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

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 491 posts

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#441

Post by jessaustin »

rayiner wrote: post #401
jessaustin wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so I know I'm not misunderstanding: the fact that they fund religious schools alone justifies bombings, invasions, etc.? We're through the looking glass here, people.

No, the fact that they fund religious schools that teach virulently anti-western sentiment is an attack on our national interest and justifies military action.

Maybe we should stop buying Saudi oil first? I mean, we've pretended to stop buying Iranian oil, so we could pretend that about Saudi as well. I hear good things about fracking.

From an ethical standpoint, you violate the Categorical Imperative, to say nothing of the Golden Rule. We also have schools (religious and otherwise) that demonize Islam, Arab nations, Iran, etc. Does that fact justify violent action on the part of those aggrieved parties? Should we care about similar anti-"western" lessons taught in various parts of Asia and South America? Suddenly it seems your proposition could be very profitable for the military-industrial complex...

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#442

Post by varjag »

avenger123 wrote: post #296
haberman wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire comment was sarcasm. Sarcasm is not a constructive or compelling way of making an argument.

It is sarcasm. I don't disagree with you on it. In terms of its effectiveness, I don't know. I contrasted a strong comment by singling out a single point about it. I certainly didn't intend it to be an attack and I hope its not seen as such by jusben1369. In terms of its appropriateness, I guess that's debatable too. If me and jusben1369 were having a chat about this person to person, I'm sure we'd know that its a he…

It might be appropriate on reddit, on the street, in a TV debate, in your living room, Hyde Park speakers corner, but it is not on HN. These kinds of comments are discouraged here, it's in the posting guidelines.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#443

Post by charlesju »

I believe a highly relevant podcast is the incredible one by Dan Carlin called "Hardcore History". The episode below is one history fan's opinion of how we were able to justify mass killing of civilians in acts like the Atomic Bomb, Bombing of London in WW2, and the Fire Bombs against Tokyo.

http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLIT...

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#444

Post by jayjoy »

gldalmaso wrote: post #433
sleepyK wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bravo! All human rights violations aside, what the US doesn't realize is that every new drone strike is creating new cadres for Al Qaeda and others to recruit from.

> what the US doesn't realize Except that they do realize that (US government and military are not stupid). Everything is right on track on their book. War on terror correlates directly to political climate for authoritarian policy Side effect of war on terror correlates directly to produce more terror More terror correlates directly to more war on terror It's a positive feedback. They are aware.

it's irrelevent. One party has nothing to loose while the other does.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#445

Post by celticninja »

jusben1369 wrote: post #112

We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…

Where is your magic dividing line between how many is ok to collaterally Kill and how many it's not ok to collAterally kill?

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#446

Post by cscurmudgeon »

gnufied wrote: post #416
dba7dba wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> When due process is undermined, the population becomes more alienated from the government, and more individuals become radicalized, and more terrorism happens. How many lives of soldiers would be risked and how much money would be spent for operations to 'capture' the terrorists in foreign nations? And will nations like Pakistan allow military (or law enforcement) operations on their soil by foreign govts to captu…

>If some Chinese or Russian 'freedom' fighters decide to train militarily in US with the goal of toppling current govt of China/Russia and did actually cause deaths/damage in China/Russia, would US govt sit back and let them train in US? Probably not. The line of argument is so simplistic it boggles my mind. Lets get few facts straight: a. Goal of terrorists is not to topple US government. You can't draw parallels be…

As a Indian, I detest each time our government kills/arrests a law abiding citizen of India - for just being a Muslim.

When did that happen? If anything, it is the opposite.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#447

Post by rayiner »

jessaustin wrote: post #441
rayiner wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the fact that they fund religious schools that teach virulently anti-western sentiment is an attack on our national interest and justifies military action.

Maybe we should stop buying Saudi oil first? I mean, we've pretended to stop buying Iranian oil, so we could pretend that about Saudi as well. I hear good things about fracking. From an ethical standpoint, you violate the Categorical Imperative, to say nothing of the Golden Rule. We also have schools (religious and otherwise) that demonize Islam, Arab nations, Iran, etc. Does that fact justify violent action on the p…

First, drawing false equivalence is never a compelling mode of argumentation. I don't know of any federal program to build schools that "demonize" Islam or Arab nations. That message certainly exists, but it's not a government-sponsored message.

Second, it's not just schools that teach anti-Western statement. It's a concerted effort by Saudi Arabia to aggrandize its influence over the Islamic world while undermining western influence. Maintaining spheres of influence has, historically, been considered a sufficient justification for engaging in military action.

Third, if you want an ethical argument, how about this one: the world under western influence is fairer and more just than the world under Saudi influence. In my home country of 150 million people, Islam as it was practiced used to be relatively liberal. Our country derived its cultural cues from India and Britain. With increased Saudi influence came the loss of secular democracy and the oppression of women. Increasing Saudi influence and decreasing western influence is robbing hundreds of millions of muslims around the world of the benefits of progress. What's so ethical about allowing that to continue?

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#448

Post by pyre »

avenger123 wrote: post #411
pyre wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make the assumption that his 'attack' on the Guardian's reporting is in essence support of the American military's / White House's position. To use a loaded example, would you say that someone railing against Stalin was a supporter of Hitler? Probably not.

Actually, I don't make that assumption at all. The article in the Guardian is not done by a fly by night newspaper without any credibility. The newspaper was started in 1821 and is considered a leading newspaper. It does identify itself as a liberal voice but so what. When did reading about the life experience of a UAV analyst who actually provides some real context to her discussion by providing external links becom…

CBS is not a fly-by-night operation either, yet they have screwed up stories before (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy).

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#449

Post by Iftheshoefits »

mwfunk wrote: post #367
Iftheshoefits wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in the defense industry. You suspect this and you suggest that and assert "we need to make sure we're not being manipulated". Let me tell you something: based on my experience it is far easier to believe the source for the linked article than to take anything you wrote seriously.

Let me tell you something: I used to work in the defense industry as well (in "the U.S. drone program", no less!), and I disagree. So...yeah. Changed your mind yet? No? It's the truth. That must not be a very effective form of persuasion then. I'm not sure why anyone, like anyone at all, is getting worked up over what jusben1369 wrote, which wasn't even expressing an opinion on the matter so much as just advocating c…

Basic reasoning would allow one to conclude I wasn't attempting to persuade anybody. The person I replied to didn't provide anything other than his own emotional screed in which he accused the article's author, and people who support the author's points, of being emotional, pretty much without basis. Like you have done to me, for example. I don't see anybody "getting worked up" over anything. I see accusations of such from people, such as yourself, attempting to cast disagreement with his comment as coming from a basis of emotion rather than reason in an attempt to poison the well.

Don't admonish people to not abandon basic reasoning when you yourself have done so. It's petty.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#450

Post by jeswin »

gnufied wrote: post #416
dba7dba wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> When due process is undermined, the population becomes more alienated from the government, and more individuals become radicalized, and more terrorism happens. How many lives of soldiers would be risked and how much money would be spent for operations to 'capture' the terrorists in foreign nations? And will nations like Pakistan allow military (or law enforcement) operations on their soil by foreign govts to captu…

>If some Chinese or Russian 'freedom' fighters decide to train militarily in US with the goal of toppling current govt of China/Russia and did actually cause deaths/damage in China/Russia, would US govt sit back and let them train in US? Probably not. The line of argument is so simplistic it boggles my mind. Lets get few facts straight: a. Goal of terrorists is not to topple US government. You can't draw parallels be…

"The line of argument is so simplistic it boggles my mind. Lets get few facts straight":

1. Operation cyclone: This was part of the cold war, both countries fought proxy wars across the world. The Soviet Union actively aided anti-american forces in other parts of the world.

2. Sure, everybody detests improper detentions (and killing, but I haven't seen much evidence). If a country is fighting home-grown terrorism with a religious flavor, it is likely that a few people from that particular religion will get illegally arrested. Now as rational people, the important point is whether this is happening at some scale and whether this is a statistically significant number. But it will never be zero.

The problem with the most common breed of terrorism is that it is entirely religiously motivated. Left to themselves, tyranny of the majority will soon ensue in those countries. Sure you could just let them take over and leave the problem to future generations, but the bigger argument for intervention is that democratic countries should stand up for the rights of people living in countries where extremism is an active part of everyday politics.

Post reply on HN