Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Stop Britain being used as a Launchpad for Killer Drones.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 265 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Apr 2013 19:27:51 BDT
Brian Harris says:
I am not sure why you think that death by drone is somehow more morally objectionable than death by terrorist or death by suicide bomber. I would be happy to see the first stopped if you could you could stop the second.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Apr 2013 19:36:25 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Apr 2013 20:35:17 BDT
Could be because of her irrational hatred of the USA and all of the drones are theirs.

Now if AQ were using drones to attack The White House (cue the movie), her and her juvenile pals on here would all be cheering, like they're doing over Thatcher's death.

Posted on 11 Apr 2013 08:11:23 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 11 Apr 2013 18:00:34 BDT]

Posted on 11 Apr 2013 08:13:25 BDT
Pipkin says:
HI Brian,
Where did I say that I felt death by drone was more objectionable than death by terrorist or suicide bomber?
I am totally against death by any method used in Wars, and beleive that there are those in the world who have vested interests to see conflict inflamed, rather than sit down and work at a compromise. Unlike some, I would never dream of attacking or killing someone because I disagreed with them?
I personally do not believe a tenth of the propaganda we are fed, and know from my own experience that the majority of people would prefer to arrive at an amicable solution rather than resort to killing.
When you say that you would be happy to see the first stopped if I could put a stop to the second... well... where do we start?
For the attention of Gordon:
Perhaps it might do ou well to try researching a little, then you will discover for yourself that the AQuida were and still are CIA funded.

***Robin Cook, the Database and Secrets
On the day after the July 7th, 2005 bombings on London transport, former foreign secretary Robin Cook MP wrote what turned out to be his penultimate newspaper column for the Guardian. In it he revealed something about al-Qaeda that perhaps he shouldn't have.

Bin Laden was, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

As far as I know, this was the first time publicly, in the anglophone world, that the al-Qaeda name had been explained as referring to a computer database.

In the francophone world, a colourful former French military intelligence officer, Pierre-Henri Bunel, had had a book published in 2004, "Proche-Orient, une guerre mondiale?" An extract went into some detail of how al-Qaeda originally referred to a computer database of Islamist fighters. But, AFAIK, it was not until after Robin Cook had revealed the same in the Guardian, and after his death a month later, that an English translation of Bunel's words appeared on the web. It's a rough translation, which doesn't read well. But the basic outline of his account accords with what Cook had revealed.
Robin Cook knew nothing about P-H Bunel's book or article, and his knowledge of the origin of the Qaeda name stemmed solely from his time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In other words, both men had, independently of each other had revealed, as they understood it, that the designation 'al-Qaeda' had originally referred to a computer database. And, according to Bunel, that that name had been operative at least by the mid-'80s.

But yesterday MI5 the government published its 'narrative' of the July 7th bombings. Annex 3 of the whitewash was a chronology of the development of modern jihadism. Extract:
c1984 Radical preacher Abdullah Azzam set up an organisation called Maktab al-Khidmat (MAK) "Bureau of Services" to disseminate propaganda about jihad in Afghanistan. Usama bin Laden (UbL) joins.

1989 Withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. UbL returns to Saudi Arabia. Decision by MAK to continue to support jihadist causes. Thinking around "the base" or "foundation" (translation: Al Qaida) for further operations articulated.

1988-89 UbL disagreement over focus of the cause and starts to form Al Qaida. [...]

So, MI5's version of the aetiology of the 'Qaeda' name makes no mention of computer databases, or its use by western intelligence agencies before 1989, and it repeats previous explanations as to its origins. So, either Cook and Bunel were wrong, or they were right but wrong to reveal it. And while Bunel is a peripheral figure lacking credibility, Robin Cook was neither.

When I first read Cook's July 8th article, and the zinger about 'al-Qaeda' as a database, I wondered about what secret he might reveal to us next. But now I wonder about what, say, MI6 thought about the possibility of the former foreign secretary, who had signed the Official Secrets Act for life, revealing other things that he shouldn't (if, that is, the database story were true). Then, it would have become a matter of national security. How could they prevent him from repeating his mistake? Could they have had him arrested and charged under the OSA? Did they try to speak to him, between July 8th and August 6th, 2005, to warn him as to his future conduct?

If Robin Cook was starting to spill secrets, his ''sudden death'' one month later would have saved the defence, intelligence and security services from having to confront a difficult problem, one which would have had no obvious, certain solution.
***
The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA....Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

It seemed like a great idea, back in the '80s to- embolden- and train and equip- Taliban, Mujahidin, Jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support- this group- including Bin Laden, at that time - defeated the Soviet Union...... Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Oct. 7th, 2009
NOTE: Just as I cut and pasted this piece from the net, all the relevent data was suddenly blacked out.... how odd.... freedom of information or what?
Regards,
Margaret

Posted on 11 Apr 2013 11:24:06 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Margaret. Fitzcaraldo by the Frames. Cx

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Apr 2013 14:59:01 BDT
Hibernicus says:
"Is no worse than the Catholic religion was not so long ago...
Burning people at the stake. Hanging drawing and quartering people, and the rest. Ooops, that wass the Catholics?"

We Catholics stopped perpetrating that sort of thing by about 1800. It can no longer be used as a stick with which to beat us.

Posted on 11 Apr 2013 23:26:32 BDT
Charlieost says:
No Hibernicus. But you have given us plenty more sticks to beat you with since then and since you are probably well aware of them there is no need to remind you. Although it is tempting. Certainly would not be telling a priest to get thee behind me. Not that there is anything wrong with that unless one gets caught thirty years later when the grown ups decide that they can no longer live with what happened to them as children.

Savita Hallapanavas husband might have something to say about your Catholic ethos. Big news in Ireland at the mo. As is the goverments decision not to allow grants for your archaic money making rites for children.

The power is slipping Hib despite the new touchy feely pope. Shudder. C

Posted on 12 Apr 2013 07:08:24 BDT
I don't see the big deal about her to be honest - she lived in a country where abortion is illegal unless the mothers life is at risk; when she entered the hospital seeking a termination her life was not at risk at that point therefore would not get an abortion. It's an accidental death due to medical negligence in treating her infection.
It is the miscarriage and consequent poor cleansing of the womb leading to blood poisoning that caused her death - not the lack of an abortion. If she'd had the abortion then it is most probable that she still would not have been cleansed properly and therefore still died of septicemia.

Posted on 12 Apr 2013 08:59:25 BDT
Spin says:
There are children who die every day, both within and beyond the womb. It was circumstances, not religion or politics, that resulted in the tragedy. Where was the "father"? Where was the family? (Except at media calls). Please. Nature has an odd way of creating moral conflict. Don't let it.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2013 22:14:02 BDT
Charlieost says:
Unless you are following the Savita Hallapanavar case in the Irish press and on our TV Spin, I suggest that your input is without background knowledge or to put it more simply. You do not know what you are talking about. C

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Apr 2013 08:00:04 BDT
i wouldn't think there would be any reason. nor do i know if it is or isn't. i think it would be cruel not to!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Apr 2013 08:14:25 BDT
Charlieost says:
[Margaret] does seem blinkered by an overwhelming hatred of Israel

i guess so, "C". i just came from my last post with her on another thread. i try to not assume that such is true, not because it is a rare thing, but because so many people seem to ignorant and fall easily for one side of an argument. i am not immune from it myself.

So, you were called a sheep on a racist site! i don't know if you heard of a cartoonist, Gary Larson, here who wrote one-box cartoons, called "The Far Side". You must reminded me of one in which there was a flock of sheep, and one of the sheep stood up and yelled, "Listen to me, everybody! We don't have to be sheep!" A racist calling others sheep...

a week or so later, but best wishes to you, too :-)

Posted on 18 Apr 2013 19:09:17 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Leonard. I do not see how taking sides and refusing to recognise the atrocities commited by both sides can ever be seen as any solution. The history of the people affected is very important as well.

Northern Ireland is a good example of a situation which can actually be resolved. Would Margaret have demanded that the protestand decendants of the Elizabethan plantations and subsequent immigrants leave the country as a solution to the troubles. She seems to support that ideology as a way forward in Palestine/Israel. Crazy thinking. C

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Apr 2013 11:38:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 Apr 2013 12:08:35 BDT
Pipkin says:
What on earth are you on Charlie?
I really object to you accusing me of hating Isreal! Prove that I did? Your comments are typical of someone who is trying to discredit someone with lies and aspersions. I stated a fact that the displaced Jews ''from Germany'' had every right to inhabit the 6% of land purchased from the British, but not the diaspora. I also said that I objected to the fact that the Palestinians have been systematically pushed off the land they have lived on for thousands of years. FACT.
Show me proof that this is not so...
Try doing some reading yourself before you sling accusations:
On your own admission you can't be bothered to read what I write.. so why feel qualified to comment?
It is amazing what you can learn once you get going, and it isn't as difficult as you would think..
......................
The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict
Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East
Jews for Justice has made this excellent resource available to people around the world.

As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational "terrorists" who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice.
This paper outlines the history of Palestine to show how this process occurred and what a moral solution to the region's problems should consist of. If you care about the people of the Middle East, Jewish and Arab, you owe it to yourself to read this account of the other side of the historical record.
The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930's and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation. But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic "land without people for a people without land" was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html
.....................

And to address your next crackpot statement - why would I demand that protestant descendents of Elizabethan plantations and immigrants leave the country as a solution to the troubles? You get sillier by the day....

What I would actually like to see... is that all people tried getting along and live together, and the only way this will ever be achieved, imo, is when RELIGION becomes illegal, and humanity becomes a priority.

Refrain if you can from putting your words and predjudices onto me... it is so peurile..
You are becoming very tedious with your bigotted digs and I can't see me having any further conversations with you, because imo you are the one with the blinkers on, who even admits to refusing to read anything that doesn't fit in with your intransigent views, yet insists on sticking his foot in his mouth at every opportunity..
Where on earth could I have got the impression you were an intelligent decent bloke from?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Apr 2013 14:47:18 BDT
Charlieost says:
Ah Margaret. So many questions. I will answer the first one last. You got the impression that I was a intellegent decent bloke from when I was agreeing with you about something. It is what you always do Mararet. If someone agrees with you they get that acolade. If they do not, then no matter how qualified they are or how reasonable their statement then they are to you either a schill or sheeple.

And if you think that taking away peoples right to worship as they wish will lead to peace on earth then you could be accused of naievity but far be it from me to do so.

I do not think that I am projecting words or predjudices onto you Margaret. You are so filled with your own that I doubt there is room for mine.

So you do not like what I say so you may no longer read my posts. Does that not sound just a little bigotted to you Mags? C

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Apr 2013 18:06:41 BDT
"the only way this will ever be achieved, imo, is when RELIGION becomes illegal"

I asked you before, but why do you think that ?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Apr 2013 19:48:18 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Chas,
>And if you think that taking away people's right to worship as they wish will lead to peace on earth then you could be accused of naievity but far be it from me to do so.<
I have no wish at all to take away anyone's right to 'worship' anything as they see as suits their life style.... but my concern is when people insist that they are the only ones who have access to the 'truth.' When on point of fact we are all one 'in the same boat'...... ignorant?
I am just disappointed that I held your opnions in such high regard, only to find that you are just another who would prefer to have a knee jerk reaction to something they would prefer not to investigate......
Did you actually read the link I posted to you?
To accuse me of being 'ist'or partisan, I find extremely insulting.
When I actually do my damndest to investigate all angles of problems. But as I said in numerous other posts, I am more than aware, that information delivered to us is diversive and partisan. But the facts remain...if we care to look for them .. despite all the obfuscation.... a glimpe of the truth can still be seen..
I really don't want you of all people accusing me of being ignorant and naive when you know I am not! I may well have different opinions and conclusions than you... but, we each of us are actually stumbling about in the dark, and can only form opinions on the information we have access too.
The argument that each and everyone of us have about politics and religion has been designed by those of greater manipulative powers to keep us seperate and diversive..... When in point of fact we are more similar than we could ever imagine........
Can't you see that to argue, and try scoring points off one another, is simply playing into their hands?
Regards,
Mags.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Apr 2013 21:18:15 BDT
"if you think that taking away people's right to worship as they wish will lead to peace on earth then you could be accused of naivety ... I have no wish at all to take away anyone's right to 'worship' anything as they see as suits their life style"

You said above that religion would need to be illegal for people to live and get along ..??

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Apr 2013 23:37:07 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Margaret. As you well know. If we became effective enough to be dangerous then we would not be around for long. I admire your obvious sincerity and dedication though I do not always agree with you. Cx

That's the way I interpreted the statement as well K.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Apr 2013 12:41:49 BDT
Pipkin says:
Religion V, as in organised religion and dogma... not the right of people to worship... I 'worship' Nature and the Universe, and believe that all people should have the same priviledge if they choose, and not be forced through guilt or threat of harm.
Is that clear enough honey?
Mx

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 09:47:29 BDT
Charlieost says:
So Margaret. If you could by magic obliterate all this God nonsense from peoples heads and at the same time vanish all the churches and temples etc, would you do so. I would have done so in a flash last night when I was stuck in the car behind the crowd coming out of mass up the village and our chips were getting cold. I would do so in a flash anyway. Start again without the dogma and debris. It is all rubbish anyway. C

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 18:04:51 BDT
Pipkin says:
Ideally I wish churches and temples had never been thought of. But for some people they are a place of comfort, regardless of which 'religion.' So who am I to want to 'vanish' them. What I have the problem with is the 'dogma', 'mystery' and devisiveness, deliberately designed imo by those who gain most.. like the priests. Which I believe leads to hate and wars?

Now, if people want to get together to discuss their feelings about the Universe, as 'Friends' do, and we do with our friends.... I have no objection, becasue at the end of the day, each and every one of us are/is inquisitive about where we came from, what is the purpose of our lives, and where we are going. My only truth in this life is to love and be as tolerant, understanding and considerate as I possibly can be. Values that are considered in these times to be naive. I have to admit that I really struggle with the concept of forgiveness for those who individually want to hurt, harm or 'put down' people, at the behest of Governments and churches, so I am far from perfect. But I do try... to remember what my Grannies and Mum used to say... walk a mile in my shoes?
Did you ever read the link I sent you> Written by the actual Jews who lived/live in Palestine? That is one of the few articles I have ever read that put the Palestine problem into a true perspective for me.
As you say, and I agree 'Start again without the dogma and debris' becasue 'religion' is all rubbish anyway, imho. One 'god/creator, or whatever name floats your boat, and one 'universe.' Accessible to each and every one of us... totally inclusive, regardless of belief in a particular dogma?
Peace and love to you and yours Chas.
Mx

Posted on 30 Apr 2013 15:08:21 BDT
Pipkin says:
Last Saturday saw hundreds march to RAF Waddington against the UK government's use of Drones in Afghanistan, now controlled from the military airbase near Lincoln.

The largest demonstration against drones to date brought together Stop the War, War on Want, the Drone Campaign Network and CND and more than 600 members of the public to launch a national campaign against drones.

The pressure of our campaign has already been felt after the Ministry of Defence was forced to admit just two days before the protest that the Waddington control centre is now in operation. But much of the secrecy about how British drones are being used, and the threat of new interventions, remains.

A comment in January by the Secretary of State for Defence showed just how easy a new intervention might be when he had turned down a request from France to send drones to Mali because of the "unacceptable impact on our operations in Afghanistan". The question of whether or not British people want a new war in Mali was not even raised.

The widespread media coverage on drones that Saturday's demonstration has provoked has started an important debate about their use and showed just how important a strong anti-drones campaign will be in the coming months.

Stop the War would like to thank all those who participated in Saturday's successful demo

Read the report from Common Dreams on the Ground the Drones demo, including TV reports from Sky and the BBC
David Shariatmadari argues that drones might be changing more minds about war now that killing is conducted from our doorstep
Sign our petition and share with your friends

Already signed by former archbishop Dr Rowan Williams, Dennis Halliday (former UN Assistant Secretary-General) and almost 4000 others. Please sign our petition to call on the government to abandon the use of drones as a weapon of war.

Posted on 30 Apr 2013 19:58:10 BDT
Spin says:
Killing by remote control. The word "Cowardice" pops into my mind...

Posted on 30 Apr 2013 20:02:57 BDT
Spin says:
No doubt medals will be awarded for superior hand-eye co-ordination and a new benefit will be made available to soldiers who strain their joystick hand..
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  26
Total posts:  265
Initial post:  29 Mar 2013
Latest post:  13 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions