BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 14 - 03:43 AM

EMPs are not government representatives.
Probably because that is what YOU called him, Mr (I'm always polite) K A of H
That is false too.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 14 - 10:42 PM

http://dronewars.net/6-who-has-drones/


For anyone interested in the history of drones go to


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles#Vietnam_War:_Reconnaissance_Drones

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 08:38 PM

"Musket, Jim thought that an EU vote implied approval by EU governments."

Borrowing Greg's FW, who does Keith think were the participants in that EU vote?

Representatives of the governments which are EU members, that's who!

And as representatives, Keith is stupid enough to believe that they haven't voted according to the wishes of those governments!

No surprise there then!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 08:22 PM

Dammit! the second half was meant for elsewhere.

Should read Absolutely Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 08:20 PM

"And I think there are prime examples of people who cannot live with each other on here!"

Absolutely Dave, and some on this forum too!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 08:13 PM

"I did not mean since the dawn of time Steve."

There you are Steve! Will you be told?

If it happened more than ten minutes ago, it's not a valid subject for discussion on KeithBook!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 07:47 PM

"Meanwhile, the Suras enjoining the duty of Jihad and/or militant proselytisation are legion. "The word jihad appears in 23 Quranic verses...Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God"...Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims" - Wikipedia"

WOW! 41 times in 23 verses out of a total of 6346 verses!

You're right Mike! It's the Q'ran, with its obsession with jihad, which we need to fear.

Or maybe it's just the few lunatics, like the killers of Lee Rigby and the TWENTY Saudis who were involved in the destruction of the WTC.

Over reacting? Naah! of course you aren't.........MUCH!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 May 14 - 06:09 PM

Not quite, Guest. To be fair, Keith answers questions with irrelevancies and bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:37 PM

You answer questions with questions, so I see no need to be involved with you at all. Keep well.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:23 PM

Do you think any of them have been to see?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 May 14 - 02:26 PM

"(CNN) -- U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%."

from

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 02:09 PM

Tragic, but what relevance Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 May 14 - 09:53 AM

Dear me, Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 07:40 AM

The Amnesty link shows a girl who looks like Malala, the child shot in the head for being a girl and wishing to go to school.

Children, their teachers and ordinary Muslim people are being killed in horrifying numbers by the people who the drones target.
The numbers killed by drones are trivial in comparison.

Neither Stamford nor any other Westerners can go to the tribal lands and find the truth about who the drones kill.
It is in the interest of the Taleban, who control those areas absolutely, to exaggerate civilian casualties and conceal activist deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 14 - 07:30 AM

No dialogues Keith remember what you have been told
Respond to the researched facts by Stanford and Amnesty or go away and let the rest of us have a go.
You are not saying anything - just filibusting by ignoring what is being said by others
Go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:26 AM

Musket, Jim thought that an EU vote implied approval by EU governments.

Jim, you have provided no "facts," "legal, humantarian and tactical."
Just a few individuals' opinions that are not shared by governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:16 AM

You have the facts Keith - legal, humanitarian and tactical, stuff your 'expert' opinions and answer them if you want to start making an intelligent contribution to this discussion - otherwise - troll off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 May 14 - 04:55 AM

A thread about terrorism and Keith manages to slip in a party political protest about the European Parliament.

Well done. Fancy standing in Newark?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 04:42 AM

From your own link Jim.

" it (drone strikes) can be quite an important one if you don't want to see planes dropping from the sky in the West," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defence College."

I don't want to see planes dropping.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 14 - 03:45 AM

So what have we got so far
Attacks on civilian areas that are killing non-combatants (good o' 'collateral damage').
The US refusing to reveal figures on what those casualties are and suppressing attempts to debate the issue in Congress.
Surveys showing that, rather than controlling terrorism, these attacks are escalating it.
The same reports are pointing out that the attacks are almost certainly a breach of both international laws and those on human rights abuses - in fact, acts of terrorism themselves.
World-wide condemnation of the attacks by human rights groups and war crimes observers, including Amnesty International - Britain appears to be the only Nation actively supporting them by providing information on the targets of the attacks - colluding in what appears to be a war crime (as Guest.# points out - back to the balmy days of WMD).
As well as this, there is a growing 'Drone' manufacturing industry, straining at the leash and complaining that it is not been given enough support to allow it to reach its full potential.
When it does, we can look forward to Drone sales to whoever has the wherewithal, so if that nice Mr Assad can hold out for long enough, perhaps he might be able to get his hands on some and bring 'normality' back to Syria - that nice Mr Cable has already told us that the arms industry isn't particularly fussy about who the British armourers sell weapons to.
If all this wasn't enough - the Drone attacks have Keith's blessing - what more can we possibly need to help us identify an atrocity?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 02 May 14 - 07:09 PM

Messages recovered from Osama bin Laden's home after his death in 2011, including one from then al Qaeda No. 3, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman reportedly, according to the Agence France-Presse and the Washington Post, expressed frustration with the drone strikes in Pakistan. According to an unnamed U.S. Government official, in his message al-Rahman complained that drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 May 14 - 06:41 PM

'So, when you said "condemned worldwide as acts of terror." you did not mean by the people who actually have the facts, the governments.'

You mean the same governemnts who assured the world that Iraq had WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 06:18 PM

"From your own link Jim."
I don't want to see innocent civilians being slaughtered by of ineffectual and illegal terrorist 'counter-terrorism (sic)'
Jim Carroll

Also from my link

Five. Retired high-ranking military and CIA veterans challenge the legality and efficacy of drone killings
Retired US Army Colonel Ann Wright squarely denies the legality of drone warfare, telling Democracy Now: "These drones, you might as well just call them assassination machines. That is what these drones are used for: targeted assassination, extrajudicial ultimate death for people who have not been convicted of anything."
Drone strikes are also counterproductive. Robert Grenier, recently retired Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center, wrote, "One wonders how many Yemenis may be moved in the future to violent extremism in reaction to carelessly targeted missile strikes, and how many Yemeni militants with strictly local agendas will become dedicated enemies of the West in response to US military actions against them."
Recent polls of the Pakistan people show high levels of anger in Pakistan at US military attacks there. This anger in turn leads to high support for suicide attacks against US military targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 05:49 PM

AMNESTY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 02:56 PM

I didn't say it Greg.
It was that other FW, Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defence College.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 May 14 - 02:53 PM

I don't want to see planes dropping.

Much more likely to see pigs flying, FW. Your tenuous grip on reality is sliding into psychosis.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 14 - 12:24 PM

'So, when you said "condemned worldwide as acts of terror." you did not mean by the people who actually have the facts, the governments.'

You mean the same governemnts who assured the world that Iraq had WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 06:52 AM

From your own link Jim.

" it (drone strikes) can be quite an important one if you don't want to see planes dropping from the sky in the West," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defence College."

I don't want to see planes dropping.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 05:40 AM

"So don't do it and he won't respond".
Yes - unfortunately he will - and I'm not his only feed Mike
But thanks for the advice - there's enough there for everybody to be going on with - which was my only point in posting on this anyway - "pearls before morons trying to provide him with facts (to quote his own phrase - nearly)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 May 14 - 04:56 AM

Whether or not 'moronic troll' is a rational or reasonable description, Jim, I would point out that you are his main -- indeed practically his only -- 'feed'!

So don't do it and he won't respond.

Simples!

〠~M~〠

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 04:33 AM

"you did not mean by the people who actually have the facts, the governments."
And the European Union is made up of what exactly - boy scout groups?
The Governments refuse to give the facts - it is not in their interests to do so.
The U.S. has actively suppressed discussion on the facts - it is in their interests to do so.
A British Government lied and breached international law in order to support the U.S. - it was in their interests to do so.
Nothing has changed since the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Reports from around the world - U.S. Canada, the Arab States, Britain, Australia, Ireland...... all condemning the Drone attacks as illegal - and producing researched documentation to prove they are
The landslide victory in the European Union make it official that Europe condemns the use of Drones - how many countries is that?
"It is a distraction to obscure the real issue facing the world right now."
The drones are not a distraction - they are a major part of the problem; they increase terrorism - researched; they alienate otherwise friendly Arab States - researched; they slaughter innocent civilians in their thousands - researched (as far as the U.S. will allow the figures to be made public)
Here we are again Keith versus humanity in his support of US atrocities and the poodles who appease them.
Why do we feed this moronic troll?
He'll be bringing out his "experts" and "historians" next.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 04:18 AM

Extracts from Jim's Yemen link.
"Drone strikes are never the solution. It is a tactical band-aid but it can be quite an important one if you don't want to see planes dropping from the sky in the West," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defence College.

The drones' main success has been to severely limit AQAP's movements and ability to hold territory as it did back in 2011.

"When they move from A to B, they have to think 100 times. They've lost their freedom," said Mustafa Alani, a security analyst with close ties to the Saudi Interior Ministry.


Yemen's interior ministry said 55 militants were killed on Sunday alone, which would make it the biggest strike against al Qaeda militants since at least 2012.

It said three of those killed were leading members of al Qaeda. Yemen said 10 al Qaeda militants were killed in Saturday's attack.

A senior security source said investigations were being carried out into the identities of those killed, but confirmed that "leaders in the organization" had died.

Rumors have been swirling that those killed include AQAP leader Nasir al-Wuhayshi and Saudi bombmaker Ibrahim al-Asiri, especially after several eyewitness reports emerged that at least one helicopter had landed after a late Sunday night strike in the restive southern Shabwa province.

Tribal sources told Reuters on Sunday that five suspected militants were killed in that attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 04:09 AM

So, when you said "condemned worldwide as acts of terror." you did not mean by the people who actually have the facts, the governments.

I am sure there are individuals and groups on both sides of the argument, so your statement was wrong.

Meanwhile the massive industrial scale slaughter of Muslims by Muslims goes on unabated such that the effects of all the drones in the world pale into insignificance in comparison.
Indeed, there is no comparison.
It is a distraction to obscure the real issue facing the world right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 03:43 AM

"The Taleban supply the reports."
And the US suppresses the supports - so they are obviously significant
The Stanford report bears out that not only are the civilian casualties significant but the bombing is having the effect of escalating terrorism.
The "Governments" are in hock to the U.S., and if they weren't - there' is always the veto to fall back on.
F*** the Governments - they are all a bunch of self-serving shysters when it comes down to it.
The truth of the matter is coming from the independent human rights groups - and from surveys from the inside the US.
Legality of Drones
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 03:22 AM

I know about the EU.
I asked about governments.
When I posted that EU Parliament had voted against oil drilling in the Arctic, I was reminded, rightly, that the body is irrelevant.

The overwhelming majority of people here have no idea who their MEP is or what they stand for.
The debates are not even reported here because everyone knows they are meaningless and pointless.
They just a talking shop.

The use of drones is now being condemned worldwide as acts of terror.
So, which governments?
So, which governments?

However, they are killing more innocent civilians than terrorists.
How do we know?
The Taleban supply the reports.
Their only defence against the drones is to make us believe that.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 May 14 - 03:17 AM

Yes, drones do kill innocent civilians. So do terrorists, many times over. Neither are right and justifying one with the other is a ludicrous argument. However, given the choice of targeted bombing and indiscriminate bombing I think the former is the lesser of two evils. Neither should exist but, sadly, they do. Until people learn to live with each other they always will. And I think there are prime examples of people who cannot live with each other on here!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 02:23 AM

So the use of these weapons is OK if the politicians agree to them - do we have that right?
You have the facts about them - you have their effects - you have the public response to them - you have the research on them - you have (some of the) facts on civilian casualties - you even have the response of the people of Yemen on them Boo-Boo - but it's OK if that nice Mr Cameron (and possibly in the near future, that nicer Mr Farrago) gives them the nod.
Nothing new there then Keith - after all 'Politicians rule - OK'.
Inhuman prat!!
Jim Carroll
YEMEN

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 14 - 10:58 PM

There is at least one country that is for drones:

Yemen asks U.S. for drones to fight al Qaeda

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 May 14 - 09:41 PM

Don't confuse FW Keith with facts and truth, Guest. He has a hard time dealing with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:59 PM

Yes, Keith, the drones are. However, they are killing more innocent civilians than terrorists. You had an answer to some of which governments are not in favor of drone warfare. Allow me to repeat:

'EU Parliament proposes a ban refers drone strikes as "unlawful."

Strasbourg - European Union Members of Parliament condemned the use of drones in targeted killings in a vote of 534 to 49. The vote proposing a ban referred to the drone strikes as "unlawful."'

from

http://www.popularresistance.org/landslide-vote-in-european-union-condemning-u-s-drone-use/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:13 PM

When it comes to slaughtering Muslim people, Islamists beat drones many, many times over, and drones are targeted at those killers.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 May 14 - 05:38 PM

Much more mundane I'm afraid. Think 2001 A Space Odyssey.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 05:31 PM

The use of drones is now being condemned worldwide as acts of terror.
So, which governments?
Any EU governments?
Scandinavian?
Which?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 May 14 - 03:15 PM

UD Ledbetter?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:45 PM

Utterly Disastrous?

Urban Decay?

Uncle Desmond?

Unnatural Development?

........ ........?????

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:38 PM

Stanford NYU report
one
two
three
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:23 PM

Uterine Device! That's what it must mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:20 PM

Ah - but is it a "qualified" Parliament?
Sorry - in joke - followers of Keith's career as a war crimes appeaser and atrocity apologist will get it!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:03 PM

There are many Mudcat members who see nothing wrong with the use of drones by police and other such authorities. Their reasoning is that if you have nothing to hide then why worry. They frequently use the term tinfoil hat.

As for which governments have condemned or voiced reservations about the use of drones to kill people, a quick Google found the following:

'EU Parliament proposes a ban refers drone strikes as "unlawful."

Strasbourg - European Union Members of Parliament condemned the use of drones in targeted killings in a vote of 534 to 49. The vote proposing a ban referred to the drone strikes as "unlawful."'

from

http://www.popularresistance.org/landslide-vote-in-european-union-condemning-u-s-drone-use/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 14 - 12:28 PM

"Which governments Jim?"
Try some of the human and war crimes rights groups reporting from all round the world
It's no wonder that nobody takes you seriously.
And address the rest of the posting with the research and the reported results of the attacks on people who are otherwise supportive of fighting terrorism - not to mention those U.S citizens who have condemned the actions
And the US governments efforts to hide casualty figures by quashing debate on it.
If   If you take your nose out of the arses of the Governments of the world - all who have economic and financial interests in keeping on the right side of America, you would realise the wave of opposition to U.S. behaviour.
Now the production of Drones has entered the market-place, the Arms Industry being what it is, we are a hairsbreadth from having these weapons sold to extremist states - Bahrain is one of the West's favourite customers at present - now there's a thought
Jim Carroll