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

Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

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

#41

Post by res0nat0r »

dobbsbob wrote: post #24
jasonlotito wrote: post #16

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…

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

Sorry but targeted drone strikes are the exact opposite of terrorism. If the US wanted to terrorize we could carpet bomb cities much quicker and cheaper than with drone strikes.

I 100% agree that accidental killing of unintended targets is terrorizing the native population of countries where this happens, and also leads to creating more terrorists/enemies of the US than it possibly eliminates.

Jeremy Scahill wrote a ~700 page book about this very subject that came out a few months ago. Dirty Wars. It is worth reading.

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

#42

Post by jasonlotito »

petsos wrote: post #29
jasonlotito wrote: post #16

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…

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

Here's the pedantic war reply I was expecting, despite the obvious fact that it's not legally a war.

If it was a war legally, would targeting civilians be okay?

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

#43

Post by calbear81 »

cup wrote: post #21
jasonlotito wrote: post #16

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 actually don't really understand why there's some type of "rule" of war. It's WAR, following rules seems to make something inherently savage into something we can feel okay about because there appears to be some type of logic that makes it less horrifying than it really is.

cup has a great point. We think that the Twin Towers were civilian targets but to those flying the planes, everyone in the West was probably fair game and the "enemy" even if we don't think so. Similarly, those people at weddings that were bombed probably thought they weren't fair game but we thought since they decided to host some terrorists at their wedding that they are complicit in their activities and thus are fair game. How do we classify "civilians" that may not be actively waging war but are part of the support network either through willful ignorance or by becoming human shields (like in Mogadishu, etc.)?

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

#44

Post by jasonlotito »

coldtea wrote: post #19
jasonlotito wrote: post #16

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…

> Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. (...) Cue the pedantic replies. Oh, the irony. That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one. Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military). Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places li…

> blah blah military in quotes

I used it in quotes because I was thinking of cases where I'm not sure how it would be classified. Assumed base of operations that turns out to be false? Regardless, nothing as sinister as you imply.

As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you?

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

#45

Post by darkarmani »

dobbsbob wrote: post #24
jasonlotito wrote: post #16

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…

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

> deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal.

How would this achieve the goal? The Taliban and AQ members don't care about innocents dying.

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

#46

Post by res0nat0r »

r0h1n wrote: post #23
jasonlotito wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Exactly. Which is why he is asking for evidence that there is a currently US military policy in place that states soldiers are to intentionally target civilians in the "war on terror".

Individuals acting on their own committing crimes is much different than an official policy, ordered to be enforced by the military chain of command.

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

#47

Post by abalone »

jasonlotito wrote: post #16
peterkelly wrote: post #5

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…

> It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II.

You couldn't have picked a worse example. Innocent civilians were widely targeted in WWII. Entire cities were subjected to terrorist bombing campaigns specifically to "break the morale of the population which occupies it" and "make the people conscious of constant personal danger."

WWII pretty much invented large-scale terrorism justified as military necessity.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...

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

#48

Post by jasonlotito »

tdfx wrote: post #38
sb23 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have actual weddings been targeted by drones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airst... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik... I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.

Can you share the reason for why these weddings were targeted? I'm only wondering if the members might have been combatants or insurgents or terrorists? Or was their something about the wedding itself that made it a target?

What is the US policy on weddings?

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

#49

Post by jafaku »

tdfx wrote: post #38
sb23 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have actual weddings been targeted by drones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airst... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik... I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.

Pretty sure it was drones. They just killed everyone, and then double-tapped to kill first responders.

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

#50

Post by mcantelon »

srean wrote: 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…

The CIA also encouraged jihadism while the USSR was occupying Afghanistan.
Post reply on HN