Al-Qaeda's second-in-command killed by drone strike
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,249
Another will take his place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Trouble is they also are killing civilians (including children) with these drone attacks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
Theycan as with a great many muslimmofficials can be easily bribed.
Works there, Malaysia, Indonesia, at virtually all levels of civil service and govt, amd often with police too. Just the way their'fines' work, or their, 'is there anything imcan do to speed the process'
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
That obviously cannot help in the war for "hearts and minds" but it's a rather difficult predicament when seeking to take out legitimate military targets - while the US Government (or whoever) can seek to minimise civilian casualties if the Al Qaeda leadership surrounds themselves with civilians then certain methods of attack will always lead to other casualties or "collateral damage".
It must be extremely hard balancing out the competing priorities, if you don't attack ever because there will be civilians around then any terrorist group simply needs to keep a ready supply of civilians around them and they can consider themselves essentially safe. At the risk of generalising - fanatics aren't always known for their enlightened approach to human life. Then again does that mean they've already won to an extent when you have to go to the lengths of having "acceptable" losses just to target them?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 3,310
- Location
- In west London
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Personally I don't think there is any acceptable level of 'collateral damage' especially if it involves the deaths of children. Killing innocents makes us no better than the terrorists.
However, this is the real world and there are always going to be unavoidable deaths of civilians. However it should be the upmost priority that the reduction of this is placed at a higher priority than killing the 'enemy' perhaps by using covert ops rather than indiscriminate drone attacks?
Every media image of dead children is only going to make those extremists more determined to stop the brutality of the west (as they see it) and isn't going to help in the War on Terror*
* Not that you can actually ever beat an ideology with traditional weapons. You defeat terrorists by not being afraid of them. In other words you counter their ideology with one that is diametrically opposed.
no government can be trusted.
There's no terrorism but state terrorism.
If Al-Qaeida and the like was real - they would have had the perfect opportunity to show themselves on Saturday - Thames river. And the houses of Parliament would have been blown up yonks ago if there was real terrorists.
9/11 and 7/7 - all lies. Just mass media mind control.
Just my 2p.
notsureifserious.jpg
however lets assume for a second you are being serious.....................
are you saying that 9/11 and 7/7 were stories pimped out by the media on the request of the governments and that in fact 3 large buildings and a few tubes / buses were never really blown up and it was all a media deception realised by the releasing of hallucinogenic compounds into the air to make people believe it was what they were seeing ?
I am really not sure I get or follow your point at all, unless of course you are one of these 'tin foil hat' conspiracy theorists and you are saying the the US anf UK governments knowingly blew up their own buildings and public transport networks in order to garner media support for their military deployments in the middle east ?
It seems like no big deal until you realise that the USA is using live fire weapons in countries where thay are not in a declared armed conflict, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc.
There is only one country where the USA has an active armed conflict and that is Afghanistan.
Seems likely that they could use these drones in any part of the world, claim they killed an active terrorist or cell and not have to justify it further or provide additional information on the strike.
I am not a justifier of terrorism or a denyer of 11th of september 2001 but it seems to me we do let western allies and the USA in particular off the hook in many actions around the world with little or no discussion or criticism.
Denying bystanders the right to life applies equally to governments and terrorists.
There is only one country where the USA has an active armed conflict and that is Afghanistan.
Seems likely that they could use these drones in any part of the world, claim they killed an active terrorist or cell and not have to justify it further or provide additional information on the strike.
I am not a justifier of terrorism or a denyer of 11th of september 2001 but it seems to me we do let western allies and the USA in particular off the hook in many actions around the world with little or no discussion or criticism.
Denying bystanders the right to life applies equally to governments and terrorists.
While it's daft to say for sure I agree.
Governments have been known to do false flag operations when it suits a political agenda.
It's stupid to pretend it doesn't happen, it's just as ignorant as the people who are labelled as conspiracy theorists who pretend to know for certain.
I'd wager the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated in 1962 within the United States government, and which the Kennedy administration rejected.
The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere.
These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.
One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."
Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose if you prefer.
I'm not saying it happened, as these were rejected - just that these ideas were proposed by top military generals of the time.
It's not that whacky.
well i'm guessing since they had osama bin laden living it up within sight of a Pakistani military base none gives a **** what the Pakistani government thinks any more.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'd agree that the way to beat terrorism is to not be afraid of it and to not let it affect our lives as far as possible. I'd personally be happier with much less in the way of restrictions on my life in the name of safety from terrorism, if that leads to an increased risk from terrorism for me then I can accept that. There is always a danger in giving up civil liberties that they won't be returned after the temporary risk is over and that what is done for one reason will not morph into another.
Covert ops is a somewhat difficult one as to get the team(s) into place is liable to take more time than the drone attacks and you risk the potential media value of having them captured in executing the mission. I don't think there's any ideal way to do it, merely less undesirable options. I don't know if drone attacks are the most effective and "best" way to approach this but it's certainly not a simple question to answer.
It's still pretty out-there, just because ideas are proposed doesn't mean that they will have been followed through. Especially in relation to events on the scale of 11/9 and 7/7 - I am not saying definitively that false-flag operations have never been carried through but often when they're proposed to have taken place there's this incredible juxtaposition of crediting the government (or whoever) with the ability to carry out this massive conspiracy with (apparently) no leaks and yet they're unable to keep it hidden from a few people on the internet with a surfeit of time?
no government can be trusted.
There's no terrorism but state terrorism.
If Al-Qaeida and the like was real - they would have had the perfect opportunity to show themselves on Saturday - Thames river. And the houses of Parliament would have been blown up yonks ago if there was real terrorists.
9/11 and 7/7 - all lies. Just mass media mind control.
Just my 2p.
so which government was Breivik working for?
Also what about the numerous terrorist organizations in less "secure" parts of the world where yeah government buildings are bombed frequently?
I agree, it's unlikely - but it's unwise for us (as a nation) to shrug of the possibility - when real false flag operations have been carried out in the past & proposed in the last 50odd years.
If a political party could make a significant gain from a false flag operation, or by for example - pretending to have evidence of WMD's when in reality they don't, or a more recent example - supporting a terrorist group in a civil war (like in Libya) then it's not quite as far-fetched as people think.
We should wait until we have concrete evidence before believing anything, that I can't stress more.
look at it this way thought, your only proof that false flag operations are carried out comes from the fact they cannot keep their false flag operators or plans secret.
Yet for this one they've upheld a near impossible level of detail flawlessly.
Odds are if it was a FF it wouldn't have stayed that way.