al-Awlaki killed.

Sorry, it's just...

Wasn't it Major Tom who suggested in another thread it was okay to purposefully bomb civilians in a war because their taxes support the enemy? If not, I'm sorry for my snap judgement. But if so, Tom? You need to remember that while casualties are inevitable in a war, they should still be avoided whenever possible. Those civilians didn't choose to live in a warzone. I don't blame the soldiers, either, and I don't mean to come off like that. I greatly respect our army.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:11:46 PM by Katrika

Kat; Would it really kill you to take 5 minutes to even look up the laws of war. You engage in combat actions or actively support a beligerent in a myriad of ways including propaganda you are fair game. Those guys talking on cell phones directing mortar fire even if they are unarmed are fair targets. Your riding a bike with box of ammo your a fair target.

This smuck was actively and openly supporting enemies of the U.S. and plotting violence against the citizens and military. It is pretty obvious he is fair game.

@Tuef: Which makes you wonder why we didn't just strip him of his citizenship and take him out from the get-go; his actions are textbook treason.

So it's okay to kill innocent people because they're forced to pay taxes to their government or let their children die?

That's a war crime if done deliberately.

People who you have reason to suspect of being about to blow you and your men up? Yes, shoot them. I'm not stupid. But that's not who I was talking about.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:21:22 PM by Katrika

Somehow, this:

got buried in the clusterfuck of whatever just happened, and I wanted to point out that this kind of attitude of not even having to try avoiding collateral damage is exactly the sort of thing that breeds hatred and resentment, i.e. terrorism.

Good job Tom. Way to aid and abet terrorists.

@kat. Just No. its not ok and we don't do that anymore.

The US Federal Government does not have that power. It cannot legally strip anyone of citizenship. (The States don't have that power either.)

This. There are no trials in war. You fight, you die. It's that simple.

Civilians are defined as those who cannot feasibly defend themselves in any capacity and/or direct actual aggression at you. An artillery spotter—armed or not—is a combatant. A medic, assuming he is unarmed, is not. When we bomb civilian targets, it's the infrastructure that is the target. Hit civilians on purpose, and I wouldn't hesitate to put you in front of a firing squad.

Morality is gray, but the actions of war are black and white. Nonsensical, but black and white.

Kat: Did you just not read anything in my post? Go back and read my post again. I gave you clear examples of fair targets. Try again after you have read it.

No we do not try do things like carpet bombings anymore. We prefer more accurate munitions because they reduce collateral damage. The drive to reduce collateral damage has been one of the driving factors for more accurate muntions and associated technologies. al-Awlaki was hit by one of these munitions. We got another guy in a similar line of work along with him.

Tom; yes they can.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:32:51 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Yes, which is why I said that that's perfectly okay, and I'll add that those ARE fair targets. But Tom's attitude of 'shit happens' rubbed me the wrong way. I know that we're doing are damndest to reduce collateral damage, and I'm damn proud of that. I was referring to something else when I posted, and I'm sorry for being hasty.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:34:43 PM by Katrika

^ And my point is while you can reduce it, you will never completely avoid it. That's why when it happens, oh fucking well.

Tom: That is a very bad attitude for any military person to have. It is not ahwell it is ahh shit I got someone I didn't want to get. Thankfully in this case we managed to minimize collateral damage.

When we nailed al-Awlaki we thankfully blasted some of his contemporaries who were with him at the time.

The only thing separating intentional civilian deaths from accidental civilian deaths is how much a military does to cut down on the action.

If "oh well, fuck it" is the attitude, I would have everyone involved court martialed, as a hypothetical commander. The military doesn't exist to say "oh well, fuck it," it exists to get the goddamned job done right.

^^ Bad attitude but necessary. The more we dwell on collateral damage the higher the probability of defeat we will encounter.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:46:17 PM by MajorTom

The more we dwell on collateral damage the more we avoid massacres and sending home soldiers with no shred of humanity left. Tell me, have you ever served?

edited 30th Sep '11 6:47:20 PM by Katrika

Yes. And I wish to go back.

-self thump-

edited 30th Sep '11 6:52:12 PM by Katrika

It's not, I loved the atmosphere of discipline and duty. And the uniforms looked really snazzy.

But my military service is not this topic.

No, it's...it really ISN'T the topic or my business, sorry.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:54:09 PM by Katrika

Ok Everyone back on topic which is the killing of al-Awlaki. I am trying to find that article that listed additional parties to the event who died with him.

Found him. The Al-Qaeda magazine editor Samir Khan.

Simplified time line for Awlaki

Washington Post article on the event

Another post article mentioning second U.S. citizen Samir Khan

edited 30th Sep '11 7:14:16 PM by TuefelHundenIV

The inspire magazine guy too.

I remember looking at this guy's picture and thinking, "he was just on all those NatGeo specials!"

What a dick, he was. "Oh, I'm all for the US, those terrorists are horrible! Ignore me and my direct sponsorship of them to go blow you up, though..."

Saying "oh fucking well" to killing innocents makes said innocents martyrs as well. Thus, you screw yourself either way. At least, when possible, they are taken alive, one can actually determine such a thing.

Folks the topic is not the practices of war it is about Awlaki stay on topic.

Well the Yemenis seem to be just "eh" about the whole take down, so not much likelihood of a problem other than from AQAP.