Summations Only

Sure, just don't expect to be admired or liked for it.

It is an act of war but not against Pakistan.It is also not murder.

That's ok then- I'm sure the villagers who lost family understand. You know, I think that's exactly what the guys thought when they flew into those tall buildings.A distinction without a difference.or, if you prefer,"god is on our side".

The U.S. probably isn't going to be liked or admired internationally no matter what they do. It just makes sense to do things as efficiently as possible.

Well that's a good way to rationalise any action I guess. "they hate us anyway, stuff it."Once in a while it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to do something that the rest of the world might admire; generally when people like you, they don't try to kill you. People not wanting to kill you is a good and efficient way of not being killed.Just a thought from left field.

I doubt that the villagers understand and question whether they even understand the concept of "Pakistan".But that is also totally irrelevant to the topic. That too is totally irrelevant and factually wrong. The people who flew into the towers were not acting on the orders of a legitimate Nation State. What they did is legally murder.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I'm just pointing out how silly all of the puffed-up outrage is. Shooting back may not be the best way to respond to terrorism but if they're going to do it, drones seem to be a better way than either of the alternatives that you mentioned.

Then they should be treated like criminals and not like enemy soldiers.

They would be if they were within US jurisdiction, but they are not. It is also not simply individuals but a terrorist organization.In that case I applaud non-conventional responses like the drone attacks. That is how we should have replied from the beginning instead of invading either Afghanistan or Iraq.

How about the "non-conventional" techniques the United States used to interrogate suspected terrorists in Guantnamo Bay? Do you condone those as well?To speak more directly, any expansion of the techniques the US uses to apprehend its enemies sends the country further down a slippery slope. Just a couple of weeks ago, Obama adjusted the definition of "combatant" to "all military-age males in a strike zone." From here, it wouldn't be so difficult for the administration to once again redefine the term as all males in a strike zone, military-age or not. Or all people in a strike zone, regardless of age or gender.Not to mention the aforementioned example of the United States's use of torture on suspected terrorists. If waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions aren't enough to draw any strong international censure against the United States, why couldn't the US try even more forceful tactics? Perhaps a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy?Some of these examples may be extreme, but my point is that the use of tactics such as drone strikes constitutes a slippery slope. The question of whether the US has committed murder is not one of simple definition - it is one of degree.

If civilian deaths are an "unavoidable consequence" of war, and the United States is fighting a necessary war (as some in this thread seem to suggest), then the civilian deaths are by extension also necessary.However, if the war is not necessary, then neither are the civilian deaths...and that hardly helps the case for America, does it?Regardless, I see your point - that the discussion of whether America's actions constitute murder is not necessarily related to the discussion of whether America's actions are justified. After further research I've found that I was incorrect: at least one of the other people killed, Ibrahim al-Banna, was a senior al-Qaeda media operative. As such, it's tough to argue that the death of Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, the American citizen killed in the same strike, was anything but accidental.That being the case, let me briefly venture into the hypothetical. Suppose the US government originally launched the strike with the intent to kill the 16-year-old as well, thinking he was an al-Qaeda operative, but later found out that he was an innocent American citizen. Would this change the picture at all? It would certainly qualify the killing of the civilian as somewhat premeditated. Although the particular case of al-Banna and al-Awlaki does not resemble this hypothetical scenario, I imagine that other civilians may have been mistaken for militants and subsequently killed in this way before. The New York Times has high journalistic standards and I trust that they know their sources well. Besides, I can't go into much more detail about the original report, as it was apparently assembled from "witness reports and files from reporters on the ground" that likely have not been documented on the Internet. Edited by Domino, : No reason given.

Well aint that just the fucking point.

Repeating your baseless claim is stupid.
But since that is all you have, I guess you have no other option.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Good.
And according to International and American law, the deaths are not murder.
And that explains "why there is no international outcry against the killing of civilians in drone attacks."<\thread>Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Slippery slope arguments are for those who are incapable of thinking and can only handle bumper sticker reasoning. That might be an interesting discussion but it is irrelevant to this topic.

I agree.Murder is reasonable easy to ascertain.But the problem with justification is that it is subjective.
America only needs to justify its behaviour to its voting public and selected international communities.
It is also impossible for America to make everyone happy.
Some people will claim that going to war is reprehensible and some people will claim that not going to war is reprehensible.Personally, I am undecided about whether the war is justified. There are good and bad aspects to the war.
But the necessary secrecy of military operations, the politically driven secrecy of governments and the anti-American propaganda means I will probably never be able to decide one way or another. Killing people based on faulty intelligence happens frequently in all wars.
I doubt that '100% accurate intelligence' actually exists.Finding out that the attack was based on false information would not make it murder.
As I am sure you know, time makes fools of us all.

quote:

---

Hindsight is not only clearer than perception-in-the-moment but also unfair to those who actually lived through the moment.

​

EDWIN S. SHNEIDMAN, Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind

---