Live data from Hacker News

Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

theguardian.com

21–30 of 89 posts

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#21

Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still…

Obligatory pedantic reply:

Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training and are part of a reserves contingent ergo are legitimate military targets.

Or:

Flying a plane into the pentagon.

I mean its not as clear cut as you want it to be. The dresden bombings didnt clearly target military objects. Its not as simple as classification when the one doing the classifying is so willing to act in a hypocritical grey zone.

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#22
Middle east countries hate United States due to reckless behavior like this. US kills thousands of civilians overseas and they do the same to US in form of terrorist attacks.

With these senseless attacks, US is spreading hate and putting US citizens at risk.

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#23
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe the US has never intentionally targeted civilians? Example 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-witho... Example 2: http://www.collateralmurder.com/ Example 3: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-thin... Sadly, the second part of your comment still remains true. These wars (plural), are pretty similar to all wars because US soldiers and forces have at times been…

Example's one and two aren't the US. They are individuals. So unless you are suggesting that Saudi Arabia or Germany or Japan are intentionally targeting civilians, it doesn't hold water. Example 2 also doesn't bolster your claim. I've never seen any proof that the US has ever had a policy of targeting civilians. Yes, collateral damage exists, but that's not the same thing. Now, if you can produce something that talk…

A country is an abstract concept. On the battlefield, it is represented by its soldiers in uniform. There is no Uncle Sam in a uniform who represents the "US" collectively.

If I take your argument to the extreme, it'll be tough to hold any army anywhere in the world to account. Because they can always attribute it to "individuals".

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#24

Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still…

Actually, the intent is to terrorize. You are utilizing systematic violence to coerce an entire population for political reasons, and deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal.

There also isn't a war in Waziristan. Your comparison to WWII is total BS

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#26
My comment here will sound emotionally tone deaf and heartlessly opportunistic. Let there be no mistake I consider these operations that kill innocent Pakistanis despicable and illegal.

At the same time I wish the political class that shaped the history of Pakistan take a tough and straight look at themselves and the role their decisions (in particular unfettered encouragement of Jihadism and building this identity of "wronged population of righteous Muslims") played in dragging their country to such a pathetic state where their sovereignty doesn't mean shit. A state when one of their erstwhile allies kill their citizens with impunity and political class doesn't do much about it apart from some token grandstanding. Much as I want this navel gazing to happen, I am also aware that ruling political classes of countries are typically so sociopathic that they are incapable of feeling responsible, a fact made very convenient now that there is mean old US to point to.

India managed to avoid this trajectory. Rather than patting ourselves on the back, I am acutely aware of how close a shave it was and still is. There are strong political forces in India that want to make it a Hindu hegemony. Their tools of propaganda are just the same and quite effective, the same "wronged population of righteous Hindus that meant and did nobody any harm". If that happens we wont be that far away from a Hindu version of current Pakistan. This thought terrifies me.

@einhverfr I am replying here because I strongly suspect that what I say will touch many a nerve and will lead to a long thread hijacking the original post, and by that I dont mean you personally. Please feel free to respond in the same way. Encouraging the wronged muslim identity and consequent Jihadism was very much an "in center" phenomena in Pakistan rather than the machinations of some fringe local state. Note the use of 'was' these things go back several decades in history. I think Pakistan under Jinnah would have fared much better had he lived longer.

@r0h1n spot on.

@mcantelon sure they did, a valid question is what did people in charge then do about it.

@prometheuspk India escaped and does, but just barely. It's a complicated mess, there are political parties that exploit the fact that many in India want to avoid the religious hegemony. These parties have been getting away with things that they should not be allowed to get away with. This fuels its own blowback...You mention Malala. Malala for US is I think convenient PR fodder, something useful to screen/decorate their drone program with. I dont even think they do it conciously. Everyone wants to see themselves as compassionate and fair.

@zzsleepzz thank you for illustrating my point.

Heh! there you go. downvotes start rolling in, did not expect any different though.

Interesting, the story suddenly drops out from first page inspite of 90 upvotes in less than 3 hrs. Seems it just got flagged. That I did not see coming.

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#27
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still…

Obligatory pedantic reply: Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training and are part of a reserves contingent ergo are legitimate military targets. Or: Flying a plane into the pentagon. I mean its not as clear cut as you want it to be. The dresden bombings didnt clearly target military objects. Its not as simple as classification whe…

I cant see why this comment is getting downvoted.

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#28
post #26

My comment here will sound emotionally tone deaf and heartlessly opportunistic. Let there be no mistake I consider these operations that kill innocent Pakistanis despicable and illegal. At the same time I wish the political class that shaped the history of Pakistan take a tough and straight look at themselves and the role their decisions (in particular unfettered encouragement of Jihadism and building this identity o…

I don't know about that second paragraph. The key issue is that you have only a weak central government and a lot of regional autonomy. This has costs and benefits. The costs are that the central authorities have less control. The benefits is that they don't have to use resources that could help find kidnappers in Islamabad to control tribesmen who are fiercely independent.

In the end, what's needing is an understanding that drones have two problems fundamentally associated with them. The first is that they are low-knowledge operations and thus the fact is that it is likely that the drone operators don't have a clear picture of what is really going on, and the second is that a single drone operator may be operating many drones at once, increasing the likelihood of mistakes.

If we are going to engage in targetted killings, nothing beats boots on the ground.

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#29

Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still…

You seem very good at classifying the killings, but completely fail to classify the big picture by calling it a "war".

Re: Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

#30

Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?

Because state actors can't be terrorists.

Now it could be a war crime, and indeed arguably we tried Milosevic for less.

Post reply on HN