UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

Captain Chaos · 08-09-2015 02:39PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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

They really don't. The RQ-1 and RQ-9 are basically remote control light attack aircraft.

They take off and are landed manually under remote control. They fly to the target area on autopilot and orbit a pre planned route while the pilot operates the sensors looking for targets or the targets can be marked by troops on ground with lasers. Once the target is marked the pilot files the drone into position to fire a Hellfire or drop a GBU-12. At the end of the day it's still the pilot or mission manager designating the target and pressing the button to release weapons, not a computer deciding for itself.

Exactly the same same as any fighter jet, just fighters can carry more weapons but can't stay on station as long.

Recon drones like the RQ-4 Global Hawk are fully automated but are not armed.

Eugene Norman · 08-09-2015 02:40PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

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.

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

The former would end up in a world war, the second are costly. The problem is of course that drones are not costly and don't end up in personnel losses. So they are scary.

Fratton Fred · 08-09-2015 02:41PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

What would you suggest, a full meeting of the UN? A debate and vote in Parliament?

custard gannet · 08-09-2015 02:42PM

asherbassad wrote: »

But how can you be sure they were fighters who posed a threat to Great Britain? The same lazy argument was used to detain for years the "worst of the worst" in Guantanamo Bay.....not one of whom has been charged. Just banged up and someone who ratted them out got 5 grand for "information" .... A King's ransom in Afghanistan.

Have you ever actually read the excuses that most of the non afghan inmates in Guantanamo have given for having been in proximity to the epicenter of terrorist training in the weeks after 9//11? The amount of genuinely innocent people caught up in it wouldn't fill a postage stamp, and frankly the rest of them should be left there until they die. Leftists trying to close Guantanamo is just more self loathing turkeys voting for Christmas.

Eugene Norman · 08-09-2015 02:47PM

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.

Wrong. The British generally had to follow due process when targeting ira members precisely because it wasn't certain whether they were or not.

They tried rounding up the usual suspects once and it worked against them. They killed unarmed (but definitely) IRA members in Gibraltar who were British citizens and this was appealed to the European court.

By the logic here, British soldiers should have able to target and kill assumed combatants -- that is anybody assumed to be a member of the ira -- at any time including Bloody Sunday when the British army made this decision incorrectly.

Drones have attacked weddings and killed civilians.

Old Jakey · 08-09-2015 02:51PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Oh ok, so just claim that it is 'only a matter of time' that someone will attack you, and then it's ok to just go to war with whoever you like? :rolleyes:

There are actual international laws on such attacks, regarding self-defence, and this falls far short of them.

If you can't see how what you propose is actually more dangerous to the UK, than ISIS itself, then you must be being deliberately blind to that.

So you know your enemy is out there and instead of taking action you wait for him to kill some of your people and then you take action? Are you for real? Still don't know why I should feel bad about enemy combatants being killed.

Let me guess you think returning isis fighters should be given counselling and benefits?

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 02:54PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Drones have attacked weddings and killed civilians.

To put my war cap on for a second - so what?

Imagine the high value targets you could kill at a wedding? Over there a wedding would attract leaders, influences, financiers etc... I'm not saying that innocent civilians, no less kids, deserve to be killed. But if it's a war then tough decisions have to be made. Those in close proximity to combatants and leaders are in harms way. In my opinion, the blame lies with the combatants for surrounding themselves with civilians when they know they're a target.

The Allies carpet bombed Dresden day and night for no reason other than revenge.

In my eyes, a targeted drone strike at a wedding is much more humane than that.

War is war. There's no getting around that. If a target can be pragmatically justified then it has to be treated as just that - a target; not some legal rubics cube.

Anyways - on the topic of due process. It sounds like they identified him as being in IS. They had pictures and intelligence. I imagine they had his phone calls tapped and his emails hacked. Not just a hunch. Sounds like they did their homework and got the right guy.

Gatling · 08-09-2015 02:56PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

Your links have debunked nothing it's the same ramblings that have been on line since the inception of the Internet ,
Drones ,black helicopters and area 52 and a half

osarusan · 08-09-2015 03:14PM

I would have thought the issue of which country the dead people were citizens of (so what if they were British?) would be secondary to the issue of carrying out military strikes within the borders of another sovereign state.

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 03:18PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Drones have attacked weddings and killed civilians.

This was of course after they were firing AK's into the air in celebration.

The drone operator was hunting for enemy combatants, and saw a heap of non-coalition dudes with guns.

Its a shame it happened, but the process by which it happened was sound.

Edit: This was the case for one particular wedding in Aghanistan. I don't know the details of others.

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 03:22PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not going to be replying to you further, as you have proven you can not engage in debate honestly.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I will also consider you as not engaging in honest debate.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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

Your response to 4 seperate posters. Please stop. Putting your fingers in your ear and going "lalalalala" is childish at best.

AudreyHepburn · 08-09-2015 03:24PM

I have no more sympathy for these young men then I would have for members of the various paramilitary terrorist organisations up north or the drugs/criminal gangs here in the republic.

If you join these kinds of violent radical groups you deserve everything you get imo.

pmasterson95 · 08-09-2015 03:28PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

Your response to 4 seperate posters. Please stop. Putting your fingers in your ear and going "lalalalala" is childish at best.

That'll get ya on his naughty list

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 03:31PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

That'll get ya on his naughty list

Already there.....

Eugene Norman · 08-09-2015 03:43PM

Gatling wrote: »

Your links have debunked nothing it's the same ramblings that have been on line since the inception of the Internet ,
Drones ,black helicopters and area 52 and a half

You don't believe in drones?

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 03:43PM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

They really don't. The RQ-1 and RQ-9 are basically remote control light attack aircraft.

They take off and are landed manually under remote control. They fly to the target area on autopilot and orbit a pre planned route while the pilot operates the sensors looking for targets or the targets can be marked by troops on ground with lasers. Once the target is marked the pilot files the drone into position to fire a Hellfire or drop a GBU-12. At the end of the day it's still the pilot or mission manager designating the target and pressing the button to release weapons, not a computer deciding for itself.

Exactly the same same as any fighter jet, just fighters can carry more weapons but can't stay on station as long.

Recon drones like the RQ-4 Global Hawk are fully automated but are not armed.

Actually they have automatic takeoff capability already in development/testing - and the further automation for these drones is only going to increase as time goes by.

Remember, we're talking not just about the present capability of the drones, but the near and long term future of them.

Another way these drones are not comparable to fighters, is that a single operator will eventually be able to control a fleet of drones, whereas a fighter pilot can control only one aircraft.

The ability to control multiple drones, is already planned:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/01/23/pentagon-agency-wants-drones-to-hunt-in-packs-like-wolves/

Anyone who thinks that increased automation, particularly pilots flying multiple drones, isn't going to happen, simply isn't keeping up with the technological development here.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 03:45PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What would you suggest, a full meeting of the UN? A debate and vote in Parliament?

Either get a legal mandate to go to war - which is just not going to happen - or stay the hell out of it, given that all western intervention has just created an even bigger mess than before.

Eugene Norman · 08-09-2015 03:45PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

This was of course after they were firing AK's into the air in celebration.

The drone operator was hunting for enemy combatants, and saw a heap of non-coalition dudes with guns.

Its a shame it happened, but the process by which it happened was sound.

Edit: This was the case for one particular wedding in Aghanistan. I don't know the details of others.

That's the one I was thinking of. Surely you would see this as terroristic if some terror group had attacked a wedding mistakenly.

I mean what if terrorists get drones?

Eugene Norman · 08-09-2015 03:49PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Either get a legal mandate to go to war - which is just not going to happen - or stay the hell out of it, given that all western intervention has just created an even bigger mess than before.

Both Obama and Cameron have engaged in drone attacks in countries they are not at war with, despite in the latter case the UK parliament voting against the bombing of Syria (albeit back then that was pro rebel).

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 03:53PM

Old Jakey wrote: »

So you know your enemy is out there and instead of taking action you wait for him to kill some of your people and then you take action? Are you for real? Still don't know why I should feel bad about enemy combatants being killed.

Let me guess you think returning isis fighters should be given counselling and benefits?

:rolleyes: This is scaremongering bollocks. Way more people die in western nations, from choking on their food, than are killed by terrorists:
http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

I'll take the rule of law + the threat of attacks less damaging to society than people choking on a chicken dipper, over discarding the law and further destroying foreign parts of the world.

People really need a sense of proportion here - what kind of scared/frightened cowards, want to throw away the rule of law, over a mostly overblown terrorist threat?

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 03:56PM

Gatling wrote: »

Your links have debunked nothing it's the same ramblings that have been on line since the inception of the Internet ,
Drones ,black helicopters and area 52 and a half

Oh look, you made it from 'paranoid delusion' over to implying conspiracy theories now :rolleyes:

My link is better sourced than anything you have provided. If your only argument left is just implying that the concerns are comparable to conspiracy theories, then that's as good as conceding that you have no argument left.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 03:58PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

Your response to 4 seperate posters. Please stop. Putting your fingers in your ear and going "lalalalala" is childish at best.

Making shít up, that somebody did not say, in order to try and warp what they have said, into something they can make a caricature of, is childish and dishonest - thankfully, they did such a bad job at making that misrepresentation seem credible, that I could strike them off as not worth replying to further, without having to worry about many other posters taking the misrepresentations as being credible.

Gatling · 08-09-2015 04:00PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You don't believe in drones?

I believe in drones yes and but fully flying T800s that can fly off select a target and engage and kill without any human input what so ever is a science fiction script

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 04:01PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Both Obama and Cameron have engaged in drone attacks in countries they are not at war with, despite in the latter case the UK parliament voting against the bombing of Syria (albeit back then that was pro rebel).

Indeed - and that is also a dangerous thing to accept, separate to the main thread issue.

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 04:01PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That's the one I was thinking of. Surely you would see this as terroristic if some terror group had attacked a wedding mistakenly.

I mean what if terrorists get drones?

Do silly things in a warzone and bad things will happen.

In world war 1, if the french locals went out to play a spot of footie in no mans land, they'd be dead before the first goal was scored.

If the British were to invade Ireland, i'd think twice between going pheasant hunting. etc.

Firing a heap of guns into the air in the middle of a warzone, is stupidity beyond measure.

I feel bad for the family, but they certainly contributed. Neither the drone pilot, nor the use of drones themselves were to blame there.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 04:02PM

Gatling wrote: »

I believe in drones yes and but fully flying T800s that can fly off select a target and engage and kill without any human input what so ever is a science fiction script

That's also a straw-man because nobody argued that. Saying 'increased automation' doesn't equal 'Skynet'.

People would have to be really stupid - or deliberately acting as if they're stupid - not to see the difference there.

Gatling · 08-09-2015 04:16PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's also a straw-man because nobody argued that. Saying 'increased automation' doesn't equal 'Skynet'.

People would have to be really stupid - or deliberately acting as if they're stupid - not to see the difference there.

Your the only poster repeatedly referencing autonomous armed killer drones .

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a bunch of wannabe jihsdis getting a Hellfire missile up there proverbial.

Whats next assad for sainthood crap someone not you suggested that already

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 04:30PM

Gatling wrote: »

Your the only poster repeatedly referencing autonomous armed killer drones .

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a bunch of wannabe jihsdis getting a Hellfire missile up there proverbial.

Whats next assad for sainthood crap someone not you suggested that already

Ya and in the context of this discussion, the future of drone warfare shows exactly why due process when killing citizens is so important:
A country with a significantly sized drone fleet, with significant automation allowing the use of a very wide range of force from the hands of a relatively small number of people, requires a lot of safeguards to prevent that force being turned against the people of that country.

One of the single most important legal principles for that, is due process. You accept the de-facto elimination of due process when it comes to the killing of a countries citizens, and you accept wide and increasing use of drones nationally, then in the near-future when drone fleets increase in size massively, with much greater automation, you have all the conditions in place for risking 'turnkey totalitarianism'.

This creates a situation when the democratic integrity of a country is severely weakened, and it becomes relatively trivial technically, for a government to 'turn the key' and utilize the drones to aid with imposing totalitarian control over a country - that is the near-future danger which makes this such an important issue.

We know that both elements of this are going to happen in the near-future:
1: That automation will greatly increase with drones, and technology for this is being actively developed all the time, for allowing pilots to control increasing amounts of drones at a time.
2: That drone fleets will massively increase in size over time.

SamHarris · 08-09-2015 04:32PM

They joined a foreign terrorist group who's declared aims are to target and kill British civilians (among others) and are fighting in a war zone.

I'm finding it hard to see how anything BUT killing them would be the right thing to do, given that arrest is not an option.

There is no "due process" in war, complaining that the British government has not declared war on ISIS is equivocation, given that it is not even a legal state and therefore CAN'T legally be declared war upon.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 04:36PM

More paranoia about drones. :rolleyes:

Drones will not be used "against" citizens. In 20 years times the gardaí will have drones. A drone will be able to tazer a suspect from 100 feet in a hostage situation or even fire bullets at him. This takes cops out of the firing line. That's a good thing in my book.

If this new power starts being abused then we can use legislative powers to subdue it. We still have elected politicians last time I checked.

Finally, drones are built by humans which means they're imperfect. Drones can be defeated, fooled, hacked and destroyed. They're not some perfect war winning machine.

Just because men have the tools to conquer you doesn't mean they will.

UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

Comments