[Ter]

If some anti-abortionists set fire to an abortion clinic with the intention of destroying the clinic and 5 doctors happen to die in the inferno are they guilty of murder, manslaughter or just arson?

If the Allies kill thousands of Germans whilst trying to blow up a train station is Dresden is that a war crime?

Why is it ok for one side to 'accidentally' kill everyone who was standing too close to their bombs but not the other?

first hypothetical : murder
second hypothetical : it was war but yes, it was a war crime. The winners do not get prosecuted, you know that.

As mentioned earlier, in the case of drones the operators try to avoid civilian casualties where possible. With terrorism as you know it is the opposite, they are trying to maximise civilian casualties.
So it is not just a number game.
When the anti Israel posters come kvetching that hundreds of Arabs died they forget to mention that Israel retaliates for attacks carried out from civilian places. Those terrorists use their own population to avoid being targeted. Even then Israel does not shoot indiscriminately.

[Pants-of-dog]

We no longer have a dictator, now that we have gotten rid of Obama. However, i might consider the possibility of another country taking away all the liberals into captivity. Then it should be like heaven on earth here in the good ole USA. Glory to God.

Poe. Definitely.

Funny thing about being invaded (sorry, I should have said "liberated") by a hostile power. They do not consult you when they take people away to be killed.

--------------

@Ter

If drone operators are trying to avoid civilain casualties, then they are very bad at their job.

[Suntzu]

I thought we were killin' 'em in place.

[Hindsite]

If drone operators are trying to avoid civilain casualties, then they are very bad at their job.

No worry. I am sure Trump's Secretary of Defense will correct that problem.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Pants-of-dog]

No worry. I am sure Trump's Secretary of Defense will correct that problem.

Your opinion is not relevant. But I thank you for the implicit agreement you have made for my claim that drone operators are so bad at their job that they are killing thousands.

[Suntzu]

The drone operator's mission is to destroy the target. A few civilian casualties is just a bonus.

[QatzelOk]

When you look at all the civilian infrastructure that NATO has infllicted on countries it's bombed.... it's hard to say that terrorism wasn't the strategy.

Mind you, our brainwashing is second to none. War is peace for most of us, and cars are gentle, altruistic friends who love children.

[Ter]

@Ter

If drone operators are trying to avoid civilain casualties, then they are very bad at their job.

It is not a numbers game, POD.
As I stated numerous times already, it is the intent that makes all the difference.

The other reason that civilians get killed by drones is that the terrorists surround themselves on purpose with women and children. It is then a matter of judging if the strike can go ahead or not. I have no personal knowledge of the criteria used in those circumstances but I did see footage where strikes were cancelled because kids were playing nearby.

It is sad that civilians die because of the drone strikes but any comparison with terrorism is totally unwarranted.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is not a numbers game, POD.
As I stated numerous times already, it is the intent that makes all the difference.

Intent is an unverifiable claim. If they do really intend to not be killing that many civilians, then this is just a mistake.

A huge mistake that costs thousands of lives and that shows that these guys are really awful at their job.

If I did my job that badly, I would be charged with a crime.

But if you want to argue that these guys are criminally stupid at their jobs, fine by me.

The other reason that civilians get killed by drones is that the terrorists surround themselves on purpose with women and children. It is then a matter of judging if the strike can go ahead or not. I have no personal knowledge of the criteria used in those circumstances but I did see footage where strikes were cancelled because kids were playing nearby.

It is sad that civilians die because of the drone strikes but any comparison with terrorism is totally unwarranted.

No. It is completely warranted.

In fact, you have ignored two examples of western government officials intentionally killing civilians. Would you like me to remind you of these examples?

[Ter]

Intent is an unverifiable claim.

It might be unverifiable but I (and I believe also most other intelligent, reasonable and informed people) am willing to accept that drone operators do not have the intent of killing innocent civilians.

No. It is completely warranted.

No, it is completely unwarranted.
The comparison with terrorism is laughable.

[Godstud]

State sponsored terrorism is the same as any other kind of terrorism, Ter. I hardly think the US can claim innocence when it comes to spreading terror.

Intent means NOTHING. Results do. If they were concerned , in any way, with civilian casualties, they would not use drones. Period. Since they use them, they accept that some innocent people will die. Ho hum. Oh well. As long as we kill 1 potential terrorist, it doesn't matter if 50 innocents get killed.

I wonder how this would pass if they started using this on American soil. Do you think this would be acceptable casualties if they were American, or don't you think that these people are humans? Or do you think that it wouldn't be used because it would be seen as state sponsored terrorism by US citizens?

Sorry, Ter, but drones are a terrorist weapon that kills innocents in the advancement of the US political agenda.

[Hindsite]

[Zag Edit: Rule 3]

[Godstud]

Ah, the good Christian chimes in with a hateful genocidal comment. Typical.

[anasawad]

[Ter]

Intent means NOTHING. Results do. If they were concerned , in any way, with civilian casualties, they would not use drones. Period. Since they use them, they accept that some innocent people will die. Ho hum. Oh well. As long as we kill 1 potential terrorist, it doesn't matter if 50 innocents get killed.

I cannot agree with you at all.
Intent is everything.
I am surprised and a little sad that you cannot see that.

Drones are used because the terrorists stay in places like Yemen, NW Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, the Sinai and so on, places where they cannot be caught by other means.
For many years, they have enjoyed impunity whilst carrying out their murderous activities.
No more. It doesn't matter where they are, they can be blown up at any time of the day or the night. The same goes for ISIS also of course.

I doubt the claim that 50 civilians die for each terrorist taken out by a drone. The NGOs are not to be believed any more, they lost neutrality long ago, they have political agendas.

[Hindsite]

Ah, the good Christian chimes in with a hateful genocidal comment. Typical.

I see that someone did not like my termites and roaches analogy.
Jesus was the master of those type analogies when dealing with the Pharisees.
I seem to fall far short of the master.

[Godstud]

You're not Jesus. Jesus didn't hate the poor like you do.

[Hindsite]

You're not Jesus. Jesus didn't hate the poor like you do.

I Know I am not Jesus, but if I were Jesus, I think I would cast that demon spirit out of you.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Godstud]

Don't call me demon possessed just because I don't believe in fairy tales.

Fuck the Lord
Hellolooya, mutherfuckers!

[Pants-of-dog]

It might be unverifiable but I (and I believe also most other intelligent, reasonable and informed people) am willing to accept that drone operators do not have the intent of killing innocent civilians.

That is not only unverifiable, but also naive and contradicted by facts.

But if you want to argue that they are criminally stupid at their jobs, go ahead.

No, it is completely unwarranted.
The comparison with terrorism is laughable.

The comparison only works if you ignore actual intentional killing of civilians by western military, such as you are doing.