Pakistan school Attack
Discussion
PRTVR said:
but it appears it is always easier to blame the west and not fellow Muslims.
Indeed it is. And you will never be able to counter that particular narrative. Infuriating, but there you go.And the Pak Taliban isn't interested in causing another TT attack. It's a parochial set of organisations, concerned with events in the tribal areas of NW Pakistan, and to some extent the Punjab. It's not international in terms of its thinking or its reach. It never has been. It might enjoy a marriage of convenience with those who are, but the guys who carried out the school attacks aren't intending on attacking the UK or US any day soon.
Those attacks are most likely to come from disaffected you Muslim men or women, born in the West but who reject Western societies' values and object to western military action on Muslim lands. And, rather infuriatingly on occasion, the lack of western military action in Muslim lands (failure to combat Assad, in that instance).
I sat in a meeting with Bruce Reidel recently (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Riedel). On the matter of drone attacks in Pakistan, he believed that their success was illusory, and that the ramifications were potentially very damaging. A view shared, he stated, by the majority of CIA field officers with experience in the region, and those involved in monitoring events at ground level.
KareemK said:
And when they bomb a kids school over here to get revenge for their children dying you'll scream blue murder.
And this is why we can never win as we'll never capture the hearts and minds of the people (in the countries concerned) as many will see that your argument is hypocritical at best.
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
So are we meant to just sit back, watch a country fall and then be face with another Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan style country sheltering and training world wide terrorists?And this is why we can never win as we'll never capture the hearts and minds of the people (in the countries concerned) as many will see that your argument is hypocritical at best.
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
Grumfutock said:
KareemK said:
And when they bomb a kids school over here to get revenge for their children dying you'll scream blue murder.
And this is why we can never win as we'll never capture the hearts and minds of the people (in the countries concerned) as many will see that your argument is hypocritical at best.
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
So are we meant to just sit back, watch a country fall and then be face with another Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan style country sheltering and training world wide terrorists?And this is why we can never win as we'll never capture the hearts and minds of the people (in the countries concerned) as many will see that your argument is hypocritical at best.
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
This is a modern day 100 years war and like the last 100 years war its one we won't win and ultimately we'll have to come to an accomodation with them.
KareemK said:
Grumfutock said:
KareemK said:
And when they bomb a kids school over here to get revenge for their children dying you'll scream blue murder.
And this is why we can never win as we'll never capture the hearts and minds of the people (in the countries concerned) as many will see that your argument is hypocritical at best.
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
So are we meant to just sit back, watch a country fall and then be face with another Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan style country sheltering and training world wide terrorists?And this is why we can never win as we'll never capture the hearts and minds of the people (in the countries concerned) as many will see that your argument is hypocritical at best.
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
This is a modern day 100 years war and like the last 100 years war its one we won't win and ultimately we'll have to come to an accomodation with them.
Grumfutock said:
KareemK said:
Grumfutock said:
KareemK said:
And when they bomb a kids school over here to get revenge for their children dying you'll scream blue murder.
And this is why we can never win as we'll never capture the hearts and minds of the people (in the countries concerned) as many will see that your argument is hypocritical at best.
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
So are we meant to just sit back, watch a country fall and then be face with another Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan style country sheltering and training world wide terrorists?And this is why we can never win as we'll never capture the hearts and minds of the people (in the countries concerned) as many will see that your argument is hypocritical at best.
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
This is a modern day 100 years war and like the last 100 years war its one we won't win and ultimately we'll have to come to an accomodation with them.
Perhaps not from your viewpoint but I can state categorically that the yanks are perceived to be the force behind the whole middle east problem for many Muslims.
"The Great Satan" was a term coined prior to 9/11, 1979 in fact. You can guess who ""The little Satan" is.
KareemK said:
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
Murder is not a moral term, it's a legal one. And one of the criteria for murder is intent to kill. That's why we never murder children, but they do.Yes, we kill innocent children, but we don't murder them. The Taliban murder children.
And yes, I realise that the parents will be hard pushed to tell the difference, but that doesn't mean the difference isn't important, and huge.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
KareemK said:
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
Murder is not a moral term, it's a legal one. And one of the criteria for murder is intent to kill. That's why we never murder children, but they do.Yes, we kill innocent children, but we don't murder them. The Taliban murder children.
And yes, I realise that the parents will be hard pushed to tell the difference, but that doesn't mean the difference isn't important, and huge.
Very well put!
Grumfutock said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
KareemK said:
Murdered kids are murdered kids regardless of who pulled the trigger East or West, no exceptions.
Murder is not a moral term, it's a legal one. And one of the criteria for murder is intent to kill. That's why we never murder children, but they do.Yes, we kill innocent children, but we don't murder them. The Taliban murder children.
And yes, I realise that the parents will be hard pushed to tell the difference, but that doesn't mean the difference isn't important, and huge.
Very well put!
Your wife may have been the target but I murdered your child along with her as I knew he would likely die in the carnage before I pulled the trigger but ignored that to get to your wife.
Do you think having sprayed your wife with bullets and killed your kid as well that I'd only get done for 1 murder?
If I were a sniper you might have a point but my weapon is not that accurate and I know it.
Sorry to use your family in the analogy but its how the enemy will see drone strikes. Nothing personal obviously.
KareemK said:
Do you think having sprayed your wife with bullets and killed your kid as well that I'd only get done for 1 murder?
I think if my wife were a member of a hateful, vile religious cult that murdered children and classed 50% of the world's population as 2nd class citizens due to their genitalia, and by taking her out, you were probably doing humanity in general a favour, then I doubt you'd get done for murder at all. (she isn't by the way, she's a very pleasant woman in her early 50s who makes jam for charity and rescues mice from our cat's mouth).TwigtheWonderkid said:
KareemK said:
Do you think having sprayed your wife with bullets and killed your kid as well that I'd only get done for 1 murder?
I think if my wife were a member of a hateful, vile religious cult that murdered children and classed 50% of the world's population as 2nd class citizens due to their genitalia, and by taking her out, you were probably doing humanity in general a favour, then I doubt you'd get done for murder at all. (she isn't by the way, she's a very pleasant woman in her early 50s who makes jam for charity and rescues mice from our cat's mouth).
Now, back to that jam. 
KareemK said:
I'm sure she is, but you get my point. In this country that scenario would be a double murder.
No it wouldn't, otherwise our soldiers and RAF pilots would be charged with murder!Murder is a specific legal term, and in order for something to be murder it has to meet the legal requirements.
It's idiotic to say otherwise. Like when fools say "abortion is murder". No it's not, because it's legal. They are entitled to think the law should be changed so abortion becomes murder, but that's a different argument.
Targeting the Taliban, blowing them to kingdom come, and inadvertently killing innocent people in the process, is not murder.
And as an aside, do those who host the wedding have any responsibility? They get to choose who to invite! If I lived in Pakistan, and turned up at a wedding with my kids, and saw the local Taliban commander was present, I'd f
k off pronto. First law of self defence.....don't be there!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
KareemK said:
I'm sure she is, but you get my point. In this country that scenario would be a double murder.
No it wouldn't, otherwise our soldiers and RAF pilots would be charged with murder!Murder is a specific legal term, and in order for something to be murder it has to meet the legal requirements.
It's idiotic to say otherwise. Like when fools say "abortion is murder". No it's not, because it's legal. They are entitled to think the law should be changed so abortion becomes murder, but that's a different argument.
Targeting the Taliban, blowing them to kingdom come, and inadvertently killing innocent people in the process, is not murder.
And as an aside, do those who host the wedding have any responsibility? They get to choose who to invite! If I lived in Pakistan, and turned up at a wedding with my kids, and saw the local Taliban commander was present, I'd f
k off pronto. First law of self defence.....don't be there!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
KareemK said:
I'm sure she is, but you get my point. In this country that scenario would be a double murder.
No it wouldn't, otherwise our soldiers and RAF pilots would be charged with murder!Our pilots are not charged because, er, they're OUR pilots. When captured by the Taliban I think you'll find they are charged and sadly dealt with rather barbarically. Indeed, they don't bother with the charging and jump straight to the sentancing. It's all about perspective.
Your linking this to abortion is ridiculous.
Rogue86 said:
KareemK said:
No they wouldn't. RAF pilots don't have on-board cameras zooming in to see who is entering the building etc.
Erm...As has been said by someone earlier, not on 50" plasma screens and with aircraft able to stay on station until a determination is made. Nowadays when you initiate a drone attack you have a greater knowledge of who you will be killing.
Why do you think the drones are so controversial and acting as a recruitment tool for these idiots where ordinary fighter jets aren't. From their perspective we're deliberately killing as many innocents as they are.
KareemK said:
Not in the same sense as the drone operators have they don't.
As has been said by someone earlier, not on 50" plasma screens and with aircraft able to stay on station until a determination is made. Nowadays when you initiate a drone attack you have a greater knowledge of who you will be killing.
Why do you think the drones are so controversial and acting as a recruitment tool for these idiots where ordinary fighter jets aren't. From their perspective we're deliberately killing as many innocents as they are.
you clearly do not know the capabilities of either drones/aircraftAs has been said by someone earlier, not on 50" plasma screens and with aircraft able to stay on station until a determination is made. Nowadays when you initiate a drone attack you have a greater knowledge of who you will be killing.
Why do you think the drones are so controversial and acting as a recruitment tool for these idiots where ordinary fighter jets aren't. From their perspective we're deliberately killing as many innocents as they are.
and why should you? - this is classified information
remember that Homeland etc are fictional tv programmes?
i'll give you one bit of information - there are data links between drones/satellites and aircraft for target acquisition etc
and plasma screens are so 'old' - lol
drones are so controversial because they are so effective - the Taliban live in constant fear of a Hellfire missile through the front door
Edited by grand cherokee on Sunday 28th December 09:41
grand cherokee said:
KareemK said:
Not in the same sense as the drone operators have they don't.
As has been said by someone earlier, not on 50" plasma screens and with aircraft able to stay on station until a determination is made. Nowadays when you initiate a drone attack you have a greater knowledge of who you will be killing.
Why do you think the drones are so controversial and acting as a recruitment tool for these idiots where ordinary fighter jets aren't. From their perspective we're deliberately killing as many innocents as they are.
you clearly do not know the capabilities of either drones/aircraftAs has been said by someone earlier, not on 50" plasma screens and with aircraft able to stay on station until a determination is made. Nowadays when you initiate a drone attack you have a greater knowledge of who you will be killing.
Why do you think the drones are so controversial and acting as a recruitment tool for these idiots where ordinary fighter jets aren't. From their perspective we're deliberately killing as many innocents as they are.
and why should you? - this is classified information
remember that Homeland etc are fictional tv programmes?
i'll give you one bit of information - there are data links between drones/satellites and aircraft for target acquisition etc
and plasma screens are so 'old' - lol
drones are so controversial because they are so effective - the Taliban live in constant fear of a Hellfire missile through the front door
Edited by grand cherokee on Sunday 28th December 09:41
Doesn't wash.
This is from a US general or drone analysis specialist:
"The advantages of drones compared to other military options are well publicized, and fall into two categories. In terms of surveillance, drones are capable of slipping across international borders with relative ease without putting human personnel at risk. Their ability to loiter over targets allows them to observe “patterns of life” to provide surveillance data 24/7, identify and track potential targets, and determine the best time to strike to avoid civilian casualties."
It's the last 3 words that make the case against them as if they do indeed help determine "the best time to strike to avoid civilian casualties" why are weddings and other gatherings being hit when women and children will clearly die.
Anyway, it's Christmas and this subject (kids dying) is not great for generating a yuletide atmosphere so I'll bow out until new year when a return to work puts me into a more appropriate mood for this debate.
Have a happy new year.
KareemK said:
Yes, thats exactly it, people are flocking to join the Taliban because the drones are so effective at killing them.
Doesn't wash.
This is from a US general or drone analysis specialist:
"The advantages of drones compared to other military options are well publicized, and fall into two categories. In terms of surveillance, drones are capable of slipping across international borders with relative ease without putting human personnel at risk. Their ability to loiter over targets allows them to observe “patterns of life” to provide surveillance data 24/7, identify and track potential targets, and determine the best time to strike to avoid civilian casualties."
It's the last 3 words that make the case against them as if they do indeed help determine "the best time to strike to avoid civilian casualties" why are weddings and other gatherings being hit when women and children will clearly die.
Anyway, it's Christmas and this subject (kids dying) is not great for generating a yuletide atmosphere so I'll bow out until new year when a return to work puts me into a more appropriate mood for this debate.
Have a happy new year.
you choose a single quote - those who deal with target designation be it JSOC or the CIA do not comment for very obvious reasons of securityDoesn't wash.
This is from a US general or drone analysis specialist:
"The advantages of drones compared to other military options are well publicized, and fall into two categories. In terms of surveillance, drones are capable of slipping across international borders with relative ease without putting human personnel at risk. Their ability to loiter over targets allows them to observe “patterns of life” to provide surveillance data 24/7, identify and track potential targets, and determine the best time to strike to avoid civilian casualties."
It's the last 3 words that make the case against them as if they do indeed help determine "the best time to strike to avoid civilian casualties" why are weddings and other gatherings being hit when women and children will clearly die.
Anyway, it's Christmas and this subject (kids dying) is not great for generating a yuletide atmosphere so I'll bow out until new year when a return to work puts me into a more appropriate mood for this debate.
Have a happy new year.
its a fact of combat that collateral damage is inevitable - what 'we' try to do is limit as far as possible that collateral damage
i'll give you a very real situation - if OBL was at a 'wedding' would the death of a certain number of women and children be acceptable to kill him?
absolutely yes, they are at said wedding in the presence of OBL so must accept responsibility for themselves and their children!
did OBL ask the same question about 9/11?
as for people joining the Talebs in response to drone attacks - that's fine because naïve young recruits cannot replace seasoned commanders that have been killed by drones etc
fair trade off?
Edited by grand cherokee on Sunday 28th December 10:37
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff