US military increasingly using drone missile with flying blades in Syria • Hacker News Board

Re: US military increasingly using drone missile with flying blades in Syria

#131

Post by Nightshaxx » Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 2:28 AM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #51

Nightshaxx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we can debate the level to which America needs to get involved, are you forgetting 911 or any of the other terrorist attacks? It honestly feels downright insulting to the victims of terrorism that you would imply these extremist groups do not threaten your freedom. The article specifically references that these devices used on members of aal-Qaida; the group responsible for 911.

The war on terror has killed easily three orders of magnitude more people than 9/11, and antagonizes the US with the regional population. It's neither proportional nor effective.

You clearly didn't read my comment. It starts with "we can debate the level in which America needs to be involved." I was not interested in getting into whether or not these tactics should be used.

My point was the OP said "these people do not pose a threat to my freedom" which is categorically false. Aal-Qaida is a terrorist group that directly caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, ripping them from their loved ones. To make _this specific argument_ against this weapon is just insulting to the victims.

Re: US military increasingly using drone missile with flying blades in Syria

#132

Post by Nightshaxx » Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 2:33 AM UTC

Nightshaxx wrote: post #131

wongarsu wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war on terror has killed easily three orders of magnitude more people than 9/11, and antagonizes the US with the regional population. It's neither proportional nor effective.

You clearly didn't read my comment. It starts with "we can debate the level in which America needs to be involved." I was not interested in getting into whether or not these tactics should be used. My point was the OP said "these people do not pose a threat to my freedom" which is categorically false. Aal-Qaida is a terrorist group that directly caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, ripping them from their lov…

I should clarify: I meant to say that the first line was trying to indicate the comment was not specifically focused towards arguing for or against the weapon.

Re: US military increasingly using drone missile with flying blades in Syria

#133

Post by pas » Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 6:19 AM UTC

non-entity wrote: post #89

pas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go ahead, build a hospital in Assad's backyard, no biggie. Or just build a hospital somewhere and watch as it gets captured/used by the regional dictator. Yes, wars are bad. Yes, if it were that easy to export peace and prosperity we wouldn't be talking about it, but the reality is that there are power structures that consider their selfish short term goals more important than the lives of many-many of their fellow h…

Many of the countries were arguably better under the regional dictator. I'm sure the people of Iraq, Libya, etc. Are so glad that "peace" and "prosperity" were exported to them.

Huh? My point is that it wasn't. They got military support, that's all.

The region is still a mess, a new warlord is gaining power.

Re: US military increasingly using drone missile with flying blades in Syria

#134

Post by hutzlibu » Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #98

mercurysmessage wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People fail to notice that many who are killed are innocent, and this actually creates more people willing to fight back. It's a vicious cycle, and the murdering of innocent people only makes it worse.

It’s not clear to me whether that’s true on a larger scale. Obviously, innocent people die in war and that’s regrettable and to be minimized. But innocent people also suffer from the instability and insecurity caused by terrorism. Note that while most countries opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan, opinion polling in India—which shares a border with that country—showed a majority of people there supported military…

"Note that leaving terrorism unchecked also has a cost."

True, but I believe there were a LOT less terrorists on this earth, before the US started its War On Terror.

So fighting terror, yes, but maybe not by blowing up whole weddings, because one guest has a cell phone that was linked to a bad guy?

(sadly not really exaggerating)

Re: US military increasingly using drone missile with flying blades in Syria

#135

Post by gwright » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 2:50 AM UTC

quercusgrisea wrote: post #130

rayiner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re certainly bothering people and threatening peoples’ freedom. Thanks to the export of fundamentalist Islam from certain countries, my home country of Bangladesh is a more dangerous place today then when we left 30 years ago. (And it was under a military dictatorship then!) Unsurprisingly, we take harsh measures to crack down on fundamentalism, including banning Islamist parties and executing terrorists: https:…

The critical point is that the US has never cared about any other country in the world. Every foreign policy decision is based on what is advantageous to the US at the time. For example, you seem to believe that the US is fighting Islamic extremism for the good of the world and the people in the places it's bombing. If that were a priority for the US, don't you think they'd have a problem with the Islamic extremism a…

> The critical point is that the US has never cared about any other country in the world. Every foreign policy decision is based on what is advantageous to the US at the time.

s/US//

Acting according to self interest is not unique to the US. And just to be clear that doesn't mean that any country's foreign policy is immune from criticism just that the US isn't unique in this respect.

Re: US military increasingly using drone missile with flying blades in Syria

#136

Post by gwright » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 2:59 AM UTC

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #113

rayiner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re certainly bothering people and threatening peoples’ freedom. Thanks to the export of fundamentalist Islam from certain countries, my home country of Bangladesh is a more dangerous place today then when we left 30 years ago. (And it was under a military dictatorship then!) Unsurprisingly, we take harsh measures to crack down on fundamentalism, including banning Islamist parties and executing terrorists: https:…

There really isn't a threat over the next 30 as you are trying to paint. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are 90+ percent muslim. So by default, any social strike from pickpocketing to bombings are going to be perpetrated by muslims and have muslims as the victims by and large. And let's keep in mind, that ISIS is blowback from the 2003 Iraq invasion, where once again we went to the Middle East based on "terrorism".

> where once again we went to the Middle East based on "terrorism"

A little more complicated than that: invasion of Kuwait, 1st Gulf War, chemical weapons, WMD confusion, violation of UN sanctions, post 9/11 fears/unknowns, concern about impact to global energy economy, etc.

One of the benefits of the US energy leverage created by fracking is that the energy market considerations that were part of our Middle East policy aren't as important any longer, we have many more degrees of freedom in this regard. I believe there are other benefits that come from less money available for state-sponsored terrorism/extreme groups due to lower oil prices.

Re: US military increasingly using drone missile with flying blades in Syria

#137

Post by gwright » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 3:06 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #121

bdamm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is not at war in Syria. ISIS is deemed to be a threat to stable governments in the area including Israel, Iraq, and even Turkey, and US is assisting those governments in fighting ISIS back. The seemingly endless civil war in Syria is still a civil war although US had at one point been supporting certain groups.

My idea was that the US is fulfilling the ally obligations towards these governments. ISIS itself is not a recognized sovereign, so it cannot be declared a war to, thus no congressional approval.

The rise of non-state actors has definitely complicated public policy regarding the use of force. IANAL, but it seems like much of the legal frameworks around use of force, just war, etc. is predicated on Westphalian sovereignty, which doesn't really have a place for groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, etc.