You don’t need trials to decide wether to kill the enemy

Who decides who is the enemy ?

Who justifies killing ?

We need Andy McNab on this thread !

Will John Wayne do? He seems to be here already.

Lol.i don’t think they’re picking names out of a hat.
I’d sooner be john Wayne than cherie Blair eh lifer?

Wasn’t the Duke a draft dodger ?

Shit! Can I be clint instead? 😀

No, it’s not. Wars are between countries.

What about civil war?

Oh, and blaming the Americans for AQ is inaccurate. The northern alliance is not AQ. The mujahideen are not AQ. Most of AQ are foreigners (referred to by locals as “the foreigners”)

It is extremely accurate to point out that the US financed, armed, and trained, Osama bin Laden and his Arab volunteers in Afghanistan.

Of course for extremely obvious reasons some people would rather forget it/ignore it/pretend it never happened.

wrecker – Member
Lol.i don’t think they’re picking names out of a hat.
I’d sooner be john Wayne than cherie Blair eh lifer?

Oh no that’s a lady 😥

But if we’re choosing I’ll go with Richard Feynman.

Well, OBL is dead and those Arabs armed by the CIA are not the same people fighting at present.
It’s a bit tenuous IMO, like blaming the Czechs for making most of the AKs being used over there.
I do agree that we are far too cosy with Saudi though. A despicable regime and founders of terrorism. Do you think we should invade?

But if we’re choosing I’ll go with Richard Feynman

He helped make the atomic bomb!!!!
Ill call you rich if you call me clint?

Start by looking up definitions in the dictionary peeps.

War
Noun
A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Apologists and war mangers welcome to bat it out in the safety of your wiki world. 🙄

Well, OBL is dead and those Arabs armed by the CIA are not the same people fighting at present.

What do you mean “those Arabs”, don’t you mean “those terrorists” ?

But yeah, you’re right, Osama bin Laden is dead, which presumably means that it’s now OK to arm and support Al Qaeda on Syria ?

The West gave money, arms, and political power, to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, and still does. It also has, and still does, fully support totalitarian and brutal regimes in Islamic countries. Brushing it under the carpet and pretending it never happened, and isn’t still happening, isn’t useful.

Drones aren’t fair?
I’m not a fan of drones, but one side pointing and shouting “no fair” whilst behaving in the manner AQ/terry does is necky.

I think the point here is we claim they are terrorists and maintain that we are civilised , democratic , fair and reasonable unlike them

I doubt anyone really thinks there is much difference between using a bomb to blow up a house or using a drone to blow up a house – though of course we claim our version is “surgical” and the inevitable collateral deaths[ murders] ” accidents” where as they meant theirs and they really are murderers

It always heartening to see the **** them they deserve what they get brigade who are much more like the enemy than they actually realise- both do exactly the same just for different sides.

After the firm later went in to liquidation, one of it’s previous members (a bit of a technical whiz) put his mind to inventing a system for the military where any mobile phone call, anywhere, could be monitored and located using the technology available in GPS satellite tracking. Boastful Taliban and Al-Qaeda franchisees who previously thought themselves untouchable in remote desert areas, suddenly found themselves being targeted and killed.

I’m not sure any of that is true.

Most of the mobile location technology was driven by the E911 directive which was to locate mobile phone users in the US rather than Afghanistan, so they knew where you were when you call 911. It doesn’t use GPS tracking as GPS is read only – and most phones don’t have GPS receivers in them. Most of it is done by triangulating the signal either from cell towers in dense areas or from overhead eg Nimrods, drones etc.

As for knowing who is calling who, all the MNOs in Afghanistan have had all their calls tapped by the NSA and GCHQ for years, so they know who is calling who when and then just locate the SSID from the triangulation.

The locals have got wise to this though and for a while forced the MNOs there to switch off their networks at night, so they could move around undetected. (They were not smart enough to just take the battery out their phone, then move around, blow something up, go home and then put the battery back in).

Also, if you meant Granger Telecom, their staff were killed in Chechnya rather than Afghanistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/231570.stm

I doubt anyone really thinks there is much difference between using a bomb to blow up a house or using a drone to blow up a house – though of course we claim our version is “surgical” and the inevitable collateral deaths[ murders] ” accidents” where as they meant theirs and they really are murderers

I think the general rules is that if the bomb is placed on the ground it is the work of a terrorist,
if the bomb falls from the sky it is the work of peace-loving democratic politicians.

Rather my point, I think.
drones are at least as legitimate as IEDs. Neither side can moan about it. It’s a dirty business.

Wrecker you are missing the point. Our govt does not consider itself nor the army to be terrorist or their behaviour to be similar to AQ.
Simply we are the goodies and they are the baddies
We are battling tyranny with our bombs where as they are killing us because they are evil.

They do not accept that our ways of killing folk are similar to terrorism at all

Of course in a “was” both sides will do bad things – not least because the main point/goal is to kill each other which is bad whoever does it

I see what you are saying, but the allied military operate to very different rules to AQ. Yes there has been allegations of torture etc, but they don’t make gopro edits of chopping civilians heads off or plant car bombs in packed city markets. I’d love to see AQs rules of engagement cards!
The playing field has to be levelled somehow. I can’t see AQ signing the genera convention any time soon!

Given the US circumvent it with illegal combatants I wonder why they signed it
AQ has yet to blow up a wedding party
We find atrocities on both sides [ as we would in any war no doubt]

I can’t see AQ signing the genera convention any time soon!

Bearing in mind that the West are responsible for this :

I take that is some sort of ironic joke ?

wrecker – Member

The playing field has to be levelled somehow.

It really, really doesn’t.

It does if the allies want any chance of “winning”.
I’m pretty comfortable with Gitmo (flame away), so no there was no joke.
Anyhoo, I’m off out. You all have fun.

then you must be comfortable with many of the AQ tactics as well as they like delivering “justice” without trial as well

As for winning it is a hearts and minds operations not one of just crushing them…we could nuke them from orbit to do that.

PS Careful you dont get sun stroke …though I am not sure how we would tell 😉

‘Pretty comfortable’ with Guantanamo? Despite over half detainees being found to have committed no hostile act against the US or it’s allies?

What benefits has it brought to ‘us’?

I’m pretty comfortable with Gitmo (flame away), so no there was no joke.

So you want to castigate the terrorists for not respecting the Geneva Convention, but you don’t have any problem with Western governments ignoring it ?

It is precisely that level of hypocrisy and double standards which has got us in the present global mess.

You say that you’re not comfortable with the cosy relationship which the West has with Saudi Arabia, and yet that relationship goes to the very heart of Western strategy – a strategy which is entirely built on double standards. If you take away the double standards the strategy unravels.

So what is it – do you support hypocrisy and double standards, or not not ?

You can’t support “some” hypocrisy and double standards, and not others, that would be, well, hypocritical.

I have not castigated AQ for not being GC compliant, I have just pointed out that they aren’t and that the allies are, so there are inconsistencies. This means that they don’t want to comply, but expect us to. More double standards? Even hypocrisy? Seems to be a lot of it around 😀
I’m not sure how western govts are ignoring it. The prisoners at Gitmo certainly dont qualify as prisoners of war according to the GC qualifications.
Guys, the weathers lovely. Come on out!

This means that they don’t want to comply, but expect us to.

Since when ? Provide me some evidence.

I find it extremely hard to believe that Al Qaeda terrorists expect to be treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

I on the other hand, along with probably the majority of people in the West, expect the Western governments to comply with the basic rule of law. Maybe you’re getting confused with that ?

Also, if you meant Granger Telecom, their staff were killed in Chechnya rather than Afghanistan

Yes I did.

Yes, I know.

What’s happened at Tube stations? I need to use the Tube prolifically over the next few days so I’d like to know

A) what I could be in for
B) whether I should use something alternate to a rucksack to carrying laptop.

I need to use the Tube prolifically over the next few days so I’d like to know

I suggest carrying a pressure cooker in a rucksack, running lots and jumping over barriers…

NB If this post doesn’t get flagged by NSA, nothing will!

This means that they don’t want to comply, but expect us to.

I think it us who want us to comply with the law whilst acceptign that terrorist dont. I dont think AQ is likely to take a case to court from breach of their human rights. Basically if we wish to take the moral high ground it is imperative that we take the moral high ground…do you really think we are ?

As for the non combatants thing being legal – can you imagine the US reaction if Iraq/Syria did this with US citizens then sent them to North Korea?
It may comply with the letter of the law [ bet it took the ;lawyers and double speakers ages to work out some ruse tbh- but it does not comply with the spirit of the law ;it is basically state sponsored kidnapping of largely innocent individuals.

Whilst we berate them for not respecting human rights and their treatment of people.

As for the non combatants thing being legal

Of course it’s not legal. The US government knows full well that it’s not legal.

That’s precisely why they have gone to a great deal of trouble to place them beyond the jurisdiction of US courts.

Or does anyone think that Cuba was chosen for it’s pleasant most agreeable climate and invigorating sea breezes ?

Easier than debating the (interesting) moral issue of drones, the simpler example is torture. Clearly forbidden under international law and yet we (and other western governments) feel justified in ignoring this as suits the “perceived” need……..so we ignore both human rights and international law?

It’s not just the moral issue of drones, there are also legal issues under international law. US drones strikes on Pakistan territory violates Pakistani sovereignty under international law. There is also a legal requirement under international law to minimize civilian casualties – predictor drones have a history of indiscriminately killing civilians.

Isn’t it all about Snowden? Justifying spying on the allies as well as everybody else. Killing people with drones seems a good way to get the people you are killing to attack your embassy to me.