Really? So you are saying that if the Taliban had a 'perfect weapon', which would kill only a specific target without any collateral damage, they would use it, instead of the indiscriminate, deliberate mass-murder weapons they have used hitherto? Really? Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I would be grateful to hear your reasons for it.
Are you saying that the Taliban, if able to pun point and take out the top 5 world leaders of Christian countries, wouldn't use it?
That's nothing to the point. The Taliban etc have always followed a policy of simply killing as many people as possible - innocent bystanders, men, women and children, Muslims included, by the hundreds and (if they can manage to do it) by the thousands. There has been a vast number of such atrocities in many countries. The "target" is simply anybody and everybody. The Americans are much criticised for "collateral damage", which means that a bombing or drone strike targeted at a specific person sometimes goes wrong. It hits the wrong target, or accidentally kills nearby people who were not intended. In some quarters it is argued that there is a moral equivalence between the two situations, and that is the point under discussion. Chris Hitchens point in using the hypothetical "perfect weapon" idea was to illustrate the difference. In the Middle East conflicts, it has never been the American policy, purpose or intention to kill the maximum possible number of people. If the USA had the capability of guaranteeing to kill only specific targets and no-one else (no bystanders, no children, etc), they would use it exclusively. There would be no more collateral damage. Does anyone seriously doubt this? The Taliban etc would have no interest in such a perfect weapon, because they do not care about killing innocent people. If they had a means of killing the POTUS, for example, they would not care if they killed a thousand or a million other people at the same time. Or so I suggest. You may wish to argue otherwise, of course.
So you're saying they would not use it then? I'm assuming this is to add to the argument rather than a real opinion, given you clear intelligence levels it cant be anything else
Is Hitchens American? Americans seem happy with collateral damage, in fact seem to plan for it, keep the masses down
No the late Chris Hitchens was British, but spent the latter part of his life mainly in America. We were contemporaries and I used to know him at one time. I feel rather sorry for his brother Peter, who tries and tries but simply does not have the brilliance to match Chris.
What you are saying is rather extraordinary, so may we get it crystal clear please. You are saying that the Taliban, if they had the means of using a precisely-targeted weapon which would kill only a specific target such as a Western leader, would choose to use it and thus give up their long-standing policy of indiscriminate mass murder? And you are also saying that the American policy is deliberately to kill innocent bystanders indiscriminately, such that they would not cease doing so even if they had the option of using a perfect, precisely-targeted weapon? I must say I failed to anticipate that anyone would be prepared to take such a view. Hey-ho.
Pete, really. Your points are becoming increasingly "Oxford Union". You have erected a straw man, affirming that i see a moral equivalence between Al Qaida (which you seem to refer to as the Taliban) and the US. I have neither asserted, nor implied any such thing. You also take as an ad hominem comment my remark that you don't seem to have read around this subject or thought that much about it. That's not ad hominem - that's a pure supposition on my part on the basis of the arguments you put forward. It looks to me as if you have read Hitchens and are using him as a short-cut to establishing a view. I'm sure that Hitchens can add something to the debate (he added something to most debates he cared to comment on), but he's not gospel. May I recommend Washington Rules by Andrew Bacevich, Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill and perhaps the books on the Bush presidency (or even the Obama presidency) by Bob Woodward. To those you can usefully add Angler on the Cheney vice-presidency by Barton Gellman. The point is, that it's not sufficient to aim to wipe out a terrorist and consistently get it wrong and hit innocent people, nor is it sufficient to wipe out a terrorist and in so doing kill 20 other innocent people. Your world view is distorted to the extent that the lives of peasants in Pakistan count for little or nothing, whereas Westerners count for far more. That world view is precisely what is giving jihadists support and a perceived legitimacy in many lands (and not a little legitimacy in bits of the UK). If the basis on which you are fighting a war (at least allegedly) is one of moral superiority, you have to be seen to be acting in a morally superior way, or lose the propaganda war. The US is completely failing in this respect. Saying "Yeah, but they are worse" just isn't good enough. They are breeding terrorists which was foreseen by many commentators before the Iraq War and poo-pood by Blair - unconvincingly. You're going to have to do better than that.
I wasn't me who started, in this thread, using "Taliban" as a shorthand expression including the many and varied names those kind of groups go under. If I address remarks to Bradders, or others, don't feel obligated to assume they are addressed to you!
The subject is of course complex and many-sided, with a vast number of points which could be made. I happened to pick out one point by way of illustration (acknowledging that it was Chris Hitchens' point). That does not mean that I must therefore be unaware of other possible points. I could have made dozens, but one tries to keep posts reasonably succinct. I am grateful for the suggested reading list - are we going to start suggesting further reading lists for one another when topics of debate come up?
My world view? Sometimes I see posts on a forum which are inaccurate, or one-sided, or ill-informed, or illogical; so I make posts supplying information, or pointing out the weaknesses in an argument, or providing balance. That process does not tell anyone anything about my "world view". Just because I contradict a point somebody has made in a post does not necessarily mean I disagree with their position overall. Just for the record, what you have chosen to define as my world view bears no resemblance whatever to my views.
Speaking for myself, I welcome your reading suggestions. I'm always on the lookout for interesting books which can make me better informed about a subject. Naturally, some subjects interest me more than others. But feel free to suggest away.
I am happy to hear this. I must admit, I find your stance on this particular subject, as well as your support for the Iraq War somewhat incomprehensible given your essentially left-of-centre liberal views on most subjects. But then, they were equally as incomprehensible as far as Hitchens was concerned.
Left of centre liberal views are fine as long as everyone else is prepared to live by them, but unfortunately they aren't, and that is when tough and sometimes unpalatable decisions have to be taken. However I agree with you and others Glidd regarding collateral damage associated with indiscriminate drone strikes in remote regions, they probably do more harm than good.
