Drone strikes

And of course it's the all important 'fair' if a captured and bound man has his head hacked off, and on camera. And the film shown to the world.

I dunno how that happened

How on earth can war ever be 'fair'?!! The latest murder of a Chinese and a Norwegian man isn't 'fair'. The subjugation and murder of the Yazidi people isn't 'fair'. Nothing in war is 'fair'. You fight it with every weapon you can muster, being fair doesn't come into it, either you're doing it or you're not doing it, there is no half way house. Using drones means that you don't risk losing aircrew if they are shot down as you risk doing with conventional bombers, and as the whole idea is keep service personal as safe as possible on these missions from these murdering maniacs, it would make sense to use drones.

anya I understood exactly, including the sic, but had I agreed more overtly there might have been accusations of clique-forming!

I cannot begin to tell you how very much I want to "protect my own" - but I do not want the powers that be to escalate the situation.

Ducking the question Annie?

No, I'll change that from a question to a statement.

Ducking the question I see Annie

Good post nigglynellie.

I am against war but accept when all else fails then there is no other option .

How many years would you be willing to wait?

The people we should be talking to are the moderate muslims - they are the ones who can wield the influence needed.

I think I thought that about 12 months ago. But not so sure there is that much they can do at this very late stage.

nigglienelly as someone who has a near relative currently serving in the military and having had a son in law killed in Afghanistan believe me when I say that I want service personnel kept as safe as possible. I also don't want anonymous drones killing innocent people at the rate of 6/1 for every legitimate target killed. Trying to square that circle keeps me awake at night; literally, at the moment.

No one wants innocent people killed, but keeping service personnel as safe as possible is top priority in the situation we now find ourselves in. We all know what will happen to airmen who fall into IS's hands, and their protection is paramount. I'm afraid this can't be compromised under any circumstances imo.

I don't want any member of our armed forces hurt, but a child in Syria is not there by choice , I have a son in law presently working in the Middle East and I fear for him but it is his choice

I dont get why anyone ever thinks that war is possible without innocent people getting caught up in it.

It has never been possible, and still isnt even in these more technological times.

You're absolutely right soon, not to involve civilians would be completely impossible, protection of our armed forces is of top most importance.

It seems to me, that there are only about 50,000 of them. Which is a tiny number.
They can cause damage and upheaval and fear, but personally, number wise, when this is all over, purely by numbers, I dont think they will have killed or injured vast numbers.
Obviously I could be wrong.
But for me at least, I dont see this as being on a par of ww3

It is precisely because civilians would be killed in a war that we need to avoid escalating one.

Who do you think is getting killed right now?

So how do we do that luckygirl? Sit back and let these maniacs kill us all including the poor people in the middle east?

If we are playing a numbers game, your way is and will be far far worse. Partly because they wont stop until............................ they kill each other I suppose.

I know we are not talking about this kind of drones- but I am seriously concerned about the proliferation of small private 'toy' dromes for the public. It would be quite 'simple' for such a 'toy' to be deliberately dropped in an inner city centre or stadium, carrying anthrax or other deadly chemical!

What do you think? (and sorry for diversion to another kind of drone'

No, I think what you're saying is very relevant granjura. It would be very easy for a terrorist to use drones in this way. Oh dear, one .more horror to worry about!

It seems to me, that there are only about 50,000 of them. Which is a tiny number.

Who are you talking about, soontobe? If you mean jihadists, I think that figure is a massive underestimate.

carrying anthrax or other deadly chemical!

I think I am right in saying that is hard to get the right chemicals?

Ana. Yes jihadists. Only 50,000 according to someone who has written a book and studied the subject

www.amazon.co.uk/The-ISIS-Apocalypse-Strategy-Doomsday/dp/1250080908
for anyone who is interested

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/ba-pilots-eye-damaged-by-military-laser-shone-into-cockpit-at-heathrow

This is a bit worrying as well.