This morning’s (29 Jan) Lost Angeles Times has this article on the CIA’s assination by drone program. This is the program that carried out the drone attack in Pakistan to attempt to get a high Al Qaeda mucky-muck. Our side claims at least a partial success because of a supposed four terrorist leaders killed. It is unfortunate that something like 18 others had to be killed too.
A suicide bomber, in order to further a cause by killing Iraqi police or US troops, blows them up and at the same time kills 30 or 40 bystanders.
I agree that there could be a distinction between the two cases but the line is getting dimmer with each notch that our side ratchets up the violence.
I think the major difference is intent. With these drones, there would (presumably) be an attempt to isolate the target from civilians and kill as few of the latter as possible. Obviously, the suicide bomber’s intent is to take out as many as possible; there really is no target other than the civilians.
Not saying that makes it right, but there certainly is a difference.
I disagree. There is no courage required when the outcome you seek is obviously certain. Courage on the battlefield implies risk of losing or harming ones valued life. No risk in this case. Death is the objective.
To answer the OP, I believe the difference is that the drone survives the attack and is capable of inflicting future damage.
Cite? We target civilians, eh? Courage would be usung a gun. If you are close enough to kill the person(s) with a bomb strapped to your person, then an AK would kill just as well with fewer unintended victims. They want mass casualties. I need a cite that supports your absurd assumption that the military does too.
BTW, I hope you enjoy being pigeonholed with the likes of Der Trihs.
I have the impression that their main objectives are Iraqi police and military recruits and the recruiting stations for them as well as US roadblocks.
You don’t know what is in the mind of those who send the suicide bombers nor do I. It is possible that they think, as does the CIA apparently, yes, civilian innocents will be killed but it is important to us that this target, say a police station, be attacked. If they had the technology to use drones and missiles for the purpose they might use them instead of human missiles…
I’m not an antiterrism or intelligence guru but this looks self defeating to me. The only way that we know where to aim the drone’s missile is through intelligence. By this sort of gunslinging we are likely to piss off more and more foreign governemts and lose whatever intelligence they provide and the capability of gathering it ourselves in country.
Some. And even then, is there any evidence that they try to minimize the injury of non-combatants? There are also a number of suicide bombers that specifically target civilians-- during funerals, religious services, etc.
I don’t support the kind of bombing we carried out recently in an attempt to get al Zawahiri, but I wouldn’t equate that with suicide bombers either. In some instances a suicide bomber may target only military forces, but that is far from the general rule.
It’s a fine line, people on this forum don’t like fine lines because anytime a fine line may separate America on one side from “lots of bad stuff” on the other the Straight Dopes loves to err on the side most bad for America.
Drone attacks are taking against what are seen as military targets, in the process of said attack, there may be collateral damage. The attack might hit the wrong target, too. There’s a difference, morally, between incidentally killing a civilian and intentionally killing a civilian. Incidental death is the great curse of wafare, intentional death is seen as a great moral wrong. Incidental death is something we strive to minimize, but the realities of what war is makes it impossible to eliminate them.
Suicide bombings often have as their very target civilians, in Israel many suicide bombings have been done against purely civilian targets. Suicide bombings are designed to be extremely non-discriminatory, even if the civilians aren’t the main target, the explosives used means the bomber expects civilians to die and in fact considers them a “bonus” as they help decrease stability of the government he is fighting against.
What about truly non-discriminatory explosives, ala strategic bombing in WWII? That may be somewhat similar in that there’s really no way to control who’s getting killed, you can target at industry but you know you’re going to kill tons of civilians. And often that was even the goal. But, WWII was a “total war” and one in which it was seen as militarily necessary to engage in total war.
I certainly agree that it’s a fine line. However, I’m not sure that attacks on a house in a town in Pakistan would be classified as one in which “there may be collateral damage.” It is in fact a virtual certainty and I have strong doubts that any steps were taken to minimize such “collateral damage.”
True, but sometimes they don’t and rather target police stations, police recruiting offices or training sites or the Iraq or US military.
We’ve gone over this ground before. I myself have posted to the effect that the British night bombing, and later on the US daylight raids, had as their purpose the destruction of the German labor force rather than their factories.
However, as you say, that was total war and Germany wasn’t an ally, as is Pakistan according to our own administration, or nominally neutral as are other countries mentioned in the Times report, such as Yemen.
And lastly, I somehow had hopes that our methods had advanced over those of 1943 by as much as has our technolgy in the intervening 60 or so years.
I was under the impression that we were trying to establish a democracy in Iraq and by our actions impress upon the region’s leaders and population the superiority of our mode of operation to that of others. Suicide bombers tend to alienate the people and I think this sort of assassination by drone, with its spillover of “collateral damage,” is apt to do the same thing.
Courage is not a virtue, goddammit. What are we, savages who applaud the one with the bloodiest hands?
Mercy is a virtue. Compassion is a virtue. A willingness to subsume one’s own needs for the needs of others is often a virtue. Respect for others of different opinions is a virtue.
A willingness to risk one’s own life in order to kill others? At best, at very best, it’s a repulsive, horrific necessity sometimes.
Who gives a shit if suicide bombers show courage? What sort of thug cares about such things?
No plenty of people who believe they will go to heaven are very capable of genuine courage. Crashing a carload of explosives into a school bus is not a good example of it. If you feel that randomly blowing up busloads of kids is a good heroic idea, please avoid central California, I don’t want my kids riding a bus the day you decide to do something heroic.
True many of these people are not part of any organized state army so in that way they are civillians. Being part of an organization with a habit of killing americans en masse does grant you honorary combatant status IMHO.
Not really, no. Not if you really believe the whole “be a martyr and go to paradise” bit. That’s why such nonsense is invented, so people will treat themselves as expendable. It doesn’t take courage to die if you think you aren’t really going to die, but just go to a better place.
It’s gullability and greed at work here, not bravery. The drone bit requires nothing but callousness, however.
To the extent they really believe it, no. That’s the point - from a believer’s viewpoint, he isn’t sacrificing a thing; he’s gaining.
Irrelavant in a resistance against occupation, since only idiots would wear a uniform under such circumstances. Whether or not they are suicide bombers targeting civilians, or a gunman targeting a soldier.
This thread reminds of the scene in the Battle of Algiers when the captured “terrorist” leader is called out as a coward for using women to plant bombs in the French occupiers cafes- His reply " You give us your bombers (planes) we will give you ours and we will see who wins." I think one question here is of resources to answer a percieved threat. Bombing sucks either way. I like what LHOD said about compassion.
“What’s so funney about peace, love and understanding?”