Didn't Noble himself invent dynamite or something?
Either way, if a US citizen is a legitimate target in an combat operation, it doesn't make sense to risk the lives of soldiers (US citizens) just so he can get a trial. In a perfect world,he would turn himself in and face trial to vindicate himself and his innocence but a drone strike kills that person and risks no more people that required.
Yes, you would prefer no killings take place, and I would also prefer to live in a utopia where there was no violence. I find our attitude obscene, that someone else on your behalf committed violence, minimizing to the absolute necessary amount and you pass judgement on them. Someone has to make the hard decisions that involve violence and war which are unfortunate realities, not inventions of some comic book villains. People have been warring since there were people. A peacemaker isn't someone that waves a magic wand and makes peace happen but someone who avoids violence unless it is required.
Citizen or not, if someone is providing material aid to a group that is intent on specifically targeting unsuspecting civilians, they're not criminals. They didn't break laws, they are engaging in combat. a domestic terrorist can be a criminal, so can a foreign terrorist working as non-state actor. But a terrorist group that's acting as quasi-state and waging military action is by definition a military target participating in war. Any such person must be treated as a combatant.
Truth is, Obama didn't commit enough justifiable violence,he could have done a lot more in syria and the levant, against Iran and elsewhere. but he was too peaceful and wanted to appease his voters. Ultimately, war is necessary at times, and it can even reduce the amount of actual death and suffering in the long run. Let's not forget that it was nuclear bombs and 50M+ people dying that ended the cycles of warfare in europe and most of the world for over half a century. Although people forgetting the lessons of that violence are repeating history again now. If there are aggressors intent on violence, the only way to achieve peace is through violence. You can't appease such people or debate with them (the allies tried that with hitler and learned their lesson).
My position is to refrain from criticizing too much any party that is responding to aggression or violence.
Either way, if a US citizen is a legitimate target in an combat operation, it doesn't make sense to risk the lives of soldiers (US citizens) just so he can get a trial. In a perfect world,he would turn himself in and face trial to vindicate himself and his innocence but a drone strike kills that person and risks no more people that required.
Yes, you would prefer no killings take place, and I would also prefer to live in a utopia where there was no violence. I find our attitude obscene, that someone else on your behalf committed violence, minimizing to the absolute necessary amount and you pass judgement on them. Someone has to make the hard decisions that involve violence and war which are unfortunate realities, not inventions of some comic book villains. People have been warring since there were people. A peacemaker isn't someone that waves a magic wand and makes peace happen but someone who avoids violence unless it is required.
Citizen or not, if someone is providing material aid to a group that is intent on specifically targeting unsuspecting civilians, they're not criminals. They didn't break laws, they are engaging in combat. a domestic terrorist can be a criminal, so can a foreign terrorist working as non-state actor. But a terrorist group that's acting as quasi-state and waging military action is by definition a military target participating in war. Any such person must be treated as a combatant.
Truth is, Obama didn't commit enough justifiable violence,he could have done a lot more in syria and the levant, against Iran and elsewhere. but he was too peaceful and wanted to appease his voters. Ultimately, war is necessary at times, and it can even reduce the amount of actual death and suffering in the long run. Let's not forget that it was nuclear bombs and 50M+ people dying that ended the cycles of warfare in europe and most of the world for over half a century. Although people forgetting the lessons of that violence are repeating history again now. If there are aggressors intent on violence, the only way to achieve peace is through violence. You can't appease such people or debate with them (the allies tried that with hitler and learned their lesson).
My position is to refrain from criticizing too much any party that is responding to aggression or violence.