I mean the 'War on Islam' that the 'Christian West are fighting.
It's bullshit, the real tragedy is happening within Islam
In the same time that the US lost 2 people and the UK lost 1 to 'Islamic extremists' thousands upon thousands have died in Muslim-on-Muslim violence.
Whatever issue we perceive to have in Europe or the US look at what is happening daily across the Muslim world, the good news is we're doing what we can, we're supplying the weapons ......

Christian West? Bwahahahahaha... Stop! Pleaee! My sides hurt from lauhing so hard! Bwahahahahaha...

The 'War on Terror' is a euphemism for 'War on Islam'.
If it was a genuine 'War on Terror' would they not be at war with Israel?

Call me crazy, Nigs, but I thought it was well understood by everyone that when we waged 'war on terror', the terrorists we had in mind were the ones who happened to like targeting us. Say what you like about Israel, but they haven't been inclined to target the British for several decades now.

Nor has Israel targetted the US. And no, it isn't a war on Islam. It is a much more specific target than that. We have Muslims in this country and we aren't targetting them. We are tagretting extremists who run terrorist training camps and plan & execute actions of terror. You typical Muslim has naught to fear from the US military machine.

# Draug, the war on terror was also a mean to influence Muslim's communities in the USA and in the Western world. The general level of support or "understanding" in Muslims communities towards atrocities committed by Muslims terrorists was and is in itself shocking.

In that context, "influence" means:

1 show rationally your case to community leaders
2 divide "good and bad Muslims"
3 scare the undecided
4 go after the enablers

Not sure? check below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340243/Family-face-losing-200-000-home-landmark-ruling-grandfathers-terror-conviction.html

@ Nigee "Muslim-on-Muslim violence"? I can't find that category anywhere, you checking out one pretty kinky site :p

"You typical Muslim has naught to fear from the US military machine."

Lol draugnar. This is a 10/10 comment bro my sides

@Mpc - So we discourage and catch the extremists, scare straight the fence sitters, and reassure the peaceful folk. Is there a problem.with that? At least Jack Bauer isn't running around torturing innocent people who happen to live with bombmakers to find out where the bombs are. Despite Hollywood propaganda, we don't do that.

Nope, we just kill 'em. Their information isn't really that valuable.

Draug, your extremists' is someone else freedom fighters. The American war of inDependence was pretty much terrorist activity for the Brits... Plus once you blow the terrorists away, there are not much evidence left to back your claims. I agree the USA is a country with rules, despite Hollywood propaganda or euro "peaceniks". But It is not healthy to be the accuser, the judge and the executioner. This is what is happening with the drones.

"The American war of inDependence was pretty much terrorist activity for the Brits... "

Bullshit. Terrorism is intended to instill fear (hence the use of the word terror) in the population. Nothing is the US War of Independence in anyway targetted a British civilian. We didn't King George's homeland, only his representatives stationed on the land we owned and called home.

Freedom fighters attack occupiers and political targets inside their perceived territory. Terrorists attack inside other nations' territories and attack the civilian populace.

Draugnar the fact remains you are not entitled to a trial through the lens of a drone camera - you can't even choose to surrender. That's what makes it a war crime.

You aren't entitled to a trial and can't surrender through the scope of a sniper rifle or from a whole other slew of military weapons. Can you surrender to the B1 about to drop a bomb? The drone is no different.

Look people...

A drone is a weapon of war. We are at war. The drone is no different than the tank or the F22 or the A10 or the sniper rifle or any other slew of weapons. As long as the target is military in nature, I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is being able to declare anyone the President wants as an "enemy combatant". That is where our anger should lay. A person with radical ideas is not an enemy combatant until he commits or knowingly funds an attack.

I agree that the sniper rifle and B1 are also immoral and illegal.

"As long as the target is military in nature, I have no problem with it."

It frequently isn't in a situation of war.

Exact, SYnapse, you have villages, houses, families, and Draug, you did answer SYnapse's or my main point. You cannot accuse, prosecute, judge and execute, all in one go. The USA is not at war with Pakistan, but with terrorists. You need accountability. This administration finally recognize this point hence the passage of drones ops from CIA to the military.

for the OP's headline: fuck you.

There is also a question of scale. With Bush (I repeat, with W) you had 50 ops in all. Obama has already more than 300 under his blet and four more years to go...

The USA is a country of rules, not of exceptions that are becoming the rules. Where is the end of it?

"The USA is a country of rules, not of exceptions that are becoming the rules."

More the other way around...

Your economy is based on Pakistanis and Iraqis working in all shitty jobs so that you can stick your huge asses behind a desk. So shut the fuck up. There is no good racism and capitalism is antiracist by nature.

Synapse - so in your ridiculous world, before we shoot enemy combatants we should ask them to politely put down their arms and subject them to an interveiw? And then what? Ask them to nicely sit in our jails?

You may be one of those morons that think war is just an evil choice we make, and have some pie-in-the-sky idea that if everyone would just put on their tu-tu's and dance a pretty dance of peace there would be no war...but it ain't going to happen.

THEREFORE, since my fellow citizens, by necessity at times, do go to war, I would prefer that my brothers and sisters, cousins, neighbors, etc have the priveledge to kill the enemy from afar and keep themselves safe. Thus, I **love** me some B1's and sniper rifles. You mess with the bull, you get the horns. Or...you mess with the US...well...we will choose the time and method of your killing. Sorrry.

# steephie22 try to live in China, Russia. The USA is not a perfect country but it has a reasonably well functioning democracy and a relatively transparent economy. And I do not forget the debt, that we European, particularly French, we have.

#hellalt with due respect is more the other way around. The Iraqis were born with oil around. They are just extracting it and selling it to the world in order to feed their children and drive cars. A bit like the Saudis. As for the Pakistanis, they are a bankrupt country living on the back of my money through the IMF. And besides building dangerous nuclear bombs, I am unaware of what they have to offer the world. pistachios????

Unfortunately, the US uses far too few B1's in war anymore, precisely BECAUSE we dont' want to kill civilians, etc. Which is unfortunate....because historically, if you kill enough civies you create unrest and the wars tend to end. Perhaps if we would have spent more time carpet bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan and making the entire country uncomfortable for all, instead of trying o pinpoint the "bad guys'....then maybe the civies would have turned over the bad guys to keep their mud huts intact and we could have been out of there long ago....

Fucking lawyers have ruined war for us....sigh...

Sorry Krellin but might is not right. Not in the American tradition anyway. You find that in Russia or China. Great power privilege but not in the USA, and it is for that reason that weaker and smaller countries prefer American friendship than Russian or Chinese. Drones attack are an exception that has lasted too long and become too encompassing.
As for mass killing, I will not even bother answering. See Germany, WWII and the invasion of Ukraine. See the results.

It's hard to be liberal and a pacifist in modern times (the 60ies are gone), some commentators are doing the equivalent of "anthropomorphising", the vast majority of Pakistani's and Iraqi's and Palestinians etc just don't see the world the way you do and want to annihilate the opposition, they don't want to go to Disney, they want to keep they're wives under the thumb, stone gays and lesbians, and etch the word of Allah onto non-Muslims - wake up and get real, it is a war to the death for these guys, how many of you would choose to live in a fundamentalist Islamic state? Exactly. They won't give you a choice.

mpc - that was mostly unintelligible...but...

I didnt' say we were right because we have might. But when we are forced to war, you should go in, do it, and get it over with instead of shit like endless war that all this precision warfare has brought us to. Drones are an attempt (and a failure, I might ad) at trying to be precise in our killing. But 10 years in to the war in Afghanistan, where has this gotten us? Nowhere...

Should have gone in and leveled the place in the first couple year. Worst case? We be exactly where we are now....i.e. nowhere and everyone there hates us. Best case...more dead people, and less terrorists in Afghanistan....and probably still a bunch of people that hate us. It was a stupid war, conducted stupidly, with no positive outcome achievable. Shoudl never have done it...but it you are going to - then do it. Kill people and break shit and put the fear of God in them through high explosives. As it is, we go in there and try to be careful, etc and we look like a bunch of pussies, stirring the potm poking the hornets nest with a stick and demonstrating how weak and fearful we are of *truly* conducting a war.

The result of such tactics? Nobody respects the US...we have no moral authority in the world, and no influence to quell future violence in other regions of the world.

Thus, the lack of a properly conducted war was an immoral act, because it allows future violence in other parts of the world to be more likely, because nobody is afraid that we will put an *end* to you if you start a war.

@mpc - as for mass kilings, etc, WWII....we obliterated Germany and Japan...fire bombings, carpet bombings, etc....then we did the morally correct thing in the aftermath: We spent our wealth to rebuild them, and turned the countries BACK over to the population with governments that would be peaceful to the world. The result: Germany and Japan are some of our strongest allies. Might DOES make right when used properly in the context of an overall geo-political strategy.

@mpc: " #hellalt with due respect"

no respect is due Hellalt. He is a duchebag.

" capitalism is antiracist by nature" - brilliant ......and houses have feelings, concepts are emotional and philosophies are very sensitive.

Krellin, your second argument is better. My point was that Germany conducted a war of annihilation on its eastern front. The Ukrainians that were happy to leave the USSR were slaughtered like lambs. The result? They supported back their worse enemy, the Russians. Staline had a famous say after sending half the population of Chechenia in Gulags. He said that the same should have been done with Ukrainians.

Going to war with a purpose make sense. Pussy footing is wrong. I understand better where you are coming at. But a war, contrarily to what you think is not about killing people. It is about submission and breaking the will of your adversaries. The killing is a mean not an end in itself.