SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (55) down (51)
Russell Brand on US drone policy

Russell Brand on US drone policy

(1:33) Russell Brand was asked what he thought about US drone policy. Here's what he had to say.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: stashgal (2977 days ago)
I have the latest Adobe flash player but I still see only a black screen here.NO VIDEO!
ReplyVote up (145)down (119)
Original comment
I have the latest Adobe flash player but I still see only a black screen here.NO VIDEO!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (2977 days ago)
GOD F U C * KING DAMMIT! adblocker! on and off! add blocker! FFS man!
ReplyVote up (127)down (142)
Original comment
GOD F U C * KING DAMMIT! adblocker! on and off! add blocker! FFS man!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (2976 days ago)
haha, that's the funniest you've ever been.
ReplyVote up (124)down (119)
Original comment
haha, that's the funniest you've ever been.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (2976 days ago)
i provide negative motivation when positive motivation, good behaviour and pseudo pertinent discussions seem to get us nowhere.
ReplyVote up (128)down (132)
Original comment
i provide negative motivation when positive motivation, good behaviour and pseudo pertinent discussions seem to get us nowhere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
0dnalgnec 0dnalgnec (2976 days ago)
Why don't you just fuking die and go to hell.
ReplyVote up (132)down (124)
Original comment
Why don't you just fuking die and go to hell.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (2976 days ago)
because yer mum loves my co*k in her arse! you should try me co*k in your arse, it makes your ribcage crackle, ya fekin piece of sheit thief fok! fok off ya sheit bucket!
ReplyVote up (134)down (138)
Original comment
because yer mum loves my co*k in her arse! you should try me co*k in your arse, it makes your ribcage crackle, ya fekin piece of sheit thief fok! fok off ya sheit bucket!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: secretsurfer (2975 days ago)
This is obviously FAKE
ReplyVote up (155)down (149)
Original comment
This is obviously FAKE
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Richard_JN (2977 days ago)
I think that's precisely why we should only have manned aircraft (and the UN should ban drones in the same way as land-mines). If there's no risk to the pilots on our side, then the enemy lives are considered cheap. It makes it much easier for our politicians to attack without protest from their own side, no matter what "collateral damage" may occur, and no matter how limited the tactical benefit may be. (Also, it's not "good guys vs terrorists", it's "our humans vs their humans")
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
I think that's precisely why we should only have manned aircraft (and the UN should ban drones in the same way as land-mines). If there's no risk to the pilots on our side, then the enemy lives are considered cheap. It makes it much easier for our politicians to attack without protest from their own side, no matter what "collateral damage" may occur, and no matter how limited the tactical benefit may be. (Also, it's not "good guys vs terrorists", it's "our humans vs their humans")
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The Irish (2977 days ago)
How's that land mine ban working out for you? Doesn't seem to have had much effect on the folks planting them, or the limbless children that discovered those hiding places...but yes, I agree completely that there must be a leveling of the field....and its logical conclusion: the more dead British soldiers, the better off we all are.
ReplyVote up (106)down (102)
Original comment
How's that land mine ban working out for you? Doesn't seem to have had much effect on the folks planting them, or the limbless children that discovered those hiding places...but yes, I agree completely that there must be a leveling of the field....and its logical conclusion: the more dead British soldiers, the better off we all are.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2977 days ago)
Russell Brand says, "I realised that actually there's incredible human consequences to drone strikes." It's not the fact that those drones are unmanned because the same problem would happen if there was an actual pilot in the seat. There is no difference in the decisions being made regarding when to fire because there is always a human that makes the decision and not a machine. The benefit of a drone is that it is unmanned so if it is shot down by the enemy, no harm comes to the pilot. It would be like driving a remote control surveillance vehicle into a dark cave to find a terrorist instead of risking the lives of an army soldier. The less we have to risk the lives of the good guys, the better. I would rather a terrorist blow up a remote controlled vehicle than kill a human.
ReplyVote up (154)down (153)
Original comment
Russell Brand says, "I realised that actually there's incredible human consequences to drone strikes." It's not the fact that those drones are unmanned because the same problem would happen if there was an actual pilot in the seat. There is no difference in the decisions being made regarding when to fire because there is always a human that makes the decision and not a machine. The benefit of a drone is that it is unmanned so if it is shot down by the enemy, no harm comes to the pilot. It would be like driving a remote control surveillance vehicle into a dark cave to find a terrorist instead of risking the lives of an army soldier. The less we have to risk the lives of the good guys, the better. I would rather a terrorist blow up a remote controlled vehicle than kill a human.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2977 days ago)
'The good guys..' this isn't cowboys and indians, the bad guys don't wear black hats. We're all wearing grey hats.
ReplyVote up (158)down (144)
Original comment
'The good guys..' this isn't cowboys and indians, the bad guys don't wear black hats. We're all wearing grey hats.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2977 days ago)
You don't think terrorists are the bad guys?
ReplyVote up (160)down (140)
Original comment
You don't think terrorists are the bad guys?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Devil Devil (2977 days ago)
Those terrorists will be with me. They will not receive any virgins down here.
ReplyVote up (140)down (152)
Original comment
Those terrorists will be with me. They will not receive any virgins down here.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (2977 days ago)
f u c * k my arse and call me shirley! i have to hand it to ya, ya fekin nickname stealing troll! you must have created 3 or 4 accounts in the past week. god, religiousnut, somethinsomethin and now this one. my hat is off to ya! ya cum gobbling twat!
ReplyVote up (139)down (152)
Original comment
f u c * k my arse and call me shirley! i have to hand it to ya, ya fekin nickname stealing troll! you must have created 3 or 4 accounts in the past week. god, religiousnut, somethinsomethin and now this one. my hat is off to ya! ya cum gobbling twat!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2977 days ago)
It ain't that simple cengland0.
ReplyVote up (131)down (147)
Original comment
It ain't that simple cengland0.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2977 days ago)
I think it is that simple. Anyone who purposely kills innocent people to instill terror is evil. The hijackers on 9/11 were evil. They were terrorists. The people on those planes and the people in the twin towers were not military targets. Do you know of any good terrorists because I don't.
ReplyVote up (139)down (145)
Original comment
I think it is that simple. Anyone who purposely kills innocent people to instill terror is evil. The hijackers on 9/11 were evil. They were terrorists. The people on those planes and the people in the twin towers were not military targets. Do you know of any good terrorists because I don't.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2977 days ago)
1948, the King David Hotel is bombed in Jerusalem...by the very people that went on to become the Israeli government. Every one of them with the blood soaked hands of a terrorist. I understand you wish that the word terrorist was always preceded by the word "Arab", but it just ain't so. Just ask the Puerto Rican nationalists that fired machine guns from the gallery onto the floor of the US Congress, and tried to assassinate President Truman. Yep, brown skinned, but not Arabic.
ReplyVote up (126)down (137)
Original comment
1948, the King David Hotel is bombed in Jerusalem...by the very people that went on to become the Israeli government. Every one of them with the blood soaked hands of a terrorist. I understand you wish that the word terrorist was always preceded by the word "Arab", but it just ain't so. Just ask the Puerto Rican nationalists that fired machine guns from the gallery onto the floor of the US Congress, and tried to assassinate President Truman. Yep, brown skinned, but not Arabic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (2977 days ago)
By your own definition then Americans are terrorists. Look at the fire bombings in Tokyo and of course the nuclear bombing of non military targets Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also the use of " double tap" dropping two bombs, one 5-10 minutes after the initial one I believe is an illegal act and also insures many innocent civilians going to help the wounded etc. Are also caught. That is terrorism. As for 911 how else do you expect some to hit back with limited resources and manpower against one of the major war powers in the world? America was warned what would happen and why, to a certain extent they asked for it.
ReplyVote up (135)down (152)
Original comment
By your own definition then Americans are terrorists. Look at the fire bombings in Tokyo and of course the nuclear bombing of non military targets Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also the use of " double tap" dropping two bombs, one 5-10 minutes after the initial one I believe is an illegal act and also insures many innocent civilians going to help the wounded etc. Are also caught. That is terrorism. As for 911 how else do you expect some to hit back with limited resources and manpower against one of the major war powers in the world? America was warned what would happen and why, to a certain extent they asked for it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2976 days ago)
Those bombings in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were due to an act of war started by Japan. We declared war on Japan and those bombs ended that war. How can you say that dropping two bombs within 10 minutes of each other is illegal? Show me the law. Besides, if you watch old WWII footage, you will see air raids where more than one bomb is dropped on cities within the same second from multiple airplanes. As for 911, are you saying those innocent people that were killed were warned ahead of time and it was appropriate for the terrorists to kill those innocent people?
ReplyVote up (167)down (177)
Original comment
Those bombings in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were due to an act of war started by Japan. We declared war on Japan and those bombs ended that war. How can you say that dropping two bombs within 10 minutes of each other is illegal? Show me the law. Besides, if you watch old WWII footage, you will see air raids where more than one bomb is dropped on cities within the same second from multiple airplanes. As for 911, are you saying those innocent people that were killed were warned ahead of time and it was appropriate for the terrorists to kill those innocent people?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (2976 days ago)
Not so fast, you know perfectly well I NEVER said they were illegal. By your own definition "Anyone who purposely kills innocent people is evil" you then equate the 911 attack as evil and therefore terrorists. It matters not wether you declare war or not, although Alqaida declared war on America so does that make it okay? Either way American forces targeted innocent civilians, just like Alqaida did on 911, to effect an outcome. Either they are both terrorists or not, in your definition. Those planes dropping bombs you talk about in WW2 were in effect carpet bombing because they did not have the ability to pinpoint bomb as they have today dropping a bomb in exactly the same place. Your argument is weak and you know it. I never said the 911 victims were warned, I said Americas as a whole were warned that they were going to be attacked and why and how they could avoid it. OBL spelled it out that he objected to American presence and intervention on Muslim lands, America decided to stay and reaped the consequences. Unless you believe the incredible BS that they envied your freedoms... As for the double taps being illegal it's obvious. The first strike aimed at taking out an individual maybe okay but the second strike is targeting those that come to help, this could be anybody and often is, women, children etc. The deliberate targeting of civilians is illegal isn't it? You may try and argue it isn't deliberate but that would be a pathetic argument because they now full well who is on the ground and who is rushing in to help yet they still drop the second bomb. So either you are okay with targeting civilians hence 911 was also okay as in alls fair in love and war or your own govt. is a terrorist organisation...which is it, you can't have it both ways.
ReplyVote up (167)down (142)
Original comment
Not so fast, you know perfectly well I NEVER said they were illegal. By your own definition "Anyone who purposely kills innocent people is evil" you then equate the 911 attack as evil and therefore terrorists. It matters not wether you declare war or not, although Alqaida declared war on America so does that make it okay? Either way American forces targeted innocent civilians, just like Alqaida did on 911, to effect an outcome. Either they are both terrorists or not, in your definition. Those planes dropping bombs you talk about in WW2 were in effect carpet bombing because they did not have the ability to pinpoint bomb as they have today dropping a bomb in exactly the same place. Your argument is weak and you know it. I never said the 911 victims were warned, I said Americas as a whole were warned that they were going to be attacked and why and how they could avoid it. OBL spelled it out that he objected to American presence and intervention on Muslim lands, America decided to stay and reaped the consequences. Unless you believe the incredible BS that they envied your freedoms... As for the double taps being illegal it's obvious. The first strike aimed at taking out an individual maybe okay but the second strike is targeting those that come to help, this could be anybody and often is, women, children etc. The deliberate targeting of civilians is illegal isn't it? You may try and argue it isn't deliberate but that would be a pathetic argument because they now full well who is on the ground and who is rushing in to help yet they still drop the second bomb. So either you are okay with targeting civilians hence 911 was also okay as in alls fair in love and war or your own govt. is a terrorist organisation...which is it, you can't have it both ways.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2976 days ago)
Your most recent comment, "Not so fast, you know perfectly well I NEVER said they were illegal." Your previous comment, "Also the use of " double tap" dropping two bombs, one 5-10 minutes after the initial one I believe is an illegal act". Would you classify a terrorist as a soldier who wears a uniform to make it obvious they are the enemy or would you consider them regular citizens that are trying to hide the fact they are terrorists? Once you understand the real problem, then you can properly understand why killing them is not illegal. In fact, there are huge international rewards given if people give up the location or kills specific high ranking terrorists. Do you think the community the terrorist is living in is 100% innocent and doesn't know they are harboring a criminal? Your point about the carpet bombing is a good one but our technology still isn't good enough to kill a single terrorist without harming the innocent people they hide behind purposely to prevent us from bombing that location. Well, the decision to fire on those targets anyway is made from high ranking people in our government who accept the fact innocent people may be killed in order to kill a strategic terrorist. Don't try to play like you don't know that innocent people usually get killed in every conflict. How many Israeli get killed when the Palestinians lob bombs over the wall? Think those are military targets they are after? Can you name any single war in the last 200 years where an innocent person wasn't harmed? As Spock said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I would gladly give up my life to save thousands of others. It's sad that you wouldn't do the same. Would you care to answer what country you're in and I'll show you how your country is involved in killing people too? The USA is just doing it without putting our pilots in harms way. Just because we came up with a technology to save the lives of our people, we get accused of doing something illegal, immoral, and inhumane.
ReplyVote up (170)down (132)
Original comment
Your most recent comment, "Not so fast, you know perfectly well I NEVER said they were illegal." Your previous comment, "Also the use of " double tap" dropping two bombs, one 5-10 minutes after the initial one I believe is an illegal act". Would you classify a terrorist as a soldier who wears a uniform to make it obvious they are the enemy or would you consider them regular citizens that are trying to hide the fact they are terrorists? Once you understand the real problem, then you can properly understand why killing them is not illegal. In fact, there are huge international rewards given if people give up the location or kills specific high ranking terrorists. Do you think the community the terrorist is living in is 100% innocent and doesn't know they are harboring a criminal? Your point about the carpet bombing is a good one but our technology still isn't good enough to kill a single terrorist without harming the innocent people they hide behind purposely to prevent us from bombing that location. Well, the decision to fire on those targets anyway is made from high ranking people in our government who accept the fact innocent people may be killed in order to kill a strategic terrorist. Don't try to play like you don't know that innocent people usually get killed in every conflict. How many Israeli get killed when the Palestinians lob bombs over the wall? Think those are military targets they are after? Can you name any single war in the last 200 years where an innocent person wasn't harmed? As Spock said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I would gladly give up my life to save thousands of others. It's sad that you wouldn't do the same. Would you care to answer what country you're in and I'll show you how your country is involved in killing people too? The USA is just doing it without putting our pilots in harms way. Just because we came up with a technology to save the lives of our people, we get accused of doing something illegal, immoral, and inhumane.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (2973 days ago)
First off I meant I never said using a drone was illegal, that was the gist of the previous arguments you had. I said I "Believe" double taps are illegal LINK So you seem to be okay with collateral damage, isn't that what all those people were in the twin towers on 911? Once you go down that slippery slope you can justify anything, as your got. Does , to suit itself. Basically your argument is if they can do it so can we. The fact that high ranking people make these decisions makes them okay is wrong. Applying that same logic since OBL may have ordered the 911 bombing it was okay. Also as Walter has implied the illegality of sending warplanes into a country you're not at war with, Pakistan, is probably illegal. Now back to my original point which you haven't answered. You said anyone who purposely targets civilians is a terrorist, and I gave you the examples of Japan, wether or not they were at war is besides the point and incredibly immoral, again, because you are American you try and change the rules to suit yourself, just as your country does. America purposely targeted civilians to effect an outcome, just as OBL did, no difference, both are terrorists. You still have
ReplyVote up (146)down (138)
Original comment
First off I meant I never said using a drone was illegal, that was the gist of the previous arguments you had. I said I "Believe" double taps are illegal LINK So you seem to be okay with collateral damage, isn't that what all those people were in the twin towers on 911? Once you go down that slippery slope you can justify anything, as your got. Does , to suit itself. Basically your argument is if they can do it so can we. The fact that high ranking people make these decisions makes them okay is wrong. Applying that same logic since OBL may have ordered the 911 bombing it was okay. Also as Walter has implied the illegality of sending warplanes into a country you're not at war with, Pakistan, is probably illegal. Now back to my original point which you haven't answered. You said anyone who purposely targets civilians is a terrorist, and I gave you the examples of Japan, wether or not they were at war is besides the point and incredibly immoral, again, because you are American you try and change the rules to suit yourself, just as your country does. America purposely targeted civilians to effect an outcome, just as OBL did, no difference, both are terrorists. You still have
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2973 days ago)
Latest comment: The victims in the twin towers are not considered collateral damage. Collateral damage is, in my opinion, when you bomb a military target but some civilians are killed because they were either too close or in the way. The twin towers were not a military installation so there was no expectation to kill any military people so most victims were civilians. The intent was to kill innocent people, not armed, uniformed military personnel. Regarding bombing Japan, it is my understanding at least one of them was a secondary target because the primary target was not visible due to the weather.
ReplyVote up (168)down (140)
Original comment
Latest comment: The victims in the twin towers are not considered collateral damage. Collateral damage is, in my opinion, when you bomb a military target but some civilians are killed because they were either too close or in the way. The twin towers were not a military installation so there was no expectation to kill any military people so most victims were civilians. The intent was to kill innocent people, not armed, uniformed military personnel. Regarding bombing Japan, it is my understanding at least one of them was a secondary target because the primary target was not visible due to the weather.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (2976 days ago)
"As Spock said" WHAT?? " I would gladly give up my life to save thousands of others" aa ha ha ha, you pathetic LYING FU*K!! "t's sad that you wouldn't do the same" , AA HA HA, you manipulative FU*K, trying to guilt people into thinking you're right because LOGIC has failed you, as it always did, HA HA HA!! you manipulative fekin liar codger scum! the fekin banking FOKS like you are the true terrorists of this planet! you fekin terrorist fu*K, trying to rationalize baby murder! you amoral, codger, terrorist psychopath banker scum! GO SHOVE A DUCK BEAK UP YOUR MISSES ARSE! YOU STUPID OBFUSCATING TROLL TERRORIST BANKER FU*K!! FU*K YOU!
ReplyVote up (147)down (139)
Original comment
"As Spock said" WHAT?? " I would gladly give up my life to save thousands of others" aa ha ha ha, you pathetic LYING FU*K!! "t's sad that you wouldn't do the same" , AA HA HA, you manipulative FU*K, trying to guilt people into thinking you're right because LOGIC has failed you, as it always did, HA HA HA!! you manipulative fekin liar codger scum! the fekin banking FOKS like you are the true terrorists of this planet! you fekin terrorist fu*K, trying to rationalize baby murder! you amoral, codger, terrorist psychopath banker scum! GO SHOVE A DUCK BEAK UP YOUR MISSES ARSE! YOU STUPID OBFUSCATING TROLL TERRORIST BANKER FU*K!! FU*K YOU!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2977 days ago)
You said: "There is no difference in the decisions being made regarding when to fire because there is always a human that makes the decision and not a machine." I think there is a big difference. Decision making in the cockpit of an F-16 is not the same as decision making playing a "video game" in Nevada. This drone operator said he "lost that respect for life" and "…felt like a sociopath". LINK
ReplyVote up (156)down (145)
Original comment
You said: "There is no difference in the decisions being made regarding when to fire because there is always a human that makes the decision and not a machine." I think there is a big difference. Decision making in the cockpit of an F-16 is not the same as decision making playing a "video game" in Nevada. This drone operator said he "lost that respect for life" and "…felt like a sociopath". LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (2977 days ago)
I think his point is drones kill many innocent people, women, children etc. Exactly the kind of thing the USA often criticises so called terrorists for. He also notes that killing these people while trying to hit so called terrorists increases attacks on Americans and others, not decreases them. To put it simply, Americans, among others, are as much, if not more, terrorists than anyone else.
ReplyVote up (149)down (151)
Original comment
I think his point is drones kill many innocent people, women, children etc. Exactly the kind of thing the USA often criticises so called terrorists for. He also notes that killing these people while trying to hit so called terrorists increases attacks on Americans and others, not decreases them. To put it simply, Americans, among others, are as much, if not more, terrorists than anyone else.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2977 days ago)
I understood that point but my point is that it would still happen if it was a manned aircraft. The fact is the terrorists keep women and children around them to avoid attacks. We try to surgically remove them but sometimes there's collateral damage. I can guarantee you this, the amount of collateral deaths is much lower than the number of innocent people killed during the UK bombings campaign during World War II. They just dropped bombs on entire cities knowing ahead of time that there were innocent people there. Today, with or without drones, we at least attack strategically and attempt to minimize the number of innocents killed.
ReplyVote up (151)down (170)
Original comment
I understood that point but my point is that it would still happen if it was a manned aircraft. The fact is the terrorists keep women and children around them to avoid attacks. We try to surgically remove them but sometimes there's collateral damage. I can guarantee you this, the amount of collateral deaths is much lower than the number of innocent people killed during the UK bombings campaign during World War II. They just dropped bombs on entire cities knowing ahead of time that there were innocent people there. Today, with or without drones, we at least attack strategically and attempt to minimize the number of innocents killed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2977 days ago)
the words surgically remove is abit of lie if a doctor turned up for a op with axe lump hammer and a hacksaw you wouldnt stay around for long.dropping bombs on people has never been that good as your example in ww2 shows.i think the reason why we use drones is more to do with points in law.if a pilot is in the plane its classed as an act of war against the country its attacking,but i think in law because drone attacks are new on the seen no legal laws for there use have been set. thats why we can get away with bombing using drones i dont know if this is correct maybe some can put me right with the facts.the thing that makes us different from a terrorist is we have rules and laws which we follow eg if someone is guilty of a crime they have a chance under the law to prove themselves in a trial.the fact the people we are bombing have not been given the chance to prove themselves by trial of law sadly makes us terrorists too
ReplyVote up (171)down (154)
Original comment
the words surgically remove is abit of lie if a doctor turned up for a op with axe lump hammer and a hacksaw you wouldnt stay around for long.dropping bombs on people has never been that good as your example in ww2 shows.i think the reason why we use drones is more to do with points in law.if a pilot is in the plane its classed as an act of war against the country its attacking,but i think in law because drone attacks are new on the seen no legal laws for there use have been set. thats why we can get away with bombing using drones i dont know if this is correct maybe some can put me right with the facts.the thing that makes us different from a terrorist is we have rules and laws which we follow eg if someone is guilty of a crime they have a chance under the law to prove themselves in a trial.the fact the people we are bombing have not been given the chance to prove themselves by trial of law sadly makes us terrorists too
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2977 days ago)
You think it's all about legal issues? Can you show me an international law where it's considered war if it's a manned aircraft and not an act of war if it's unmanned? Does that mean I can lob an unmanned nuke at any country and that wouldn't be an act of war? You are getting a bit crazy here.
ReplyVote up (158)down (126)
Original comment
You think it's all about legal issues? Can you show me an international law where it's considered war if it's a manned aircraft and not an act of war if it's unmanned? Does that mean I can lob an unmanned nuke at any country and that wouldn't be an act of war? You are getting a bit crazy here.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2977 days ago)
did say i wasnt sure.but there are plenty of groups/countries plus the un who think that the drone attacks are braking international law if you use your own usa laws to the drone attacks its murder
ReplyVote up (132)down (133)
Original comment
did say i wasnt sure.but there are plenty of groups/countries plus the un who think that the drone attacks are braking international law if you use your own usa laws to the drone attacks its murder
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2976 days ago)
Show me the international law prohibiting the use of unmanned aircraft. You can't. Killing terrorists is now murder? Ha, you are so funny.
ReplyVote up (123)down (135)
Original comment
Show me the international law prohibiting the use of unmanned aircraft. You can't. Killing terrorists is now murder? Ha, you are so funny.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2976 days ago)
at what age would you say you have to be to be classed as a terrorist???? because anyone killed under the age you choose must have been murdered by usa drones.or have i got that wrong too??as for international law its not on the usa side is it.
ReplyVote up (136)down (189)
Original comment
at what age would you say you have to be to be classed as a terrorist???? because anyone killed under the age you choose must have been murdered by usa drones.or have i got that wrong too??as for international law its not on the usa side is it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2976 days ago)
There is no minimum age to be classified as a terrorist. Did you see anything that says terrorists must be a certain age before they can kill or plan to kill others? Regarding international law, you still haven't shown me where it is illegal to use unmanned aircraft so I'm going to discount your statement until I see proof.
ReplyVote up (118)down (127)
Original comment
There is no minimum age to be classified as a terrorist. Did you see anything that says terrorists must be a certain age before they can kill or plan to kill others? Regarding international law, you still haven't shown me where it is illegal to use unmanned aircraft so I'm going to discount your statement until I see proof.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2977 days ago)
The legality of drone strikes is in question with Pakistan and the US disagreeing. LINK I think Russell Brand was echoing Malala Yousafzai (the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban), who said drone strikes recruit more terrorists than they kill. She also said that focusing on education would be much more effective in fighting terrorism than focusing on military solutions - which I would totally agree. LINK
ReplyVote up (147)down (150)
Original comment
The legality of drone strikes is in question with Pakistan and the US disagreeing. LINK I think Russell Brand was echoing Malala Yousafzai (the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban), who said drone strikes recruit more terrorists than they kill. She also said that focusing on education would be much more effective in fighting terrorism than focusing on military solutions - which I would totally agree. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2976 days ago)
I was about to agree that it might have been considered illegal but it would have been no different if we flew in a manned aircraft to do the same thing; however, I found an article that shows that the top military leaders granted us the ability to do it plus wanted us to increase our strikes. LINK Apparently controversary only began after we got Bin Ladan after he was caught hiding in Pakistan for 6 years.
ReplyVote up (146)down (145)
Original comment
I was about to agree that it might have been considered illegal but it would have been no different if we flew in a manned aircraft to do the same thing; however, I found an article that shows that the top military leaders granted us the ability to do it plus wanted us to increase our strikes. LINK Apparently controversary only began after we got Bin Ladan after he was caught hiding in Pakistan for 6 years.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2976 days ago)
Yes, I read about that too. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the fact that legality is in dispute, means the US can go ahead with drone strikes while the international community argue. If drones recruit more terrorists than they kill, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.
ReplyVote up (129)down (133)
Original comment
Yes, I read about that too. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the fact that legality is in dispute, means the US can go ahead with drone strikes while the international community argue. If drones recruit more terrorists than they kill, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2976 days ago)
So what is your solution to stop terrorism since you seem to be so smart and have all the answers.
ReplyVote up (129)down (133)
Original comment
So what is your solution to stop terrorism since you seem to be so smart and have all the answers.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2976 days ago)
I think Malala Yousafzai was right when she said "focus on education". So I would halve the military budget by changing their role to a law and order/training service, rather than a 'destroy the enemy' force. Then use the saved billions for education and aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the aim to win hearts and minds. Terrorism will never be defeated, so the question is how best to minimise it.
ReplyVote up (130)down (134)
Original comment
I think Malala Yousafzai was right when she said "focus on education". So I would halve the military budget by changing their role to a law and order/training service, rather than a 'destroy the enemy' force. Then use the saved billions for education and aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the aim to win hearts and minds. Terrorism will never be defeated, so the question is how best to minimise it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2976 days ago)
When we increase our law and order, we get accused of violating people's privacy. So no matter what we do, we cannot win. Perhaps you should have suggested we call the terrorists and just politely ask them to stop killing us and say "please."
ReplyVote up (132)down (126)
Original comment
When we increase our law and order, we get accused of violating people's privacy. So no matter what we do, we cannot win. Perhaps you should have suggested we call the terrorists and just politely ask them to stop killing us and say "please."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Justascratch (2973 days ago)
I prefer to think humans will evolve as a benevolent species, but the fact is we are an invasive species and will always be slaves to the horror side of our technologies.
ReplyVote up (133)down (137)
Original comment
I prefer to think humans will evolve as a benevolent species, but the fact is we are an invasive species and will always be slaves to the horror side of our technologies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: stashgal (2977 days ago)
another black screen.
ReplyVote up (110)down (124)
Original comment
another black screen.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Katie Hopkins on Rinkeby, a no-go-zone in Stockholm, Sweden
Katie Hopkins on Rinkeby, a no-go-zone in Stockholm, Sweden
Bill Maher | SCAMerica, in gouge we trust
Bill Maher | SCAMerica, in gouge we trust
Russell Brand interview on Australian TV (Oct 16, 2015)
Russell Brand interview on Australian TV (Oct 16, 2015)
TYT | Bernie Sanders targets corporate power
TYT | Bernie Sanders targets corporate power
Ellen DeGeneres Show - Gladys Hardy from Austin, Texas
Ellen DeGeneres Show - Gladys Hardy from Austin, Texas