Drones - its a method - who cares?

[JakeStarkey]

Indofred does not establish the law of war, and Indofred clearly does not understand the law of war.

 

[Papageorgio]

The killing of al-Awlaki is "a reminder to all those who" would threaten the lives of Americans that they place "their children" in the path of harm.

Americans take very seriously putting their children first before those of their enemies.

So that's why we kill children?

 

[Kondor3]

The man may also be legally killed during the course of normal wartime operations.

We invaded Yemen?

"...If it's the son of a man who you want to kill but you kill the child instead; that's probably murder."

I do not recall anybody in the Administration saying that they intentionally killed any boy.

If, during the course of legitimate wartime operations, a child who is not the target of the strike is also killed, that's probably an accident - collateral casualties.

What war?

The 11-12 year-old long-term sustained, combined military and special operations campaign against Radical Militant Islamists launched by the Bush II Administration, authorized by Congress, colloquially known as the 'War on Terror', and still very much operative and in effect today. One of our more leisurely-paced wars - but wartime nonetheless.

"...Is the US in a state of war with Pakistan, Yemen or any other country it uses drone strikes in..."

No. The US is not at-war with Pakistan, Yemen, etc. Previous Administrations, including, most recently, the Bush II Administration, have taken it upon themselves to launch strikes over foreign territory when Bad Guys are present and the 'local' government either cannot neutralize the Bad Guys or when the local government is sympathetic to the Bad Guys and will not do so themselves or when the local government wants to cooperate but is afraid that it will face repercussions from elements of the population sympathetic to the Bad Guys.

It is not our preferred way of defending ourselves but we do, indeed, resort to such measures when there is no other practical way to neutralize the Bad Guys, and it is perceived as: better to take the Legal Hit than it is to lose American lives through inaction.

"...In fact, invading a foreign country with a war plane is an act of war or, if no war is declared, terrorism..."

A country which provides operational and training bases, or asylum, or both, for Terrorist Organizations and individual Terrorist Fighters and Leadership, itself commits an act of war against the nation which is the victim of such Terror Operations.

That is the casus belli used by the United States to invade Afghanistan and to depose the Taliban -led government, under the Republican Bush II Administration; and was the same rationale used by Republican President Ronald Reagan to strike at Libya in 1986.

It works well enough in these instances as well, and may be considered, for all practical purposes, limited-response warfare; with strikes against the Bad Guys continuing, and the Terrorist Host Nation's government protesting pro forma, but without the governments on either side being willing to actually rule that a State of War exists.

In such circumstances, both the United States, on one side, and Pakistan and Yemen, on the other, are demonstrating wisdom in not actually declaring a State of War, but looking the other way while the Bad Guys are slowly being killed-off.

And that does not even take into account the possibility that the Host Government secretly authorizes various strikes because it cannot control the region being struck, but it cannot confirm that authorization publicly, for fear of a segment of its own population sympathetic to the Bad Guys; with that Host Government secretly winking and looking the other way at much or all of it, and secretly glad to see the Bad Guys killed, with the blood on somebody else's hands, so that they can feign innocence.

"...Please explain why using aircraft to kill people in Pakistan or Yemen is different to the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour..."

Bad Guys - and Bad Guy Organizations - dwell in Pakistan and Yemen - who have killed innocent Americans (oftentimes civilians) and who intend to kill more. An attack upon such outside-the-government persons and groups constitutes a preemptive strike employed as a defensive measure designed to reduce further injury to our own countrymen.

Whereas, Pearl Harbor held no Bad Guys - nor Bad Guy Organizations - who had already killed innocent Japanese and who intended to kill more. An attack upon Pearl Harbor was a tactic employed as part of an Imperial campaign of conquest and expansionism; hoping to neutralize one of the few military powers capable of interfering with those plans of conquest. The Pearl Harbor attack was an act of aggression in the classical sense, rather than a defensive measure; also preemptive in nature but as an aid to conquest rather than defense.

"...If it wasn't intentional; why did he die?..."

Many years ago, one of my uncles was killed in an automobile accident.

It wasn't intentional, why did he die?

That was a rather silly question, wasn't it?

The kid had the bad luck to be someplace being targeted for the killing of another terrorist. And he got blown-up along with a bunch of other folk. God... the Fates... Nature de-selected him at that time.

Most unfortunate, but people die when the shooting starts, and, sometimes, people die who the shooters did not intend to die. War is a bloody, frightful, terrible business, and $hit happens.

"...Get real - these things can put a missile though a given window - it was deliberate..."

Have you ever watched a TV-gun-camera video of one of those missiles zero-ing -in on their target? They moved damned fast and between the speed and atmospheric conditions and RFI and other factors, the resulting images are not of a very high-rez quality and are oftentimes blurred. Those cameras are designed to aid steering and to have images of the target in the milliseconds immediately preceding impact, not to distinguish friend from foe when the warhead is only milliseconds from detonation.

And, most importantly of all, between the time that the missile's TV camera is close enough to the ground to distinguish individual and faces, and the time that the warhead detonates, we are down to milliseconds; insufficient time by several orders of magnitude and wishful thinking, to neutralize the warhead and to abort the strike.

It's not as if the TV-gun-camera for the missile is going to show the Drone-Operator (missile-controller) that a 16-year-old kid is present on the ground and that 10 or 50 or 100 milliseconds is enough to self-destruct the warhead after discovering such a state of affairs without harm to those on the ground.

Get real. Indeed.

"...Collateral casualties of an illegal act makes it murder..."

But it is an act of war, yes? Consequently, it is governed by the rules of war. Striking at one's enemies is not illegal. Generating collateral casualties and damage is not illegal if reasonable screening had been done in advance to try to eliminate or minimize such harm.

At best we would be looking at Unintentional Homocide rather than murder, and, frankly, given that it's a wartime operation, governed under the rules of war, it's not even illegal.

"...I'll pose a question. If Cuba sent a drone to the United states get rid of convicted terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, but killed a few locals who happened to be around - would that be a legitimate act of war or a terrorist attack..."

It would be a legitimate act of war.

And we would respond in overwhelming force and level the place.

They know this.

Which is why they are not going to do it.

"...While I'm asking - why does the United states protect a known mass murderer and terrorist who we know killed 73 people when he bombed an airliner?..."

Beats me. Open up another thread and ask the question. It's non sequitur here, though.

"...Didn't you know America (Fighter of global terrorism) is a major supporter of global terrorism?"

Fun, ain't it? I just love being powerful enough to be hypocritical and get away with it, while smacking the $hit out of those we don't like, for doing the same thing.

< throws sarcasm switch to 'Off' position >

 

[Kondor3]

The killing of al-Awlaki is "a reminder to all those who" would threaten the lives of Americans that they place "their children" in the path of harm.

Americans take very seriously putting their children first before those of their enemies.

So that's why we kill children?

When you can distinguish between killing children intentionally, vs. killing them accidentally during a strike upon the enemy, then you will have attained objectivity on this topic.

 

[Papageorgio]

The killing of al-Awlaki is "a reminder to all those who" would threaten the lives of Americans that they place "their children" in the path of harm.

Americans take very seriously putting their children first before those of their enemies.

So that's why we kill children?

When you can distinguish between killing children intentionally, vs. killing them accidentally during a strike upon the enemy, then you will have attained objectivity on this topic.

I'm already objective on the subject. I am suggesting you are not. The US killing their own children and calling them collateral damage is wrong. The are US citizens, and we know they were there. Can hardly wait when the government starts using them on US soil for the killing of "terrorist" children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Papageorgio incorrectly places responsibility on the government, for protecting its citizens, and not on the parents and family that place their children in danger. I am sure Koresh would love P's argumentation.

 

[Papageorgio]

Papageorgio incorrectly places responsibility on the government, for protecting its citizens, and not on the parents and family that place their children in danger. I am sure Koresh would love P's argumentation.

I'm sure Koresh wouldn't as he is dead, I put it on the government because the drone strikes do not distinguish it's casualties. We are not at war, there is no war on terror, we are leaving those countries that we invaded. We are supposed to be leaving the countries that drone strikes occur. Except for Pakistan which we are not even supposed to be at war with.

Where is it that the US is now the world police, and when do we start using drone strikes on our own citizens on our own soil. Why are we denying due process own our own citizens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, son, you don't govern and you don't make the definitions and you don't make the decisions.

Yes, we are at war, yes, terrorists are at war trying to kill us, and, yes, we will still kill terrorists in countries that we have left, and nothing you can say or do will change the reality of any of that.

 

[georgephillip]

The killing of al-Awlaki is "a reminder to all those who" would threaten the lives of Americans that they place "their children" in the path of harm.

Americans take very seriously putting their children first before those of their enemies.

Most Americans don't take 911 seriously enough to even examine who Anwar al-Awlaki was.
But their children will:

"The FBI interviewed al-Awlaki four times in the eight days following the 9/11 attacks.[1][50] One detective later told the 9/11 Commission he believed al-Awlaki 'was at the center of the 9/11 story'.

"And an FBI agent said,'if anyone had knowledge of the plot, it would have been' him, since 'someone had to be in the U.S. and keep the hijackers spiritually focused'.[50]

"One 9/11 Commission staff member said: 'Do I think he played a role in helping the hijackers here, knowing they were up to something? Yes. Do I think he was sent here for that purpose? I have no evidence for it."

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's another take on al-Awlaki's mindset prior to the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq:

"Awlaki at his mosque in San Diego two of the 9/11 hijackers had attended services at his mosque and a third one had also attended services with one of the other guys at his mosque in Virginia. And the FBI – he was already on their radar – but they brought Awlaki in a number of times for questioning.

"And they basically cleared him and said he had nothing to do with those guys except knowing them peripherally in his mosque, but that’s the soruce of a lot of intense scrutiny in the aftermath of the attack and everything that happened with Awlaki because some people believe that he was directly attached to the 9/11 attacks, which I think is preposterous.

"It’s nonsensical to think these guys would have keyed in Anwar al-Awlaki to the 9/11 attacks at a time when he was viewed as a very moderate guy. He endorsed George Bush for president in the 2000 election…"

 

[JakeStarkey]

and GP doesn't tell the whole story (and the part he tells is very off) as he is well aware

 

[georgephillip]

and GP doesn't tell the whole story (and the part he tells is very off) as he is well aware

Please elaborate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The killing of al-Awlaki is "a reminder to all those who" would threaten the lives of Americans that they place "their children" in the path of harm.

Americans take very seriously putting their children first before those of their enemies.

So that's why we kill children?

Yes, Jake and his Neo-Nazi Democrat Progressives like to send strong messages

 

[dblack]

The 11-12 year-old long-term sustained, combined military and special operations campaign against Radical Militant Islamists launched by the Bush II Administration, authorized by Congress, colloquially known as the 'War on Terror', and still very much operative and in effect today. One of our more leisurely-paced wars - but wartime nonetheless.

That's the tragic mistake at the core of the neo-cons' approach to dealing with terrorism. As much as we'd like it to be otherwise, the threat of terrorism isn't a war. It's a grave problem of politically-motivated, international crime.

The issue is confused by our general, non-critical perception that it's just a matter of escalation - that 'war' is a bigger deal than 'crime' (and terrorism is a very big deal indeed, so it must be a 'war' and not 'just a crime'). But that's not honest or accurate. Terrorism is a crime that happens to pose a bigger threat than any of the wars we've fought since WWII. Calling it a crime, instead of pretending it's a war, is in no way dismissing the seriousness of the situation. It's just being clear on what we're dealing with. That's important because the practice of engaging in a war is an entirely different activity than dealing with international criminals.

It would be very much to our advantage if it were a war. We're pretty good at those, and we have obvious military advantage over those who wish to do us harm. Unfortunately it's not war and, other than supporting the political work required to deal with international crime, our military can't do a lot about the problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sorry, son, you don't govern and you don't make the definitions and you don't make the decisions.

Yes, we are at war, yes, terrorists are at war trying to kill us, and, yes, we will still kill terrorists in countries that we have left, and nothing you can say or do will change the reality of any of that.

Yes, your Savior Obama makes the decisions to kill children in foreign countries.

How was that kid trying to kill us, Jake?

 

[Kondor3]

"...We are not at war, there is no war on terror..."

And there is the true crux of the disagreement, unless I miss my guess.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The killing of al-Awlaki is "a reminder to all those who" would threaten the lives of Americans that they place "their children" in the path of harm.

Americans take very seriously putting their children first before those of their enemies.

So that's why we kill children?

When you can distinguish between killing children intentionally, vs. killing them accidentally during a strike upon the enemy, then you will have attained objectivity on this topic.

Are you losing your fucking mind and soul? the drones killed woman and children at a wedding tard..

Wech Baghtu wedding party airstrike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wyatt earp]

kondor picture yourself taking your wife and kids to a cousins wedding. it was supposed to be a happy day.......everyone is dressed to the nines....and a fucking hell fire missle comes in and kills your wife and kids. thats not war......
Christmas truce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Christmas truce was a series of widespread, unofficial ceasefires that took place along the Western Front around Christmas 1914, during World War I. Through the week leading up to Christmas, parties of German and British soldiers began to exchange seasonal greetings and songs between their trenches; on occasion, the tension was reduced to the point that individuals would walk across to talk to their opposite numbers bearing gifts.

 

[Papageorgio]

So that's why we kill children?

When you can distinguish between killing children intentionally, vs. killing them accidentally during a strike upon the enemy, then you will have attained objectivity on this topic.

Are you losing your fucking mind and soul? the drones killed woman and children at a wedding tard..

Wech Baghtu wedding party airstrike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kondor doesn't care who is killed, as long as it isn't his family or friends. Until then, he just doesn't care.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Until the jihadist and their defenders put the love of their children before their hatred of the enemy, the jihadist and his family will cry forever.

 

[georgephillip]

Until the jihadist and their defenders put the love of their children before their hatred of the enemy, the jihadist and his family will cry forever.

Unless the capitalists and their gangsters learn to love children more than profits, their racket will end humanity:

"War is a racket&#8230; easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious&#8230; It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives&#8230;.

"It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes&#8230;.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.

"In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.&#8221;

The ?War On Terror? Is A $6 Trillion Racket, With $1 Trillion In Interest Alone, Exceeding The Total Cost Of World War II | AmpedStatus