# "Pro-Life means Anti-Drone" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972 "2012-10-26T20:57:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/81 "2012-10-31T15:26:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How about – and I’m just spit-balling, here – we make things easier for Al Qaeda? If they sincerely want to avoid hitting our citizens, we’ll agree to outfit legitimate military targets in _clearly-not-civilian-issue_ uniforms. Decals on their cars? Helpful labels on Army bases? No problem; they’d do the same for us, right? Woo Hoo!!! America is better than terrorists!!! What a victory!!! We can do no wrong as long as we can claim our enemies are worse than we are!!! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/82 "2012-10-31T15:56:33Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Woo Hoo!!! America is better than terrorists!!! What a victory!!! We can do no wrong as long as we can claim our enemies are worse than we are!!! Hey, you asked about terrorists saying it’s America’s fault they kill civilians; I say we can call 'em on their bluff: if they genuinely want to reduce collateral damage while aiming for our military targets, then we’re perfectly willing to label military targets for them – and yet they keep aiming right at our civilians anyway. Can they call us on our bluff? No, because _we’re not bluffing._ We offer the other side chances to minimize civilian casualties, and they refuse; they don’t offer us those chances _even though we’d accept._ ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/83 "2012-10-31T16:07:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Hey, you asked about terrorists saying it’s America’s fault they kill civilians; I say we can call 'em on their bluff: if they genuinely want to reduce collateral damage while aiming for our military targets, then we’re perfectly willing to label military targets for them – and yet they keep aiming right at our civilians anyway. Huzza wha? Terrorists don’t want to reduce collateral damage, they want to increase it. They want to increase the terror, hence the name. > [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > Can they call us on our bluff? No, because _we’re not bluffing._ We offer the other side chances to minimize civilian casualties, and they refuse; they don’t offer us those chances _even though we’d accept._ And we’re back to the idea that just being better than the terrorists is all that we need to do. It doesn’t become OK to kill civilians simply because the bad guys are really, really bad. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/84 "2012-10-31T16:27:01Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Huzza wha? Terrorists don’t want to reduce collateral damage, they want to increase it. They want to increase the terror, hence the name. Exactly. That’s why I thought your point made little sense: > [@](#): > > Spoken like a true Al Qaeda: “It’s America’s fault we hijacked those planes, flew them into buildings and killed thousands of citizens!” We hit civilians because we’re trying to hit legitimate military targets. They hit civilians because they’re trying to hit civilians. If they gave us the chance to aim for military personnel without killing a single civilian, we’d gladly take it; we give them the chance to aim at military personnel and they say, _Huzza wha? No, see, the whole point here is to hit civilians; we genuinely want to hit civilians; we are, in fact, aiming for the civilians._ > [@](#): > > And we’re back to the idea that just being better than the terrorists is all that we need to do. No, it’s not “all” we need to do – but that’s misleading. Look, imagine you have the chance to kill twenty enemies with an attack that kills one civilian, or an attack that kills three civilians, or an attack that kills nine civilians. And imagine too that the other side would pick the one that kills nine civilians. All else being equal, should we choose the attack that kills three civilians? No – and it’s no defense to say _“but we’re being better than the terrorists,”_ because that’s not all we need to do; we can do better, we can opt for the attack that kills only one civilian – and that attack, we can defend. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t become OK to kill civilians simply because the bad guys are really, really bad. No, of course not; again, if we can kill those twenty “bad guys” without killing multiple civilians, then it’s not OK to kill multiple civilians regardless of whether “the bad guys are really, really bad.” If we can do it without killing a single innocent civilian, then it’s not OK to kill a single innocent civilian. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/85 "2012-10-31T16:42:01Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Exactly. That’s why I thought your point made little sense: Once again, my point was specifically about absolving the US of all responsibility for civilians being killed by blaming someone else for their actions. It wasn’t about who is the target, it was about being responsible for your own actions. > [@TOWP](#): > > No, of course not; again, if we can kill those twenty “bad guys” without killing multiple civilians, then it’s not OK to kill multiple civilians regardless of whether “the bad guys are really, really bad.” If we can do it without killing a single innocent civilian, then it’s not OK to kill a single innocent civilian. We agree. And, as I’ve said repeatedly, I remain unconvinced that the drone attack program meets any of these standards of the acceptability of civilian deaths. Also I find the idea that the US is not to be blamed for killing children by drone attack because the Pakistan government is bad to be shameful. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/86 "2012-10-31T16:58:35Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Once again, my point was specifically about absolving the US of all responsibility for civilians being killed by blaming someone else for their actions. It wasn’t about who is the target, it was about being responsible for your own actions. But that’s the problem; to me, that “who is the target” question reflects whether you’re “being responsible for your own actions.” I’m arguing that, so long as we’re perfectly willing to identify legitimate targets for 'em, they can’t blame us for making 'em kill civilians instead – and that we _ **can** _ blame 'em for making us kill civilians, if we’d in fact be perfectly willing to spare every civilian once legitimate targets were obligingly identified for us. > [@](#): > > We agree. And, as I’ve said repeatedly, I remain unconvinced that the drone attack program meets any of these standards of the acceptability of civilian deaths. I apologize if I missed it: please, spell out an alternative course of action lets us kill just as many “really, really bad” guys with less loss of life. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/87 "2012-10-31T17:48:35Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But that’s the problem; to me, that “who is the target” question reflects whether you’re “being responsible for your own actions.” > > I’m arguing that, so long as we’re perfectly willing to identify legitimate targets for 'em, they can’t blame us for making 'em kill civilians instead – and that we _ **can** _ blame 'em for making us kill civilians, if we’d in fact be perfectly willing to spare every civilian once legitimate targets were obligingly identified for us. To me, there isn’t much of a legitimate difference between “we knew our bombs would kill 1000 civilians” and “we meant to kill 1000 civilians”. Whatever rationalization you want to make for it, the action still results in the death of 1000 civilians and you knew it would happen. Saying “well, we’d love it if they didn’t die, but …” doesn’t really cut it for me. > [@TOWP](#): > > I apologize if I missed it: please, spell out an alternative course of action lets us kill just as many “really, really bad” guys with less loss of life. I realize I haven’t made the entire argument in this thread, being the third, fourth, maybe fifth thread on this, so it makes sense if you missed it. My point is that the drone attacks may not be killing “really, really bad guys” (only 2% of those killed by drone attacks are "high value targets), the number of innocents killed may not be as low as the government would like you to think, and the costs of the drone attacks (5% of those killed in drone attacks are children) may be outweighed by the benefit received. If this means we put off killing someone we suspect is a terrorist until there are less civilians, or we limit our drone attacks to only high value targets, I’m all for that. I spell it out in more detail [in this prior thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=668426&highlight=drone&page=2). ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/88 "2012-10-31T17:55:10Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > I do not see how that is a moral equivalency. > > Al Qai’da (along with their Pakistani and Taliban allies) deliberately attacks non-military targets to promote their evil ideology. The US attacks military targets in an effort to make them capitulate and cease their attacks. There is a fundamental difference. > > If a criminal shoots a citizen, that is wrong. But if the policeman shoots the criminal who is shooting citizens, is he also wrong? They are both exercising violence, yet they are not morally equivalent. We accept the policeman’s actions because of the motive behind the violence. > > If the policeman’s bullet goes astray and strikes a citizen, do we call that a murder? Or do we blame the criminal for forcing the policeman to commit violence, accepting the fact that the policeman was doing the best he could in the circumstances he was forced into? > > h of these examples you are presuming deliberate attacks on innocent targets. This is not the case. Your first example is especially bizarre, because you say “convicted murderer.” If the host nations were willing or able to prosecute these targets through the legal system, that would be acceptable. We are forced to attack these targets with military forces because the host nation is unwilling, unable, (or in the case of Pakistan, willfully complicit). > > Your second example is flawed for the same reason. We are not dropping bombs on people who “don’t do enough” to stop gang violence. We are dropping bombs on the gangs themselves. > > This is exactly what we are doing. They are killing Americans without any just cause, we are blaming them for it, and responding accordingly. Very good post. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972/89 "2012-11-01T02:30:27Z")
> [@Marley's Ghost](#): > > I am saying that you need to offer some facts and make an argument instead of posting the most extreme statements you can without backing them up. You can do that in The BBQ Pit, but not here. Posting that someone is immoral for supporting a particular policy is borderline for this forum but probably allowed; saying they would cheer for murder is not. Posting that about “someone” in general or “someone” who is a user of the board or “someone” who is participating in the thread? There seems to be a lack of clear guidelines here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-means-anti-drone/638972.md?page=4)