed/injured by the IRA, there is no comparison.
ISIS members kill just about anyone who isn't one of them.
They torture and murder in vile ways those they capture.
They use gang-rape as a tool.
They appear to regard all females as there purely for their own lust.
They use kidnap and extortion to further their ends.
They spread their maliciousness across the entire world.
I would cheerfully kill any member or supporter of ISIS personally - the world is a far more dangerous place with them around.
Surely the fact that drones are being used to eliminate their leaders rather than mass killing of them shows the civilised world's reluctance to kill, rather than any enjoyment in it.
With the deepest of respect to those who had family members or friends killed/injured by the IRA, there is no comparison.
ISIS members kill just about anyone who isn't one of them.
They torture and murder in vile ways those they capture.
They use gang-rape as a tool.
They appear to regard all females as there purely for their own lust.
They use kidnap and extortion to further their ends.
They spread their maliciousness across the entire world.
I would cheerfully kill any member or supporter of ISIS personally - the world is a far more dangerous place with them around.
Surely the fact that drones are being used to eliminate their leaders rather than mass killing of them shows the civilised world's reluctance to kill, rather than any enjoyment in it.
4
In reply to Andy Say:
You could try it, quickest way to ensure an early and painful death most likely.
> I might talk to them? Not sure exactly how much negotiation has been attempted.
You could try it, quickest way to ensure an early and painful death most likely.
2
In reply to Andy Say:
You're welcome. These issues are so mind-bogglingly complex to me that by the time I've got to the end of writing one thought down here, I've gone off on a different track and forgotten to address the point I was trying to address at the start of the comment (as yo've probably noticed!) It's hard to discuss clearly, so one may as well be civilised and assume the best intentions of one's interlocutor.
I appreciate your consistency and civilised posts too. I appreciate that it seems to boil down for you, completely understandably, a distaste for extra-judicial killing. I don't disagree really, but I think it's hard to distill it to right and wrong when you're fighting an enemy who doesn't agree on the rules, and who doesn't value life in the same way you do. In the cold war for example you could assume that mutually assured destruction wasn't palatable to the Russians, and proceed accordingly with at least some empathetic understanding of their motivators and incentives. With genuine religious believers however, who genuinely believe that dying isn't a problem, (in fact it's a sure way to guaranteed paradise) who genuinely accept doctrines of martyrdom, religious submission, the need for jihad, the need to impose Islam on non-believers, who genuinely believe in god......well, that muddies the waters massively.
You're welcome. These issues are so mind-bogglingly complex to me that by the time I've got to the end of writing one thought down here, I've gone off on a different track and forgotten to address the point I was trying to address at the start of the comment (as yo've probably noticed!) It's hard to discuss clearly, so one may as well be civilised and assume the best intentions of one's interlocutor.
I appreciate your consistency and civilised posts too. I appreciate that it seems to boil down for you, completely understandably, a distaste for extra-judicial killing. I don't disagree really, but I think it's hard to distill it to right and wrong when you're fighting an enemy who doesn't agree on the rules, and who doesn't value life in the same way you do. In the cold war for example you could assume that mutually assured destruction wasn't palatable to the Russians, and proceed accordingly with at least some empathetic understanding of their motivators and incentives. With genuine religious believers however, who genuinely believe that dying isn't a problem, (in fact it's a sure way to guaranteed paradise) who genuinely accept doctrines of martyrdom, religious submission, the need for jihad, the need to impose Islam on non-believers, who genuinely believe in god......well, that muddies the waters massively.
In reply to MG:
MG. It's going to help me if you quote the things I have posted that you are objecting to. Cheers.
The concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are, unfortunately for those who wish to believe they are 'right', flexible; they depend upon where you are standing in culture and time.
Abortion is 'wrong'.
Slavery is 'right'.
Equal rights for niggers is 'wrong'.
Burning witches is 'right'.
Inter-racial marriage is 'wrong'.
Killing jews is 'right'.
Capitalism is 'wrong'.
Crusades against the 'infidel' are 'right'.
To suggest that I am condoning mass murder based upon my admission that members of ISIS might have diametrically opposed views to mine really IS stretching it a bit, don't you think?
> "No. I don't think its about of 'right' or 'wrong'...because they may have diametrically opposed views to mine."
MG. It's going to help me if you quote the things I have posted that you are objecting to. Cheers.
The concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are, unfortunately for those who wish to believe they are 'right', flexible; they depend upon where you are standing in culture and time.
Abortion is 'wrong'.
Slavery is 'right'.
Equal rights for niggers is 'wrong'.
Burning witches is 'right'.
Inter-racial marriage is 'wrong'.
Killing jews is 'right'.
Capitalism is 'wrong'.
Crusades against the 'infidel' are 'right'.
To suggest that I am condoning mass murder based upon my admission that members of ISIS might have diametrically opposed views to mine really IS stretching it a bit, don't you think?
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Err, I just did. That bit in inverted commas was you.
No, I don't. Their view is that mass-murder is just fine and you seem unable to say that is wrong.
> MG. It's going to help me if you quote the things I have posted that you are objecting to. Cheers.
Err, I just did. That bit in inverted commas was you.
> To suggest that I am condoning mass murder based upon my admission that members of ISIS might have diametrically opposed views to mine really IS stretching it a bit, don't you think?
No, I don't. Their view is that mass-murder is just fine and you seem unable to say that is wrong.
Post edited at 17:12
2
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
I'd say it's not just that but the 'dragon's teeth' principle. We are recruiting 'enemies' for every 'enemy' we strike down. Just look at Afghanistan.
>I think it's hard to distill it to right and wrong when you're fighting an enemy who doesn't agree on the rules,
That is a good point. They don't agree to the rules that WE lay down. It's tricky fighting folks who come up with their own rules. That's the reason why the Germans shot resistance fighters in France who insisted in bombing rail lines n'est ce pas?
Maybe it's why the Vietcong won?
> I appreciate your consistency and civilised posts too. I appreciate that it seems to boil down for you, completely understandably, a distaste for extra-judicial killing.
I'd say it's not just that but the 'dragon's teeth' principle. We are recruiting 'enemies' for every 'enemy' we strike down. Just look at Afghanistan.
>I think it's hard to distill it to right and wrong when you're fighting an enemy who doesn't agree on the rules,
That is a good point. They don't agree to the rules that WE lay down. It's tricky fighting folks who come up with their own rules. That's the reason why the Germans shot resistance fighters in France who insisted in bombing rail lines n'est ce pas?
Maybe it's why the Vietcong won?
1
In reply to Andy Say:
Yes and no. I think that's a dangerous, and potentially bigoted idea. i.e. holding muslims to such a low standard of behaviour and morality that we shouldn't be surprised if the only way they can express their disgust at how western forces are trying to combat ISIS is to pick up a weapon and go join them! Let's not forget that by far the biggest victim of ISIS muslims' actions is OTHER muslims. And within that group, the biggest victims are the minorities again: the free thinkers, the homosexuals, the atheists, the WRONG sort of muslims, the Yazidis, etc. There are many groups who could have legitimate grievances against 'the west' but who don't choose to behave in the manner of ISIS. I'm nervous of the idea that you shouldn't fight their evil as it will 'confirm the narrative' that the west is at war with Islam. We're not. We're at war with Islamist Jihadists. Their Islam is crucial to their beliefs and behaviours, but there is a world of difference between a 'regular muslim', an Islamist, and a Jihadist (check out Maajid Narwaz for his definitions of those distinctions.
Sorry, I've got to duck out now. Got to pick the baby up from nursery and have dinner. Have a good evening.
[edit, woops didn't mean to imply that Yazidis are muslims. Parse that sentence as best you can with that in mind. Ta]
> I'd say it's not just that but the 'dragon's teeth' principle. We are recruiting 'enemies' for every 'enemy' we strike down. Just look at Afghanistan.
Yes and no. I think that's a dangerous, and potentially bigoted idea. i.e. holding muslims to such a low standard of behaviour and morality that we shouldn't be surprised if the only way they can express their disgust at how western forces are trying to combat ISIS is to pick up a weapon and go join them! Let's not forget that by far the biggest victim of ISIS muslims' actions is OTHER muslims. And within that group, the biggest victims are the minorities again: the free thinkers, the homosexuals, the atheists, the WRONG sort of muslims, the Yazidis, etc. There are many groups who could have legitimate grievances against 'the west' but who don't choose to behave in the manner of ISIS. I'm nervous of the idea that you shouldn't fight their evil as it will 'confirm the narrative' that the west is at war with Islam. We're not. We're at war with Islamist Jihadists. Their Islam is crucial to their beliefs and behaviours, but there is a world of difference between a 'regular muslim', an Islamist, and a Jihadist (check out Maajid Narwaz for his definitions of those distinctions.
Sorry, I've got to duck out now. Got to pick the baby up from nursery and have dinner. Have a good evening.
[edit, woops didn't mean to imply that Yazidis are muslims. Parse that sentence as best you can with that in mind. Ta]
Post edited at 17:29
1
In reply to Andy Say:
To throw another variable into the mix, how 'bad ' do they have to be to justify this. There are a terriffic number of drone strikes in Pakistan, and though I don't have the numbers I am pretty sure there are more there than vs. ISIS. And no IS there - there the target is the Taliban.
Yes, they kill a lot of bad people, but there is considerable collateral , and they have certainly proved a powerful recruitment tool. So where do you stop?
To throw another variable into the mix, how 'bad ' do they have to be to justify this. There are a terriffic number of drone strikes in Pakistan, and though I don't have the numbers I am pretty sure there are more there than vs. ISIS. And no IS there - there the target is the Taliban.
Yes, they kill a lot of bad people, but there is considerable collateral , and they have certainly proved a powerful recruitment tool. So where do you stop?
2
In reply to Andy Say:
The resistance fighters in France were fighting against an invader to win back their own country.
The vietcong were fighting against an oppressive colonial regime to win back their own country.
ISIS is an invading group trying to colonise other peoples lands.
I support the Yazidis, Syrians, Kurds, et al, who are trying to win back their own country.
Drone killings help, but history shows that boots on the ground will be needed to do the job properly.
Do you not understand that by opposing efforts being made to help the Yazidis, Syrians, Kurds, et al, you are actually supporting ISIS in their murderous conquests of these groups, and their designs on the rest of the world.
The resistance fighters in France were fighting against an invader to win back their own country.
The vietcong were fighting against an oppressive colonial regime to win back their own country.
ISIS is an invading group trying to colonise other peoples lands.
I support the Yazidis, Syrians, Kurds, et al, who are trying to win back their own country.
Drone killings help, but history shows that boots on the ground will be needed to do the job properly.
Do you not understand that by opposing efforts being made to help the Yazidis, Syrians, Kurds, et al, you are actually supporting ISIS in their murderous conquests of these groups, and their designs on the rest of the world.
1
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
That simply doesn't matter. It is 'their' perspective that counts. And when I say 'their' I have to include many muslims in other countries who see this as a threat to religion and culture.
>They pose an existential threat to countries in the region,
If we are talking Syria/Iraq/Iran/Lybia then I think we need to hold 'our' hand up as the biggest existential threat? I've got to admit that I've lost track of exactly who we are supporting in Syria with our bombing.
>a potential serious threat in European countries/USA if they can carry out more mass killings of the sort they've demonstrated themselves capable of so far.
And that brings me back, I'm afraid, to the numbers thing. WE are a serious, existential threat to them; they are a less significant threat to us than motorway accidents. What response do we expect?
> Anyway, I disagree that it's a religiously based war from our perspective.
That simply doesn't matter. It is 'their' perspective that counts. And when I say 'their' I have to include many muslims in other countries who see this as a threat to religion and culture.
>They pose an existential threat to countries in the region,
If we are talking Syria/Iraq/Iran/Lybia then I think we need to hold 'our' hand up as the biggest existential threat? I've got to admit that I've lost track of exactly who we are supporting in Syria with our bombing.
>a potential serious threat in European countries/USA if they can carry out more mass killings of the sort they've demonstrated themselves capable of so far.
And that brings me back, I'm afraid, to the numbers thing. WE are a serious, existential threat to them; they are a less significant threat to us than motorway accidents. What response do we expect?
3
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Did you mean 'Parsee that sentence'? Enjoy your dinner and hope the baby sleeps well
> [edit, woops didn't mean to imply that Yazidis are muslims. Parse that sentence as best you can with that in mind. Ta]
Did you mean 'Parsee that sentence'? Enjoy your dinner and hope the baby sleeps well
In reply to fred99:
I'm sure that ISIS would argue that that is exactly what they are doing. With a slightly different take on 'country'
Fred. How, exactly, am I doing that?
> The resistance fighters in France were fighting against an invader to win back their own country.
> The vietcong were fighting against an oppressive colonial regime to win back their own country.
I'm sure that ISIS would argue that that is exactly what they are doing. With a slightly different take on 'country'
> Do you not understand that by opposing efforts being made to help the Yazidis, Syrians, Kurds, et al, you are actually supporting ISIS in their murderous conquests of these groups, and their designs on the rest of the world.
Fred. How, exactly, am I doing that?
In reply to Andy Say:
Because the various military efforts, direct and indirect by for example supporting Iraqi forces, have limited ISIS's expansion, prevented some of its worst planned atrocities and in places have caused it to retreat. Your "let's be nice and have a cup of tea" approach would have resulted in many more people being killed, raped,thrown off buildings and so on.
> Fred. How, exactly, am I doing that?
Because the various military efforts, direct and indirect by for example supporting Iraqi forces, have limited ISIS's expansion, prevented some of its worst planned atrocities and in places have caused it to retreat. Your "let's be nice and have a cup of tea" approach would have resulted in many more people being killed, raped,thrown off buildings and so on.
2
1
In reply to Andy Say:
If you don't understand that, there's either no hope for your sanity/intelligence, or maybe you need investigating by the anti-terrorist branch, in case you're about to carry out some action in support of ISIS.
If you think that all that's really needed is for someone to go and sit down with them for a chat - why don't you ?
> Fred. How, exactly, am I doing that?
If you don't understand that, there's either no hope for your sanity/intelligence, or maybe you need investigating by the anti-terrorist branch, in case you're about to carry out some action in support of ISIS.
If you think that all that's really needed is for someone to go and sit down with them for a chat - why don't you ?
Post edited at 18:12
1
In reply to Andy Say:
"The minute that we can start to acknowledge that they are PEOPLE with aspirations, families. ambitions, a desire for a stable society is the minute we can maybe start to defuse what is going on?"
Who are you talking about here? I can't quite think you're naive enough to think this of Daesh?!
"The minute that we can start to acknowledge that they are PEOPLE with aspirations, families. ambitions, a desire for a stable society is the minute we can maybe start to defuse what is going on?"
Who are you talking about here? I can't quite think you're naive enough to think this of Daesh?!
1
In reply to JayPee630:
So what do you think they are? Chickens? Of course they are people!
> "The minute that we can start to acknowledge that they are PEOPLE with aspirations, families. ambitions, a desire for a stable society is the minute we can maybe start to defuse what is going on?"
> Who are you talking about here? I can't quite think you're naive enough to think this of Daesh?!
So what do you think they are? Chickens? Of course they are people!
In reply to MG:
MG:
So by posting on UKC I am in some way contributing to 'people being killed, raped,thrown off buildings and so on.' Get over yourself. I'm asking questions about the legality/legitimacy of what 'we' are doing.
MG:
> Your "let's be nice and have a cup of tea" approach would have resulted in many more people being killed, raped,thrown off buildings and so on.
So by posting on UKC I am in some way contributing to 'people being killed, raped,thrown off buildings and so on.' Get over yourself. I'm asking questions about the legality/legitimacy of what 'we' are doing.
2
4
In reply to fred99:
Just in case I think it's best to use a drone to bomb him. And his family and friends. And anyone else nearby.
> If you don't understand that, there's either no hope for your sanity/intelligence, or maybe you need investigating by the anti-terrorist branch, in case you're about to carry out some action in support of ISIS.
Just in case I think it's best to use a drone to bomb him. And his family and friends. And anyone else nearby.
2
In reply to fred99:
Dear oh lor!
'By opposing efforts being made to help the Yazidis, Syrians, Kurds, et al, you are actually supporting ISIS in their murderous conquests of these groups, and their designs on the rest of the world.'
In what way am I 'opposing' anything apart from asking the pertinent question 'is it legal to kill people without trial in other countries'. The parliamentary committee seem to think that's a valid question. They have asked the government for a legal justification.
If you think that its all fine then that is completely your affair.
Dear oh lor!
'By opposing efforts being made to help the Yazidis, Syrians, Kurds, et al, you are actually supporting ISIS in their murderous conquests of these groups, and their designs on the rest of the world.'
In what way am I 'opposing' anything apart from asking the pertinent question 'is it legal to kill people without trial in other countries'. The parliamentary committee seem to think that's a valid question. They have asked the government for a legal justification.
If you think that its all fine then that is completely your affair.
2
In reply to nastyned:
I had to think about that one
> Just in case I think it's best to use a drone to bomb him. And his family and friends. And anyone else nearby.
I had to think about that one
1
1
In reply to MG:
Spookily I left this thread and turned on the television. I hit 'Auschwitz : The Nazis and the Final Solution'. And an interview with a Slovakian guard who said that, 'well it made things more peaceful; but there were some innocents amongst them'.
Spookily I left this thread and turned on the television. I hit 'Auschwitz : The Nazis and the Final Solution'. And an interview with a Slovakian guard who said that, 'well it made things more peaceful; but there were some innocents amongst them'.
2
In reply to Andy Say:
You seem to have Godwinned your own thread.
I must say that arriving at a comparison between the west and the Nazis when we attack ISIS is quite an impressive feat of moral confusion
You seem to have Godwinned your own thread.
I must say that arriving at a comparison between the west and the Nazis when we attack ISIS is quite an impressive feat of moral confusion
4
1
In reply to MG:
Where the hell did I do that? I suggest you retract pretty bloody quickly.
My point was actually about the ability that we have to de-humanise the 'other'. Whether they are Jews, 'unter-menschen', kaffirs, wogs, krauts, 'towel-heads' whatever. The moment we are able to portray 'them' as sub-human is the moment that we are at risk of loosing touch with our 'humanity.
> You seem to have Godwinned your own thread.
> I must say that arriving at a comparison between the west and the Nazis when we attack ISIS is quite an impressive feat of moral confusion
Where the hell did I do that? I suggest you retract pretty bloody quickly.
My point was actually about the ability that we have to de-humanise the 'other'. Whether they are Jews, 'unter-menschen', kaffirs, wogs, krauts, 'towel-heads' whatever. The moment we are able to portray 'them' as sub-human is the moment that we are at risk of loosing touch with our 'humanity.
2
5
In reply to Andy Say:
Anyroadup. I'm going to bed now to catch up on my reading. 'Persian Fire' by Tom Holland. 'The first world empire and the battle for the west'. It's all about an all-powerful empire with the strongest armed forces in the world and their attempts to subdue a puny adversary in the middle East. Persians against Greeks....
Anyroadup. I'm going to bed now to catch up on my reading. 'Persian Fire' by Tom Holland. 'The first world empire and the battle for the west'. It's all about an all-powerful empire with the strongest armed forces in the world and their attempts to subdue a puny adversary in the middle East. Persians against Greeks....
2
In reply to Andy Say:
I think it's great that we have these moral and legal debates.
It demonstrates first that we are in a free country where there are no consequences for disagreeing with and criticising our government.
Second that we are at least agonizing over doing the "right" thing with some moral and legal justification that stands objectively.
Third it demonstrates that there is some democratic process at work where we are able to try and influence the decisions of our government.
I wonder whether this is a debate that is mirrored in Raqqa.
> Dear oh lor!
> 'By opposing efforts being made to help the Yazidis, Syrians, Kurds, et al, you are actually supporting ISIS in their murderous conquests of these groups, and their designs on the rest of the world.'
> In what way am I 'opposing' anything apart from asking the pertinent question 'is it legal to kill people without trial in other countries'. The parliamentary committee seem to think that's a valid question. They have asked the government for a legal justification.
> If you think that its all fine then that is completely your affair.
I think it's great that we have these moral and legal debates.
It demonstrates first that we are in a free country where there are no consequences for disagreeing with and criticising our government.
Second that we are at least agonizing over doing the "right" thing with some moral and legal justification that stands objectively.
Third it demonstrates that there is some democratic process at work where we are able to try and influence the decisions of our government.
I wonder whether this is a debate that is mirrored in Raqqa.
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Well, as Hitler and the Nazis have already been brought into this ....
Those appeasers who kept saying "don't worry, Hitler won't go any further", and who had this strange idea that they "could do business with this man" were no different to you.
By holding the rest back they allowed Hitler to build up his forces, take control of land and resources, and generally steal a march on any counter action.
Note: ISIS have taken control of oil producing land as a main act.
This is both to gain power and make money out of what they have in fact stolen.
They have also been selling looted art treasures on the illegal market.
Apologists such as yourself just make it more awkward for the world to rid itself of this cancer, by constantly complaining, from your comfy armchairs, that we should set an example of niceness.
You're either very naïve, or deliberately supporting them - which is it ?
As for legalities - the lawyers actually make things worse.
ISIS torture, rape, behead, enslave and so forth.
Has a single lawyer gone in there and said "Desist, and come along to court where you can stand trial for al your naughtiness."
NO
But if we prevent any of their actions, these self-righteous lawyers are great at complaining that we've interfered with the human rights of ISIS.
Well, as Hitler and the Nazis have already been brought into this ....
Those appeasers who kept saying "don't worry, Hitler won't go any further", and who had this strange idea that they "could do business with this man" were no different to you.
By holding the rest back they allowed Hitler to build up his forces, take control of land and resources, and generally steal a march on any counter action.
Note: ISIS have taken control of oil producing land as a main act.
This is both to gain power and make money out of what they have in fact stolen.
They have also been selling looted art treasures on the illegal market.
Apologists such as yourself just make it more awkward for the world to rid itself of this cancer, by constantly complaining, from your comfy armchairs, that we should set an example of niceness.
You're either very naïve, or deliberately supporting them - which is it ?
As for legalities - the lawyers actually make things worse.
ISIS torture, rape, behead, enslave and so forth.
Has a single lawyer gone in there and said "Desist, and come along to court where you can stand trial for al your naughtiness."
NO
But if we prevent any of their actions, these self-righteous lawyers are great at complaining that we've interfered with the human rights of ISIS.
3
1
In reply to off-duty:
Agreed. Despite all the whining about 'country going to the dogs', 'too many immigrants', 'only answer is to emigrate' I actually find this a good place to live.
And I think that it is absolutely right that we do agonise about the issues raised by a country that has done away with the death penalty as 'uncivilised/not right' for its own citizens being willing to kill people on suspicion and claim it is 'legal'. And some of them, of course, ARE 'our citizens'. I'm glad that the parliamentary committee has called the legality of those actions into question.
> I think it's great that we have these moral and legal debates.
> It demonstrates first that we are in a free country where there are no consequences for disagreeing with and criticising our government.
> Second that we are at least agonizing over doing the "right" thing with some moral and legal justification that stands objectively.
Agreed. Despite all the whining about 'country going to the dogs', 'too many immigrants', 'only answer is to emigrate' I actually find this a good place to live.
And I think that it is absolutely right that we do agonise about the issues raised by a country that has done away with the death penalty as 'uncivilised/not right' for its own citizens being willing to kill people on suspicion and claim it is 'legal'. And some of them, of course, ARE 'our citizens'. I'm glad that the parliamentary committee has called the legality of those actions into question.
1
In reply to fred99:
Not sure where I start with this But hey-ho...
You mean the British government of the time I take it?
Not sure who you mean by 'the rest'? But presumably you would have advocated a pre-emptive strike against Germany before they did anything?
Aye. The desire for control of oil supply does cover a multitude of sins, doesn't it. Not sure 'our' hands are completely clean in that department!
You know about the Elgin marbles? And, of course what has also happened in Iraq and Libya to their antiquities?
I guess we now come to the nub. I don't personally think that I AM an apologist; you'd struggle to find any opinions expressed by me that says that I agree with their philosophy and aims. But 'making it awkward for the world to rid itself of this cancer'? I'd like to think that I, and others like me, do exactly that.
Possibly I am naive in my belief in the rule of international law underpinned by a sense of justice and 'rightness'; hey, that's the way I was brought up. I don't think I am an ISIS supporter; no.
In what way do they make it worse? OK - I do agree that lawyers are the bottom-feeders of society making money out of peoples misery. But I also do think that it is dead right that governments should be held accountable for their actions against an agreed legal framework. I go back to my OP - ' 'The US says it is in a global armed conflict with IS, so the Law of War applies and lethal force can be used anywhere in the world'. As far as I am concerned that is an illegal position.
You have many examples of that?
Not sure where I start with this But hey-ho...
> Those appeasers who kept saying "don't worry, Hitler won't go any further", and who had this strange idea that they "could do business with this man" were no different to you.
You mean the British government of the time I take it?
> By holding the rest back they allowed Hitler to build up his forces, take control of land and resources, and generally steal a march on any counter action.
Not sure who you mean by 'the rest'? But presumably you would have advocated a pre-emptive strike against Germany before they did anything?
> Note: ISIS have taken control of oil producing land as a main act.
Aye. The desire for control of oil supply does cover a multitude of sins, doesn't it. Not sure 'our' hands are completely clean in that department!
> They have also been selling looted art treasures on the illegal market.
You know about the Elgin marbles? And, of course what has also happened in Iraq and Libya to their antiquities?
> Apologists such as yourself just make it more awkward for the world to rid itself of this cancer, by constantly complaining, from your comfy armchairs, that we should set an example of niceness.
I guess we now come to the nub. I don't personally think that I AM an apologist; you'd struggle to find any opinions expressed by me that says that I agree with their philosophy and aims. But 'making it awkward for the world to rid itself of this cancer'? I'd like to think that I, and others like me, do exactly that.
> You're either very na£ve, or deliberately supporting them - which is it ?
Possibly I am naive in my belief in the rule of international law underpinned by a sense of justice and 'rightness'; hey, that's the way I was brought up. I don't think I am an ISIS supporter; no.
> As for legalities - the lawyers actually make things worse.
In what way do they make it worse? OK - I do agree that lawyers are the bottom-feeders of society making money out of peoples misery. But I also do think that it is dead right that governments should be held accountable for their actions against an agreed legal framework. I go back to my OP - ' 'The US says it is in a global armed conflict with IS, so the Law of War applies and lethal force can be used anywhere in the world'. As far as I am concerned that is an illegal position.
> But if we prevent any of their actions, these self-righteous lawyers are great at complaining that we've interfered with the human rights of ISIS.
You have many examples of that?
Post edited at 15:14
1
In reply to Andy Say:
It's tricky sure enough. You've got a solid case that someone is plotting atrocities against the UK. That person is notionally a UK citizen as they cannot be stripped and become stateless.
There is no process to extradite them from lawless territory, any sort of "arrest" in the heartland of their regime would put any arrest team at great risk.
If you don't do anything then their plot will play out, just like the last one you were 'just' able to foil, and followed by the next one, and the next one until an atrocity is inevitable if this plot doesn't succeed itself.
What's your solution?
> Agreed. Despite all the whining about 'country going to the dogs', 'too many immigrants', 'only answer is to emigrate' I actually find this a good place to live.
> And I think that it is absolutely right that we do agonise about the issues raised by a country that has done away with the death penalty as 'uncivilised/not right' for its own citizens being willing to kill people on suspicion and claim it is 'legal'. And some of them, of course, ARE 'our citizens'. I'm glad that the parliamentary committee has called the legality of those actions into question.
It's tricky sure enough. You've got a solid case that someone is plotting atrocities against the UK. That person is notionally a UK citizen as they cannot be stripped and become stateless.
There is no process to extradite them from lawless territory, any sort of "arrest" in the heartland of their regime would put any arrest team at great risk.
If you don't do anything then their plot will play out, just like the last one you were 'just' able to foil, and followed by the next one, and the next one until an atrocity is inevitable if this plot doesn't succeed itself.
What's your solution?
3
I think the issue with drones being used against someone (regardless of nationality or belief) is that they are so damn cold. I don’t think human beings are accustomed to being killed in such a calculated manner. And i don’t think you can ever hope to get anything out of drone strikes but more animosity.
Sure you get rid of a few bad guys in the short term but in the long run people will hate you for that tactic.
Christ when the local coppers put up a speed camera and catch half a dozen people you get people spraying about how “unfair” it is. So you can guarantee when some guy in Syria gets blown up by a drone they have much the same discussions, however it’s a case of life and death.
there are some people out there who definately need to be stopped but drones are a terrifying way of doing it. I wouldn’t be surprised if people in Syria are as scared of drones (if not more) than we are of bombers.
Sure you get rid of a few bad guys in the short term but in the long run people will hate you for that tactic.
Christ when the local coppers put up a speed camera and catch half a dozen people you get people spraying about how “unfair” it is. So you can guarantee when some guy in Syria gets blown up by a drone they have much the same discussions, however it’s a case of life and death.
there are some people out there who definately need to be stopped but drones are a terrifying way of doing it. I wouldn’t be surprised if people in Syria are as scared of drones (if not more) than we are of bombers.
2
In reply to off-duty:
If there is a really solid case could that not be presented to the courts? We have managed to develop a system of 'secret court hearings' so security might not be a problem. 'Notionally'? They either are or they aren't. And surely you are aware that UK citizenship can be rescinded. 'As of 15 July 2013 at least 17 people had been deprived of their British citizenship, in most cases on the recommendation of MI5'
C'mon. That's just emotive. Not indulging in a pre-emptive killing does not mean 'not doing anything' about a threat. If it did then UK policing would be in a strange place.
1. Make absolutely sure that what we are doing accords with both UK and International law.
2. Where there is a prima facie case that an attack on the UK is planned then that case should be tested in court.
3. If our surveillance is good enough to kill them anywhere on the planet then do we actually need to kill them? OK: it is cheaper.
> It's tricky sure enough. You've got a solid case that someone is plotting atrocities against the UK. That person is notionally a UK citizen as they cannot be stripped and become stateless.
If there is a really solid case could that not be presented to the courts? We have managed to develop a system of 'secret court hearings' so security might not be a problem. 'Notionally'? They either are or they aren't. And surely you are aware that UK citizenship can be rescinded. 'As of 15 July 2013 at least 17 people had been deprived of their British citizenship, in most cases on the recommendation of MI5'
> If you don't do anything then their plot will play out, just like the last one you were 'just' able to foil, and followed by the next one, and the next one until an atrocity is inevitable if this plot doesn't succeed itself.
C'mon. That's just emotive. Not indulging in a pre-emptive killing does not mean 'not doing anything' about a threat. If it did then UK policing would be in a strange place.
> What's your solution?
1. Make absolutely sure that what we are doing accords with both UK and International law.
2. Where there is a prima facie case that an attack on the UK is planned then that case should be tested in court.
3. If our surveillance is good enough to kill them anywhere on the planet then do we actually need to kill them? OK: it is cheaper.
2
In reply to paul_the_northerner:
> I wouldn’t be surprised if people in Syria are as scared of drones (if not more) than we are of speed cameras.
Fixed that for you
> I wouldn’t be surprised if people in Syria are as scared of drones (if not more) than we are of speed cameras.
Fixed that for you
1
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Can't have a court case without a defendant - obtaining him being one if the difficulties I highlighted.
I'm not sure about rescinding citizenship of people who are not dual citizens. I didn't think that was possible. But if you are aware it is I'll stand corrected.
Not emotive. Just trying to highlight the necessity to "do something" to prevent an atrocity.
Yep. But what are you suggesting we actually DO..?
Without a defendant ? With evidence that can't be admitted - covert surveillance, intercepts, classified intelligence from sources on the ground ?
So is your suggestion we set up ANOTHER sort of court system for "trials without defendants" or something similar?
Not particularly effective for fast time decision making, but it's an alternative I suppose...
Our surveillance isn't. It's about seizing on significant momentary opportunities. If we knew where they were and what they were doing 24/7 the chances are they wouldn't be a threat, they would be an asset.
> If there is a really solid case could that not be presented to the courts? We have managed to develop a system of 'secret court hearings' so security might not be a problem. 'Notionally'? They either are or they aren't. And surely you are aware that UK citizenship can be rescinded. 'As of 15 July 2013 at least 17 people had been deprived of their British citizenship, in most cases on the recommendation of MI5'
Can't have a court case without a defendant - obtaining him being one if the difficulties I highlighted.
I'm not sure about rescinding citizenship of people who are not dual citizens. I didn't think that was possible. But if you are aware it is I'll stand corrected.
> C'mon. That's just emotive. Not indulging in a pre-emptive killing does not mean 'not doing anything' about a threat. If it did then UK policing would be in a strange place.
Not emotive. Just trying to highlight the necessity to "do something" to prevent an atrocity.
> 1. Make absolutely sure that what we are doing accords with both UK and International law.
Yep. But what are you suggesting we actually DO..?
> 2. Where there is a prima facie case that an attack on the UK is planned then that case should be tested in court.
Without a defendant ? With evidence that can't be admitted - covert surveillance, intercepts, classified intelligence from sources on the ground ?
So is your suggestion we set up ANOTHER sort of court system for "trials without defendants" or something similar?
Not particularly effective for fast time decision making, but it's an alternative I suppose...
> 3. If our surveillance is good enough to kill them anywhere on the planet then do we actually need to kill them? OK: it is cheaper.
Our surveillance isn't. It's about seizing on significant momentary opportunities. If we knew where they were and what they were doing 24/7 the chances are they wouldn't be a threat, they would be an asset.
4
In reply to off-duty:
>It's tricky sure enough. You've got a solid case that someone is plotting atrocities against the UK. That person is >notionally a UK citizen as they cannot be stripped and become stateless.
Presumably something resembling a plot, routes of ingress, acquisition of material, many points in which you could apprehend the accused with all that almost limitless surveillance we paid for.
>There is no process to extradite them from lawless territory, any sort of "arrest" in the heartland of their regime would >put any arrest team at great risk.
Bread and butter to SF's throughout the globe.
>If you don't do anything then their plot will play out, just like the last one you were 'just' able to foil, and followed by >the next one, and the next one until an atrocity is inevitable if this plot doesn't succeed itself.
Clearly the intent of the strike was a message to similar Croydon Jihadis, rather than justice. Pour encourager les autres. Otherwise we would of never heard anything about it.
D.
No problem with malleting ISIS.
Remote tactical kills are presumably seductive to those in power, short term low risk, they don't make the problem go away, and at some level they are terrorism.
>It's tricky sure enough. You've got a solid case that someone is plotting atrocities against the UK. That person is >notionally a UK citizen as they cannot be stripped and become stateless.
Presumably something resembling a plot, routes of ingress, acquisition of material, many points in which you could apprehend the accused with all that almost limitless surveillance we paid for.
>There is no process to extradite them from lawless territory, any sort of "arrest" in the heartland of their regime would >put any arrest team at great risk.
Bread and butter to SF's throughout the globe.
>If you don't do anything then their plot will play out, just like the last one you were 'just' able to foil, and followed by >the next one, and the next one until an atrocity is inevitable if this plot doesn't succeed itself.
Clearly the intent of the strike was a message to similar Croydon Jihadis, rather than justice. Pour encourager les autres. Otherwise we would of never heard anything about it.
D.
No problem with malleting ISIS.
Remote tactical kills are presumably seductive to those in power, short term low risk, they don't make the problem go away, and at some level they are terrorism.
In reply to Dauphin:
I think you are overestimating the reach and ability of our surveillance. Unless you meant "limited" which is rather more realistic than "limitless".
Obviously the risk in "letting it run" in the hope you can prevent it, is far greater than the risk of nipping it in the bud.
As can be seen in police ops. every year - eg the current trial of the prison break team. One person killed and vurrently one cop on bail for "homicide".
Not sure how keen any SF would be to pick someone up from Raqqa, not to mention the fluid and mobile nature of the subject, whose whereabouts might only give a very small window of opportunity for arrest.
I'm sure, dependant on the Intel it is considered as an option.
Not sure why you say "clearly". I'm sure the message element was worth using, but it's far from clear that that was the motivation for the strike.
If that was the case I'm sure the UK would be claiming far more.
Nothing wrong with a low risk, particularly if your other options are high risk.
> Presumably something resembling a plot, routes of ingress, acquisition of material, many points in which you could apprehend the accused with all that almost limitless surveillance we paid for.
I think you are overestimating the reach and ability of our surveillance. Unless you meant "limited" which is rather more realistic than "limitless".
Obviously the risk in "letting it run" in the hope you can prevent it, is far greater than the risk of nipping it in the bud.
As can be seen in police ops. every year - eg the current trial of the prison break team. One person killed and vurrently one cop on bail for "homicide".
> Bread and butter to SF's throughout the globe.
Not sure how keen any SF would be to pick someone up from Raqqa, not to mention the fluid and mobile nature of the subject, whose whereabouts might only give a very small window of opportunity for arrest.
I'm sure, dependant on the Intel it is considered as an option.
> Clearly the intent of the strike was a message to similar Croydon Jihadis, rather than justice. Pour encourager les autres. Otherwise we would of never heard anything about it.
> D.
Not sure why you say "clearly". I'm sure the message element was worth using, but it's far from clear that that was the motivation for the strike.
If that was the case I'm sure the UK would be claiming far more.
> No problem with malleting ISIS.
> Remote tactical kills are presumably seductive to those in power, short term low risk, they don't make the problem go away, and at some level they are terrorism.
Nothing wrong with a low risk, particularly if your other options are high risk.
1
In reply to Dauphin:
>There is no process to extradite them from lawless territory, any sort of "arrest" in the heartland of their regime would >put any arrest team at great risk.
Bread and butter to SF's throughout the globe.
No it's actually not. Very few of these happen, even fewer succesfully, and those that have have tended to be in very different situations (Bosnia for example) as well as being massively resourse intensive.
>There is no process to extradite them from lawless territory, any sort of "arrest" in the heartland of their regime would >put any arrest team at great risk.
Bread and butter to SF's throughout the globe.
No it's actually not. Very few of these happen, even fewer succesfully, and those that have have tended to be in very different situations (Bosnia for example) as well as being massively resourse intensive.
In reply to off-duty:
Id imagine limitless is a better description since we are tracking prolonged voice and other ID good enough for a targeting a missile strike over a denied area hundreds of miles from U.K. jurisdiction.
Bet that's not cheap.
Think the BBC article alludes to the unclear danger of the alleged plot or plots and therefore the legality of the assinanation.
Actually I've got no problem with the killing if it desuades similar garbage from returning here to perform some Mumbai or Paris style mayhem. But let's not pretend it was about Justice.
D
> I think you are overestimating the reach and ability of >our surveillance. Unless you meant "limited" which is >rather more realistic than "limitless
Id imagine limitless is a better description since we are tracking prolonged voice and other ID good enough for a targeting a missile strike over a denied area hundreds of miles from U.K. jurisdiction.
Bet that's not cheap.
Think the BBC article alludes to the unclear danger of the alleged plot or plots and therefore the legality of the assinanation.
Actually I've got no problem with the killing if it desuades similar garbage from returning here to perform some Mumbai or Paris style mayhem. But let's not pretend it was about Justice.
D
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...