Innocent civilians are dying in their country. The USA is not actively targeting and gunning down innocent civilians. As was said earlier, even from the coldest perspective possible, it simply wouldn't make any sense!!
The holocaust never happened. It would have diverted resources from the war, so the German leadership would not do it.
That's the same logic you apply. I'm not comparing the US to the Nazis there, I'm applying your logic to the Nazis just to point out how ludicrous it is.
Let's say the US has a kill/nokill decision for a car that has a 1%, 10%, 50%, or 90% probability of a terrorist in it. For which of those does it kill?
The cost to the US for killing civilians is what? That's not 'targeting civilians' - if the chance is almost zero, they wouldn't do it.
It's a question where they draw the line between the risk of killing civilians - what's the cost of that to them - and killing a terrorist - what's the value, their main mission.
The US is spending a FORTUNE to be involved in the war, and killing terrorists is the whole reason the drones are there, the military is operating them. So when there's some chance of killing a terrorist, what are the odds at which they'll choose to kill in hopes of getting a terrorist?
Here's a fact that might help answer:
When Iraq was bombed just before the invasion, the US didn't want to kill innocent civilians, either, but it wanted to kill Saddam. So the orders were that bombing targets expected to have more than 30 civilian casualties required approval by the Secretary of Defense, to make sure the odds justified the attack. I don't remember exactly how many were submitted for approval - it might have been 49 - but every one was approved. And not a single one was correct at hitting Saddam. Do the math.
Are you anti-American or something? Even if you disagree with every facet of why we are in the Middle East, you can't argue that the US has EVER condoned the slaughtering of innocent civilians. If you disagree with that, you should probably start wondering whether you should seek medical attention for paranoia...
-GP
The above should help give you a little clue that the issue isn't 'targeting innocent civilians' but how low the bar is on their being allowed to be killed as 'collateral damage'.
When the US is spending billions and being measured on their success by the number of terrorists killed, and the price for killing innocents is at most a few thousand dollars to compensate their families and maybe some money for the community in some cases, it's a very fair question to ask about the issue.
IIRC over 3000 civilians have been killed by the drones. That says killing civilians is an issue, and your 'doesn't target civilians' while true isn't the issue.
Facebook
Twitter