5 ms·

Weddings and funerals are actually targeted specifically because those events are two that even highly sought-after targets attend despite the dangers. Also, t

Weddings and funerals are actually targeted specifically because those events are two that even highly sought-after targets attend despite the dangers. Also, the subsequent funerals for those killed at the targeted wedding would then be targeted as well. You can either agree or disagree, but if you feel the target is accurate based on your intelligence the venue doesn't really matter IMHO. Civilians will be killed no matter if it's a wedding, funeral or some other random day. Would we have cared if bin Laden was attending a wedding?

gaius 13y ago
Yes. Have you forgotten that we are supposed to be the good guys?
- josefresco 13y ago
  We (speaking as a US citizen) are not the good guys any more than we're the bad guys, we're just guys doing our best to protect the interests of the country as a whole. Just as one day the Japanese were the bad guys and are now one of our closest ally's, morality and the high ground change as time and circumstances change.
  - gaius 13y ago
    How do you think murdering civilians indiscriminately on the off-chance that there may be a terrorist amongst them advances your national interests? How well did that approach work in Vietnam?
  - unethical_ban 13y ago
    They're not the bad guys anymore because they're not bombing and invading countries. They're good guys because they're peaceful with us and supply us with goods and services. The morals of bombings and war didn't change. Their behavior changed. So yes, we could be the "good guys" if we stopped spying and shooting at every foreign nation. We could be the "good guys" if we stopped spying on every citizen, and stopped creating a domestic military force out of municipal police.
mattgibson 13y ago
If Bin Laden had been attending a wedding, then ground troops would have been sent in, who would have made sure they killed him and left unarmed civilians alone. We know this, because that's what actually happened when they found him. The question is why is this not being done in the same way in other cases, given that random killings of civilians are perhaps the best terrorist recruitment tool ever devised.
- markyc 13y ago
  The question is why is this not being done in the same way in other cases, given that random killings of civilians are perhaps the best terrorist recruitment tool ever devised. perhaps you've answered your own question?
- officemonkey 13y ago
  Because a Seal team is worth the risk of capturing bin Laden. A Seal team is not worth the risk of raiding some wedding.
  - josefresco 13y ago
    Exactly. High value target uses high value assets.
- josefresco 13y ago
  That's what happened the last time we found him (we tried airstrikes before) and it wasn't because we were worried about killing civilians, it's because we needed the job done, verified, more-so than your average middle-ranking terrorist. Also, not an easy task to fly a Navy SEAL team around the world constantly to do operations like this. Not only does it risk their lives, but sometimes it's not even possible to get there physically or in enough time. Also, somehow the terrorist were able to recruit before the US and it's allies "retaliated" with drone strikes. Sort of a chicken-and-egg problem but it would be crazy to blame terrorism on the killing of civilians that only took place.. because of actions of the terrorists.
EliRivers 13y ago
Blackstone's formulation is one of the most important parts of English and American common law. At the point where it becomes acceptable and legal to knowingly murder innocent people in order to punish the guilty, all legitimacy is forfeit. This, of course, has already happened.
- josefresco 13y ago
  If only our enemies operated on the same "presumption of innocence" as we (the US) claim to.
  - Codhisattva 13y ago
    We must act better than our enemies lest we become the enemy.
  - mcv 13y ago
    If you operate under the same principles as your enemy, then you're no better than them. And also: what do you think the chance is that the enemy might decide to operate under this presumption of innocence is the US doesn't? Do you want this spiral to go up or down?
stonemetal 13y ago
What if we had bombed the heck out of them 20 min before\after the wedding? I understand you got to get them when you can, but it also seems like they could be a little nicer about it. They could let the wedding draw them out of hiding then start surveillance, and follow them back to their hiding place rather than start shooting immediately.
- josefresco 13y ago
  Sounds like they kind of already did this. Most news reports I read describe the target being hit on convoys heading to a wedding, I haven't heard of many that happen at the wedding site itself. Why don't we assume that all safeguards to protect civilians were ignored when planning and executing a strike?
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    While hitting a car in a convoy is relatively self contained, I would still consider that being engaged in wedding activities with many civilians in close proximity. If we find them at a wedding why not follow them for 10-24hrs take them on their way back to hiding. I am just saying shooting at targets in a crowd might make for a good action flick but poor real life as seen in the article where they killed 3x the number of people they were targeting and injured 4x the number of people they were targeting. Also remember those targeted were suspects not confirmed bad guys.
coldtea 13y ago
>Weddings and funerals are actually targeted specifically because those events are two that even highly sought-after targets attend despite the dangers. Or that's the BS excuse they say to support their actions. Not to mention, that's not an excuse in the first place. Only someone brainwashed by constant BS spin would accept that. If those "suspected targets" (hit in a sovereign country which is not at war with anyone, without due process and UN approval, not given a chance to surrender, and not doing anything at that specific time) gathered at kindergardens would it be OK to hit there? How are weddings any different?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
josefresco 13y ago
I expected down votes so I'm cool with the negative karma. However my point was not to agree with the tactic, only to point out that it wasn't like we (the US) hit a wedding convey by accident but rather it was targeted because it's (weddings/funerals) exploited by terrorists to travel and keep their movements concealed. For some this would make the actions worse, however I appreciate the debate as it's worth having. Should we care about our enemies traditions and cultural beliefs when waging war?

gaius 13y ago

Yes. Have you forgotten that we are supposed to be the good guys?

josefresco 13y ago
We (speaking as a US citizen) are not the good guys any more than we're the bad guys, we're just guys doing our best to protect the interests of the country as a whole. Just as one day the Japanese were the bad guys and are now one of our closest ally's, morality and the high ground change as time and circumstances change.
- gaius 13y ago
  How do you think murdering civilians indiscriminately on the off-chance that there may be a terrorist amongst them advances your national interests? How well did that approach work in Vietnam?
- unethical_ban 13y ago
  They're not the bad guys anymore because they're not bombing and invading countries. They're good guys because they're peaceful with us and supply us with goods and services. The morals of bombings and war didn't change. Their behavior changed. So yes, we could be the "good guys" if we stopped spying and shooting at every foreign nation. We could be the "good guys" if we stopped spying on every citizen, and stopped creating a domestic military force out of municipal police.

mattgibson 13y ago

If Bin Laden had been attending a wedding, then ground troops would have been sent in, who would have made sure they killed him and left unarmed civilians alone. We know this, because that's what actually happened when they found him. The question is why is this not being done in the same way in other cases, given that random killings of civilians are perhaps the best terrorist recruitment tool ever devised.

markyc 13y ago
The question is why is this not being done in the same way in other cases, given that random killings of civilians are perhaps the best terrorist recruitment tool ever devised. perhaps you've answered your own question?
officemonkey 13y ago
Because a Seal team is worth the risk of capturing bin Laden. A Seal team is not worth the risk of raiding some wedding.
- josefresco 13y ago
  Exactly. High value target uses high value assets.
josefresco 13y ago
That's what happened the last time we found him (we tried airstrikes before) and it wasn't because we were worried about killing civilians, it's because we needed the job done, verified, more-so than your average middle-ranking terrorist. Also, not an easy task to fly a Navy SEAL team around the world constantly to do operations like this. Not only does it risk their lives, but sometimes it's not even possible to get there physically or in enough time. Also, somehow the terrorist were able to recruit before the US and it's allies "retaliated" with drone strikes. Sort of a chicken-and-egg problem but it would be crazy to blame terrorism on the killing of civilians that only took place.. because of actions of the terrorists.

EliRivers 13y ago

Blackstone's formulation is one of the most important parts of English and American common law. At the point where it becomes acceptable and legal to knowingly murder innocent people in order to punish the guilty, all legitimacy is forfeit. This, of course, has already happened.

josefresco 13y ago
If only our enemies operated on the same "presumption of innocence" as we (the US) claim to.
- Codhisattva 13y ago
  We must act better than our enemies lest we become the enemy.
- mcv 13y ago
  If you operate under the same principles as your enemy, then you're no better than them. And also: what do you think the chance is that the enemy might decide to operate under this presumption of innocence is the US doesn't? Do you want this spiral to go up or down?

stonemetal 13y ago

What if we had bombed the heck out of them 20 min before\after the wedding? I understand you got to get them when you can, but it also seems like they could be a little nicer about it. They could let the wedding draw them out of hiding then start surveillance, and follow them back to their hiding place rather than start shooting immediately.

josefresco 13y ago
Sounds like they kind of already did this. Most news reports I read describe the target being hit on convoys heading to a wedding, I haven't heard of many that happen at the wedding site itself. Why don't we assume that all safeguards to protect civilians were ignored when planning and executing a strike?
- stonemetal 13y ago
  While hitting a car in a convoy is relatively self contained, I would still consider that being engaged in wedding activities with many civilians in close proximity. If we find them at a wedding why not follow them for 10-24hrs take them on their way back to hiding. I am just saying shooting at targets in a crowd might make for a good action flick but poor real life as seen in the article where they killed 3x the number of people they were targeting and injured 4x the number of people they were targeting. Also remember those targeted were suspects not confirmed bad guys.

coldtea 13y ago

>Weddings and funerals are actually targeted specifically because those events are two that even highly sought-after targets attend despite the dangers. Or that's the BS excuse they say to support their actions. Not to mention, that's not an excuse in the first place. Only someone brainwashed by constant BS spin would accept that. If those "suspected targets" (hit in a sovereign country which is not at war with anyone, without due process and UN approval, not given a chance to surrender, and not doing anything at that specific time) gathered at kindergardens would it be OK to hit there? How are weddings any different?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

josefresco 13y ago

I expected down votes so I'm cool with the negative karma. However my point was not to agree with the tactic, only to point out that it wasn't like we (the US) hit a wedding convey by accident but rather it was targeted because it's (weddings/funerals) exploited by terrorists to travel and keep their movements concealed. For some this would make the actions worse, however I appreciate the debate as it's worth having. Should we care about our enemies traditions and cultural beliefs when waging war?