Syria

[toonotl 2916]

[trophyshy 7066]

 

 

“when you kill terrorist, you kill innocent people, so you are bad. Now, today, we kill innocent people, so you feel the same thing that we feel in those countries”.

 

The words of one of the killers at the Bataclan.

 

Source - https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/322796-france-terrorist-attacks-isis/

[PaddockLad 16991]

The west has launched many pointless wars where it has committed atrocites. We can all accept that but can we please stop comparing ourselves with Isis ffs.

True, but have the wars we've prosecuted in the last decade been the Islamists chief recruiting tool? That's been ignored in this debate so far and for me it's very important.

[toonotl 2916]

That's the kind of juvenile reasoning you when the best example of morality in your society is the 1,400 year old ramblings of a cave dwelling rapist.

[Happy Face 29]

A former senior official in the Obama administration told me that after Abdulrahman’s killing, the president was "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation." The former official, who worked on the targeted killing program, said that according to intelligence and Special Operations officials, the target of the strike was al-Banna, the AQAP propagandist. "We had no idea the kid was there. We were told al-Banna was alone," the former official told me. Once it became clear that the teenager had been killed, he added, military and intelligence officials asserted, "It was a mistake, a bad mistake." However, John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, "suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review."

 

Full context of the quote HF is trying to misrepresent as 'proof' a civilian was murdered with the knowledge and approval of the US President. Fucking shameful.

 

Why would I quote the unnamed source speaking anonymously to defend his old boss? I place more faith in the named source admitting wrong doing with no reason to do so.

 

Anonymous US officials also excused the action by referring to him as a “military-aged” male. Some reports intimated that he was an Al Qaeda supporter. Both wrong.

 

But we don't need to guess as to the reasons an unknown target might end up dead. It's been outlined.

 

 

An explanation of the difference between a "signature strike" and "personality strike" will help explain the younger al-Awlaki's death. If we accept the proposition that Holder was not lying when he claimed that the younger al-Awlaki was "not specifically targeted," then he was not killed in a so-called "personality strike" (i.e. a strike on known terrorists who are "nominated" to be on a "kill list" approved by President Obama and his advisors in teleconferences). On the contrary, he was killed in a "signature strike" which is a broader category of strike. A signature strike is a drone strike on suspected terrorists or militants whose identities are not known, but whose "pattern of life activity" would seem to indicate that they are involved in some militant/terrorist activity. These activities could range, for example, from associating with known terrorists in an Al Qaeda hujra (guest house) to sneaking across the border into Afghanistan from Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal zones with a group of Taliban insurgents.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/nside-the-murky-world-of-_b_3367780.html

 

This outline pre-dates the Snowden revelations though. We now know that drone strikes are based on meta-data. Targets aren't un-named individuals that have been observed associating with other terrorists. They're numbers on a screen...

 

What’s more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.

 

“People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”

 

 

http://www.infowars.com/new-whistleblower-reveals-nsa-picking-drone-targets-based-on-bad-data-death-by-unreliable-metadata/

 

So be careful that your fat fingers don't mis-dial a terrorist.

[toonotl 2916]

True, but have the wars we've prosecuted in the last decade been the Islamists chief recruiting tool? That's been ignored in this debate so far and for me it's very important.

Sometimes doing what is needed has unwanted consequences. It's not ignored. It's an unfortunate and obvious consequence. War propaganda has existed for thousands of years, and there's not much meaningful to be done about it. The US and its allies do take measures to garner positive feelings towards the West in the Middle East, but even that gives rise to conspiracy theories and criticism.

 

In any case, I would say the Islamists key recruiting tool is probably the ideological war between the different sects of Islam. There have been many more deaths as a result of Shia versus Shite violence in the Middle East than anything else.

[PaddockLad 16991]

Sometimes doing what is needed has unwanted consequences. It's not ignored. It's an unfortunate and obvious consequence. War propaganda has existed for thousands of years, and there's not much meaningful to be done about it. The US and its allies do take measures to garner positive feelings towards the West in the Middle East, but even that gives rise to conspiracy theories and criticism.

In any case, I would say the Islamists key recruiting tool is probably the ideological war between the different sects of Islam. There have been many more deaths as a result of Shia versus Shite violence in the Middle East than anything else.

Am presuming you mean Shia v Sunni?...completely agree, and that's the one reason we stopped short of removing saddam in 1991, he was a necessary monster in that particular region. It also makes the decision to invade a decade later even more ludicrous. The west could've "managed" his successor a lot easier when he eventually left the scene if they hadn't intentionally set the two factions against each other in an entirely predictable way.

[Park Life 71]

@HF it's why the IDF collect mobile no's. The ruse is that people have been giving up their numbers and have been promised forewarning of air strikes. Military commanders in Israel are cock a hoop about this scam.

[toonotl 2916]

 

Why would I quote the unnamed source speaking anonymously to defend his old boss? I place more faith in the named source admitting wrong doing with no reason to do so.

 

Anonymous US officials also excused the action by referring to him as a “military-aged” male. Some reports intimated that he was an Al Qaeda supporter. Both wrong.

 

But we don't need to guess as to the reasons an unknown target might end up dead. It's been outlined.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/nside-the-murky-world-of-_b_3367780.html

 

This outline pre-dates the Snowden revelations though. We now know that drone strikes are based on meta-data. Targets aren't un-named individuals that have been observed associating with other terrorists. They're numbers on a screen...

 

 

http://www.infowars.com/new-whistleblower-reveals-nsa-picking-drone-targets-based-on-bad-data-death-by-unreliable-metadata/

 

So be careful that your fat fingers don't mis-dial a terrorist.

 

Where is the quote from Obama? Where is the quote you said was 'clearly documented' in regards to Obama saying he was killed 'just in case'.

 

Nothing in this new article shows that Obama ordered this guy killed. It doesn't even prove it was a deliberate strike against him.

 

Fwiw, there are quotes in that article about the son wishing to be a 'martyr' and having ties with Al-Queda. What do you make of that?

 

Anyway, it's not really 'clear documentation' of the US killing innocent civilians is it? It's not even regular 'documentation'.

 

That you are unable to provide anything like the proof you claim was 'clearly' available speaks volumes. You've oversold what you thought you had. Big time. You look silly. Just illustrating, once again, how pointless engaging you in conversation is.

[Happy Face 29]

you've clearly not even read my post where I refer to those supposed links.

[toonotl 2916]

Am presuming you mean Shia v Sunni?...completely agree, and that's the one reason we stopped short of removing saddam in 1991, he was a necessary monster in that particular region. It also makes the decision to invade a decade later even more ludicrous. The west could've "managed" his successor a lot easier when he eventually left the scene if they hadn't intentionally set the two factions against each other in an entirely predictable way.

Yeah. Sunni. Sorry.

 

Did the US set them against each other? Or did it happen through the opportunity granted by the creation of a power vacuum with the removal of Saddam? It's easy to blame the US. And maybe they didn't understand the situation as well as they should have. Actually, they probably didn't. So they are to blame in that sense. I reject the idea it was a deliberate pitting of the two factions against each other though. That would seem completely counterproductive to the aims of the war in the first place.

[toonotl 2916]

you've clearly not even read my post where I refer to those supposed links.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/12/anwar_al_awlakis_son.php

 

Ok.

[Park Life 71]

Yeah. Sunni. Sorry.

 

Did the US set them against each other? Or did it happen through the opportunity granted by the creation of a power vacuum with the removal of Saddam? It's easy to blame the US. And maybe they didn't understand the situation as well as they should have. Actually, they probably didn't. So they are to blame in that sense. I reject the idea it was a deliberate pitting of the two factions against each other though. That would seem completely counterproductive to the aims of the war in the first place.

Against all sane advice the Americans dismantled the Iraqi army aspects of which started Isis.

[Park Life 71]

I'm gonna keep my posts simple from now on as if instructing children.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[toonotl 2916]

Against all sane advice the Americans dismantled the Iraqi army aspects of which started Isis.

How else were they supposed to sell them some tanks?

[Park Life 71]

$

[toonotl 2916]

 

Why would I quote the unnamed source speaking anonymously to defend his old boss? I place more faith in the named source admitting wrong doing with no reason to do so.

By the way, this perfectly shows your bias. You dismiss the person who's quote goes against your preconceived view as someone 'defending his old boss' and accept what you believe confirms your view without question.

 

I provided the full quote because it referred to Obama's 'anger' at the 'mistake'.

 

Also, not 'admitting'. He had 'suspicion'. He didn't 'admit' anything. If I suspect something that doesn't make it a reality. Do you appreciate the difference? No of course you don't. He's just saying 'suspicious' because old boss bleh bleh bleh.

 

Your views are so incredibly biased that you have anti-war liberals taking great issue with your crap. Fucking stop it dude.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

The fact US forces already had coordinates of the hospital, and that they continued the attack after being reminded of exactly what they were bombing does not evidence intent?

 

Paris and Syria have already been debated to death in the other thread, I dont want to go over all that again.

 

I'll just have to disagree with your justification of the sort of responses we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its the same reasoning the likes of Al Qaeda and Taliban present to recruits. You're responsible for who you kill, simple as that.

You'll have to post this story again as if there is a high value military target involved then it's not the same as executing innocent people.

 

What justification are you talking about? I was making an important point about the moral sphere of the actions of those people who executed 130 people in Paris and the French government's actions. Whether the question is here or in another thread is irrelevant. As I have a fair western and rational mind, i will do you the courtesy of extending the framing of this debate to the 'west' when in actual fact that is not required. it does give your scope to bring in a drone attack out of many going a bit wrong (whilst ignoring why the drones are there in the first place).

 

It's an important framing of the question though because they need to lend justification for these actions from the behaviour of another government in another country in another time. These things need calling out and it to be made very clear because then the moral gap is clear. It's all very well discussing how awful it is that someone working in a hospital in a war zone died but it's not alright to imply that the actions of the terrorists in France are in any way connected. However, even if they are in the minds of those who committed the acts, that just highlights their moral retardedness, their complete inability to connect cause and effect - their violence is random and deliberately so. That's the point - their morality is corrupt to create the outrage, they would all agree with me.

[aimaad22 4082]

I dont think anyone's really debating the morality of the people behind the Paris attacks. You're naive to think if there's no connection with foreign policy though. And of course the fact there is is still morally wrong. Noone is debating that either. If France tomorrow killed all Syrians but one and the remaining one Syrian killed one innocent Frenchman in revenge, I'd still call it wrong because that one person was innocent.

 

Which is why your writing off of so many innocent people in the conflicts mentioned is so fascinating to me, especially in the light of this moral high ground. You think its morally corrupt to avenge foreign policy grievances by killing innocents (which I agree with), yet in turn reacting to such actions by going on and killing more innocents (thousands and thousands more as history has shown) is something you write off as mistakes or war crimes. Its contradictory and hypocritical to me. Then again I do not possess a fair western and rational mind!

 

Yeah you keep pointing at intent. Bombing some place which has been designated as a hospital and for which you've expressly been provided coordinates is as intent as its gets. Its no accident in a war zone ffs. (not that those are justifiable either but anyway). If you dont get that then lets just disagree.

[Happy Face 29]

By the way, this perfectly shows your bias. You dismiss the person who's quote goes against your preconceived view as someone 'defending his old boss' and accept what you believe confirms your view without question.

 

I provided the full quote because it referred to Obama's 'anger' at the 'mistake'.

 

Also, not 'admitting'. He had 'suspicion'. He didn't 'admit' anything. If I suspect something that doesn't make it a reality. Do you appreciate the difference? No of course you don't. He's just saying 'suspicious' because old boss bleh bleh bleh.

 

Your views are so incredibly biased that you have anti-war liberals taking great issue with your crap. Fucking stop it dude.

 

I don't think it shows my bias. I think it shows how the story developed.

 

When he was killed there was a lot of talk of it being an accident, that al-banna was the target, that the 16 year old was collateral damage, awful mistake and that.

 

There were also evidence free articles claiming that he was a legitimate Al Qaeda target craving martyrdom.

 

The fact you've gone with referencing both, which can't both be true, shows you have no idea of the truth, so the initial propaganda did it's job.

 

Conflicting stories like that are a classic sign of wrong doing being suppressed.

 

But then the story developed. The CIA said Al-Banna wasn't even on their kill list. JSOC won't say if they were involved. Either way Al-Banna wasn't even there, and he was (is 4 years) still alive.

 

As the claims kept conflicting and being disproved they were left with little to hang their claims on and ultimately Gibbs was left to make the only defence he could, the kid should have had a more responsible father...

 

 

That suggests they knew who he was and he was targeted for the actions of his father.

 

There is still no official story.

 

I'll bow to your opinion that this was a legitimate mistake if you like. Can you explain why you believe all drone strikes have legitimate targets when many strikes occur without even knowing the name of the target?

[toonotl 2916]

The most begrudging admittance that the claim doesn't match the evidence that I've ever seen.

 

No. I won't be explaining that completely invented position about drone strikes which you have attributed to me. Don't let that stand in the way of you arguing against it though.

[Happy Face 29]

The most begrudging admittance that the claim doesn't match the evidence that I've ever seen.

 

No. I won't be explaining that completely invented position about drone strikes which you have attributed to me. Don't let that stand in the way of you arguing against it though.

 

I haven't attributed it to you. It is the way that drone strikes are done. See my earlier post about signature strikes Vs Personality Strikes. Metadata is used to decide on targets rather than names and evidence of involvement.

 

 

One former drone operator who has come out against them has told us "the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata. People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”

 

 

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

 

My point being, even if Alwaki Junior was a terrorist mastermind and entirely legitimate, there's a large proportion of strikes where they don't even know the name of the target, so how can you be sure of the validity of such a target.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/francois-hollandes-war-with-isis-wont-stand-in-the-way-of-frances-arms-deals-with-saudi-arabia-a6738546.html

[toonotl 2916]

Where did I claim to have knowledge regarding the targeting of all drone strikes? No. Sorry. Never said that.

 

I'm dealing with your lack of evidence for your apparently 'clearly documented' claim that Obama killed an innocent civilian 'just in case'. You've bowed to my 'opinion' that it was a mistake. My actual opinion on this matter is that you have been unable to prove your position. I've asked you to prove your claims. And you haven't.

 

My opinion, beliefs, claims are irrelevant. This is your burden of proof that is weighing you down. Leave me out of it.

[Happy Face 29]

Where did I claim to have knowledge regarding the targeting of all drone strikes? No. Sorry. Never said that.

 

I'm dealing with your lack of evidence for your apparently 'clearly documented' claim that Obama killed an innocent civilian 'just in case'. You've bowed to my 'opinion' that it was a mistake. My actual opinion on this matter is that you have been unable to prove your position. I've asked you to prove your claims. And you haven't.

 

My opinion, beliefs, claims are irrelevant. This is your burden of proof that is weighing you down. Leave me out of it.

 

I thought your position was that western aggression is morally superior in that there's always a legitimate target. I assumed you must have some intimate knowledge of the targeting process to make that claim.

 

 

I am aware that civilians are hit by Western aggression. Not deliberately.

 

But if a drone program is being targeted at a sim card whose owner isn't even known let alone their actions or intentions, based solely on algorithms and metadata, then isn't that the deliberate targeting of a citizen?