4 ms·

> In what universe is striking a convoy carrying a suspect but also carrying innocent (or even if not innocent, not deserving a death sentence) civilians, deeme

> In what universe is striking a convoy carrying a suspect but also carrying innocent (or even if not innocent, not deserving a death sentence) civilians, deemed acceptable? During war, as accepted by every politician going back to the dawn of civilization. On the plus side, for the past several hundred years, we've started to make efforts to minimize. > there are no qualms around civilian collateral damage. Really? That seems to be all anyone is talking about when it comes to drones. From the perspective of anyone from more than a century ago, we're obsessed with it (and conversely, from the perspective of today, Dresden and Hiroshima would be war crimes.)

BrokenPipe 13y ago
Even rape and slavery was accepted not long ago, not enough reason to continue do it? I'm seriously disgusted by some people capacity to accept brutality as normal and worse defend it too.
alextingle 13y ago
> During war... Except the US isn't at war with any of the countries where these drone strikes are taking place.
macspoofing 13y ago
>During war What war?! >That seems to be all anyone is talking about when it comes to drones. Just a few weeks ago, a wedding convoy was mistakenly targeted and 17 innocent people died. Why is a convoy EVER targeted given that more than likely most convoy-travelers are either innocent or not-deserving of a death sentence even if a known terrorist is among them. That's what I meant. Furthermore, where is the accountability?! Who was disciplined for this MASSIVE intelligence failure?!