No. Botching an attack and killing the wrong person is not terrorism. It may be incompetent in any number of ways, if botched badly enough it may even rise to the level of negligent homicide, but it's not terrorism. It lacks the necessary intent.
Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
It is, if the killing method is notoriously unspecific and routinely kills innocents, as is the case with the drone warfare. The Economist had an article about the drone warfare recently.
It's terrorism when THEY do it.
It's just collateral damage when WE do it...:eyebrows:
Tell that to the uncles, fathers, mothers, aunts, siblings, cousins and grandparents of the dead. I'm sure they'll be able to tell the difference. You would of course? Right???
I consider it terrorism to have drones buzzing around overhead civilians, and someone 10,000 miles away deciding to fire at people, with a great chance of innocent civilian, including children and women being killed. I understand you have the view that americans and israelis cannot do anything wrong, because they have good intentions. Good intentions does not cut it in my book.
Drone Warfare in the 21st Century
Benefits and Downsides of Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Mar 12, 2010
Michael Streich
The use of drones in 21st century combat has saved lives and eliminated terrorist targets, but the ethical debate continues as innocent civilians are killed.
The use of drones in military conflicts may come to define the methodology of fighting wars in the 21st Century. The United States facilitates two programs that utilize the popular Predator and Reaper drones. The military program is used to gather intelligence and support ground troops. The program administered by the CIA, however, targets terrorists leaders and, more recently, Afghani drug lords, yet often at a high civilian casualty rate.
Jane Mayer, writing in the New Yorker (October 26, 2009) states that “The Obama Administration has…widened the scope of authorized drone attacks in Afghanistan.” A March 12, 2010 article in Spiegel Online asserts that “More missiles have already been fired from drones in the 13 months since Obama has been in office than the entire eight years of the Bush presidency.”
Benefits and Drawbacks of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Rick Rozoff (Global Research, Canada, March 12, 2010) states that the drone is becoming the “weapon of choice.” Both the Reaper and the Predator are manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems of San Diego, California. The Reaper model costs $15 million a piece. In 2009, the United States had 195 Predators and 28 Reapers (Rozoff). In the 2010 defense budget, according to Marc Pitzke (Spiegel, March 12), $3.5 billion has been allocated for the drone program.
Those developing the next generation of drones see greater use and capabilities but the costs will be higher as well. Tom Engelhardt comments on cost projections for a new technological arms race with target dates for new models extending to 2035 (Asia Times, April 9, 2009) and laments that “no one with a governmental red cent is researching the healthcare system of 2018 or 2035, or the public education system…”
A significant drawback of the use of drones involves civilian casualties. Observers note that one third of all casualties are civilians. According to Rozoff, approximately “160 people have been killed in drone missile strikes in Pakistan in slightly over two months this year” (March 2010). Georgetown adjunct professor Gary Solis, commenting on the CIA drone program, suggests that the civilian operators working out of Langley can be considered “unlawful combatants” (Washington Post, March 12, 2010).
Drone Proliferation
The United States is not alone in possessing drones. Tom Engelhardt writes that “in the drone world, the Chinese, Russians, the Israelis, the Pakistanis, the Georgians, and the Iranians…already have drones.” Drones are also being deployed by the United States in sensitive world areas. A US military build-up in Guam includes upgrading the missile defense system on the island which will include drones. In the Netherlands Antilles the US maintains drones, an action that prompted recent protests by Venezuelan strong-man Hugo Chavez. Drones are also being tested in the northern most region of Finland, close to the Russian border, at the Kemijarvi Airfield (Rozkoff).
The War on Terror in the 21st Century
The 1949 Geneva Conventions were based on a half-century of global warfare in which millions of civilians lost their lives and property. The “enemy” was a soldier – boots on the ground. In the 21st Century, wars are becoming more technological than face-to-face combat. Although combat troops are still needed, new technologies dramatically reduce combat fatalities. “Calling in” an air strike can mean the use of UAVs in order to minimize battle casualties.
These are the arguments of drone apologists. The technologies are not unique to the United States. Further, the development of crude drones is within the reach of any government or terrorist group. As Tom Engelhardt writes, “…the skies of our world are filling with round-the-clock assassins.” The on-going debate – both ethical and legal, will involve the military necessities (recently noted by courts) given the changing face of war in this century.
References:
•Tom Engelhartd, “A Sky Filled with Assassins,” Asia Times April 9, 2009
•Hasnain Karzim, “How the CIA Uses Pakistan as a Launch Pad for Drones,” Spiegel Online March 12, 2010
•Jane Mayer, “The Predator War,” The New Yorker October 26, 2009
•Marc Pitzke, “How Drone Pilots Wage War,” Spiegel Online March 12, 2010
•Rick Rozoff, “Decade of the Drone – America’s Aerial Assassins,” Global Research March 12, 2010
•Gary Solis, “CIA Drone attacks produce America’s own unlawful combatants,” Washington Post March 12, 2010
Read more at Suite101: Drone Warfare in the 21st Century: Benefits and Downsides of Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/drone-warfare-in-the-21st-century-a212583#ixzz1TALRoR8Q
Benefits and Downsides of Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Mar 12, 2010
Michael Streich
The use of drones in 21st century combat has saved lives and eliminated terrorist targets, but the ethical debate continues as innocent civilians are killed.
The use of drones in military conflicts may come to define the methodology of fighting wars in the 21st Century. The United States facilitates two programs that utilize the popular Predator and Reaper drones. The military program is used to gather intelligence and support ground troops. The program administered by the CIA, however, targets terrorists leaders and, more recently, Afghani drug lords, yet often at a high civilian casualty rate.
Jane Mayer, writing in the New Yorker (October 26, 2009) states that “The Obama Administration has…widened the scope of authorized drone attacks in Afghanistan.” A March 12, 2010 article in Spiegel Online asserts that “More missiles have already been fired from drones in the 13 months since Obama has been in office than the entire eight years of the Bush presidency.”
Benefits and Drawbacks of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Rick Rozoff (Global Research, Canada, March 12, 2010) states that the drone is becoming the “weapon of choice.” Both the Reaper and the Predator are manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems of San Diego, California. The Reaper model costs $15 million a piece. In 2009, the United States had 195 Predators and 28 Reapers (Rozoff). In the 2010 defense budget, according to Marc Pitzke (Spiegel, March 12), $3.5 billion has been allocated for the drone program.
Those developing the next generation of drones see greater use and capabilities but the costs will be higher as well. Tom Engelhardt comments on cost projections for a new technological arms race with target dates for new models extending to 2035 (Asia Times, April 9, 2009) and laments that “no one with a governmental red cent is researching the healthcare system of 2018 or 2035, or the public education system…”
A significant drawback of the use of drones involves civilian casualties. Observers note that one third of all casualties are civilians. According to Rozoff, approximately “160 people have been killed in drone missile strikes in Pakistan in slightly over two months this year” (March 2010). Georgetown adjunct professor Gary Solis, commenting on the CIA drone program, suggests that the civilian operators working out of Langley can be considered “unlawful combatants” (Washington Post, March 12, 2010).
Drone Proliferation
The United States is not alone in possessing drones. Tom Engelhardt writes that “in the drone world, the Chinese, Russians, the Israelis, the Pakistanis, the Georgians, and the Iranians…already have drones.” Drones are also being deployed by the United States in sensitive world areas. A US military build-up in Guam includes upgrading the missile defense system on the island which will include drones. In the Netherlands Antilles the US maintains drones, an action that prompted recent protests by Venezuelan strong-man Hugo Chavez. Drones are also being tested in the northern most region of Finland, close to the Russian border, at the Kemijarvi Airfield (Rozkoff).
The War on Terror in the 21st Century
The 1949 Geneva Conventions were based on a half-century of global warfare in which millions of civilians lost their lives and property. The “enemy” was a soldier – boots on the ground. In the 21st Century, wars are becoming more technological than face-to-face combat. Although combat troops are still needed, new technologies dramatically reduce combat fatalities. “Calling in” an air strike can mean the use of UAVs in order to minimize battle casualties.
These are the arguments of drone apologists. The technologies are not unique to the United States. Further, the development of crude drones is within the reach of any government or terrorist group. As Tom Engelhardt writes, “…the skies of our world are filling with round-the-clock assassins.” The on-going debate – both ethical and legal, will involve the military necessities (recently noted by courts) given the changing face of war in this century.
References:
•Tom Engelhartd, “A Sky Filled with Assassins,” Asia Times April 9, 2009
•Hasnain Karzim, “How the CIA Uses Pakistan as a Launch Pad for Drones,” Spiegel Online March 12, 2010
•Jane Mayer, “The Predator War,” The New Yorker October 26, 2009
•Marc Pitzke, “How Drone Pilots Wage War,” Spiegel Online March 12, 2010
•Rick Rozoff, “Decade of the Drone – America’s Aerial Assassins,” Global Research March 12, 2010
•Gary Solis, “CIA Drone attacks produce America’s own unlawful combatants,” Washington Post March 12, 2010
Read more at Suite101: Drone Warfare in the 21st Century: Benefits and Downsides of Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/drone-warfare-in-the-21st-century-a212583#ixzz1TALRoR8Q
Intentions do, however, matter a great deal to the legal status of the action.
I have previously said that I think some of the American strikes in Muslim countries amounts to criminal negligence, but to call it terrorism cheapens the word "terrorism".
I believe we have to part ways on this. When 1/3 of the victims of drone attacks are innocents, fire from the sky is terrorism in my book. Imagine invisible drones flying all over Canada, and someone in Iran deciding when to fire a rocket on a collection of people.
However, the drones are terrorizing the general population. And they are put there by the americans and controlled by them. Not so with Katrina.
First off, there is no universal definition of terrorism.
That said...
Intention matters, but so does disregard for the safety of civilians.
Meaning if you target 1 'terrorist' but kill 100 civilians at the same time, you are also committing terrorism.
Even if you had the best intentions, if you act in a way that recklessly puts civilians at danger it is morally the same as targeting them.
Yes it does. That is why I have called some of the American strikes in Muslim countries "criminal negligence".
No, not really. What I would call criminal negligence are the cases where the US has (apparently) called in strikes on targets with very little good intelligence on what it is they're striking. Just kind of a hope and a prayer that it might be a legitimate target. In one case it turned out to be a bunch of children, and to the extent that we know (which is limited) it appears that the target was selected in a very reckless way, without much regard for the safety of civilians.
It is clear that the INTENT was to kill terrorists, but it was done in such a reckless way that it can only be described as criminally negligent (if the reports are to be believed--there's been no full investigation).
However terrorism is something different entirely. There are a variety of definitions of it, but they all generally involve an intent to strike terror into the civilian population for the purposes of effecting a political change. There is no evidence whatsoever that the American want to install terror in the population there, nor any evidence that they are hoping to effect civilian political change rather than simply killing bad guys.
No, it's not. It may well still be CRIMINAL, but it is not morally the same thing. It's the difference between 1st degree murder, and 3rd degree murder. Both reprehensible, both criminal, but not equivalent. Intention makes the difference between the degrees of murder. If there was no intention to kill civilians--just recklessness--then it's analagous to 3rd degree murder. Only when there is an intent to kill civilians does it become 1st degree (pre-planned intent) or 2nd degree (spur of the moment / angry intent).
If you are so reckless in your disregard for civilian safety, you are in essence reducing their status to those of the supposed terrorists you target. You are treating them with the same moral worth of those you call terrorists. And then your intent to kill only terrorists must be questioned.
While I have great sympathy for people who lost relatives to collateral damage (including mine), their emotions is not how we set policy. Nor is it how we analyse what we are doing.
