War plane shot down over Turkey
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 30 Nov 15 10.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Nov 2015 10.49am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 29 Nov 2015 10.40am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Nov 2015 9.16pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 27 Nov 2015 4.00pm
Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Casualties of war.
It is tragic reality of any war that there will [Link] It is one reason why it is difficult for us to win a war now. Since Vietnam war has been fought on TV as much as on the battlefield Actually, its looking very much like we're about as accurate with strikes on civilians as terrorists tend to be. Leaked documents suggest as many as 90% of US Drone strikes kills are innocent civilians. [Link] (for example). So much so, that three drone pilots and a support tech, risk court martial over speaking out against orders. I'd be surprised if the UK is any better. Human intelligence on the ground is scarce and unreliable and bombs and missiles are as indiscriminate as suicide bombers. Same thing with the first Iraq war, show off all those super precision down the chimney guidance missiles, and never mention they represent 10% of the heavy ordinance used. Its about manufacture of consent by the public. Propaganda. Just like the 'necessity of striking targets in Syria'. Its posturing, when in reality such strikes will make utterly no difference what-so-ever. This proves my point. Misleading headline = public outcry Read the article and it says that 90% don't hit the intended target. That is very different. The UK have RAPTOR which nobody else has. It is a very important part of minimising that awful phrase "collateral damage" so by the UK taking part we can potentially reduce innocent deaths. Innocent people will die in a war, what is an acceptable number I am sure everyone has a different view.
Going back to Bomber Harris days you would have pathfinders lighting up a target with incendiary bombs to guide in the main blanket bombing of a target (which could be as vague as Dresden). It seems we have been able to pinpoint specific targets like one building in a compound and be reasonably certain we could hit it without damaging the other buildings. These sorts of headlines are misleading and full of spin to try and prick the conscience of those supporting reprisals for the cowardly sickening attacks on innocent people that care little for their victims and certainly do not even consider "collateral damage" in their planning. You can pin-point a building in a compound, but you're reliant on questionable intelligence to confirm that target, esp when the enemy tend to move around, use multiple names, and use counter-intelligence. Its worth noting that Bomber Harris strategy didn't have to concern itself with the problem of civilians. I have no problem of strikes where you can determine the targets are the enemy. The problem is, that sentiment about 'cowardly sickening attacks on innocent people' gets played both ways. and it seems that a lot of details protected by 'National Security' that are protecting and obfuscating the accuracy and reliability of strikes, which in turn may well be motivating people to strike back at the people who are killing their family, friends, wives, children etc.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 30 Nov 15 10.29am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Nov 2015 10.24am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Nov 2015 10.49am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 29 Nov 2015 10.40am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Nov 2015 9.16pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 27 Nov 2015 4.00pm
Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Casualties of war.
It is tragic reality of any war that there will [Link] It is one reason why it is difficult for us to win a war now. Since Vietnam war has been fought on TV as much as on the battlefield Actually, its looking very much like we're about as accurate with strikes on civilians as terrorists tend to be. Leaked documents suggest as many as 90% of US Drone strikes kills are innocent civilians. [Link] (for example). So much so, that three drone pilots and a support tech, risk court martial over speaking out against orders. I'd be surprised if the UK is any better. Human intelligence on the ground is scarce and unreliable and bombs and missiles are as indiscriminate as suicide bombers. Same thing with the first Iraq war, show off all those super precision down the chimney guidance missiles, and never mention they represent 10% of the heavy ordinance used. Its about manufacture of consent by the public. Propaganda. Just like the 'necessity of striking targets in Syria'. Its posturing, when in reality such strikes will make utterly no difference what-so-ever. This proves my point. Misleading headline = public outcry Read the article and it says that 90% don't hit the intended target. That is very different. The UK have RAPTOR which nobody else has. It is a very important part of minimising that awful phrase "collateral damage" so by the UK taking part we can potentially reduce innocent deaths. Innocent people will die in a war, what is an acceptable number I am sure everyone has a different view.
Going back to Bomber Harris days you would have pathfinders lighting up a target with incendiary bombs to guide in the main blanket bombing of a target (which could be as vague as Dresden). It seems we have been able to pinpoint specific targets like one building in a compound and be reasonably certain we could hit it without damaging the other buildings. These sorts of headlines are misleading and full of spin to try and prick the conscience of those supporting reprisals for the cowardly sickening attacks on innocent people that care little for their victims and certainly do not even consider "collateral damage" in their planning. You can pin-point a building in a compound, but you're reliant on questionable intelligence to confirm that target, esp when the enemy tend to move around, use multiple names, and use counter-intelligence. Its worth noting that Bomber Harris strategy didn't have to concern itself with the problem of civilians. I have no problem of strikes where you can determine the targets are the enemy. The problem is, that sentiment about 'cowardly sickening attacks on innocent people' gets played both ways. and it seems that a lot of details protected by 'National Security' that are protecting and obfuscating the accuracy and reliability of strikes, which in turn may well be motivating people to strike back at the people who are killing their family, friends, wives, children etc.
Again this argument illustrates the problem with the West going to war, any war. No one wants civilian casualties. Sorry but war isn't like that. By all means try and limit "civilian" casualties but war is a nasty horrible business.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Kermit8  Hevon 30 Nov 15 12.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
"There is no flag big enough to cover the shame of killing innocents" Some wise old American fella.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 30 Nov 15 1.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
How shocking that you should quote a social activist, and closet marxist. Yet you rebuff people who call you a lefty ? Are you confused ?
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 30 Nov 15 1.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 30 Nov 2015 1.04pm
How shocking that you should quote a social activist, and closet marxist. Yet you rebuff people who call you a lefty ? Are you confused ? I was actually quoting an Irish pensioner, after he had lost a son to an IRA bomb, quoting someone else, but you go ahead, fill yer boots. I am a lefty. Proud of it. No rebuffing needed.
Edited by Kermit8 (30 Nov 2015 1.29pm)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Nov 15 1.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 30 Nov 2015 10.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Nov 2015 10.24am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Nov 2015 10.49am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 29 Nov 2015 10.40am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Nov 2015 9.16pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 27 Nov 2015 4.00pm
Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Casualties of war.
It is tragic reality of any war that there will [Link] It is one reason why it is difficult for us to win a war now. Since Vietnam war has been fought on TV as much as on the battlefield Actually, its looking very much like we're about as accurate with strikes on civilians as terrorists tend to be. Leaked documents suggest as many as 90% of US Drone strikes kills are innocent civilians. [Link] (for example). So much so, that three drone pilots and a support tech, risk court martial over speaking out against orders. I'd be surprised if the UK is any better. Human intelligence on the ground is scarce and unreliable and bombs and missiles are as indiscriminate as suicide bombers. Same thing with the first Iraq war, show off all those super precision down the chimney guidance missiles, and never mention they represent 10% of the heavy ordinance used. Its about manufacture of consent by the public. Propaganda. Just like the 'necessity of striking targets in Syria'. Its posturing, when in reality such strikes will make utterly no difference what-so-ever. This proves my point. Misleading headline = public outcry Read the article and it says that 90% don't hit the intended target. That is very different. The UK have RAPTOR which nobody else has. It is a very important part of minimising that awful phrase "collateral damage" so by the UK taking part we can potentially reduce innocent deaths. Innocent people will die in a war, what is an acceptable number I am sure everyone has a different view.
Going back to Bomber Harris days you would have pathfinders lighting up a target with incendiary bombs to guide in the main blanket bombing of a target (which could be as vague as Dresden). It seems we have been able to pinpoint specific targets like one building in a compound and be reasonably certain we could hit it without damaging the other buildings. These sorts of headlines are misleading and full of spin to try and prick the conscience of those supporting reprisals for the cowardly sickening attacks on innocent people that care little for their victims and certainly do not even consider "collateral damage" in their planning. You can pin-point a building in a compound, but you're reliant on questionable intelligence to confirm that target, esp when the enemy tend to move around, use multiple names, and use counter-intelligence. Its worth noting that Bomber Harris strategy didn't have to concern itself with the problem of civilians. I have no problem of strikes where you can determine the targets are the enemy. The problem is, that sentiment about 'cowardly sickening attacks on innocent people' gets played both ways. and it seems that a lot of details protected by 'National Security' that are protecting and obfuscating the accuracy and reliability of strikes, which in turn may well be motivating people to strike back at the people who are killing their family, friends, wives, children etc.
Again this argument illustrates the problem with the West going to war, any war. No one wants civilian casualties. Sorry but war isn't like that. By all means try and limit "civilian" casualties but war is a nasty horrible business.
The language of the French state following the attacks was pretty much about retaliation and retribution. The problem is this isn't a war, not in the conventional sense, its more of an insurrection. It cannot be won by conventional means of taking territory or capturing objectives. The US, French and Italians have been flying missions into Syria now for well over a year. Strategically, denied of a 'conventional conflict' we need to focus on targeting the capacity of the enemy to wage war. IS earns around 2-3m a day from oil smuggling, we should focus those involved in the profiteering of this trade and in laundering and moving funds, with the same passionate zeal as we go after those IS on the ground (esp given that many of these people won't be happy to die for the cause). IS won't worry if we occasionally kill a few of theirs, they're prepared for that, and even their command structure is clearly organised for that (and they can also probably be safe in the assumption that these bombings will create more recruits for the cause). Otherwise we face a futile struggle that we cannot directly resolve that will drag on for decades.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Nov 15 1.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Nov 2015 12.15pm
"There is no flag big enough to cover the shame of killing innocents" Some wise old American fella. Killing innocents is a consequence of military action, the problem is when you pretend you're not killing them, or simply don't really discriminate between the opportunity, the target and the consequences. With no reliable confirmation from the ground and very little oversight from independent sources, we're slowly degrading ourselves towards an mentality of 'everyone is valid target' Its an outrage when IS kills civilians, but 'an acceptable consequence' when its us. But the problem is that both sides seem to be worryingly indiscriminate.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Nov 15 1.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 30 Nov 2015 1.04pm
How shocking that you should quote a social activist, and closet marxist. Yet you rebuff people who call you a lefty ? Are you confused ? Zinn did fight in WWII, and was right about both Vietnam and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 30 Nov 15 1.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Nov 2015 1.36pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Nov 2015 12.15pm
"There is no flag big enough to cover the shame of killing innocents" Some wise old American fella. Killing innocents is a consequence of military action, the problem is when you pretend you're not killing them, or simply don't really discriminate between the opportunity, the target and the consequences. With no reliable confirmation from the ground and very little oversight from independent sources, we're slowly degrading ourselves towards an mentality of 'everyone is valid target' Its an outrage when IS kills civilians, but 'an acceptable consequence' when its us. But the problem is that both sides seem to be worryingly indiscriminate.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Nov 15 4.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Nov 2015 1.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Nov 2015 1.36pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Nov 2015 12.15pm
"There is no flag big enough to cover the shame of killing innocents" Some wise old American fella. Killing innocents is a consequence of military action, the problem is when you pretend you're not killing them, or simply don't really discriminate between the opportunity, the target and the consequences. With no reliable confirmation from the ground and very little oversight from independent sources, we're slowly degrading ourselves towards an mentality of 'everyone is valid target' Its an outrage when IS kills civilians, but 'an acceptable consequence' when its us. But the problem is that both sides seem to be worryingly indiscriminate.
Well in most of those occasions you're looking at ground campaigns, where information can easily be verified by those on the ground. The problem here is where there is no confirmation on the ground, capacity for verification is slim to none and all conflict will be waged from 10,000 ft or remote control. Somehow a very large number of Iraq civilans were killed during Shock and Awe, operation Iraqi Freedom lie (at least 50,000 I would guess). But we don't do body counts, then attack figures produced by independent bodies like the Lancet that pointed at 1m dead as result of the 2003 invasion (the same methodology was fine for Rwanda). I don't think we'll be anything special, it would be absurd to consider that we're going to be the exception. The spin is not reporting figures, and using 'national security' to obfuscate mistakes, errors and massacres. Its very easy to catagorise civilans as enemy combatants, and that appears to be the US policy - and then only admit it when forced to do so.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 30 Nov 15 9.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I see Corbyn is allowing Labour mp's a free vote in the Let's bomb Syria debate. Edited by nickgusset (30 Nov 2015 9.17pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 30 Nov 15 9.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 30 Nov 2015 9.16pm
I see Corbyn is allowing Labour mp's a free vote in the Let's bomb Syria debate. Edited by nickgusset (30 Nov 2015 9.17pm)
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.