Where is the line between war and security drawn? Terrorism can't be "defeated" like an advisory in a traditional war, it's more of a mindset. Therefore one could argue that adequate security should continuously identify and address threats to the state. Does this mean we're in a continuous war? I don't think the semantics matters.
Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
11–20 of 100 posts
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.
I'm really not trying to troll here, but what then of military attacks on civilian targets?
"Civilian" targets can become valid military targets. For example, if an enemy force forms a line of resistance within an urban or suburban area, then it is legitimate to attack and destroy that area. A civilian area that is not occupied by an enemy force is not a legitimate target, and attacking it constitutes a war crime.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#13Where is the line between war and security drawn? Terrorism can't be "defeated" like an advisory in a traditional war, it's more of a mindset. Therefore one could argue that adequate security should continuously identify and address threats to the state. Does this mean we're in a continuous war? I don't think the semantics matters.
It might be interesting if it were possible to declare war against an organization, as opposed to a sovereign nation. The conflict between Western nations and Al Qaeda is complicated by the fact that it doesn't fit into previous models of military conflict, and there seems to be a reluctance to update those models. It would also be useful if a nation were required to control activities within its borders and not empowered to respond militarily to border violations in pursuit of combatants.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#14What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.
Terrorists often hit military targets as well (Khobar towers, Beirut Marine barracks, etc.). Throughout most of "the troubles" the IRA targeted the military or police, should they not have been considered terrorists?
The techniques of terrorists (say: car bombings) are shockingly little different in practice from drone strikes. Sure, certainly the intent is very different, but the result is nevertheless a disturbingly high death toll for innocents. And that should concern us a fuck of a lot more than it does today.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#15What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…
Some of them are effectively terrorist attacks. If anyone remembers that drone strike against Wedding convoy in Yemen. It's exactly the same if someone would bomb a wedding in US that had some military officers there.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really not trying to troll here, but what then of military attacks on civilian targets?
"Civilian" targets can become valid military targets. For example, if an enemy force forms a line of resistance within an urban or suburban area, then it is legitimate to attack and destroy that area. A civilian area that is not occupied by an enemy force is not a legitimate target, and attacking it constitutes a war crime.
I always found that type of argumentation interesting, war is a crime.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#17One step closer to Terminator days.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#18Endless war is exactly what military contractors want. On an interesting digression, "War Without End" is a two-part Babylon 5 episode that won a Hugo award.
Unconditional surrender is what terrorist organizations want, and they will wage war without end until they achieve it.
The problem with peace is that it is symmetrical. Everybody has to agree to peace before it will happen. War is asymmetrical. It takes only one entity (including, at the limit, one person) to make a war, even if everybody else wants peace.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#19Endless war is exactly what military contractors want. On an interesting digression, "War Without End" is a two-part Babylon 5 episode that won a Hugo award.
A good time to listen to or reread Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of the Military-Industrial Complex.
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
Nice intro with video of Eisenhowr giving the speech: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-mili...
Full text of speech: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.
I agree, but "we" (western media, etc.) tended to call attacks on the occupation forces terrorism, too. The pretense was the war was "over", so the occupation forces were there for law and order, not war, so attacks on them were criminal/terrorist/etc. vs. "legitimate warfare". Pressure/etc. detonated IEDs are sort of a grey area, honestly, as are military landmines, cluster munitions where you know a large fraction…
actually "we" called those attacking the coalition and Iraqi military "insurgents".
Plenty of actual, Iraqi civilian targets were killed by Al-Qa'ida in Iraq and other terrorists with car bombs, suicide bombers, hostage takings etc.
The distinction is pretty clear between the two, I think if you are accusing media of whitewashing all Iraqi insurgents under the banner of terrorism you should back it up.