Summations Only

The consequence of actions that might not be considered "criminal" by an aggressor nation is called blowback. Perhaps you remember this: (Even though the weapons used on 9/11 were of old technology, I gotta say, I still remain uncomfortable with them.)Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

And? How could I forget? What's your point? Just because people are uncomfortable with new technology doesn't mean that they cannot still be uncomfortable by the old technology.

As long as humans remain uncivilized, they will kill each other. This has been going on ever since civilization began. Innocent victims aka collateral damage has occurred in all conflicts. Whether it is Hiroshima or drones, it is nothing but super lessor of 2 evils mentality. This will continue as long a humans are guided by greed, hate and stupid stereotyping.

And it will continue when bad men support war criminals . . . and it will also continue when good men do nothing.

Thank goodness that no-one here is supporting war criminals then.We haven't even mentioned any, from what I remember - so you can rest, contented that no-one here is supporting war criminals.
/patEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

So do something.

He is, he is.Posting his disdain on a Interwebz forum.

I haven't been able to explain it because that's the point. You couldn't legally kill these people unless you declare some nebulous world engulfing war. Again with the false dichotomies. You start with the assumption that somebody needs to die. How about the option of not droning the funeral?I have no problem with drones over any other weapon. In fact they are far superior in many ways. They don't risk a pilot. They can fly for up to 30 hrs which gives the operators lots of time to try and minimize collateral damage. They are cheaper than a jet and don't burn so much gas so they are green too! On top of that, you can send them where you just wouldn't send a jet plane because that would be too much like a war. What's not to like? Make killing people by accident illegal. The fact that we have been killing each other accidentally for millennia is not much of an argument in support of continuing to do so.Just for a little context and to support the notion that the US is actually at war with somebody, how many terrorist attacks that took place in the last decade against the US can you cite? Where is this peril that demands the killing of innocents? I am not saying that there is no threat but where is the proportionality of response?

No, I am not like that at all.I am saying that there is a limit to the extent of the battlefield. I am saying that the intended targets are a lot more like criminals than they are like combatants. I am saying that because I don't want my funerals to be attacked I will not support the allies of my country, or anyone else, attacking other peoples funerals. I am saying that if you are going to go around killing people then they better deserve to die. I am saying that you can not call yourself civilized and go around killing people who do not deserve to die.I am suggesting that if enough people said that it was unacceptable then it would be unacceptable.

Well it is more than posting his support.

So, you are advocating the bizarre position of intentional deaths being legal and accidental deaths being illegal.And how exactly should soldiers ensure that they completely avoid accidental deaths?
Because, unless you can guarantee a way to avoid unexpected deaths, no soldier could risk going into battle.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well you have your natural accidents like getting run over by a truck and you have your unnatural accidents like getting blown up by a missile.It's hardly bizarre. All the best legal killing is done with the deadliest of intent. I would suggest baby steps but I like your vision.

No, because it was a zone where a small tactical army of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were combating the US to weaken our nation. Same as what we do when we drop missles from drones. They don't have the taxes to fund a 98 billion dollar defense budget so, they had to get creative with their weaponry. It clearly does, you just failed to read it or didn't care to concede that it does. As usual.

quote:

---

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects

---

- Oni

Plenty of people here voted for and still support the decisions of the Bush administration. So yeah, many here do support a war criminal.I'd also wager many here supported Reagan, who supported the Contras, who were war criminals themselves, and by proxy so was Reagan. So there are plenty of war criminal supporters here.- Oni

Perhaps you could give definitions of 'natural accident' and 'unnatural accident', since you have made up these terms to try and support your crazy ideas.
Or is it just a distinction without a difference: "A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the argument as a whole." You think the developed world should disband its armies?
You think that would be a good thing??Your responses lack anything beyond naive knee-jerk reactions.