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

191–200 of 226 posts

Re: The Drone Papers

#191

Post by rdancer »

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 only "mistake" about it was the failure to contain the blowback.

Re: The Drone Papers

#192

Post by whatafarce »

e40 wrote: post #117
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.

>> 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. reply Let's apply your lost of words to WWII. Do you believe it was unjust or unfair to kill Germans in the service of stopping that war? Are you still at a loss for words?

You don't torture.

Torture is wrong and evil. Defending it is wrong and evil.

I'm at no loss for words, but you may be in need of a soul.

Re: The Drone Papers

#193

Post by rdancer »

the-dude wrote: post #114
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…

That is just your opinion. Almost all US military intervention since 2001 has resulted in a lot of evil and this evil is continuing to this day and will do so for a very long time. You actually created the power vacuum which IS is exploiting. This is just my opinion.

Never mind creating & funding both Taliban and ISIS in the first place.

Re: The Drone Papers

#194

Post by rdancer »

mahyarm wrote: post #105

I thought it has been known for years that the US govt uses drones to execute military and assassination targets. And the public has no insight into how these decisions are made. This may reveal internal details, but I don't know how different from what the world has known for years?

facts > guesswork

Re: The Drone Papers

#195

Post by merpnderp »

rdancer wrote: post #193
the-dude wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just your opinion. Almost all US military intervention since 2001 has resulted in a lot of evil and this evil is continuing to this day and will do so for a very long time. You actually created the power vacuum which IS is exploiting. This is just my opinion.

Never mind creating & funding both Taliban and ISIS in the first place.

The US has fought ISIS from day one, and before Obama left Iraq they had been reduced to nothing more than a few armed mafioso collecting protection money and robbing banks. And if anyone created the Taliban, it was the ISI. The worst the US did was join a Middle Eastern and Pakistani coalition to arm and train them against a brutal Soviet occupation.

Re: The Drone Papers

#196

Post by rdancer »

j2kun wrote: post #91
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…

You could suppose there is an insane person in our government who is killing for fun, but that has all the usual logical pitfalls of a conspiracy theory. As for economic gain (not sure what is meant by "petty" economic gain), that has been a large part of the source of most international conflicts over the past few hundred years anyway. So that just sounds false.

Far it be from any person to do things just because they can. They're all saints w/o blemish, protestants at that (i.e. they don't enjoy the work, rather they suffer with their victims).

Whatever the job description, you will get people gravitating to it who enjoy that kind of work. It's not controversial that cooks enjoy cooking, and programmer enjoy programming. And it's not unusual that they stay after hours and do some extra work just for fun. Why would you think jobs that involve killing and torture be any different?

Re: The Drone Papers

#197

Post by merpnderp »

snake_plissken wrote: post #55

For me the most grave offense of our current president was taking out Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011. I understand he was not a good individual, by any means, but he was an American citizen which entitled him to all of the protections afforded under The Constitution. Programs like these are what undermines any legitimacy our country has left.

What should the US have done instead? He was planning and committing terrorist attacks and there was no way to simply arrest him. Why should the US be obligated to allow Americans to commit war crimes when they are unreachable by law enforcement?

Re: The Drone Papers

#198

Post by grandalf »

NN88 wrote: post #177
grandalf wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

could you explain what your question means? Who do you mean by targets?

Why should I have a problem with taking out this guy? https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-life-and-death-of-...

Arguably you wouldn't object to taking out nearly any random person on the other side of the world who you didn't know personally. That's not the point.

It's a lot easier to just randomly assassinate people across the world than to come up with a sound policy that protects our interest while also obeying our values as a people. Historically, western culture has not condoned execution without trial.

The notion of just lumping anyone within an age range into the category of combatants is so antithetical to what the US ought to stand for, that it's really quite shameful. It's only a small degree away from the ethos of so-called terrorists, who just try to kill anyone they can.

What it boils down to is that the US is practicing terrorism abroad. I'm sure there would be circumstances where I'd approve of drastic measures, but at this point I'm very far from convinced that such tactics are remotely necessary or appropriate.

Re: The Drone Papers

#199

Post by rdancer »

revelation wrote: post #34
rayiner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We can't exactly expect the populace to make the right decision when it is fed misinformation.

If only weren't they lapping it up so eagerly, if only weren't they asking for seconds!

Re: The Drone Papers

#200

Post by jacobolus »

sooheon wrote: post #186
jacobolus wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your summary is not commensurate with the story you linked. Something can be both a “terrible mistake” and also a violation of international law. At a high level, it seems unlikely that American military leaders would intend to bomb a hospital, considering the horrible human toll and subsequent political and public relations disaster. Perhaps the investigation will turn up a more complete story about why the hospital…

They don't really feel the blowback of a PR disaster when 1. most are uninformed, and 2. of the few informed there are enough people like you who will cover for them and give them benefit of the doubt. If a hospital on US territory is bombed, it would be out of the question whether it was simply an oopsie. But if in the carriage of justice and liberty some humanitarian workers find themselves collaterally damaged, it…

I’m certainly not “covering for them”. The bombing of the hospital is a violation of international law, and whoever made the call to bomb it should be court-martialed and held accountable. On the other hand I don’t think it is reasonable to presume that the hospital was targeted deliberately by someone in the US military without further knowledge of what happened. US military leaders aren’t all sadistic cartoon villains sitting around twirling their mustachios and cackling about civilian deaths.

If it is true that some of our “allies” on the ground in Afghanistan directed the US military to bomb that location, as was reported somewhere I read, then that is no excuse for such a colossal fuckup – especially considering that the MSF had previously told all sides the hospital’s coordinates – and whoever in the US military took that information at face value should take proper responsibility, and whoever directed them should also be dealt with.

If instead it was, as themgt speculates, a deliberate choice by someone in the American military to target the building with full knowledge that it is a hospital, then that person should be tried for war crimes.

Post reply on HN