Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Oct 28, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
and it breaks Asimov's law, A robot my not harm a human LOL
much worse than carrying out vicious and illegal torture on suspects, then obliterating the evidence (bodies) with IEDs, eh sergei? *cough* Chechnya *cough*
Russians still sulking because they don't have them?
It is not a question of what is bad and what is worse. The respected American professor seggests that the drone attacks could constitute a violation of international law.
Just imagine that this point of view was accepted in the UK (why not?). In this case some (acting or retired) American generals could be detained in Britain and tried.
Let's recall the cases with Pinochet, with Israeli generals who dare not to arrive to Great Britain.
Btw, do you agree that the problen exists?
nope. they're just twatting terrorists
These drones are useless against more or less doable army with jet fighters and anti-aircraft system.
Would for example drones be used against Iran? Maybe but with predictable result.
As for wars with guerillas then ordinary planes would be no less effective but less expensive.
Karadzic could say that in Srebrenica he was twatting terrorists and at least partially he would be right.
Suppose that suspected terrorists are hiding in the UK and a foreign state strikes their hideouts (killing innocent British subjects). Would you oppose it? (note, that British government condemn these strikes).
Yes Ivan, you boys keep telling yourselves that.
With respect to the good professor, the view on the "legality" of drones is very much a mixed bag with even Human Rights Watch officials acknowledging that drones are perhaps one of the most discriminating and precise air-delivered weapon systems in the NATO tool kit.
In addition, it has been documented that the Taliban, AQ and others have a very active information warfare campaign against the drones that seeks to take advantage of every civilian death associated with drones and indeed their tactics often intentionally include commingling of legitimate targets with non-combatants or otherwise using them in ways to cause non-combatant deaths. The reason for this is due to the drone's effectiveness.
cracking assessment. and you wonder why your services were no longer required?
*yawn* at least make up your mind what point you want to argue. you said earlier it was about "the legal basis for targeting particular individuals and the measures it is taking to comply with international humanitarian law which prohibits arbitrary executions". i.e. the issue is using UAVs to kill specific individuals.
occasionally i forget how boring it is discussing things with you, and i join in one of your threads again. then i quickly remember why i got sick of it last time
Mr Alston.... bless him.... would be horrified at the number of "drones" that abound on this site!
Anyway I thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I dare to note that the words that you quoted don't belong to your abedient servant, but to the professor.
Sickness is a troublesome state. 400-500 ml of vodka could help. bigger quantity could make you sick again.
Hmm, then maybe we should go back to carpet bombing as that is clearly within international laws.... We wouldn't to single out enemy combatants cause then that's an execution and not targeting an enemy military asset ie: leadership.
We just have to go back to kill em all, let the UN sort em out.
Separate names with a comma.