quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson *adds PKC to 'people to kill' list and angrily polishes gun*

hahaha sorry mate!

___________________

I'll show you! And everyone who's wronged me!

Thread back on topic.

Muslims are the problem. If Charles Martel were alive today, he would break down in tears, for what he fought for has been in vain.

Ahh, another thread with interesting issues blown far off course by terrible argumentation and dreadful ad hominem attacks.


@ PKC and Jack: while issues regarding how "terrorism" is used by governments is quite interesting, though definitely not novel, and as much as I enjoy arguing over how we should define terrorism, I just can't take any article seriously that tries to compare hacking a man to pieces to Hiroshima.

Once the two are equal, there is no such thing as terrorism. Which does end up going back to "terrorism" being merely a term used by governments for certain practical reasons, but also seems to conflate some very different activities.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah i guess, but that's pretty standard fair when talking about almost anything re states and (enemy) non state actors yeah? ie they're always being the bad guys and we're always good? not anything new or exciting to read surely?

It doesn't feel right to me to simply equate the discourse on terrorism to internal propaganda of days of yore. Modern media and the Internet have totally changed that landscape. Based on the utter stupidity and ignorance that has been flying around both social media outlets and in this this thread, I would say the majority of people are not very savvy or educated on this subject at all, and so there's nothing wrong with either writing the article nor in posting it in this thread. I suspect you're downplaying it because this kind of revisionist leftist interpretation strays close to "the West is pure evil!" rhetoric of conspiracy theorists.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It doesn't feel right to me to simply equate the discourse on terrorism to internal propaganda of days of yore. Modern media and the Internet have totally changed that landscape. Based on the utter stupidity and ignorance that has been flying around both social media outlets and in this this thread, I would say the majority of people are not very savvy or educated on this subject at all, and so there's nothing wrong with either writing the article nor in posting it in this thread. I suspect you're downplaying it because this kind of revisionist leftist interpretation strays close to "the West is pure evil!" rhetoric of conspiracy theorists.

Haha!! I certainly try to divorce my interests in political discourse from my unfortunate hobby of getting annoyed at conspiracy theorists. You hit the nail on the head of my major criticism of the article in the bolded- I wrote a paper (or maybe it was a presentation, who can remember that far back?) on the same topic so it all just seemed a little redundant to me. but now that you mention it obviously not everyone is as old and interested as I was back then.

My only other major gripe with the article was it ignored the role enemy combatants have played in the evolution of Team Whitey’s definitions and/or tactics- who chose non-conventional warfare? Who chose not to wear uniforms or to hide behind civilians etc? I don’t equate killing off-duty military personnel at home with droning a militant in their bed. They are the ones that chose to operate outside the established rules of warfare and the article doesn’t address how militants have played their own role in how small scale conflicts are now fought. Maybe they didn’t have much of a choice in that, but thems the breaks.

___________________

Yeah, droning a militant in their bed, or at their mosque, or in a school, or in a crowded residential neighborhood. Estimates put it at 50 civilians per 1 terrorist killed by drone strikes since 2002.

quote:

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...p-drone-warfare

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO This isn't about physics, this is about waves.

In other words: drone warfare can't be terrorism because it's not accurate enough.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Yeah, droning a militant in their bed, or at their mosque, or in a school, or in a crowded residential neighborhood. Estimates put it at 50 civilians per 1 terrorist killed by drone strikes since 2002. http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...p-drone-warfare

I hate to say it, but it's better than the alternative of recent years; invade a country and kill up to hundreds of thousands and completely destabilize a country or region, just to get a few targets or even a single person. The message, and a deadly one at that, is don't fraternise with those that engage in this behaviour or you will get droned.

The bigger advantage is that there have been study after study (by various groups of different persuasions), all indicating that taking out leadership leads to far greater and faster decline of hierarchical cells or organisations. Even if you do kill 50 innocents to get one leader or target, you're massively reducing the risk in the grand scheme of terrorism infrastructure.

The double tap makes perfect, albeit gruesome, sense; your hear that your cell leader gets hit? You go to check out what the damage is so you can report back to the training camp and "hey what's that noi...."

True, but I've also read that since the US began drone strikes in Yemen, recruitment for terror cells of groups like al Qaeda have gone up as much as 200-300%.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO This isn't about physics, this is about waves.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 True, but I've also read that since the US began drone strikes in Yemen, recruitment for terror cells of groups like al Qaeda have gone up as much as 200-300%.

I don't doubt that (apart from I'd love to know how they come to that figure, like they track the online registration forms) but I imagine your entire country going down the pan, complete loss of economic stability and standard life support systems infrastructure (water, sanitation, etc) and your family and friends being killed as collateral damage in a full blown invasion/war are far more powerful recruitment reasons than drone strikes in remote areas.

On a relative scale of collateral damage (if you can even put in to those terms) drones are infinitely less harmful than full scale invasion.