Oops, turns out Arafat probably was murdered after all..

[Sava]

I hope no-one here is ever collateral damage in a botched assassination, but if you are, I'm glad you'll be comforted by the fact that whoever did it might get a bollocking.

I'm not worried. More people die from toaster fires. I firmly believe in prioritizing my "give a shit".

[C0ckney]

I hope no-one here is ever collateral damage in a botched assassination, but if you are, I'm glad you'll be comforted by the fact that whoever did it might get a bollocking.

and they'll be plenty of idiots to step up and try to justify it on internet forums.

[Lorizael]

Hey guys, governments are just the biggest gangs around. And as we all know, it's okay if a gang arbitrarily decides that some people are bad guys and knocks them off. Because bigger is better.

[Sava]

and they'll be plenty of idiots to step up and try to justify it on internet forums.

... the same with british area bombing during ww2

Nobody's hands are clean.

[regexcellent]

There is a certain amount of collateral damage which is acceptable when killing terrorists sooooo...meh.

We knock off a ton of people from the sky and civilians do get killed now and then, and I don't have a problem with our drone strikes.

[kentonio]

Obviously, but that's chiefly because you're a heartless ***** who doesn't understand that collateral damage makes terrorism worse not better.

[MikeH]

So you'd have been cool with them using drone strikes in Boston to get that guy? Or is it only OK if it's civilians on the other side of the world?

[MikeH]

It's easy to not give a **** about civilians getting killed by drones when you live somewhere you know damn well is never going to be targeted by foreign drones.

[MikeH]

Why is it "murdering innocent civilians" when they do it but "collateral damage" when we do it? Let's just call it what it is.

[MikeH]

"Yeah, it really sucks that Aunt Betty got blown up by a drone, but it turns out they only missed the guy by 30 mins. We'll get him next time."

[Sava]

Murder has a distinct definition. It's incorrect to use the term when discussing abortion. It's also incorrect to use it with regards to civilian casualties in military/counter-terror operations. It's pointless to discuss this topic with anyone who throws around the term so thoughtlessly.

[kentonio]

Murder has a distinct definition. It's incorrect to use the term when discussing abortion. It's also incorrect to use it with regards to civilian casualties in military/counter-terror operations. Point being, it's pointless to discuss this topic with anyone who throws around the term so thoughtlessly.

Not necessarily. If they know civilians are present when a strike is ordered then that is murder.

[MikeH]

Murder has a distinct definition. It's incorrect to use the term when discussing abortion. It's also incorrect to use it with regards to civilian casualties in military/counter-terror operations. It's pointless to discuss this topic with anyone who throws around the term so thoughtlessly.

In war, yeah.

Counter-terrorism is a police activity not a military one. Any associated civilian casualties should be treated with the same seriousness as if a cop shoots an innocent bystander.

If we're bombing someone half way across the world we're not doing it because they are an immediate threat to our citizens, we're doing it because it's easy and opportunistic, and not only are we executing someone without trial, we're executing them with a probability based identification and whilst knowing that there is a chance of civilian casualties.

Saying you are going to bomb somewhere because you think someone you think might be a potential terrorist is there, even though you might blow up some people who aren't terrorists, is definitely not justified on any level IMO.

As I said, imagine it's the same thing in Boston rather than Afghanistan. It's just not acceptable is it? Although in the Boston case at least it has the justification of potentially stopping an imminent attack.

[Sava]

So you'd have been cool with them using drone strikes in Boston to get that guy? Or is it only OK if it's civilians on the other side of the world?

Not in their current form, no. Bombs and missiles are too indiscriminate for my tastes. If someone builds a drone that can be an effective platform for a rifle, I'd be in favor of using that in such an instance.

Remember, the guys in Boston were firing at police and throwing bombs at them. The doesn't matter if they get taken out by drone or a cop with a gun. If you have a problem with that, then the debate becomes about the use of lethal force in general. Crying about the use of drones is just a sideshow.

And I'm not really in favor of US drone policy overseas. But compared to counter-terror tactics of old, it seems to be far less lethal overall.

[MikeH]

"I deliberately shot through the hostage's head to kill the suspect"