You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
June 26, 2017, 05:50:26 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The morality of drone attacks  (Read 4272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2012, 12:27:46 PM »
The issue is not that civilians are being killed, that's simply to illustrate that, like IEDs, they are essentially indiscriminate weapons. As are all weapons, I suppose, but I think we can agree that there's more potential for collateral damage with a drone strike than with rifles. That's really neither here nor there. The points you brought up could be applied to roadside bombs just as easily.

The point, as I laid it out in my earlier post, is that IEDs and drone strikes are similar in more ways than not, and that if one can be labeled a weapon of terror, then so can the other. That is to say that if an IED attack that kills only soldiers can be called a "cowardly" attack ( as it has ), then so can a drone strike. And if one can be called terrorism, then so can the other.

We are at war, the Congress in modern terms authorized it and the commander-and-chief is executing it using many assets among them drones. In war there is always collateral damage its sad but true all we can do is try to not have that be higher than necessary.

And all war is terrorist in nature as in you want the enemy to fear, in WW2 I'm sure our enemy feared us more than a few times. I would say that can be in context a good thing to it makes other not necessarily want to attack you.

Online gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2012, 03:52:33 PM »
We are at war, the Congress in modern terms authorized it and the commander-and-chief is executing it using many assets among them drones. In war there is always collateral damage its sad but true all we can do is try to not have that be higher than necessary.

And all war is terrorist in nature as in you want the enemy to fear, in WW2 I'm sure our enemy feared us more than a few times. I would say that can be in context a good thing to it makes other not necessarily want to attack you.

Well, the trouble is the US is not at war with Pakistan, nor with the legit government of Afghanistan. They are your allies, and they "own" the territorial rights to their own countries and airspaces. I know the situation is a bit twisted because Pakistan is not really the most reliable ally, and has been an on-off recruitment area for the Talibans and for al-Qaeda, but from an international law standpoint (which the US has long since bound itself to) there's no question about it: the governments at Kabul and Islamabad are entitled not to have missiles dropping down at sixes and sevens in their countries without these governments having been given a say in the matter.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 03:55:39 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2012, 03:58:11 PM »
Well, the trouble is the US is not at war with Pakistan, nor with the legit government of Afghanistan. They are your allies, and they "own" the territorial rights to their own countries and airspaces. I know the situation is a bit twisted because Pakistan is not really the most reliable ally, and has been an on-off recruitment area for the Talibans and for al-Qaeda, but from an international law standpoint (which the US has long since bound itself to) there's no question about it: the governments at Kabul and Islamabad are entitled not to have missiles dropping down at sixes and sevens in their countries without these governments having been given a say in the matter.
THAt is the issue that was making me twitchy about it! Thank you!   It's the US disregard to sovereignty that had me worried. Our RoE pretty much ignores it.

The US Defense Secretar in India pretty much blew that off this week and I have to admit that worries me. It sets a dangerous precedent. 
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 05:58:50 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline grovercjuk

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2012, 04:58:37 PM »
THAt is the issue that was making me twitchy about it! Thank you!   It's the US disregard to sovereignty that had me worried. Our RoE pretty much ignores it.

The US Defense Secretar in India pretty much blew that off this week and I have to admit that worries me. It sets a dangerous precedent.

          The message that it sends to the world is that if you are a low tech military weak country then the US will do as it wishes. If you on the other hand are a high tech military powerful country then the US will respect your borders. A doctrine that appears to be that might is right can lead to unfortunate responses by other countries. ie China and Russia.

            But returning to the question the difference in my opinion is that the intent of a Drone is to kill only the target where as an IED is more kill the target and any one around. And having intelligence on the ground although it eliminates some of the risk does not totally eliminate it. We have had the case in Afghanistan  for example where a British Army sniper killed a British soldier because he thought he was planting an IED and in fact the soldier was examining it owing presumably a communication breakdown.   

          Mistakes happen and people die in combat situations   but hopefully the Drone commanders can say we attempt not to kill civilians,                   

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2012, 06:36:32 PM »
Believe it or not, the actual technology to make a functional drone isn't that difficult to acquire. It's making a high end drone with gear from over the counter that is the trick. I haven't directly seen or handled that sort of gear, but a LOT of the sensor tech isn't that hard to get or build from gear you can buy. Add in the fact that you can find people who WILL sell you that gear, and a drone is a HELL of a lot easier to make than say.. a strike aircraft.

Include a smaller logistical footprint, the ability to deploy a small scale drone makes for a very interesting option for any group with access to the talent and resources to build it.

Needless to say that this is most likely a technical analyst's nightmare. Imaging a self guided missile that you could deploy from a box van, launch from a football pitch and control via data control links such as a cell phone or such. Drop one into an area and you take out a LOT of material/people for a relatively small cost.

'First world terrorists' like racist groups could more easily get the materials and work without raising too much of an alert.

That is one of the reasons I get twitchy about the indiscriminate (in my opinion) use of drones by non-military groups such as the CIA. I think the oversight should be more regulated, the Rules of Engagement should be more harsh. I dislike the idea of non-military control by groups like the CIA because oversight is harder to maintain behind the wall of secrecy.


Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2012, 10:17:52 AM »
THAt is the issue that was making me twitchy about it! Thank you!   It's the US disregard to sovereignty that had me worried. Our RoE pretty much ignores it.

The US Defense Secretar in India pretty much blew that off this week and I have to admit that worries me. It sets a dangerous precedent.

An interesting point.  However, this whole issue (especially in the Pakistan drone strikes) is sovereign nations not upholding their responsibilities to prevent their territory from being used as a base for groups to carry out criminal acts against others.  Sovereignty involves responsibilities, not just rights.  If Pakistan would police its own territory and shut down the bases insurgents use to carry out attacks cross-border into Afghanistan, the drone strikes would not be necessary.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2012, 10:30:44 AM »
An interesting point.  However, this whole issue (especially in the Pakistan drone strikes) is sovereign nations not upholding their responsibilities to prevent their territory from being used as a base for groups to carry out criminal acts against others.  Sovereignty involves responsibilities, not just rights.  If Pakistan would police its own territory and shut down the bases insurgents use to carry out attacks cross-border into Afghanistan, the drone strikes would not be necessary.

So, you're arguing that any country that doesn't act to restrain terrorists from crossing borders to attack other countries is all the justification you need to make that drone strikes (and other actions) are justified.

This argument could be used as justification for some of the following actions:

-The Ulster Defense Forces could for most of their existence could have charged across the border (or called for RAF Drones) to strike at IRA sites in the Republic of Ireland.
-The Spanish army could make strikes against Basque Nationalists hiding in France.
-The Italians could move against Red Army forces hiding outside their country.
-The Israelis could conduct drone strikes against Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, and areas in the Palestinian authority with legal authority.

Sorry, you're argument didn't work when we invaded Laos during Vietnam and are still questionable when the Pakistani authorities have trouble enforcing law and order in the border provinces. Drone strikes aren't making it any easier for the government to make in roads with the tribals.

Incidentally how can it be wrong when the Israeli forces do similar actions and still be justified by us when we do it?

We can't circumvent local authority because it doesn't work well. We should assist and aid them, work and coordinate with them. To do so as we're doing it.. leaves them weakened, and might I remind you we don't want the Taliban getting further footholds in their country. A nuclear Taliban isn't something we want.

Note: Sorry..that came out overly snarky.. I'm trying to fix.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 10:36:43 AM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2012, 03:37:49 PM »
If this is an issue of sovereingty take the matter to the Security Council and have a vote on this, that is where this has to be dealt with. Of course they must get passed our veto override which means we can in effect do what we want to that is the benefit of being in the Big 5 Club. Or go to the World Court and we can then ignore them and do what we want. Face it this is a classic case is its okay because no one is there to really stop us from making it legal. If other nations don't like it like China or Russia they have military clout they can move forces in and say - stop it - and likely we would. I hardly think with a division or two of crack Chinese forces we would go there.

I don't see anyone bothering to act against the US on this so it must be fine in the end.

Offline HemingwayTopic starter

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2012, 03:48:08 PM »
But someone is acting against the US, very likely as a result of volatile US foreign policy.

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Drifting, One Day at a Time
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2012, 04:16:14 PM »
I'm beginning to think you should sign all of your posts with "Americcccaa! Fuck Yeah!" there, Ruby.  ::)

The whole idea of national sovereignty and morality is such a subjective argument that it makes little sense to me to use it as a basis of comparison or justification.  The whole thing is a mess, that's the only thing I know we can all agree upon here.   I, for one, am just glad that Osama Bin Laden and the other members of extremist terrorist cells that have been taken out by drone attacks or other means are dead and not around to continue their terrorist tactics on the United States or any other country.  While there will always be others, at least they will no longer do any harm (save for what they might inspire as "martyrs" or what have you). 

Does that mean I think drone attacks should continue unabated?  No.  Does that mean I think the US should ignore the UN sanctions or protests?  No.  It just seems to be me that trying to justify them based on such subjective and idealistic notions is a bit pointless.  Just my two cents though.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2012, 04:11:21 PM »
So, you're arguing that any country that doesn't act to restrain terrorists from crossing borders to attack other countries is all the justification you need to make that drone strikes (and other actions) are justified.

This argument could be used as justification for some of the following actions:

-The Ulster Defense Forces could for most of their existence could have charged across the border (or called for RAF Drones) to strike at IRA sites in the Republic of Ireland.
-The Spanish army could make strikes against Basque Nationalists hiding in France.
-The Italians could move against Red Army forces hiding outside their country.
-The Israelis could conduct drone strikes against Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, and areas in the Palestinian authority with legal authority.

Sorry, you're argument didn't work when we invaded Laos during Vietnam and are still questionable when the Pakistani authorities have trouble enforcing law and order in the border provinces. Drone strikes aren't making it any easier for the government to make in roads with the tribals.

Incidentally how can it be wrong when the Israeli forces do similar actions and still be justified by us when we do it?

We can't circumvent local authority because it doesn't work well. We should assist and aid them, work and coordinate with them. To do so as we're doing it.. leaves them weakened, and might I remind you we don't want the Taliban getting further footholds in their country. A nuclear Taliban isn't something we want.

Note: Sorry..that came out overly snarky.. I'm trying to fix.

The difference between this and most of the examples you give is that in the case of the Pakistanis, they're not even trying.  I'm not expecting perfection.  But yes, I think if a country willfully and habitually fails to crack down on terrorists within its borders, other nations impacted by the terrorism do have the right to execute surgical cross-border strikes.  If the host nation is trying in good faith to eliminate terrorists but needs additional resources, then yes, I'm all in favor of aiding the sovereign authority rather than taking matters into our own hands.  But the Pakistanis aren't trying...bin Laden lived right under their noses, complete with compound and harem of slave-girls, for how long now?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 04:13:22 PM by OldSchoolGamer »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2012, 06:57:48 PM »
The difference between this and most of the examples you give is that in the case of the Pakistanis, they're not even trying.  I'm not expecting perfection.  But yes, I think if a country willfully and habitually fails to crack down on terrorists within its borders, other nations impacted by the terrorism do have the right to execute surgical cross-border strikes.  If the host nation is trying in good faith to eliminate terrorists but needs additional resources, then yes, I'm all in favor of aiding the sovereign authority rather than taking matters into our own hands.  But the Pakistanis aren't trying...bin Laden lived right under their noses, complete with compound and harem of slave-girls, for how long now?

So.. how do you define terrorism.. because EVERY ONE of the cases I cited happened. In at least one case in the last 30 years. The French drug their feet on Basque nationals till they did actions IN France.. the IRA, and more militant groups than them, did actions from Ireland. (I have actually had a picnic on an IRA land mine.. it was detonated a week later and killed something like 20 soldiers).

If you follow some of the arguments in other countries say.. we in the US support acts of terror in their homelands..and do nothing about it.

Pakistan has long had issue in the tribal lands.. do you honestly think that by ignoring the government rather than offering them access to our intel and assets that they could have FINALLY taken control of the region?

And for the four cases I cited..there is MORE than enough evidence, political message traffic and time to prove that ALL the 'hosting' countries did NOTHING.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2012, 07:04:36 PM »
So.. how do you define terrorism.. because EVERY ONE of the cases I cited happened. In at least one case in the last 30 years. The French drug their feet on Basque nationals till they did actions IN France.. the IRA, and more militant groups than them, did actions from Ireland. (I have actually had a picnic on an IRA land mine.. it was detonated a week later and killed something like 20 soldiers).

If you follow some of the arguments in other countries say.. we in the US support acts of terror in their homelands..and do nothing about it.

Pakistan has long had issue in the tribal lands.. do you honestly think that by ignoring the government rather than offering them access to our intel and assets that they could have FINALLY taken control of the region?

And for the four cases I cited..there is MORE than enough evidence, political message traffic and time to prove that ALL the 'hosting' countries did NOTHING.

We've given Pakistan a little under $18 billion in military and economic aid over the last decade.  I'd hardly call that "ignoring the government" there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#U.S._Financial_aid_to_Pakistan_since_9.2F11

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #38 on: June 25, 2012, 10:38:52 PM »
Regarding the indiscriminate feature of a drone strike: We are all well are aren't we that the bad guys we target in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen intentionally mingle themselves in with innocents with the understanding they too will be killed and the subsequent negative press and perceptions follow. They (terrorists) have few ways to counter drone attacks, and so the only means they have is to make it as costly for us execute.

It is the terrorists who indiscriminately surround themselves with civilians, not drone attack operations.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2012, 05:12:50 AM »
Quote from: Zeitgeist
Regarding the indiscriminate feature of a drone strike: We are all well are aren't we that the bad guys we target in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen intentionally mingle themselves in with innocents with the understanding they too will be killed and the subsequent negative press and perceptions follow. They (terrorists) have few ways to counter drone attacks, and so the only means they have is to make it as costly for us execute.
     As far as what's taken for "bad," this is a sort of chicken and egg discussion.  If the US had a deeper history and more support in Pakistan (toss in a smidge of Afghanistan support/Pashtun tribes as the three are not entirely separate groups), and if the US was willing to risk more boots on the ground, then it wouldn't need to rely so heavily on drones to begin with. 

     However the US doesn't have those things.  It isn't fixing those things very well.  It has a  messy diplomatic status in the region.  The drone campaign  isn't improving locals' views of the US, and again: We're not putting people on the line (either in rural Pakistan, or on the cosmopolitan international news/policy circuit) to fix that.

Quote from: Paul, Fricker, and Williams url=http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/practice-makes-perfect/html
Despite the fact that the CIA may be waging the most precise “bombing” campaign in history, it is nonetheless alienating millions of average Pakistanis. Pakistanis are prone to conspiracy theories and there is little chance that U.S.-based researchers can shift the paradigm in this country that drones almost exclusively kill innocent Pakistani civilians.

Moreover, as long as the U.S. government continues to conduct the campaign in secret, refusing to divulge any information on it or even acknowledge that it carries out these strikes at all, its officials cannot even enter the conversation. Unfortunately, as Christine Fair has observed, this leaves the field free for the very groups who are being targeted to report the impacts on the ground and to frame the strikes for the Pakistani public. [67] In-so-far as the American objective is to isolate and degrade Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their affiliates, this represents a serious problem. [68] To the degree the target groups are able to disseminate a common sense of victimhood to the Pakistani public, it is America rather than its enemies which is likely to be increasingly isolated in the Pakistani political conversation. Thus, for all the best intentions, the unprecedentedly accurate covert CIA drone strikes may lead to a strategic setback even as they gain a tactical success by surgically killing hundreds of FATA-based Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists every year.
 
Sounds like the sort of game we played and lost with Ho Chi Minh: There's no question the US can keep on bombing, provided there are bases and Pakistani military doesn't intervene (unless someone cut the funding, or domestic opinion gets fed up).  All that remains to be seen, is just how much support Al Qaeda/Taliban etc. can draw regardless -- or partly even because of the same bombing -- and for how long.

     In short, the US isn't especially willing to take risks with personnel when there's a distanced technical solution.  It isn't willing to come down off the high horse, release more data on sensitive technology, and discuss or "negotiate" how people in other circumstances -- whether civilian or militant -- actually experience and perceive remote bombings.  So naturally, the guerrillas do what they can in response.  American coldness and "body count" cost-benefit analysis on the issue comes off in Pakistan as aloofness and exceptionalism.

     I'm also not clear that the guerrillas really have options other than to shelter with civilians and/or sympathetic locals.  The area is highly rugged terrain.  The US drones are going to come down hard on any suspected target camp they find, assuming they aren't saving too many people for negotiation or bribery potential.  What else are people scurrying around in the mountains for weeks going to do, if they don't take shelter in populated areas?  If the area resembles other steep parts of Pakistan that I've seen, there are really not that many choices of where to stay -- at least in the more rural parts.  I suppose they could disperse more and live off the land for a time, but it could be difficult to supply and coordinate operations that way.  But once you have a guerrilla operation where you have to stay even partially dispersed and you're technically outgunned, I think none of this is really surprising.

     So as to who's the "bad guy" since it seems you must have just one...  The US can operate with relative impunity in sending bombs after its opponents...  They tend to regard that as "bad" too, I think.  Is it good and "moral" to expect them to capitulate on all their goals because they can't survive and fight without involving a local population?  Even while the US can't bomb without at least sometimes striking the same population?  I think that question is more about what you see as worth fighting for -- and less about how the fighting is done. 
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 07:01:26 PM by kylie »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2012, 11:53:22 AM »
You know kylie, that fits with has been nagging at me. The location where the strikes is very very distance and inaccessible, the taliban has standing with the target audience (the locals and muslim populations elsewhere) and it's hard to disprove a negative.

Ex: 'Do you still beat your wife sir?'

The CIA's very nature goes against protecting themselves against this sort of thing. Which is why I am against them running the drone strikes. These are military weapons, and the DoD should run them.

By allowing the CIA to use them you got no standing at all with the Muslim population.. (the 20 or so Pakistani soldiers that were killed earlier this year by accident.. nothing came of it.. I'm willing to be the man who did the strike, the one who authorized it..and everyone in the chain of choices leading up to it are all still working.)

Friendly fire.. isn't. And like it or not.. the Pakistani government are our allies. We lose standing twice on that.

Accountability as well as some measure of transparency, along with a strongly defined set of Rules of Engagement (RoE) are needed. The CIA nature can't do that..the DoD has shown at least SOME Muslim nations that they will be accountable for their actions and can be more visible and still be able to function.

Giving the spooks the drones was a mistake. They should stick to providing intell and let the gunslingers be a separate issue.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 01:13:32 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2012, 04:02:11 PM »
The difference between this and most of the examples you give is that in the case of the Pakistanis, they're not even trying.  I'm not expecting perfection.  But yes, I think if a country willfully and habitually fails to crack down on terrorists within its borders, other nations impacted by the terrorism do have the right to execute surgical cross-border strikes.  If the host nation is trying in good faith to eliminate terrorists but needs additional resources, then yes, I'm all in favor of aiding the sovereign authority rather than taking matters into our own hands.  But the Pakistanis aren't trying...bin Laden lived right under their noses, complete with compound and harem of slave-girls, for how long now?

And what about a nation that provides AID to terrorist groups? For example: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/report_us_trained_terror_group/
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8537567.stm
or
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/06/201062074140996374.html
 
or I suppose I could look up the statistics on how much money the IRA gained from backers in the USA, or Contras, or how the United States sponsored the 1973 overthrow of the legitimate government of Chile which led to the murder of thousands, or their backing of the Shah in Iran...
 
So should these countries start bombing us now, given that we harbored and aided terrorists? I don't see where the United States is the nation that has the moral authority to decide who is or is not a terrorist. We bomb Afghanistan and Pakistan in pursuit of the Taliban and Al Quaeda, then condemn Russia when they crack down on Chechnya, or invade Georgia to "protect Ossetians from Georgian oppression", while patting ourselves on the back for bombing Serbia for their involvement the the various Balkan wars of the 90s.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't pursue enemies that threaten or attack us, I'm just saying the whole concept of calling them terrorists and so forth and the label of war on terror is just fundamentally flawed.

I apologize for this being a bit jumpy and all that, I'm rather highly medicated at the moment. :)

Offline grovercjuk

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2012, 05:47:20 PM »
Although it is not strictly to do with morality it is interesting to think where using drones will take us.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2012/06/29/the-dangers-of-drone-nation/

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2012, 07:42:15 PM »
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156367047/yemen-airstrikes-punish-militants-and-civilians

Heard this on NPR this afternoon on the way to the gas station. This sums up why a strict 'standoff' position around Drones is a losing one. You need people on the ground. Physical assetts in place and intel that isn't scrubbed from an electronic warfare platform managed by an office in Bahrain or Virginia.


Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2012, 03:02:20 PM »
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156367047/yemen-airstrikes-punish-militants-and-civilians

Heard this on NPR this afternoon on the way to the gas station. This sums up why a strict 'standoff' position around Drones is a losing one. You need people on the ground. Physical assetts in place and intel that isn't scrubbed from an electronic warfare platform managed by an office in Bahrain or Virginia.

And the fact Muslim jihadists love to hide behind women and children and use them as human shields doesn't help matters either.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2012, 03:26:54 PM »
And the fact Muslim jihadists love to hide behind women and children and use them as human shields doesn't help matters either.

You know some of those women and children are their family and they come home to them. You're looking at this from a Western point of view where military men are separate from the rest of the population. They are doing the same thing our forefathers did during the revolutionary war.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2012, 08:02:54 PM »
You know some of those women and children are their family and they come home to them. You're looking at this from a Western point of view where military men are separate from the rest of the population. They are doing the same thing our forefathers did during the revolutionary war.

Wrong.

Our forefathers did not walk into crowded marketplaces and blow themselves up.  Our forefathers did not deliberately and knowingly use women and children as human shields.  Our forefathers thought that human life had intrinsic value.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2012, 08:26:32 PM »
Wrong.

Our forefathers did not walk into crowded marketplaces and blow themselves up.  Our forefathers did not deliberately and knowingly use women and children as human shields.  Our forefathers thought that human life had intrinsic value.

I wasn't talking about the suicide bombing..which there isn't a hell of a lot of in YEMEN, but they did work on the same 'staging from their homes' our forefathers did. And some our the forefather actions were less than.. civil too.

Offline Shjade

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2012, 09:06:12 PM »
Our forefathers thought that human life had intrinsic value.

Yes. Specifically, they thought it held value equal to the amount they paid to own that human life to work the fields for them.

If you want the moral high ground, you're going to have to look somewhere other than American history. Our forefathers were dicks.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The morality of drone attacks
« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2012, 09:10:06 PM »
I wasn't talking about the suicide bombing..which there isn't a hell of a lot of in YEMEN, but they did work on the same 'staging from their homes' our forefathers did. And some our the forefather actions were less than.. civil too.

What noble cause are these Islamists fighting for?  The right to have nine year old brides?  The right to keep women as chattel?  The right to mutilate and kill people for bullshit religious reasons?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any moral equivalency between these cretins and the people who founded America.  And I'm not nominating the Founders of America for sainthood.  They had their foibles, to be sure.  But considering they lived in the 18th century, I think at least to a limited extent they ought to be graded on a curve.  It's one thing to grow up in an era where people didn't know any better.  Quite another to deliberately and wantonly cling to violent atavism in modern times.