This is why you are such a disgusting person being called out in this thread. Just like you blame a whole group of people for the crimes of a few (remember who did that to in the 1930ies-1940ies) you blame me also, who has nothing to do with that whole shit. You really donot get it, do you? You're the disgusting person, who with this kind of rethoric paves the way for the nazi scum. As that scum you feel no need to distinguise between perpetrators and the rest. You even accuse people like me that have nothing to do with it of complicity. Just like the nazi propaganda did. Vilify in preparation for the mass murder of the innocent.
So if you shoot down a plan full of civilians like some white Christian separatists did to Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, or if you murder people by shelling a bus like they did in Volnovakha, or if you murder teens on holiday camps like Anders Breivik, or if you bomb the Minsk Metro and kill 15 people, then this is called separatist or ethnic terrorism. On the attacking weddings bit, the Western Coalition in Afghanistan regularly attack wedding processions, then come back and attack the first responders trying to help the injured. They call this the double tap - killing the first people and then coming back to kill the helpers. This is also terrorism but as it's done by white people they give it another name.
"Double taps" and "signature strikes" were policies of the drone warlords in the US and likely still are. Check it out your self, there are plenty of links out there. Here's a 30 second taster menu: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24557333 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174954/engelhardt_the_wedding_crashers https://www.thenation.com/article/us-has-bombed-least-eight-wedding-parties-2001/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7492195.stm
Bombing weddings is about as indefensible a policy as one can imagine and is absolutely a form of terrorism. But that's not a double tap, which you allege that the US does regularly. Only one of your links mentions a second strike (and that was in 2013) so I'm still doubtful that this is a regular occurence and not a cock up. We're not talking about Yemen now so why do you care?
Weren't you one of the chief pissed-off people whenever I brought up Obama's 7-country drone policy? It's really odd, the cognitive dissonance apparent in you giving the US military the benefit of the doubt now that there's a policy started by The Devil and continued by He Who Can Do No Wrong, And When He Does It's Just an Innocent Whoopsie!
Double tap and signature strikes are two different aspects of the drone wars, both illegal, both war crimes and both a form of terrorism imo, but double taps are policy of the US since 2009 and signature strikes even earlier. I can't quote from this article but it is worth a read, particularly the section "A brief history of double tap drone strikes" from pages 6-9. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=flr If you have a policy and it is evil, and people are following that policy and causing deaths in the process, the deaths are not a bug, they are a feature.
So who of us two has contributed more to those 5 people dead? You dont need to answer cause this was a rhetorical question, apologist
^^ Nazis have just today been sentenced for terrorism offences in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-46592080
Since you're being such a gaping asshole about this...you know that I've been vocal about the drone policy going back to W, so why the ******** are you trying to position things as if I've only ever given a shit about Yemen?
Some do happen in Yemen. Most of the time they are militants (who gets to judge who is a militant?) but sometimes civilians are killed (where they targeted on purpose or by mistake?) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 Double tapping is something that Hammas made popular, maybe the US military should not be taking advise from what Hammas does. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-drones-bomb-civilian-rescuers-2013-7 Most of the times they are bombing terrorist bases so multiple bombings make sense, but when bombing in civilian areas (where militants like to hide) then this technique should not be used. I doubt that they are targeting first respondents as the article above suggests, but there is a chance that a second strike will kill people trying to help, not all of them will be militants.
You have literally zero evidence for this. You know what US soldiers do when they are not soldiering? They live at home, visit friends, go shopping. Is this hiding amongst civilians, or is that "being off duty"? Militants do the same things when they aren't militanting. That's not hiding either.
I don't believe that you *only* give a shit about Yemen. I do believe that you think there's an equivalence of importance between the United States becoming a dystopian fascistic hellscape** and a few dead babies in Yemen. **Thanks, Ohio!
You are willfully ignoring the ongoing catastrophe happening all around you. Perhaps it's a psychological deflection because you know that you played a role in creating the catastrophe?
You have quite the insight into my psyche. Are you an empath by chance? I apologize for not doing exactly what you do in the manner you do it on a soccer message board.
Terrorist are not regular soldiers, they are more like guerrilla warfare fighters, so it is logical that they will hide among civilians. Is what any normal person fighting a superior army would do. Al Qaeda fighters or Taliban fighters would be dumb to come out in a military formation and try to attack NATO soldiers, so hit and run then blend in with the rest of the population is the best tactic for them to use. That is why using drones to target leadership is so popular, also it is politically less damaging than sending Military personnel to arrest them. Obama ordered about 400 drone strikes (per year or total I can't remember). If he had to send military personnel instead, the American people would have turned on him very fast as American casualties mounted. It is easier for someone like @American Brummie to call Obama the best American president ever when he is killing militants by drone strike over killing them with Navy seals. Big bombs, drone strikes are popular pressingly because the targets are not standard military basis. Now in days (since 2013 or so) we use a lot more drones, so yes most is most likely not accurate in my part.
At least that many per year. A different way to look at it is that if the people had actually "felt" the losses, maybe we wouldn't be "making more" by raining semi-random death from above. Or from the ground.