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.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Bravo Damocles. A wonderfully eloquent argument. What a shame it's utter bollox as usual. The judges would cringe at that sort of thing in a middle school debating competition.

Firstly, I never for one moment claimed that there was a price worth paying. I simply looked beyond the headline, read the source document and pointed out that the headline was hysterical.

Asking me, like Abraham, to murder my own child in the pursuit of world peace is completely nonsensical and I've no intention of justifying it with an answer. But I'll ask you a slightly less nonsensical question. Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

It must be lovely to live in the comfy little world of moral certainties that you and Josh Blue appear to live in. Sadly the real world isn't like that and there are numerous shades of grey.

I also work in IT and work on large scale system implementations. When we test those they produce defects but we have to take a view about whether we can implement with hose defects because, if we waited until we'd eliminated every single one, we'd never implement the system. Or to put the question in human terms, in 2011 nearly 2,000 people were killed in road accidents. Some of those will have been the primary cause of their own deaths but the majority were presumably innocent. Should we therefore stop people driving because there is a very real risk that innocent people will die?

Or in WWII we bombed targets of strategic and tactical importance in Germany and occupied Europe. Civilians died as a result of these raids so, in your little morally certain world, should we not ave done that?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

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.

You think it's legitimate to advocate the death of innocent people in the hope that somehow some greater good can be achieved?

I don't care if you can catch all the Muslims in the world with one bomb, if there's one child amongst them I'm not wanting him/her killed. Insane as that may sound.

The belief that killing innocent people in order to kill the bad people is exactly the mentality that leads people to fly planes into buildings and bomb marathons. So what if some children die so long as they get to kill the baddies too right?

I don't care what colour a child is or what religion it's been born into out, I'm not into killing it. If that makes me anti American, left wing, gay or whatever then so be it.<br /><br />-- Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:12 am --<br /><br />

Or in WWII we bombed targets of strategic and tactical importance in Germany and occupied Europe. Civilians died as a result of these raids so, in your little morally certain world, should we not ave done that?

No.

I do enjoy the idea you think you can choose who gets to live or die though, it's pretty funny though, your own little God delusion.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

So, to stop innocent people being killed we have to kill innocent people? Lovely stuff.

 

[Josh Blue]

Bravo Damocles. A wonderfully eloquent argument. What a shame it's utter bollox as usual. The judges would cringe at that sort of thing in a middle school debating competition.

Firstly, I never for one moment claimed that there was a price worth paying. I simply looked beyond the headline, read the source document and pointed out that the headline was hysterical.

Asking me, like Abraham, to murder my own child in the pursuit of world peace is completely nonsensical and I've no intention of justifying it with an answer. But I'll ask you a slightly less nonsensical question. Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

It must be lovely to live in the comfy little world of moral certainties that you and Josh Blue appear to live in. Sadly the real world isn't like that and there are numerous shades of grey.

I also work in IT and work on large scale system implementations. When we test those they produce defects but we have to take a view about whether we can implement with hose defects because, if we waited until we'd eliminated every single one, we'd never implement the system. Or to put the question in human terms, in 2011 nearly 2,000 people were killed in road accidents. Some of those will have been the primary cause of their own deaths but the majority were presumably innocent. Should we therefore stop people driving because there is a very real risk that innocent people will die?

Or in WWII we bombed targets of strategic and tactical importance in Germany and occupied Europe. Civilians died as a result of these raids so, in your little morally certain world, should we not ave done that?

haha don't talk to me about the real world! The REAL WORLD?

 

[west didsblue]

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.

You think it's legitimate to advocate the death of innocent people in the hope that somehow some greater good can be achieved?

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I said it is legitimate to have a discussion about whether 20% collateral damage was acceptable. I didn't actually say it was acceptable and I certainly didn't advocate the death of innocent people.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Bravo Damocles. A wonderfully eloquent argument. What a shame it's utter bollox as usual. The judges would cringe at that sort of thing in a middle school debating competition.

Firstly, I never for one moment claimed that there was a price worth paying. I simply looked beyond the headline, read the source document and pointed out that the headline was hysterical.

Asking me, like Abraham, to murder my own child in the pursuit of world peace is completely nonsensical and I've no intention of justifying it with an answer. But I'll ask you a slightly less nonsensical question. Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

It must be lovely to live in the comfy little world of moral certainties that you and Josh Blue appear to live in. Sadly the real world isn't like that and there are numerous shades of grey.

I also work in IT and work on large scale system implementations. When we test those they produce defects but we have to take a view about whether we can implement with hose defects because, if we waited until we'd eliminated every single one, we'd never implement the system. Or to put the question in human terms, in 2011 nearly 2,000 people were killed in road accidents. Some of those will have been the primary cause of their own deaths but the majority were presumably innocent. Should we therefore stop people driving because there is a very real risk that innocent people will die?

Or in WWII we bombed targets of strategic and tactical importance in Germany and occupied Europe. Civilians died as a result of these raids so, in your little morally certain world, should we not ave done that?

haha don't talk to me about the real world! The REAL WORLD?

OK lads, bottom line, real world, we need this asap, kill the baddies and save the goodies.

It's laughable.

Hey, that's not a mutilated baby, it's simply the means to an end. Bottom line. Real world. Asap.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

So, to stop innocent people being killed we have to kill innocent people? Lovely stuff.

So should we ban cars because they kill innocent people?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

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.

You think it's legitimate to advocate the death of innocent people in the hope that somehow some greater good can be achieved?

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I said it is legitimate to have a discussion about whether 20% collateral damage was acceptable. I didn't actually say it was acceptable and I certainly didn't advocate the death of innocent people.

I'd personally see a discussion about whether killing children is ever legitimate as in poor taste.

20% isn't OK. 1% isn't OK. We're none of us God.

 

[Josh Blue]

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.

You think it's legitimate to advocate the death of innocent people in the hope that somehow some greater good can be achieved?

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I said it is legitimate to have a discussion about whether 20% collateral damage was acceptable. I didn't actually say it was acceptable and I certainly didn't advocate the death of innocent people.

You disgust me calling the children, mothers and fathers that have been killed as collateral damage. They a real people, just as important as use English people. Imagine if that was happening in this country, would we call in collateral damage.

I'm sorry mate we would probably get on talking about football or the weather but I can't reason with people like you about things like this.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

So, to stop innocent people being killed we have to kill innocent people? Lovely stuff.

So should we ban cars because they kill innocent people?

No. I don't want to ban cars.

I just don't want to bomb children.

Last time I checked, no one was dropping cars out of planes onto hospitals or schools.

Good comeback though...