Drone on.....

[Victor McDade]

stitched said:

Looking at the evidence the only state who could be said to be accountable was Bin Ladens home state, home of the majority of his organisation and whose state religion, wahabaddism was subscribed to by all members.

Agree completely.

Wahabism and it's propagation worldwide by the Saudi regime, alongwith their petro-dollars which fund madrassahs worldwide are at the core of 'islamism' today.

And yet the Americans are happy to buy their oil, sell them arms and generally suck Saudi dick. And then Bush and now Obama really expect the rest of us to believe they are genuine in their fight against 'terror'.

[just me]

Victor McDade said:

stitched said:

Looking at the evidence the only state who could be said to be accountable was Bin Ladens home state, home of the majority of his organisation and whose state religion, wahabaddism was subscribed to by all members.

Agree completely.

Wahabism and it's propagation worldwide by the Saudi regime, alongwith their petro-dollars which fund madrassahs worldwide are at the core of 'islamism' today.

And yet the Americans are happy to buy their oil, sell them arms and generally suck Saudi dick. And then Bush and now Obama really expect the rest of us to believe they are genuine in their fight against 'terror'.

Well said.

But I don't think Wahabi'ism is the state religion. Sunni Islam is. Wahabi'ism the ultra-conservative sect of Sunni Islam. You can choose to follow it or not follow it, and it's not promoted by the government of Saudi Arabia. The hard-core imams follow it, and the government is happy to let them, as they keep the population toeing the line while the royals get to splurge billions on themselves. But it's not something the government promotes beyond letting the imams get on with whatever they want to. They have cracked down on the imams somewhat, actually, but obviously they still have a long way to go.

Edited by just me on Tuesday 5th June 21:04

Edited by just me on Tuesday 5th June 21:05

[Rovinghawk]

Imagine that some terrorists were attacking Venezuela & hiding out in Miami. The Venezuelan government has a drone that launches a missile into a Miami apartment, killing the terrorists with zero collateral injuries.

Would America be happy enough about it or would they feel that Venezuela had committed an act of war? Might they possibly be even more upset if a few US citizens were accidentally killed in the process?

Then ask what the difference is between the imaginary Venezuelan strike & the actual US strikes.

RH

[Lost_BMW]

Rovinghawk said:

Imagine that some terrorists were attacking Venezuela & hiding out in Miami. The Venezuelan government has a drone that launches a missile into a Miami apartment, killing the terrorists with zero collateral injuries.

Would America be happy enough about it or would they feel that Venezuela had committed an act of war? Might they possibly be even more upset if a few US citizens were accidentally killed in the process?

Then ask what the difference is between the imaginary Venezuelan strike & the actual US strikes.

RH

Just to check, would the American govt. and a huge number of citizens be harbouring, protecting, supplying and supporting the anti Venezuela League?

[Rovinghawk]

Just to check, does it matter in the context of illegal acts of war?

RH

[MX7]

Rovinghawk said:

Imagine that some terrorists were attacking Venezuela & hiding out in Miami. The Venezuelan government has a drone that launches a missile into a Miami apartment, killing the terrorists with zero collateral injuries.

Would America be happy enough about it or would they feel that Venezuela had committed an act of war? Might they possibly be even more upset if a few US citizens were accidentally killed in the process?

Then ask what the difference is between the imaginary Venezuelan strike & the actual US strikes.

RH

Daft.

[Rovinghawk]

MX7 said:

Daft.

America is firing missiles into a sovereign state & killing people. A while ago it invaded with troops & helicopters & killed people.

I wouldn't like them to do so in UK, so why should it be acceptable somewhere else?

RH

[MX7]

Rovinghawk said:

MX7 said:

Daft.

America is firing missiles into a sovereign state & killing people. A while ago it invaded with troops & helicopters & killed people.

I wouldn't like them to do so in UK, so why should it be acceptable somewhere else?

RH

You can't compare any two situations. There's always massive geographic, cultural, political and dozens of other factors that make them all different.

[just me]

MX7 said:

Rovinghawk said:

Imagine that some terrorists were attacking Venezuela & hiding out in Miami. The Venezuelan government has a drone that launches a missile into a Miami apartment, killing the terrorists with zero collateral injuries.

Would America be happy enough about it or would they feel that Venezuela had committed an act of war? Might they possibly be even more upset if a few US citizens were accidentally killed in the process?

Then ask what the difference is between the imaginary Venezuelan strike & the actual US strikes.

RH

Daft.

Seems like a decent analogy to me? Must you wade in with such an obnoxious, dismissive jibe? How about a reasoned reply. Why you think it's daft, for instance?

[just me]

MX7 said:

You can't compare any two situations. There's always massive geographic, cultural, political and dozens of other factors that make them all different.

Just because there are (massive) differences does not mean situations can't be compared. There are also massive similarities.

What makes you think a large segment of the population of Waziristan is "harbouring, protecting, supplying and supporting" terrorists? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Seems to me the terrorists scurry around quite furtively, often in disguises which include the women's burqua, and only interact with a few members of the local population who support them. Often it seems that the "support" is purchased and the people just go with the highest bidder--a lot of people have been turned in to Pakistani and US authorities for monetary rewards.

Why should everyone be subjected to the danger of missiles raining down from the sky. Is it ok to wipe out a dozen-odd innocent people for one targeted individual? Would any civilized country's population stand for it? Definitely not.

Edited by just me on Wednesday 6th June 00:11

[MX7]

just me said:

Seems like a decent analogy to me?

I have no doubt that it does.

[0a]

just me said:

Would any civilized country's population stand for it?

Edited by just me on Wednesday 6th June 00:11

Here is the problem. A civilised country would tackle the terrorist networks in their country.

[ecain63]

You think Pakistan, India etc don't run covert missions in the US or UK? And then there's Russia. Maybe not the same as drone attacks but poison and assassination is still pretty illegal.

[Derek Smith]

0a said:

just me said:

Would any civilized country's population stand for it?

Edited by just me on Wednesday 6th June 00:11

Here is the problem. A civilised country would tackle the terrorist networks in their country.

Like the USA did when the PIRA terrorists were setting off bombs and killing people? The Americans provided shelter and considerable financial aid to the PIRA. How about if the UK sent a drone into the St Patrick's Day Parade, a major fund raiser for the PIRA as well as demonstrating the close ties between the USA politicians and the PIRA front men. There would probably have been a few collateral injuries. D'you think the Americans would have minded? Perhaps sent a stern note to the UK government?

[JagLover]

Rovinghawk said:

America is firing missiles into a sovereign state & killing people. A while ago it invaded with troops & helicopters & killed people.

I wouldn't like them to do so in UK, so why should it be acceptable somewhere else?

RH

America is firing missiles into a part of a sovereign state that is widely acknowledged to be not under the authority of the government of that state.

[rich1231]

JagLover said:

America is firing missiles into a part of a sovereign state that is widely acknowledged to be not under the authority of the government of that state.

And to be honest who gives a toss? I know I have said it before, the world is a brutal place it is not all afternoon tea and scones despite everyone being insulated from much of the crap that happens.

The US must maintain its eminence as the big dog on the block.

[DJRC]

just me said:

MX7 said:

You can't compare any two situations. There's always massive geographic, cultural, political and dozens of other factors that make them all different.

Just because there are (massive) differences does not mean situations can't be compared. There are also massive similarities.

What makes you think a large segment of the population of Waziristan is "harbouring, protecting, supplying and supporting" terrorists? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Seems to me the terrorists scurry around quite furtively, often in disguises which include the women's burqua, and only interact with a few members of the local population who support them. Often it seems that the "support" is purchased and the people just go with the highest bidder--a lot of people have been turned in to Pakistani and US authorities for monetary rewards.

Why should everyone be subjected to the danger of missiles raining down from the sky. Is it ok to wipe out a dozen-odd innocent people for one targeted individual? Would any civilized country's population stand for it? Definitely not.

Edited by just me on Wednesday 6th June 00:11

Why? Simple...because America is strong enough to do so and they are too weak to prevent them.

Welcome to International Politics.

[DJRC]

Rovinghawk said:

MX7 said:

Daft.

America is firing missiles into a sovereign state & killing people. A while ago it invaded with troops & helicopters & killed people.

I wouldn't like them to do so in UK, so why should it be acceptable somewhere else?

RH

And what would you do to stop them? Whether you like it or not is irrelevent to them, all that matters is what you would do about it. Lets be honest, there is a good chance you would do fk all, sit there, whinge about it and in the end just take it like a good little bh.

[Mr_B]

just me said:

MX7 said:

Rovinghawk said:

Imagine that some terrorists were attacking Venezuela & hiding out in Miami. The Venezuelan government has a drone that launches a missile into a Miami apartment, killing the terrorists with zero collateral injuries.

Would America be happy enough about it or would they feel that Venezuela had committed an act of war? Might they possibly be even more upset if a few US citizens were accidentally killed in the process?

Then ask what the difference is between the imaginary Venezuelan strike & the actual US strikes.

RH

Daft.

Seems like a decent analogy to me? Must you wade in with such an obnoxious, dismissive jibe? How about a reasoned reply. Why you think it's daft, for instance?

Pakistan only seems to half heartedly condem drone attacks. If it were that worried it would have kept the Kyber Pass closed to NATO traffic and would have told the USA to keep it billions of aid money.

[just me]

DJRC said:

And what would you do to stop them? Whether you like it or not is irrelevent to them, all that matters is what you would do about it. Lets be honest, there is a good chance you would do fk all, sit there, whinge about it and in the end just take it like a good little bh.

He is opposed to it, whether he can do something about it or not. You seem very, very comfortable with it. That makes you the arse-licking bh.