Show me the battlefield. Manhattan? Kabul? I am perfectly fine with using unmanned drones and not risking a US soldier's life to carry out these types of missions.
The battlefield is where there are ongoing military engagements, or clear build-ups to military engagements. Anything outside of that, you try to arrest people, especially when you are the Government and claim to have effective control of the country. But do not kill people without trial. What you are effectively saying is "I am advocating for the transfer of risk of casualties from our military troops onto the civilian population".
I'm pretty sure drones are being used in surveillance here in the US but I think they are unarmed. I would tend to think all of Iraq, Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan would be considered battlefields by your definition. And yes, I am saying that. Sucks for those people that their governments are behind in technology. Perhaps they should reconsider their priorities.
Then you won't mind if people there are also quite keen on transferring the risk from themselves to your own civilian centres. People like you help to perpetuate the legacy of Osama, Zawahiri et al.
But doesn't that go beyond your definition of the battlefield? Or are the rules just for others? People like me? I think it's more people like you!
You said that my definition includes all of Iraq and Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan. It doesn't. Anywhere where there is actual contact at that moment in time, or build-up of troops leading to contact, can be said to be a battlefield. Most of these drone strikes are in villages or convoys where there is no likelihood of contact between military forces. People sleeping in their villages or going to weddings in convoys are not "on the battlefield". Your transfer of risk from people who are paid and choose to take on that risk, to the civilians who have nothing to do with it, is precisely what Al-Qaeda advocate. They view your civilian centres as collateral, as you view the civilians in Muslim lands.
And what pray tell is a battlefield anymore? Hmmm? Really your naivte when it comes to war is pathetic. You are trying to impose a very simple minded defination of what war is and you are failing at it. There are no markers on the field that say this is the war zone. Next you'll be wanting refs out there and allowing time outs if you get hurt. And on top of all this, you should be very thankful that the US isn't fighting by the rules used by the taliban and aq. Funny, but aq view civlians as legit targets and in fact actively target them everywhere and anywhere they can. Or have you forgotten the events of 9/11? These drone strikes target legit military targets and too bad if you or anyone else doesn't like it. You start a war, you have to expect the enemy will target you. Your silly notions of battlefields are enough to make me laugh so thanks for that.
There you go, move those goalposts around to fit what you want. umar I have a far more open view of the world then you have ever shown here. I have shown far more willingness to admit when I am wrong, and I have accepted multiple viewpoints that didn't coincide with my own. Simply put, arguing with you is pointless since you can't ever seem to accept or look at both sides of the argument. Actually umar you don't take any time to research your arguments, or post facts to support your cases ever. You can't even admit that you said drones were unlawful without trying to change the meaning now. One of these days maybe you will try to engage in an honest discussion, though I don't it since whenever someone disagrees with you the first thing you do is resort to insults which further shows you are incapable of dealing with being wrong.
So the United States is a battlefield, right? The US military train troops there, they often operate the drones directly from there. The entire country must be a battlefield! p.s. sorry about my naivte
As long as the targets are military and not, you know, office buildings or civilian aircraft. We could fight the entire war from a room in Tampa.
Cool, we're making progress. I like this guy, he actually engages in a forthright discussion. Now, how come a house is a military target, but an office building isn't? How is a standard off-road vehicle a military target, but a commercial plane isn't?
When a house is used for military meetings and a standard off-road vehicle transports combatants, fair game. The towers never housed anything to do with the military and the commercial jets didn't either.
So holding "military meetings" or transporting "troops" (without any evidence of such "military meetings" or evidence that they actually contain "troops" being reviewed by any judicial panel, btw) makes them fair game. Interesting. I'm sure the CIA and the DoD had a presence in the vicinity of the 2001 attacks. And I'm sure you agree that the Pentagon was a clear military target too. I'll get back to you once I finish my football match this evening.
Yes keep on with the childish behavior. your ignorance is really shining through today. The US trains our troops on bases, forts, camps, etc... and those are indeed legit military targets. Drones are operated at military installations, thus are legit targets.
The Pentagon was a legit military target on 9/11. The fact that they used a civlian airliner full of innocent civlians to perpetuate that attack is the major problem. It would be nice if you actually engaged in a discussion rather then whine, cry and throw insults when proven wrong. And still waiting, how are drones illegal? Or are you just going to continue ignoring that? Something else that umar wants to gloss over here is that aq and the taliban do not have any uniforms, nor do they mark their equipment as military, nor do they have established military bases. They do this so it is harder to combat them and of course it provides easy propaganda when "civlians" are injured by drones or US attacks.
Here we go with the intentional ignorance. Gee why would a house filled with taliban commanders and aq terrorists be a target and say an office building filled with corporations and workers be different? Really this has to be one of the dumbest posts ever here.
Actually; the civilians on the flights that hit the Pentagon (Military Target) and the plane that was aiming for the white house (Commander) could be collateral damage. Now the towers and the planes that hit those towers would not be IMO. I mean Terrorist/Rebels/Guerrillas have to use what available means they have to fight their struggle, hitchhiking planes and using them as bombs may look horrible from our side, but that were the only (best) option they had available. Also if you subscribe to the notion of all out war (I do not think any one of use here does) then all civilians are perfect legit targets since we all pay taxes, we grow the food, we make the Uniforms (China ) that support our militaries.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/la-fi-drone-helicopters-20111109,0,3698898.story A great move for the US Navy. Looking forward to seeing these in action.
You have absolutely no credibility speaking about women's rights. It is men in the middle east who love to say that the women there are fine with being repressed (Oh, I'm sorry, I mean they prefer their current lifestyle and customs). Let them speak for themselves.
You make the assumption that there is a correlation. Ghaddafi was responsible for several terrorist attacks in the 1980's, and then we bombed the shit out of Libya and that was pretty much it for Libyan terrorism. I could make an argument that is just as valid that without invading Afghanistan, there would have been MORE attacks on western targets.
You have less credibility than me. But you are completely right, let them speak for themselves. Tell me, how many Muslim women have you spoken to on this topic?
Plenty. Not only here but in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other Mid East countries. And since you seem to agree that they should speak for themselves, then I assume you would agree they should equal rights. So go out and start doing something about it, since you seem to have so much insight and credibility on the subject.