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...
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...
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 5 hours ago
- Former loathsome nanny-state mayor confuses blogger with second awesome move this summer Mary Katharine Ham 6 hours ago
- Video: Army Medal of Honor recipient breaks gavel at New York Stock Exchange Mary Katharine Ham 7 hours ago
- Senate analysis: What does “success” look like for the GOP in 2014? Guy Benson 7 hours ago
- Could a Republican president gut ObamaCare without action from Congress or the Supreme Court? Allahpundit 8 hours ago
- Rubio: Immigration reform won’t happen for another 10 years unless border security comes first Allahpundit 9 hours ago