Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
and then

Drones and ExtraJudicial Killings

90 posts in this topic

Yes Bama, I know that most folks think like you. It's no wonder really, considering the 24/7 onslaught of telling the Official Tale.

But depending on how the question is asked, about 85% of those polled think that the findings of the 911 Commission are inaccurate and probably a coverup, meant to protect and guilty and distract the public.

But on topic, IF it was a False Flag, IF the events of the day were staged, THEN everything that comes from it, in this case the interminable War On Terror and relentless drone attacks, is based upon fraud. THAT is the point.

As Aristotle pointed out, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Are you able to entertain the thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Bama, I know that most folks think like you. It's no wonder really, considering the 24/7 onslaught of telling the Official Tale.

But depending on how the question is asked, about 85% of those polled think that the findings of the 911 Commission are inaccurate and probably a coverup, meant to protect and guilty and distract the public.

But on topic, IF it was a False Flag, IF the events of the day were staged, THEN everything that comes from it, in this case the interminable War On Terror and relentless drone attacks, is based upon fraud. THAT is the point.

As Aristotle pointed out, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Are you able to entertain the thought?

I have entertained the thought. I have not accepted it as a proven fact. You apparently have. Now if you can prove it, then by all means please do. If you can not prove it then it is not a fact but rather your opinion.

PS I am confused as to how most people think like me but 85% think differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND THEN

Maybe a Biblical reference will help. Remember "one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear"?

That is what you and the government are trying to do. Pure rationalization in an effort to excuse criminal actions.

Firstly, this all came from one staged event, one False Flag Operation--the events of 11 September.

Secondly, while we have no constitutionally required Declaration Of War more than 10 years later, you guys are on very thin ice, regarding legal activities. In fact, the drone attacks are military aggression, and for those who care (few, I know) that makes them illegal too.

I could go on, but it still blows my mind to see all these "kind and loving Christians, following the teachings of Jesus", thoroughly and happily supporting assassination and torture.

BR the fact that you seriously think that something like 9-11 could have been a false flag or any other flavor of government conspiracy tends to reduce your credibility, I think. I won't argue that silliness here though. You're free to believe anything you like - doesn't harm me. My life as a Christian I am responsible for. You will never be asked to answer for a single action I take. The fact you keep bringing it up just tells me you think I'm a hypocrite and that's okay too. Because I'll never have to answer for anything you may have done wrong, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the only way to flush out a well dug in,known enemy then that is what i would call warranted.If our forces would lose lots of operatives in flushing out the enemy then again i would say it would be warranted.I'm not here to say that we should use drones to drop bombs on just anyone,just where our losses would not be worth the effort.One interesting thing is that reports are coming out that the drone attack has possibly killed a high ranking Al Qaeda operative....go figure.

Again i have my view and you have yours..

If that is the case then I guess you must also believe that these people pose an imminent threat to our personal safety. I'm not sure of that (to put it mildly) but it is easily demonstrated that our drones are an imminent threat to thiers.

As far as the "high ranking" terrorist figure. That is most certainly an easy claim to make, since obviously we in the general public have no idea who these people are. By all reports we have killed so many high ranking al qaeda figures that they must be running low at this point.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is the case then I guess you must also believe that these people pose an imminent threat to our personal safety. I'm not sure of that (to put it mildly) but it is easily demonstrated that our drones are an imminent threat to thiers.

As far as the "high ranking" terrorist figure. That is most certainly an easy claim to make, since obviously we in the general public have no idea who these people are. By all reports we have killed so many high ranking al qaeda figures that they must be running low at this point.

Im not here to argue Oversword....i have my reasons for thinking we should use them when situations dictate..you have different views...if we all thought the same then the world would be a boring place..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny you get on a forum like this and continually state that you're not here to argue. Aruing your point of view is kind of the whole point, which despite your claims I notice you're doing regardless of your statement. Really quite passive aggressive.

When I read your footer, Most people are only alive because it's illegal to shoot them... It's quite easy to see why you don't mind the questionable behaviour of our governments motivation for still being in a 10 year old undeclared war, in the top opium growing country in the world. I'm sure that the statement of your footer applies to you by some people standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's funny you get on a forum like this and continually state that you're not here to argue. Aruing your point of view is kind of the whole point, which despite your claims I notice you're doing regardless of your statement. Really quite passive aggressive.

When I read your footer, Most people are only alive because it's illegal to shoot them... It's quite easy to see why you don't mind the questionable behaviour of our governments motivation for still being in a 10 year old undeclared war, in the top opium growing country in the world. I'm sure that the statement of your footer applies to you by some people standards.

LOLOL....Whatever makes you happy......maybe you should go out to Afghanistan and walk about with a placard showing your feelings if you feel so strongly...hell i'll even pay your airfare...

Edited by BrianPotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever makes you happy......maybe you should go out Afghanistan and walk about with a placard if you feel so strongly...hell i'll even pay your airfare...

I think the point I'm trying to make, aside from being against killing people remotely from half way around the planet, is that we should NOT be there :st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point I'm trying to make, aside from being against killing people remotely from half way around the planet, is that we should NOT be there :st

Whatever makes you happy...... :tu:.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to get the last word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Drones are a tool. I don't know what difference does it make if the military kills someone with a cruise missile, an artillery shot or a drone. The drone is the intersection of cheap and accurate (less collateral than artillery, as precise as a cruise missile). All these options are remote, killing targets sight-unseen.

It is also a tool of surveillance which is an important part of the military's job. I certainly want our military to have all the tools available to finish the job as quickly as possible.

Edited by ranrod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Drones are a tool. I don't know what difference does it make if the military kills someone with a cruise missile, an artillery shot or a drone. The drone is the intersection of cheap and accurate (less collateral than artillery, as precise as a cruise missile). All these options are remote, killing targets sight-unseen.

It is also a tool of surveillance which is an important part of the military's job. I certainly want our military to have all the tools available to finish the job as quickly as possible.

Like in the next 10 or 15 years I'm guessing.

Also, drones are useless as a weapon against an adversary who would truly be capable defending themselves from the might of our military. If we were all really concerned for the safety of our troops we would insist that we bring them home from this war, since pretty much mission accomplished by now.

Also, how many intelligence opportunities are being missed by assasinating the enemies with the most information rather than capturing and tortu....errr I mean questioning them. Oh yes but that just brings an entire new crop of legal problems for the government to deal with during what is an ilegal war.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like in the next 10 or 15 years I'm guessing.

Also, drones are useless as a weapon against an adversary who would truly be capable defending themselves from the might of our military. If we were all really concerned for the safety of our troops we would insist that we bring them home from this war, since pretty much mission accomplished by now.

Also, how many intelligence opportunities are being missed by assasinating the enemies with the most information rather than capturing and tortu....errr I mean questioning them. Oh yes but that just brings an entire new crop of legal problems for the government to deal with during what is an ilegal war.

Why you single out that tool as opposed to others? Why not say "do not use GPS-based mortar rounds!"? Or "no cruise missiles!"? The use of mines (I don't think we are in the middle east), is the most controversial for me because the equipment stays dormant in the field for many many years and the damage is random.

Also, what makes the war illegal? (what's an illegal war anyway?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bama

On any poll, the answer depends entirely on how any given question is phrased. So when asked about how credible or accurate the findings of the 911 Commission were, about 85% think the findings were not accurate and true. Depends on how the question is phrased.

I appreciate your candor in at least entertaining the idea that the events of the day were staged. It would be off topic to go into that here, but the point is that Drones & Extrajudicial Killings are the result of the GWOT, which is the result of the events of 11 September.

AND THEN

Yessir, I fully understand that your worldview is 99% a product of your religious beliefs. And speaking of credibility, that fact greatly limits YOUR credibility in any topic in which religion is even tangentially involved. And certainly when it comes to Extrajudicial killings, if your religion says it's OK, then by god it is OK with you. It is not unusual to hear so many christians speak out in favor of torture and assassination when urged, and also common to hear so few of them condemn torture and extrajudicial killings. Strange, how christians have changed since I was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why you single out that tool as opposed to others? Why not say "do not use GPS-based mortar rounds!"? Or "no cruise missiles!"? The use of mines (I don't think we are in the middle east), is the most controversial for me because the equipment stays dormant in the field for many many years and the damage is random.

Also, what makes the war illegal? (what's an illegal war anyway?)

Why you single out that tool as opposed to others?

What is the title of this thread? An ilegal war is when we have had military action in a sovreign nation for over ten years without congress declaring war.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why you single out that tool as opposed to others?

What is the title of this thread? An ilegal war is when we have had military action in a sovreign nation for over ten years without congress declaring war.

So you are opposed to the drones, instead of the other tools of the military because of the title of this thread?

No formal declaration of war, but military action was approved. Again, why is it illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm opposed to drones because they make it too possible for the pilot to dissasociate himself from what he's doing. If you are doing something like killing people you should be well aware of it. If you can't see that there is something wrong with that do a quick google search and read about the milgram experiment.

As far as an undeclared war bein ilegal, the conditions of declaring war as defined by the constitution are so vague that it is my opinion that and undeclared war that goes on for so long should be ilegal, therefore I shall continue to refer to the current war as ilegal. If you can cite the provision in the constitution whcih proves I'm wrong then please do so.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm opposed to drones because they make it too possible for the pilot to dissasociate himself from what he's doing. If you are doing something like killing people you should be well aware of it. If you can't see that there is something wrong with that do a quick google search and read about the milgram experiment.

In the other examples I gave such as cruise missiles, land mines, mortar fire, and artillery use, you also don't see your enemies and are disassociated from the act of killing. Also, when talking about war, disassociating soldiers from the acts they perform is highly coveted. Troops are specifically trained to accomplish this. If you're at war, you don't want your side being afraid to pull the trigger.

About the illegality of the war:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf

A three judge panel found that the president (who was given authority by congress), had the right to conduct the operation.

[edit]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortar fire and artillery requires a person to be there to physically fire that weapon. Landmines are mainly defensive in nature, and I'm not sure we use them (I'm guessing not in afghanistan) Are we using cruise missiles at over a million a pop? No.

I'm not against weapon systems, except possibly nukes, but obviously if you can't shoot down a drone you don't really have a military, so just who are we fighting with our huge powerful army? We've got our army over there fighting their version of hillbillies, rednecks, and good ol boys. What kind of war is that?

That document you posted is about Iraq. I asked you to cite the provisions of war listed in the constitution. Here's a hint, don't bother it is purposfully vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortar fire and artillery requires a person to be there to physically fire that weapon.

Yes and no. The person physically firing the mortar or (mainly) artillery is firing at a grid coordinate. He has usually no visibility of what he's shooting at. Much more dissociated than the UCAV pilot who watches the results on a TV screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I disagree with that dissasociated statement. But that's just an opinion which I can't back up with experience. From what I've seen on TV showing the drones being operated they seem to be less realistic looking than some video games I've played. And after a good day of killing people in thier homes from halfway around the world, the drone pilot gets in his car and drives a short distance home to eat with his family and walk the dog on his nice suburban street before making love to the wife and sleeping comfortably on his dial a number mattress.

How about the mortar team? See, big difference.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

snip

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with that dissasociated statement. But that's just an opinion which I can't back up with experience. From what I've seen on TV showing the drones being operated they seem to be less realistic looking than some video games I've played. And after a good day of killing people in thier homes from halfway around the world, the drone pilot gets in his car and drives a short distance home to eat with his family and walk the dog on his nice suburban street before making love to the wife and sleeping comfortably on his dial a number mattress.

How about the mortar team? See, big difference.

Mortars are much closer range so it can go either way. Artillery though... you dont see anything on any sort of TV screen. You just adjust the guns to the right angles and pull a chord to fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though it's not used currently, cruise missiles and smart bombs are also removed experiences. In principle, are you opposed to their use?

I don't want to tie the hands of our military. How necessary drones are is something the military determines for itself. How we use the military is something we have some weight in through our representatives, and our votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the Constitution is quite specific regarding the War Power--it is vested in the legislative branch.

Written in a time when Congress only met for a few months out of the year, it made the Executive Branch the C-in-C so that if military action were required while Congress was not in session, the Prez could do it. Were that to happen, Congress would convene, and the Prez would have to justify his actions.

As FDR put it so well, "I do not have the power to declare War, but I do have the power to wage war."

OverSword is correct--our current military actions are illegal. The AUMF was sophistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.