Should U.S. drone strikes that kill civilians be considered an act of terrorism?

  • Yes, drone strikes on civilians are terrorism.

    Drone strikes cause death and destruction, just like terrorism. Drone strikes kill innocent people, just like terrorism. Americans seem to think that terrorists are just the people who are against them; they could never be terrorists. Killing innocent people is not justice, it is not moral. We are better people than that, and we need to stop these senseless killings.

  • Yes, it's a terrible thing, but maybe shouldn't be considered an act of terrorism.

    It's a terrible thing, and I think the U.S. Should apologize, and try to recompansate the families in some way, since what we did was absolutely terrible, but I don't think it should be considered an act of terrorism, since it was accidental. We didn't mean to target those children, although we should do everything we can to make it right.

  • Here Is A Question!

    If those drones killed US citizens, would that constitute terrorism?

    Speaking only for myself, there is no ontologically substantive and principled distinction between terror committed by stateless actors and state sanctioned terror. Atrocity is atrocity. The question of 'who' done it is irrelevant on the principle that one law fits all.

  • If americans killed on Amer. soil while targeting who they thought to be potential threats How are the civilian lives in other countries worth less

    I believe at least for some people their is a big disconnect in the brain between right and wrong when it comes to "The war on terror". I dont think people are in tune with what really takes place when the u.S. Enters another country. Some may go as far to say the u.S. Is the biggest threat. I think the naes would change their vote if the scenario was reversed..


    The war on terror has claimed countless civilian lives, some sources put estimates of up to 3000 civilian casualties yearly. In my opinion the war on terror was a scapegoat to harness resources in the middle east. The only reason Americans are intervening is because it concerns them. Americans do not combat the terror in the Congo where over 1 million lives have been claimed due to civil war, instead they focus their energy on countries which had nothing to do with the terrorist strike on September 11 and call it a war on terror. WAR IS TERROR.

  • The US government will use drone attacks in a controlled and safe manner.

    The idea of a drone killing an innocent person is a scary thought. We have to believe the US will not willy nilly attack groups of people using drones. Drone attacks will be used sparingly and not for a small time terrorist but only for serious criminals. There may be a time that an innocent bystander is injured or killed. The US government would never do this intentionally it would be an accident of the situation. If not done intentionally the drone attack could not be considered terrorism.

  • No the U.S. drone strikes should not be considered an act of terror

    I do not think that the United States usage as drones to kill civilians should be considered an act of terror as bad things do happen in war time. And the killing of innocent civilians is one of those tragedies. I think that the drones are killing more bad guys overall, luckily.

  • No, it's not terrorism, it's collateral damage

    Terrorism is a violent act aimed at civilians or poplations meant to inspire terror in order to intimidate changes one wants. Governments can and do carry out terrorist attacks. Many tinpot dictators of the world are basically terrorists. Kim Jung-Un and his regime are basically a group of terrorists who terrorize anyone who expresses opinions or beliefs that go against them. Hitler was an even better example of a government terrorist. The USA is the most powerful, strong nation in the world but even so we do not have the means to go about overturning every regime ruled by terror and doing so runs into thorny issues of sovereignty. In practical terms we must pick our battles so we stick with fighting those terrorists who are aimed at the USA. It is even politically incorrect for politicians to openly label terrorist dictators as being "terrorists" even when their actions prove that they are.
    This was a huge digression. Anyways the point is these drone strikes are "collateral damage". The US government does not conduct these strikes to try to intimidate civilians or populations, it conducts them to attack armed groups of people who are wagging war on the USA or its allies.
    One could argue that the USA has too many military engagements and all this collateral damage isn't worth it. But one shouldn't misuse terms like "terrorism". When people are constantly using words however they want to express emotional sentiments it can distort the way the public at large relates to the word. Pretty soon we'll have people arrested for "terrorism" for vandalizing statues. Not that vandalizing statues shouldn't be criminal and shouldn't be stopped but that words have certain meanings that are meant to clearly relate people to infer facts and details about a case and using words in ways they shouldn't be used is dangerous.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.