Live data from Hacker News

Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

salon.com

131–140 of 154 posts

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people blame the MSM? Because they fail to do their job correctly, it's pretty simple. They get caught up in eyeballs instead of exposing the truth. Why break a big story about drones when you can rehash your thinly veiled opinion on some more popular topic?

These major media companies are just that. They are in the business of business, so what drives eyeballs to newspapers or television screens, or ears to the radio, is what will often take precedence. They're essentially giving the public what they want. The public doesn't want to know about dead babies in Pakistan. They're much more at ease hearing news about the latest celebrity baby (royal, or otherwise). The media…

They're essentially giving the public what they want.

Is it what the public wants, or is it what the public that still regularly watches MSM news wants?

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#132
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what you're saying is that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than that of innocent Pakistani civilians, including the 94 children cited in the report? I think the point is that the best option is the one that you would predict results in the fewest amount of deaths. Do you think the option of sending in soldiers would definitely result in fewer deaths? Now, I'm much more inclined to agree with the idea…

I don't buy the notion that the only two choices are invading Pakistan or using drones. I'm far from an expert on these matters. But I imagine there'd be other options (working with local authorities, with coercion at the government level if necessary) that would be better than either of the above two.

> I'm far from an expert on these matters.

heh, none of us are.

> But I imagine there'd be other options (working with local authorities, with coercion at the government level if necessary) that would be better than either of the above two.

I don't really have any more to say about that than what bloaf said above.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#133
post #3

Growing up in the 70s, we looked at news from the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes as blatantly untrue propaganda. By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency -- they may have lied, but not on the scale the others did. I keep slipping back into believing the United States government believes in honesty and transparency, at least relatively more than other governments. In some areas it m…

> By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#134
post #44

Most people I see comfortably opining on drone strikes seem to be doing so without the discomfort of thinking the issue through. My thought process is this: Say the US were to find evidence that a Canadian terrorist group was planning an attack on the Joe Louis Arena. We would inform the Canadian government who would then go, arrest the terrorists and put them on trial. This seems to be what drone critics think shoul…

I "love" how your only options are between completely ignoring them, or killing them right on the spot. Or sending the NYPD in... yeah, that's a stupid idea, which is probably why you, and you only, brought it up. [1] If they're planning to attack the US, and you already know who and where they are, how about simply tracking them until they hop on a plane, and then arrest them, and give them a trial based on your evi…

>Tracking them until they hop on a plane

That sort of approach gets tried from time to time (e.g. the ATF's "Fast and Furious" program) but it has problems of its own. What if they never get on a plane? There are US facilities they could bomb without ever going airborne. What if you lose sight of them? The political risks are nearly the same as ignoring the problem. If they were able to kill US citizens, the headlines would invariably read "Government had killer terrorists in sights, didn't pull trigger."

>International pressure

Sure, the US has to weigh the impact of its strikes on global opinion. That's a big reason why we care about collateral damage at all. You bring up trials, but still haven't provided a reliable avenue for terrorists to be arrested.

>Might makes right

You're not doing a very good job of looking at this from a Pakistani perspective. As a Pakistani, my life would be threatened by drone strikes and Pakistani terrorists. You seem to think that it should somehow be my right to try and attack the US government to stop the drone strikes. That is childish reasoning, military conflict is not some sporting event where the rules try to create a level playing field. The US has the means to target terrorists, but I would lack the means to target the US drone program. I could try, but any damage I could do to the US would inherently be indiscriminate. At best, I would end up killing some innocent Americans and their government hunts me down, at worst I just get my family killed in a drone strike. What are my other options? The most obvious one is to personally organize my friends and try to root out the terrorists that live near me. Then there will be no terrorists to bomb me, and the US will have no reason to send in drone strikes.

Remember, the only reason that the US is resorting to military action is because there is no organization within Pakistan that can be counted on to eliminate the terrorist threat.

>Human rights

Prove the civilian deaths were malicious and not simply collateral damage. I don't think anyone can. If it were possible to demonstrate that a specific drone strike deliberately targeted civilians, I have no reason to doubt that the person behind that particular strike would be held accountable.

There is also the issue of terrorists using human shields. If terrorists knew that the US was averse to any collateral damage, they would immediately become nearly invincible by strapping babies to their chests or otherwise surrounding themselves with innocent people.

>Pakistani v. Pakistani violence.

I didn't know terrorist organizations had to choose between domestic or international terrorism when they write up their charter.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary part is that this line of thinking is not entirely untrue seeing as civilian casualties have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge. The REALLY scary part where America goes from being a misguided but well-intentioned brute to a completely evil, opportunistic warmonger is when you think about the data that the US intelligence and military complex has access to. Don't they know that their war i…

"The scary part is that this line of thinking is not entirely untrue seeing as civilian casualties have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge." I do not expect to convince you to change your opinion, but I would like to let you know that this is not an opinion well verified by fact. It's a supposition made by chaps like Noam Chomsky without serious data behind it. It is also counter to what we know is…

Don't be a hypocrite. You scold the GP for not having any factual basis, and then proceed to give your own argument without factual basis. Please show some proof, or stop scolding people for not showing proof.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#136
Here's the sad part. I have no reason to believe the Pakistanis on this. There's likely some hidden political agenda behind this, and they've likely cherry-picked the data to make us look bad.

And yet, I still trust this data more than the CIA's.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#137
post #44

Most people I see comfortably opining on drone strikes seem to be doing so without the discomfort of thinking the issue through. My thought process is this: Say the US were to find evidence that a Canadian terrorist group was planning an attack on the Joe Louis Arena. We would inform the Canadian government who would then go, arrest the terrorists and put them on trial. This seems to be what drone critics think shoul…

"US government is responsible for US citizen" which has now decided it can assassinate with inpunity as well: http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/20/federal-judge-challenges-...

If you took the time to think things through, the answer is already contained in my post.

The US is not allowed to assassinate any US citizen it wants. If a criminal were hiding in Canada (or any other country with a reliable police force) we would just have that person arrested and extradited. Pakistan is not such a country. We therefore have a trial not to determine the criminal's guilt or innocence, but to determine if they pose enough of an active threat to warrant military action.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#138
post #44

Most people I see comfortably opining on drone strikes seem to be doing so without the discomfort of thinking the issue through. My thought process is this: Say the US were to find evidence that a Canadian terrorist group was planning an attack on the Joe Louis Arena. We would inform the Canadian government who would then go, arrest the terrorists and put them on trial. This seems to be what drone critics think shoul…

You're endorsing a pro-cyclical elevation of pure violence to solve a problem of violence. If you're smart, you'll see where this leads, and it's not someplace a non-sadist would want to go.

Then please propose the nonviolent solution.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#139
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is just the pesky Internets that lets "domestic terrorists" like Occupy organize and share idea. Pesky little extremists forums like /r/news lets people discuss issues outside the mainstream media. Why does everyone blame the evil MSM? Fox News was started because the MSM was 'too liberal'. I mean, I sort of agree with your overall point, but if you want to see what 'domestic terrorists' could do before the Inte…

What killed occupy was the police forcibly removing them.

I lived right near DC. Trust me, it wasn't the police that killed Occupy.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These major media companies are just that. They are in the business of business, so what drives eyeballs to newspapers or television screens, or ears to the radio, is what will often take precedence. They're essentially giving the public what they want. The public doesn't want to know about dead babies in Pakistan. They're much more at ease hearing news about the latest celebrity baby (royal, or otherwise). The media…

They're essentially giving the public what they want. Is it what the public wants, or is it what the public that still regularly watches MSM news wants?

Is there a difference, other than a smallish constant factor? If no one watched the MSM it wouldn't be the 'mainstream' media.
Post reply on HN