Sure, your operative words being “presumed” and “occasionally”.
Fwiw, I thought AQ was attacking specific buildings not cvilians, and the people therein were - to borrow another phrase from the US military - “collateral”
Not that much difference, given that we define “military target” so broadly as to be nearly meaningless. We define military target by such standards as “any male in his teens” and “the emergency worker who rushed up to help the injured”. Not to mention striking weddings and funerals because after all, as gatherings of people they can only be evil terrorists plotting against us.
Hellfire missiles are magical; the moment one strikes you, the blast reaches back in time and turns you into a terrorist.
Considering the death toll of 3,549 people killed in 9 years, and that this includes civilians AND military deaths, I’d say ‘occasionally’ is pretty accurate. As for the ‘presumed’ military targets, I’d say that’s a given, though I tossed in the presumed since I suppose some of them could be political targets.
And your evidence for this is…?
And yet, we are talking less than 4000 deaths in 9 YEARS. How do you reconcile the data with your own over the top prejudice? Perhaps our hellfire missiles aren’t all that magical, since they don’t seem to be very effective at your assertion that we are randomly going about killing everyone (and calling them terrorists) and that since it’s so easy we are doing it just for fun on a slippery slope.
It was pretty well known I thought? The Twin Towers & the Pentagon were chosen for their symbolic value; not to kill as many people as possible. They could certainly have killed larger numbers if a big body count was their goal.
I do think the particular focus on drone strike rather than military action altogether that needs to stop is an issue, yes.
I do not feel guilty in thinking that we should not blow up wedding parties. I do not feel guilty in using emotional manipulation in trying to make other people think it’s wrong to bomb weddings.
I think after a certain point, if your methods cause a particular thing to happen, you don’t get to claim it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t your “real goal”. In fact, I generally give jack shit care at all about “intentions”.
And your evidence for this is that everyone knows it? I don’t know it, so why don’t you trot out some evidence that it was the buildings and not the people AQ wanted to strike at.
You do realise we are not at war with Pakistan, right? Were you so blase when Al Qaeda murdered 3,000 American civilians?
Well, I agree. Drones are just a tool. The REAL issue is that we are over there at all, IMHO.
And I don’t feel bad at trying, vainly, to make people understand the actual scale of what’s happening and trying and get some fucking perspective.
That’s nice. So, you don’t care what the motives are, just the outcome.
How does that contradict anything I say? Assuming it’s even true; America lies quite casually about such things.
And that’s really a no-win argument for the drones anyway; if the number of deaths is that small then there’s no way they are effective, even if they magically hit nothing but Evil Terrorists every time. Either they are killing more people than that, or they aren’t accomplishing anything.
You do realize that the folks we are targeting in Pakistan are Taliban and AQ leadership types hiding there because they thought it would be safe, right? That we aren’t just attacking Pakistan or Pakistani civilians on a whim…right? And, in fact, we aren’t attacking Pakistan at all, and we are nominally allied to the Pakistani government…which is kind of the opposite of being at war with them…right?
It’s the only way to rationally function. It doesn’t matter how much you want some particular action to help - if it ends up hurting, you need to stop doing it. Claiming you want some good to happen and just ignoring all the other evil that occurs with it because you’re focusing on the good is not healthy or moral.
You’d have to show some evidence that they have been ineffective, and that would contradict your main screed that it’s really just random civilians who comprise the bulk of those killed, as opposed to real, valid and even high value enemy targets. Of course you don’t HAVE such data, and just assume that you are correct, while I could show you plenty of news article showing this high value operative killed in a drone strike, or that one…but what would be the point, since you can simply handwave it all away as American lies?
Wrong. From your own link:
Violating their national sovereignty and attacking their people is not being their ally, it is attacking Pakistan, and it’s essentially an undeclared war on them.
And handwaving away motives is less moral. If a police officer is shooting at a guy with a gun in a mall and accidentally hits a civilian this isn’t morally equivalent to some guy going into a mall with a gun and killing a civilian, and it’s rather silly to say it is. Intent matters.
Where does it say in that link that we aren’t nominally allied to Pakistan or are at war with Pakistan? Go back and re-read what I actually wrote and you quoted there and you’ll see that I didn’t say we had permission from the Pakistani government to conduct strikes, which I assume is why you knee jerked to ‘wrong’ in what I said there. I freely concede that they don’t like it, and for good reason, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t nominally allied OR that we are at war with Pakistan.
… they didn’t target sports events with 100,000 attendences, huge shopping malls, etc, etc. Do you really need this explained after a decade?
eta: I see Der Trihs has also responded. Fwiw, I don’t understand how you missed the iconography of the targets.
Again; even if every single person killed was a “real, valid and even high value enemy target”, there’s no way that such a low number of casualties over so many years is going to do much to them. Why don’t you provide some evidence that they are effective? Something that doesn’t come from America.
This isn’t WW2, with our forces facing armies of millions. The peak strength of the Taliban, in 2001, was estimated at 45,000. Al Qaeda is smaller still. The portion located in Pakistan is yet smaller. Given that, 4,000 Taliban/Al Qaeda KIAs (as you allow hypothetically, every casualty an Evil Terrorist) inflicted in Pakistan with a single weapon platform is certainly accomplishing something.
150,000 people used the WTC subway on a daily basis, and 50,000 people worked there. You really need me to explain this (not to mention that it was easy to find and fly a plane into, while a mall wouldn’t be?) after a decade? 
ETA:
So, no cite, just ‘everybody knows this’ sort of thingy? I gotcha.