I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.
Thank you for doing this! It might help in your campaign to compare "terrorism" as the US media puts it, and George Bush's "Shock & Awe" campaign -- designed to intimidate and scare their enemy for a political purpose :)
That and the Bush's family relations with the Bin Laden family in the decades past.
I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.
You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?
I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.
For a start, the drone strikes are at least claimed to be against strategic targets and not just indiscriminate killing of civilians. That's something that can't be said for the likes of the Brussels attacks.
I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.
You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?
> unavoidable collateral damage?
It isn't unavoidable, don't fire the damn missiles from the Drone.
The US and UK are like a little kid who fucks with a hornets nest, gets stung and retaliates by getting a flamethrower.
You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?
I do not see why intention matters.
Motive is important in how we judge almost everything in life. Why would this be any different?
I wouldn't be surprised if they are foreign drones flying over US soil. Probably not weaponized but I'm sure there are plenty EU/Asia/ME fugitives that are hiding in USA, so that reconnaissance drones would be fine.
Its not like government of ME countries is fine with drones taking out their citizens, whether terrorist or not.. they get paid money and for sure more than just that.
You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?
> unavoidable collateral damage? It isn't unavoidable, don't fire the damn missiles from the Drone. The US and UK are like a little kid who fucks with a hornets nest, gets stung and retaliates by getting a flamethrower.
If you are against any use of force which could have collateral damage, then you are effectively against any use of force. That's a principled stand, but not actually very realistic.
I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.
For a start, the drone strikes are at least claimed to be against strategic targets and not just indiscriminate killing of civilians. That's something that can't be said for the likes of the Brussels attacks.
That's true for some, but not all things usually classified as terrorism. For example the IRA bomb aimed at Margaret Thatcher, with other people being collateral damage, was considered a terrorist attack at the time, even though its goal wasn't to indiscriminately kill civilians. The Greek group 17 November is another example, which exclusively carried out targeted assassinations (their first success was killing the Athens CIA station chief). The term is a bit fuzzy, though, so quite a few different kinds of attacks get grouped under it depending when and who we're talking about.