8 ms·
> To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that. Democracies generally try not to publi
by freshhawk 14y ago
> To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that.
Democracies generally try not to publicize doing that. Unless it's done with drones apparently, then you brag about it.
- Turing_Machine 14y agoLink to a democracy bragging about intentionally targeting a civilian?
- freshhawk 14y agoThat was a reference to the fact that the election related PR is focused around Obama being tough, having a kill list that he oversees and the successful drone strikes against "militants". Because the definition of militant explicitly includes civilians in the area surrounding the targets and this was recently highly publicized I tied the two together in a flippant comment. But I suspect you knew that already and now want to argue about the US use of drones. I'll save you the time, it's terrorism dressed in Orwellian doublespeak and it's pointless to have internet arguments about it.
- berntb 14y agoThe war laws are specifying when/how you can risk civilians -- there will always be dead civilians in a war, you are required to try to minimise that. If you would want to be serious (somehow I doubt it), either (a) argue against the war laws or (b) argue that usa breaks them. Note that in this case, the terrorists target civilians and seem to use their own civilians as shields. You have no problem with that?