Author

Message

abuayisha

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 1999
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3994

Posted: 10 January 2011 at 4:26pm

I think there's little disagreement that war is hell, but for those who profit from war; and likely they'll also agree. The argument about distance and faceless enemies', thus detachment when killing, is not in my estimation a good reason not to use this weapon system. Soldiers are trained to kill. That is what they do. In the long run it may be good to have effectiveness on the battlefield without the resultant stress and psychological problems associated with mangled bodies. I have always believed it doesn't take a war and such a large footprint in Afghanistan to dislodge and disrupt terrorist. If you have good ground intel I think the weapon system is excellent. Use it along with intelligence folks and Afghan /Pak Intelligence and, bring the American troops home.

IP Logged

schmikbob
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422

Posted: 10 January 2011 at 6:30pm

Abuayisha, I agree that the weapon system is excellent and the targeting relies on solid intelligence. However, I think if the US leaves it to others (like the Afgan and Pakistani intelligence communities) to pick the targets the way is open to abuse because of conflicting agendas. I am not sure the best solution is for the US to leave and let the weapon system targets be picked by others. That would however seem to satisfy the people that seem to think the US is over there to be an occupier and an empire builder (even though the US hasn't added a state in a very long time). As to dislodging and disrupting terrorists I think drones are not going to solve this problem.

IP Logged

abuayisha

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 1999
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3994

Posted: 10 January 2011 at 7:01pm

Yeah, well, I meant intelligence agencies working together, which I'm sure they already are and likely several strikes have been as a result of intel from Afghan/Pak sources anyway. I don't think 100,000 troops can solve the problem either, and possibly only leads to increasing the ranks of extremist.

IP Logged

Sign*Reader

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3352

Posted: 10 January 2011 at 8:48pm

Originally posted by schmikbob

signreader, why do you always end up resorting to this. This is a thread about the perceived morality or immorality of a certain high profile weapon system being employed. Please don't turn it into a personal attack.

Me asking of your definition of ethics vis a vis Islamic ethics and you say it is personal attack...give me a break!

If you do not understand what an agnostic is there are a wide selection of sources to find out. If you feel that I have no business, as an agnostic, even posting on this forum perhaps you should take that up with the moderators.
It is not the agnostic but ethic part that is questionable Wink

In a discussion of morality concerning drones it might be usefull, and I hope I am not the only one that sees the relevence here, of discussing the potential differences between this system and others that are employed. One of these differences is that other systems can be recalled or even controlled and destructed after launch. Just because you can't follow the logic doesn't mean others can't.
I do understand an agnostic but the ethics
Which weapon can be recalled after the launch?
The drones go back to home base just like the fighter bombers...The drones are way cheaper than fighter/bombers total cost wise...The difference is full occupation to a partial control of the operation domain and a good snitch network...

As far as this topic is concerned, I don't need to go off topic and link to some unrelated Huffington Post fourth hand account of atrocities committed by your favorite boogeyman. I happen to have personal experience relevent to this discussion.

Pray tell us your experience to shut me up ...Lay it on the line...
Btw Huff Post is not my favorite...Anyone who has the truth without spin will do!

Edited by Sign*Reader - 10 January 2011 at 9:21pm

Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.

IP Logged

Hayfa
Female Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2370

Posted: 11 January 2011 at 11:59am

Yes the soldiers don't have the psychological problems, but then, there is no consequence then why have limits.. you send in soldiers, they get screwed up, then don't send them in! With the "new weapons" there is no "damage" and thus nothing to hold them back..

When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

IP Logged

abuayisha

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 1999
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3994

Posted: 11 January 2011 at 12:39pm

Hayfa if they're hitting the right target there is no need to hold them back. I have no problem with the weapon. It is the intelligence on the ground which concerns me; are we hitting a legitimate target or wedding party.

IP Logged

Sign*Reader

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3352

Posted: 11 January 2011 at 9:46pm

These attack aren't even authorized by the Congress and you have no problem? Has the thinking part gone for wool-gathering?

What could happen as fall out could be implosion of a nuclear powered state in one of the most troubled region of the world! I think that is what going to happen...
So think again, here is very informative interview on the subject...The bombing campaign over Afghanistan killed untold thousands and the capitulation never came...You would think these few thousand more will make it happen ...LOL
I don't know how good is your knowledge about the area and the expendables!

US already at war in Pakistan: drone attacks exceed Kosovo war - but against an ally's 'expendables'

Edited by Sign*Reader - 11 January 2011 at 9:47pm

Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.

IP Logged

schmikbob
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422

Posted: 12 January 2011 at 7:55am

Excellent link, SignReader. Although I didn't hear in the interview anyone once call people "expendables". Also war has not been formally declared by the Congress since World War II. That is what they are authorized to do by the constitution. What Congress is supposed to authorize or be involved in as a subset of war has been debated endlessly since then. I think it comes down to what the executive branch determines is a national security issue.

IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Science & Technology
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : General : Science & Technology

Topic: Ethics of unmanned or drone weapon systems
	<< Prev Page of 7 Next >>

Author	Message
abuayisha Senior Member Joined: 05 October 1999 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3994	Posted: 10 January 2011 at 4:26pm
	I think there's little disagreement that war is hell, but for those who profit from war; and likely they'll also agree. The argument about distance and faceless enemies', thus detachment when killing, is not in my estimation a good reason not to use this weapon system. Soldiers are trained to kill. That is what they do. In the long run it may be good to have effectiveness on the battlefield without the resultant stress and psychological problems associated with mangled bodies. I have always believed it doesn't take a war and such a large footprint in Afghanistan to dislodge and disrupt terrorist. If you have good ground intel I think the weapon system is excellent. Use it along with intelligence folks and Afghan /Pak Intelligence and, bring the American troops home.
	IP Logged

schmikbob Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 422	Posted: 10 January 2011 at 6:30pm
	Abuayisha, I agree that the weapon system is excellent and the targeting relies on solid intelligence. However, I think if the US leaves it to others (like the Afgan and Pakistani intelligence communities) to pick the targets the way is open to abuse because of conflicting agendas. I am not sure the best solution is for the US to leave and let the weapon system targets be picked by others. That would however seem to satisfy the people that seem to think the US is over there to be an occupier and an empire builder (even though the US hasn't added a state in a very long time). As to dislodging and disrupting terrorists I think drones are not going to solve this problem.
	IP Logged

abuayisha Senior Member Joined: 05 October 1999 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3994	Posted: 10 January 2011 at 7:01pm
	Yeah, well, I meant intelligence agencies working together, which I'm sure they already are and likely several strikes have been as a result of intel from Afghan/Pak sources anyway. I don't think 100,000 troops can solve the problem either, and possibly only leads to increasing the ranks of extremist.
	IP Logged

Sign*Reader Senior Member Joined: 02 November 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3352	Posted: 10 January 2011 at 8:48pm
	*Originally posted by schmikbob* signreader, why do you always end up resorting to this. This is a thread about the perceived morality or immorality of a certain high profile weapon system being employed. Please don't turn it into a personal attack. Me asking of your definition of ethics vis a vis Islamic ethics and you say it is personal attack...give me a break! If you do not understand what an agnostic is there are a wide selection of sources to find out. If you feel that I have no business, as an agnostic, even posting on this forum perhaps you should take that up with the moderators. It is not the agnostic but ethic part that is questionable In a discussion of morality concerning drones it might be usefull, and I hope I am not the only one that sees the relevence here, of discussing the potential differences between this system and others that are employed. One of these differences is that other systems can be recalled or even controlled and destructed after launch. Just because you can't follow the logic doesn't mean others can't. I do understand an agnostic but the ethics Which weapon can be recalled after the launch? The drones go back to home base just like the fighter bombers...The drones are way cheaper than fighter/bombers total cost wise...The difference is full occupation to a partial control of the operation domain and a good snitch network... As far as this topic is concerned, I don't need to go off topic and link to some unrelated Huffington Post fourth hand account of atrocities committed by your favorite boogeyman. I happen to have personal experience relevent to this discussion. Pray tell us your experience to shut me up ...Lay it on the line... Btw Huff Post is not my favorite...Anyone who has the truth without spin will do! Edited by Sign*Reader - 10 January 2011 at 9:21pm
	Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.
	IP Logged

Hayfa Female Islam Senior Member Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2370	Posted: 11 January 2011 at 11:59am
	Yes the soldiers don't have the psychological problems, but then, there is no consequence then why have limits.. you send in soldiers, they get screwed up, then don't send them in! With the "new weapons" there is no "damage" and thus nothing to hold them back..
	When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi
	IP Logged

abuayisha Senior Member Joined: 05 October 1999 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3994	Posted: 11 January 2011 at 12:39pm
	Hayfa if they're hitting the right target there is no need to hold them back. I have no problem with the weapon. It is the intelligence on the ground which concerns me; are we hitting a legitimate target or wedding party.
	IP Logged

Sign*Reader Senior Member Joined: 02 November 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3352	Posted: 11 January 2011 at 9:46pm
	These attack aren't even authorized by the Congress and you have no problem? Has the thinking part gone for wool-gathering? What could happen as fall out could be implosion of a nuclear powered state in one of the most troubled region of the world! I think that is what going to happen... So think again, here is very informative interview on the subject...The bombing campaign over Afghanistan killed untold thousands and the capitulation never came...You would think these few thousand more will make it happen ...LOL I don't know how good is your knowledge about the area and the expendables! US already at war in Pakistan: drone attacks exceed Kosovo war - but against an ally's 'expendables' Edited by Sign*Reader - 11 January 2011 at 9:47pm
	Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.
	IP Logged

schmikbob Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 422	Posted: 12 January 2011 at 7:55am
	Excellent link, SignReader. Although I didn't hear in the interview anyone once call people "expendables". Also war has not been formally declared by the Congress since World War II. That is what they are authorized to do by the constitution. What Congress is supposed to authorize or be involved in as a subset of war has been debated endlessly since then. I think it comes down to what the executive branch determines is a national security issue.
	IP Logged