Jeremy Corbyn

[FairwayDodger]

Can you provide some proof and evidence of these quoted statistics please?

DFT's figures are, of course, incorrect. It's more like 96% of people killed are not the intended target....

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

 

[Blue in Munich]

Depends on the circumstances, situation & offence, although we were always told not to maim, if close enough without causing wider issues then take the head shot, otherwise hit the largest body mass, depending on the situation would be dependent on whether a double tap once down was justified!

Fish, if you've got a guy in a suicide vest, does the body shot risk setting off the explosives; by which I mean the bullet itself acting as the detonator if it hits the explosive, rather than the target's lack of consciousness releasing the trigger?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Drones 90% chance of failure to hit the target ?!

Is that a guess or from actual evidence ?

Drones have been very productive and have reduced the risk of our own pilots whilst also saving lives of other people.

The figure was quoted on the radio by an military 'expert'.
The 'uncomfirmed hits' was one in ten........sounds like the troops are either guessing or being deliberately misled by the target posters.

How many confirmed hits do we actually know of?
No bodies no proof.
Why did they not use a drone against bin Laden?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Fish, if you've got a guy in a suicide vest, does the body shot risk setting off the explosives; by which I mean the bullet itself acting as the detonator if it hits the explosive, rather than the target's lack of consciousness releasing the trigger?

A lot of the guys in Afghan with the suicide vests were fitted with dead man's triggers - snipers were told to aim for the forehead which I believe didn't give them enough time to release the trigger - hit to the body and the the trigger could be released.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The figure was quoted on the radio by an military 'expert'.
The 'uncomfirmed hits' was one in ten........sounds like the troops are either guessing or being deliberately misled by the target posters.

How many confirmed hits do we actually know of?
No bodies no proof.
Why did they not use a drone against bin Laden?

When was this radio broadcast - would expect that something mentioned like that would cause a Journo to react and add it to a national paper - quite a scandal to have only one in ten actually hit the intended target.

Drones are no different to air strikes.

They didn't use a drone against Bin Laden because at no time did they 100% know where he was.

 

[Blue in Munich]

A lot of the guys in Afghan with the suicide vests were fitted with dead man's triggers - snipers were told to aim for the forehead which I believe didn't give them enough time to release the trigger - hit to the body and the the trigger could be released.

My understanding of the dead man's trigger was precisely the opposite; the suicide bomber had to actively keep pressure on the switch to avoid detonation, thus in the event of being rendered unconscious or killed the vest detonated.

 

[Fish]

DFT's figures are, of course, incorrect. It's more like 96% of people killed are not the intended target....

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

That report clearly doesn't state as dft was alluding to that the drones themselves have a 90% failure to hit the intended target, as that biased report shows, they've hit the target which was fed to them by intelligence but at times the individual wasn't there, but that's not to say that the drone wasn't 100% accurate, it can only hit the target that's fed into it. The problem with these kind of terrorist they will hide themselves and even set up missile launches in and around schools, hospitals and heavily populated areas, if they have to be a casualty of war, then that's unfortunate, notice is usually given in extreme circumstances so innocents can move, nobody wants to see it but then nobody wants to see repeats of all the murders they do across Europe, so, whilst there isn't an easy liberal answer, if intelligence states that Mr Murderer is in position A, then we bomb position A, simples, it's for the greater good and will save far more innocent lives along the line.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Did I say that? Where?

Democratic and moral authority rest on the rule of law and administration of justice. It is therefore preferable to detain and prosecute people rather than summarily bomb or drone them. Sometimes it isn't possible to do the former, but sometimes it is just politically expedient to drone them and avoid questions and answers.

Nobody here weeps any tears for this waste of oxygen, but the drone hit him and he probably didn't even know about it. Would it not be better, if possible, to arrest him, drag him back for trial and then throw him in a tin box for the duration?

Still with you^^^

 

[Deleted member 15344]

My understanding of the dead man's trigger was precisely the opposite; the suicide bomber had to actively keep pressure on the switch to avoid detonation, thus in the event of being rendered unconscious or killed the vest detonated.

There is something about hitting a specific area in the brain that keeps the finger or hand locked in position -

 

[Old Skier]

My understanding of the dead man's trigger was precisely the opposite; the suicide bomber had to actively keep pressure on the switch to avoid detonation, thus in the event of being rendered unconscious or killed the vest detonated.

Is the norm

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Like I replied before, the humiliation of capture, look at Saddam's pathetic pictures, the information you may get from interrogation, what if the risk of 8-20 Soldiers attempting a capture could've prevented 9/11. Nobody makes these calls before all avenues have been explored, a situation like Paris, absolutely shoot to kill, give them no chance,

Capturing him would seem a lot more beneficial use of JJs life than taking him out as had been done. Militarily he was nothing and the risk he himself posed to British (if we have to refer to 'our' forces) lives was minimal.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Capturing him would seem a lot more beneficial use of JJs life than taking him out as had been done. Militarily he was nothing and the risk he himself posed to British (if we have to refer to 'our' forces) lives was minimal.

What provides the basis for that statement ?

How did you conclude that the risk was minimal ?

 

[Fish]

My understanding of the dead man's trigger was precisely the opposite; the suicide bomber had to actively keep pressure on the switch to avoid detonation, thus in the event of being rendered unconscious or killed the vest detonated.

The vests I came into contact with were not that sophisticated, it was a trigger in the full sense of the word, they had to press it or pull it, not sure if they've advanced much over the last few years to reverse pressures, I'd always go for a headshot if a known declared bomber with a vest on was in good enough range, my rules of engagement gave me that right, you can't bring him down only for him to detonate as you approach him, its all or nothing sometimes and you have a split second to make that call, not take time to review everything, there's usually more than 1 of them so take the shot and move...!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The figure was quoted on the radio by an military 'expert'.
The 'uncomfirmed hits' was one in ten........sounds like the troops are either guessing or being deliberately misled by the target posters.

How many confirmed hits do we actually know of?
No bodies no proof.
Why did they not use a drone against bin Laden?

They tried to capture Bin Laden, but as said before they had authority to use lethal force if required, plus they/we got computers and other intelligence material that you don't get from a Drone.
Nobody is saying Drones are the only option, they are safer, for us and your analogy of the train carriage, if the train carriage itself is the target then it's a 100% success, no method is fall proof, it just depends on the situation as to what weapon you choose.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Capturing him would seem a lot more beneficial use of JJs life than taking him out as had been done. Militarily he was nothing and the risk he himself posed to British (if we have to refer to 'our' forces) lives was minimal.

Totally disagree, there are situations were you have no choice, he was legitimate target and at times Drones will be the only option, I'm 100% convinced all other options would of been discussed and ruled out.

 

[Fish]

Still with you^^^

You 2 just need to get a room....

 

[Doon frae Troon]

JJ was a modern day Lord Haw Haw.
Nothing to prove that he was anywhere near or involved in the killings. They probably just used his voice.

By targets, I meant the individual targeted not the geographical position.

 

[Old Skier]

You 2 just need to get a room....

 

[Deleted member 15344]

JJ was a modern day Lord Haw Haw.
Nothing to prove that he was anywhere near or involved in the killings. They probably just used his voice.

By targets, I meant the individual targeted not the geographical position.

So JJ wasn't in the beheading videos then ?

The drone is the same as any air strike - they can only act on the intelligence given and go for that target

If the individual that was the target leaves before the drone gets there that's not a fault of the drone - it would be no different to an air strike doing the same thing.

 

[Old Skier]

JJ was a modern day Lord Haw Haw.
Nothing to prove that he was anywhere near or involved in the killings. They probably just used his voice.

By targets, I meant the individual targeted not the geographical position.

Not sure if you have seen the vids but I suppose they could have been doctored