[korisnik]

>it counts any unknown males killed in the strike as enemy. It doesn't use that assumption to do the strike.

Imagine for a moment that someone (be it some foreign agency, US police, army or whoever) did the same in America, to American citizens. Would you be outraged by your explanation?

"Hey, it's not like they're targetting them specifically. They're just deciding that they were all enemy combatants post-factum."

[anigbrowl]

I wouldn't be. That's the basic rationale of terrorists (both the foreign and domestic varieties). I don't think the Boston bombers were motivated by a specific hatred of athletics fans, or other demographic characteristics of their victims; they just knew it was a big static crowd with lots of media and weak security. The primary product of a terroristic enterprise is 'a scene of carnage' intended to communicate an experience of trauma to as wide an audience as possible.

[rhino369]

If someone was bombing America, the way they were tallying the enemy combatants wouldn't really be a huge concern, to be honest.

Let's say the Michigan Militias sack Windsor, Canada. And Canada drops a bomb on their clubhouse. And a bunch of redneck young men are killed. You gotta assume they were part of the militia.

[ozten]

> And a bunch of redneck young men are killed.

The lack of empathy around such a serious topic, is sad.

[ethbro]

This analogy also relies on the assumption that the US was currently fighting a military insurgency or civil war.

[TeMPOraL]

You should be, but for a different reason than if they were targeting those people specifically. Both are atrocities, but precision is very important in such discussions, otherwise we will turn into an angry mob.