Summations Only

Your like a knight arguing with someone from World War 1 about how using guns on the battlefield is criminal because the bullets might miss their target and hit something else. And its so much more noble to be in your enemy's face as you run them through with a sword.Weapons evolve and get better and people are going to be uncomfortable with the use of the new technology, but its not "criminal".And if Hiroshima wasn't a crime then some drone strikes certainly aren't.

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.

If the drone attacks are not clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage of them, then they don't violate it.

I just can't take you seriously, Drone.And for real, one picture of a dead baby would have made your point. That you felt the need to post 10 pictures of dead babies says more about you than it does any point you were trying to make. Evil things happen in warfare. We all know this.But even more evil things would've happened from a infantry invasion. Ergo, a drone attack equals less evil. This isn't a difficult concept. Nor does it imply that drone attacks would equal no evil.So surely you must be joking.

The elimination of Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders. This isn't a conventional internation war. We're not fight against sovereign countries. We're at "war" with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.For example, a couple days ago a drone strike killed an Al-Qaeda leader in Yemen. The other 6 people in the car with him also died. (news) But we're not at war with Yemen and it wasn't a war crime.

The military.I don't the protocols or anything, nor how the international court would go about receiving a case against a particular attack.But the spirit of the law is against just blowing the shit out of a region willy-nilly without even trying to reach some kind of military goal.These drone strikes are not that.

I can't be both counting it and not counting it. You were right the first time: I don't consider the blowback as a part of the cost of the action. It an indirect result that isn't necessitated.

Which part is confusing you and unclear?The drone strike that killed the Al-Qaeda leader also had the cost of the 6 people in the car with him. If his cousin decides to kill some other people in a few months because of it, then I am not counting that as part of the cost. I don't know why they did it.

I can't tell if you're unable to follow a discussion or your'e just "joking" some more. I'm not saying don't consider it at all. I'm saying that it shouldn't be considered in determining the cost of the action. Well, maybe in hindsight it could be factored in but that's not what we're talking about. Huh? What are you talking about? I don't advocate the 9/11 attacks.

But we'd expect blowback from an infantry invasion too. So drone attacks are still the lesser of those two evils. I'm honestly not following you

Your scenario is hardly a mirror-image. The label doesn't really matter that much. Why don't they just have the US FBI go knock on his door and arrest him? It could be. Collateral damage can be justified regardless of who is being attacked. Just because its over here rather than over there doesn't change the morality. But its different because of all the specifics that you didn't mention. For example, was the US government complicit in the attacks like Pakistan is?

I'm not sure that's possible. So, have they declared war on us? On the street, no. But on an online discussion forum I might

I don't think that justifies a drone attack. They'd have to declare war on us. Right, so they've invaded our country.The drone strikes in Pakistan were in a semi-autonomous tribal region that the government wasn't (couldn't?) policing. There's nothing really like that here and that's why I don't think we can make this comparible.The closest hypothetical I can think of is this: Some native americans live in a semi-autonomous reservation that borders Mexico. They're helping mexican drug lords who have attacked Iran and the US isn't doing anything at all about it. The US lets Iran park some drones in its airbase near the reservation for use in strikes there. The Iranian drone stikes in that reservation would not be murder in my opinion. You don't know the extent of my apathy...Are the drone strike victims in question even Pakistani citizens? Aren't they Afghani?I suppose the above hypothetical would have to be changed to being mexican indians who are living in that reservation between Mexico and the US.Regardless, killing a US citizen on US soil is nothing like this.

I've just been talking about the drone stikes in Pakistan. That's what the OP mentioned and that's what Oni was asking me about. I did bring up the one in Yemen, but haven't really looked into the facts behind that one. **looks like the Yemeni government is cool with us on that oneI'm not saying that its impossible for a drone strike to be murder. I'm just saying that the ones we're talking about are not.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : **

Likely that they might be? I guess.I don't think its legit murder, because that is an unlawful killing by an individual, not a whole government.But I'd bet that some of the US drone stikes have immorally cause some deaths. Its more complicated than that... but if we we're killing Pakistanis on Pakistani soil without declaring war on Pakistan, then you're getting closer to murder - from a legality standpoint.From a moral standpoint it gets even more complicated, and case-by-case.