Summations Only

Perhaps the main difference between you and I (and Dronester who keeps skying off on such tangents to the detriment of his own arguments) here is that the question "What's the best way to prevent terrorism?" seems to be very much a relevant sub-topic given the context here.

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.

As I understand it there have been nearly 300 drone attacks in Pakistan and several in Yemen and Somalia as well. Most of these have not been in "semi-autonomous-tribal-regions" and if taken to it's logical conclusion the US stance would mean that any government could, under the cover of counter-terrorism imperatives, legitimately decide to target and kill an individual on the territory of any State if it considers that said individual constitutes a threat.Are you saying that US drone attacks never take place on the soil of other nation states?

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, : **

It could be a relevant sub-topic. I've tried to distinguish between when I'm talking about present real-life military options and when I'm talking about idealistic peace and love options but those on the anti-drone side seem to jump back and forth between them at will. I don't know if it's deliberate misdirection or just short attention span.

OK. Do you think it likely that some of the US drone strikes might be legitimately described in that way? "Are not" murder because they are on some sort of ""semi-autonomous-tribal" land?Is that really the deciding factor here?

It's the refusal to accept the status quo as the best that can be achieved. Imagine the great speeches of yesteryear if your approach had been taken....."I have a dream. Not an unrealistic pipe-deream. Not a dream where unrealistic seeming things like a black man in the White House or the acceptance of mixed race marriages are acceptable. No. Just a pragmatic dream whereby we accept segregation and just try to get by with a bad situation. A dream where we just all try and get on with one-another whilst accepting things basically as they are....."But I digress...

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.

But you're not offering anything but dreams. Sure, we all want a world where everybody lives in peace and harmony but you're not offering any concrete way to get there from here. All you're saying is, "Nuh uh."Edited by ringo, : Added "quote.

Because, for example, the US has already tried the person in question for the attack and has decided that reducing him a couple of levels in rank is the appropriate punishment.Or maybe the US does not consider the attack to be a crime at all.The US would never extradite an American born citizen to Iran regardless of what he has done.

And which target of a drone strike does that correspond to?

The example was hypothetical and applies to no one. Since the US is doing drone strikes, the hypo cannot apply to any real situation involving current strikes.However, perhaps the hypo might apply to a reprisal against someone like Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich or one of the marines for whom charges were dropped in the Haditha incident. Let's hypothetically suggest that some Iranian citizens were victims in that incident.NoNukes

How about stopping drone attacks that are killing innocent civilians?- Oni

And letting the terrorists walk away scot free? That's fine with me but it isn't politically viable in the U.S., is it? Its the American public that are demanding that the government do something, isn't it?

Thanks (it will undoubtedly be another piece of evidence forum participants and americans/brits will continue to choose to ignore). My argument has been more or less consistent: look at american immoral actions that precipitate 'terrorist' blowback. The price of drone attacks on innocents will likely realize another 9/11. Another 9/11 seems to be quite acceptable to many on this forum. Another 9/11 is NOT acceptable to me.RingO asks "what can be done?" as though I haven't stated the most obvious starting point many times . . . stop french-kissing the enemies of human rights for political expedience . . .One last crowbar of pictures . . .