7 ms·

Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?

by peterkelly 13y ago

georgemcbay 13y ago
The people killed are pretty brown.
asadlionpk 13y ago
because people of that region are worth far less. So less that they can't even classify this as a murder.
codex 13y ago
Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? If not, this war seems pretty similar to all wars.
- asadlionpk 13y ago
  are they so ill-trained that they can't even fire straight? So noob-ish that they are shooting people in the middle of a field mistaken as a car.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  Do you believe the US has never intentionally targeted civilians? Example 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-without-parole-in-deaths-of-afghan-civilians.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-witho... Example 2: http://www.collateralmurder.com/ http://www.collateralmurder.com/ Example 3: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-think-Iraqis-humans-says-U-S-soldier-raped-14-year-old-girl-killing-her-family.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-thin... Sadly, the second part of your comment still remains true. These wars (plural), are pretty similar to all wars because US soldiers and forces have at times been found indulging in the same acts - rapes, killings, indiscriminate bombings, torture - that rampaging armies do.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Example's one and two aren't the US. They are individuals. So unless you are suggesting that Saudi Arabia or Germany or Japan are intentionally targeting civilians, it doesn't hold water. Example 2 also doesn't bolster your claim. I've never seen any proof that the US has ever had a policy of targeting civilians. Yes, collateral damage exists, but that's not the same thing. Now, if you can produce something that talks about official policy to target civilians, that's a different story. Please, produce that.
    - r0h1n 13y ago
      A country is an abstract concept. On the battlefield, it is represented by its soldiers in uniform. There is no Uncle Sam in a uniform who represents the "US" collectively. If I take your argument to the extreme, it'll be tough to hold any army anywhere in the world to account. Because they can always attribute it to "individuals".
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Exactly. Which is why he is asking for evidence that there is a currently US military policy in place that states soldiers are to intentionally target civilians in the "war on terror". Individuals acting on their own committing crimes is much different than an official policy, ordered to be enforced by the military chain of command.
        jasonlotito 13y ago
        This is what I'm asking for. Thanks.
    - sp332 13y ago
      Example 2 shows soldiers following the rules of engagement at the time. They even radioed in to get an (admittedly cursory) O.K. to shoot the people. They did what they were told to do, and the U.S. military told them to shoot those people.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? Of course. It's not like it's some new practice either...
- vidarh 13y ago
  I don't think the government intentionally target civilians, but I do think they don't care if they target civilians unless it causes a too big PR problem. And I don't think they've cared much since at least the firebombing of Japan and Germany towards the end of WWII, when it became blatantly clear that they could get away with indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians without consequences at home.
dsil 13y ago
Because they weren't trying to kill that woman, they were trying to kill people they were allowed to kill by international law. I'm not 100% sure if this is considered "collateral damage", but I think this explains the situation in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International_humanitarian_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International...
77ko 13y ago
The US military gets to define what is and what isn't murder. Killing anyone in a poor country who isn't a child or too old to fire a machine gun is by definition never murder according to America.
jasonlotito 13y ago
Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still murder, feel free to argue endlessly with others. But it's important to realize what you are then suggesting, and the ramifications. War sucks. Innocent die. Cue the pedantic replies.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. (...) Cue the pedantic replies. Oh, the irony. That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one. Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military). Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places like Pakistan (the US was not at war with it last time I checked) and at functions such as weddings.
  - sb23 13y ago
    Have actual weddings been targeted by drones?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - tdfx 13y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airst... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik... I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.
      - 13y ago
sneak 13y ago
Classed by whom? I certainly define it this way. Many others do, too.
einhverfr 13y ago
Because state actors can't be terrorists. Now it could be a war crime, and indeed arguably we tried Milosevic for less.
- cabalamat 13y ago
  > Because state actors can't be terrorists. Can I take it you're unaware that the word was coined to describe a state?

Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?

georgemcbay 13y ago

The people killed are pretty brown.

asadlionpk 13y ago

because people of that region are worth far less. So less that they can't even classify this as a murder.

codex 13y ago

Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? If not, this war seems pretty similar to all wars.

asadlionpk 13y ago
are they so ill-trained that they can't even fire straight? So noob-ish that they are shooting people in the middle of a field mistaken as a car.
r0h1n 13y ago
Do you believe the US has never intentionally targeted civilians? Example 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-without-parole-in-deaths-of-afghan-civilians.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-witho... Example 2: http://www.collateralmurder.com/ http://www.collateralmurder.com/ Example 3: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-think-Iraqis-humans-says-U-S-soldier-raped-14-year-old-girl-killing-her-family.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-thin... Sadly, the second part of your comment still remains true. These wars (plural), are pretty similar to all wars because US soldiers and forces have at times been found indulging in the same acts - rapes, killings, indiscriminate bombings, torture - that rampaging armies do.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  Example's one and two aren't the US. They are individuals. So unless you are suggesting that Saudi Arabia or Germany or Japan are intentionally targeting civilians, it doesn't hold water. Example 2 also doesn't bolster your claim. I've never seen any proof that the US has ever had a policy of targeting civilians. Yes, collateral damage exists, but that's not the same thing. Now, if you can produce something that talks about official policy to target civilians, that's a different story. Please, produce that.
  - r0h1n 13y ago
    A country is an abstract concept. On the battlefield, it is represented by its soldiers in uniform. There is no Uncle Sam in a uniform who represents the "US" collectively. If I take your argument to the extreme, it'll be tough to hold any army anywhere in the world to account. Because they can always attribute it to "individuals".
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Exactly. Which is why he is asking for evidence that there is a currently US military policy in place that states soldiers are to intentionally target civilians in the "war on terror". Individuals acting on their own committing crimes is much different than an official policy, ordered to be enforced by the military chain of command.
      - jasonlotito 13y ago
        This is what I'm asking for. Thanks.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Example 2 shows soldiers following the rules of engagement at the time. They even radioed in to get an (admittedly cursory) O.K. to shoot the people. They did what they were told to do, and the U.S. military told them to shoot those people.
coldtea 13y ago
>Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? Of course. It's not like it's some new practice either...
vidarh 13y ago
I don't think the government intentionally target civilians, but I do think they don't care if they target civilians unless it causes a too big PR problem. And I don't think they've cared much since at least the firebombing of Japan and Germany towards the end of WWII, when it became blatantly clear that they could get away with indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians without consequences at home.

dsil 13y ago

Because they weren't trying to kill that woman, they were trying to kill people they were allowed to kill by international law. I'm not 100% sure if this is considered "collateral damage", but I think this explains the situation in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International_humanitarian_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International...

77ko 13y ago

The US military gets to define what is and what isn't murder. Killing anyone in a poor country who isn't a child or too old to fire a machine gun is by definition never murder according to America.

jasonlotito 13y ago

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still murder, feel free to argue endlessly with others. But it's important to realize what you are then suggesting, and the ramifications. War sucks. Innocent die. Cue the pedantic replies.

coldtea 13y ago
>Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. (...) Cue the pedantic replies. Oh, the irony. That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one. Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military). Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places like Pakistan (the US was not at war with it last time I checked) and at functions such as weddings.
- sb23 13y ago
  Have actual weddings been targeted by drones?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tdfx 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airst... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik... I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.
    - 13y ago

sneak 13y ago

Classed by whom? I certainly define it this way. Many others do, too.

einhverfr 13y ago

Because state actors can't be terrorists. Now it could be a war crime, and indeed arguably we tried Milosevic for less.

cabalamat 13y ago
> Because state actors can't be terrorists. Can I take it you're unaware that the word was coined to describe a state?