Predator drones

[whp.blue]

Do we in the west have the right to impose our culture all over the world? Are we not doing to "them" the exact same thing that a lot of people who are of the view that "All Islam is bad" would suggest that they are doing to us?

well it would appear that islam has the right to impose their will on people here in England
and the answer to your question is no

2% of the people deserved to die that is 2% more than the London bombers victims

 

[Damocles]

Here's the problem as I see it.

There's a semantic argument over whether it really is 50:1 ratio. I think that this misses the point.

To help PB to humanise the point, let us talk about the ratio of criminals to non-crimnals in Prestwich.

Let us presume that the ratio wan't 50 civilians to 1 criminal. Let us agree that this was an overexageration and say that it was 1 civilian to 1 criminal, something which is miles apart from the facts.

Would you agree to a 1:1 bombing ratio in Prestwich or Jersey? Let's say that you would agree that terrorism is such a problem that we should murder an innocent person for every terrorist, for the sake of rhetoric.

How many are enough? Let's say that you could murder your own child with the absolute guarantee that world peace would break out. Would you kill your own heir for this?

More to the point, would you allow a person living several thousand miles and in social terms, light years away from this violence determine whether or not your lad should be murdered for that terrorist?

Let's say the ratio was 100 terrorists for 1 citizen. Is your lad worth that fee then?

In IT, we call this "Not Invented Here" syndrome. It essentially means that somebody can rationalise anything that they believe in because it doesn't actually effect them if their ideology is wrong.

I have a feeling that PB wouldn't murder his own child to kill 100 terrorists as the 1:100 ratio is too much when his own humanity is tested. Therefore, the entire semantic argument concerning numbers has absolutely no bearing on anything. Thus remains the very essence; can we kill innocents in the pursuit of terrorism?

Specifically, can we kill YOUR innocents for this purpose? If your answer is negative, you have absolutely no right to support any counter terrorism measures.

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Here's the problem as I see it.

There's a semantic argument over whether it really is 50:1 ratio. I think that this misses the point.

To help PB to humanise the point, let us talk about the ratio of criminals to non-crimnals in Prestwich.

Let us presume that the ratio wan't 50 civilians to 1 criminal. Let us agree that this was an overexageration and say that it was 1 civilian to 1 criminal, something which is miles apart from the facts.

Would you agree to a 1:1 bombing ratio in Prestwich or Jersey? Let's say that you would agree that terrorism is such a problem that we should murder an innocent person for every terrorist, for the sake of rhetoric.

How many are enough? Let's say that you could murder your own child with the absolute guarantee that world peace would break out. Would you kill your own heir for this?

More to the point, would you allow a person living several thousand miles and in social terms, light years away from this violence determine whether or not your lad should be murdered for that terrorist?

Let's say the ratio was 100 terrorists for 1 citizen. Is your lad worth that fee then?

In IT, we call this "Not Invented Here" syndrome. It essentially means that somebody can rationalise anything that they believe in because it doesn't actually effect them if their ideology is wrong.

I have a feeling that PB wouldn't murder his own child to kill 100 terrorists as the 1:100 ratio is too much when his own humanity is tested. Therefore, the entire semantic argument concerning numbers has absolutely no bearing on anything. Thus remains the very essence; can we kill innocents in the pursuit of terrorism?

Specifically, can we kill YOUR innocents for this purpose? If your answer is negative, you have absolutely no right to support any counter terrorism measures.

[bigimg]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPvJD3b-i1zQfID1UwkdO--gcjeBg_-F3ozax1SyhW7UWu6FhI[/bigimg]

 

[1961_vintage]

Here's the problem as I see it.

There's a semantic argument over whether it really is 50:1 ratio. I think that this misses the point.

To help PB to humanise the point, let us talk about the ratio of criminals to non-crimnals in Prestwich.

Let us presume that the ratio wan't 50 civilians to 1 criminal. Let us agree that this was an overexageration and say that it was 1 civilian to 1 criminal, something which is miles apart from the facts.

Would you agree to a 1:1 bombing ratio in Prestwich or Jersey? Let's say that you would agree that terrorism is such a problem that we should murder an innocent person for every terrorist, for the sake of rhetoric.

How many are enough? Let's say that you could murder your own child with the absolute guarantee that world peace would break out. Would you kill your own heir for this?

More to the point, would you allow a person living several thousand miles and in social terms, light years away from this violence determine whether or not your lad should be murdered for that terrorist?

Let's say the ratio was 100 terrorists for 1 citizen. Is your lad worth that fee then?

In IT, we call this "Not Invented Here" syndrome. It essentially means that somebody can rationalise anything that they believe in because it doesn't actually effect them if their ideology is wrong.

I have a feeling that PB wouldn't murder his own child to kill 100 terrorists as the 1:100 ratio is too much when his own humanity is tested. Therefore, the entire semantic argument concerning numbers has absolutely no bearing on anything. Thus remains the very essence; can we kill innocents in the pursuit of terrorism?

Specifically, can we kill YOUR innocents for this purpose? If your answer is negative, you have absolutely no right to support any counter terrorism measures.

Great arguments Damocles - high time these terrorists took responsibility for the collateral damage arising from their actions.

 

[Subbed Tskhadadze with Allsopp]

So by that argument Damocles the D-Day landings should never have taken place because more French civilians died in that campaign than Allied soldiers? Or was a greater good done that day? Because you can't have it both ways.

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

So by that argument Damocles the D-Day landings should never have taken place because more French civilians died in that campaign than Allied soldiers? Or was a greater good done that day? Because you can't have it both ways.

Just where is "fractured 'terrorist' land" on the globe again?

If you were in one of these countries where you don't really get any news and every now and again these robot things fly above and kill only a small few of your village I would imagine that they would think of us as Nazi Germany and react in the same way that we did.

 

[Damocles]

So by that argument Damocles the D-Day landings should never have taken place because more French civilians died in that campaign than Allied soldiers? Or was a greater good done that day? Because you can't have it both ways.

Actually, more Allied soliders died than French civilians. The mistake here is incorporating civilian casualities in the few months after the landings which would make your point correct.

That said, I have several pretty major objections to your point;

1. Comparing a defensive war with an offensive war is disingenuous at best.

2. More than that, you've tried to oversimplify the argument. Drone strikes and beach landings are enormously different. One has the ability to strike accurately using GPS target data which is accurate within 2 feet, the other is a desperate attempt to not die.


3. I don't believe that a comparison between the military strategy of 2013 and the military strategy of 1939 is helpful due to the enormous changes in technology, morality and sociology.

 

[Josh Blue]

I can tell somebody doesn't understand when they write something like ...'yeah but terrorists kill innocent people as well' or 'what about the bad stuff the muslims does'.

I know I made the thread but I think I've had enough of it.

Let your humanity decide not your prejudice.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Let your humanity decide not your prejudice.

Not a chance.

 

[west didsblue]

There's a semantic argument over whether it really is 50:1 ratio. I think that this misses the point.

It's hardly a semantic argument when the first line of the original post on this thread was

It is believed that 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist.

It has been shown using Skashion's link to the source of this information is that the statement is actually completely untrue and is based on an inaccurate Daily Mail article and the real ratio is roughly 40 combatants to 10 civilians. This changes things completely.

It is perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about whether collateral damage of 10 civilians to 40 combatants is worth it but for the majority of this thread the America hating contingent have taken this original statement as fact and have based their arguments on it without having read the real source of the information. The irony is that these same people would normally disregard anything from the Daily Mail but as soon as it prints something to support their anti-American sentiments they will believe it without question.