3 ms·

that's a very long list of "if"s, and they don't all apply to the situations today. See for example Pakistan: "Pakistan has repeatedly protested these attacks

that's a very long list of "if"s, and they don't all apply to the situations today. See for example Pakistan: "Pakistan has repeatedly protested these attacks as an infringement of its sovereignty and because civilian deaths have also resulted, including women and children, which has further angered the Pakistani government and people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Pakistani_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Paki...

throwaway5752 8y ago
Of course it makes them angry and it should. These type of operations should be handled with the gravest responsibility and killing dozens of noncombatants just because they're gathered for a wedding, for example, is an outrage and beyond unacceptable. But do you think these operations are happening without the approval of the Pakistani government, or do you think those statements are for domestic consumption?
- jstanley 8y ago
  It's not OK to kill civilians in Pakistan regardless of what the Pakistani government may or may not privately think about it.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    But that's not what's happening. Pakistani militants have planned and executed attacks on US citizens in the US and Afghanistan. Bin Laden lived there and coordinated from northern Pakistan for a decade after 9/11. The operations are targeting criminals who have committed and conspired to commit murder, not an indiscriminate campaign of murder against random citizens of Pakistan. Many innocent Pakistani people (and a Pakistani PM) have been killed by these groups. It's not morally cut and dry.
    - black_puppydog 8y ago
      From wikipedia (see above): "the US policy of considering all military-age males in a strike zone as militants" In other words: even IF you assume that killing someone because they're "militants" is automatically okay, the people "pulling the trigger" barely ever know who they're killing, yet they retroactively count them as "probably bad enough to be droned". John Oliver had a good segment on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

throwaway5752 8y ago

Of course it makes them angry and it should. These type of operations should be handled with the gravest responsibility and killing dozens of noncombatants just because they're gathered for a wedding, for example, is an outrage and beyond unacceptable. But do you think these operations are happening without the approval of the Pakistani government, or do you think those statements are for domestic consumption?

jstanley 8y ago
It's not OK to kill civilians in Pakistan regardless of what the Pakistani government may or may not privately think about it.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  But that's not what's happening. Pakistani militants have planned and executed attacks on US citizens in the US and Afghanistan. Bin Laden lived there and coordinated from northern Pakistan for a decade after 9/11. The operations are targeting criminals who have committed and conspired to commit murder, not an indiscriminate campaign of murder against random citizens of Pakistan. Many innocent Pakistani people (and a Pakistani PM) have been killed by these groups. It's not morally cut and dry.
  - black_puppydog 8y ago
    From wikipedia (see above): "the US policy of considering all military-age males in a strike zone as militants" In other words: even IF you assume that killing someone because they're "militants" is automatically okay, the people "pulling the trigger" barely ever know who they're killing, yet they retroactively count them as "probably bad enough to be droned". John Oliver had a good segment on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs