You're right, but it's worth remembering that the distinction appears to be eroding. I was going to mention the same case that my sibling, throwawayt1894, mentioned.

Drone strikes against US citizens in a country not a war with the US is at least worth thinking about. I can generally buy the ends-justify-the-means argument (or at least consider it), but the press secretary's response to this always rubbed me the wrong way: 'I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father...'

Yeah, the perpetual state of war and the drone strikes that coincide with that that America has gotten itself into is concerning. Still, I would strongly argue that there is a world of difference between the sins of America and China about targeting family members.

The third parties (i.e., children or wives) that are killed in drone strikes are surely collateral damage. America isn't targeting these people. (I'm certainly not arguing that it's right.)

China has shown on many occasions that it is willing to use the relatives of people it doesn't like as leverage. I don't know if it's because it has a long history of it [1] or just because it's effective and China isn't constrained by the rule of law. There have been many cases where the relatives of journalists working overseas have suffered [2], and Liu Xia was under house arrest for almost a decade because of her husbands "crimes" despite never being charged herself [3].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_familial_exterminations

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-detains-relatives...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xia_(intellectual)

> The third parties (i.e., children or wives) that are killed in drone strikes are surely collateral damage.

Can you give some details about how you are certain that the death by drone bombing of Awlaki's 16-year-old son was collateral damage?

Keep in mind that Awlaki was targeted by drone two weeks before his son was killed. They are two separate drone attacks.

This whataboutism is not helpful.

Unless you think the boy was deliberately targeted to be killed, surely you can understand that being killed in a drone strike targeting another is very different to being deliberately shot to death.

It's a discussion directly comparing how two countries act towards the same crime. Don't participate in the thread if you don't find whataboutism helpful?

I don't have the strong moral reservations many have against drone strikes. Tactically advantageous, cheaper, no pilot at risk. Pretty compelling. But in their own way, they're terrifying specifically for the reason you mention: they are less discriminating.

You can think delibery shooting is much worse. And I can see how someone would feel that way. But I think a reasonable person ought to be able to understand how another reasonable person might see things differently.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/ev...

>>Also, the pregnant wives of traitors aren't executed in the USA.

No one meant to say that both countries treat people the same. However, Chinese treat traitors like USA treats, more or less terrorists. Traitors do cause a LOT of damage, in lives, money and potentially a lot more down the road.

China might have made his wife "confess" to knowing and abetting, just so all the boxes are checked. Their system is rigged, but I doubt they would just kill a person simply for being his wife, without trial. The legal justification might be that she confessed and is a traitor.