Are drone strikes justifiable?

After the events of 9/11 and the London subway bombings are drone strikes justifiable?

Yes, as long as they are not killing civilians.

Killing enemy combatants is justifiable.Crunchy_Nuts

Are bomber strikes justifiable?

[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]Killing enemy combatants is justifiable.themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]Killing enemy combatants is justifiable.dramaybaz

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]themajormayor

Yes, as long as they are not killing civilians.

SirWander

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="dramaybaz"] I'd love to see you quote that when the enemy combatants are Israeli. Then you would switch to juvenile mode like called Stephen Hawking douchekins..BossPerson

In any case if Israel's enemies would use drone strike in a morally acceptable manner then I certainly I wouldn't criticize them for using drones. I am criticizing their intentions but if they pursue their intentions in a morally acceptable manner I would still only criticize their intentions and not how they are pursued. Hezbullah recently used a drone against Israel. They just sent it over or something. Nothing major. But did anyone really criticize them? I didn't see anyone. I didn't see anything immoral with that action in itself. Same if they would use it against Israeli soldiers.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] Israelis are never enemy combatants. Unless it's some extreme leftist Israeli.themajormayor

In any case if Israel's enemies would use drone strike in a morally acceptable manner then I certainly I wouldn't criticize them for using drones. I am critisizing their intentions but if they pursue their intentions in a morally acceptable manner I would still only criticize their goals and not how they are pursued.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]idf? Enemy combatant is a technical, not a moral term.BossPerson

In any case if Israel's enemies would use drone strike in a morally acceptable manner then I certainly I wouldn't criticize them for using drones. I am critisizing their intentions but if they pursue their intentions in a morally acceptable manner I would still only criticize their goals and not how they are pursued.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] Isn't the use of the word enemy based on the perspective of the one using the word? So I don't see why it is so weird that one would support the use of drones on ones enemies and not on themselves. Who in here would support drone strikes on their own army?

In any case if Israel's enemies would use drone strike in a morally acceptable manner then I certainly I wouldn't criticize them for using drones. I am critisizing their intentions but if they pursue their intentions in a morally acceptable manner I would still only criticize their goals and not how they are pursued.

themajormayor

Since there really is no effective distinction between a drone strike, and regular air strike I think the more apppropriate question is, "Are airstrikes justifiable?" 

I would say no to that question, both kill innocent civilians, and since I'm anti-war anyways it doesn't make sense to me to blow the sh!t out of other people's property. The only real difference between drone strikes, and airstrikes with a pilot in the cockpit is that one less person has the potential to die, and to me that is just ever so slightly better.

Since there really is no effective distinction between a drone strike, and regular air strike I think the more apppropriate question is, "Are airstrikes justifiable?" 

I would say no to that question, both kill innocent civilians, and since I'm anti-war anyways it doesn't make sense to me to blow the sh!t out of other people's property. The only real difference between drone strikes, and airstrikes with a pilot in the cockpit is that one less person has the potential to die, and to me that is just ever so slightly better.

Serraph105

Eliminating enemy threats while minimizing risks to your ground forces and saving a lot of money. They are extremely appealing for our forces.

Drone strikes are air strikes and both kill civilians. Nobody wants that but war is war and as long as your enemy is using civilian areas to hide out, there will be civilian casualties. It would be no different in any place on Earth. Our future counter terrorism efforts will be a combination of special forces, local forces, and drone strikes. That's the future. 

The best way to avoid civilian casualties in war is too avoid war all together. That's what it really comes down to.

Eliminating enemy threats while minimizing risks to your ground forces and saving a lot of money. They are extremely appealing for our forces.

Drone strikes are air strikes and both kill civilians. Nobody wants that but war is war and as long as your enemy is using civilian areas to hide out, there will be civilian casualties. It would be no different in any place on Earth. Our future counter terrorism efforts will be a combination of special forces, local forces, and drone strikes. That's the future. 

The best way to avoid civilian casualties in war is too avoid war all together. That's what it really comes down to.

Wasdie

Oh my god.

Why are we not making more threads about this?

Provided appropriate precautions to avoid civilian casualties, absolutely.

Provided appropriate precautions to avoid civilian casualties, absolutely.

coolbeans90

Not under any circumstances is it okay to kill even a single innocent. famicommander

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]then why did you say "israeli's are never enemy combatants?" thebest31406

It's true though, if I was a member of Hamas I certainly would not like the Israelis using drone strikes. It's not hypocritical. You want your side to win and the other side to lose.

Again though, from an objective point of view, as I already stated before I wouldn't see their use of drones in itself as any less justifiable than Israelis using them, provided it is used in a moral manner. However I would be against the reason it is used.

Distinction, not against the use in itself but the reason for its use (i.e to destroy Israel or w/e).

Analogy. I would be against the Nazi invasion of Poland involving tanks or w/e. But I wouldn't be against the actual use of tanks by either side. Now maybe you could say I would be against the Nazi use of tanks due to the invasion being a prerequisite for the use of tanks. But even then it would stand against your accusations of hypocracy since then really the two sides would not be comparable.

Absolutely not. It's a form of terrorism itself. 

Absolutely not. It's a form of terrorism itself. 

Vari3ty

Are they justifiable? Yes. Are they effective or expedient? Not at all. If you try to cut off the head of the hydra, two more will grow in its place.

Besides, Pakistani terrorists have very little impact on our safety here in the US, so why are we fighting them? They ruin and destroy their own Muslim countries, which is good in my opinion.

Absolutely not. It's a form of terrorism itself. 

Vari3ty

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Absolutely not. It's a form of terrorism itself. 

themajormayor

Think about civilians near the drone targets. They've done nothing wrong, but because a terrorist is hiding out nearby they might be killed anyway. Several thousand civilians have been killed over the past decade as a result of these drone strikes. 

Would you want to live knowing that at any moment, a missile from a drone could strike you above at any moment? These drone strikes are a form of terrorism conducted by the U.S. government itself. 

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Absolutely not. It's a form of terrorism itself. 

Vari3ty

Think about civilians near the drone targets. They've done nothing wrong, but because a terrorist is hiding out nearby they might be killed anyway. Several thousand civilians have been killed over the past decade as a result of these drone strikes. 

Would you want to live knowing that at any moment, a missile from a drone could strike you above at any moment? These drone strikes are a form of terrorism conducted by the U.S. government itself. 

Think about civilians near the drone targets. They've done nothing wrong, but because a terrorist is hiding out nearby they might be killed anyway. Several thousand civilians have been killed over the past decade as a result of these drone strikes. 

Would you want to live knowing that at any moment, a missile from a drone could strike you above at any moment?Vari3ty

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="themajormayor"] Why?Yusuke420

Think about civilians near the drone targets. They've done nothing wrong, but because a terrorist is hiding out nearby they might be killed anyway. Several thousand civilians have been killed over the past decade as a result of these drone strikes. 

Would you want to live knowing that at any moment, a missile from a drone could strike you above at any moment? These drone strikes are a form of terrorism conducted by the U.S. government itself. 

How do you know that they know a terrorist is hiding near them? Sure, in some cases I'd say there are those who know, but they might decide to keep their mouth shut out of fear of the terrorists themselves. But I'm sure there are other cases where the ordinary civilians just aren't aware that terrorists wanted by the U.S. government are hiding in close proximity of their location.

I'm no expert on Pakistani culture, but I don't doubt the "terrorists" aren't always labeled as such in Pakistan anyway. If you knew that a man was plotting to attack the country which had killed some of your family members via drone strikes, would you drive them out? No, you'd probably cheer them on and support them. 

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]Think about civilians near the drone targets. They've done nothing wrong, but because a terrorist is hiding out nearby they might be killed anyway. Several thousand civilians have been killed over the past decade as a result of these drone strikes. 

Would you want to live knowing that at any moment, a missile from a drone could strike you above at any moment?ad1x2

It still hasn't eliminated civilian casualties, however. And what if they have the wrong target? The U.S. shouldn't be judge, jury, and executioner by raining down missiles on whoever it sees as a threat in these countries. There should be some form of due process. 

Only if you can guarantee that no collateral deaths occur.  But also, if we value due process, then killing without a trial is not justifiable.  You can argue the whole "at war" thing, but that's a dangerous take.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="Vari3ty"]Think about civilians near the drone targets. They've done nothing wrong, but because a terrorist is hiding out nearby they might be killed anyway. Several thousand civilians have been killed over the past decade as a result of these drone strikes. 

Would you want to live knowing that at any moment, a missile from a drone could strike you above at any moment?Vari3ty

It still hasn't eliminated civilian casualties, however. And what if they have the wrong target? The U.S. shouldn't be judge, jury, and executioner by raining down missiles on whoever it sees as a threat in these countries. There should be some form of due process. 

Shooting other people with rifles, artillery, air strikes and other things of that nature are okay but drone strikes are inexcusable. Great logic.

A good question would be is when is war justifiable.

It's a bit humorous that people continue to protest the use of certain technologies as if fighting would be honorable otherwise. Kicking in doors at 0300, 3:1 firepower ratio, everyone carrying 210 rounds of ammo (except for the poor son of a bitch who gets to carry the 249), body armor, kevlar and a single soldier with more training and knowledge within his brain than a dozen enemy combatants.

War isn't a tennis match, it isn't fair and it's disgusting. But everyone knows what's important, dem drone strikes right?

war = civillian deaths.

i would have thought you would understand that after the allies burned dresden to the ground and 100,000 civilians died or after hiroshima and nagasaki.

not to mention the example of .... y'know... every conflict that has occurred since the beginning of time.

i like that you have a big sympathetic  bleeding heart and all because that is commendable and speaks for your kind heart but seriously,  grow the **** up.

right now at this moment in history civilian deaths from collateral damage  are at the lowest they have ever been.

is that not good enough? of course it is not but it is the best we have done in our entire savage history so take the  win.

Killing enemy combatants is justifiable.Crunchy_Nuts

The only problem i have with drones is that we don't use enough of them.

also they have to many restrictions...this is wartime.

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

Yes, as long as they are not killing civilians.

jimkabrhel