Americans - how do you morally justify drone strikes in the "War on Terror"?

Great Debates
181

Well, yes. They are terrorists. They have no right to life. The fact that they won’t kill themselves means that we have to do it for them. I don’t really give a shit about whether it’s what they want or not.

I’d gladly take this to a law enforcement route, but we can’t do that, as the countries involved are de facto enemies of the U.S., and won’t actually do anything. If anyone deserves responsibility for civilian deaths, it’s them.

It’s not like we don’t post who these people are that we are fighting against. If you see someone like that on our enemies list, it’s up to you to not associate with them. It’s not like these civilian casualties are random people.

182

No; they are people whom we suspect may be a “terrorist”, or may have at one point talked to someone we suspect may be a terrorist. And “terrorist” in this context means “someone the US finds inconvenient”.

Blaming the victims; a long standing American tradition when it comes to military campaigns.

Yes, they are. Just as random as bystanders killed in some IED bomb attack.

183

Great pics – what I particularly can’t understand is why those people are just standing there! There are two reasons not to stand directly behind a guy who is about to fire an RPG-7! If I were in a situation like that, you wouldn’t see my heels for dust!

But the pictures don’t really answer my question: is the guy intending the civilians to be hurt? Yes, he is firing from among them, but does he want them harmed? Or is their harm a mere incidental, as it is to the people firing back?

I do understand that it could be to the political benefit of his side for civilians to be hurt; martyrs are often very good in the “hearts and minds” business. But, again, is it his intent that they get hurt, or is he merely shooting from the only cover he has?

184

I’d prefer it be handled as a law-enforcement issue, whenever possible. But, as you note, it simply isn’t possible in too many cases.

In pure law-enforcement terms, there was a situation in Los Angeles where a guy shot at policemen…while holding a baby in his arms. The police shot back, and the child was killed. The man is the one who gets charged with murder, not the police. We don’t need a war for this sort of thing to happen; it happens in civilian life too.

185

Anyone who repeats the lie that the drone strikes are killing “terrorists” who belong to “Al Qaeda” when there are any number of perfectly mainstream newspapers reporting that this is not the case. They are killing children, civilians, everyone. The Obama administration has classified the entire adult male population of the country as “combatants” in order to make the figures look better; even with that gallingly racist dishonesty, the government’s own figures still report that 1 in 5 drone deaths are of innocent bystanders.

The strategy of the Obama fanboys on this one is to just repeat the lie and try to wear down their opponents or deceive inquisitive people trying to come to an opinion–no amount of evidence will get them to break from the party line that the drone strikes don’t kill a huge number of civilians.

186

So then by your logic everyone who supported the conventional European bombings of WWII(which even excluding Dresden) killed vastly, vastly more civilians and far fewer “combatants” thought that all Germans were Nazis?

Beyond that.

Your claim that “no amount of evidence will get them to break from the party line that the drone strikes don’t kill a huge number of civilians” shows that you haven’t been reading what people have said, because everyone has admitted that civilians are killed in the strikes.

Incidentally, can we also assume that you objected to economic sanctions against South Africa since economic sanctions, whether against Iraq, Serbia, or South Africa do indirectly kill civilians, or do you think that it’s okay to kill civilians as long as you starve them rather than bombing them?

187

I’m not accusing them of secretly thinking that all Xs are Y, I am accusing them of explicitly saying that they believe this (Secret ‘Kill List’ Tests Obama’s Principles - The New York Times).

Of course I object to all terror-bombing and economic blockades of innocent civilians, by or against any group of people, because I am a moral person.

188

So then you did object to placing economic sanctions on Apartheid South Africa?

Please explain why.

Thanks.

189

Yes, because the entire population of South Africa was not morally culpable for its government’s policies.

Would you have objected to blanketing South Africa in robot planes so thickly that its residents cannot sleep at night, and dropping random bombs daily, then announcing that everyone who was killed was an apartheid perpetrator even if they were small children, opposition activists, or black themselves? Please explain why.

190

Dude, how old are you?

I ask, because I heard a ton of such arguments in the 80s from conservatives who insisted sanctions against South Africa were horrible.

For myself, I’m happy to stand with Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.

I’m sorry you view them as mass murderers but I don’t see a point in continuing a conversation with someone who views Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu as monsters.

If you’re young, I suspect when you get older you’ll discover the world is more complicated than you think.

If you’re old, you must have heard plenty of arguments favoring economic sanctions against South Africa and if you weren’t persuaded by those it would be pointless for me to add others.

To be totally honest, I didn’t expect you to take the Pat Buchanan position so I’m not sure how else to respond.

I’m sorry you think Nelson Mandela is a monster. I think he’s a hero.

191

This is literally the best you can come up with? No wonder the Obama/mass murder fans can’t just deal with the truth on this issue.

192

That’s mighty white of you.

Anyway, would you mind answering my question.

How old are you?

I ask because it’s been a long time since I met a white progressive who angrily insisted he knew better than Nelson Mandella and he considered Nelson Mandella a monster.

193

You are literally arguing that people who oppose randomly killing Muslims are “the real racists” because of {some bullshit about Desmond Tutu that has nothing to do with either the issue at hand or anything posted in the thread}. And the reason you are doing this is to support the notion that arbitrary murder is the only thing the U.S. can be expected to do.

Hope and change! Progressive liberalism! End the war! What happened to you, Obama voters? It’s like I don’t even KNOW you anymore.

194

Perhaps you have issues with reading comprehension. I haven’t argued in favor of drone strikes nor have I said that people who oppose killing Muslims are racists. I haven’t even accused you of being a racist, though most black South Africans would certainly think you are.

I merely argued in favor of sanctions against Apartheid South Africa which eventually caused the Apartheid government to collapse and freed tens of millions of black South Africans to be freed from tyranny. You have argued that those sanctions were wrong, were tantamount to murder and also argued, or at least strongly implied that you viewed people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu as monsters and murders for arguing in favor of those sanctions.

I’m just asking if you can tell use your age, education level and the number of countries you’ve visited because it’s been a long time since I encountered a white guy who had the stones to insist that Nelson Mandela was a monster and I’d like to have an idea what I’m dealing with.

Anyway, please answer my questions and do so without launching trite, unimaginative personal attacks.

If however, you feel the need to launch personal attacks, please show a little more creativity.

Either way, please answer my questions regarding your age, education level and the number of countries you’ve visited.

Thanks.

195

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

He should have been taken out by a drone, instead of arresting him and putting him in jail.

Anachrostic South-African pussies.

196

I would say that a moral justification would have to depend on how fast AL Q or a similar organization can reconstitute and when American and allied forces leave A-stan , carry out attacks in North America and Europe.

While I dont see a period in the next two years, I do worry that at some point after we leave them alone, they could deploy over here, and start to carry out atrocities in malls and public areas at christmas time, with the same moral justification that we use to attack them.

Its easy to assume that any mob can style itself as the New Al Q, but to have a grasp of logistics, training, morale, experience, then it needs people that have been shot at and survived to go to the next level. So while the generals are important, its just as important to go after who serves in the non-com and field grade officer in their ranks.

Anthropologists might classify them in a tribal role, but those skill sets would translate equally well to a formal military rank. Using drone strikes to kill them, frustrates them without having the ability to strike back and parade a captured pilot or weapons officer in front of the media, and the few times they do bring down a drone, its just a missile magnet for when they do a media op.

I dont have a problem with non-combatants getting killed while in the location of a drone strike, its their war as well. Note how I mentioned non-combatants, rather than innocent civillians, cause I doubt such a thing exists over there. As well, there are times when I think instead of trying to minimize them, we should actively maximize them.

Putting out a notice to the world saying anyone living in this kill box, is subject to arc light strikes. B-52 cells dropping full loads of HE, no jerking around and put the war back into the war on terror. Make the non-combatants an unwilling ally in the region.

If we have enough justification for a drone strike, we have enough for an arc-light mission.

Declan

197

Well first we get a target, sometimes we use our intelligence, sometimes just who the Pakistani’s want killed. Then we have a strike. After the dust clears we see how many people died. Then we add that tally to the number of terrorists killed adding in a couple of civilians to the numbers just for some vague plausibility that the classifications of the dead are accurate. Then we hold think tank conferences where we applaud ourselves for the incredibly low collateral damage rate of the attacks and the fantastic increase in our terrorist kill score.

198

:rolleyes: So you think that outright mass slaughter will make the people there support us, hmm? That sure didn’t work out too well in Iraq.

All that your mass murder plan would do is ensure that the people who demonize America as evil will be believed by more people, and find more vengeful recruits for any way they can come up with to strike back at us.

And of course there’s your claim that everyone there is automatically guilty just for living there. Why don’t you just go all out and call for the extermination of the entire population?

199

I guess, if it is ok and morally justifiable for US citizens; that a legally elected government in the US orders and practises the killing of humans in other sovereign countries, because the US does not like their ideas, religion and freedom of speech.
Then, I have no issue with those countries to do the same to the US.

How, does the US like this behaviour? Guess, they don’t like it all that much either, since this is exactly what happened when some idiot piloted a plane into the World Trade Centre on 9/11.

If the US, keeps this crap up, they have to expect more blowback, like 9/11.

200

No, it isn’t.