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

We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

#61

Post by Blackthorn »

omonra wrote: post #60
Blackthorn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? Honest question: has assassination ever actually been effective at effecting the political change the assassin wants? It's probably easier now to assassinate someone than it ever has been in human history, but the actual number doesn't seem higher per capita (maybe it is, feel free to correct me on that).

1. The goal of US drone assassinations is not to effect political change but to keep the status quo. That's a different question than one you asked. 2. On a more general level, your question can be rephrased as 'has violence ever been effective at making a (political) difference'. The answer to that is - absolutely. It has actually been the most effective strategy at effecting change throughout history.

1) Fair point

2) This is not a valid generalization and represents a leap of logic. I was talking specifically of assassinations.

Re: We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

#62

Post by dogma1138 »

bainsfather wrote: post #57
Blackthorn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? Honest question: has assassination ever actually been effective at effecting the political change the assassin wants? It's probably easier now to assassinate someone than it ever has been in human history, but the actual number doesn't seem higher per capita (maybe it is, feel free to correct me on that).

Yitzhak Rabin's - his assassin succeeded in halting the peace process Rabin was leading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin

No it didn't, the peace process continued even under the "right wing" government which was elected after wards.

It crumbled for many reasons but the assassination wasn't one of them.

Re: We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

#63

Post by cam_l »

jeremyt wrote: post #24
the-dude wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not see why intention matters.

A scientist attempting to find a cure for cancer accidentally mixes up some chemicals and causes a huge explosion which results in 1000 deaths. Alternately, a terrorist sets off a bomb in a public place killing 1000 people. Should they each be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?

Not if you assume punishment is the appropriate response to a crime. But if you think a mixture of public safety, admonishment, and rehabilitation is the better response, then yes probably.

Re: We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

#64

Post by oarsinsync »

jeremyt wrote: post #19
noir_lord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unavoidable collateral damage? It isn't unavoidable, don't fire the damn missiles from the Drone. The US and UK are like a little kid who fucks with a hornets nest, gets stung and retaliates by getting a flamethrower.

If you are against any use of force which could have collateral damage, then you are effectively against any use of force. That's a principled stand, but not actually very realistic.

> the human rights group Reprieve has confirmed this reality vividly, finding that, in Pakistan, in attempts to take out 41 men, American drones actually killed an estimated 1,147 people (while not all of the 41 targeted figures even died). In other words, this hasn’t proved to be a war on terror, but a war of terror

If that is true, then it's not "could have", it's "almost definitely will".

Re: We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

#65

Post by omonra »

Blackthorn wrote: post #61
omonra wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The goal of US drone assassinations is not to effect political change but to keep the status quo. That's a different question than one you asked. 2. On a more general level, your question can be rephrased as 'has violence ever been effective at making a (political) difference'. The answer to that is - absolutely. It has actually been the most effective strategy at effecting change throughout history.

1) Fair point 2) This is not a valid generalization and represents a leap of logic. I was talking specifically of assassinations.

Ok - re #2 - look at what % of political movements succeeded despite most of their leaders being killed. I'd say that since majority of political movements succeed with live leaders, it must mean that the ones whose leaders were killed in time, did not succeed.

It's like the WW2 story about looking for holes in returning fighter planes :)

Re: We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

#66

Post by hellbanner »

clavalle wrote: post #23
hellbanner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for doing this! It might help in your campaign to compare "terrorism" as the US media puts it, and George Bush's "Shock & Awe" campaign -- designed to intimidate and scare their enemy for a political purpose :) That and the Bush's family relations with the Bin Laden family in the decades past.

"political purpose" in this case meaning deterring people from attacking us. I'm no fan of how Bush handled things but painting flying airliners filled with civilians into skyscrapers filled with civilians and hitting government and infrastructure targets after publicly declaring war with the same brush is ridiculous.

Why is attacking civilians & government after declaring war "ridiculous" for the aggressor? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Re: We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

#67

Post by hellbanner »

malandrew wrote: post #53
hellbanner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for doing this! It might help in your campaign to compare "terrorism" as the US media puts it, and George Bush's "Shock & Awe" campaign -- designed to intimidate and scare their enemy for a political purpose :) That and the Bush's family relations with the Bin Laden family in the decades past.

Interesting comment. It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as "Shock & Awe". When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the…

The videogame nuclear-war simulator "Defcon" ran with the tagline "Everybody Dies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE

and Civilization simulator ends up with the planet in nuclear-winter, 3 nation-states turning all resources into armies, forgoing peace treaties and maintaining borders via nuclear bombardment. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_play...

---

The problem with disarmament, of course, is that if A disarms and B doesn't.. A is vulnerable to B.

After being robbed twice, a game developer & his wife seriously considered purchasing a guard dog or a firearm. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of escalation and wondered where it would end.

He built "The Castle Doctrine" -- a game where a man with a wife and kids spends his money fortifying his home against invaders, then invades other homes to take their treasure.. to spend on more fortifications.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs (interview with the developer)

--

Not the scientific rigor you were asking for but an interesting exploration.

Re: We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

#68

Post by clavalle »

hellbanner wrote: post #66
clavalle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"political purpose" in this case meaning deterring people from attacking us. I'm no fan of how Bush handled things but painting flying airliners filled with civilians into skyscrapers filled with civilians and hitting government and infrastructure targets after publicly declaring war with the same brush is ridiculous.

Why is attacking civilians & government after declaring war "ridiculous" for the aggressor? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

You misunderstood.

Attacking civilians is bad in any context and strictly illegal.

Declaring war then attacking government, military, and critical infrastructure after such a declaration is quite different from flying a plane of civilians into a civilian building out of nowhere. Equating the two is as disingenuous as comparing a loan shark beating someone for non-payment to someone getting evicted.

Post reply on HN