[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

First of all, you are assuming all 2,000 were terrorists, many may have been guilty of nothing more than mistaken identity, faulty intel or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

May have been this, may have been that. As long as you do not know that the rate of misidentifying is above that what needs to be expected as faults happening in war, there is just hear-say and wordings that aim atpainting the most negative image possible

You also have the true "collaterals", many of these strikes take out the target's wife, children, relatives, employees, friends, neighbours, etc.

. The question is how many. It is war. War is injust, and part opf the grim truth about war is that it not only kills "combatants", but also civilians. It would be better, of course, if the enemy in thsi war would mobey the Hague Landwarfe Convention - loike Wetsern nations - and marks himself as combatants by wearing proper uniforms instead of hiding intentionally within the civilian population to make himself "invisible", or provoking civlian losse sin order to score in the propaganda war. War kills. War cannot be waged without killing. One can ask - and I do, as you know - whether this war is wise. But at least one effect cannot be denied, no matter how much stupidity we have shown in Afghanistan: every Taliban fanatic killed is a Taliban fanatic who will do us no harm anymore.

Second, the Israelis have be carrying out "targeted killings" of "terrorists" for over 40 years without substantially improving the situation, why should the U.S. approach be more effective?

What means "improving the situation"? They interfere seriously with their enemy's planned operations, and kill his leaders and fighters. Again, this is good. It is war. If they would have stopped to fight back, Israel maybe would no longer be existent today, or would seize to exist in the forseeable future.

It's war. That's not nice. But that's what it is. You can ask for ending the war. If you accept the conseqeunces, that at least would be honest. But please do not expect us to fight a war by saving the enemy and allowing him to get stronger than he would if we do not shoot at him.

I personally consider it to be absurd, and cynical, to ban certain weapons from usage in war, because they are considered to be "inhumane". War is inhumane. No matter whether your fight with bow and arrow, or neutron bombs. The tools of war do not make it any different: war is inhumane. So keep it short, as short as you can, and make certain you are sure about your motives and can defend them to your own conscience. If then you still decide for war, wage it with everything you have.