Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
Killing a stateless terrorist leader and killing the 2nd in command of a sovereign nation are entirely different scenarios.
US kills Iran's General Soleimani
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
We don't care he was the second in command of a sovereign state, he supplied insurgents in Iraq with weapons which were used to kill British and US troops, this is what the former head of the British Army said.
This is yet another example as to how tech has outpaced traditional morals and ethics.
70 years ago, a similar situation would have resulted in an official declaration of War and the razing of a whole city killing tens of thousands to achieve the same aim.
This is somehow considered OK, and yet people are getting all bent out of shape because we Haven't declared War, Haven't destroyed a whole city, Haven't killed tens of thousands of people because we now have the ability to kill specific enemy individuals pretty much at will.
??
Soldato
Yeap, America through the actions of Trump, has just told everyone in the world - Attack us, or tell others to attack us and we will personally target YOU for a drone strike anywhere in the world. You will not be safe no matter who you are or where you live! - thats a pretty strong message they're telling any potential foes if you ask me.
Yep, I imagine that a lot of people who previously considered themselves essentially invulnerable have now had a really rather nasty wake up call!
Good!
Soldato
It doesn't matter, they're both legitimate targets.
I don't understand your logic here. Are you advocating the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people over a precision surgical strike because that is morally superior?
Soldato
And isn't it nice to know you're on the right side.
Indeed, rather than bombard some port city, inflicting civilian casualties and causing a **** load of damage in order to enforce compliance with some demand (like stop being pirates, free those European slaves in North Africa etc..)... now the US can go right to the source, blow up the guy directly responsible for the loss of US lives, no civilian casualties (well at least not from the US, the ****witted actions of the Iranian police re: crowd control, and army/air defence competency are another matter) and directly tell Iran to wind their necks re: any future insurgent attacks against the US.
No, obviously not,
But the implication by some is that this was "Murder" because we are not Officially "at war" with Iran.
It is almost as if (Some) people would be more comfortable with a full blown War than a precision strike like this..
Soldato
OK so what is your take on the numerous coalition lives that he has been responsible for taking? You seem to have issue with just this General being eliminated?
No, I don't, you have it completely the wrong way round! I am fine with this action
However, I am also seeing that the issue here is that the ability to launch strikes in this way puts us into new territory regarding the traditional rules of war.
In the past if we wanted to assassinate a specific foreign enemy at a time when no state of War existed, we would have had to send in 007 and, in a really quite hush-hush way, put a bullet in the back of his neck. Everybody would have known who had done what to whom. But nobody would have openly admitted it.
Nowadays it is completely clear who has done what to whom and everybody knows it.
Soldato
Ah sorry my mistake.No, I don't, you have it completely the wrong way round! I am fine with this action
However, I am also seeing that the issue here is that the ability to launch strikes in this way puts us into new territory regarding the traditional rules of war.
In the past if we wanted to assassinate a specific foreign enemy at a time when no state of War existed, we would have had to send in 007 and, in a really quite hush-hush way, put a bullet in the back of his neck. Everybody would have known who had done what to whom. But nobody would have openly admitted it.
Nowadays it is completely clear who has done what to whom and everybody knows it.
For many people, Remote Ops are still not palatable to them, and I can understand why. They're a reasonably new state of play and (wrongly) deemed immoral by the public. However, I'd argue the contrary. For one, the live feed from the UAV is scrutinised by hundreds of people in the kill chain and not only that but the post strike analysis will be pulled apart. Any incident that doesn't go to plan will see it investigated at length, with Operator competency absolutely at the forefront of that investigation whilst the Legal advisors also delve into the legitimacy of the shot. Not only that, but the weapons being employed are so low yield and highly accurate direct fires, they can help ensure that collateral concerns are mitigated against.
Essentially, all of the above means that we can and will conduct warfare the way we do now. It is no longer just down to fast jets and bombers who can pretty much release weapons less discriminately and then RTB for tea and medals. Remote Ops is here, it's been happening for years, the general public need to get over that James Bond (or more appropriately, the SF) isn't running around the bondu slotting people in the face.... Well, not so much anyway
The openness of the strikes, like you say, is of course a deliberate message.
Soldato
I have. Out of all the films based on the subject, I'd say that one is the one closest to real life so far. Well, as far as different circumstancial situations occur anyway. Not so much with regards to the absolute fanny operators on it though, lol.
Soldato
The guy, a General of the sovereign country of Iran, was invited by the SOVEREIGN COUNTRY OF IRAQ in official talks to discuss how to eradicate the left overs of ISIS in the country.
As for "plotting against USA", spare me the propaganda. There is no proof at all. Also find me a Shia "terrorist" and then come back to me. Just pick any of those who killed people in UK alone, as they are pretty few, or those responsible for the 9/11 attack, or in the ranks of organizations like ISIS, Taliban etc. You will find all these are Sunnis at best or Wahhabists at worse. Both sects originating from Saudi Arabia, or religious parts of countries the leaders we overthrew had them in check. Because that religious belief, was always dangerous for the peace in ME and the world for over the last 1000 years.
According to EU, the UK is plotting against the EU. Should they be allowed to send drones start killing Brexit politicians? Because that's what you talking about. How about send some drones kill a Russian general then? Is Russia any different to Iran? How about a North Korean or a Chinese General?
Maybe because we would start losing Generals in droves also? Or maybe because any escalation this little island will disappear from the map and all it's inhabitants on it, a capability Iran doesn't have yet?
If so, is this any different than bullying and Mafia tactics then? Is this any different than the bullying actions of Nazi Germany in Central Europe during the 1930s before WWII?
I wrote several times. The average British person lack of history knowledge is so big, that repeats the same mistakes the German populace did in the 1930s and we collectively support our countries, who have become the very evil our grandfathers fought against in WWII.
We have allowed them to impose on us surveillance that Gestapo, KGB and Stazi would be impressed with and laughing at the irony. We have allowed them to reduce our freedom of speech, making anything like this post above too "radical" and "dangerous". Yet what is dangerous about? Pointing the obvious?
When people are afraid their own governments live in tyranny my friend.
Soldato
Yep, the Iranian government is pretty bad for that.
Soldato
I urge everyone to see The Day After of 1983 because you continue the virtue signaling living in a delusional dream.
Is free on youtube, sit down and watch it.
World became a better place after this movie broadcast. Both USA & USSR actively sat down and made dozens of treaties to reduce nuclear weapons and actively stop the nuclear proliferation. It scared the sht from Reagan to hard core Pentagon Generals.
Yet is forgotten today, seeing all this talk in this discussion and others. And is forgotten by our politicians and MSM who urge for more nuclear weapons and more wars. The Iran war will escalate to WWIII. Have no doubt.
Is free on youtube, sit down and watch it.
World became a better place after this movie broadcast. Both USA & USSR actively sat down and made dozens of treaties to reduce nuclear weapons and actively stop the nuclear proliferation. It scared the sht from Reagan to hard core Pentagon Generals.
Yet is forgotten today, seeing all this talk in this discussion and others. And is forgotten by our politicians and MSM who urge for more nuclear weapons and more wars. The Iran war will escalate to WWIII. Have no doubt.
Soldato
Thats all you got from my post eh? Sad.
Soldato
I disregarded much of it, yes.