I’m all for blowing the middle east back to the stone ages, I cannot stand eastern culture however…considering that most of the countries that are considered a ‘threat’ are only pissed off at us because we invaded their lands in some form or another, then it really is a moral issue.
As for drone attacks specifically, it’s better than committing more humans to the ‘cause.’
So, drone on!
P.S. I don’t morally justify anything to do with foreign nations, not our place, not our problem.
P.P.S. Aren’t ‘unnamnned’ armaments (other than missiles/rockets) considered against/disallowed international conventions?
“It should be noted that having encountered that initial fire, the team members had to assume that the other occupants of the house were armed and likely to shoot at them, even though this did not happen.”
I also neglected to mention that bin Laden’s son certainly didn’t behave like a true “bystander”:
“Bin Laden’s young adult son rushed towards the SEALs on the staircase of the main house, and was shot and killed by the second team.[3][54][75][76][79]”
Does this make you feel better about the sickening new development in drone strikes - the “double tap”?
You misread what he wrote. Complaining that you were nit-picked is preposterous.
Which is an entirely reasonable assumption, of course. But you haven’t explained why this is different from unarmed people being killed in a drone strike. That’s what you were being asked about.
Did you see where I discussed the study with Hamlet? A few people say they believe the drone strikes create terrorists or a recruiting opportunity for terrorists. I can understand why they think that. I was asking for data showing that their opinion is true instead just an assumption that it’s reasonable.
Not at all. You have seemingly abandoned any attempts at debating the substantive issues and prefer to pick over minutiae that have no bearing on the overall moral argument.
Of, for fuck’s sake - I didn’t think it would be necessary to precisely stipulate the difference between four adults killed inside bin Laden’s compound and the slaughter of children in drone strikes. Two hints - being inside the armed compound of the most wanted and most famous terrorist in living memory is a little different than being on the outside, and killing adults who could reasonably resist attack is a little different than killing children who could not.
I notice that you chose to use the euphemism “unarmed people” because that is about the only commonality between the two groups of victims.
I had actually missed most of his posts, due to my PC crapping out on me last weekend. However, now that I’ve caught up with all his posts, I have to say that I am in agreement with him, and I find your repetitive requests for data in this regard to be somewhat unreasonable.
And I guess you’re trying to stop people from pointing out your errors by dismissing any correction as a nitpick. You’re right no matter what the facts say. Here, Terr said there were three unarmed people killed during the bin Laden raid: the courier’s brother, the wife of the courier’s brother, and one of bin Laden’s sons. You responded with a cite showing the courier fired on the SEALs and suggested this proved Terr had his facts wrong. The problem is that the cite showed he was correct; nobody except the courier fired at the SEALs and that was precisely what Terr had said.
Even though that is exactly what you were asked about? You haven’t objected to the drone strikes just because they kill children; surely you object to killing any civilian and not just minors.
Right: these people knew who they were living with and that’s plenty of evidence for me (and you) that they were dangerous. Why can’t that standard be applied in other cases?
So you don’t need to provide facts to back up that assertion. Ok. Assertions without facts can be dismissed without consideration. So there goes the claim that drone strikes create more terrorists and increase the risk of terrorist attacks.
I find it quite plausible that drone strikes have a non-zero effect on revenge oriented terrorist attacks. So does, seemingly, just about everything else, including putting out a book or movie that criticizes Islam or Muhammad. It’s hard to quantify the exact effect since terrorists seemingly attack when the opportunity and mood strikes them…after all, there were plenty of attacks by terrorists before drones appeared on the scene. I’ve yet to see any sort of hard data indicating that there has been an upswing in terrorist attacks since drones started to be armed…and even if there was such data, it’s not necessarily a correlation between drones and more terrorist attacks. For instance, I understand that terrorist type attacks are increasing recently in Iraq…yet, afaik, we aren’t operating drones there at this time in Iraq, so obviously other factors are at work.
I concede that drone strikes into Pakistan are certainly not popular with the people of Pakistan, especially those who are affected by such strikes. The local chapters of the Taliban in Pakistan ARE fairly popular (when they aren’t out shooting little girls in the head) with the local peoples. Those local Taliban are also moving freely across the border into Afghanistan to engage allied forces there, and then using the border as a shield…or, at least they WERE doing so (for years, decades, hell centuries) until lately. And I’m sure THAT pisses them off as well, since that’s the way things always worked before. But their safe haven isn’t so safe anymore, unfortunately. The bad part is that, like in every other war, innocent civilians who are unlucky enough to be in the area when these folks are attacked sometimes…even often…are caught in the cross fire and hurt or killed. That sucks, and there are no two ways about that. But as long as we are fighting in Afghanistan (and I hope we aren’t going to be much longer), and as long as folks from Pakistan are involving themselves in that fight, then our options are pretty limited. The Pakistani army simply can’t do anything about it in those border regions. Oh, they mount large scale operations occasionally, but they can’t sustain anything. They will go in and attack a region or village (killing innocents as well), but then they have to withdraw. And some places they just can’t go into without taking half the army with them. We could, of course, send in fighter planes or use artillery…but those options also cost innocent lives. We could send in troops (both of these options would be completely unacceptable to Pakistan btw, and what little cooperation we have from the government, military and intelligence groups would evaporate if we did either)…but that would cost MORE innocent lives, and a hell of a lot more destruction all around. Or, we could just leave them alone to rest, refit and retool before coming back into Afghanistan to fight and the run back to Pakistan as a safe harbor, rinse and repeat.
Nowhere does he refer to “unarmed people”; that is your invention. Moreover, you both neglect to mention bin Laden’s son, who made aggressive motions towards members of the SEAL team - he certainly cannot be considered a “bystander” (Terr’s words).
I do object to the killing of any civilians by drones. However, I think it is a dishonest formulation of “civilian” which includes both bin Laden’s courier and children at a wedding party. Terr started this formulation and you have continued it.
The standard can’t be applied in other cases (again, I am disappointed I actually have to point this out), because being within the walls of bin Laden’s secure compound is not analogous to merely happening to be in the vicinity of a CIA target. IMO, the only “civilians” inside bin Laden’s compound were children unable to make a choice as to being there or not.
I honestly don’t know what you’re going on about here. You asked for data; I gave you more. Admittedly (even the source acknowledges its limitations), the data provided does not provide scientifically conclusive evidence that drone strikes further al Qaeda recruitment. You are being unreasonable when you imply that Hamlet and I are acting irrationally because we choose to go on the most plausible conclusion given the paucity of evidence.
This sounds like the same “argument” I’ve heard smokers say - “Everything causes cancer, what’re you gonna do?” <takes deep, refreshing drag>
But seriously, I think you can recognize that there is probably a difference in the nature and intensity of anti-American sentiment generated by the latest, distant outrage from The Great Satan, as whipped up by one’s local mullah, and that which arose because one’s own family members were slaughtered.
Yes, and there were also plenty of counter-terrorism efforts which were successful without the use of drones. That there was one spectacular failure 11 years ago should not necessarily justify the use of drones now.
The courier was a combatant. His wife and brother weren’t. Just because they are adults doesn’t mean they were not “collateral damage” - unless you are arguing that only children can be. And yes, not all civilians in Bin Laden’s compound were killed - but still there was 60% collateral damage, in a special forces surgical strike.
And I don’t think people who live with Osama bin Laden are civilians or object to their shooting. But this does raise the question of what makes a civilian or who defines one. When the U.S. government determines through intelligence that a person is a likely terrorist and launches a drone strike, other adult males within range are also counted as likely terrorists - and you object to that. Acknowledging that we know for sure who was in the compound in Abbottabad and that’s often not the case with drone strikes, it’s the same method of determining who is and is not a threat (with a different degree of certainty).
I didn’t imply anyone was being irrational. I said you and Der Trihs can’t prove the truth of what you’re saying, and you can’t. You may think it’s a reasonable thing to assume, but for the reasons I already gave, I’m not so sure - and you can’t substantiate it with facts. That’s the issue. Hamlet and I discussed the issue in more depth and I agree it’s a difficult thing to prove, but if it’s that hard to provide evidence and it makes no appreciable difference, you should stop making the assertion.
Once again, you’re putting the courier into the “formulation”, after it was pointed out to you that it was dishonest to do so.
You’re doing exactly what you accuse the US military of doing - you redefine who is a “civilian” and who isn’t, and then justify their deaths accordingly.
Some family with kids living in the neighbourhood of some terrorist, who is using them without their knowledge as human shields – I would call them innocent civilians.
Someone sitting in Osama bin Laden’s compound, not so much – they are either associates, fellow terrorist or hostages - but not really innocent civilians.
Also when terrorist sympathisers/apologists launch a concerted campaign through the media, M.Bs etc.against something, posing as concerned Humanitarians etc. the people concerned with actually doing it know that they’re doing something right.
So it looks like Drones are hurting the terrorists.
As I said, redefining what “civilian” means. Should we target terrorists’ wives and children? After all, they are not “innocent” according to Doughbag.
I did not say to target the wives and children of terrorists - but you are saying that the killing of random people is the same as terrorist associates and any killing done by the US in those areas is alright with you – no problem with your moral compass.
