So if it’s not possible to remove the target without killing innocent people, should the attack continue or not?
Go explain this to all the innocent victims of terrorism who have died already. Oh wait… there aren’t any according to your statistical proof.
Come back after you explain to your family that you don’t care if they are killed by terrorists.
I don’t support revenge killings. That would imply taking the lives of innocents as reparation for the deaths of other innocents. The counts don’t matter. Killings are either justified or not.
It’s obvious that I can’t convince you to let go of your belief that killing some shitheel in Yemen will directly save your family from fiery death.
Well, here’s your hypocrisy, courtesy of the US Dep’t of State. Everyone over the age of 12 recognizes that as a crock of shit. At least bin Laden and Hitler were forthright in their objectives.
As for the arrogance, well - when the US stops the pushing the rest of the world around, you might have a point.
Not at all. I’m glad that piece of shit got his and is currently decomposing in the Arabian Sea
However, you had specifically asked:
“How could they have justified 9/11 as a way to prevent the deaths of innocents?”
I’m only giving you their justification. I certainly didn’t say I agreed with it.
I actually didn’t say that, but to bring up another parallel, in 1938, the UK, France, Czechoslovakia, (and the USSR, though Chamberlain didn’t think to ask them) were more than ready to fight if Hitler went ahead with Case Green. However, I don’t think that Britain and France would’ve been morally justified in invading Germany in, say, '36, after they occupied the Rhineland. Those two situations are not equivalent.
You can’t because it’s not true. There are many people who would kill any American they could, including you and your family.
Please explain your reasoning to the victims of 9/11. Tell them you wouldn’t have approved of those terrorists being killed before they were allowed to attack us. Tell them about all the concern the terrorists had for our first responders too.
It’s easy to live with your head buried in the sand pretending bad people don’t exist and don’t kill people. But when you have your head in the sand like that you leave your ass exposed.
This is true in a broader context, but in regard to how to deal with terrorism it’s an irrelevant dodge that adds nothing to the discussion. It’s sort of the equivalent of calling someone a 'fraidy-cat. Terrorism is a small risk but that doesn’t mean governments can’t or shouldn’t deal with it; national security is one of their primary purposes. Lots of risks are small but still need to be handled.
That’s pretty much where we are with drone strikes.
The ones who go on suicide attacks are committed, but they’re usually committed to killing people who don’t know they’re targets. The gangs who shoot children, not so much. And I don’t give a fuck about this, really. They can have a stone-age version of bravery while burning schools and murdering women, and I’ll accept U.S. soldiers being called cowards for using first-world technology to try to kill terrorists while attempting to minimize the harm to other people - and that’s apart from the broader principles at work here.
It counts, but I think you aren’t addressing my broader point. Der Trihs was saying these strikes only increase the determination of the terrorists and make more enemies. If so, we should be seeing a lot more of these - and it seems to me that we’re seeing less of them, and because a lot of Al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed, the attempted attacks that do come closer to fruition have been smaller and sometimes derailed by incompetence even compared to September 11th, which wasn’t supremely complicated but was efficient and was handled by people who knew what they were doing. There are many factors involved there, but it’s fair to point out that the drone strikes are one of them. September 11th was in 2001, the Madrid bombing was in 2004, and London in 2005. Nevermind the fact that those attacks themselves got progressively smaller- why haven’t there been any like them in recent years? If the drone strikes were so counterproductive and were making everything worse, shouldn’t there have been more by now? If the drone strikes are not making everything worse, doesn’t that whole line of reasoning sound a lot like the Black Knight in Monty Python?
Take that 500 and divide it by total population. Then take the 9/11’s 3000 and divide it. Then compare.
So - what is more likely, being killed by a drone or drowning? Or aortic dissection. After all that was your logic, why doesn’t it apply in the drone-killings as well?
and
A justification does not mean something is justified. I could say I’m justified in killing strangers because I feel like it, but that wouldn’t be accepted by rational people. Neither was bin Laden’s ‘justification’. This is what we are arguing here, what it is that makes up a justification for killing your enemies.
Your statement sounded like you only thought defensive acts could be justified. If that’s not what you meant we don’t have a disagreement on that topic.
Killing terrorists is heavy, brutal stuff.
Yes, obviously there is a much higher risk when you are on the receiving end of a drone strike.
“Cowardly”? What are you twelve years old?
It’s not really about keeping score of body counts or proving who has the “biggest balls”. It’s about eliminating Al Quada’s capacity to make terror.
WIW, I don’t like the concept of the “War on Terror”. “War” implies a discrete beginning and end. There will always be terrorists and criminals of some kind. Protecting the country from outside threats will always be a constantly evolving process.
That’s a rant, not an argument. The U.S.’ human rights record is deeply flawed, but so is everybody’s.
They weren’t, actually. They were both mass killers who said over and over again that they wanted peace. This kind of comment is just repugnant and hurts your argument. If you can’t tell the difference between someone who kills out of hatred and calls it self-defense and someone who kills in self-defense even if his aim is off, this thread is not the right argument for you.
This is also a non-argument.
Save it for the Pit, please.
If all they were doing was saying bad things about us, we wouldn’t be there. We are getting nothing from that stinky hell hole.
Unfortunately for the terrorists and the countries that house them they sometimes do more than say bad things. They have been identified and placed upon a pedestal of their own making, one in which we shall knock them off (sometimes by drone attack, sometimes 50 cal rifles, and sometimes by numerous other methods)
Unfortunately for the innocent ones that cannot change the way they are being used shields, they are sometimes cannon fodder. Thus is the way of things.
You’ll never find a moral justification for “collateral damage”, ever. But it happens in war.
It doesn’t count because you’re using as justification for only-moderately-dsicriminate drone strikes.
What you’re saying, in effect, is that civilian casualties are acceptable because 1) we haven’t killed as large a proportion of civilians as were killed on 9/11 and 2) we’re preventing another 9/11.
Both are fallacious.
In many cases, they’re not being used as shields. They’re just…there. As children tend to be.
Can I steal this line, please??!
I won’t speak for him but what I am saying is:
Drone strikes provide the best result with the least loss of life for the good guys (us)
Unsuspecting shields, but shields nonetheless
And to expound upon my exchange with Marley23, war shouldn’t be cheap.
The problem with the WoT is that it’s *not *terrible…for our side. It’s cheap.
Do you think that, in the absence of drones, we would still be continuing the WoT to this extent?
Human shields are placed to prevent an attack. Saying that they’re shields when they’re only incidental doesn’t make it so.
Because… um… is this more “cowardly” stuff, or should we switch to something like “sporting?”