3 ms·

Actually, the intent is to terrorize. You are utilizing systematic violence to coerce an entire population for political reasons, and deliberately targeting or

Actually, the intent is to terrorize. You are utilizing systematic violence to coerce an entire population for political reasons, and deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal. There also isn't a war in Waziristan. Your comparison to WWII is total BS

res0nat0r 13y ago
Sorry but targeted drone strikes are the exact opposite of terrorism. If the US wanted to terrorize we could carpet bomb cities much quicker and cheaper than with drone strikes. I 100% agree that accidental killing of unintended targets is terrorizing the native population of countries where this happens, and also leads to creating more terrorists/enemies of the US than it possibly eliminates. Jeremy Scahill wrote a ~700 page book about this very subject that came out a few months ago. Dirty Wars. It is worth reading.
- kubiiii 13y ago
  Not sure that "complete opposite" is the right term here. Drones prevent people to like sunny days, to go to school (and learn something else than becoming terrorists). Completely agree with the second part of your comment though. But accidental killing of unintended targets should at least : -be something the US apologize for, if possible directly to families, if possible by the highest rank official. -be compensated even if money doesn't heal wounds like that. If there are no consequences (both political and financial) to those strikes, targeting errors will never be a big deal.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Drones are being used because it causes less unintended collateral damage than a bomb from a F-14. Never any collateral damage? No. Less? Yes.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  If the EU starts flying drones over the US and killing wanted war criminals, would your views change? Killing is people is crude and unhelpful. It hardens the views of those who remain and creates a uniting cause.
darkarmani 13y ago
> deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal. How would this achieve the goal? The Taliban and AQ members don't care about innocents dying.
jasonlotito 13y ago
Deliberately targeting non-combatants? No. Disregarding their safety? That's probably closer to the truth. But just because you are a non-combatant doesn't mean you aren't supporting combatants. And that's when tough decisions have to be made. It's a horrible choice that must be made. As for WWII, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#World_W...
- kubiiii 13y ago
  Is it really a tough decision? A tough decision would be to put soldiers on the ground to do that. Killing someone in a far away country with very few chances that it will be reported looks like a rather easy solution.

res0nat0r 13y ago

Sorry but targeted drone strikes are the exact opposite of terrorism. If the US wanted to terrorize we could carpet bomb cities much quicker and cheaper than with drone strikes. I 100% agree that accidental killing of unintended targets is terrorizing the native population of countries where this happens, and also leads to creating more terrorists/enemies of the US than it possibly eliminates. Jeremy Scahill wrote a ~700 page book about this very subject that came out a few months ago. Dirty Wars. It is worth reading.

kubiiii 13y ago
Not sure that "complete opposite" is the right term here. Drones prevent people to like sunny days, to go to school (and learn something else than becoming terrorists). Completely agree with the second part of your comment though. But accidental killing of unintended targets should at least : -be something the US apologize for, if possible directly to families, if possible by the highest rank official. -be compensated even if money doesn't heal wounds like that. If there are no consequences (both political and financial) to those strikes, targeting errors will never be a big deal.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Drones are being used because it causes less unintended collateral damage than a bomb from a F-14. Never any collateral damage? No. Less? Yes.
lostlogin 13y ago
If the EU starts flying drones over the US and killing wanted war criminals, would your views change? Killing is people is crude and unhelpful. It hardens the views of those who remain and creates a uniting cause.

darkarmani 13y ago

> deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal. How would this achieve the goal? The Taliban and AQ members don't care about innocents dying.

jasonlotito 13y ago

Deliberately targeting non-combatants? No. Disregarding their safety? That's probably closer to the truth. But just because you are a non-combatant doesn't mean you aren't supporting combatants. And that's when tough decisions have to be made. It's a horrible choice that must be made. As for WWII, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#World_W...

kubiiii 13y ago
Is it really a tough decision? A tough decision would be to put soldiers on the ground to do that. Killing someone in a far away country with very few chances that it will be reported looks like a rather easy solution.