Summations Only

One is that one behavior is legal while the other is illegal.Second is that your hostage scenario takes place in a nation under rule of law while the drone strike does not.

Yes. That seems to sum it up quite succinctly. But they are at war with Afghani militants. Countries don't 'claim' to be at war: they declare war.And all democratic countries do this for the same reason: to change the laws that apply to their behaviour.
This allows them to invade countries and kill people without trial.
American is simply doing what every other democratic country has done - and it is not murder.You might be shocked to learn that in 1943 Canada declared war on Germany and then sent troops to Italy to kill German soldiers without giving them a trial...

The behaviour is the same. It is the classification that is different. Eh? Pakistan have some laws don't they? If anybody is at war it is the US.But the important point is that even if it is ok to kill that one guy it is not ok to kill those other people. The soldier in the office is much closer to the police scenario than the battlefield scenario.

Pakistan has a rule of law in some areas but not all.No, the behaviors are not the same, one is legal, the other is not. No, it is not even a close comparison.In a battlefield scenario if a tank commander fires into a building where there is a suspect machine gun or sniper and in doing so collapses the building killing everyone inside, it is not murder.

Yeah not really a state are they? This is not WWIII, we are not in imminent peril, these are not soldiers in uniform preparing to invade another country. This is claiming the protection of the rules of war under distinctly unwarlike conditions.

Correct, but irrelevant.

quote:

---

War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

---

War in not only waged against states.
You might be shocked to learn that Canada fought in the Spanish Civil War. Imminent peril is not a requirement for war.
You might be shocked to learn that Canada was not in imminent peril in 1943, but they still went to war with Germany. But they are enemy soldiers.
Countries kill enemy soldiers.
You might be shocked to learn that Canada also kills enemy soldiers. So, the war in Afghanistan is 'unwarlike'?
Which aspects of war do you feel it is lacking?

These two examples are notably different. In 1943, countries around the globe were immersed in World War II. During WWII (and similarly in other large international conflicts, beginning with the First World War), many of the belligerent countries adopted the strategy of "total war." In effect, these countries' civilian populations became active in the war effort in addition to their military populations. Citizens worked in vehicle and munitions factories, governments issued propaganda, families bought war bonds, militaries targeted and invaded cities and towns, and sometimes citizens even mounted active resistance efforts in war zones. WWII, more than most other conflicts, was a war of all against all.The war on terrorist groups in and around the Middle East, however, is not a war of all against all. It is a war of the American military against select militant groups such as al-Qaeda. Countries like Pakistan and Yemen, much less their civilian populations, have by no means declared themselves as part of the conflict. Thus, it is indeed "unwarlike" for the US to conduct drone strikes in non-belligerent countries with significant collateral damage to innocent bystanders and then to pass that damage off as a necessary cost of war. Especially when the strikes are aimed at funerals and groups trying to rescue the dead.

But, as I said, Canada was not under imminent peril.
Therefore, my point stands: imminent peril is not a prerequisite for war. I agree. America is at war. That is not a requirement for war. America is not at war with a belligerent country: it is at war with belligerent militants.
And civilian casualties are unfortunately commonplace in war. I am suspicious of your linked web-page.
It claims: "The first confirmed attack on rescuers took place in North Waziristan on May 16 2009." but links to a page that doesn't even mention rescuers.
Considering the page is titled "Obama Terror Drones", I doubt their impartiality and their reliability.I still don't see any reason not think that:
a) America is at war.
b) Accidentally killing civilians whilst at war is not murder..All I have seen (by yourself and others) is a desperate struggle to somehow redefine 'war' so that America is NOT at war.
This would then allow people to categorise civilian deaths can as murder.
This is all the more puzzling when you admit that America is at war.

As long as the US and others treat this action against fundamentalist militant Islam as a war then we are doomed to fight it forever. As long as we go on dropping bombs on people, whether by drone or manned aircraft, they will be able to attract new members.Sure, we can win battles, and we can pick off their leaders but there will always be someone to replace them, and it doesn't take many to cause major carnage. You only maintain a tense peace through fear and isolation for so long.I would also add that in fact Osama bin Laden won in the end. Look at the disruption that he has wrought on the way our societies operate. The most obvious example is what it now takes to get on an airplane, but in I also suggest that most of the economic problems that we are experiencing in the west lead directly back to our response to 9/11.IMHO, we in the west are always taking the short term view. It all has to be accomplished in one political cycle. The only way to eliminate terrorism is by changing the hearts and minds of those who think the way they do, but it will take generations. As long as we go on dropping bombs on people, particularly with so-called collateral damage, the more we make ourselves look no different than the terrorists. Sure we can say "he hit me first", but after a while there is no perceivable difference and it becomes us and them.So I suggest that the steps we should take, would be to bomb, (metaphorically speaking), the populations of countries where terrorism thrives with computers and access to the web in an effort to integrate them into the world wide community. This isn't an instant solution and it won't make arms manufacturers happy but it does offer a long term hope.( Don't forget that at one time the American arms manufacturers provided weapons to both the Taliban and Hussein with the blessing of the US gov't. and where did that get us.)Battles can be won with bombs but building relationship is the way to win or prevent war long term. Look at Germany after WW I. There was the "Treaty of Versailles" which was punitive and intended to essentially punish Germany. Within a couple of decades we were back at war again. After WW II the allied countries, and particularly the US with the "Marshal Plan", helped to build relationship with West Germany and just look at the wonderful friendly relations we enjoy with that country today.There is no quick and easy fix to this problem. I think it is essential to take a long term view. The argument can be made that there has so far been no repeat of 9/11 in the US, but let’s face it, we aren’t going to be able to stop every terrorist and even one with minimal ingenuity can cause major damage and loss of life. We have seen that several times with non-Islamic terrorism in all western countries. Terrorism will only be ended by winning the hearts and minds of people and I don't think that much of what we are doing is taking us in that direction. I agree that there has been a great deal of wonderful humanitarian outreach being accomplished, particularly in Afghanistan, but I think that in the end that is over-shadowed by the carnage from western bombs and bullets.Edited by GDR, : typo

I have seen this too, and I definitely agree with you that it is futile to fiddle with the definitions of "war" and "murder" and expect that this will lead to different conclusions on the issue at hand. America is at war, and the civilian deaths from drone strikes in the Middle East are a result of that war. But what I was trying to get across is that some civilian deaths are much less "necessary" than others.Take this recent example of an airstrike in Afghanistan. The NATO officials who called the strike were under fire from insurgents while on patrol in a combat zone, and the target of the airstrike was the insurgents in question, not the three shopkeepers who died during the bombardment. This example seems to me to exemplify what you are referring to as necessary civilian deaths during war.Now take this example of another airstrike by the US, this time in Yemen. Nine people were killed, one of them a 16-year-old American citizen. None of the victims seem to have been major militant targets (the fact that the 16-year-old boy was the son of an al-Qaeda member does not qualify); furthermore, they were killed in a country with which the US is not at war, in a situation that did not involve any active combat. To me, this case seems to be one in which the civilian deaths were markedly NOT necessary.Of course, these two cases are far from representative from the majority of civilian casualties due to drone strikes, but they reveal that not every civilian casualty is alike. I simply wanted to show how "accidentally killing civilians whilst at war" is a broad description for an action that cannot be quickly justified without deeper investigation. Thanks for pointing that out; the website does look slightly unreliable. Here is a more reliable source that gives the same information.Edited by Domino, : No reason given.

I have never described civilian deaths as 'necessary'; it is simply the unavoidable consequence of using ordnance in an uncontrolled environment. No, not 'necessary': unavoidable in any practical sense during a war.
But yes, they look like the kind of accidental deaths normally associated with a military strike. Could you provide a list of who these 9 people were, so that I can try and confirm that they were not militant targets? "a situation that did not involve any active combat." Really? Then how were they killed? Militants in Yemen are an established target - remember: America is at war with the militants, not the country - like in Pakistan.
And it was not a one-off strike, it was part of a campaign.From how you describe it, it was just a random killing in a random country.
But that is far from being the case. And does further investigation shows that the killing of civilians was intentional?
Was the American government guilty of murder? But that is an article about the article I questioned the credibility of.
All you have done is linked to a web-page higher up the pile. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I read this as saying that war exists between states or within a state as in a civil war like in Syria. Not between a state and an individual. Well no it is not for countries that just declare what is legal for them to do. For countries like this the only requirement is that they wanted to do it. This is like saying that imminent peril is not required to claim self defence. "Well I thought he might hurt me tomorrow." Bullshit. We are not talking about Afghanistan. We are talking about Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia and who knows where else. How about the fact that it is not actually the military that is carrying out the strikes but rather the CIA. The fact that the killings are not taking place in countries that the US is actually at war with. These killings are a lot closer to acts of terrorism than they are to acts of war.Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

The world surely gasps at the murderous actions of the US. Unfortunately, too many americans are either FOR drone assassinations, or are ambiguous/justify/make unilateral exceptions for the US. Keep in mind the two party system which american's support, are war mongers. Neither party campaigns to slash military spending to reasonable levels. America spends on its military nearly as much as all of the countries of the world combined, yet sees fit to squeeze social programs.However, not all americans view drone assassinations with lust or apathy . . .

quote:

---

Obama's newest critic: Jimmy Carter

​

Carter adds: "Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation's violation of human rights has extended."

---

Obama's newest critic: Jimmy CarterHow bad does Obama have to suck to cause a fellow democrat to harshly criticize?And if war criminals Blair and Bush Jr. are ever indicted at Hague, Obama's war crimes won't be left standing for long . . .

quote:

---

Desmond Tutu says Blair, Bush should be 'made to answer' for Iraq

​

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu said Sunday that Tony Blair and George W. Bush should be "made to answer" at the International Criminal Court for their actions around the Iraq war.

---

Desmond Tutu says Blair, Bush should be 'made to answer' for Iraq | CNN

America is at war.
Soldiers killing soldiers - while at war - is not murder.
Soldiers accidentally killing civilians - while at war - is not murder.All you have done so far is try to change the meaning of words so that your claim is true.You can claim that the war is not war-like.
You can claim that murder is not a legal term.
You can claim that CIA aren't soldiers.
You can claim that wars are only between countries.
You can claim that good countries insist on 'imminent threat' before going to war.But none of your claims are supported.
They are just baseless assertions and equivocations - or as you say: bullshit.Let's go back to the actual topic:
Since we seem to agree with the definition of war I provided, I will ask for the 3rd time:
"Who's definition of 'murder' should we use?"
Please define 'murder' for me, so that I understand what you are accusing the Americans of.Is this definition good enough for you?

quote:

---

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human being by another.

---

"Canada" doesn't control the flow of energy from Canada to the U.S. Even if the federal government was inclined to proclaim an embargo, it has little or no power to do so.