4 ms·

I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for e

I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.

jeremyt 11y ago
You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?
- the-dude 11y ago
  I do not see why intention matters.
  - strictnein 11y ago
    Motive is important in how we judge almost everything in life. Why would this be any different?
    - the-dude 11y ago
      Is that so? I am not sure. Also this leads to 'I hit you because I love you' excuses. And that is all they are, excuses.
      - delecti 11y ago
        Motive matters, but it isn't the final word.
  - jeremyt 11y ago
    A scientist attempting to find a cure for cancer accidentally mixes up some chemicals and causes a huge explosion which results in 1000 deaths. Alternately, a terrorist sets off a bomb in a public place killing 1000 people. Should they each be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?
    - thesimpsons1022 11y ago
      I don't think that is the best example. It can be as simple as someone intentionally running over a cat versus backing out and not noticing it.
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      Your scientist had no intent on killing anyone. Drone strikes are intended to kill. It's an unapt comparison for a discussion about two groups deliberately killing people. One classified as "terrorism" and the other classified as "war as usual/collateral damage" when they kill innocent people.
      - jeremyt 11y ago
        I was responding to a comment stating "I don't see why intention matters"
    - cam_l 11y ago
      Not if you assume punishment is the appropriate response to a crime. But if you think a mixture of public safety, admonishment, and rehabilitation is the better response, then yes probably.
  - thesimpsons1022 11y ago
    intention is all that matters.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  > unavoidable collateral damage? It isn't unavoidable, don't fire the damn missiles from the Drone. The US and UK are like a little kid who fucks with a hornets nest, gets stung and retaliates by getting a flamethrower.
  - jeremyt 11y ago
    If you are against any use of force which could have collateral damage, then you are effectively against any use of force. That's a principled stand, but not actually very realistic.
    - noir_lord 11y ago
      No, I'm against any use of force that isn't clearly self defence. (Very Very hypothetically) Russia annexes half of western Europe and starts massing troops on the border and deploying landing craft then you can open fire. It's not very realistic purely because of the way the world currently works, as Von Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means" and it shouldn't be.
    - rl3 11y ago
      There's a difference between being against any use of force that could have collateral damage, and firing anti-tank missiles into populated areas. The former is tragic, the latter is sheer stupidity. Fortunately weaponized lasers are coming. Those should succeed in reducing collateral damage almost entirely. All that needs fixing after that is the often-faulty intelligence, and weeding out gung-ho idiot drone operators.
    - oarsinsync 11y ago
      > the human rights group Reprieve has confirmed this reality vividly, finding that, in Pakistan, in attempts to take out 41 men, American drones actually killed an estimated 1,147 people (while not all of the 41 targeted figures even died). In other words, this hasn’t proved to be a war on terror, but a war of terror If that is true, then it's not "could have", it's "almost definitely will".
- Blackthorn 11y ago
  I'd have agreed with you completely on that if it wasn't for the drone strike on the wedding. Once that happened I could no longer call these strikes specifically targeted attacks.
- wfunction 11y ago
  That's like saying "you can't see any difference between killing 10 people and killing 100 people"? Uh, sure I do, but doesn't mean that necessarily means you have to treat them differently. There are a practically infinite number of variations on how murder can be done but they're all murder. And in our case, they're all terrorism. Doesn't mean you need an infinite number of consequences for them.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gldalmaso 11y ago
  > unavoidable collateral damage First responders and funerals are unavoidable collateral damage?
hellbanner 11y ago
Thank you for doing this! It might help in your campaign to compare "terrorism" as the US media puts it, and George Bush's "Shock & Awe" campaign -- designed to intimidate and scare their enemy for a political purpose :) That and the Bush's family relations with the Bin Laden family in the decades past.
- clavalle 11y ago
  "political purpose" in this case meaning deterring people from attacking us. I'm no fan of how Bush handled things but painting flying airliners filled with civilians into skyscrapers filled with civilians and hitting government and infrastructure targets after publicly declaring war with the same brush is ridiculous.
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Why is attacking civilians & government after declaring war "ridiculous" for the aggressor? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
    - clavalle 11y ago
      You misunderstood. Attacking civilians is bad in any context and strictly illegal. Declaring war then attacking government, military, and critical infrastructure after such a declaration is quite different from flying a plane of civilians into a civilian building out of nowhere. Equating the two is as disingenuous as comparing a loan shark beating someone for non-payment to someone getting evicted.
- malandrew 11y ago
  Interesting comment. It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as "Shock & Awe". When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the hypocrisy of the elected leaders of your enemies would be to mirror their tactics as precisely as possible as opposed to escalation. Mirroring puts it in people's mind that they need to oppose further violence from their side to stop future attacks against themselves. Sadly, the other side adopting a strict eye for an eye approach to retaliation (tit for tat) might be the only way that either side can actually avoid making the whole world blind, since it would at least promote dialogue where people on both sides at least ask themselves "When we commit X against them, they commit X against us. Maybe we should try to stop committing X and see if they will too". The current approach of planning out attacks that escalate the conflict just makes things worse. I'm curious if there has been any solid game theory research into the impact of tit-for-tat retaliation versus escalating retaliation.
sean-duffy 11y ago
For a start, the drone strikes are at least claimed to be against strategic targets and not just indiscriminate killing of civilians. That's something that can't be said for the likes of the Brussels attacks.
- _delirium 11y ago
  That's true for some, but not all things usually classified as terrorism. For example the IRA bomb aimed at Margaret Thatcher, with other people being collateral damage, was considered a terrorist attack at the time, even though its goal wasn't to indiscriminately kill civilians. The Greek group 17 November is another example, which exclusively carried out targeted assassinations (their first success was killing the Athens CIA station chief). The term is a bit fuzzy, though, so quite a few different kinds of attacks get grouped under it depending when and who we're talking about.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    It's only terrorism when "they" do it. That's basically the working definition. Same goes with war crimes; cf. the U.S. attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, 2015. No matter what the facts are in that case, the U.S. is never going to admit responsibility for a war crime. Blaming the pilots for "human error", no consequences for any commanding officers, is the path they will take.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  The Brussels attacks had no specific individuals being targeted. Drone strikes that hit civilians and a specific target are sloppy assassinations, and terrorism.
- ybrah 11y ago
  One can argue that the civilians killed at the Brussels terror attacks are actually strategic targets for the terror groups.
- calgoo 11y ago
  To the terrorists the big public places are also strategic targets. They are the underdog so to make the most noise they involve a lot of civilians.
fweespee_ch 11y ago
Employed properly, drone strikes against legitimate targets [e.g. Military bases, arms shipments] are perfectly reasonable and effective. Really the only problem we have is the fact the US keeps using it as a tool of assassination which results in too much collateral damage: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-...
snowwrestler 11y ago
I think a lot of Americans would object to that, in part because our drone strikes have very specific targets--they are not intended to cause general terror. That said, from the perspective of people on the ground, there is no doubt that they are generally terrifying and horrifying. While the strikes might help degrade ISIS leadership and operations, they also help create extremely strong anti-US emotions by killing innocent men, women, and children. The hard question is, what is the alternative? Ignore ISIS? That's dangerous. Put boots on the ground? Not going to happen--the American people are sick of that. So perhaps drone strikes are simply the least terrible of several terrible options.
- richmarr 11y ago
  > ... not intended to cause general terror. Maybe, although it's hard to imagine there's no intent for drone strikes to act as a deterrent. It's not identical to idiomatic terrorism, but also not completely different. > Ignore ISIS? That's dangerous. There are no choices available here that aren't extremely dangerous. None. Least of all the cookie-cutter 'war hawk' attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place. Personally my suspicion is that ignoring them is probably the least dangerous. ISIS is an organisation that feeds on radicalisation, it feeds on aggression. Aggression is its recruiting tool. Build a mosque. Build a mosque so f%cking huge and beautiful that even hearing about it makes ISIS fighters weep. Change the music and all this will be over in a few years. Feed the war machine and we're here for another generation at least.

jeremyt 11y ago

You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?

the-dude 11y ago
I do not see why intention matters.
- strictnein 11y ago
  Motive is important in how we judge almost everything in life. Why would this be any different?
  - the-dude 11y ago
    Is that so? I am not sure. Also this leads to 'I hit you because I love you' excuses. And that is all they are, excuses.
    - delecti 11y ago
      Motive matters, but it isn't the final word.
- jeremyt 11y ago
  A scientist attempting to find a cure for cancer accidentally mixes up some chemicals and causes a huge explosion which results in 1000 deaths. Alternately, a terrorist sets off a bomb in a public place killing 1000 people. Should they each be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?
  - thesimpsons1022 11y ago
    I don't think that is the best example. It can be as simple as someone intentionally running over a cat versus backing out and not noticing it.
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    Your scientist had no intent on killing anyone. Drone strikes are intended to kill. It's an unapt comparison for a discussion about two groups deliberately killing people. One classified as "terrorism" and the other classified as "war as usual/collateral damage" when they kill innocent people.
    - jeremyt 11y ago
      I was responding to a comment stating "I don't see why intention matters"
  - cam_l 11y ago
    Not if you assume punishment is the appropriate response to a crime. But if you think a mixture of public safety, admonishment, and rehabilitation is the better response, then yes probably.
- thesimpsons1022 11y ago
  intention is all that matters.
noir_lord 11y ago
> unavoidable collateral damage? It isn't unavoidable, don't fire the damn missiles from the Drone. The US and UK are like a little kid who fucks with a hornets nest, gets stung and retaliates by getting a flamethrower.
- jeremyt 11y ago
  If you are against any use of force which could have collateral damage, then you are effectively against any use of force. That's a principled stand, but not actually very realistic.
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    No, I'm against any use of force that isn't clearly self defence. (Very Very hypothetically) Russia annexes half of western Europe and starts massing troops on the border and deploying landing craft then you can open fire. It's not very realistic purely because of the way the world currently works, as Von Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means" and it shouldn't be.
  - rl3 11y ago
    There's a difference between being against any use of force that could have collateral damage, and firing anti-tank missiles into populated areas. The former is tragic, the latter is sheer stupidity. Fortunately weaponized lasers are coming. Those should succeed in reducing collateral damage almost entirely. All that needs fixing after that is the often-faulty intelligence, and weeding out gung-ho idiot drone operators.
  - oarsinsync 11y ago
    > the human rights group Reprieve has confirmed this reality vividly, finding that, in Pakistan, in attempts to take out 41 men, American drones actually killed an estimated 1,147 people (while not all of the 41 targeted figures even died). In other words, this hasn’t proved to be a war on terror, but a war of terror If that is true, then it's not "could have", it's "almost definitely will".
Blackthorn 11y ago
I'd have agreed with you completely on that if it wasn't for the drone strike on the wedding. Once that happened I could no longer call these strikes specifically targeted attacks.
wfunction 11y ago
That's like saying "you can't see any difference between killing 10 people and killing 100 people"? Uh, sure I do, but doesn't mean that necessarily means you have to treat them differently. There are a practically infinite number of variations on how murder can be done but they're all murder. And in our case, they're all terrorism. Doesn't mean you need an infinite number of consequences for them.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gldalmaso 11y ago
> unavoidable collateral damage First responders and funerals are unavoidable collateral damage?

hellbanner 11y ago

Thank you for doing this! It might help in your campaign to compare "terrorism" as the US media puts it, and George Bush's "Shock & Awe" campaign -- designed to intimidate and scare their enemy for a political purpose :) That and the Bush's family relations with the Bin Laden family in the decades past.

clavalle 11y ago
"political purpose" in this case meaning deterring people from attacking us. I'm no fan of how Bush handled things but painting flying airliners filled with civilians into skyscrapers filled with civilians and hitting government and infrastructure targets after publicly declaring war with the same brush is ridiculous.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Why is attacking civilians & government after declaring war "ridiculous" for the aggressor? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
  - clavalle 11y ago
    You misunderstood. Attacking civilians is bad in any context and strictly illegal. Declaring war then attacking government, military, and critical infrastructure after such a declaration is quite different from flying a plane of civilians into a civilian building out of nowhere. Equating the two is as disingenuous as comparing a loan shark beating someone for non-payment to someone getting evicted.
malandrew 11y ago
Interesting comment. It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as "Shock & Awe". When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the hypocrisy of the elected leaders of your enemies would be to mirror their tactics as precisely as possible as opposed to escalation. Mirroring puts it in people's mind that they need to oppose further violence from their side to stop future attacks against themselves. Sadly, the other side adopting a strict eye for an eye approach to retaliation (tit for tat) might be the only way that either side can actually avoid making the whole world blind, since it would at least promote dialogue where people on both sides at least ask themselves "When we commit X against them, they commit X against us. Maybe we should try to stop committing X and see if they will too". The current approach of planning out attacks that escalate the conflict just makes things worse. I'm curious if there has been any solid game theory research into the impact of tit-for-tat retaliation versus escalating retaliation.

sean-duffy 11y ago

For a start, the drone strikes are at least claimed to be against strategic targets and not just indiscriminate killing of civilians. That's something that can't be said for the likes of the Brussels attacks.

_delirium 11y ago
That's true for some, but not all things usually classified as terrorism. For example the IRA bomb aimed at Margaret Thatcher, with other people being collateral damage, was considered a terrorist attack at the time, even though its goal wasn't to indiscriminately kill civilians. The Greek group 17 November is another example, which exclusively carried out targeted assassinations (their first success was killing the Athens CIA station chief). The term is a bit fuzzy, though, so quite a few different kinds of attacks get grouped under it depending when and who we're talking about.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  It's only terrorism when "they" do it. That's basically the working definition. Same goes with war crimes; cf. the U.S. attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, 2015. No matter what the facts are in that case, the U.S. is never going to admit responsibility for a war crime. Blaming the pilots for "human error", no consequences for any commanding officers, is the path they will take.
Jtsummers 11y ago
The Brussels attacks had no specific individuals being targeted. Drone strikes that hit civilians and a specific target are sloppy assassinations, and terrorism.
ybrah 11y ago
One can argue that the civilians killed at the Brussels terror attacks are actually strategic targets for the terror groups.
calgoo 11y ago
To the terrorists the big public places are also strategic targets. They are the underdog so to make the most noise they involve a lot of civilians.

fweespee_ch 11y ago

Employed properly, drone strikes against legitimate targets [e.g. Military bases, arms shipments] are perfectly reasonable and effective. Really the only problem we have is the fact the US keeps using it as a tool of assassination which results in too much collateral damage: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-...

snowwrestler 11y ago

I think a lot of Americans would object to that, in part because our drone strikes have very specific targets--they are not intended to cause general terror. That said, from the perspective of people on the ground, there is no doubt that they are generally terrifying and horrifying. While the strikes might help degrade ISIS leadership and operations, they also help create extremely strong anti-US emotions by killing innocent men, women, and children. The hard question is, what is the alternative? Ignore ISIS? That's dangerous. Put boots on the ground? Not going to happen--the American people are sick of that. So perhaps drone strikes are simply the least terrible of several terrible options.

richmarr 11y ago
> ... not intended to cause general terror. Maybe, although it's hard to imagine there's no intent for drone strikes to act as a deterrent. It's not identical to idiomatic terrorism, but also not completely different. > Ignore ISIS? That's dangerous. There are no choices available here that aren't extremely dangerous. None. Least of all the cookie-cutter 'war hawk' attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place. Personally my suspicion is that ignoring them is probably the least dangerous. ISIS is an organisation that feeds on radicalisation, it feeds on aggression. Aggression is its recruiting tool. Build a mosque. Build a mosque so f%cking huge and beautiful that even hearing about it makes ISIS fighters weep. Change the music and all this will be over in a few years. Feed the war machine and we're here for another generation at least.