4 ms·

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a differen

by rdancer 11y ago

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? You are making a lot of assumptions, which Greenwald actually addresses and refutes at the beginning of the article. The targets are often not combatants; in fact, many of the targets have no known identity at all. If anybody strains to minimize civilian casualties, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. In fact, often it looks as if non-combatants and civilian structures were deliberately targeted. But you are of course right. As long as you a priori define allied action as legitimate military strikes, and enemy action as illegal terror attacks, you will always be right. And that is the very point of the article. Let's agree to disagree on that one. Because the discussion we should be having is, what objectives is the "War on Terror", (or, as I like to call it, because terrorism is just a method of warfare, War on War) trying to achieve, and are they worth the price?

golergka 11y ago
> The targets are often not combatants; in fact, many of the targets have no known identity at all. I'm genuinly curious — do you honestly think that the fact that attack X killed civilians means that it was supposed to killed civilians? That people who make this kind of decision had reasons to believe that they actually made the right choice? We're all very wise in hindsight — but I find it very hard to believe that military officers in this situation often have access to 100% solid intelligence. You could argue that they should increase their standards for given intelligence, but that brings us to the second point. > If anybody strains to minimize civilian casualties, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. All analysis I've seen on the matter only looks at casualties from the airstrikes. Where's the other side of the equation: where's the same analysis about completed military objectives in campaign as a whole, and where's analysis about lives that were saved as a result? > In fact, often it looks as if non-combatants and civilian structures were deliberately targeted. I have heard such claims, but I never saw them being backed up with data that would suggest that decision-maker in this particular place actually had solid reasons to believe that he was targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Once more: we're all wise in hindsight. I honestly feel that people who are making this kind of arguments aren't even trying to imagine what's war is, with lack of information and awful choices that you have to make. Do you honestly believe that there are ways to solve this kind of situation without innocent people dying in suffering?
- rdancer 11y ago
  While it is not quite possible to look into the heads of the operators, targeters, and the chain of command, the documents that have been publicly available for some time, as well as the actions of the allied governments paint a clear picture: Non-combatants are targeted as a matter of course, deliberately in double-tap attacks, in "signature" strikes, and targetting of public gatherings such as weddings and funerals. Morover, the intended and collateral casualties can not only be seen in hindsight, but right there on the target acquisition screen. The US government does not prosecute war crimes committed by its own citizens, no matter how egregious, or how public they have become. What you are asking is the kind of certainty that comes with some investigation. It is hard to see when you don't want to look. The scraps that the likes of Greenwald have managed to piece together (largely documented in reportages for The Intercept) are very damning, but the whole picture must be even worse. Do you really mean it that you don't see how civilians are deliberately targeted? We should have an objective in these wars, which is something that we've never had. If there is nothing that we want to achieve apart from fighting terror with terror forever, and in the process shuttering civil liberties at home, we should leave.

by rdancer 11y ago

golergka 11y ago

> The targets are often not combatants; in fact, many of the targets have no known identity at all. I'm genuinly curious — do you honestly think that the fact that attack X killed civilians means that it was supposed to killed civilians? That people who make this kind of decision had reasons to believe that they actually made the right choice? We're all very wise in hindsight — but I find it very hard to believe that military officers in this situation often have access to 100% solid intelligence. You could argue that they should increase their standards for given intelligence, but that brings us to the second point. > If anybody strains to minimize civilian casualties, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. All analysis I've seen on the matter only looks at casualties from the airstrikes. Where's the other side of the equation: where's the same analysis about completed military objectives in campaign as a whole, and where's analysis about lives that were saved as a result? > In fact, often it looks as if non-combatants and civilian structures were deliberately targeted. I have heard such claims, but I never saw them being backed up with data that would suggest that decision-maker in this particular place actually had solid reasons to believe that he was targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Once more: we're all wise in hindsight. I honestly feel that people who are making this kind of arguments aren't even trying to imagine what's war is, with lack of information and awful choices that you have to make. Do you honestly believe that there are ways to solve this kind of situation without innocent people dying in suffering?

rdancer 11y ago
While it is not quite possible to look into the heads of the operators, targeters, and the chain of command, the documents that have been publicly available for some time, as well as the actions of the allied governments paint a clear picture: Non-combatants are targeted as a matter of course, deliberately in double-tap attacks, in "signature" strikes, and targetting of public gatherings such as weddings and funerals. Morover, the intended and collateral casualties can not only be seen in hindsight, but right there on the target acquisition screen. The US government does not prosecute war crimes committed by its own citizens, no matter how egregious, or how public they have become. What you are asking is the kind of certainty that comes with some investigation. It is hard to see when you don't want to look. The scraps that the likes of Greenwald have managed to piece together (largely documented in reportages for The Intercept) are very damning, but the whole picture must be even worse. Do you really mean it that you don't see how civilians are deliberately targeted? We should have an objective in these wars, which is something that we've never had. If there is nothing that we want to achieve apart from fighting terror with terror forever, and in the process shuttering civil liberties at home, we should leave.