[darawk]

> I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisions.

You think their policy is designed to kill civilian medics? Or do you think the policy was designed to kill other terrorists who come by to try to save their brothers?

[PhasmaFelis]

It's designed to kill anyone who comes to the aid of the injured. In any built-up area, that will obviously include ambulance personnel; there's no way the policy-makers do not know this. So, yes, it is absolutely designed to kill civilian medics and concerned neighbors/bystanders, and has done so over and over. See also:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2013-08-01/get...

[darawk]

> In any built-up area

Was it being done in built-up areas? I see the word 'rescuer' being used in these articles. But I notably do not see the word 'civilian'. A terrorist who tries to save the lives of his terrorist buddies is still a 'rescuer', and that's exactly who these drone strikes ought to be targeting.

[PhasmaFelis]

The term "village" is used repeatedly. If you think that--when there's an explosion in a village--it's reasonable to assume that the only people who rush to assist are terrorists, then you need to provide proof of that, not ask me to prove the opposite. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

[darawk]

> The term "village" is used repeatedly. If you think that--when there's an explosion in a village--it's reasonable to assume that the only people who rush to assist are terrorists, then you need to provide proof of that, not ask me to prove the opposite. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Do you believe that the CIA is purposefully targeting random villagers for drone strikes?

If yes...why?

If no...then you must believe that the CIA is intelligent enough to have asked the very same question that you have, and concluded that the likely respondents would in fact be enemy combatants.

[PhasmaFelis]

> Do you believe that the CIA is purposefully targeting random villagers for drone strikes?

Of course not. I believe that the CIA doesn't care who dies as long as they get their guy, and if they make everyone afraid to help drone strike victims, then it's much more likely that any terrorists who survive the initial attack will bleed out on the ground. (Innocents too, but they don't care about them.)

This is hardly an unusual claim. You can't be unaware that the CIA is infamous for decades of murder and abuse.

[darawk]

> Of course not. I believe that the CIA doesn't care who dies as long as they get their guy, and if they make everyone afraid to help drone strike victims, then it's much more likely that any terrorists who survive the initial attack will bleed out on the ground. (Innocents too, but they don't care about them.)

So, your supposition is that the CIA is purposely killing civilians to deter them from giving aid to possible terrorists?

> This is hardly an unusual claim. You can't be unaware that the CIA is infamous for decades of murder and abuse.

The CIA has certainly assassinated people over the years. They've certainly fomented revolutions and meddled in geopolitics in myriad ways. I'm unaware of any explicit campaign to target civilians, though. Are you?

[srtjstjsj]

All those child terrorists?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333

[darawk]

You think it is unethical to accidentally kill a single child in the fight against international terrorism?