Talk:Targeted killing

message: Since Vietnam governments know that wars are won at home, meaning that you have to have control about the public opinion.
Drones are perfect for hiding mass murdering and state terrorism: Journalists are never at the spot, they can never report what happened. 
The only witnesses are the victims which are by definition "terrorists". 
So we will never hear about the fact that a lot of civil persons and children are killed on a daily basis by drones. Obama / Clinton dropped 72 bombs per day alone in 2016:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy?CMP=share_btn_link
Journalists do not like to put their unabilities into the light so there is no broad discussion about this fact and so I urge you to insert this fact into the article because it is a fact that needs no proof: Drone attacks cannot be followed by independent journalists because they seem to be ubiquitous.
-89.244.72.69 (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantage: Propaganda 

message: Should the killings in Philippine drug war belong to Targeted killing or Extrajudicial killing? Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only exlude, but I think the article should be deleted as per previous talk page discussions and all content should be moved to the extrajudicial killings article and the assassination article, where there are clear definitions and the content would be a perfect fit. Mitsubishi love (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC - Targeted killings/Extrajudicial killings 

message: *Extrajudicial killing (should not belong to Targeted killing) - Call it "targeted killing" if the Philippine military starts sending drones to bomb the drug barons' hideouts. For now, some of the killings of drug related criminals were possibly extrajudicial killings carried out by bad cops. STSC (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only exlude, but I think the article should be deleted as per previous talk page discussions and all content should be moved to the extrajudicial killings article and the assassination article, where there are clear definitions and the content would be a perfect fit. Mitsubishi love (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The deaths of drug users in the Philippines belongs on Wikipedia. That is not disputed. It belongs on the Rodrigo Duterte article, the Philippine Drug War article, the Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines article and the Extrajudicial killing article. They don't belong here, as they don't fit the definition of a targeted killing or assassination. 
Wiktionary makes its abundantly clear:
"The intentional killing by a government or its agents of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" who is not in that government's custody, and who is taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, and is thus regarded by the government as having lost the immunity from being targeted that he or she would otherwise have under the Geneva Conventions" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/targeted_killing
The victims are not "taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism", so this content has no place on this article.
A compromise has been offered by another editor in which it was suggested:
"Classifying the recent killings in the Philippines as targeted killings is debatable, the fact that we are even having this discussion makes that much clear. 
Having a section for the Philippines, in the same format as the other nations listed, with something along the lines of "the killings in the Philippine Drug War have been classified as targeted killings by some sources such as Human Rights Watch", with ample opportunity for opposing opinions to be added to the article, if suitable content/sources are available. It should be made clear that calling the killings targeted killings, is merely based on the opinions of some organizations, and that other organizations have vastly different views on the subject."
that reasonable suggestion and offer of compromise would allow the disputed content to stay on the article, informing the readers that the defining the deaths as targeted killings is one opinion and there are others. That seems fair and as one of the involved editors, I support that proposal. Mitsubishi love (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion 

message: Hi, is there any really?
Looks like that it is just some "militarese". So maybe it should be rephrased. Are there some organisations that use the words as such "targeted killings"
The question above is a fair one. The use of targetted killings has become popular in the age of the drone, although special forces are still commonly used. States like the US have developed formal policies. Targetted killings rather than assassinations seems appropriate in this new age both to convey the use of technology and to make a distinction between where states claim justification and, say, gangland killings. In addition, assassination is by definition illegal whereas targetted killings can be legal. Emmentalist (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference with "assasination"?