Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Drone Papers

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 226 posts

Re: The Drone Papers

#131

Post by anigbrowl »

yuvadam wrote: post #2

There are a few interesting anecdotes about this huge story - This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS), meaning this story has been in the making for at least 1.5 years. Second, this quality and quantity of leaks is incredible and can only be attributed to a news organization that takes security as a paramount consideration, setting up proper secure channels…

I'm inclined to at least consider the possibility that other foreign governments are helping out with making this information available because it suits their own interests. The notion that Snowden and Greenwald are plucky little protagonists doing everything on their own against the malign might of the US government is a peculiarly American narrative in that it doesn't consider the possibility that any non-Americans could be involved in shaping public perceptions in the US.

Re: The Drone Papers

#132

Post by Gravityloss »

whatafarce wrote: post #10

Utterly disgusting, America conducts clear war crimes, tortures, bombs afghan hospitals, assisinates, all without consequence. I'm sure some idiot will tell me to vote, because that'll change the systemic corruption and nightmare that has taken hold of US power. Did voting in nazi Germany help? No because they were voted in, voting only legitimizes a political system completely captured by insiders and corporate jugg…

Voting certainly helped Nazis, though they did other things too.

If you read up on my country, the popular support for fascist movements fizzled in 1930, but before that the country was in some danger. Many politicians and military men had their plans aligned for different scenarios, depending on where the popular opinion turned.

I think general philosophy, values and leadership play a huge role there. People sense that kind of stuff, and it turns into actions by the masses.

Re: The Drone Papers

#133

Post by morsch »

rhino369 wrote: post #97
bediger4000 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. How do we know this, again? The folks who have said this are legally bound not to say anything else. So they're not particularly believable. The Snowden revelations about PetroBras hacking somewhat (but not totally, admittedly) makes me very suspicious that network penetration goes on for petty economic gain. Why wouldn't that leak into dron…

Because we are talking about the known drone strikes. We know, generally, where they occur and who they target. People in the tribal Pashtun-Pakistan area, Al Qaeta in Yemen, and Somalia. If America is waging some secret economic war, it's been covered up extremely well. Spying is easily covered up. It's certainly possible. But that's hard to a reason to presume it's true.

We know about the drone strikes we know about, that much is true.

Re: The Drone Papers

#134

Post by rhino369 »

DominikR wrote: post #111
rhino369 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The huge false equivalence you are making is Obama is waging a war against a truly evil organization. But the college shootings are senseless violence purposely used on innocent people. You can throw in the hospital attack. But that attack obviously wasn't purposeful. It also wasn't a drone. It was ground support strike, something Obama wouldn't be involved in. You can blame Obama for keeping us in the war. In that r…

Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful? This article by associated press indicates that they attacked the hospital on purpose. http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:5e20fcd92aee49e69... > Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better... I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is beyond me.

>Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful?

Because there is no motive.

From the story you quote "It's unclear whether commanders who unleashed the AC-130 gunship on the hospital — killing at least 22 patients and hospital staff — were aware that the site was a hospital or knew about the allegations of possible enemy activity."

What is more likely. The US suddenly decided to murder a bunch of universally beloved Doctors or they fucked up bigtime?

>I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is beyond me.

I find it hard to believe that you can't understand why I'd think killing a bunch of Talibani is great for the world.

Re: The Drone Papers

#136

Post by DominikR »

jsn117 wrote: post #124
DominikR wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful? This article by associated press indicates that they attacked the hospital on purpose. http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:5e20fcd92aee49e69... > Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better... I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is beyond me.

> I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is beyond me. Being condescendingly naive doesn't make you a better person

I do not care if I'm a better person than someone else. I'll leave that to you.

Re: The Drone Papers

#137

Post by rhino369 »

bambax wrote: post #102
rhino369 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The huge false equivalence you are making is Obama is waging a war against a truly evil organization. But the college shootings are senseless violence purposely used on innocent people. You can throw in the hospital attack. But that attack obviously wasn't purposeful. It also wasn't a drone. It was ground support strike, something Obama wouldn't be involved in. You can blame Obama for keeping us in the war. In that r…

You're right in that's a false equivalence; but the response of Obama about the two events that happened the same day was striking. He has no control whatsoever about crazy people who shoot other people on campuses; and yet that's what he chose to talk about. He has a lot of control about what targets US armies bomb, drones or no drones. And yet he has almost nothing to say about that. But my point is not even this.…

>Get rid of due process, and evil is everywhere, or nowhere at all.

Ok. Bambax why don't you serve Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour a summons to the S.D of NY. I'll send your parents flowers at your funeral.

Due process has no process in combat.

Re: The Drone Papers

#138

Post by freshhawk »

rayiner wrote: post #24
whatafarce wrote: post #10

Utterly disgusting, America conducts clear war crimes, tortures, bombs afghan hospitals, assisinates, all without consequence. I'm sure some idiot will tell me to vote, because that'll change the systemic corruption and nightmare that has taken hold of US power. Did voting in nazi Germany help? No because they were voted in, voting only legitimizes a political system completely captured by insiders and corporate jugg…

Voting, by design, won't change something the majority of people want to keep happening: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-str... ("Fifty-eight percent of respondents expressed approval of U.S. drone strikes, while only 35 percent disapproved. This included nearly three-fourths of Republicans, slightly more than half of Democrats and 56 percent of independents."). "Insiders" and "corporate jugg…

So that's one position to take in the discussion of how much responsibility falls on voters when the various types of consent manufacturing are in play.

In theory, with hypothetical fully informed voters, everyone would agree with your stated position. But when you have massive misinformation campaigns aimed at voters and various attempts at swaying public opinion with psychological tricks (which we know will change some X% of voters' behaviour) I don't feel like it is that clear.

Clearly some of the responsibility is lifted from the individual voters and put on those manipulating them isn't it? Individuals have no control over how susceptible they are to manipulation. If the majority of people want X to keep happening but are tricked into voting for Y because they think they are voting for X, I don't place the responsibility for this error entirely on the voters. I place a lot of on those "insiders" and "corporate juggernauts" doing the manipulation.

Re: The Drone Papers

#139

Post by anigbrowl »

korisnik wrote: post #51
rhino369 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Military Aged Males are considered enemy combatants. Effectively that means all males ages 18-49 are considered enemy combatants. Since you're guilty by association, your age makes you a target. You are conflating what the US considers enemies before targeting and after a strike. The US doesn't just bomb any random male 18-49. But when the US does target what it thinks is a legitimate target, it counts any unknown m…

> it counts any unknown males killed in the strike as enemy. It doesn't use that assumption to do the strike. Imagine for a moment that someone (be it some foreign agency, US police, army or whoever) did the same in America, to American citizens . Would you be outraged by your explanation? "Hey, it's not like they're targetting them specifically. They're just deciding that they were all enemy combatants post-factum .…

I wouldn't be. That's the basic rationale of terrorists (both the foreign and domestic varieties). I don't think the Boston bombers were motivated by a specific hatred of athletics fans, or other demographic characteristics of their victims; they just knew it was a big static crowd with lots of media and weak security. The primary product of a terroristic enterprise is 'a scene of carnage' intended to communicate an experience of trauma to as wide an audience as possible.

Re: The Drone Papers

#140

Post by thwest »

jsn117 wrote: post #123
cryoshon wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shrug, the actual detail of the Kunduz massacre not being a drone is utterly irrelevant. The actual detail of using a drone rather than another type of airstrike is also irrelevant. The systematic and intentional killing ("collateral damage") of tons of civilians for an endless war is relevant. Look up all those times we droned weddings, killing dozens. Certain people at those weddings were targeted, not that it matt…

So comparing a terrible mistake in an active war zone to a purposeful killing of civilians is..what exactly?

The AUMF declared the entire globe an active war zone.
Post reply on HN