4 ms·

Blowing up a wedding is not extraordinary? 'Not taking sides' doesn't cut it - you're either doing your bit to end drone strikes like these, or you are morally

by RyanZAG 13y ago

Blowing up a wedding is not extraordinary? 'Not taking sides' doesn't cut it - you're either doing your bit to end drone strikes like these, or you are morally bankrupt. There is no fence sitting when civilians are being blown up.

nickff 13y ago
Civilians are blown up in every war, drones did not create this problem, and eliminating UAVs will not end it. If you want people to be "doing your bit to end drone strikes", you should consider that the probable counter-factual is not an end to non-combatant (civilian) deaths; civilian mortality may increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on what tactics are chosen to replace drones.
- gldalmaso 13y ago
  Weddings are not war zones.
  - nickff 13y ago
    I never said they were, and I do not understand how you could think I did.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Weddings are not war zones. But they can take place in them, and, more to the point, the problem that needs to be addressed in the legalities of modern war is that modern wars, increasingly, don't have "zones" at all.
- RyanZAG 13y ago
  Sorry - by drone strikes I was actually incorrectly implying the broader picture. I mean end attacks on civilians in countries you are not even at war with. There really is no moral justification for blowing these people up. Even if they were terrorists, there is no way they could have done as much damage as the slaughter of a whole wedding. The 'cure' is far worse than the illness.
  - nickff 13y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, I now understand your position. I will not address the normative moral views, because everyone should make up their own mind; and I have no evidence to either prove or falsify your statement about the likely consequences of the deaths, but it seems reasonably likely (to me).
  - d23 13y ago
    > Even if they were terrorists, there is no way they could have done as much damage as the slaughter of a whole wedding. Erm, why? You're saying terrorists can't kill 14 people?
    - bluecalm 13y ago
      There were more civilians deaths thatn this. If you are saying that expected number of people killed by expected number of terrorists this wedding could possibly be 14 or higher then no, it couldn't. As side effect by blowing up civilians you are creating more resentment leading to more terrorists.
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        > If you are saying that expected number of people killed by expected number of terrorists this wedding could possibly be 14 or higher then no, it couldn't Mumbai.
- pantalaimon 13y ago
  What war are you talking about? What is the objective? What would have to happen for this 'war' to end?
  - nickff 13y ago
    When you have an army shooting at people in a foreign country, there is a war; call it whatever you want.
    - peterashford 13y ago
      So, as a New Zealander, I can hire some people to gun down innocents in the US and be on the moral high ground because I'm conducting a 'war' and not terrorism? Neato.
      - nickff 13y ago
        I have never said that war is virtuous. 'Some people' do not make an army.[1] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > What war are you talking about? Presumably the one that was either (a) initiated by the 9/11 attacks and formally recognized as already existing by Congress in Public Law 107-40, or (b) was provoked by the 9/11 attacks and declared by Congress in Public Law 107-40, depending on how you choose to look at it. > What is the objective? "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by" "those nations, organizations, or persons [the President determines] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". > What would have to happen for this 'war' to end? Given the rather fluid definition in PL 107-40, it is not clear that it could formally and completely end absent a subsequent resolution of Congress terminating it.
    - eropple 13y ago
      The AUMF is not a declaration of war; it expressly avoids being called a "war" in much the same way as ye olde Vietnam. What it is is probably illegal under international law, but nobody has the standing to make the United States back down.
- mcv 13y ago
  > Civilians are blown up in every war Yes, but this isn't a war. It's a bunch of crude assassinations. There are no meaningful military objectives regrettably costing some civilian lives; these drone strikes are the primary act of war, and they accomplish nothing of value. They just breed more enemies.
- peterashford 13y ago
  If you were actually at war with Pakistan, then civilian deaths there might be explainable as collateral damage. But last time I checked, they're a US ally. Killing innocent citizens of your allies is not an act of war, it's terrorism.
  - nickff 13y ago
    It is possible to be fighting a war in an allied country, (i.e. England in France throughout WWI).

by RyanZAG 13y ago

nickff 13y ago

Civilians are blown up in every war, drones did not create this problem, and eliminating UAVs will not end it. If you want people to be "doing your bit to end drone strikes", you should consider that the probable counter-factual is not an end to non-combatant (civilian) deaths; civilian mortality may increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on what tactics are chosen to replace drones.

gldalmaso 13y ago
Weddings are not war zones.
- nickff 13y ago
  I never said they were, and I do not understand how you could think I did.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Weddings are not war zones. But they can take place in them, and, more to the point, the problem that needs to be addressed in the legalities of modern war is that modern wars, increasingly, don't have "zones" at all.
RyanZAG 13y ago
Sorry - by drone strikes I was actually incorrectly implying the broader picture. I mean end attacks on civilians in countries you are not even at war with. There really is no moral justification for blowing these people up. Even if they were terrorists, there is no way they could have done as much damage as the slaughter of a whole wedding. The 'cure' is far worse than the illness.
- nickff 13y ago
  Thanks for the clarification, I now understand your position. I will not address the normative moral views, because everyone should make up their own mind; and I have no evidence to either prove or falsify your statement about the likely consequences of the deaths, but it seems reasonably likely (to me).
- d23 13y ago
  > Even if they were terrorists, there is no way they could have done as much damage as the slaughter of a whole wedding. Erm, why? You're saying terrorists can't kill 14 people?
  - bluecalm 13y ago
    There were more civilians deaths thatn this. If you are saying that expected number of people killed by expected number of terrorists this wedding could possibly be 14 or higher then no, it couldn't. As side effect by blowing up civilians you are creating more resentment leading to more terrorists.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      > If you are saying that expected number of people killed by expected number of terrorists this wedding could possibly be 14 or higher then no, it couldn't Mumbai.
pantalaimon 13y ago
What war are you talking about? What is the objective? What would have to happen for this 'war' to end?
- nickff 13y ago
  When you have an army shooting at people in a foreign country, there is a war; call it whatever you want.
  - peterashford 13y ago
    So, as a New Zealander, I can hire some people to gun down innocents in the US and be on the moral high ground because I'm conducting a 'war' and not terrorism? Neato.
    - nickff 13y ago
      I have never said that war is virtuous. 'Some people' do not make an army.[1] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > What war are you talking about? Presumably the one that was either (a) initiated by the 9/11 attacks and formally recognized as already existing by Congress in Public Law 107-40, or (b) was provoked by the 9/11 attacks and declared by Congress in Public Law 107-40, depending on how you choose to look at it. > What is the objective? "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by" "those nations, organizations, or persons [the President determines] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". > What would have to happen for this 'war' to end? Given the rather fluid definition in PL 107-40, it is not clear that it could formally and completely end absent a subsequent resolution of Congress terminating it.
  - eropple 13y ago
    The AUMF is not a declaration of war; it expressly avoids being called a "war" in much the same way as ye olde Vietnam. What it is is probably illegal under international law, but nobody has the standing to make the United States back down.
mcv 13y ago
> Civilians are blown up in every war Yes, but this isn't a war. It's a bunch of crude assassinations. There are no meaningful military objectives regrettably costing some civilian lives; these drone strikes are the primary act of war, and they accomplish nothing of value. They just breed more enemies.
peterashford 13y ago
If you were actually at war with Pakistan, then civilian deaths there might be explainable as collateral damage. But last time I checked, they're a US ally. Killing innocent citizens of your allies is not an act of war, it's terrorism.
- nickff 13y ago
  It is possible to be fighting a war in an allied country, (i.e. England in France throughout WWI).