Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 111

Thread: RPV takes out Talib 2IC in Pakistan

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member Kevin Parlon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,202
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default RPV takes out Talib 2IC in Pakistan

    I think this is significant.

    • It's the first strike since the speech.
    • It's the first strike since the Pak elections
    • It happened inside Pak
    • It took out a big player

    From what the early reports say; it couldn't have gone better. No reports of anything but dead Talibs and the 2IC to boot.

    I posted on this a while back. RPVs ("Drones") provide the most effective and safe (for everyone) way for us to prosecute this war against religious fascism and to provide to Afghan the best possible chance at going it alone (whether they can or will is something we can only help; not guarantee).

    Almost all of the denunciations we hear about this tactic presents itself publicly as concern for innocent casualties and/or recruiting more Jihadis. The reality IMO, is that what these voices actually mean is we shouldn't be there at all. Why? "Drones" have proven to be an order of magnitude better at reducing civilian casualties than the high altitude laser guided bombing and tomahawk attacks they have replaced. More dead Talibs. Less innocent casualties. Less outraged and grieving relatives of the innocents. I am not blind to the fact that use of weapons, no matter how careful, will sometimes result in innocents dying. Either you accept this, or you say that prosecuting war is never justified.

    There's nothing 'wrong' about being against the war in Afghanistan. But if you're going to criticize the use of RPVs you need to construct a moral and intellectual case against their use, outside of a general opposition to the war.
    "It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them." - Thomas Sowell

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Thac0man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kildare/Dublin
    Posts
    6,475
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Oh if only the evil Drones could have been grounded before such a champion of human rights and female equality was so cruely slain. Oh the humanity! I weep, I weep. If only Barack Obama had paid attention to Amnesty Internationals shrieking protests and daftly inflated civilian casualty claims, it only.

    Now the Taliban will have to go to the bother and expense of putting another recruitment add in an Islamabad newpaper looking for another loon who does not mind beheading people. Such a tragedy.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member Alan Alda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,500
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parlon View Post
    The reality IMO, is that what these voices actually mean is we shouldn't be there at all. Why?
    But should 'we' really be in Pak ?
    It raises many issues.
    What with Syria escalating an all.
    I love all the different cheeses.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member stopdoingstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    east and west
    Posts
    22,738
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What is the legal basis for such strikes?
    Faoi mhóid bheith saor

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Kevin Parlon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,202
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Alda View Post
    But should 'we' really be in Pak ?
    It raises many issues.
    What with Syria escalating an all.
    Pak give lip service to being against Drones. This is for domestic consumption. The reality is, they wouldn't be happening without tacit Pak approval.
    "It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them." - Thomas Sowell

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member Kevin Parlon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,202
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stopdoingstuff View Post
    What is the legal basis for such strikes?
    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf
    "It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them." - Thomas Sowell

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member stopdoingstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    east and west
    Posts
    22,738
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parlon View Post
    That paper does no such thing. It sets out the DOJs legal opinion regarding the legality of killing US citizens who are involved with Al Quaeda. Not only that but even then it does not distinguish between accusation and guilt, involves only the executive branch in the process and makes it a de facto judge, does not define "imminence", and it provides that presidential assassinations may be ok even when none of the stated conditions apply:
    "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful....it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation
    . That is to say that while those conditions may be enough to allow the killing, there is nothing to suggest that those conditions are necessary conditions. The memo also uses rhe exact same justification as Bush and treats the world as a battlefield into which US militsry forces have the right to go without consulting anyone. And it's primary jusification in internatinal law, the principle of self-defence, is mangles and does not even meet the simple terms of the UN Charter:
    rticle 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
    This document is not a basis for anything other than the end of the rule of law.
    Faoi mhóid bheith saor

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stopdoingstuff View Post
    That paper does no such thing. It sets out the DOJs legal opinion regarding the legality of killing US citizens who are involved with Al Quaeda. Not only that but even then it does not distinguish between accusation and guilt, involves only the executive branch in the process and makes it a de facto judge, does not define "imminence", and it provides that presidential assassinations may be ok even when none of the stated conditions apply:. That is to say that while those conditions may be enough to allow the killing, there is nothing to suggest that those conditions are necessary conditions. The memo also uses rhe exact same justification as Bush and treats the world as a battlefield into which US militsry forces have the right to go without consulting anyone. And it's primary jusification in internatinal law, the principle of self-defence, is mangles and does not even meet the simple terms of the UN Charter:


    This document is not a basis for anything other than the end of the rule of law.
    The torture memos writ large.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member Kevin Parlon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,202
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stopdoingstuff View Post
    This document is not a basis for anything other than the end of the rule of law.
    Well, firstly I am not a legal expert. Secondly, the OP relates to the moral and intellectual case for the use of RPVs in this conflict. It's a slippery slope to be sure, but it is war we're talking about and not a police investigation where the cops can drop by and ask the folks in question if they wouldn't mind coming down the local barracks to 'assist' them with their investigations into the latest suicide mass murder, targeted teacher killing, or acid throwing incident.

    I freely admit that I have not read the paper because, (to be perfectly honest), in this particular case, the minutiae of the legal validity (or otherwise) of the careful, targeted removal of terrorists bent on killing as many thousands of innocent people as possible just doesn't press my 'outrage against injustice' button.

    Stuff like this, though, does:



    It's the aftermath of Taliban suicide attack. One of hundreds and it killed 70 people. Deliberately. Perhaps there'll be one less this week as a result of the strike in Pakistan. If it did result in one less suicide attack, would it not have been worth it? Even if it didn't (and it is reasonable to conclude that this will disrupt them significantly) In my book, I can happily mark one less room full of homicidal fascists bent on carrying out acts like the above as an unambiguous 'win'. The moral case here simply can not be clearer.

    Now, as I understand it, no legal challenge has been successful in halting or stopping the use of RPVs. I feel we can be quite certain this is not due to a lack of people and NGOs willing to take such a challenge. This is slightly off the topic of the OP but, perhaps it would not unfair of me to say that if you believe they are illegal, the onus would be on you set out why that might be the case.

    In the meantime, RPVs will continue to disassemble the hyenas who plan events like the above wherever they find them, and I will continue to applaud the people who pay to put those vehicles in the sky and the leadership that keeps them there.
    Last edited by Kevin Parlon; 30th May 2013 at 04:10 AM.
    "It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them." - Thomas Sowell

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Kevin Parlon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,202
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnocpm View Post
    The torture memos writ large.
    I take it you are referring to the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' authorized by the previous administration and immediately terminated by current one? How do missions to kill terrorists engaged in war against the state constitute their being writ large?
    "It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them." - Thomas Sowell

Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •