In response to:

Hellfire, Morality and Strategy

Dr_Zinj Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 9:34 AM
It is also safe to say that the only means of achieving restitution or justice is to therefore attack those who murdered the innocent. Now if that means joining the terrorists and blowing up the innocent of America, that's just as much murder as a collateral killing during a drone strike. But if they instead only target the agencies and agents of the American government, that is a legitimate act of war by honorable patriots and freedom fighters; even if they are our enemies. Directly hurting the civilian populance does not break their will to fight, it fans it. Destroying the government's resources creates a steady drain on the populance and will eventually erode that will to support the fight. THAT'S why it's wrong to kill the...
Jeffrey286 Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 10:04 AM
The terrorists don't seem to mind killing innocent civilians, they did it on 9/11/01 but you say we're not allowed to attack them unless we can guarantee no innocent civilians will be killed.

How exactly is anyone supposed to prosecute a war in that way?
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 9:34 AM
That's why it's wrong to kill the innocent bystanders.

Airstrikes by unmanned aerial vehicles have become a matter of serious dispute lately. The controversy focuses on the United States, which has the biggest fleet of these weapons and which employs them more frequently than any other country. On one side of this dispute are those who regard them simply as another weapon of war whose virtue is the precision with which they strike targets. On the other side are those who argue that in general, unmanned aerial vehicles are used to kill specific individuals, frequently civilians, thus denying the targeted individuals their basic right to some form of legal due...

Related Tags: Morality strategy