The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
1–10 of 150 posts
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#2> There were missile strikes so hasty that they hit women and children, attacks built on such flimsy intelligence that they made targets of ordinary villagers, and classified rules of engagement that allowed the customer to knowingly kill up to 20 civilians when taking out an enemy.
Why is the article focusing on the goon pulling the trigger, as opposed to these actual killed-dead casualties?
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#3It's behind a paywall, but I was able to find it here.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/uw-grads-story-rev...
Looks like it was more the drug policy of the U.S. Air Force that lead this man to fall apart more than the droning of people far away.
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#4> There were missile strikes so hasty that they hit women and children, attacks built on such flimsy intelligence that they made targets of ordinary villagers, and classified rules of engagement that allowed the customer to knowingly kill up to 20 civilians when taking out an enemy. Why is the article focusing on the goon pulling the trigger, as opposed to these actual killed-dead casualties?
Good question. My guess, the plight of a remote assassin just hit closer to home (no pun).
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#5> There were missile strikes so hasty that they hit women and children, attacks built on such flimsy intelligence that they made targets of ordinary villagers, and classified rules of engagement that allowed the customer to knowingly kill up to 20 civilians when taking out an enemy. Why is the article focusing on the goon pulling the trigger, as opposed to these actual killed-dead casualties?
Did you read the whole article? It actually covers a scenario where the wrong person was killed-dead due to some bad intel.
In fact, the whole point of the article is that there's a population of people who got lied to and manipulated in order to kill people whose culpability was questionable at best. This is a completely valid journalistic subject, separate from the people who were killed.
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#6I have no sympathy for the cowards who murder with drones. They know that what they're doing is wrong and nobody is forcing them to murder.
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#7> There were missile strikes so hasty that they hit women and children, attacks built on such flimsy intelligence that they made targets of ordinary villagers, and classified rules of engagement that allowed the customer to knowingly kill up to 20 civilians when taking out an enemy. Why is the article focusing on the goon pulling the trigger, as opposed to these actual killed-dead casualties?
Hence the problem was how to overcome not so much their conscience as the animal pity by which all normal men are affected in the presence of physical suffering. The trick used by Himmler--who apparently was rather strongly afflicted with these instinctive reactions himself--was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self. So that instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people!, the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!
Hannah Arendt
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#8I have no sympathy for the cowards who murder with drones. They know that what they're doing is wrong and nobody is forcing them to murder.
Remember that half the population has an IQ under 100 and half of those live in places where the American Soldier is still venerated as a paragon of virtue and sacrifice. They’re not victims like the Yemeni kids they’re killing, but they are being manipulated into the situations they choose for themselves.
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#9It's behind a paywall, but I was able to find it here. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/uw-grads-story-rev... Looks like it was more the drug policy of the U.S. Air Force that lead this man to fall apart more than the droning of people far away.
No post body was provided.
Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
#10It's behind a paywall, but I was able to find it here. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/uw-grads-story-rev... Looks like it was more the drug policy of the U.S. Air Force that lead this man to fall apart more than the droning of people far away.
Quoted post unavailable.
Druggie is an utterly disgusting term. I urge you to indulge in some form of empathy.
Btw. Everybody I’ve met in above average positions of our (US) military do drugs. Often, lots of them. In my anecdotal experience, it’s typically amphetamine stimulants, excessive alcohol, & various forms of sleeping pills. Opioids in those who have seen multiple combat tours or received injuries in various ways.
Talking O-4’s and above.