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

Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#71

Post by pjc50 »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #49
tessierashpool wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the US should do now in Iraq is learn some restraint, diplomacy, and humility. In other words, we should learn the lessons everybody but the military had already learned from Vietnam.

It might be a surprise to you, but it is the military who learned the most from Vietnam. It is the American public and our politicians who seem to have learned the least. The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task, whether it was spawned out of noble intentions or kneejerk reactionism. They know that they must be careful in pursuing anything that looks vaguely like a target, because the sentiment…

The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task

That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument.

The military is achieving far more value

You're going to need to quantify this statement, because from this distance it doesn't look like much is being achieved at all. Yemen has fallen to the rebels and ISIS still hold much of northern Iraq.

answers like "don't invade other countries" are pretty worthless.

Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#72

Post by happyscrappy »

lazyjones wrote: post #40
happyscrappy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every single sentence is factually wrong You don't believe ISIS would kill as many innocents as possible? It is practically their mission statement.

> You don't believe ISIS would kill as many innocents as possible? It is practically their mission statement. It's pointless to argue about statements containing words with highly subjective and arbitrary meanings like "innocents". Were the employees of the TV station the US bombed (with good precision and information!) in Serbia "innocent"? Of what crime were they guilty if not? The US apparently thought they weren'…

> Who are we to claim the people brutally murdered by the IS are - to the IS - "innocent"?

If you believe the West and IS are morally equivalent then you may want to revisit your worldview.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#73

Post by TeMPOraL »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #53
lazyjones wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I didn't expect to find such shameless propaganda on HN. Every single sentence is factually wrong and insulting to readers' intelligence here. If it's not obvious to someone: just read some actual interviews with radical muslims, purported reasoning by Bin Laden etc. - their reasons are always political, the US is targeted specifically because of all the death and destruction it has brought to the Middle East. J…

It's actually a mixture of both. Some extremists(particularly ISIS) firmly believe they are in they end times and are carrying out what they think scripture dictates, others are involved for the reasons you stated.

So is the US, apparently, if you're to believe the story about Bush's motivations.

> In the prelude to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush told Jacques Chirac that Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East: "This confrontation is willed by God," he told the French leader, "who wants us to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog#Modern_apocalypti...

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#74

Post by jessaustin »

newman8r wrote: post #10

I have been talking about this a lot with my friends. The question I raise is: when is the first private drone murder going to happen in the US and what will the implications be? There was a great ted talk on this http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_suarez_the_kill_decision_sho... It's really not even something that's technically difficult. I am just thankful the best minds in the US tend to have plenty of healthy outlet…

...when is the first private drone murder going to happen in the US...

Can we really assume it hasn't happened already? Of course we can imagine some users of killerdeathdrones that would be proud of themselves and would want to make it clear that no person is truly safe. Other purposes would be predicated on secrecy and uncertainty. At least until they work most of the bugs out, the first drone murderers will probably stay quiet about it.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#75

Post by tessierashpool »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #49
tessierashpool wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the US should do now in Iraq is learn some restraint, diplomacy, and humility. In other words, we should learn the lessons everybody but the military had already learned from Vietnam.

It might be a surprise to you, but it is the military who learned the most from Vietnam. It is the American public and our politicians who seem to have learned the least. The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task, whether it was spawned out of noble intentions or kneejerk reactionism. They know that they must be careful in pursuing anything that looks vaguely like a target, because the sentiment…

So again, can you conceive a better alternative for dealing with reality as it is now?

Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times.

You're assuming this is a military task. But I said "learn diplomacy." If your "reply" to a "learn diplomacy" comment assumes that this situation remains a military responsibility, then your reply is not a reply at all.

"Learn diplomacy" means "use diplomats." And it also means talk to some countries who know how to do so successfully, and follow their lead.

"Learn humility" means "stop assuming that this is America's problem to solve." It's not our business and all we're doing is fucking it up.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#76

Post by TeMPOraL »

pjc50 wrote: post #71
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a surprise to you, but it is the military who learned the most from Vietnam. It is the American public and our politicians who seem to have learned the least. The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task, whether it was spawned out of noble intentions or kneejerk reactionism. They know that they must be careful in pursuing anything that looks vaguely like a target, because the sentiment…

The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument. The military is achieving far more value You're going to need to quantify this statement, because from this distance it doesn't look like much is being achieved at all. Yemen has fallen to the rebels and ISIS still hold much of northern Iraq. answers like "don't invade other cou…

> Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.

> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

This quote seems very fitting here. It is indeed a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule - just one that doesn't bring in profits.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#77

Post by astazangasta »

melling wrote: post #51
Udik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the US are the main cause for those bad guys being there in the first pace, as they waged war (with justifications that later proved worthless) against the dictator that was able to keep the area under control. So, what the US should do now in Iraq? I have no idea. What should they do in general and in the future? Stop messing with foreign countries, destabilizing governments and waging wars with the sill…

That's what we tend to do in fact. We support whatever dictator is in power because it's better for business. With Iraq we believed that they were still hoarding WMD's that they had from the 1980's. As we now know, that turned out to not be the case, and they actually did destroy them. Before the war, it was reported by most media outlets that WMD's were still in Iraq. Then you had the UN weapons inspectors who kept…

Your narrative is broken. What actually happened was a bunch of ideologues came to power, saw an opportunity to remake the middle east in aid of a "new american century", then lied about wmds to convince the public there were WMDs.

The weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq because they were spying for the CIA. They were desperately invited back by Iraq to try and stop the war, to no avail, because WMDs were never the issue: war was.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#78

Post by Symbiote »

kordless wrote: post #56

Can we seriously stop using 'drone' for both remote controlled multi-million dollar military grade weapons and quad-copter plastic toys that cost $20? It's fucking stupid.

We use 'plane' for all kinds, from toy to passenger to freight to fighter. Perhaps 'fighter drone' or 'armed drone' would be better.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#79

Post by jessaustin »

marktangotango wrote: post #25
karmacondon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The links you posted reference Iraq, which was not a very nice place over the last decade. In many cases, a strong personality would emerge as a local leader. He'll usually have access to several small arms and enough money to feed and pay several dozen militia fighters. To legitimize his power he'll coordinate attacks on US personnel, usually ambushes, and make deals with people who have connections to global "terro…

This will be down voted, but it does accurately reflect the reality of the situation as perceived by those in power.

Those "in power" are motivated by far more prosaic notions than local leadership succession in certain Muslim nations. It's actually all about the money: for contractors, lobbyists, politicians, and those pundits who act as mouthpieces for all of those. Whether they "perceive" their own cupidity is a question the answer to which is of no consequence whatsoever.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#80

Post by knowaveragejoe »

tessierashpool wrote: post #75
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a surprise to you, but it is the military who learned the most from Vietnam. It is the American public and our politicians who seem to have learned the least. The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task, whether it was spawned out of noble intentions or kneejerk reactionism. They know that they must be careful in pursuing anything that looks vaguely like a target, because the sentiment…

So again, can you conceive a better alternative for dealing with reality as it is now? Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times. You're assuming this is a military task. But I said "learn diplomacy." If your "reply" to a "learn diplomacy" comment assumes that this situation remains a military responsibi…

> Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint.

Huh. The fact that there is a chain of command that this decision must pass sounds like the idea of restraint is not lost on these people. In fact it seems quite the opposite, that there is a directive for restraint. It's not up to the pilots and spotters, no matter how gung-ho they may be(many aren't at all, unlike what is portrayed in the article).

The billions the US is pumping into their communities in the form of assistance seems like some form of diplomacy to me, or at least due diligence for the massive social disturbance. I could be wrong. You'll have to explain to the people receiving said aid that it's either misguided or not enough, though.

> The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times.

We're talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. The US involvement in Iraq was totally illegal, but it's worth noting that many Iraqis definitely wanted us there after the invasion. They certainly want us there now.

> Learn diplomacy" means "use diplomats." And it also means talk to some countries who know how to do so successfully, and follow their lead.

This statement sounds buried within ideology rather than facts. The US has a massive diplomat corps and engages in some form of diplomacy every day with every country on the planet, save a few. Even moreso in Afghanistan and Iraq. You'll recall that diplomacy did not work shortly after 9/11 when Afghanistan was identified as a host country to Al Queda.

Again, the situation is as it is today. We cannot go back and alter the past. So what better way is there to proceed? The US spends billions on aid and reconstruction efforts in both countries, are they simply supposed to ignore threats?

Post reply on HN