Al-Qaeda Says 'barbaric' U.s. Drone Strikes In Yemen Kill Civilians

[simple1]

They think we are barbaric, what a joke. They have beheaded, murdered, maimed and tortured men women and children for the sake of islamic law and Allah.

ISLAMIC LAW HITS AUSTRALIA

Four men have been found guilty of giving a Sydney electrician 40 lashes with a cable, which they said was a punishment under

Islamic law for drinking alcohol and using drugs.

Zakaryah Raad, Tolga Cifci, Wassim Fayad, and Cengiz Coskun were today convicted of several charges relating to whipping Cristian Martinez, a convert to Islam, in July 2011.

Mr Fayad counted out the lashes and when he came up to number 10 ... he gave Mr Martinez a break. Mr Martinez went into the bathroom and vomited.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/40-lashes-under-islamic-law-men-guilty-of-assault-20130228-2f7nw.html#ixzz2MAk2opDD

Sharia law has not 'hit Australia" it was the individuals claiming it as a defence/justification for the assault. This is of course is ridiculous as not a defence under Australian criminal justice legislation. In any case the Federal Government has made it crystal clear any form of judicial pluralism through Sharia Law will not be permitted.

Edited March 4, 2013 by simple1

[Steely Dan]

They think we are barbaric, what a joke. They have beheaded, murdered, maimed and tortured men women and children for the sake of islamic law and Allah.

ISLAMIC LAW HITS AUSTRALIA

Four men have been found guilty of giving a Sydney electrician 40 lashes with a cable, which they said was a punishment under

Islamic law for drinking alcohol and using drugs.

Zakaryah Raad, Tolga Cifci, Wassim Fayad, and Cengiz Coskun were today convicted of several charges relating to whipping Cristian Martinez, a convert to Islam, in July 2011.

Mr Fayad counted out the lashes and when he came up to number 10 ... he gave Mr Martinez a break. Mr Martinez went into the bathroom and vomited.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/40-lashes-under-islamic-law-men-guilty-of-assault-20130228-2f7nw.html#ixzz2MAk2opDD

Sharia law has not 'hit Australia" it was the individuals claiming it as a defence/justification for the assault. This is of course is ridiculous as not a defence under Australian criminal justice legislation. In any case the Federal Government has made it crystal clear any form of judicial pluralism through Sharia Law will not be permitted.

Yes, a Sharia defense is only likely to succeed in a more sympathetic jurisdiction, such as Yemen or the UK. And with regard to whoever commented that it's better to tackle the enemy on their own territory with drones than in our own Countries, I would suggest the time we have to make such a choice is rapidly fading.

[Publicus]

When al-Qaeda doesn't like it, you might be doing something right ...

Sorry Jingthing, I couldn't resist....

'When the liberals don't like it, you might be doing something right..'

Allah willing, of course.

[kpmsprtd]

Those who think that drone strikes kill and injure only terrorists are seriously deluded. I realize that there are also those who accept a significant number of civilian casualties as the cost of warfare.

I wonder if enough terrorists are being killed by drones to make up for the number of terrorists being created by resentment of drone strikes.

Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber

[Publicus]

Those who think that drone strikes kill and injure only terrorists are seriously deluded. I realize that there are also those who accept a significant number of civilian casualties as the cost of warfare.

I wonder if enough terrorists are being killed by drones to make up for the number of terrorists being created by resentment of drone strikes.

Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber

The data at the link below, concerning drone strikes from 2004-2013, shows that Prez Bush made only one drone strike in Yemen while Prez Obama has ordered/authorized 72. Prez Obama's civilian casualty rate in Yemen is 10.5% and it is 14% in Pakistan. Bush's civilian casualty rate in Pakistan was almost 50%, so we can see that Prez Obama's drones have had much better intelligence info and much better, successful, targeting. The data clearly indicate we can expect the use of drones by the U.S. to become both increasingly accurate and more effective.

All the while, Prez Obama's combined air and drone strkes in Pakistan and Yemen have killed roughly five times the number of militants as Prez Bush did. For every drone used, a bunch of U.S. military are spared risking life and limb to execute the action.

Drones in a comprehensive war against widespread terrorist camps, routes and destinations is a winner.

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

Edited March 5, 2013 by Publicus

[Credo]

Those who think that drone strikes kill and injure only terrorists are seriously deluded. I realize that there are also those who accept a significant number of civilian casualties as the cost of warfare.

I wonder if enough terrorists are being killed by drones to make up for the number of terrorists being created by resentment of drone strikes.

Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber

Drone strikes don't make terrorists. Terrorists existed long before drone strikes. The only way they will be happy is if we all convert or are dead.....and probably their wish is for the second choice.

[Publicus]

Those who think that drone strikes kill and injure only terrorists are seriously deluded. I realize that there are also those who accept a significant number of civilian casualties as the cost of warfare.

I wonder if enough terrorists are being killed by drones to make up for the number of terrorists being created by resentment of drone strikes.

Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber

Drone strikes don't make terrorists. Terrorists existed long before drone strikes. The only way they will be happy is if we all convert or are dead.....and probably their wish is for the second choice.

I would also note that a Muslim is forbidden "converting" to any other religion, i.e., to become an infidel. If, for instance, a Mulsim converts to Christianity - well, there aren't any former Muslims around to say what happens to you.

[Samuimike1]

Not only Al Qaeda say so. Parents from dead children killed by US drones, children lost legs, arms and eyes by US drones, say so!!

[Publicus]

Not only Al Qaeda say so. Parents from dead children killed by US drones, children lost legs, arms and eyes by US drones, say so!!

Your objection is noted.

[jamhar]

Question:

of the people objecting to the use of drones here on TL, Why are you against it?

From my perspective, the least you did was to take US/EU pilots out of harms way.

Isn't that a good thing?

and if data is correct, you've reduced casualty rates of civi's by 5x,

and cost by more than that with the troop pull out.

Whats the downside?

[jamhar]

Not only Al Qaeda say so. Parents from dead children killed by US drones, children lost legs, arms and eyes by US drones, say so!!

So you would rather have manned flights and have 5x the number of parents with lost children?

You rather have manned flights rather than drones?

Edited March 5, 2013 by jamhar

[Credo]

I would also note that a Muslim is forbidden "converting" to any other religion, i.e., to become an infidel. If, for instance, a Mulsim converts to Christianity - well, there aren't any former Muslims around to say what happens to you.

I wonder if enough terrorists are being killed by drones to make up for the number of terrorists being created by resentment of drone strikes.

Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber

Drone strikes don't make terrorists. Terrorists existed long before drone strikes. The only way they will be happy is if we all convert or are dead.....and probably their wish is for the second choice.

The big mistake that this guy made was meeting to talk to AQ. I have a feeling he wouldn't have lived long one way or the other. With AQ, you are either with them or against them.

During Thailand's well-known 'War on Drugs' under Thaksin, I had a former colleague who was into drugs. I didn't see him often, but he called and wanted to get together. My answer was a big resounding 'no'. Knowing what was going on, I wasn't interested in being collateral damage when the police took him out.

[jamhar]

Samuimike1,

Lies or not, AQ has said they want to destroy america. AQ has demonstrated their willingness carry out their intentions on american soil. America has decided to bring the fight to where ever AQ is, and to those helping them.

Given that we are there, and fighting AQ and those helping them, doesn't it make sense to use a method that causes the least amount of civilian casualties?

[Scott]

A number of posts with a crude reference to a group of people has been deleted. Racial slurs and references are not tolerated. Try your remarks again without the demeaning terminology.

[jamhar]

Ok rijb,

i misunderstood you to some extent.

I agree with you almost 100%

I have 2 comments

1) If the US did not react after the trade center event, I think a lot more of US and possibly EU lives would have been lost. From where i sat, that day, we were at war.

2) I have at least one fear with the use of Drones. I fear that attacks will become so surgical, that we will forget how horrible war is. And forgetting that horror is a dangerous thing. But for now, i say go long on companies selling drones.

[simple1]

Question:

of the people objecting to the use of drones here on TL, Why are you against it?

From my perspective, the least you did was to take US/EU pilots out of harms way.

Isn't that a good thing?

and if data is correct, you've reduced casualty rates of civi's by 5x,

and cost by more than that with the troop pull out.

Whats the downside?

The OP is about Yemen, I very much doubt Saudi Arabia would permit NATO forces to launch conventional air attacks on Yemen, so your argument is redundant. The US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen is all about supporting the Saudi & Yemeni dictatorships ergo regional US interests. I believe their are no NATO combat infantry based in Saudi Arabia or located in Yemen, so again your argument is not relevant to the OP.

[jamhar]

Question:

of the people objecting to the use of drones here on TL, Why are you against it?

From my perspective, the least you did was to take US/EU pilots out of harms way.

Isn't that a good thing?

and if data is correct, you've reduced casualty rates of civi's by 5x,

and cost by more than that with the troop pull out.

Whats the downside?

The OP is about Yemen, I very much doubt Saudi Arabia would permit NATO forces to launch conventional air attacks on Yemen, so your argument is redundant. The US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen is all about supporting the Saudi & Yemeni dictatorships ergo regional US interests. I believe their are no NATO combat infantry based in Saudi Arabia or located in Yemen, so again your argument is not relevant to the OP.

OK,

I'll entertain this direction also.

What is your objection to the use of drones?

[simple1]

Question:

of the people objecting to the use of drones here on TL, Why are you against it?

From my perspective, the least you did was to take US/EU pilots out of harms way.

Isn't that a good thing?

and if data is correct, you've reduced casualty rates of civi's by 5x,

and cost by more than that with the troop pull out.

Whats the downside?

The OP is about Yemen, I very much doubt Saudi Arabia would permit NATO forces to launch conventional air attacks on Yemen, so your argument is redundant. The US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen is all about supporting the Saudi & Yemeni dictatorships ergo regional US interests. I believe their are no NATO combat infantry based in Saudi Arabia or located in Yemen, so again your argument is not relevant to the OP.

OK,

I'll entertain this direction also.

What is your objection to the use of drones?

Don't have an objection to drones, as I concur with your argument that when correctly targeted they reduce overall civilian casualties. What I do object to is people thinking that their deployment will eradicate Islamic extremists as they are only a tactical tool.

When watching documentary interviews with UK combat forces personnel in Afghanistan they nearly always state they want to finish the job on the ground in recognition of their comrades who have been killed and injured. I guess US ground forces have the same view. A common opinion is that withdrawal of ground forces will eventually result going back to the situation that required ground forces deployment in the first place. In the meantime the enemy would have regrouped and strengthened their capabilities.

[ableguy]

Well boo hoo Mr Quaeda...

What do these rats know about conventional warfare ???????

[Groongthep]

Question:

of the people objecting to the use of drones here on TL, Why are you against it?

From my perspective, the least you did was to take US/EU pilots out of harms way.

Isn't that a good thing?

and if data is correct, you've reduced casualty rates of civi's by 5x,

and cost by more than that with the troop pull out.

Whats the downside?

The OP is about Yemen, I very much doubt Saudi Arabia would permit NATO forces to launch conventional air attacks on Yemen, so your argument is redundant. The US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen is all about supporting the Saudi & Yemeni dictatorships ergo regional US interests. I believe their are no NATO combat infantry based in Saudi Arabia or located in Yemen, so again your argument is not relevant to the OP.

Nonsense. I personally know US Marines who are now stationed in secure areas of Yemen and there are lots of them.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Groongthep

[simple1]

Question:

of the people objecting to the use of drones here on TL, Why are you against it?

From my perspective, the least you did was to take US/EU pilots out of harms way.

Isn't that a good thing?

and if data is correct, you've reduced casualty rates of civi's by 5x,

and cost by more than that with the troop pull out.

Whats the downside?

The OP is about Yemen, I very much doubt Saudi Arabia would permit NATO forces to launch conventional air attacks on Yemen, so your argument is redundant. The US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen is all about supporting the Saudi & Yemeni dictatorships ergo regional US interests. I believe their are no NATO combat infantry based in Saudi Arabia or located in Yemen, so again your argument is not relevant to the OP.

Nonsense. I personally know US Marines who are now stationed in secure areas of Yemen and there are lots of them.

Protecting the US embassy, that is very different to proactive combat operations or am I wrong?

EDIT: Looks like you're correct.Just saw the URL that states NATO forces providing protection to UN security council members having a meeting in the capital. Also US committing to building a military & security training presence in Yemen. So much for US policy of military disengagement in the Islamic world!

“The United States has a profound interest in advancing Yemen’s security and prosperity,” visiting U.S. Homeland Security Undersecretary Rand Beers said “By enhancing collaboration with the government of Yemen, we reaffirm our commitment to more effectively secure our two countries against evolving threats and improve the trade and investment climate in Yemen.”

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/01/09/u-s-to-establish-military-bases-in-yemen/

Edited March 5, 2013 by simple1

[Steely Dan]

I read two articles on the BBC yesterday, one about the new developments in ship launched drones, the other, further into the future concerning robots taking the place of infantry in future wars. I predict Somali pirates and far left hand wringers will find both barbaric.

[jamhar]

Question:

of the people objecting to the use of drones here on TL, Why are you against it?

From my perspective, the least you did was to take US/EU pilots out of harms way.

Isn't that a good thing?

and if data is correct, you've reduced casualty rates of civi's by 5x,

and cost by more than that with the troop pull out.

Whats the downside?

The OP is about Yemen, I very much doubt Saudi Arabia would permit NATO forces to launch conventional air attacks on Yemen, so your argument is redundant. The US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen is all about supporting the Saudi & Yemeni dictatorships ergo regional US interests. I believe their are no NATO combat infantry based in Saudi Arabia or located in Yemen, so again your argument is not relevant to the OP.

OK,

I'll entertain this direction also.

What is your objection to the use of drones?

Don't have an objection to drones, as I concur with your argument that when correctly targeted they reduce overall civilian casualties. What I do object to is people thinking that their deployment will eradicate Islamic extremists as they are only a tactical tool.

When watching documentary interviews with UK combat forces personnel in Afghanistan they nearly always state they want to finish the job on the ground in recognition of their comrades who have been killed and injured. I guess US ground forces have the same view. A common opinion is that withdrawal of ground forces will eventually result going back to the situation that required ground forces deployment in the first place. In the meantime the enemy would have regrouped and strengthened their capabilities.

I couldn't agree with you more.

People have no idea what war looks like

but all engagements have a ebb and flow.

This is a withdraw because we cant stay there for ever, and its no longer effective.

The war continues. In a different manor and in different theaters

We may have to go back, its true.

And if we do what have we gained?

We gained preventing attacks on our home soil.

I personally think we should stay and finish the fight also

but have noticed that the infighting has increased with our pullout

so they may do part of the work themselves

lastly i welcome people with opposing views

that's why i was looking to get alternate perspectives here.

PS, Nice work Mod's on not allowing the narrow minded trash talk.

Ok, i'm off my soapbox, and headed for a drink and some dinner.

'night to you all, for a bit

[Gary A]

For those opposed to the drone strikes, I suppose that you think suicide car bombers and suicide bombers spare the civilians? One confusing thing is that if they can't kill infidels, they kill each other. Are different sects of muslims considered infidels too?

[Yahooka]

Not only Al Qaeda say so. Parents from dead children killed by US drones, children lost legs, arms and eyes by US drones, say so!!

Yeah.There seems to be no objection or condemnation with terrorist cowards hiding among civilians.

[simple1]

Well boo hoo Mr Quaeda...

What do these rats know about conventional warfare ???????

Why would a terrorist organisation in Yemen engage in conventional warfare?

[rijb]

I wonder if Argentina, etc. have any Al Qaeda problems...

[jamhar]

I wonder if Argentina, etc. have any Al Qaeda problems...

Latin America is heavily catholic. And the Atlantic and Pacific makes good barriers to ward off boat people. No chance in the foreseeable future. Some of the Soviet Republics with a healthy Islamic population may be vulnerable. But i bet the security forces will deal with them harshly.

I think SE Asia and Africa will be the next areas of concern,

Edited March 6, 2013 by jamhar

[rijb]

I'm certainly not an expert. But, I would judge democracies as 'pro-American' or 'anti-American' by what they do - not what they say.

Otherwise, you'd have to add Australia and the UK to the anti-American list - at least according to all the posts I've read in this forum...

[Chicog]

I'm certainly not an expert. But, I would judge democracies as 'pro-American' or 'anti-American' by what they do - not what they say.

Otherwise, you'd have to add Australia and the UK to the anti-American list - at least according to all the posts I've read in this forum...

It's easier to look at the oligarchies being propped up by America instead of being berated for their lack of democratic freedoms.

Saudi Arabia obviously springs to mind first and foremost ....