Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

1…6791112…14

Comments

  • #242
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Just to chime in here ... under the Geneva convention (I believe it's the 2nd from reading it many moons ago), a civilian is classified as a "combatant" when they engage in armed struggle; the classification being a fallback catch-all for anyone that does not fit into any other category - army, militia, etc.

    These two were armed in several photographs; in a warzone, claiming to fight for ISIS. Under the geneva convention (i.e. the rules), KB, they were "combatants". So why are you getting your nose out of shape and repeatedly and hysterically shouting "due process" about an entity (ISIS) that doesn't understand the meaning of the term and does not give it to anyone. There's an expression for such people: "Live by the sword, die by the sword". In this case it's quite fitting as they [ISIS supporters] all keep banging on about their hard-on for the "Sword of Islam" that ISIS purportedly wields.


  • #243
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,463 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    There hasn't been a caliphate in the best part of a century

    Time has nothing to do with desire.

    It's a 100 years since some dudes captured a post office, yet we still have people harping on about a "united Ireland".

    Unless you think islamic memories don't stretch that far?


  • #244
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Fukuyama wrote: »
    You're insane. Stop being influcence by hyperactive media.

    So what. A drone can have an automated flight path and has image recognition software on board. Same type of software used in fighter jet Air to Ground missiles or the Javeline Anti-tank missile. And Canon DSLR cameras.... :)

    Seriously. Get a hold of yourself. There will be no drone armies controlling civilian populations. They're no point. We're all fairly happy. We go to work, pay taxes and obey the law.

    Drones will have loads of applications. From delivering your Amazon Package to replacing police helicopters to blowing up ground targets in war. But they're not going to level your house because you disagree with Fianna Gael. :rolleyes:


    Finally. If your drone army every does rise up an take over, couldn't civilian drones just fight back? Or couldn't they be hacked? Civilian technology is always quite close to military technology.

    There are civilians in Ukraine developing drones by themselves (albeit for the Ukranian military and pro-Ukraine brigades). By next year they'll be able to drop bombs on rebel targets.

    They're drones. No fcuking Transformers.
    You're pretty much deliberately missing the point here. Taking my mention of drone automation and how that makes them incomparable to F-15 fighters (since drones are subject to way more automation, and since there is loads of technology constantly being developed to improve this automation) - and painting that as a 'robots take over' scenario (when I clearly expressed the possibilty of drones being used, against a countries own citizens, not 'taking over' and having a mind of their own...) - anyone can see how that is pretty much deliberately warping what I'm saying, and is completely dishonest.

    I mean, the whole 'robots rise up and fight the humans' misrepresentation of my post is both stupid and so obviously/massively dishonest.

    Ignoring your future posts, since this shows that you have no intention of engaging in honest debate here.


  • #245
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    Lemming wrote: »
    Just to chime in here ... under the Geneva convention (I believe it's the 2nd from reading it many moons ago), a civilian is classified as a "combatant" when they engage in armed struggle; the classification being a fallback catch-all for anyone that does not fit into any other category - army, militia, etc.

    These two were armed in several photographs; in a warzone, claiming to fight for ISIS. Under the geneva convention (i.e. the rules), KB, they were "combatants". So why are you getting your nose out of shape and repeatedly and hysterically shouting "due process" about an entity (ISIS) that doesn't understand the meaning of the term and does not give it to anyone. There's an expression for such people: "Live by the sword, die by the sword". In this case it's quite fitting as they [ISIS supporters] all keep banging on about their hard-on for the "Sword of Islam" that ISIS purportedly wields.

    Cant wait for KB to blank this :D


  • #246
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    You're pretty much deliberately missing the point here. Taking my mention of drone automation and how that makes them incomparable to F-15 fighters (since drones are subject to way more automation, and since there is loads of technology constantly being developed to improve this automation) - and painting that as a 'robots take over' scenario (when I clearly expressed the possibilty of drones being used, against a countries own citizens, not 'taking over' and having a mind of their own...) - anyone can see how that is pretty much deliberately warping what I'm saying, and is completely dishonest.

    I mean, the whole 'robots rise up and fight the humans' misrepresentation of my post is both stupid and so obviously/massively dishonest.

    Ignoring your future posts, since this shows that you have no intention of engaging in honest debate here.


    Um....
    If people are too stupid to see how dangerous future massive fleets of drones are, to the democratic integrity of their own country, then they will pay pretty heavily for that stupidity, when such a fleet gets used against the countries citizens, and used for political control.

    There you go. You said that automated drones are going to be used against a country's own citizens under the guise of political, not military, control.

    Modern drones have image detection software and autopilot. No different to F-15s or Stealth Bombers.

    Drones can be used to secure borders. Monitor sea territories for over-fishing, smugglers etc... Soon they'll even be used by the gardaí instead of helicopter for monitoring protests, festivals, large gatherings etc...

    There's nothing frightening here. Nothing at all. We all still have our own minds last time I checked.

    Go ahead an ignore my posts. You're the one who hasn't engaged in any "debate". All you've done is hide behind "due process" when discussing a war zone as though it was a drugs bust. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    swimming in a sea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 937 ✭✭✭swimming in a sea


    I don't know if said already but this follows quickly off the back of Saudi Arabia supporting the Iran nuclear deal. The price is the US & British cleaning out I.S. and this is the start.


  • #248
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,463 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I mean, the whole 'robots rise up and fight the humans' misrepresentation of my post is both stupid and so obviously/massively dishonest.
    .

    You realise that AI and automation go hand in hard, yes?

    The drones are being upgraded such that the operator can spend more time looking for targets / performing surveillance instead of flying the thing. Stability and flight control enhancements don't detract from there still needing to be multiple layers of authorisation before the fire order is given.

    Unless you think that increasing automation will lead to the stripping away of these layers of authorisation, then its a bit pointless mentioning it as you did origionally.


  • #249
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    You're pretty much deliberately missing the point here. Taking my mention of drone automation and how that makes them incomparable to F-15 fighters (since drones are subject to way more automation, and since there is loads of technology constantly being developed to improve this automation) - and painting that as a 'robots take over' scenario (when I clearly expressed the possibilty of drones being used, against a countries own citizens, not 'taking over' and having a mind of their own...) - anyone can see how that is pretty much deliberately warping what I'm saying, and is completely dishonest.

    I mean, the whole 'robots rise up and fight the humans' misrepresentation of my post is both stupid and so obviously/massively dishonest.

    Ignoring your future posts, since this shows that you have no intention of engaging in honest debate here.


    A little less science fiction and stick with the current reality .
    fact all current drones are flown by real human pilots mostly f15/16/f18 qualified.all who follow a stict chain of command before there allowed to fire a Hellfire missile at any target.

    We're not looking at Sky net and terminator
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #250
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Gatling wrote: »
    Your completely wrong all drones of the current generation and the next are no different to an F15 or F22 at that human flown ,human 100% in control at all times and several humans decide if the one human pilot get to fire a Hellfire missile at a vehicle or individuals.
    You are wrong about that. They are far more automated than fighter jets, and the potential development of 'lethal autonomous robots' is a very current issue in debate about drones:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Degree_of_autonomy


  • #251
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    Fukuyama wrote: »
    Um....



    There you go. You said that automated drones are going to be used against a country's own citizens under the guise of political, not military, control.

    Modern drones have image detection software and autopilot. No different to F-15s or Stealth Bombers.

    Drones can be used to secure borders. Monitor sea territories for over-fishing, smugglers etc... Soon they'll even be used by the gardaí instead of helicopter for monitoring protests, festivals, large gatherings etc...

    There's nothing frightening here. Nothing at all. We all still have our own minds last time I checked.

    Go ahead an ignore my posts. You're the one who hasn't engaged in any "debate". All you've done is hide behind "due process" when discussing a war zone as though it was a drugs bust. :pac:

    I think KB must have watched Avengers Age of Ultron and decided its a prophecy.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    Gatling wrote: »
    A little less science fiction and stick with the current reality .
    fact all current drones are flown by real human pilots mostly f15/16/f18 qualified.all who follow a stict chain of command before there allowed to fire a Hellfire missile at any target

    Not to mention the fact that the command to fire on terrorists and "combatants" who do not belong to a traditional military isn't issued by a line of code. Rather it's issued by the US president or the UK's prime minister.

    When I look out my window I don't see many targets in Dublin that would require drone strikes. The odd junkie perhaps... :P


  • #253
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ah but you were certainly trying to explain away ISIS by reference to America, America created them, America made them yada yada.

    The simple fact is that members of ISIS are responsible for the acts of members of ISIS. No amount of references to America absolves them from blame for their actions.
    No, you're putting words in my mouth again. It is factually true that the actions of western nations led to the creation of ISIS.

    You're claiming I'm trying to absolve people of responsibility for ISIS actions - that is false, claims that I am doing that, are a lie.


  • #254
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    You are wrong about that. They are far more automated than fighter jets, and the potential development of 'lethal autonomous robots' is a very current issue in debate about drones:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Degree_of_autonomy

    Stop trying to change the subject .

    A debate by a bunch of paronoid delusionals
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #255
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,463 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    You are wrong about that. They are far more automated than fighter jets, and the potential development of 'lethal autonomous robots' is a very current issue in debate about drones:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Degree_of_autonomy

    You mention that while having previously mentioned this:
    KomradeBishop wrote:
    Originally Posted by KomradeBishop viewpost.gif
    I mean, the whole 'robots rise up and fight the humans' misrepresentation of my post is both stupid and so obviously/massively dishonest.

    Make up your mind. Its skynet or not.


  • #256
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Um...in a conflict, of course civilians (not citizens) should expect due process.

    Those citizens that join an armed organisation should expect to get shot or blown up.
    And - going around in circles here - that legal framework has not been enacted, for stripping those citizens of their rights...

    There is a legal way to kill these people, that way was not taken - that's what the entire thread is about...


  • #257
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    You are wrong about that. They are far more automated than fighter jets, and the potential development of 'lethal autonomous robots' is a very current issue in debate about drones:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Degree_of_autonomy

    Cars can drive themselves now. Turns out computers make much better drivers than humans. Way less likely to get into an accident.

    Drones are going to become more automated. So what. There will always be a human element to decide whether or not to fire. The drone might even successfully ID enemy targets but a human may decide not to fire for reasons a computer cannot comprehend.

    I imagine 100% drone automation would only ever be activated in an extreme scenario. Like If Russian troops were to cross into a NATO country such as Latvia. It would make perfect sense to deploy automated drone strikes in huge numbers if they had 99% accuracy to hit enemy military targets. Much better than human accuracy. We often kill civilians by mistake.

    Your posts about drone automation show that you've read about the subject but have concluded that we're building automated killing robots instead of well, drones. They're just RC planes with smart cameras and missiles. Humans control them, even if they are smarter than humans in many ways.

    My only hope is that next-gen drone automation allows NATO and Arab League countries to accurately ID more ISIS targets and vaporise them.


  • #258
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    And - going around in circles here - that legal framework has not been enacted, for stripping those citizens of their rights...

    There is a legal way to kill these people, that way was not taken - that's what the entire thread is about...

    Oh I think the right of civilians (not citizens, and I trust you know the difference even if your posts suggest you are a bit vague) should be protected.

    I don't blur those rights with the rights of a combatant in a terrorist group during a conflict.

    But we can agree to differ. Even away from conflict zones, the rights you bestow on terrorists don't really worry me. If the police in London take out a terrorist with a headshot as they get onto a train strapped up with explosives, we can all celebrate and you can bemoan the deprivation of his rights.


  • #259
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Lemming wrote: »
    Just to chime in here ... under the Geneva convention (I believe it's the 2nd from reading it many moons ago), a civilian is classified as a "combatant" when they engage in armed struggle; the classification being a fallback catch-all for anyone that does not fit into any other category - army, militia, etc.

    These two were armed in several photographs; in a warzone, claiming to fight for ISIS. Under the geneva convention (i.e. the rules), KB, they were "combatants". So why are you getting your nose out of shape and repeatedly and hysterically shouting "due process" about an entity (ISIS) that doesn't understand the meaning of the term and does not give it to anyone. There's an expression for such people: "Live by the sword, die by the sword". In this case it's quite fitting as they [ISIS supporters] all keep banging on about their hard-on for the "Sword of Islam" that ISIS purportedly wields.
    If a citizen is to be stripped of his rights and declared a combatant, that has to happen through due process - not just be declared.

    Simply labelling a citizen a combatant, doesn't strip their rights.


  • #260
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    Time has nothing to do with desire.

    It's a 100 years since some dudes captured a post office, yet we still have people harping on about a "united Ireland".

    Unless you think islamic memories don't stretch that far?
    You're trying to use the argument 'ISIS were created through being motivated by caliphates that haven't existed in the best part of a century, not by the destabilization of the Iraq and other wars in the middle east' - and that's just not a credible argument.

    Pretty much nobody can credibly argue against the fact, that the destabilization caused by the Iraq war in particular, led to the creation of ISIS.


  • #261
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    If a citizen is to be stripped of his rights and declared a combatant, that has to happen through due process - not just be declared.

    Simply labelling a citizen a combatant, doesn't strip their rights.

    You become a combatant when you pick up a gun and join ISIS.

    Just like you become an IRA memeber when you join. Not when the PSNI/MI5 catch you and you go to court.

    What you're saying put civilians in war zones in the same bracket as combatants which, effectively, in your version of the law, means that civilians would have to become a justified target.

    Combatants are combatants the minute the fulfill the requirements. Not when when a fully jury convicts them of "being" a combatant which in and of itself isn't a crime.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    You realise that AI and automation go hand in hard, yes?

    The drones are being upgraded such that the operator can spend more time looking for targets / performing surveillance instead of flying the thing. Stability and flight control enhancements don't detract from there still needing to be multiple layers of authorisation before the fire order is given.

    Unless you think that increasing automation will lead to the stripping away of these layers of authorisation, then its a bit pointless mentioning it as you did origionally.
    That doesn't change the stupid misrepresentation of my post, where he tried to pretend I was saying, that robots would take on a mind of their own, and start attacking humans.

    Come off it...if you're defending that, I'm not really going to take you as engaging in honest debate either.


    As I posted a short bit ago, the development of 'lethal autonomous robots' is a very current issue of debate:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Degree_of_autonomy

    Once the automated abilities are in, removing the requirement for authorization is fairly minor.


  • #263
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    snubbleste wrote: »
    The UK is not at war, though.
    This is the same as the KGB murdering a Russian citizen in London.
    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    It most definitely is not.

    I have no issue with them killing these guys but it's actually a pretty good analogy for what happened. They killed a citizen of their own in a foreign country because they believed him to be a threat to their security. That sentence could be applied to either action


  • #264
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Gatling wrote: »
    A little less science fiction and stick with the current reality .
    fact all current drones are flown by real human pilots mostly f15/16/f18 qualified.all who follow a stict chain of command before there allowed to fire a Hellfire missile at any target.

    We're not looking at Sky net and terminator
    If you're going to take on the stupid 'robots take on a mind of their own, and start attacking humans' bullshít - something you know is a deliberately dishonest misrepresentation of my post - then, again, I will also consider you as not engaging in honest debate.

    Your claim that drones do not have greater automation than fighter jets, has been roundly debunked by the links I've posted.


  • #265
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Gatling wrote: »
    Stop trying to change the subject .

    A debate by a bunch of paronoid delusionals
    Yea great argument :rolleyes: A link completely debunking your point, with the link showing that drones are subject to much greater automation, is only being debated by a bunch of 'paranoid delusionals'...which you fail to show, or do anything more than throw out the lame accusation, like someone would with the 'conspiracy theory' label.

    You'll have to do better than that. The idea that drones aren't going to be given greater and greater automated abilities, is just pure idiocy and naivety.

    Ironically as well, it is you who are trying to very quickly change the subject, now that I've completely debunked your point there.


  • #266
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Yea great argument :rolleyes: A link completely debunking your point, with the link showing that drones are subject to much greater automation, is only being debated by a bunch of 'paranoid delusionals'...which you fail to show, or do anything more than throw out the lame accusation, like someone would with the 'conspiracy theory' label.

    You'll have to do better than that. The idea that drones aren't going to be given greater and greater automated abilities, is just pure idiocy and naivety.

    Ironically as well, it is you who are trying to very quickly change the subject, now that I've completely debunked your point there.

    Lemming posted a definition proving you are rambling. You then said that combatants arent combatants because of due process even though that was already debunked. As was you other claims. You keep cycling the same debunked points. Then you went back to arguing is Ultron/Terminator real.


  • #267
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    You mention that while having previously mentioned this:



    Make up your mind. Its skynet or not.
    Your claim is basically comparing the idea of robotic automation, to the idea of robots suddenly 'taking on a mind of their own, and randomly attacking humans'.

    Anyone with a functioning sense of logic, can tell the difference between an automated drone carrying out out the commands an operator gives it, versus the utterly thick idea of comparing that to robots 'taking on a mind of their own, and then randomly deciding to attack/kill humans'.

    Everyone trying to make that comparison, knows it is a completely stupid comparison - and I'm not really going to entertain them as engaging in honest debate, if they're trying to pull of such a poorly executed attempt at misrepresentation.


  • #268
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh I think the right of civilians (not citizens, and I trust you know the difference even if your posts suggest you are a bit vague) should be protected.

    I don't blur those rights with the rights of a combatant in a terrorist group during a conflict.

    But we can agree to differ. Even away from conflict zones, the rights you bestow on terrorists don't really worry me. If the police in London take out a terrorist with a headshot as they get onto a train strapped up with explosives, we can all celebrate and you can bemoan the deprivation of his rights.
    This thread is specifically about citizens - a country killing its own citizens - so no, I'm talking about the specific case of citizens, not civilians in general.

    Even if I agreed that the UK should attack ISIS, I'd disagree with the way in which they killed the citizens mentioned in the OP - it has to be done in a legal way, and there are legal paths that can be taken; if they can't be taken, countries should not be allowed to illegally kill their own citizens.


  • #269
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Lemming posted a definition proving you are rambling. You then said that combatants arent combatants because of due process even though that was already debunked. As was you other claims. You keep cycling the same debunked points. Then you went back to arguing is Ultron/Terminator real.
    Actually, if you'll look a few posts up, I replied to that and debunked that point. Since you're still carrying on the stupid 'robots take over' misrepresentation - which at this point, after I've clarified that many times, is as good as a deliberate lie/misrepresentation about what I said - I'm not going to be replying to you further, as you have proven you can not engage in debate honestly.


  • #270
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Your claim is basically comparing the idea of robotic automation, to the idea of robots suddenly 'taking on a mind of their own, and randomly attacking humans'.

    Anyone with a functioning sense of logic, can tell the difference between an automated drone carrying out out the commands an operator gives it, versus the utterly thick idea of comparing that to robots 'taking on a mind of their own, and then randomly deciding to attack/kill humans'.

    Everyone trying to make that comparison, knows it is a completely stupid comparison - and I'm not really going to entertain them as engaging in honest debate, if they're trying to pull of such a poorly executed attempt at misrepresentation.

    Whats your issue with drone automation then?

    You don't make clear points. Rather you just linked to automation articles and then said it was a bad thing as it'd enable governments to have huge fleets for political control.

    :confused:

    Automated drones are no different in terms of democracy or civil liberties than ICBMs or guided missiles.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Fukuyama wrote: »
    You become a combatant when you pick up a gun and join ISIS.

    Just like you become an IRA memeber when you join. Not when the PSNI/MI5 catch you and you go to court.

    What you're saying put civilians in war zones in the same bracket as combatants which, effectively, in your version of the law, means that civilians would have to become a justified target.

    Combatants are combatants the minute the fulfill the requirements. Not when when a fully jury convicts them of "being" a combatant which in and of itself isn't a crime.
    And how many innocent people were murdered by the British Gov because someone thought they were a member of the IRA rather than actually proving it? This is a serious problem with extra-judicial killing


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement