PDA

View Full Version : Run Mr. Taliban...


Pages : [1] 2

er340790
1st Nov 2013, 18:37
Reports say Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban has been taken out by a drone.

Which gives another excuse for some light music.

Run!Mr.Taliban - YouTube

Take it away......

rgbrock1
1st Nov 2013, 18:49
er:

The Pakistani Taliban has confirmed his death and sending off to meet his 77 virgins. (Or how many of them there supposedly are.)

Like I wrote in another thread: 1 more down, plenty more to go.

Lon More
1st Nov 2013, 19:13
Plenty more where he came from

Dan_Brown
1st Nov 2013, 19:21
Good show indeed. Give the b:mad:s a taste of their own medicine. They want war, so let's have more of it.

pigboat
1st Nov 2013, 19:33
Reports say Meshud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban has been taken out by a drone.

Well boo hoo.

Andu
1st Nov 2013, 21:50
As sure as God (Allah?) made little apples, you can guarantee that an infant and innocent pregnant great-grandmother who had absolutely nothing to do with the Taliban will be among the casualties. Stand by for the heart-wrenching interview with English-speaking members of the family.

Ozzy
1st Nov 2013, 22:23
Well done Mr. Drone Driver :D:D:D

Ozzy

axefurabz
1st Nov 2013, 22:54
Yes people, this is why the NSA is looking at your communications.

Expect to see an appropriate Grauniad headline tomorrow.

Not.

radeng
1st Nov 2013, 22:55
It might not have been the best time to do it when there were the chances of opening a peace dialogue....

500N
1st Nov 2013, 23:00
radeng

Disagree.

He needed to be taken out.

Deal with the next level re the peace process.

radeng
1st Nov 2013, 23:02
500N

if, as a result, there is a next level......

Fox3WheresMyBanana
1st Nov 2013, 23:03
My impression from history is that there will be a far higher chance of real peace if the radicals who started the 'war' are now the ones suing for peace because they are getting the sh!t kicked out of them.

aviate1138
2nd Nov 2013, 07:55
Taliban Peace an oxymoron surely?

Fareastdriver
2nd Nov 2013, 09:49
It will almost certainly be the BBC giving the interview.

500N
2nd Nov 2013, 10:25
"Glorification of the death of a human being,"

Human beings generally don't go around shooting children in the head
and blowing up women and children. Doesn't deserve to be classed
as a human being.

"indifference to the slaughter of any innocents"
On a percentage basis, not many and plenty of checks and balances in place
to try to avoid.

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 10:28
Human beings generally don't go around shooting children in the head
and blowing up women and children.History suggests otherwise.

Cacophonix
2nd Nov 2013, 10:29
Plenty more where he came from


Sadly probably more after every drone attack...

Beware the laws of unintended consequences.


Caco

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 10:30
On a percentage basis, not manyI'm sure that's of great solace to those innocents who are killed, and their relatives.

Pretty much the definition of indifference right there.

500N
2nd Nov 2013, 10:32
Yes, afraid a lack of empathy is a failing of mind as I keep being reminded.

Cacophonix
2nd Nov 2013, 10:42
The Strategic Effects of a Lethal Drones Policy | American Security Project (http://americansecurityproject.org/issues/asymmetric-operations/the-strategic-effects-of-a-lethal-drones-policy/)

Caco

Dan_Brown
2nd Nov 2013, 10:49
You cannot reason with an enemy that wants to die for their cause. So why try and negotiate? They have to be taken out, en mass if necessary. History has taught us this. The Japanese last century spring to mind.The only way.

As for the pacifists, an eye for an eye.

P.S. Do you think the west should just roll over, drag them through the courts and let parasite lawyers make money on the whole deal?

Dan_Brown
2nd Nov 2013, 10:57
By any means available. Even the big one if it comes to that. Them or us.

Or would you like your women and children bought up under these savages??

Cacophonix
2nd Nov 2013, 10:59
They have to be taken out, en mass if necessary. History has taught us this.

Ja there must be no mercy, these unter menschen must all die. There are no innocent people amongst them. We kill them all to bring our freedom and civilization to benefit them!

Caco

Effluent Man
2nd Nov 2013, 11:36
Agreed.I would go a step further and only allow the worship of higher beings where their existence had been proven.It is just giving them all an out when they can say I did it for the glory of Allah,God etc.

Dan_Brown
2nd Nov 2013, 11:41
I am afraid it is coming to the stage, when it is them or us.

We had better hurry up and stop dithering, as the savages are getting tooled up big time.

In time, not in my life time I hope, when decisive action will have to be taken.

Have we learnt anything from recent history?

Cacophonix
2nd Nov 2013, 11:45
Sometimes I bumble onto these threads and for am moment think I am on a Combat18 site. Fortunately the occasional irony and the level of intelligence and literacy of most of the posters makes me realise that I can't be...

Caco

Airborne Aircrew
2nd Nov 2013, 11:56
My, the force is strong in the bleeding heart, hand wringers in this thread...

Let's be honest shall we... The west did not blow up a barracks in the ME filled with Islamic Marines. The west did not put a truckload of explosives under the Allah Trade Center. The west did not drive a small boat up against the SS Ramadan and blow it up. The west didn't attack Islamic embassies across Africa. The west did not hijack 4 aircraft and fly them into the Allah Trade Center and the Taliban MoD. They did.

The west is guilty, if guilt is even appropriate, of supporting a side in the ME that doesn't suit this bunch of 12th Century yahoos but, not matter what the west was perceived to be doing wrong it did not require violence against western civilians. But they brought it.

How quickly you bleeding hand wringers forget all the western civilians that have been killed when you start crying about a few on the other side that choose, because that's what most of them do choose, to be around a known potential target.

I'm going to invest in spine futures because it seems like the shortage is getting worse.

StressFree
2nd Nov 2013, 12:01
Airborne,

Well said sir! :D

Cacophonix
2nd Nov 2013, 12:03
How quickly you bleeding hand wringers forget all the western civilians that have been killed when you start crying about a few on the other side that choose, because that's what most of them do choose, to be around a known potential target.

Nobody is frikkin crying man! What some sensible folk here are saying is that in many ways the use of drones and the killing of innocent women and children is not the way to win this 'war' even if the occasional target is killed.

As for spines why don't you purchase those for the cowards that kill people by remote control thousands of miles away from the presence of any danger.

Caco

StressFree
2nd Nov 2013, 12:05
John Smith,

Wise words, good points. :D

SASless
2nd Nov 2013, 12:57
Met a young Marine a couple of days ago and was told of the current ROE's in effect.

He described an incident where four of his Squad were hit by a spray of AK fire from a Taliban fighter....who having emptied the Magazine on the Patrol and hitting the four Marines....immediately dropped his weapon at his feet and walked off with his hands up raised.

Under the ROE's he could not be shot by the surviving Marines.

My comment to him was...."Stack Arms!", tell his Commander that he was not going to play by those Rules and either change the ROE to meet Real World needs....or send the Troops home immediately.

Has it gotten to that sad level that our Troops cannot engage the Enemy due to the ROE's and the Taliban are able to use our own ROE's against us?

Airborne Aircrew
2nd Nov 2013, 12:59
Caco:

As for spines why don't you purchase those for the cowards that kill people by remote control thousands of miles away from the presence of any danger.You'd be referring to politicians I take it.:E

Seriously, the very reason we kill with unmanned drones from thousands of miles away is another product of lefty, liberal, hand-wringing fluffies who wail and beat their chest at a single death. They whine because in 10 years 5-600 men and women are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan yet in less than a month on Iwo Jima the US lost over 6800 and had almost 20,000 wounded.

The west has, generally, lost it's stomach for war. Something which will prove our downfall in the not too distant future. As long as we keep trying to go down the path of unfettered peace and keep disarming ourselves there are others around watching us gut ourselves and systematically remove our ability to provide any form of violence in reaction to theirs.

Hence my comment re: spines... It stands quite simply because a large portion of the west have become, and there really isn't another way to put this honestly, cowards.

BenThere
2nd Nov 2013, 13:13
The last thing I wanted when I went to war was a fair fight. Drones are an excellent weapon in assymetric warfare.

One day whole armies will be drones and all combat will be remotely controlled. Hallelujah!

Dan_Brown
2nd Nov 2013, 13:49
He would have dropped the rifle had he been shot. I can't see the sequence of events getting in the way of justice.

ROE, means you are fighting a war with your hands tied. That alone is costing infidels lives.

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 13:54
I do think it is time to make Islam illegal in the civilised world. It is an ideology so far opposed from our system of values that it cannot be allowed to continue.The concept of banning an ideology is pretty far opposed to the idea of pluralist democracy, too.
How quickly you bleeding hand wringers forget all the western civilians that have been killed when you start crying about a few on the other side that choose, because that's what most of them do choose, to be around a known potential target.Nobody is forgetting the western civilians at all, so please drop the strawman.
I don't think anyone has opposed the taking out of actual targets. What is being opposed is the collateral damage which happens. Since we are so incredibly superior to the enemy in just about every way, particularly technologically, why is it that we are unable to take out just the target? Why must the family, the friends etc also die? These people are human beings too, and innocent to boot regardless of who they are related to. They have done nothing wrong. You are advocating the death sentence for guilt by association.
I'm not against drones or any other means used to take out legitimate targets. What I am against is the deaths of innocents, and the appalling indifference to those deaths which is on display here.

Matari
2nd Nov 2013, 14:05
Since we are so incredibly superior to the enemy in just about every way, particularly technologically

Finally we agree on something.

fitliker
2nd Nov 2013, 14:27
You cannot win if you are playing for a draw.
The Soviets tried playing nice and got their asses handed to them.
Nato has and is making the same mistake , playing nice against a militia that has not signed the Geneva convention. Therefore they should not expect any protection from it.

As for someone not in uniform with gunshot residue on them in a war zone they shot be shot on the spot.

They could end this police action in one opium growing season.
Close all ports in Pakistan, Close all roads in and out of Afghanistan.
The drugs will still get out, but the food will not get in and once the Afghans start eating each other again , maybe they will beg for peace.
Control the food supply and the opium growers will have to grow food or die. Take away the money from the drug lords and the Taliban will die.
Prosecute the bankers who hide the Taliban drug money. Deport all those who send money to support the Taliban and enemies of the west to these countries they are supporting.
Carpet bomb the factories that make the weapons that are killing Nato troops and shut down the ports used to export them.
Or we could continue to watch those factories supply weapons that have been killing Nato troops since 1953.And do nothing.

Now, where did I put my beer :}:}

Airborne Aircrew
2nd Nov 2013, 14:31
PTT:

When we go to war we don't put our soldiers in the middle of large concentrations of our civilians because we don't want to put the civilians at risk. Our enemy on the other hand deliberately put themselves among the population. It is they who are responsible for the collateral damage not us. If they had the courage to separate themselves from the "innocents" then the "innocents" would be just fine... See how warped your thought process has become now you've been softened up by the fluffies? You're blaming us for the faults of the enemy... :=

sitigeltfel
2nd Nov 2013, 14:39
why is it that we are unable to take out just the target? Why must the family, the friends etc also die? These people are human beings too, and innocent to boot regardless of who they are related to.

Innocent, my arse. They are the support network for these monsters. If you discover that Uncle Ali has become head honcho for these brave shooters of little schoolgirls, and you still invite him around for tea and biscuits, then expect Auntie Hellfire to come knocking at the door.

A word of warning for the friends and family of Khan Said, you still have two months in which to gain a mention in this years Darwin Awards.

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 15:11
They are part of the community harbouring our enemies. They are guilty and should be considered as such. Guilt by association? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) I guess all the kids (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-children-killed-by-americas-drones-crimes-against-humanity-committed-by-barack-h-obama/5320570) who get killed in this manner are also guilty to you, right?
Sometimes it is necessary to make difficult decisions to ensure the survival of our democracy. Islam is so clearly incompatible with our values that it is obviously necessary to find a solution to deal with the problem.You don't ensure the survival of our democracy by throwing away one of the basic principles of it. To paraphrase the poem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...): "First they came for the Muslims..."
When we go to war we don't put our soldiers in the middle of large concentrations of our civilians because we don't want to put the civilians at risk. Our enemy on the other hand deliberately put themselves among the population. It is they who are responsible for the collateral damage not us. If they had the courage to separate themselves from the "innocents" then the "innocents" would be just fine.So you discard our principles because of their tactics? Bullshit: it simply makes you as bad as them. The whole point of this war is that we are better than they are. We should act it.
If you discover that Uncle Ali has become head honchoImportant bit highlighted. Anyone bothered to ask them if they know, or are we simply assuming that they do? Because it's impossible that someone could live with anyone like that without knowing, right? Especially if the kid is 3 years old or so...

sitigeltfel
2nd Nov 2013, 15:18
Important bit highlighted. Anyone bothered to ask them if they know, or are we simply assuming that they do? Because it's impossible that someone could live with anyone like that without knowing, right? Especially if the kid is 3 years old or so... It is highly unlikely that a young kid would be in the presence of these terrorists without the knowledge of a parent or guardian, therefore they are culpable in exposing them to risk.

How would they know? The AKs, LMGs, bandoliers of ammo and crates of RPGs and land mines might just be a give-away.

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 15:23
It is highly unlikely that a young kid would be in the presence of these terrorists without the knowledge of a parent or guardian, therefore they are culpable in exposing them to risk. That's some twisted logic right there. You think it's ok to kill a child because the child's parent has some dodgy association? Think that through, please.
How would they know? The AKs, LMGs, bandoliers of ammo and crates of RPGs and land mines might just be a give-away.Yeah, because they all store them in their houses. Have you actually taken part in any operations against these people?
Owning an AK is hardly a stand-out way of identifying a terrorist. Every man and his dog has one over there. It'd be like saying that everyone in the US who has a gun is a criminal because every criminal has a gun: it's nonsensical.
Yep. Small terrorists grow up to become big terrorists.And what, precisely, is a "small terrorist"? How are these children "terrorists"?

In all honesty I'm seeing some fairly sick justifications for this. You're justifying the killing of children who have themselves done nothing wrong on the basis that they are in the wrong place. We're supposed to be better than the terrorists.

BenThere
2nd Nov 2013, 15:28
So you discard our principles because of their tactics? Bullshit: it simply makes you as bad as them. The whole point of this war is that we are better than they are. We should act it.

I recoil at the logic of that argument. We should be as bad as them. Giving up our advantage in warfare on the basis of a false moralistic argument is self-defeating if you think it through.

If Billy throws a rock through your window, the correct response is not that you would never throw a rock through his window, or that you can replace the windows. The correct response is, "I'm going to break every window in Billy's house. Billy started this crap! I'll finish it!"

The same false argument that if we stoop to their level, we've lost, is just as easily defeated.

Our amoral, blood-thirsty, aggressive Islamist enemy should be dealt with on their own terms and worse if we want a better world in 20 years. Stop apologizing for this totalitarian, intolerant, medieval scourge on the world.

If it weren't for Islamic aggression, the world would have been quite peaceful over the past 20 years, and free of many of the worries we face today.

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 15:43
I recoil at the logic of that argument. We should be as bad as them. Giving up our advantage in warfare on the basis of a false moralistic argument is self-defeating if you think it through.If this weren't a war based on holding the moral high-ground (the war on terror, remember?) then I'd agree. It is such a war, though.If Billy throws a rock through your window, the correct response is not that you would never throw a rock through his window, or that you can replace the windows. The correct response is, "I'm going to break every window in Billy's house. Billy started this crap! I'll finish it!"The correct response is not to break every window in every house of Billy's family, though. That's what you are advocating.Stop apologizing for this totalitarian, intolerant, medieval scourge on the world. Strawman. I'm not. I'm saying that our acting without morals is abhorrent.If it weren't for Islamic aggression, the world would have been quite peaceful over the past 20 years, and free of many of the worries we face today.What rose-tinted glasses you have, grandma! Something else would have been at the forefront: it always is.
These people are our enemies.Those children are your enemy? Don't be ridiculous. The people who carry out terrorist attacks are your enemy; those who happen to be their children through no fault of their own are simply children. If you think that the killing of children requires no justification then I pity you.I strongly believe Islam should be proscribedThen you have no faith in democracy. Sad.

sitigeltfel
2nd Nov 2013, 15:49
That's some twisted logic right there. You think it's ok to kill a child because the child's parent has some dodgy association? Think that through, please.


Lets have a look at this "thinking through" concept of yours.

The operators and commanders of the UAV force will do everything within their means to avoid that awful phrase, collateral damage. It is often claimed by the terrorists that old women, children and fluffy kittens are killed in these attacks....but how do we know?
I would suspect that a lot of what is claimed by them is sheer propaganda, designed to appeal to the sensitivities of the usual suspects and their fellow travellers.

Now, as to the tactics employed by the Taliban, their mantra is kill anything and everything, the more the merrier. If any innocents get in the way, tough titty, Allah will look after his own.

sitigeltfel
2nd Nov 2013, 16:02
I strongly believe Islam should be proscribed
Then you have no faith in democracy. Sad.

Democracy is under attack from radical Islam, a cult that spits in its face.

That you do not have the ability to grasp that fact, is the really sad thing.

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 16:06
The operators and commanders of the UAV force will do everything within their means to avoid that awful phrase, collateral damage.Absolutely. Having worked with them I know that full well.It is often claimed by the terrorists that old women, children and fluffy kittens are killed in these attacks....but how do we know? It's not just claimed by the terrorists. It's reported by independent sources as well. Are you denying that it happens?
Now, as to the tactics employed by the Taliban, their mantra is kill anything and everything, the more the merrier. If any innocents get in the way, tough titty, Allah will look after his own.That's their mantra. You're suggesting that we should do the same? If so then I would ask what the ultimate goal actually is here.
Democracy is under attack from radical Islam, a cult that spits in its face.

That you do not have the ability to grasp that fact, is the really sad thing.What makes you think I don't? I do entirely. I also firmly hold that pluralism is the strength of democracy. End the pluralism and you end the democracy.
The fact is that the rules have changed. We can no longer effectively combat Islamic terrorism while remaining within our accepted norms of decency. Something drastic will need to happen, or our way of life will cease to exist.You're already advocating ending our way of life. Go your way and our way of life does cease to exist.

This discussion has, I think, reached an impasse. I'll leave you to your schoolboy fantasies of burning women and children justified on the basis that they knew someone once who came to tea who once sold a rifle to a man whose brother was potentially a terrorist...

BenThere
2nd Nov 2013, 16:12
What rose-tinted glasses you have, grandma! Something else would have been at the forefront: it always is.

What, then, other than Islamic aggression has intruded on general world peace since before Hussein's Kuwait Adventure?

Airborne Aircrew
2nd Nov 2013, 17:10
PTT:

I'm saying that our acting without morals is abhorrentBeing dead or under the control of these medieval hooligans is yet more abhorrent I'm afraid.

I really don't know where you got this pathetic attitude that we have to "hold moral high ground" and "be better then them". There is only one thing we need to hold that is high and that is the air superiority and the only thing we need to be better at then them is delivering death and destruction until they are either all dead or, they surrender unconditionally. What it takes to get to that end really isn't of any consequence. If you're too squeamish to watch then look the other way but don't weaken me with your misplaced ideals.

I do believe Thucydides had forseen the modern west when he said:-

The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards

con-pilot
2nd Nov 2013, 17:23
The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards

A lot of wisdom in that statement. Except it should say rather than "it's fighting done by fools", it should say 'misguided fools'.

"Cowards" stands on its own merits.

StressFree
2nd Nov 2013, 17:48
PTT,

"What rose-tinted glasses you have, grandma! Something else would have been at the forefront: it always is."

Really? Can you suggest another group or faith that would have upset the world in a similar way that radical Islam has? Well? Who?

As usual you're an apologist for these animals. I have no trouble with anyone who wants to live peacefully and worship whatever God they like, but when it starts to become a mission to take over my way of life and my national culture then I object.

Try building a church in Saudi Arabia, or worshipping in one in Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt or Syria and you'll see the true reality of religious hatred.

Frankly I'm SO sick of the West being blamed as the bullies and murderers whilst in the Islamic world minorities such as Christians are being persecuted out of existence. We've given the Muslim population 100% more freedoms than other faiths have been allowed in Islamic countries. I don't recall Christians flying jets into buildings.........

So if in our fight against those who seek to destroy us we sadly take out some innocents then so be it. The people on the trains and the bus in London were innocent but they were murdered anyway by mindless fools who actually thought that they would be rewarded for their mass murder.

Rant over.

Flash2001
2nd Nov 2013, 18:05
Con, please! "Risk averse" is the phrase.

After an excellent landing etc...

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 18:09
I am advocating suspending, for as long as is necessary, some of the freedoms we enjoy as a mature democracy, to ensure it's long term survival.Don't make me quote Franklin (http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm) at you...
It's very, very simple: the ultimate goal is the same as it always has been and always will be. i.e. The survival of our people. If that is at the expense of another group or race, that is unfortunate, but it is just human nature.Why need it be? I would argue very strongly that we are nowhere near that point, and far further than we were with the Soviet Union.
What, then, other than Islamic aggression has intruded on general world peace since before Hussein's Kuwait Adventure?Oh come on Ben, you're no fool. Islamism has been around for many a year, and in the same form. Other threats have been deemed by our lords and masters as more pressing, though (whether they were or not), be those threats the actual attacks by the Germans at various times in the last century, the potential threat of nuclear attack from the Eastern Bloc, or the (cooked up?) threat of domestic communism under McCarthysim. Islamism hasn't suddenly become more of a threat, it's just the one which the government of the day can most effectively magnify (and it most certainly is magnified) in order to keep the populace in fear. Don't forget that the Islamist used to be our allies against the East...
Being dead or under the control of these medieval hooligans is yet more abhorrent I'm afraid.False dilemma. There are plenty of other options.
I really don't know where you got this pathetic attitude that we have to "hold moral high ground" and "be better then them".The entire invasion of Afghanistan was predicated on the moral justification of the need to get hold of a man who had masterminded an atrocity. Lose the moral high ground and the basic tenet on which the war was founded is lost.
There is only one thing we need to hold that is high and that is the air superiority and the only thing we need to be better at then them is delivering death and destruction until they are either all dead or, they surrender unconditionally.Neither is going to happen, ever. You seem to think that we are fighting against people, when actually we are fighting against an ideology. That requires a different strategy to "bomb them all" because bombs don't kill ideas. Other, better ideas kill ideas.
If you're too squeamish to watch Hardly, fella. I've spent years of my life in both Iraq and Afghanistan fighting this particular conflict. Your assumptions are misplaced.
The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowardsI agree with that quote, but not that it applies to our democracy. Have we done that? Is there a maximum intelligence level to join the armed forces? Or is it simply the fact that, in your mind, "brave soldiers" will always fight and "intellectual cowards" will always talk about it? Sounds to me like education envy if that is the case, and an inability to acknowledge that smart people can also be soldiers and can still disagree with the justification of any part of any conflict while carrying out their duty to the best of their ability.
As usual you're an apologist for these animals.As usual you're talking out of your arse. Nowhere have I been a n apologist for the actual terrorist. I've already said it very clearly: no problem killing the enemy, big problem killing innocents.

StressFree
2nd Nov 2013, 18:30
PTT,

Your usual overly verbose responses and you have the FRONT to say I'm talking out of my arse.

It's people like you who live in this utopian world where if we're all nice to each other then it'll all be OK.

Wake up you idiot, these people want to take us over, they don't give a SHIT about how many innocent Westerners are killed in their attacks upon us so in return I won't shed a tear for their losses.

This could all stop tomorrow if the Islamic proclamation of a global Umaa were to cease. It's only Islam that seeks to control the whole world and exterminate the infidels. As long as they want that they will endure resistance, simple.

You'd make a good Philosophy lecturer in some second rate provinicial polytechnic, you have good ideas and ideals but lack the grasp of REALITY.

Santa Claus doesn't come down the chimney, chicks aren't only born at Easter and Islamic terrorism won't go away unless we make it......even if it means there are some casualties along the way.

Grow up.

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 19:32
Your usual overly verbose responsesThree sentences too much for you? I know the ability to concentrate is lost on some, but that's simply twitter-esque...
and you have the FRONT to say I'm talking out of my arseI did because you were. I have not been an apologist for the terrorists themselves. Retract that because currently you are simply lying.
It's people like you who live in this utopian world where if we're all nice to each other then it'll all be OK.Nope, not at all. You can build your strawmen all day though. Shall I state my stance once more for you in the hope that you've managed to concentrate long enough to get this far and read it? Here is is again: no problem killing the enemy, big problem killing innocents.

We are getting towards that point in the UK and Europe in general.Don't talk nonsense.Muslims are breeding much, much faster than the indigenous populations.Whose fault is that?We are seeing growing islamifacation.Spelling aside, maybe you should be asking why (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-islamification-of-britain-record-numbers-embrace-muslim-faith-2175178.html) instead of simply condemning it.Let us not forget that this is a cult which demands that all 'kuffar' convert or dieHere we go again...
So do other mainstream religions (see Deuteronomy 13:6-10).a cult which demands that the world should be united under a caliphateA bit like the Pope, then?a cult which venerates a war mongering, bigamous paedophileThat could describe just about any leader in the 7th century. They were all war-mongering, and marriage to those we would now consider underage was also the norm. Bigamy is only a crime if you subscribe to the notion it shouldn't be: look at the Mormons.We already have Shariah courts in the UK.We have jewish court too. None of which (Islamic or Jewish) supercede national law.We already have women being forced to wear the veil. Yeah, this is a problem, and one which the nation is already in a position to address. Nobody wants to stand up and enforce these women's Human Rights though. That said, domestica abuse (and that's what this is) isn't a Muslim-only issue.

Oktas8
2nd Nov 2013, 19:44
So, is the point of the war in Afghanistan

a) to destroy Islam?
b) to make the UK a nicer place?
c) to give the oppressed in -istan a fairer shot at life?, or
d) to prevent further terrorist attacks?

I always thought it was d) with a generous sprinkling of c).

John Smith would seem to think it's a) and b). Crusades and xenophopia have a rich history all over the world, although they really haven't worked out well in Europe at least.

Democracy and Christianity-informed ethics seem to have worked much better. That would restrict us to c) and d). But, if you don't actually care about innocent lives, that rules out c) too - and now we're all the same, Islamic or secular, but some of us have bigger, state-sponsored, guns.

Not criticising at those who regret death of occasional child but can't see any other way to achieve c) and d). I'm absolutely appalled at those who genuinely think children are unimportant compared with the crimes of their parents.

Good quote from Thucydides btw. Would that all civilians be brave, and all soldiers be philosophical.

Airborne Aircrew
2nd Nov 2013, 19:48
PTT:


False dilemma. There are plenty of other options.Rubish... You'll note that you didn't discount it as an option you simply dismissed it... As you do anything that doesn't fit your somewhat naive view of the world.

The entire invasion of Afghanistan was predicated on the moral justification of the need to get hold of a man who had masterminded an atrocity. Utter poppycock... It had nothing to do with higher moral ground. It's called revenge, silly...

Neither is going to happen, ever. You seem to think that we are fighting against people, when actually we are fighting against an ideology. That requires a different strategy to "bomb them all" because bombs don't kill ideas. Other, better ideas kill ideas.Tsk... Peace is maintained by being so strong they daren't attack and every time they stick a head above the parapet we blow the thing off. If it looks like they are building significant weapons we destroy their ability.

What "better ideas" do you have? The arseholes aren't going to listen to you and you know it. They have no need to listen, their ideology tells them your silly, weak chit-chat is wrong and you will be beheaded as soon as they are ready. Of course, if there was something magical we could say that would have them bezzering with us at the bar in an instant better minds than ours would have come up with it. They haven't, so we have one course of action. Kill them more quickly than they kill us.

500N
2nd Nov 2013, 19:51
"and every time they stick a head above the parapet we blow the thing off. If it looks like they are building significant weapons we destroy their ability."

Isn't that what Israel does ?

Syria, Hezbollah, such as the Syrian Nuclear Plant,
the latest bombing of Russian missiles ?

Airborne Aircrew
2nd Nov 2013, 19:54
500N:

Isn't that what Israel does ?

Yep... They do their best to keep them in the 12th Century so all they have is stones to throw at Abrams... :D

500N
2nd Nov 2013, 20:00
Well, if you look at what happens when they do get hold of decent weapons / missiles, why wouldn't you !

At least Israel has the balls to do it quite often / when required.

Airborne Aircrew
2nd Nov 2013, 20:28
Lone:

Balls? or Arrogant hypocritical bullying? ..............There is a difference

Its easy to have what an idiot calls balls, when you are bigger than the other guy,
real balls is going up against someone that might actually have the ability to kick your sad arse You forget the really important bit, the utter f$cking stupidity of the little guy who attacks the big guy for no other reason that their particular flavor of sky pixie tells them they need to convert or kill them.

Bullying is when the bigger chap goes after the little one. I point you to my earlier post where I laid out the violence they brought upon us in the west for none in return.

PTT
2nd Nov 2013, 21:35
Rubish... You'll note that you didn't discount it as an option you simply dismissed it... As you do anything that doesn't fit your somewhat naive view of the world.I dismissed nothing. I'm saying you are presenting a false dilemma of "kill all of them or they kill all of us". That's nonsense as there are other options. Not all Muslims want us to submit. I've no issue killing those who kill use, but I do have an issue killing those who do not.
Utter poppycock... It had nothing to do with higher moral ground. It's called revenge, silly...Really? Not for us in the UK it's not. That's not what it was sold to the US population as, either.
Peace is maintained by being so strong they daren't attack and every time they stick a head above the parapet we blow the thing off. If it looks like they are building significant weapons we destroy their ability.That's called tyranny. It fosters insurrection.
What "better ideas" do you have?Kill the ones who are actually attacking us rather than everyone who happens to be in the vicinity. You're not going to defeat an ideology with bullets, and if you think you can then you really are a lot more dense than I have given you credit for. There have been plenty of ideas that the "better minds" have actually come up with; ask yourself why our politicians aren't using them.

Airborne Aircrew
2nd Nov 2013, 21:52
PTT:

I dismissed nothing. I'm saying you are presenting a false dilemma of "kill all of them or they kill all of us". That's nonsense as there are other options. Not all Muslims want us to submit. I've no issue killing those who kill use, but I do have an issue killing those who do not.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/editor/separator.gif
Here we go again... You're being foolish. Those that are attacking us and interpreting Islam as a "convert all or kill all religion" present us with no other options. Their ideology guarantees that. If those bad Muslims living amongst the good Muslims were summarily rejected and thrown out of their society then I'd be inclined to agree with you. The stark lack of proper condemnation by the good Muslims is the clue... They prefer their ideology to their good sense. Since they have thrown good sense out of their window I'm very happy to throw it out of mine where they are concerned. You, on the other hand, still want to sit and try to talk to the man who is sharpening the knife that will, quite painfully, remove your head from your body when they think your woffling is done...

Really? Not for us in the UK it's not. That's not what it was sold to the US population as, either.

Again, how naive of you. Do you really think the polis that would send you to your potential death would stir the sh1t based on "let's go get the bastige that hurt us"? You're a silly boy if you do.

That's called tyranny. It fosters insurrection.

There's no tyranny. They stay in their borders and STUFU and they will not be bothered. They threaten my land they will be destroyed... No tyranny, just leave me alone. Insurrection? Don't be silly, I don't want to be in their sh1t hole of a country. They can squabble amongst themselves all they like - until it threatens me...

Kill the ones who are actually attacking us rather than everyone who happens to be in the vicinity. You're not going to defeat an ideology with bullets, and if you think you can then you really are a lot more dense than I have given you credit for. There have been plenty of ideas that the "better minds" have actually come up with; ask yourself why our politicians aren't using them.

I would... But the little twats hide amongst the "innocents" who worship them like the Mafia bosses are given superstar status. The "innocents" like it. If they didn't they'd reject it. Believe me when I say that is a mob guy moved into my neighborhood and started "doing business" I'd be happy to shop him. If that doesn't work I'd be happy to begin to make his life uncomfortable. If I can do it then they can too... They don't want to.

You are a very naive and thin minded person. Sorry, but that is the truth.

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 00:03
Those that are attacking us and interpreting Islam as a "convert all or kill all religion" present us with no other options.They present you with no other option than to kill innocents? Nonsense. Attack them, sure, but attacking innocents is not acceptable.The stark lack of proper condemnation by the good Muslims is the clue...Last time we went through this I gave multiple examples of such condemnation. Is your memory failing you?Do you really think the polis that would send you to your potential death would stir the sh1t based on "let's go get the bastige that hurt us"?Follow the money. Trite, but I have no doubt whatsoever that those polis are thinking more about personal gain than anything else.There's no tyranny.Your proposed response is the very definition of tyranny. Deny it if it makes you feel better, but the fact remains.They stay in their borders and STUFU and they will not be bothered.Would that the US (and the west in general) would do the same, eh?But the little twats hide amongst the "innocents" who worship them like the Mafia bosses are given superstar status. The "innocents" like it.Don't be stupid. Mafia is actually a very good description given the "protection" that the terrorists "offer" to those around them.You are a very naive and thin minded person. Sorry, but that is the truth.Like I said before, I tend not to stoop to personal insults. I do occasionally, but your responses say more than I need to here.

Cacophonix
3rd Nov 2013, 00:10
Americans taste just as good as any other savage after you have shoved a grenade up their arse, killed them and then and cooked them.. they stink a bit but the wine or beer will help...

Believe me, I know...

Caco

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 00:20
I really can't be arsed to get into this one yet again: I think most people are to split on this to see the other side.

You think killing people who aren't terrorists will stop terrorism. I think not killing people who aren't terrorists will work better.

Matari
3rd Nov 2013, 00:21
Put down the bottle, Caco. It's not flattering.

BenThere
3rd Nov 2013, 00:40
A lot of good and decent Germans had to be liquidated to eliminate the Nazis that flourished in their midst. Sadly, yet hopefully, the same will be true of Muslims. The cancer there is no different - murderous, zealous, deadly.

El Grifo
3rd Nov 2013, 01:01
Put down the bottle, Caco. It's not flattering.

Lettuce alone !

El,

BenThere
3rd Nov 2013, 01:50
Lettuce spray.

StressFree
3rd Nov 2013, 09:52
PTT,

You have a decent sense of humanity but an amazing naivety to think we can engage an enemy like the Taliban without incurring some most regrettable collateral casualities.

The Taliban are not a standing army wearing identifiable uniforms, they're not an easily found target, they live in villages amongst others. As has been previously pointed out, the non-combatants who harbour these people need to make a clear choice: expel these terrorists or face becoming wrapped up in the conflict with the inevitable consequences.

Those are the hard FACTS.

In an ideal world all battles would be fought away from civilians, but this is the real world and its not pretty.

If the Islamic world was that bothered about these casualities then they could cease to be a threat to the rest of the world and live peacefully (as most Muslims do); but whilst there is a hardcore of radicalism that wishes to exterminate the kuffar on the streets of western cities then we must act to protect ourselves and the wider human race. For a young girl to be shot by the Taliban for wanting an education is a shameful disgrace that all civilised people find repugnant and wish to correct.

If in that process innocent people get caught up then thats regrettable but entirely the fault of those who permit the presence of these militants in their societies.

We live in the 21st century, how can we tolerate such hideous treatment of women and children who want to go to school? Never mind them wanting to export their warped beliefs into the wider world and pollute our cultures with their sick views.

As for your personal abuse towards me, I won't dignify your comments with a response, other than to say I've got a skin thicker than a rhinocerous so try all you wish but you won't move my opinion one inch.

Have a nice day in your wonderful world of beautiful sunlit uplands, away from the harsh realities of the real world..........:ok:

Mechta
3rd Nov 2013, 10:31
Carpet bomb the factories that make the weapons that are killing Nato troops and shut down the ports used to export them.


So start a world war if you're talking about Russian weapons, or bomb factories in friendly countries, whose weapons have been sold via countless middlemen to the bad guys?

Whenever a weapon is made, there is a very strong possibility of it being turned upon its maker, as the Russians certainly found in Afghanistan, and coalition forces probably have as well.

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 10:49
but an amazing naivety to think we can engage an enemy like the Taliban without incurring some most regrettable collateral casualities.Oh please. I'm not saying that there won't be any: I'm no idiot and have spent plenty of time on operations. I am saying that there being any should be considered unacceptable, and that those saying "ah well, sh!t happens, carry on" are the ones not looking for alternatives. There are ways of attacking these people without incurring such collateral damage. Those ways do put our troops more in harm's way, but if we are claiming that civilians should not be targeted then we really ought to act in a manner which doesn't target civilians. It's also vastly more sensible from an intelligence perspective.the non-combatants who harbour these people need to make a clear choiceAgain, you are assuming that they know or are of an age or ability where they can actually do something about it. How does a 3-year old know that their dad is doing evil things?whilst there is a hardcore of radicalism that wishes to exterminate the kuffar on the streets of western cities then we must act to protect ourselves and the wider human race. For a young girl to be shot by the Taliban for wanting an education is a shameful disgrace that all civilised people find repugnant and wish to correct.I have no disagreement with any of that. Where I have disagreement is that it is acceptable for children and other innocents to die just so we don't put our own troops in harm's way. And yes, I would be (and have been) willing to be one of those involved in such operations.As for your personal abuse towards meWhat personal abuse? Telling you that you were lying? Because you were.you won't move my opinion one inch.The very definition of "closed-minded".

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 10:59
PTT:

Those ways do put our troops more in harm's way, but if we are claiming that civilians should not be targeted then we really ought to act in a manner which doesn't target civilians.Two quick points... Civilians are not "targetted"... Your use of that word is deliberately misleading. Secondly, as you note, those methods risk our men and women much more than the current methods. I don't care though. As I said before the civilian deaths are the responsibility of those who hide among the civilians and I'm afraid I value our men and women far above the civilians who "just happen" to get caught up in this.

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 11:12
Civilians are not "targetted"... Your use of that word is deliberately misleading.Oh, ok. Let's go for "blowing up places where civilians are known to be and killing them because they happen to be in the wrong place". Is that better?as you note, those methods risk our men and women much more than the current methods.I know. I've done plenty of those operations myself.As I said before the civilian deaths are the responsibility of those who hide among the civiliansSo any legitimate target, if it happens to be surrounded by civilians, is fair game even if the civilians will get killed? This suggests to me that the attacks on 9/11 were fair game: an attack on the US would, by common sense, target command, control and infrastructure (economy). That's not my opinion, but what you are suggesting.I value our men and women far above the civilians who "just happen" to get caught up in this.So you admit that you would hide our military behind the civilians who are there, rather than sending in our people in order to save those civilians? I wouldn't.

You continue to hide behind this "guilt by association" fallacy like it is some sort of justification for killing children. It isn't: it merely highlights the untermensch attitude some people here have towards anyone who happens to live in these countries.

StressFree
3rd Nov 2013, 11:32
PTT,

I'm just going out but firstly must respond to this:

"Again, you are assuming that they know or are of an age or ability where they can actually do something about it. How does a 3-year old know that their dad is doing evil things"

Then if their father is a proper parent he should consider that his own actions may compromise the welfare of his children? I've got three children and they are my priority above all else. If a Taliban fighter puts his kids in the firing line then he needs to re-think his priorities..........:sad:

I'll be back later, catch up then.

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 11:35
PTT:

You continue to hide behind this "guilt by association" fallacy

Nope... I have never said any of them are guilty in any way. What I am saying is that my responsibility for their lives is zero, it is Terry's responsibility. Frankly, I'm honest enough to say I don't care about Terry or those he hides behind. They are as meaningless in my life as I am in theirs.

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 11:42
If a Taliban fighter puts his kids in the firing line then he needs to re-think his priorities..........I'd agree. Is that justification for us to kill them, though?They are as meaningless in my life as I am in theirs.If they are meaningless to you (and you to them) why do you want them dead? I suggest they are of great import to you.What I am saying is that my responsibility for their lives is zeroWhen they are killed by you then your responsibility is certainly more than zero.

There are other ways to get these people without killing their children, families or other innocents. Kill the people attacking us, sure, but to target them knowing that innocents will die simply to prevent our own getting in harm's way is cowardly.

Matari
3rd Nov 2013, 11:44
PTT, please you come across as just a bit too precious.

Drones, advanced satellites and guided munitions are just the latest examples of the west's attempts to prevent collateral damage and deaths of innocents. Otherwise we'd still be employing mass bombing.

It ain't perfect pal, but good people do agonize over innocents deaths. That's why we try to limit them. Unlike our enemies, who specifically target innocents.

But of course, you know that.

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 12:15
Drones, advanced satellites and guided munitions are just the latest examples of the west's attempts to prevent collateral damage and deaths of innocents. Otherwise we'd still be employing mass bombing.I personally have taken part in many assaults where the target, and only the target, was killed or captured by the application of direct force at close range. So clearly there are means by which innocents can be spared.
What you really mean by the above is to prevent the deaths of those whom it is politically inconvenient to die. Currently that means friendly forces to you. Personally I think those who volunteer to put their lives on the line in order to protect our respective nations should be (and almost always are) willing to do so in order to prevent the death of innocents, and I think our policy, strategy and tactics should reflect that. Our politicians are too cowardly to implement that, though: it's not good for their careers.It ain't perfect pal, but good people do agonize over innocents deaths. That's why we try to limit them.I don't see much agonizing going on here from some of the posters. Many of the answers have been that it's acceptable, or that they shouldn't have been there. "Vous ne regrettez rien," to paraphrase Edith.Unlike our enemies, who specifically target innocents.

But of course, you know that.Of course. Those are the people I have no issues with targeting.

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 12:18
PTT:

If they are meaningless to you (and you to them) why do you want them dead?

Stop putting words in my mouth that were never there. I don't want them dead but, equally, I'm not bothered if they die. There is complete indifference on my part.

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 12:27
I don't want them dead but, equally, I'm not bothered if they die. There is complete indifference on my part.every time they stick a head above the parapet we blow the thing offSo you'd be content to leave them all alone, would you? Just pull out?

If you were indifferent then you would have no opinion on the matter. You do have an opinion, which suggests something other than indifference.

El Grifo
3rd Nov 2013, 12:42
People from different religions can eventually learn to live side by side.

People from different centuries never can !


El G.

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 13:02
PTT:

So you'd be content to leave them all alone, would you? Just pull out?

If you were indifferent then you would have no opinion on the matter. You do have an opinion, which suggests something other than indifference.I can't decide if you are being deliberately obtuse or naturally stupid any more... I am indifferent to the deaths of a few "innocents". I would be quite happy to withdraw our troops and, as long as they stay on their side of the line and do no harm nor threaten harm to us, leave them to live their squalid little lives. But, if they act or threaten to act I'd be quite happy to blow their stupid heads off. It's rather simple really... So much so I'm leaning away from the notion that you are being obtuse.

El G:

We agree... :eek:

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 13:17
I am indifferent to the deaths of a few "innocents".Then you lack empathy.I would be quite happy to withdraw our troops and, as long as they stay on their side of the line and do no harm nor threaten harm to us, leave them to live their squalid little lives.Sounds good to me. Perhaps that includes preventing the exploitation of their labour and natural resources?

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 13:37
PTT:

Then you lack empathy.

Err... So what? When did empathy become a required "quality" in humans? Get over yourself, Brimming over with feelings and such doesn't make you any better than anyone else, you've been fooled into thinking it might.

Perhaps that includes preventing the exploitation of their labour and natural resources?

Yep, the USA can drill it's own oil and produce it's own stuff. One wonders what you lot in Europe will do but, why do I care, all the US gets from Europe is criticism and condescension. So, that's all agreed... Conversation closed...

500N
3rd Nov 2013, 13:43
"Err... So what? When did empathy become a required "quality" in humans? Get over yourself, Brimming over with feelings and such doesn't make you any better than anyone else, you've been fooled into thinking it might."

+ 1

AA, Well said, you beat me to it.

What is it with everyone saying you lack empathy as though that makes them
a higher being.


Some people seem to forget that while we battle the Taliban and AQ,
the Taliban are trying to overthrow the legitimate elected Gov't of Pakistan.

Dushan
3rd Nov 2013, 14:37
Here is is again: no problem killing the enemy, big problem killing innocents.



What world do you live in, PTT? The enemy in this case purposely hides amongst the innocent population knowing there are bleeding hearts, like you, who will be too queasy to pull the trigger.

Dushan
3rd Nov 2013, 14:46
You're not going to defeat an ideology with bullets, and if you think you can then you really are a lot more dense than I have given you credit for.

We did a pretty good job of killing an ideology with bullets (and other assorted ordinance) in 1945, why not now?

Dushan
3rd Nov 2013, 15:01
There are other ways to get these people without killing their children, families or other innocents. Kill the people attacking us, sure, but to target them knowing that innocents will die simply to prevent our own getting in harm's way is cowardly.

So you would knowingly put your men, and yourself, in higher state of risk in order to prevent death of innocents while targeting the enemy who hides amongs those innocents?

Wow, what military school thought you this?

Dushan
3rd Nov 2013, 15:05
People from different religions can eventually learn to live side by side.

People from different centuries never can !


El G.


First it's megapixels and now it's this. What is happening to us El G?

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 16:09
Err... So what? When did empathy become a required "quality" in humans?Empathy gives an ability to understand the other person. A lack of empathy is one of the symptoms of psychopathy. I'm not calling you a psychopath, just pointing out that you do have at least one of the symptoms. You could, of course, take a PCL-R in order to find out if you have more...Get over yourself, Brimming over with feelings and such doesn't make you any better than anyone else, you've been fooled into thinking it might.An inability to empathise with the other does not make you stronger, you've been fooled into thinking it might.Yep, the USA can drill it's own oil and produce it's own stuff.Crack on, then. I don't see that happening any time soon, though, and I don't see you calling for the US to do so.One wonders what you lot in Europe will doThis may come as a shock, but other countries do produce a lot of stuff, and usually cheaper. I believe the UK is actually a net exporter to the US (Q3 of 2012 saw exports of £10.5bn and imports of £7.7bn), but we all know that costs for everyone will rise if this isolationism actually comes to pass.What world do you live in, PTT? The enemy in this case purposely hides amongst the innocent population knowing there are bleeding hearts, like you, who will be too queasy to pull the trigger.A world where a morally just war must be won with moral means.We did a pretty good job of killing an ideology with bullets (and other assorted ordinance) in 1945, why not now?"We"? I doubt you had anything to do with it. And the ideology is far from dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism).So you would knowingly put your men, and yourself, in higher state of risk in order to prevent death of innocents while targeting the enemy who hides amongs those innocents?Yes, and I have done so. At the very least I would hold off until the risk to civilians was at the absolute minimum. Given our supreme technological advantage that's far from impossible.Wow, what military school thought you this?The one which taught me about the ethics of warfare and the Geneva conventions.

StressFree
3rd Nov 2013, 16:25
PTT,

Right I'm back home again.

You have a very selective response to posts on here, you ignore very valid points and concentrate solely upon the vague idealistic notion that the regrettable deaths of civilians in our actions against our enemies are somehow deliberate and avoidable. You keep saying that we should pursue other means of targeting enemy combatants with boots on the ground.

What the hell do you think the allied forces have been doing for the past 10 years in Afghanistan? The UK alone has lost around 450 service personnel doing exactly what you say is the correct way forward.

In ANY conflict civilians will become involved, both my parents were evacuated from London during the Blitz due to the high rates of civilian deaths. The difference is though, to remind you yet AGAIN, the Taliban choose to be among civilians in the hope that it will deter us from finding and attacking them. At no point is our offensive aimed at civilians and their losses are regrettable, but ask yourself who is ultimately to blame for their loss?

In the second world war Sir Arthur Harris (head of Bomber Command) wrote:

"I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier".

He also said of the war against the Nazis:

"You've sown the wind, now you will reap the whirlwind"

This was against an enemy that sought to take over Europe and impose a hideous idiology upon us. We had to take extreme measures against them to defeat them and save humanity from a truly dark age. Many people died, many civilians amongst them, but its a totally correct fact to state that humanity is better for that sacrifice.

The same could be said of the threat we face today. No-one likes the idea of civilian casualities but they are a fact of life in any conflict, particularly when the enemy deliberately hides among them.......

This is the real world and the nature of those who seek to destroy us.

We cannot cease to fight those who want to defeat us by hiding from the inevitable facts of war.

Of course, it could all stop tommorow if they laid down their arms, but I don't think thats too likely, do you?

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 16:30
Stress Free:

:D:D:D:D:D:D

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 16:47
Stressfree, I'm sure you enjoyed that rant. Yes, there will be innocents killed - I've said as much and I've spent more than enough time in theatre to realise that nothing is black and white in these situations. I also know full well that the current TTP we employ through the use of drones and airstrikes is almost designed to minimise situational awareness and provide only a single viewpoint (even if the target is "soaked"). The operators do all they can to minimise the innocent casualties, but the strategy itself is at fault: put people on the ground (with suitable support, of course) and they are far better placed to make those decisions.

Your rant doesn't address my argument in any way though. Here it is again:
What I am against is the deaths of innocents, and the appalling indifference to those deaths which is on display here.

Cacophonix
3rd Nov 2013, 16:58
What I am against is the deaths of innocents, and the appalling
indifference to those deaths which is on display here


I suppose it is easy for the internet tough guys here to show no empathy for other innocent human folk who are not their enemies and whose countries are not even at war with their own but I do wonder how these blowhards might feel if their loved ones (wives, children) were 'accidently' killed and maimed as a result of a morally bankrupt and a strategically damaging policy like murder or assassination by drone.

Caco

Mac the Knife
3rd Nov 2013, 16:58
In Afghanistan the Rules of Engagement for Western forces are very strict, often frustratingly so, "collateral damage" (killing/maiming civvies) is minimised

When the Russians were there their ROE were, shall we say, less strict.
Didn't help them much.

No ROE for militant Islam either there or abroad.
Doesn't seem to be helping them much either.

Human wave tactics seem to be more effective....:}

Mac

:cool:

PS: Hi PTT! At it again?

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 17:02
I suppose it is easy for the internet tough guys here to show no empathy for other innocent human folk who are not their enemies and whose countries are not even at war with their own but I do wonder how these blowhards might feel if their loved ones (wives, children) were 'accidently' killed and maimed as a result of a morally bankrupt and a strategically damaging policy like murder or assassination by drone.

Once again the thousands of western families that have lost "innocent" members in the last 10 years or more are completely overlooked. :rolleyes:

Dushan
3rd Nov 2013, 17:09
I suppose it is easy for the internet tough guys here to show no empathy for other innocent human folk who are not their enemies and whose countries are not even at war with their own but I do wonder how these blowhards might feel if their loved ones (wives, children) were 'accidently' killed and maimed as a result of a morally bankrupt and a strategically damaging policy like murder or assassination by drone.

Caco

Caco, if I was the object of an impending attack and deliberately hid with my loved ones in hopes of either avoiding the attack due to known unwillingness of the attacker to risk killing my family or to exasperate the outrage of the likes of PTT I would be the only one responsible if they are killed.

The end.

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 17:16
Lone:

Clearly you are unable to see the difference so let me explain...

The kill innocent people on purpose, we try not to. But when we do, I'm not going to cry about it...

StressFree
3rd Nov 2013, 17:28
PTT,

Rant? What rant?

My words were a measured response to your views, delivered in a systematic manner using facts, certainties and common sense. You seem to think that those who have opposing views to yours are somehow deranged and in a permanent state of anger.

Is that all too hard for you to understand?

You make out that you're the only 'true human' on these boards, the only one who regrets the loss of children and civilians. I also regret these losses, as do most civilised people, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pursue the enemy and if the enemy surrounds himself with women and children then it's upon his conscience if they are lost. It's also upon mine, but I accept that in preference to allowing a medieval idiology to brutalise people and seek to take over my culture.

The lesser of two evils. As I said before it could all stop tomorrow if they declared that we were no longer a target and an obsession to overcome.

The Umaa is fine in the places that it has the will of the people, but try to shove it down our throats and there will be resistance. So in summary, if they don't want any more drones etc. then STOP fighting us and we'll happily stop too. Simple. :ok:

dead_pan
3rd Nov 2013, 17:30
A couple of points. Firstly, I thought we'd entered into negotiations with the Taleban with a view to including them in a settlement in Afghanistan? This kind of action is hardly going to help these along, are they?

Also, I wonder how long Pakistan is going to put up with the US riding rough-shod over their sovereignity. It has been mentioned before that Pakistan's military co-operate with the US on these actions (read: we'll sit on our hands and keep shtum for as long as we can, as a condition of us continuing to receive our billion dollars or so of military aid every year), but there must come a point when they say enough is enough?

StressFree
3rd Nov 2013, 17:36
PTT,

Apologies, I forgot to say that your strategy on ground forces taking out militants, how does that work on Pakistani soil, a place where we have no chance of permission to openly operate?

How will that work? And considering that the majority of Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces are in the Frontier Provinces of Pakistan, how can we get to them except by using drones? How?

:confused:

dead_pan
3rd Nov 2013, 17:36
then STOP fighting us and we'll happily stop too.

But didn't we invade their country to begin with? I know it was in response to 911, but we cleared the training camps within a few weeks. Everything after that was above and beyond IMO.

StressFree
3rd Nov 2013, 17:51
Dead Pan,

I wish it was that simple, after we'd cleared out the training camps did the problem go away?

No, of course it didn't.

Do you really think that the West has any interest in occupying Afghanistan other than protecting itself from terrorists? If they leave us alone then we'll happily leave them alone.........its so EASY. They stop and we stop.

They can live in peace in their place and we'll live in ours, militarily it could be over and the huge amounts of money spent on warfare could be better spent on helping them to build a decent nation for their people to live in.

It's not rocket science is it?

Mac the Knife
3rd Nov 2013, 18:44
They can live in peace in their place...

......... growing poppies to turn into opium/heroin and wreck our societies.

:bored:

StressFree
3rd Nov 2013, 18:48
Mac,

Fair point.

Cacophonix
3rd Nov 2013, 19:04
What most of the simplistic analysis on this thread misses is the fact that drone warfare is being waged on multiple continents and against people who in theory are not at war with the US or the UK, i.e. this is not just occurring in Afghanistan.

What is occurring in such instances is basically contrary to international law, but the hell when, you decide on becoming judge and executioner outside the context of any law you become a renegade just as much as the 'bad guys' you are targeting.

Caco

dead_pan
3rd Nov 2013, 19:31
What most of the simplistic analysis on this thread misses is the fact that drone warfare is being waged on multiple continents and against people who in theory are not at war with the US or the UK, i.e. this is not just occurring in Afghanistan.


Drones are never going to be able to turn the tide wherever they're operated. If anything, they're probably doing more to swell the ranks of our opponents; any civilian deaths at their hands are pure bloody gold to those seeking to recruit fighters to the cause of militant Islam.

What is occurring in such instances is basically contrary to international law, but the hell when, you decide on becoming judge and executioner outside the context of any law you become a renegade just as much as the 'bad guys' you are targeting.

Well said. What exactly we are fighting for, if you're prepared to lower yourself to the level of your enemy? its certainly not your morality or the rule of law - maybe its your money?

On the subject of legality, I wonder when some country is going to test the US's legal position? Maybe Belgium could step up to the mark again.

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 19:36
Well said. What exactly we are fighting for, if you're prepared to lower yourself to the level of your enemy?

Here we go again... This foolish, irrelevant notion that, somehow, we need to be "better" that the idiot trying to kill us. NO!!! We need to win, period. No point being "better" when you lost... When you've won you get to write the history... :ok:

500N
3rd Nov 2013, 19:38
dead pan

Belgium can do what it wants, the US isn't going to take a damn bit of notice
of any Euro, EU or UN ruling unless it suits it. And when it comes to the EU
or the UN, I don't blame them.

dead_pan
3rd Nov 2013, 19:40
AA - so you'd have no beef with them if there weren't trying to kill you? Intriguing.

Anyway, as I just predicted:

Angry Pakistan to assess U.S. ties after killing of militant disrupts talks | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/03/uk-pakistan-taliban-idUKBRE9A203R20131103)

Airborne Aircrew
3rd Nov 2013, 19:49
DP:

Not me.. Us...

PTT
3rd Nov 2013, 19:53
In Afghanistan the Rules of Engagement for Western forces are very strict, often frustratingly so, "collateral damage" (killing/maiming civvies) is minimised Indeed they are. The strategy employed (that of airstrikes), though, does not minimise the death of civilians.
......... growing poppies to turn into opium/heroin and wreck our societies.And morphine. Growing poppies isn't illegal. Selling heroin is.
My words were a measured response to your viewsThen why didn't they actually address my views? I agree with a lot that you have said. Where we disagree is on the acceptability of the deaths of innocents.if the enemy surrounds himself with women and children then it's upon his conscience if they are lost. It's also upon mineDo you realise that is the first time you've actually said so? Glad to hear it. Plan on doing anything about it?but I accept that in preference to allowing a medieval idiology to brutalise people and seek to take over my cultureDo you think it's working?Apologies, I forgot to say that your strategy on ground forces taking out militants, how does that work on Pakistani soil, a place where we have no chance of permission to openly operate?Didn't seem to cause us an issue in Afghanistan. Honestly, you think that drone strikes on a sovereign nation is an acceptable response to this? I'd also ask, if they are in Pakistan and you are unable to attack them in any other way then how are they attacking you?That is why I am indifferent to the deaths of so called innocents. They are waging war against us and our people.They are not. Other people are, but you seem to want to lash out like a 5-year old.

West Coast
3rd Nov 2013, 20:14
Pakistan can evaluate the hell out of whatever they want, at the end of the day they get a check from Uncle Sam that begins with the letter B. What conclusion do you think they'll arrive at? That's all for domestic consumption.


Be damn glad to keep that money at home personally.

ehwatezedoing
3rd Nov 2013, 20:21
I get lost with all those "multi-quote"

You should try to express yourself without having to quote every sentence that seems to upset you.



StressFree :ok:

dead_pan
3rd Nov 2013, 20:35
They can live in peace in their place...

......... growing poppies to turn into opium/heroin and wreck our societies.

That's no reason to go after them with drones. If this were the benchmark, half of Washington state would be fair game, what with all those marijuana factories.

dead_pan
3rd Nov 2013, 20:37
Be damn glad to keep that money at home personally.

I reckon you guys have got yourselves an absolute bargain deal there - it would cost you a helluva lot more if you didn't send them this money.

Dushan
3rd Nov 2013, 21:32
I reckon you guys have got yourselves an absolute bargain deal there - it would cost you a helluva lot more if you didn't send them this money.

I don't think so. A couple of sorties from Diego Garcia can solve this in a week.

West Coast
3rd Nov 2013, 23:16
If only there was the resolve to do so. The drone president is pretty attached to his toys.

Airborne Aircrew
4th Nov 2013, 00:34
The drone president is pretty attached to his toys.

He's a World of Warcraft President....

West Coast
4th Nov 2013, 01:17
Drone president, Obamacare, deficit king AND Nobel prize winner. A regular friggin renaissance man.

ehwatezedoing
4th Nov 2013, 01:50
Justified or not, Drones seems less costly in lives and money than a full scale invasion.

Full scale invasion justified or not as well (Iraq!? Anybody? Selective memory striking again)

PTT
4th Nov 2013, 04:45
Justified or not, Drones seems less costly in lives and money than a full scale invasion.False dilemma. There are other ways of doing it as demonstrated in early October.

BenThere
4th Nov 2013, 05:09
You'll be gratified, I'm certain, PTT, that drone technology marches on, with miniturization, field level control, and disguise and deception advancing exponentially.

Small drones, carrying only a camera and two rifle chambers and rounds can be deployed to sweep a zone, identify a target,biometrically and visually identify their Jihadi quarry, and double tap the hapless zealot. No collateral damage at all, just another dead Madrassah grad.

PTT
4th Nov 2013, 05:27
Ben, I would be absolutely delighted if that were happening.

I am slightly concerned over the wider implications of such technology, but that's a different discussion more suited to the Snowden threads.

dead_pan
4th Nov 2013, 08:26
Small drones, carrying only a camera and two rifle chambers and rounds can be deployed to sweep a zone, identify a target,biometrically and visually identify their Jihadi quarry, and double tap the hapless zealot.

Ah yes, lifted straight from Wanktech's sales literature...

dead_pan
4th Nov 2013, 08:38
The drone president is pretty attached to his toys.

So are you in favour of drone strikes or not? Sounds to me like you're only really concerned about who has their finger on the button.

Lonewolf_50
4th Nov 2013, 13:57
So, is the point of the war in Afghanistan

a) to destroy Islam?
b) to make the UK a nicer place?
c) to give the oppressed in -istan a fairer shot at life?, or
d) to prevent further terrorist attacks?
I think you need to catch up to current events. The current objective for the government in the US is is to leave in 2014. :p I am not sure how the term "leave" is defined, but that seems to be the political objective. Wars are subordinate to the political objective. Whatever the objective was in 2001 and 2002, it seems to have morphed into something else.

Removing the Taliban from power was achieved, for better and for worse.

rgbrock1
4th Nov 2013, 14:01
LW50 wrote:

Removing the Taliban from power was achieved, for better and for worse.

True. But after the last U.S. soldier is gone from Afghanistan how long do you think it will be before Mr. Karzai will be "removed" from power (probably missing his head) and the Taliban re-installed?

Keep in mind that back in the 2002-2003 time-frame not only was the Taliban removed from power, they were also on the run. And we could have kept them on the run had we kept our eye on the ball and not focused, instead, on Iraq. (Which, of course, had f**k all to do with 9/11 nor with WMD)

Airborne Aircrew
4th Nov 2013, 14:02
Lone:

Removing the Taliban from power was achieved, for better and for worse.

One suspects that the sentence above should have begun with the word "Temporarily"...

Lonewolf_50
4th Nov 2013, 14:26
AA, you are right. RG, yes, they'll probably come back into power soon enough, supported by their allies in Pakistan both formal and informal.

The initial effort had an objective, and even some follow up, but became subordinated to another armed effort elsewhere. As with some other conflicts, political will and political objectives can mutate and change.

In the past ten years, one is reminded of the efforts at the opening of the 20th century, where the progressive political movement (Roosevelt and Wilson both) tried to export civic virtue to a variety of Latin American countries (during the various Banana Wars) as part and parcel to various military adventures in the region.

As to drug addictions: own goal.

dead_pan
4th Nov 2013, 16:59
It does beg the question, if we all know the Taleban will eventually return to Afghanistan, why are we still killing them in Pakistan? Seems counter-productive, given the risks inherent in the latter country.

sitigeltfel
4th Nov 2013, 17:08
The people of that region do not recognise the national boundaries as drawn on maps. The concept of Pakistan, Waziristan, Afghanistan, mean nothing to them. It is the ancient tribal fiefdoms that count, which often stretch across a number of administrative regions.

rgbrock1
4th Nov 2013, 17:09
It does beg the question, if we all know the Taleban will eventually return to Afghanistan, why are we still killing them in Pakistan?

Because they need killing?

dead_pan
4th Nov 2013, 17:35
Because they need killing?

Well -ish. I just don't think its a particularly good plan to antagonize the Pakistanis. If this country does go over the edge, our collective experiences in Afghanistan will seem like a pleasant tea party by comparison.

Seeing as we will soon have no skin the game in Afghan, maybe now is a good time to draw a line under these ops and let events run their course.

Airborne Aircrew
4th Nov 2013, 17:42
DP:

Well -ish. I just don't think its a particularly good plan to antagonize the Pakistanis.

So you advocate living in fear of everyone really then. You seem to forget that they might just "go off" without any provocation, then where are you?

Surely, you'd be far better off being so strong economically and militarily and so intolerant of transgressions on their part while leaving them to get on with their lives that the notion of causing us trouble would be rejected out of hand. It's not a new concept - it's called peace through superior firepower. It works.

dead_pan
4th Nov 2013, 17:52
AA

Not at all. The Taleban soon won't pose any threat to our interests, and as we've recently demonstrated they can be quite easily coralled in Afghan if they go bad on us again. Pakistan is the bigger worry here - if they slide south the sh*t is really going to hit the fan. We should do all we can to keep this country on an even keel. As I said before, blatting the occasional bad guy with drones really serves no purpose now - in fact its counterproductive, sending thousands flocking to the Jihadist's cause.

BTW I live in more fear of the low-lifes in the sink estate a few miles from my abode. Maybe I could cobble together my own drone using an RC Spitfire and a few thunderflashes to deal with this threat?

Airborne Aircrew
4th Nov 2013, 18:23
DP:

Maybe I could cobble together my own drone using an RC Spitfire and a few thunderflashes to deal with this threat?

Bad idea. My next door neighbour is one of those geeky genius types that has been building and flying RC aircraft for several decades now. He has a Spitfire with a six foot wingspan in his basement. I asked him if he'd get it out and fly it for me. He declined on the grounds that the aircraft is so unstable even his highly talented RC pilot od a son has trouble maintaining control. He claims that the aircraft is inherently unstable which is what makes it a good fighter but that as you try to shrink such a beast it magnifies the instability to the point where control becomes nearly impossible. He says it was a costly lesson to learn.

RC Quadricopters are very stable... :ok:

500N
4th Nov 2013, 20:40
Quadcopters with firearms attached and firing are already up and working.
Albeit at close range.

G-CPTN
4th Nov 2013, 20:42
Quadcopters with firearms attached and firing are already up and working.What about recoil?

500N
4th Nov 2013, 20:46
God knows.

I've seen a few videos on them, one of them a few years ago now.

It's on you tube.

I'll go and find it, back in a minute.

500N
4th Nov 2013, 20:53
This is the best one of all of them. Machine gun with 100 round Mag.

Watch until the very end when he takes out the Car with the Quadcopter.

Prototype Quadrotor with Machine Gun! - YouTube

500N
4th Nov 2013, 21:25
Correct.

Can't remember the background to it.

bcgallacher
4th Nov 2013, 21:40
Just checked- it appears to be his partner - happened in January.

PTT
4th Nov 2013, 21:57
500N - you know that video is a fake, right?

500N
4th Nov 2013, 22:12
PTT

Do tell more.

I know that the "human dummies" have Tannerite or one of the
other explosive target mixtures in them.

As to the gun, well something is coming out of the barrel because
I very much doubt he could fake the timing on the Quad going
backwards in the air (the recoil) at the same time as flame coming
out the barrel.

And in any case, some people I know have set up a video system
on a rifle that allows everything to be done by video except pull
the trigger. So taking it to the next stage isn't difficult.

Add in a machine gun that has a 2 - 3 round or 4 - 6 round
burst feature and why couldn't it be real ?

Natstrackalpha
4th Nov 2013, 22:52
Personally I think the West should simply shut down its borders and defend them properly

Well, they are - which is why they are half way round the globe in Afghanistanland - the . . .frontline? . . .:rolleyes:

PTT
4th Nov 2013, 22:59
500N - It was a promotional video (http://www.uasvision.com/2012/04/27/machine-gun-toting-quadrotor/) advertising a PC game (http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/04/video_quadrotor.php), one of the Call of Duty series (4 I think). Marry that up with some detective work (http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_next_Call_of_Duty) done by fans of the game and a posting from an admin (http://callofdutyblackops2.com/black-ops-2-prototype-quadrotor-with-machine-gun/) from the game company itself and it's clearly not real.
Apart from that there are a number of issues with the video itself, too: if it's firing cased rounds then how do the rounds (.22 or otherwise) get down that flexible tube (look at 1:03) and where is the firing mechanism? If it's firing ballbearings then why does it sound just like an automatic rifle? Why is there what appears to be a graphical glitch (look closely as the back of the quadcopter flickers) with the copter at 2:13?

The main problem with the concept itself is battery life vs the mass of the weaponry and ammo. The more you increase the weight the greater the draw, the larger the battery has to be, the more you increase the weight... Even if it's .22 ammo at under 1lb for 100 rounds that's still an extra 450g plus the weapon itself, which is a fair amount in quadcopter terms. A 1.5kg quad with a 5000mAh battery will typically fly for about 5-6 minutes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not practical, and if it exists then that video isn't it.

er340790
7th Nov 2013, 13:20
Apparently this is the new leader.

I anticipate that his life assurance premiums are about to take quite a hike.

10-to-4 a drone finds him before Xmas. :E


(There must be a great limerick somewhere with that name... :})

Anthill
8th Nov 2013, 06:47
His name was Mulla Falooza
He was just a big loser
He said with a moan
"Is that there a drone?"
And it blew him to Alakalooza.

ruddman
8th Nov 2013, 07:02
500N:


Human beings generally don't go around shooting children in the head
and blowing up women and children. Doesn't deserve to be classed
as a human being.



In the US they do.....by the tens of thousands every year. :eek:


Perhaps the US Government would get a better return for its drone investment by using them on their own violent citizens first. :ok:

highflyer40
8th Nov 2013, 07:34
just a thought, but have all those advocating the use of drone strikes all over the globe thought that for each strike there are many more converts rushing to join extremist groups than the 1 or 2 targets exterminated?

drone strikes in Afghanistan? sure, but strikes into other countries just breeds contempt and anger from some who would otherwise just moan and complain.

drone strikes into Pakistan will just further alienate even the moderate Pakistanis. with these strikes we are just giving the extremist groups exactly what they want

this "war" on terror can never be won by force, because you are fighting individuals that are all over the world. there is no country to attack, no enemy army to engage, just fanatics in almost every country in the world. how do you fight that?

ruddman
8th Nov 2013, 08:05
Hate that term....'war on terror'.


What terror?

John Hill
8th Nov 2013, 08:14
'War on terror' is not a war on anyone in particular, it is just war when you dont know what else to do.

tony draper
8th Nov 2013, 10:29
Tsk tsk tsk! gentlemen they are not Terrorists they are insurgents,and if the BBC had their way they would be freedom fighters.:= :rolleyes:

500N
8th Nov 2013, 10:31
They were 'freedom fighters" 30 years ago when they
were fighting the Russians :O

The same as Saddam was bosom buddies with Donald Rumsfeld and the US !

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 11:09
drone strikes into Pakistan will just further alienate even the moderate Pakistanis. with these strikes we are just giving the extremist groups exactly what they want

Hmm, it does seem ironic that the US are seemingly doing a fine job bringing one errant ME emerging nuclear power in from the cold, yet they seem intent on sending one an erstwhile nuclear-armed ally in the region over the edge with its ill-judged, over-zealous, extra-judicial, quite possibly illegal and frankly now pointless (I think that just about covers it) military strikes.

500N
8th Nov 2013, 11:18
Only because the US has control over the Paki nukes if it all turns ugly.

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 11:21
Really?

BBC News - Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846)

500N
8th Nov 2013, 11:37
You reckon the US doesn't know or hasn't given the nod to this ?

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 11:53
Put it this way, I can imagine a certain other ally in the region would be less-than-enamoured with Saudi getting its hand on some nukes, and will make their feelings crystal clear in Washington.

I'm thinking more along the lines of some pay-back by Saudi for leaving it & Qatar and swinging in the wind over Syria (they so desperately wanted us to step in). Of course, if this report is true, its also sure-as-sh1t intended to goad their no.1 enemy in the region, who may be just about to start giving up their emerging capability in this area.

bcgallacher
8th Nov 2013, 12:35
The use of drones to eliminate insurgent leaders is the ultimate way to wage war - we can destroy our enemies without harm to our own personnel.The way to win battles and wars is to destroy your enemy's forces with as few casualties to your own forces as possible.As to the 'morality'of it be aware our Islamic enemies operate to a completely different set of morals to our own.I have spent about half my life in Islamic countries and have seen the culture change from a normal peaceful religious faith to a savage hate preaching cult with little or no sense of humanity. The new leader of the Pakistani Taliban is the gentleman who organised the attempted assassination of the 12 year old schoolgirl who just wanted girls educated.Hopefully in the very near future a drone operator will have his Nissan pickup in the crosshairs.

rgbrock1
8th Nov 2013, 12:37
The way to win battles and wars is to destroy your enemy's forces with as few casualties to your own forces as possible.

The intention of any decent commander on the fields of battle. Right on down to squad leader level: Kill 'em all and take your men home safely.

The new leader of the Pakistani Taliban is the gentleman who organised the attempted assassination of the 12 year old schoolgirl who just wanted girls educated.Hopefully in the very near future a drone operator will have his Nissan pickup in the crosshairs.

Hopefully so. but you also know that after he's sent off to meet the 70-something virgins waiting for him in paradise that someone else will come along and take his place. The waiting lines are rather lengthy these days. But that's okay, Predator drones have this tendancy to exhibit a lot of patience. Waiting. For the target. :ok:

PTT
8th Nov 2013, 12:43
The way to win battles and wars is to destroy your enemy's forces with as few casualties to your own forces as possible.Come back when you've stopped fighting the wars from the 20th century and want to fight the one that's happening now.

If you think that's me just being facetious (well ok, a bit), then I would ask the following:
1. Who/what is the enemy?
2. Who/what are the enemy's forces?
3. Is it working? Are there more or fewer attacks since we invaded Afghanistan than there were before?

rgbrock1
8th Nov 2013, 12:49
PTT:

Who is the enemy? Easy enought: radical Islam.
Who or what are the enemy's forces? That's pretty easy as well. The enemy's forces are those who:

1. Think flying civilian aircraft into buildings is a honorable way of waging war.
2. Think bombing double-decker buses on the streets of London is another method of waging war.
3. Think bombing rail trains in Madrid is another admirable method.
4. Think shooting 14 year old girls in the head, because they want to be educated, is fine and dandy.
5. Think beheading those who don't agree with their frame of reference/religion is a worthy thing to do.

The list goes on.

Is it working? I think it is for the most part. But until the last of the scum of the earth are eradicated, we still have a lot of killing to do. But there are indeed fewer attacks in the West since the successful invasion but botched aftermath of Afghanistan.

highflyer40
8th Nov 2013, 13:05
ok I see my point was lost.

first off I will say I'm all for taking out the enemy, and if there is collateral damage so be it. BUT you also have to be able to win the war. that should be the objective, as this isn't a war in the true sense of the word (there are no opposing armies to engage) you can never win by military means. these radicals are in every country on the globe.

I wish from day one after 9/11 there had been more thought given to the response but unfortunately they needed a public display of revenge. amore thought out process of attacking training camps and behind the scenes assassinations would have been much more productive, much cheaper, and with greatly reduced allied deaths

rgbrock1
8th Nov 2013, 13:21
highflyer:

I agree. To win this "war on terror" or, more aptly, the war on radical Islamic terrorism, will not be done via conventional means i.e., boots on the ground. It will not be won by the massive deployment of armored divisions nor by infantry divisions. Nor by artillery fire.

What is needed is the continued deployment of the Special Forces personnel of all interested Western nations into hot spots of terrorist activity with the goal of eliminating them. Unmanned UAV's will also be necessary and have been effective in decimating AQ's ranks. Lawful, constitutional and smartly-used intelligence is also part of the equation. There are ways of dealing with these terrorists. Boots on the ground is not one of them. Not in the conventional sense anyway.

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 13:28
behind the scenes assassinations would have been much more productive

This was carried out in Iraq by Task Force Black and others, to break the back of the original AQ-backed insurgency. It didn't really work in the long run, especially when it became obvious who was behind the mystery killings and disappearances.

Maybe we could open a branch of ITSU in the tribal areas and serve up some nosh a la Litvinenko/Arafat? Sushi is a dish best served cold...

PTT
8th Nov 2013, 13:29
@ rgb

That's not a "who", it's a "what". It's an important distinction.

Regarding your list, while you cite specific examples you're actually not being very specific at all. All you've done is list past "forces", not define what their actual forces now are. Your definition is further muddied by the use of "people who think that...", which means you are actually talking about capital punishment for a thought crime - Orwell would have loved you!

But there are indeed fewer attacks in the West since the successful invasion but botched aftermath of Afghanistan. Can you provide your sources. Lots of sources suggest that there are more attacks and planned attacks year-on-year now than there were before we invaded Afghanistan. (That said, they still constitute a small percentage of all attacks on the US).

What is needed is the continued deployment of the Special Forces personnel of all interested Western nations into hot spots of terrorist activity with the goal of eliminating them. Unmanned UAV's will also be necessary and have been effective in decimating AQ's ranks. Lawful, constitutional and smartly-used intelligence is also part of the equation.Here we are in total agreement. The current use of UAVs is not smart, though.

con-pilot
8th Nov 2013, 19:04
Put it this way, I can imagine a certain other ally in the region would be less-than-enamoured with Saudi getting its hand on some nukes, and will make their feelings crystal clear in Washington.


Well, perhaps, but I think that there is another country in the neighborhood, so to say, that is even more nervous about Saudi getting nuclear weapons, that also would be a country that starts with an 'I'. But spelled Iran, not Israel.

By the way, I was in Israel when the US sold the E-3 AWACS to the Saudis. The Israelis rasied hell over that as well, but Saudi Arabia still got the AWACKS.

Andu
8th Nov 2013, 19:57
My own first reaction regarding drone strikes is that, judging by the volume of the cries of outrage from the other side and their useful idiots who make up much of our media, they must be really effective and spooking the bejeezus (be-allah?) out of the Taliban leadership.

The drones break the (until very recently) unwritten rule of "gentlemen's" warfare - they target the leadership of the other side. Gentlemen's war sees only the hapless junior ranks die while the leaders shuffle pretty markers around maps and sand tables.

SASless
8th Nov 2013, 20:46
HiFlyer.......Western Militaries fight wars with the weapons and forces they have.....which dictates the Strategy and Tactics. That it is usually the wrong kit and the wrong method just doesn't carry much weight when decisions are made.

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 21:20
But spelled Iran, not Israel.

I kind of alluded to that in my post. I too would be worried about the Saudis getting a nuclear capability, perhaps more so than Iran, given the dire predictions some have made about where this country could be headed.

Dushan
8th Nov 2013, 21:33
this "war" on terror can never be won by force, because you are fighting individuals that are all over the world. there is no country to attack, no enemy army to engage, just fanatics in almost every country in the world. how do you fight that?

So what are you suggesting? Hug-a-thug approach? The typical lefty method of dealing with criminals certainly doesn't decrease crime, so why would you think it would win over Terry Taliban?

Dushan
8th Nov 2013, 21:42
Come back when you've stopped fighting the wars from the 20th century and want to fight the one that's happening now.

If you think that's me just being facetious (well ok, a bit), then I would ask the following:
1. Who/what is the enemy?
2. Who/what are the enemy's forces?
3. Is it working? Are there more or fewer attacks since we invaded Afghanistan than there were before?

Nobody that signed on to the Geneva Conventions, so those rules don't apply (in reference to your earlier post telling us how you learned about Geneva in military school).

The only response this enemy fully understands is total annihilation, so let's give it to them.

highflyer40
8th Nov 2013, 21:58
Dushan

I don't see extremists attacking most other western countries. it is US policy that that is causing the hatred towards the US. so my suggestion would be to just back off of the Middle East and let them do what they want without tour interference and chances are they will implode with self annihilation anyways.

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 22:12
Sounds like a plan to me. Keep our borders safe and secure, and let them get on with catching up with 500 years of civilisation. It may be worth us taking stewardship of strategic resources such as the Suez canal and Gulf oil-fields, just so they don't screw up the world economy in the process.

PTT
9th Nov 2013, 05:33
@ Dushan - I didn't say that they did apply (although the fact remains that only one party needs to have signed in order for them to be subject to it). You asked which military school taught me about the morals and ethics of warfare, and I answered.

Krystal n chips
9th Nov 2013, 06:50
" 1. Think flying civilian aircraft into buildings is a honorable way of waging war.
2. Think bombing double-decker buses on the streets of London is another method of waging war.
3. Think bombing rail trains in Madrid is another admirable method.
4. Think shooting 14 year old girls in the head, because they want to be educated, is fine and dandy.
5. Think beheading those who don't agree with their frame of reference/religion is a worthy thing to do.

The list goes on.

Is it working? I think it is for the most part. But until the last of the scum of the earth are eradicated, we still have a lot of killing to do. But there are indeed fewer attacks in the West since the successful invasion but botched aftermath of Afghanistan.

It comes as no surprise to read your use of terms that seek to glorify war and confrontation, well lets be more explicit here, carnage and killing, whilst lacking the acumen to even begin to understand the blatant hypocrisy contained in your last paragraph.

On one hand you condemn terrorists, as indeed does anybody who wishes to live peacefully, followed by your philosophical statement which, in effect, makes you as much a terrorist as those to whom you are opposed.

There is also the very disturbing fact, that, as with the majority of your posts (and you don't have to be a psychologist or psychiatrist to recognise this trend) your obsession with the military lifestyle from the past has rendered you institutionalised to the extent that you are unable to adapt to civilian life and, if anything, have as much potential to be as dangerous as any terrorist...even if you do have this delusion of being on the "right" side....although in any conflict, all those involved invariably feel they have the moral supremacy over those who oppose their views anyway.

Krystal n chips
9th Nov 2013, 09:40
"Are you honestly trying to argue that those of us who are opposed to the cult of Islam are not on the 'right' side of this battle "

In simplistic terms, for your benefit, I am not arguing in favour of terrorism.

What I am saying is that, across the ages in fact and irrespective of the context, all protagonists view themselves as being on the right side of the dispute. Otherwise, there would be no dispute.....is this too complex for you ?

As for the cult of Islam, your views suggest that all those who practice the faith of Islam, are, by default, terrorists.

Which is patently not the case.

You probably vote for UKIP as well.

SASless
9th Nov 2013, 11:37
Odd thing KC.....in the Western World we prosecute Killers.

Don't see much of that being done in the Muslim World....and we damn sure see far more Mass Murder being done by and against Muslims by other Muslims than we do any other group of people on the Earth.

How do you account for the difference?

Krystal n chips
9th Nov 2013, 17:24
" Odd thing KC.....in the Western World we prosecute Killers.

Don't see much of that being done in the Muslim World....and we damn sure see far more Mass Murder being done by and against Muslims by other Muslims than we do any other group of people on the Earth.

How do you account for the difference"

Cultures perhaps ?...take your time when thinking about this suggestion.

However, since when was the West the arbiter of how every segment of the world live their lives ?.

That arrogance is provocative at best, and the same arrogance is equally applicable from those who believe their own lifestyles should be imposed on the world as a whole, irrespective of where they reside on the planet.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 17:28
Odd thing KC.....in the Western World we prosecute Killers.
A few western countries even execute killers.
Don't see much of that being done in the Muslim World...
Surely you remember the execution of Zarmina in Kabul? I bet you were one of those yelling at the top of you lungs about this execution of a confessed murderer*.
http://www.rawa.org/zarmina1.jpg


.and we damn sure see far more Mass Murder being done by and against Muslims by other Muslims than we do any other group of people on the Earth.

How do you account for the difference?

The difference is you dont know what you are talking about, just stop to consider how many murders in America alone? How many North Koreans killed by their government? How many Afghans killed in the invasion and continuing occupation of their country, dont forget the 4000 or so prisoners killed by America's allies at Mazar-i-sharif.** How many Iraqi men women and children have died because of the actions of non-Muslims, hundreds of thousands and by some accounts a million or more.

You need to understand that just saying something is true is not enough to make it so, no matter how often you repeat it.




*Zarmina's story is a tragic one and would be worth a topic on its own, IMHO.

** Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Massacre:_The_Convoy_of_Death)

con-pilot
9th Nov 2013, 17:47
Surely you remember the execution of Zarmina in Kabul? I bet you were one of those yelling at the top of you lungs about this execution of a confessed murderer*.

Noted. But please do not presume that this form of punishment is limited to murderers, as it is not and you know, or at least should know, it is not.

The list of offenses to some Muslims that they believe deserves a bullet in the back of the head is nearly endless. Like shooting a 14 year old girl in the head because she wanted to learn how to read.

Not to mention cutting one's head off, while filming the act, with a rather dull knife.

Yeah, you're supporting a real bunch of heros.

StressFree
9th Nov 2013, 18:00
Con,

Well said sir!

:D

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 18:08
There are many ways that Muslim men women and children can meet early deaths.

They might get hit by a not-so-smart bomb like the one that killed the family of an Afghan friend when it hit their apartment building near the Kabul airport, they might get killed driving to work in a war zone as what happened to three of my Iraqi colleges in Baghdad, they might step on a mine left by the Russians as happened to the gardener working in the vegetable garden of the hotel I was staying in in Kabul. Kids get killed when they find mines and unexploded munitions left by whatever Western or Asian army passed that way. Whole families get wiped out for making too much noise at a wedding party (then their friends and neighbours who come to their rescue get killed in the second strike), whole families also get wiped out by drones just because someone told someone else that they saw someone who looked like someone somewhere sometime ago.

We cannot do anything much to change the judicial practices of other countries that we do not agree with any more than I can expect to change the American practice of causing those with a sentence of capital punishment to first endure what would in other Western countries amount to a life sentence. I suppose one should be relieved that the US no longer keeps minors on death row until they are old enough to be killed.

Your criticism of Muslim and specifically Taleban version of justice is rather hypercritical as the very same laws apply in countries among which are counted some of American's warmest allies.


By the way, don't accuse me of supporting anyone as that makes for a very poor argument on your part.

Dushan
9th Nov 2013, 20:01
There is also the very disturbing fact, that, as with the majority of your posts (and you don't have to be a psychologist or psychiatrist to recognise this trend) your obsession with the military lifestyle from the past has rendered you institutionalised to the extent that you are unable to adapt to civilian life and, if anything, have as much potential to be as dangerous as any terrorist...even if you do have this delusion of being on the "right" side....although in any conflict, all those involved invariably feel they have the moral supremacy over those who oppose their views anyway.

Ooooh, RGB, you've been told. If I was a Linux server I'd be afraid. I'd be very, very afraid.

A diagnosis form a thousand miles. Who knew?

con-pilot
9th Nov 2013, 20:08
There are many ways that Muslim men women and children can meet early deaths.

Yes, and the number one cause is by fellow Muslims beheading them, shooting them (sometimes in the head and other times by emptying the clip of a AK-47 into them), blowing them up by car bombs, suicide bombers and believe it or not, hanging them.

Muslims murder more Muslims than the rest of the world combined.

Now, you want me to bring up the total deaths in the Iraq/Iran war?

I'll be happy to, but be warned that I'll round the deaths off on the closest millions.

Seeing we are countering your opinion that the poor Muslms are just understood, not appreciated and so peaceful that they would not hurt a fly , let's talk about the resurgence of polio in Muslim countries because your noble Muslim leaders have told the mothers that the polio vaccine is a CIA plot.

Want to take that on?

BenThere
9th Nov 2013, 20:55
Your criticism of Muslim and specifically Taleban version of justice is rather hypercritical

Mine is certainly hypercritical. I can't stand them. I recoil at every barbaric atrocity they commit. My stomach churns at the efforts by people of my own country, deluded, working to ignore, or even justify Islamic brutism.

And I have no truck with those who contend that Pax Americana, 1945-2008, was evil. It was good, and I'm afraid the world of the next 100 years will miss it dearly.

BenThere
9th Nov 2013, 21:51
Go for it, John.

Don't think you have a lot of support today, but things change. Zeal is a tricky emotion.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 21:52
And I have no truck with those who contend that Pax Americana, 1945-2008, was evil. It was good............

I am not aware that anyone said such a thing was evil although you may get to find some other opinions if you were to canvas the folks of Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Dominican Republic,Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Sudan or any of the doubtless numerous other countries that I can not call to mind right now.

BenThere
9th Nov 2013, 21:55
Okay. They can have their say. My say is that 1945-2008 was a pretty good run for peace and prosperity under Pax Americana.

Now you're on you're own.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 22:06
Are you actually for real, K&C. We in the 'west' have earned the right to judge the uncivilised savages who populate much of the rest of the world. Are you honestly, truly trying to suggest that the Taleban can claim ANY moral superiority over us whatsoever?

I notice that you, Mr Smith, are another so unsure of their standing that you are unable to reveal your location and I find the name somewhat dubious too. Such information is important if we are to judge your claims to be in the 'West" and whatever it is you are claiming. Unfortunately wherever you hail from the education system would seem to be somewhat lacking for you to have concluded that anyone here has been claiming Taleban moral superiority over anyone.


I'm about as far from a religious person as it is possible to be, but I do think that it is time for a crusade in the middle east to cleanse the world of the scourge of Islamic terrorism. Yes, I can fully agree that you must be far from religious if you propose another crusade against Islam. Your education must be even worse that I first thought if you think a crusade against Muslims would be centred in the Middle East where less than one fifth of the world's Muslims live.




After we've finished there, a spot of recolonisation in Africa wouldn't be a bad thing, as the blacks there have shown themselves to be completely incapable of self governance. Have a lot of experience of Africa do you? No, I thought not.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 22:10
Okay. They can have their say. My say is that 1945-2008 was a pretty good run for peace and prosperity under Pax Americana. Yes, a pretty good run especially for Americans and the american arms industries. Such a shame when the USSR fell and another bogey man had to be found.

Now you're on you're own. I though we always were...:rolleyes:

BenThere
9th Nov 2013, 22:38
and another bogey man had to be found

Like 9/11 was a devious US plot to create an enemy. Do you ever think about what you think?

500N
9th Nov 2013, 23:02
"Have a lot of experience of Africa do you? No, I thought not."

John

And you are saying that they really know how to run a country well
and set it up for the long term ?

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 01:02
Like 9/11 was a devious US plot to create an enemy. Do you ever think about what you think?

Oh, I am always considering what I think and have never thought that 9/11 was a US plot, but the American bombing of Afghanistan may well have been a plot to invoke a response that would justify invasion of the country but I bet they never expected a response like the arse kicking they got on 9/11.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 01:06
And you are saying that they really know how to run a country well
and set it up for the long term ?

I dare you to say there are no successful countries in Africa.

500N
10th Nov 2013, 01:22
Africa does has successful countries, but a couple of things.

What do you class as successful ?

When you set the success bar low, people can then say it is successful ;)
(A classic failing of the left IMHO where they always aim low).

I look it the other way.
Yes, they might be looked on as successful, but how much better can they be,
how much can things improve ?

And lastly, a whole load of crap countries, far more than their should be
if everything was harnessed and despots got rid of.

500N
10th Nov 2013, 01:24
John

Please list those countries you call successful (in Africa).

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 01:28
Only if you dare to say there are none.

500N
10th Nov 2013, 01:36
OK, then answer the original question.

"And you are saying that they really know how to run a country well
and set it up for the long term ?"

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 01:40
I dont have to answer that as you have answered it yourself..."Africa does has successful countries,"

There now, that was not so hard now was it?:rolleyes:

500N
10th Nov 2013, 01:42
Classic Troll.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 01:46
It has been said that a day is wasted if you learn nothing so you should be pleased that today you have learned something.

500N
10th Nov 2013, 06:45
John (Hill)

Are you going to answer any of the questions re African countries ?

C'mon, it sounds like you are the fint of wisdom when it comes to Africa,
please tell us more of these great bastions of success that you say they
are, especially the one's that have been taken over by blacks.

What about Zimbabwe ? Yes, No ?
Sierra Leone ?
Sudan ?
Chad ?
Rwanda ?
How about CAR ?

StressFree
10th Nov 2013, 06:49
John Hill,

You're starting to get on my nerves........:*

500N
10th Nov 2013, 06:56
John (Hill),

If you love the Taliban so much and want to apologise for them all the time,
why not go and live with them ? I am sure they would welcome you,
with an AK47 and maybe even a few goats so you won't get lonely.
(Not sure they have any sheep ;))

bcgallacher
10th Nov 2013, 07:17
I am in agreement (for a change)! with 500N - you must set the bar pretty low to describe an African country as successful. I have spent a few years in Africa - some places very beautiful but much of it filthy,squalid and corrupt with politicians who enrich themselves at the expense of the poor.

500N
10th Nov 2013, 07:25
bcg
Thanks :ok:
I now have to go to a doctor to get the wound on my head looked at
that I sustained falling off my chair :O

I see another side that other might not. That of Professional Hunters,
hunting, how a country manages and utilises it's game, how things
are valued, how things are distributed to the local population, how is it
made sustainable over the long term.

It provides an interesting insight into the African countries, one's that
go from good to bad and then come good again, others that have always
been good and those that are just a lost cause and always will be.

bcgallacher
10th Nov 2013, 07:41
I do not know which remote cave John Hill has been living in for the last 20 years or so as he seems to be a little out of touch with reality. Casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are mainly caused by Iraqis and Afghans.In Iraq as in many Islamic countries there is a sectarian war being waged between the Shia and Sunni factions of Islam - nothing to do with Western countries. Syria is the same, in Afghanistan it is conflict between the extreme fundamentalists - who would take the country back to pre- medieval times - as opposed to medieval times of their opponents. Pakistanis are bombing and strafing each others mosques Going back further -the Iraq /Iran war produced over 1 million casualties in the same strife between Sunni and Shia.I have spent over 20 years in Islamic countries and have seen Islam turn from normal,peaceful religion to the hate filled intolerant movement it is today.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 07:51
If you love the Taliban so much and want to apologise for them all the time,

I have told you before that making such insinuations is a very poor style of argument.


...why not go and live with them ? I am sure they would welcome you,
with an AK47 and maybe even a few goats so you won't get lonely.
(Not sure they have any sheep )
......American eh? The only country where a man died for the love of his horse,
Zoo (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(film))

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 07:54
bcgallagher wrote I am in agreement (for a change)! with 500N - you must set the bar pretty low to describe an African country as successful.


You should note that it was 500N who said Africa does has successful countries,

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 08:04
bcgallagher wrote
...., in Afghanistan it is conflict between the extreme fundamentalists - who would take the country back to pre- medieval times - as opposed to medieval times of their opponents.

The medieval warlords and bandit gangs are the ones the 'international coalition' is trying to establish in power. But the country has been there before....... as soon as ISAF (whatever it might be called now) leave the clock will flick back to 1996.


I have spent over 20 years in Islamic countries and have seen Islam turn from normal,peaceful religion to the hate filled intolerant movement it is today. So what happened in the last 20 years to induce such a change? Problems in Palestine? American forces stationed in the Muslim holy lands? Demise of the USSR? America running amok? OBL woke up one morning and thought he would stir the pot a little?

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 08:17
You're starting to get on my nerves.....

You cannot begin to understand how much that upsets me!:{

highflyer40
10th Nov 2013, 08:50
just one thing on "successful or not successful" African countries, let's just remember that Africa is so messed up now because of western interference. not only the US but most western powers and increasingly now you can add china to that list as well. they set up despotic regimes that were favourable to their economic and military interests with no thought or care to want would happen to the country

bcgallacher
10th Nov 2013, 09:39
The British Colonies were left with a functioning electoral system and a civil service that worked - the Africans within a few years had corrupted both- without any interference from outside.They have been running their own affairs for about 60 years so the corrupt mess that is Africa is certainly not caused by outside interference - its all homegrown.Have a look at the likes of Singapore and Malaysia - highly successful ex colonies that were given independence about the same time - no tribalism,little corruption.

bcgallacher
10th Nov 2013, 09:48
John Hill - the cause of this hatred and brutality is due mainly to the financing of madrassas throughout the Islamic world by Saudi Arabia.The Saudi brand of Islam is Wahabi - an extreme fundamentalist branch of the Sunni faction.They sent preachers to teach their type of Islam -many of whom were poorly educated and not truly scholars - to teach a medieval philosophy.Basically they taught that anything that appeared to be unislamic should be killed or destroyed.

highflyer40
10th Nov 2013, 10:30
BCG

I'm not talking about when the Brits left and how they left it, but within years if not months foreign intelligence services moving in and setting up there own brand of dictators that would let them rape and pillage most of the continent.

bcgallacher
10th Nov 2013, 10:52
High flyer - they were and are quite capable of raping and pillaging without foreign interference - and frequently did.Its always somebody else's fault - first law of African dictator -blame British intelligence or the CIA for all your problems,never the fact that you are stashing away your countries finances in industrial quantities. Can I suggest you do a reality check.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 17:08
John Hill - the cause of this hatred and brutality is due mainly to the financing of madrassas throughout the Islamic world by Saudi Arabia.The Saudi brand of Islam is Wahabi - an extreme fundamentalist branch of the Sunni faction.They sent preachers to teach their type of Islam -many of whom were poorly educated and not truly scholars - to teach a medieval philosophy.Basically they taught that anything that appeared to be unislamic should be killed or destroyed

Makes one wonder why the Talebes get all the blame........:rolleyes:


OK, I knows Talebes follow Wahabi but they were not actively spreading it outside the country being too busy with business at home.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 17:12
gcgallagher wrote
High flyer - they were and are quite capable of raping and pillaging without foreign interference - and frequently did.Its always somebody else's fault - first law of African dictator -blame British intelligence or the CIA for all your problems,never the fact that you are stashing away your countries finances in industrial quantities.

How many countries in Africa? 50? 60? more? I fear you are making unfair generalisations.

bcgallacher
11th Nov 2013, 10:01
John Hill
I would be pleased if you could give me a list of 'successful' African countries and what makes you consider them a success. I think your ideas of success must differ from mine.

El Grifo
11th Nov 2013, 10:26
As an aside, I have worked in many countries around the world and it is known that I have a soft spot for Cuba when I witness the improvements which I see going on in that country over the years.

For this, I take serious stick from many quarters here on Pprune.

The "stick" generally comes from people who have never set foot in the country.

Recently I had the dubious pleasure of working in Equatorial Guinea and with hand on heart, I have never worked in such a terrible place in my life, where the gulf between rich and poor is measured in centuries rather than wealth.

A place where the regime of Teodoro Obiang builds huge vanity projects which lie unused, whilst his people cannot afford the small amount of money required to buy medication etc to prevent malaria and aids.

I have never set foot in such a desperate place.

It is almost a caricature of that which the Anti-Cuba brigade present as reality in Cuba.

The difference is that this regime is propped up by the oil and gas companies Marathon and Hess

El G.

dead_pan
11th Nov 2013, 10:33
Yup, Simon Mann, Scratcher and the rest of their rent-a-mob would have done the world a massive favour, if Bob hadn't spoiled their plans.

El Grifo
11th Nov 2013, 11:14
Up until my visit, I thought THEY were the bad guys !!! :ugh:

El G.

John Hill
11th Nov 2013, 17:07
bcgallacher wrote
John Hill
I would be pleased if you could give me a list of 'successful' African countries and what makes you consider them a success. I think your ideas of success must differ from mine.

I am sure you would but unfortunately it is 500N who said there are successful countries in Africa, see post 225.

BenThere
11th Nov 2013, 17:17
While some are more successful than others, on a strictly relative basis, such as Morocco, Kenya, et al., none have achieved first world status except for maybe S. Africa, and that was long ago.

John Hill
11th Nov 2013, 17:31
I hope someone will define 'first world status' for us.

500N
11th Nov 2013, 17:44
Well certainly not what they have now.

con-pilot
11th Nov 2013, 17:50
I hope someone will define 'first world status' for us.

You mean for you, as most people already know, but never the less, you can use the following for a start.

First World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World)

Countries of the First World (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/first_world.htm)

First world - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/first%20world)

First World countries - definition of First World countries by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First+World+countries)

If the above does not help you, perhaps you would like someone to draw a picture for you. :rolleyes:

John Hill
11th Nov 2013, 18:06
... as most people already know......but not you obviously.

See Wiki "First World: United States, United Kingdom and its allies."



One would have to be really dumb to define a countries' success as to their becoming allies of the US and UK!

bcgallacher
11th Nov 2013, 19:17
John Hill - I was referring to your post 249

John Hill
11th Nov 2013, 20:38
Where I said you were making an unfair generalisation. If you want to refute that you will have to list all African countries and show how they meet your generalisation, I think it unlikely that you will be able to bring yourself to do that.

But here, I will make it easy for you...

A mid-sized country of just over two million people, ...... is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world. ........ was one of the poorest countries in Africa when it gained independence from ........ in 19.., with a GDP per capita of about US$70. ...... has since transformed itself, becoming one of the fastest-growing economies in the world to a GDP (purchasing power parity) per capita of about $14,000,[1] and a high gross national income, possibly the fourth-largest in Africa, giving the country a modest standard of living.[6] The country, being a member of the African Union, also has a strong tradition as a representative democracy and has the second highest Human Development Index of continental Sub-Saharan African countries

That was really easy to find and is quite a contrast to the prejudiced opinions I have seen expressed here.

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 21:21
Both Namibia and Botswana have their problems for sure (what country doesn't) and neither fulfil our self-fulfilling criteria for being '1st World' countries but I like them both and would happily live in either...
;)


Caco

highflyer40
11th Nov 2013, 21:34
this whole first world, third world (what happened to second world?) business is highly subjective. I as an American ( granted having moved from there many years ago) would never live there.

Americas time at the forefront has passed and with each year it's standing and influence diminish

John Hill
11th Nov 2013, 22:15
First world, second world and third world was orginally the 'us', 'them' and 'the others' of the cold war. Scandinavian countries were by definition third world countries!

BenThere
12th Nov 2013, 07:06
So let's define it then.

As I see it, first world is where you have rule of law, can feed your people, don't receive economic assistance from other nations, have built an infrastructure of modern conveyances, and make an effort to protect all citizens from abject deprivation.

Second world is where you are on the cusp of achieving first world status, developing first world standards and recognizing humanistic values and rule of law.

Third world is a doctrinaire socialist or Islamic statehood, a despotic ruling class, and the people are on their own to merely survive.

highflyer40
12th Nov 2013, 08:03
really!! there are a few "socialist" countries that are in Europe that I would say are arguably more 1st world than the US according to your definition.

and the fact that a country has an Islamic government by default means it's unable to achieve 1st wotld status? then surely that should apply to Christian governments, or for that matter any religious government?

bcgallacher
12th Nov 2013, 08:39
John Hill - you managed to find one out of how many? and you say I am making a generalisation! How much of this prosperity filters down to the ordinary people and how much in Swiss bank accounts?

highflyer40
12th Nov 2013, 09:09
so how much of the US prosperity filters down to the "ordinary" people. according to wiki (for what that's worth) 59%of Americans will spend at least one year living below the poverty line and 20% of the country at any given time is living in poverty. (defined as under 24000 per year for a family of 4)

remember those glass houses??

Solid Rust Twotter
12th Nov 2013, 11:00
Bear in mind that what is regarded as extreme poverty in Europe/UK (only one iPod per dole bludger) is regarded as undreamed of luxury in most of Africa.

John Hill
12th Nov 2013, 17:23
John Hill - you managed to find one out of how many? and you say I am making a generalisation! How much of this prosperity filters down to the ordinary people and how much in Swiss bank accounts?

It was not hard to find, I went through the list of African countries in alphabetical order and only needed to go as far as 'B'.

Yes you made your generalisation, but I dont as I do not claim all African countries are like Botswana.

John Hill
12th Nov 2013, 17:27
So let's define it then.

As I see it, first world is where you have rule of law, can feed your people, don't receive economic assistance from other nations, have built an infrastructure of modern conveyances, and make an effort to protect all citizens from abject deprivation.

Second world is where you are on the cusp of achieving first world status, developing first world standards and recognizing humanistic values and rule of law.

Third world is a doctrinaire socialist or Islamic statehood, a despotic ruling class, and the people are on their own to merely survive.

Ha ha, make the definition to suit the current requirements eh?

You missed an obvious characteristic of First World countries and that is health and medical facilities readily available to all citizens.

con-pilot
12th Nov 2013, 17:49
according to wiki (for what that's worth) 59%of Americans will spend at least one year living below the poverty line and 20% of the country at any given time is living in poverty. (defined as under 24000 per year for a family of 4)

Yes, but those people living in so-called poverty in the US all live in homes or flats*, have TVs (big screen TVs in many cases), internet access, mobile phones, have plenty to eat (fast food or not) and the vast majority of them own cars. They also have medical care, called Medicaid, which is free, payed for them by US tax payers.

What would be considered utter luxury in the vast majority of Africa.



* Homes with running water, electricty and heating.

StressFree
12th Nov 2013, 17:50
Con,

Well said :D

Dushan
12th Nov 2013, 18:55
so how much of the US prosperity filters down to the "ordinary" people. according to wiki (for what that's worth) 59%of Americans will spend at least one year living below the poverty line and 20% of the country at any given time is living in poverty. (defined as under 24000 per year for a family of 4)

remember those glass houses??

How many of the 59% are students having no income, but all expenses paid by their parens while at college?

Statistics….

John Hill
12th Nov 2013, 18:58
All I need to know about poverty in North America I can learn from this excellent documentary...

North Korean Propaganda Film on American Poverty - YouTube

wings folded
12th Nov 2013, 19:40
So let's define it then.


And you then give your definition.

If your "let's define it" is meant to associate every body to embrace your view, then leave me out.

John Hill made the point about health care available to all citizens.

Where do you you place those countries (in Europe, if it makes it easier) who will give medical care to anybody, citizen or not, who is unwell on their shores, without enquiries into their ability to pay? Some of which are socialist. Some are not.