
If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet - gabriel34
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-drone-strike-hit-an-american-wedding-wed-ground-our-fleet/282373/
======
forktheif
It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest.

They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be
sitting in the aircraft they're flying.

Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once,
but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.

~~~
Killah911
It matters because it changes the fundamental nature of combat. If a pilot is
in the plane you're risking an American life, not to mention a very expensive
piece of equipment with numerous safety features etc.

Now take away the risk to American life and lower the cost of the attack
significantly, and viola, you've got a much itchier trigger finger now. If
you've played MW3, which would you rather do, use the drone to take out
enemies or risk your character dying?

A drone totally changes the dynamics of the fight. If we were able to get tons
of drones and "mechwarriors", I don't think wars would be quite as difficult
to justify. As technologists we are often blinded by the coolness of things.
As someone who has worked on AI for drones early on in my career (for the US
govt), I shudder to think that I may have contributed in some ways to a
terrible technology for humanity. At the time, I had friends deployed and in
my head, I thought that it's better we have UAVs than my friends coming home
in bodybags...

~~~
golergka
> you've got a much itchier trigger finger now

I doubt that. It would seem that a pilot sitting in a cockpit would be a lot
more trigger-happy.

Both pilots can make two types of mistake: don't recognize an enemy for what
he is, or do the same thing with a civilian. If plane pilot mistakes an enemy
for something else and said enemy succeeds in his efforts, the pilot will lose
his place and may be his life. The drone pilot, on the other hand, will only
lose the drone, which is also cheaper then a plane. But the cost of the other
mistake is the same for the both of them.

So, it seems that plane pilot has actually much more reason to shoot on
targets he's not sure about.

~~~
Killah911
Clarification: I don't mean that the pilot has an itchy trigger finger, I mean
the system or decision maker. I see how the two might be confused based on my
original comment.

The commander/politician/leader is answerable and responsible for his
soldiers, as such if the risk to the soldier's life is taken out of equation
an attack suddenly begins to make more sense as it carrier lower risk & lower
costs, therefore requiring less justification.

~~~
nickff
The reaper/predator and other drones cannot survive in contested airspace; any
pilot(s) in modern combat aircraft would be at almost no risk of being shot
down.

------
sethbannon
The way America is conducting the war on terror is both self-defeating and
morally repugnant.

~~~
bluedino
It's very easy to not agree with the way the US government handles these sort
of things, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are
not doing this for shits and giggles.

It might seem nationalistic to some but it reminds me of a quote from "A Few
Good Men" -

 _Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded
by men with guns. Who 's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater
responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you
curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing
what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my
existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives._

~~~
pavlov
It's very easy to not agree with the way the North Korean government handles
many things, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are
not doing it for shits and giggles. After all, they have been at war for over
60 years now. It must be obvious to any patriotic Korean that the danger posed
by American imperialists who still occupy the southern half of the country is
ever-present and growing. Someone must guard those walls.

~~~
infinitone
These types of comments are becoming the norm on HN. Perhaps someone should
write a script that can generate the reciprocal of the parent like this...
it'd be a neat weekend project :d

Btw, not saying the comment is bad in anyway.

~~~
acjohnson55
Agreed!

And maybe eventually people will actually start thinking about the opposite
position before they post something.

Or maybe they actually won't.

------
rikacomet
Terrorism is a idea, it cannot be killed with bullets or drones.

The Terrorist we know today are a pretty much related to those people who were
supported by American Intelligence agencies in the mid70-80s, against the
soviet. The "Barbarians" among those folk were given advanced weapons, that
America possessed, those weapons might be outdated, and America may have a
upper hand, but that is only a matter of time. Sadly, this has became a
chicken and egg problem.

The circle of REVENGE is a continuous one, you kill more people innocent or
not, you sprout a new rebellion. They will eventually hurt you back, today or
tomorrow. and the process will continue.. presidents, prime ministers would
come and go by.

The only way to stop this is to actually STOP. Stop interference in ways like
espoinage, drone strikes, killing of "Suspected" militants.. never given any
right to appear before court.. everything. The root problem is the so called
intelligence that does more than just collect information about "suspected"
enemies.

Someone has to rise up and stop it. for both sides, perhaps it escape us
humans sometimes, the very fact "those who are hurt are the ones who can
forgive or take revenge." Thats about there it is to this.

Really sad to hear about that nameless bride/groom & family. May they R.I.P.

------
k-mcgrady
Not all that surpising. As was made clear during the Snowden leaks the USG
doesn't consider human beings who aren't US citizens to have the same rights
as Americans.

~~~
wil421
This is what I find the most troubling. I used to think the US was trying to
still spread democracy worldwide but apparently internally they feel if you
are foreign that means there arent any laws as to what we can and cant do.

~~~
ixnu
What happens when a nation's revolutionary document becomes
counterrevolutionary?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

~~~
Codhisattva
There are two opposing views of the Declaration and the Constitution.

One view considers these documents to be the expression of the inclusive
rights granted to the citizenship.

The other view considers these documents to be the definition of the extents
and limits of federal and state powers.

The first view currently prevails but that was not always the case. Under the
second view you can not waive your right to remain silent, or waive your right
to unreasonable searches. In other words, being Mirandized doesn't grant the
right. It's simply informing you of what you always have.

------
belorn
> Five of those killed were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda, but the
> remainder were unconnected with the militancy, Yemeni security officials
> said."

> The New York Times reported in 2013 that the Obama Administration embraced a
> disputed method for counting civilian casualties, which in effect counts all
> military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.

So 5 people were of military-age and male? Given a size of 22 people, it sound
reasonable. I wonder how many were children.

~~~
dopamean
The business of considering all military-age males as combatants is really not
all that surprising to me. I live in New York and here, in some neighborhoods,
the police consider all minority males 14-40 (I really have no idea of the top
end) to be suspected criminals worthy of a random search while simply walking
down the street. This is the way we treat people. We deem one group of people
to be a threat and they immediately lose their rights.

Edit: I seemed to have forgotten that it is black and hispanic males in New
York who are stopped.

~~~
jellicle
Not white males.

~~~
dopamean
I don't know how I left that bit out. Edited.

------
ck2
I think it is time for a world-wide ban on armed drones, period.

Just like we have international treaties for other horrible things like
mustard gas.

Do all the reconnaissance you can get away with. But I don't want a tired,
overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a trailer somewhere
in the US, pulling a trigger to kill unquantifiable targets anywhere in the
world. Or any other country doing it to anyone else for that matter.

~~~
mikeash
I don't really understand the outrage over _drones_ specifically. This
constant bombing of foreign countries is terrible, but I don't understand why
the "drones" part of it is also considered bad. Why is a tired, overworked,
morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a trailer somewhere in the US
worse than a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a
cockpit of an F-16?

~~~
kitsune_
As mentioned in other comments in this thread:

From a political point of view, drones are much more attractive than
traditional methods. You won't see the corpses of dead Americans being dragged
through Mogadishu with drones. You won't see captured pilots being paraded in
front of a camera with drones.

~~~
mikeash
We won't see captured pilots being paraded in front of a camera with regular
piloted aircraft either, not ones flown by the US against any likely current
target.

~~~
kitsune_
I suggest googling F117 and Serbia.

~~~
mikeash
I suggest googling "how to make points in a less irritating and
confrontational way than telling people that you suggest googling something".

In any case, I remember it fairly well, no need to look it up. Which current
likely target is a heavily-armed state with a strong air defense system?

(North Korea is a possibility, although I have to wonder just how good their
air defenses are these days. It also strikes me as a target where drones would
be a _great_ idea if it ever comes down to a shooting war.)

I'd also like to note that the F-117 shootdown didn't involve the pilot being
captured, much less paraded in front of a camera, although he certainly could
have been.

------
belorn
It is articles like this that asks the reader to pierce media bias, and take a
honest look at a conflict.

If an Qaeda militant had gone to US city and bombed a wedding where they
_suspected_ harbored US officer, how would that play out? 22 injured, 17
killed by Qaeda militants in boston. Terrorists mistakenly targeted a wedding,
trying to go after 5 US officer.

If there were no propaganda in media, surely this would play out identical as
this drone strike. No world leaders expressing their condemnation of the
attacks, condolences, and solidarity. Military strikes kills huge groups of
innocent civilians all the times in wars, so nothing to write about.

------
swamp40
The anti-American rants on here are disgusting.

Nobody's calling this a _mistake_ except the media.

5 Al Qaeda dead, 5-10 people sitting next to an Al Qaeda member also dead.

Intelligence even pointed out which 4 cars out of the 11 car convoy contained
the Al Qaeda members.

If you think there is no war going on over there, the 52 civilians slaughtered
by Al Qaeda on Dec. 5 in a Sana'a hospital would disagree with you.

Check out how Al Qaeda operates here at the 56 second mark, where one of them
casually lobs a grenade into a crowd of civilians during the Dec. 5 attack:
[http://www.guns.com/2013/12/14/graphic-cctv-footage-
militant...](http://www.guns.com/2013/12/14/graphic-cctv-footage-militant-
attack-yemeni-hospital-video/)

The US drone strike was a direct response to the Dec. 5 massacre by Al Qaeda.

~~~
josephlord
America's new moral standard? Better than Al Qaeda.

We should be striving for much better standards if the west is to have any
moral authority. Not as bad as Russia, China or Al Qaeda is not good enough.

Then there are practical issues that indiscriminate attacks are liable to
create as many enemies as they kill as sons, brothers and fathers are bereaved
and decide to join the fight.

[Edit: I'm British not American and I'm not saying Britain is any better but I
really hate the "we aren't as bad as something really bad" as a defence for
either country's actions. We should do better].

------
holograham
A great book to read on the decline of violence in the world: The Better
Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined by Steven Pinker.

The Hacker News community should like it as it focuses on the stats and facts
rather than anecdotal stories the media slings.

The main thesis: Violence (in nearly every form) has been on a precipitous
decline in the modern era. War deaths (and civilian causalities) are at all
time lows and still declining.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-
Nature/dp/014312...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-
Nature/dp/0143122010/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387212392&sr=8-1&keywords=better+angels+of+our+nature)

~~~
pantalaimon
Now would you say there would be more or less violence if the US stopped
killing people on foreign soil?

~~~
holograham
Loaded question for sure :)

You're asking me if the US's geopolitical and military operations currently
are increasing or decreasing total violence in the world. A tremendously
complex question to answer accurately.

My answer (opinion) is this: On the whole I think the US has contributed to a
decline in total violence in the world. Not to say there haven't been bad
decisions along the way. Advances in military tactics and foreign aid policies
have been aimed to decreased violence. As for an exact figure, that is
impossible to know.

How many future wars were averted when the US won the nuclear arms race? How
many civilian casualties are minimized with each advance in precision bombing
over the last ~75 years of military aviation? How many wars have been averted
through foreign political action (aid, coups, treaties, etc)?

Obviously those are unmeasurable in each discrete instance but the book I
referenced above provides some aggregate statistics which, when correlated the
US's rise as a world power, show a huge decline in worldwide violence (and not
just in 1st world countries).

~~~
peterkelly
They should keep doing the stuff that reduces violence. That's all good.

They should stop doing the stuff that increases violence. Like this incident.

~~~
holograham
Agreed.

Just like a startup tries new tactics so does the US military and foreign
policy organizations. And just like startups, some of those ideas fail
miserably and look like ideas that should have never been tried in the first
place :)

------
MattyRad
Would anybody be surprised, even sympathetic, if the families of the deceased
joined Al Qaeda as a direct result of this? Americans killed their friends and
family on a sacred day, and nothing would be more appropriate than seeing they
pay for it. Such an atrocity is almost comical when you think that the reason
it occurred was to stop Al Qaeda, ends up bolstering it. It's appalling on so
many levels.

~~~
acjohnson55
This certainly seems to be the way it plays out in countless ethnic and
sectarian conflicts. I suppose my government is just arrogant enough to
believe it's always going to be faster to the drone trigger than the
terrorists are at reaching their objectives. I don't think it's a sustainable
approach.

------
wil421
I dont know which is tarnishing the American image worse the use of drones
strikes or the Snowden leaks. What happens when our allies start to even say
enough is enough.

~~~
pmr_
Exactly this. I'm not a US citizen and I can not remember the last time
someone spoke about the United States as something we should emulate or as a
country we should support. Political panels with topics like "Are the US still
our allies?" are popping up around me and I personally wouldn't affirm that
statement. There is an overall feeling of meddling in other people's affairs
associated with most US actions nowadays.

Germany already has declined participating in the attack on Iraq, but still
provides plenty of passive (possibly also some active, even though that would
be illegal) support (logistics, allowing air bases) and most people still
perceive it as the right action.

It is hard to find recent surveys on the topic and especially Transatlantic
Trends seems to refuse to ask the question if Europe should continue to
support US military actions further and focuses mainly on the NATO (neither
drone strikes nor the Iraq War are NATO operations).

------
fit2rule
"Let us hit you with this stick, because if we start hitting you with the
bigger stick, all the other ants will come teaming out of the woodwork and
then there will be a real war going on".

This kind of argument just makes me want to violently throw up. There is
absolutely no honor in using a remote drone to kill people from a distance. It
is among the most despicable things a human being can do to another human
being.

How about we make America take a _really_ honorable position and say this to
our American military friends: you are not allowed to kill anyone unless
you've attempted, directly, to communicate with them - in their language - and
discussed the reasons for their hostility directly, person to person. Only
after this has occurred, and all other efforts to resolve the persons
aggression, is the right to kill granted.

I'm sure we'd see all those fascist US military personnel take another look at
their chosen career path if they did, indeed, have to use the mighty power of
American technology, to _communicate_ and _make direct peace with the
targetted individuals_ instead of decapitate them, fill them with lead, murder
their children, injure and maim their relatives, disfigure the strangers who
were simply in the area, at the wrong time ..

------
locusm
I wonder if the blow back from this in 10 years will be worse than the
propping up of despots and dictators for the last 50.

------
danbruc
Now go and explain the difference between this incident and a terror attack
without using the fact the the former has been carried out by a state while
the later has been carried out by civilians.

~~~
Goladus
A terror attack would have deliberately targeted the wedding convoy because
it's a soft target and because of the fear it would inspire among civilian
non-combatants.

------
badman_ting
It's okay when we do it.

~~~
Shivetya
Lets be honest here, if Bush were doing this the press and every damn Democrat
in Congress would be up in arms and demanding halts and immediate
investigations.

so a better title would be, If Bush were President we'd ground out fleet.

~~~
mikeash
Really? My recollection of most of the Bush administration was that the
Democrats were complete and total doormats for him. They basically laid out
the red carpet for him to _invade Iraq_ , which was far worse and far less
justified than drone strikes.

~~~
dopamean
Your recollection is correct. He caught a lot of heat for a lot of things but
most of the military stuff was just accepted. Perhaps not quite as much as it
is now however.

------
altcognito
No, we'd insist that every wedding have a security drone to protect that
wedding from other drones. When you ground drones, then only the terrorists
have drones.

------
njharman
> A U.S. drone mistakenly targeted

Drones aren't autonomous. They don't target anything. Weapons officers do.

Besides being plain wrong and bad reporting, dehumanizing (attributing it on
the drone) shifts responsibility and makes it seem like problem is solvable by
"fixing" drone or by grounding them.

------
baddox
I don't see why the author thinks we would ground our fleet. Police routinely
and deliberately kill innocent people in the US, and we don't "ground our
police force."

~~~
acjohnson55
We might, if the police stormed a wedding and killed over a dozen people.

~~~
baddox
I think you're being naive about what police in the US can do with very little
resistance or punishment (especially internal). Remember things like:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege)

------
clarkmoody
I seem to recall that the Obama Administration was going to restore America's
image with the rest of the world -- the image that was presumably destroyed by
W.

~~~
mikeyouse
Yeah, that actually happened though;

[http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=joemyx...](http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=joemyxterB1AD4281-20BF-
BBAD-4540-4E89367326B5.jpg)

------
headgasket
we've always been at war with terror

------
nraynaud
And just to make drive a little bit the point home: there are quite a few
people suspected of terrorism in the US, like one French spy who blew the
rainbow warrior, quite a few people from Viña del Mar, US citizen who passed
through ESMA in Bs As, probably a few assassins from the mossad etc. And if a
pressure cooker is a weapon of mass destruction, I'm pretty sure a hellfire
is, too.

------
rayiner
> Does anyone believe that, if not for our lethal drone program, the United
> States would've sent the Air Force or ground troops to fire on this wedding
> party?

The premise of the article is non-sensical. If we didn't have drones, would
the airforce be bombing targets in Yemen? Undoubtedly.

------
thebiglebrewski
Ok, although I fundamentally tend to disagree with much of American military
policy - if there were people on that bus who had ties to Al Qaeda and
american intelligence knew this...and those people were to cause further
destruction if they weren't killed...then I just don't know.

I kind of imagine this like all of those movies about drug cartels where these
incredibly rich families are leading semi-normal lives and then during a
normal family event like a wedding, are attacked by the rival drug cartel. It
sucks and looks really bad, but if you got involved in something illegal like
Al Qaeda or the drug trade on a massive scale...didn't you kind of bring it on
yourself?

Either way, more evidence needs to be shown for these kinds of attacks and why
they are necessary?

~~~
peterkelly
They could have waited until after the wedding, when the Al Qaeda suspects
were apart from the non-suspects, avoiding the risk of collateral damage. Just
a thought.

~~~
thebiglebrewski
Maybe, maybe not. We don't have all the intelligence...I guess we just have to
hope that was the best call given the circumstances. Not saying that I'm happy
that this happened though

------
yodsanklai
Concretely, at our level, what could be done to prevent those things from
happening? voting doesn't seem to be working (esp. for those of us who aren't
american).

The problem is that our democracies are broken. Most people aren't well
informed or unconcerned, and those who are don't have enough weight to make a
difference.

Maybe we could find a way to make our democracies functioning better via
public discussion on the internet.

We could imagine some kind of big political forum where logical reasoning
would be enforced. Critical thinking would be encouraged. Rhetoric would be
banned. Facts would be checked, politician would confront the public and each
other on long and deep debates. Decisions would be taken collectively...

~~~
GFischer
It's a fine dream. I've read about a few politics startup attempts but they
disappeared off the face of the earth quickly (though I did see some guys
asking for funding recently). It would be nice if some could share their
stories, where they failed and what they did well.

Some people will always have more clout than others. Even here on Hacker News
you have people with (I believe deservedly) more weight than others.

------
rthomas6
I strongly agree with this article, but is this the kind of article that
belongs on HN? Is this political article really part of some new trend or
otherwise noteworthy, or is it just an editorial that most of us agree with?

~~~
davidw
It doesn't, according to the guidelines:

[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters,
or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-
topic."

There's nothing intellectually gratifying about this story - it's an "outrage
story".

That doesn't mean it's not important, just that it's not HN material.

------
squozzer
I wouldn't count on it. The US govt has enough media lapdogs who would shout
down any calls to ground the fleet. I predict we won't have much longer to
wait before the hypothesis is tested.

------
jds375
So true. It's hard to justify the United States calling themselves the "police
of the world" when their actions are so hypocritical sometimes.

------
pesenti
I don't understand why commenters don't actually discuss Obama's argument. He
has the following options:

\- Do nothing

\- Use drones

\- Use conventional weapons which, he argues, would have more collateral
damage

\- Put troops on the ground and be perceived as an invader.

So either you should argue that these are not the options or you should argue
that he did not pick the right one.

~~~
barrkel
Killing innocent people at weddings does far more to create people who want to
destroy the US than it does to reduce their numbers. Just think about it for a
few seconds. Nothing short of complete genocide would be an effective actual
implementation of this "justification".

FWIW, the correct response to terrorism is to do nothing militarily, and treat
it as a crime problem with an intelligence aspect nationally. People in
faraway lands have little capability to do the US any harm.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Killing innocent people at weddings does far more to create people who want
> to destroy the US than it does to reduce their numbers.

Its hard to have a permanent war if you actually keep reducing the number of
enemies.

------
kyleblarson
Can a Nobel peace prize be rescinded?

------
senthilnayagam
friends and family of the innocent killed won't be friendly with americans
ever

~~~
rokhayakebe
You can bet that someone in that group is already making plans for revenge, 10
years from now, when everyone has completely forgotten this incident ever
happened.

------
ivanca
A weeding bus was destroyed in a terrorist attack and many innocent civilians
were killed!

Wait... no, it was done by the USA military so it's not terrorism, totally
cool, nothing to see, carry on.

------
robobro
We might pull out of other countries, but we'd pull over our own for sure
then. "Well, we can't keep other countries safe... so we'll have to keep our
own."

------
Rogerh91
The day that we realize that all human beings are worthy of the same
fundamental protections we take for granted, and act on this impulse, will be
a great one indeed.

------
jl6
If you are an American taxpayer, you can withdraw your support by giving away
to charity all of your income above your personal tax allowance.

------
zacinbusiness
It's not about stopping terrorists, it's about sending a message.

~~~
waxjar
What would that message be? "We are barbaric so you better watch out"?

~~~
zacinbusiness
No, the message is "This is how much we treat innocent civilians who have done
nothing wrong, so stop to think about how we treat people that we actually
dislike."

It's nothing more than a form of terrorism, primarily against the American
people.

~~~
zacinbusiness
@Waxjar - I'm saying that these drone strikes are not accidental. That they
did not kill innocent people by accident. And that the point of the U.S. drone
fleet has got nothing to do with stopping terrorists and that, in fact, the
very existence of the U.S. drone fleet is itself an act of terror because it
exists for no real purpose other than to frighten people who make the U.S.
government angry.

~~~
pekk
Doesn't this definition make the existence of any military deterrent "an act
of terror"?

~~~
zacinbusiness
I think it could, but I don't think so in this case. MAD, for instance, isn't
an act of terror because it is only an existential threat. Most nuclear
capable countries won't use their weapons because of MAD, and thus it actually
provides a safety net.

No one, though, can really do anything about drone strikes. They just happen,
seemingly at random, wherever we decide they should happen. And if we take out
a civilian then we say "oops, these things happen" and so there are no
repercussions, no one gets punished and it just keeps happening.

------
Codhisattva
s/American/Christian/

------
peter303
Sure. I believe it was a wedding too. Thats what the other side always says to
obtain sympathy.

------
josefresco
Weddings and funerals are actually targeted specifically because those events
are two that even highly sought-after targets attend despite the dangers.
Also, the subsequent funerals for those killed at the targeted wedding would
then be targeted as well.

You can either agree or disagree, but if you feel the target is accurate based
on your intelligence the venue doesn't really matter IMHO. Civilians will be
killed no matter if it's a wedding, funeral or some other random day.

Would we have cared if bin Laden was attending a wedding?

~~~
mattgibson
If Bin Laden had been attending a wedding, then ground troops would have been
sent in, who would have made sure they killed him and left unarmed civilians
alone. We know this, because that's what actually happened when they found
him.

The question is why is this not being done in the same way in other cases,
given that random killings of civilians are perhaps the best terrorist
recruitment tool ever devised.

~~~
officemonkey
Because a Seal team is worth the risk of capturing bin Laden. A Seal team is
not worth the risk of raiding some wedding.

~~~
josefresco
Exactly. High value target uses high value assets.

------
walshemj
But America isn't a failed state with a UN task force in place and it is not
common practice to take large amounts of weapons to a wedding.

This is a ASB (alien space bat) type of argument as used in many a sea-lion
argument "obviously Hitler could have invaded the UK" (only if the ASB's
destroyed the royal navy from orbit)

