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

U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 319 posts

Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

#111

Post by aedron »

concordDance wrote: post #30

Not that this isn't a tragedy (and/or mass murder depending on your viewpoint), but I don't think hackernews is the right venue for this. Hackernews should try and keep to tech and away from politics or its quality will continue to degrade. For instance the comments here are mostly not saying anything that hasn't already been said a thousand times before (is this just outrage porn?).

I would agree, but there is a technological angle with the use of drones. Unfortunately it is certain to devolve into a political discussion.

Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

#112

Post by zupzupzup »

wruza wrote: post #2

Now imagine “U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in France” and feel the difference (which is non-existent). Then it goes on tv and reads the list of this morning’s evil men who must be stopped.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

#113

Post by hyperdunc »

torstenvl wrote: post #6

This is deeply tragic. I wish the story gave more details. Based on the provincial governor's statement, it sounds like U.S. forces were relying on the Afghan government's intelligence assessment. I also wish news sources would be more careful about suggesting that there are autonomous killer robots in the sky. The drone didn't target anything. A remote pilot did, based on information he/she was provided.

It's both typical and disingenuous to name an attack after the instrument rather than the agent that wields it.

Truck attacks, drone attacks, knife attacks - one might be forgiven for thinking these objects have developed minds of their own.

Or perhaps the insinuation is that most humans themselves are mere instruments of the cultures and institutions they're embedded in.

Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

#114

Post by TeMPOraL »

oh_sigh wrote: post #50
gcatalfamo wrote: post #14

This is how you create terrorists. What do you think the children and friends feelings towards the US will be from now on? People get radicalized for much less than that.

I hear this a lot but is there any basis for this? Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor and an abstract idea of a cultural war with the US? And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims…

> And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers?

Yes, of course it does. Hell, even on the recent 9/11 HN thread there were people who said they joined the military after the towers collapsed. It's only natural reaction when your nation gets attacked, and it works the same everywhere.

It's best to think of this as a single self-perpetuating process, with a strong feedback loop of hate and suffering inside. So the US bombs some Muslim countries, and eventually some group manages to pull off a 9/11 in retaliation. US reacts to this by utterly destroying several countries, and in reaction, ISIS is born. Which then US and others attempt to bomb out of existence. Rinse, lather, repeat. A kills B's people, B retaliates by killing A's people, A retaliates to retaliation by killing B's people, ...

Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

#116

Post by jonathanstrange »

tralarpa wrote: post #76
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to surprise everyone though, and I don't understand why. I remember in the early days of our being in Afghanistan, there were a few media pieces reporting that they remembered the last time the British were there, 100 or 150 years ago. The tone was very much that it was somehow surprising the Afghans brought this up again. Yet Britain and the US are built on national history, myths and memories. The US has…

People should travel (and live!) more abroad for a while. As you wrote, many seem to be surprised that the people living in Asia, Africa, etc. are humans too (in the sense of: people with history, dreams, expectations on life, etc.)

My hope is that the Internet will have the positive effect of removing this misperception in the long run.

Personally, my eyes were opened quite a while ago when the US dropped one of the largest conventional bombs on some mountain region in Afghanistan where they suspected Taliban leaders to hide out. The next day some guy on Reddit wrote (loosely paraphrased) "Hey, that's were I always travel with my motorbike! Glad I wasn't there when that bomb went down..." and posted a picture of where the bomb hit, with his motorbike in the foreground.

Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

#118

Post by golergka »

input_sh wrote: post #58
golergka wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many "error's" does the US make? Usually it's measured in the ratio of civilian casualties to combatants, and as far as I remember, US is keeping this ratio exceptionally low in comparison to other conflicts. That's the key point here: your criticism applies to any war at all. War is hell, everybody knows that. To be objective in your judgement about US though, you have to quantatively compare different conflic…

Your memory is wrong. You may want to look that up before making such a dumb claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._... Ratio of 15-20% civilian deaths is not "exceptionally low" by any means.

But it is EXCEPTIONALLY low - even more so than I remember.

> Starting in the 1980s, it was often claimed that 90 percent of the victims of modern wars were civilians.

> The Vietnamese government has estimated the number of Vietnamese civilians killed in the Vietnam War at two million, and the number of NVA and Viet Cong killed at 1.1 million—estimates which approximate those of a number of other sources.[19] This would give a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of approximately 2:1, or 67%.

> During the First Chechen War, 4,000 separatist fighters and 40,000 civilians are estimated to have died, giving a civilian-combatant ratio of 10:1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Cheche...

Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

#119

Post by V3ritas1337 »

bananocurrency wrote: post #88
kmlx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A U.S. drone strike intended to hit an Islamic State (IS) Then what does the IS represent to you? The good guys?

ah yes. the perfect centrist. if you aren't black vs white, why are you playing chess?

Aristotelian logic is flawed.

Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

#120

Post by TeMPOraL »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #107
alpb wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is how you create terrorists. Um no, you are wrong. _What USA does_ is terrorism. When you drop bombs on people out of nowhere, that's called terrorism. Sorry if you're an American but you've got some learning to do about the biggest terrorist organization in the world before calling others a terrorist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRbnPA3fd5U

> When you drop bombs on people out of nowhere, that's called terrorism Only if the motive for dropping those bombs is to advance a political/ideological agenda. We need to be very clear that "terrorism" has a very specific meaning. It's not just a group or individual who terrorises.

This definition only reinforces the parent's point. What it rules out as "not terrorism" is regular organized crime, which isn't too much into bombings anyway. Bombs are almost never used without a political/ideological agenda, because they're too expensive and require too much coordination to make, maintain and deploy.
Post reply on HN