You said the wives and children of terrorists are “associates” and are not “innocent” - or did I misinterpret what you said?
That’s what I said:
It is not the same as saying to attack wive and children.
If a know and THE most wanted person on this earth (at the time) Osama bin Laden is as stupid as to have his wife and children in his company, then that is a acceptable loss of life to me.
Bombing little Johnny, Frank & Emily down the road, because there is some suspected “terrorist” somewhere in the facinatiny - that is moraly not an acceptable loss of life to me.
[QUOTE=Fuji]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but the same thing can be said of our use of artillery and air strikes…or even our troops. Drones are just a tool. The overall symptom is that the US has combat forces over there actively engaged in fighting against terrorist groups. Which tool we use is less relevant than that simple fact.
There haven’t been plenty of successful counter-terrorist efforts either in the mountains of Afghanistan or the border regions of Pakistan. There are a variety of reasons for that if you’d like me to list them, but it’s simply not true that now or any time in history has this ever been the case.
Now, if you want to make the case that we shouldn’t BE in Afghanistan at all…well, I agree. We need to leave. But, the reality is we ARE there, and our current policy is to fight the terrorist there. As long as that’s the case then drones are simply another tool that can be used to fight terrorists…and one that, weighed against others we could and probably would use, actually causes less harm.
Argh…that’s what I get for doing this on an iPad. :smack: That should have been ‘The over all cause’…the SYMPTOM is the use of drones itself, if that makes sense.
You see, he doesn’t consider himself a terrorist. Like you don’t. So of course he wants his wife and children around himself. Like you do. And when you strike him and you kill his wife and children the fact that they are there around him doesn’t make them less “innocent civilians”. When you label them “associates” and deny that they are innocent (although, I wonder, of what crime exactly are you accusing them?) you are doing, in principle, exactly the same thing that the US government is doing in other cases.
So - it’s like that famous anecdote - we determined already you’re a whore, now we’re just haggling over the price.
When my grandfather was island hopping towards Japan in WWII - he didn’t take the wife and kids.
When the Germans started bombing London, a lot of families moved out - leaving those family members focused on the war effort.
The German munitions factories did not have a day-care center attached.
Dad didn’t take me with him to Vietnam.
See - when you go to war, you assume that the other side will attack your military sites, so you try to separate them from civilians when possible. If you are a terrorist (or a guerrilla fighter or a freedom fighter) - you ARE a target. The other side WILL target you. If you choose to keep your family close - you are putting them at risk.
Now - when the first drone hit, perhaps the terrorists might have been caught by surprise. At this point, however, they should be aware that the US has no problem with a 75% bad guy, 25% collateral damage rate. This is now well known information - so choosing to keep the wife and kids around while you hold a meeting of Al Q Local 748 means that YOU have decided it is worth the risk.
For Christ’s sake, for the third time now, bin Laden’s son attacked the SEALS (though not with a firearm). That makes 40% collateral damage. Let me do the fucking math for you:
2 non-combatants (courier’s wife and brother)/5 total deaths (OBL, his son, and the courier) = 40%
Note I stipulated “non-combatant” and not “civilian”. Drone strikes have killed a lot of innocent civilians (at least as innocent as anyone going to work in the WTC on 9/11, and certainly more innocent than anyone going to work at the Pentagon that morning), whereas this efficiently executed SEAL strike killed NO civilians.
Horseshit.
We are talking about a specific comparison here, between the raid on bin Laden’s compound, and your average run-of-the-mill drone strike, with a 2% success rate (for high-value targets).
You know, there was a very simple, effective way to prevent oneself from becoming “collateral damage” in the raid on the compound - don’t go inside. This is in NO WAY analogous to the countless situations in which innocent civilians going about their daily business were rubbed out by a Reaper.
Excuse me, but how is a hostage not an innocent civilian?
Not your grandfather’s kind of war, is it? If it was, it’d be a lot easier.
Let’s try this logic. “If you’re President of the United States, you ARE a target. The other side WILL target you. If you choose to keep your family close - you’re putting them at risk.”
What do you think?
Sure. Just like US Presidents decide it is worth the risk to have their families around them.
Cool. So you’re ok with 40% collateral damage in the raid, but not ok with 15-20% of collateral damage as documented with drones. Right?
Of course not. Since you redefined wives and relatives as “not civilians”.
You claim courier’s wife was not “innocent”. Ok. So - what crime are you accusing her of?
When the US President is at risk, he DOES move his family, and goes to that undisclosed location as well if it really heats up. Keeps security around via Secret Service as well.
Our State Department considers certain postings to be unaccompanied as well - no family due to the risk. A friend of mine sent their kids to the ex during recent issues to get them out of harms way.
Any other poorly thought out analogies you would like to add?
If you choose to ally yourself with Al Q - the US WILL come hunting, and we have demonstrated repeatedly that we are happy to kill you, and those around you. It is your choice if you choose to keep your family around you.
The US President is at risk around the clock. Not only “when it really heats up”.
And Al Queda and others have demonstrated that they will happily kill anyone they can, definitely the President if they can get at him, and those around him. So I guess if God forbid something happened, it would be the President’s fault in your eyes and not the attacker’s?
Coming back to this line - yeah, in grandpa’s time we dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fire bombs on Tokyo. Nobody cared about civilians - we were out to win a war, and to do so by convincing the enemy that we would kill every last one of them if they did not surrender.
So that WOULD be a lot easier. Carpet bomb the mountain regions where Al Q and the Taliban hide out - killing anything showing a heat signature from the sky. That would be quite easy, and in line with how we prosecuted earlier wars.
If we were being hit every day and the President did nothing to protect his family - yeah, I would consider it to be a foolish move. Luckily, both Presidents have stepped up security measures to protect themselves and the rest of us.
But situation is far from analogous. AL Q does NOT have the force projection capabilities of the US military - lucky for us. They are willing to do some nasty stuff, so we need to kill them off where ever they gather.
What is your proposal of how to handle the terrorists out there who would like to kill us? I personally have no problem with drones, and would like to get all of our ground troops out of the area and focus solely on attacks from above if at all possible.
Was Bin Laden “being hit every day”? He was “hit” exactly once.
Neither do I have a problem with drones. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are against the drones (with 15-20% “collateral damage” rate) but supported the Bin Laden raid, that had (depending on how you calculate it) 40-60% “collateral damage” rate.
I have no problem with the deaths of the courier’s wife and brother.
Cite?
I said that the wife and brother could have avoided getting dusted if they had just stayed out of the compound (well, they still could have been rubbed out in another innumerable drone strike, but that’s another matter). This is not analogous to what has happened to countless innocents in the drone strikes who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The crime of stupidity. If she really wanted to live a long and happy life, she wouldn’t have been shacking up with the World’s Most Wanted Man.
Of course, that would require an actual declaration of war, something the United States hasn’t issued in over 70 years.
Very convenient morality there.
It has only been cited about two dozen times in this thread.
Ah good. I am done with you then. I can’t argue with stupidity.
Oh, of cos hostages are not valid targets.