Cite that any adult male is defined as a militant?
Hippies have been saying that for years. It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. We’ve heard several leaders in different departments of the government specifically explain how drone strikes are working, and for some reason, you refuse to believe it. Your beliefs aren’t evidence-based, just agenda-based.
??? So the implement you use to do a killing is what makes it moral, as opposed to the reason behind the killing?
This is probably what Grumman was referring to regarding the militant label.
And an article toward your claim that the strikes are working. In summary: when leaders of terrorist organizations are killed, those organizations are more likely to crumble. It’s true that we’re killing lots of terrorists. Unfortunately, of the thousands being killed by drone attacks, only 2% are “high-level” targets – those leaders that would presumably help shut down terror groups. How helpful is it that we’re killing the other 98%?
According to the New York Times:
Hippies like Winston Churchill?
And “hippie”? Seriously? This isn’t the 60s. I’m not a “hippie”, and you aren’t a “square”.
Are you really saying no one can talk about the mentality or morality of voters because there might be some on the board and that’s a “personal remark”? Does this apply to all voters or only those who support a certain candidate?
The blame of civilian deaths solely lies with Pakistan because they are the ones providing safe-heavens to Taliban within their country while sucking up military and civilian aid from the US. Hereis a useful documentary exposing Pakistan’s duplicity.
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.
Spoken like a true Al Qaeda: “It’s America’s fault we hijacked those planes, flew them into buildings and killed thousands of citizens!”
When can we expect your “I don’t want to, but you’re making me kill your citizens!” defense to make it to America?" Maybe we could firebomb the family of convicted murderers and blame them for it? Or drop bombs on South Central LA because they’re not doing enough to stop gang violence.
God forbid we put some of the blame on the country that is doing the actual killings.
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?
In both 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.
On the contrary, USA, India and afghanistan are working for a peaceful, progress and democratic Afghanistan and its the taliban who are doing everything they can, to prevent that from happening.
US and primarily India is building roads, power grids, dams(as many as 12), their parliament, training their civil servants, diplomats and police, given them stuff they need, investing in Afghanistan’s future by buying mining contracts etc. USA is helping by dealing with the Taliban which is paramount.
There is certainly a difference between deliberately attacking citizens and accepting their deaths as “collateral damage”. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that not holding the party who actually took the actions that led to the deaths responsible at all and blaming someone else completely is the same rational as Al Qaeda uses to justify their attacks. This idea that we’re not to blame for killing innocents because the country those citizen live in isn’t doing enough to stop the bad guys is not a whole lot difference than blaming all Americans for making Al Qaeda kill innocents. The comparison is not about the “how we kill innocents”, but rather the “who do we blame when we kill innocents”.
Great, change it to “unconvicted, uncaught murderer who is hard to catch and is likely being hidden by his family members so we bomb the whole compound”.
And, in the process, killing the people who “don’t do enough” to stop gang violence.
I realize that these are not perfect examples, but they are meant to highlight the faultiness of the logic that lets someone escape any responsibility for their own actions when those actions result in the death of innocents.
And, again, the farmers, children, and initial responders haven’t killed any Americans whatsoever. They just happen to be around the building, near the road, or in the market when the US drops a bomb to try and kill someone who, in all likelihood, never killed any Americans either.
It’s important to remember the “they” we’re talking about.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the USA is also killing innocent people in questionably effective drone attacks, or the fact that you absolve them of all responsibility for the deaths of those innocents. You can’t simply point at a nice new hospital the US has built and ignore the thousands of dead innocents that were killed by the drone attacks.
I’m personally okay with that.
My rationale for such is that the evil the target is perpetrating and the necessity of stopping him outweighs the destruction caused by the military action. This is called the rule of military “proportionality” and is enshrined in the Geneva Convention of 1949 to which basically every civilized nation is a signatory.
Follow up:
At question is whether the necessity really does outweigh the destruction. Most pacifists will argue “never,” in which case the target (be he a murderer of whatever) continues to run free and perpetrate new evil. I am not okay with that.
This is why every military organization, airstike operations included, has a huge number of lawyers, professionals, and political figures who debate the cost-vs-benefit of each such action. If you disagree with their calculation of proportionality, I suggest you vote for a new leader.
Please watch the documentary I quoted in earlier post to have an idea how damaging the Taliban has been and how essential it is to contain them to have a peaceful and flourishing Afghanistan.
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?
I don’t think anyone is questioning that some collateral damage is acceptable if the pros outweigh the cons. I don’t think that the drone attacks have come even close to meeting that burden.
Nor am I. Glad we agree.
And I suggest you separate the recognition that there may be a problem (that the benefit of drone attacks does not outweigh the costs in dead civilians, creation of more hostility, etc.) with the proposal of a single solution (voting for a new President). I think there isn’t enough evidence the benefits of drone attacks outweigh the costs, but I also recognize that I cannot do shit to stop them. My helplessness in stopping the drone program does not make the drone program more acceptable.
Please remember that this point has nothing to do with your excusing the US from responsibility for its drone program.