Splitting hairs.

This is how the cycle of violence is perpetuated.

Better?

It sounds like you judge people by the consequences of their actions rather than their intentions. I tend to agree with that way of thinking but many people do the opposite and believe intentions are the morally superior way of judging good and bad.

The trouble with judging by actions is it makes everybody bad, including the judge! I suspect that's why people don't like it. Since nearly everyone believes their own intentions are good, judging by intentions preserves their own sense of goodness even if they contribute to a few killings by accident/negligence.

Even if the USA's intentions were good, they can be blamed for choosing the wrong kind of action.

It is well known that drone strikes are terribly inaccurate and therefore the risk for civilian casualties is high.

That's a fine and dandy distinction until it's not.

If you keep punching me in the face while claiming it was your intention to punch someone else I'm going to come to the conclusion sooner rather than later that you're lying or stupid or incompetent – either way I'm going to do something about it rather than continue to let you punch me in the face.

Is it too much to ask that a lot more effort be expended in not mowing down innocent civilians while prosecuting the so-called global-war-on-terror?

When it comes to this, taking intent on faith isn't good enough. Vietnam, a possible war of aggression in Iraq, illegal drone strikes in Pakistan, public threats and shows of force - the stick isn't subtle and I think it's fair to question whether it's measured (and what it means if it isn't).

I actually think I'm right of center on this issue in general, I just wish we called it as it is.

This is such an inane counter-argument.

Is it really? You're fighting by instilling fear in the enemy and mostly killing civilians.

But also, the US should be held accountable for its actions.

I ... kind of see the point. Do you have a more substantial counter argument?

Um no, you are wrong.

"A U.S. drone strike intended to hit an Islamic State (IS) hideout"

And the Islamic State is finished with this strike?

I urge you to take a closer look at U.S. drone strike programs and how effective they are. It's closer to 0 than it is to 100%. The U.S. takes no responsibility for its actions in the world stage, like ever. Have you even seen US held accountable for anything?

Yeah if US wasn't so hell-bent to be excluded from International Court of Justice in Hague, we would see quite a few US servicemen (and mercenaries from companies like Blackwater), err sorry 'patriots' being tried there and getting long/life sentences.

But that ain't gonna happen, ever.

Oh ok sorry, that's fine then.

> A U.S. drone strike intended to hit an Islamic State (IS)

Then what does the IS represent to you? The good guys?

ah yes. the perfect centrist. if you aren't black vs white, why are you playing chess?

bit of a flawed response really. i cant think of many subject matters that are more nuanced than middle-eastern affairs. almost nothing is black and white in this area

Aristotelian logic is flawed.

Only in some situations. In a lot of situations it works as intended. The crucial point is being able to distinguish when it applies and when it doesn't.

This is not a small thing, it easily steers your life only to where it works. In other words your life becomes a slave of your limited logic, it makes you optimize your life for the logic to be a safe and working.

> When you drop bombs on people out of nowhere, that's called terrorism

Only if the motive for dropping those bombs is to advance a political/ideological agenda.

We need to be very clear that "terrorism" has a very specific meaning. It's not just a group or individual who terrorises.

This definition only reinforces the parent's point. What it rules out as "not terrorism" is regular organized crime, which isn't too much into bombings anyway. Bombs are almost never used without a political/ideological agenda, because they're too expensive and require too much coordination to make, maintain and deploy.

By that logic, you could describe WWII as just a bunch of terrorists who disagreed.

Which of course, nobody does.

You're wrong, all those WWII resistance fighters were by definition terrorists to germans/japanese. Its just that US marketing over-used the term in past decade and a half to label anybody inconvenient as a justified target for extermination because 'national security'

Except that to some extent, they do. When my country was occupied by the Nazi Germany, people who fought back were called freedom fighters by us. They were called terrorists by the Nazis.

Sure, but I don't think that extent is useful for the purposes of this discussion.

FWIW, you and I are likely from the same country.

My point being, one country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter. There is some nuance here, but we're talking about somewhat random and indiscriminate murder of civilians who may or may not be connected to a military group in hopes people at large will stop supporting that group. There's a political agenda in there, and there's death of innocent civilians. There's strong element of fear too - I remember reading articles about drone strikes in Pakistan years ago, in which it was reported that the locals developed a fear of clear blue sky. A fear of good weather, because that's when drones come.

If one objects to calling it terrorism because they're really trying to hit the combatants only, and objects to calling it a war crime because technically there's no war with an internationally recognized nation state, then how should we call it?

Genuine question: if the motivation for this bombing was not political or ideological, what was it then?

I think terrorism is killing random members of a population to scare the others into some political or ideological change. It wouldn't count if it was targeted at fighters and civilians got killed by accident.

That sounds like a reasonable definition. But how would this definition qualify the Taliban attacks on military bases and police stations in Afghanistan?

I think one would need to put something like that as a guerrilla war.

There needs to be a distinction between:

* attacking civilians (terrorism)

* attacking The System, but going for softer targets and not taking its military might directly head on (guerilla war)

* attacking The System, in a Military v Military setting (regular warfare)

While there are groups that will never have the direct strength to take a head on fight, I think it's beneficial to have a category showing that they limit their targets to agents of the system rather than any random civilian.

It was an accident.

Sure, but what was the motivation for dropping the bombs if you say it was not political or ideological?

Is the killing of tens of millions of civilians so far with sanctions an accident too? If you can kill them with sanctions why not with drone strikes?

Just stop. Absolutely stop equating these things.

The world as we know it, the progress in art, science, and humanities. The cures for polio, infant mortality and poverty dropping.

The website you are currently using to spread poison.

Those are all “_What USA does_”

Cut it out with this evil language.

How dare people criticize the U.S. They certainly created art, science and the humanities, not to mention put them in books to civilize all those shithole countries?

I was not aware that curing polio is a global absolution of sins.

I don't see how that prevents an organization from doing terrorist actions. In fact, it's fairly common, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services

I mean - the US can simultaneously do very good things and very bad things.

Good you mention cures for polio. The US does both cures for polio and ensuring polio exists and spreads, by virtue of CIA pretending to be agents of vaccination charities, which killed polio eradication efforts in some places.

Point being, the US does a lot of things. Some good, some bad. You don't get to trade the good things for the bad things. There could be progress in art, science and humanities without indiscriminate drone bombings of innocent civilians worldwide.

I think the downvotes you got speak for itself. I am not even gonna bother answering.

Also USA has some of the highest infant mortality and poverty rates in the western world.

Man stop drinking the kool-aid. You're lapping up your countries propoganda left, right and center. Apparently according to you, art, science and the humanities wouldn't exist if not for the USA? Get out of here, this is hackernews not 4chan.

It’s hard to make art when your country is being torn to shreds by war.

How much art was coming out of East Germany under the Soviet Union?

What other nation is deterring constant military expansion of China and Russia?

How many nations are confronting IS?

You are either naive or destructive.

IS was created after the US destroyed Iraq, based on false evidence (just like America invaded Afghanistan based on false reasons). The damage is done, but why persist? What do you expect to happen exactly?

In fact Russia consolidated its influence and alliances in the middle east just by exploiting American mistakes there.

Just leave. It would be a hugely popular move everywhere: among the left, the right, veterans, other countries, etc. So why not do it?

> It’s so fashionable to hate America, that must make it true.

Let's be honest here, US is trying hard for last 15 years to be the most hated country anywhere, ever.

Millions of innocent civilians killed based on outright lies by US president in Iraq 2nd war (they were so glaringly obvious on UN meeting when GWB presented them that Germany and France outright rejected joining. UK couldn't care less). The consequences are felt across half of Asia and whole Europe till these days. Please tell me, what justice system in US does to a person who kills innocents without any reason? Nothing good. And if you kill millions? Good pension and CIA protection for rest of your life apparently. Plus Afghanistan, yet another battlefield where mighty US army is losing a battle with guys with AKs.

Another topic is online privacy, US could have been champion of freedom, and initially it was, but we had Snowden and stuff ain't better since then. That's plain amoral. Currently US can't claim much moral superiority over China for outsiders, like it or not.

I ain't even touching the topic of current US president because that would be for a separate thread.

To like US and its role in current politics these days requires super strong tint on ones pink glasses. Most of the world is kind of fed up and just wants to be left alone, not invaded for US version of 'freedom', oil, strategic place or whatever.

This is real world out there, where 95% of the mankind lives.

What prevented World War 3 so far was Mutually Assured Desctruction. "M.A.D." is beginning to look a bit long in the tooth, but it's clinging on to life yet.

I mean, the US are not even 250 years old and built by immigrants. The rest of the world didn't wait for them for science, medicine, art and philosophy. From a social standpoint they're still 20-30 years behind most EU countries for example.

I think most americans fail to recognise how much propaganda they're constantly fed about how great the US are. From the outside it almost looks like a parody, especially since Trump is in the office. Example: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year...