3 ms·

We should replace it with 'collateral murder', maybe.

• gwright 10y ago
  Sure, if you just want to confuse the discussion. Murder is a criminal concept. This is an armed conflict and it has its own set of rules and ethical/moral frameworks. That doesn't mean that 'anything goes' or that there aren't arguments to be made to minimize civilian casualties or just plain strategic arguments against the practices, it just means that it isn't helpful to try to frame the discussion as if we are talking criminal actions.
  • robin_reala 10y ago
    Fair enough, it’s an armed conflict. That means the Geneva Conventions come into play and “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” are prohibited to civilians and enemy combatants who have laid down their arms. Guess we’d better get The Hague involved for the drone pilots then?
  • Fargren 10y ago
    As you say, such a term would confuse the discussion. But I feel the current term, collateral damage, does the same thing. When someone says collateral damage the image that comes to my mind is property damage, not personal injury and specially not death of uninvolved bystanders. Death is more than damage. Obviously, murder is something else altogether. That was my point, even if I didn't make very well.