The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged • Hacker News Board

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#31

Post by rlpb » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 10:44 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #19

golergka wrote: post #17

Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Yes, it's horrible that sometimes your only choice to kill a high-ranking terrorist is by taking innocent lives with him. But granted how many in…

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Why not? Let’s that the countries of Xanadu (“X”) and Yalü (“Y”) are at war with each other. Isn’t it meaningful to compare the number of X and…

Your argument suggests that only X are responsible for Y's civilian deaths. But given that X and Y are at war with each other, if Y sets up military operations in the middle of Y's civilians ("human shields") whereas X keeps its civilians and military apart, then I don't think it's fair to say that X are performing worse (less ethically, or whatever) if more of Y's civilians die in the conflict than X's civilians.

> It shouldn’t be the only way in which we compare them. But it’s still informative to compare them.

Unfortunately I think it's as uninformative to compare them as it is uninformative to not compare them. I think it only makes sense to count a civilian death in the context of what the civilian was doing in an area targeted by the military of the other side. That is relatively easy in the West to understand, since these areas aren't in the middle of warzones. In areas of conflict it becomes impossible to understand because of propaganda.

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#32

Post by thephyber » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 10:49 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #29

avz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not? Intention does matter. A military which aims to reduce civilian casualties and fails is less evil than a terrorist who deliberately targets civilians.

We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity…

> We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes.

Yes and no. Those things are possible if we have sufficient data, but I'm under the impression the way the CIA classifies a civilian vs. a combatant is inherently biased to reflect a much brighter outlook than a rational, detailed, slower, more careful approach would (although I have no hope for such an alternative).

> but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known

By whom? The CIA considers (considered?) every male of combat age in certain regions an "enemy combatant" or "militant" or something similar [1]. Under that definition, only women, children, and elderly _could_ be labelled as "civilians". What incentive is there to minimize harm to combat age men who are not "enemy combatants" when they are defined as such?

The CIA (who I am under the impression controls most drone strikes in {Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia}) doesn't go collect DNA then forensically work the case for every person killed in their strikes as if there was a DNA collection of all terrorists. _They_ are the people expected to tally up the terrorist vs. civilian in your visualized scenario, yet they are the same people who refuse to distinguish between combat age males and combatants.

You seem to be arguing that there is a moral high ground in trying to limit the number of innocents killed (which I agree with), but the article is about controlling media information. Perhaps your post would have been a reply to the grandparent post.

[1] http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#33

Post by braythwayt » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 10:51 PM UTC

avz wrote: post #27

braythwayt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Why not? Let’s that the countries of Xanadu (“X”) and Yalü (“Y”) are at war with each other. Isn’t it meaningful to compare the number of X and…

> Why not? Intention does matter. A military which aims to reduce civilian casualties and fails is less evil than a terrorist who deliberately targets civilians.

I strongly disagree with you about them being “less evil,” but even if I agreed with you, that wouldn’t invalidate what I said. Which is, there are a number of ways to compare countries X and Y, and civilians killed is a legitimate way to compare them.

“Amount of evil” is another, and we could agree, disagree, or debate it indefinitely. But in the meantime, that’s a separate category of consideration.

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#34

Post by thephyber » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 10:56 PM UTC

NumberSix wrote: post #2

I recall considerable press coverage of the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. Granted, both were US citizens but Muslims -- family originally from Yemen. Many of these issues were raised at that time (2011). CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-paul-aclu-condemn-anwar-al-a... NPR http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/09/30/140950953/... Forbes (sort of) http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/…

The killing of his son did bring some mild attention to the fact that US drone strike announcements call all combat age males "militants" or "combatants", even if there is no proof they are anything but civilians[1], but that news cycle was dominated with the fact that this was an unprecedented attack on a US civilian put on the kill list.

[1] http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#35

Post by golergka » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 11:07 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #19

golergka wrote: post #17

Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Yes, it's horrible that sometimes your only choice to kill a high-ranking terrorist is by taking innocent lives with him. But granted how many in…

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Why not? Let’s that the countries of Xanadu (“X”) and Yalü (“Y”) are at war with each other. Isn’t it meaningful to compare the number of X and…

> If X says “We’re careful to minimize killing Y’s civilians,” shouldn’t we judge X by how successful it is in minimizing those casualties? Or should we say, “Oh, well, X is trying their best, so no need to keep count or compare the counts.”

Compare what to what? How do you find out how many civilians would have been killed or lived in an alternate version of history?

US killed more japanese civilians than Japan killed US civilians. This doesn't mean that US was evil and Japan wasn't. It just means that US was successful and Japan wasn't, nothing more.

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#36

Post by golergka » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 11:10 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #29

avz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not? Intention does matter. A military which aims to reduce civilian casualties and fails is less evil than a terrorist who deliberately targets civilians.

We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity…

> The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity he belongs to.

This is exactly my original point: his "military objective" is usually to prevent far more civilians from dying in the end.

> Would that make them better?

Attacking officials of opposing force in high-precision strikes instead of civilians? Yes. It actually would make them better, yes. May be not "good", but definitely better. How is this not obvious?

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#37

Post by golergka » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 11:19 PM UTC

rdancer wrote: post #21

golergka wrote: post #17

Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Yes, it's horrible that sometimes your only choice to kill a high-ranking terrorist is by taking innocent lives with him. But granted how many in…

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? You are making a lot of assumptions, which Greenwald actually addresses and refutes at the beginning of the article. The targets are often not…

> The targets are often not combatants; in fact, many of the targets have no known identity at all.

I'm genuinly curious — do you honestly think that the fact that attack X killed civilians means that it was supposed to killed civilians? That people who make this kind of decision had reasons to believe that they actually made the right choice?

We're all very wise in hindsight — but I find it very hard to believe that military officers in this situation often have access to 100% solid intelligence. You could argue that they should increase their standards for given intelligence, but that brings us to the second point.

> If anybody strains to minimize civilian casualties, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.

All analysis I've seen on the matter only looks at casualties from the airstrikes. Where's the other side of the equation: where's the same analysis about completed military objectives in campaign as a whole, and where's analysis about lives that were saved as a result?

> In fact, often it looks as if non-combatants and civilian structures were deliberately targeted.

I have heard such claims, but I never saw them being backed up with data that would suggest that decision-maker in this particular place actually had solid reasons to believe that he was targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Once more: we're all wise in hindsight.

I honestly feel that people who are making this kind of arguments aren't even trying to imagine what's war is, with lack of information and awful choices that you have to make. Do you honestly believe that there are ways to solve this kind of situation without innocent people dying in suffering?

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#38

Post by makomk » Sun, Dec 27, 2015, 12:34 AM UTC

golergka wrote: post #17

Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Yes, it's horrible that sometimes your only choice to kill a high-ranking terrorist is by taking innocent lives with him. But granted how many in…

We already view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes performed against enemy combatants. For example, the article mentions the Fort Hood shooting, an attack on US soldiers at a US military base that was described as terrorism by the media.

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#39

Post by Udik » Sun, Dec 27, 2015, 12:35 AM UTC

golergka wrote: post #36

Udik wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity…

> The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity he belongs to. This is exactly my original point…

No, your original point was that terrorist attacks against civilians are inherently worse than attacks which try to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can. Then you added that civilian casualties are horrible but justifiable when targeting an even more dangerous terrorist.

But you are confusing two aspects that are completely unrelated: the first is a matter of means (how can you wage war), the second of objectives (why you do it). And then you assume that the western justifications can be taken at their face value (we kill to prevent more being killed, no political purpose implied) which is even more naive.

Finally, you seem to admit that having higher precision weapons would make terrorists better people. Maybe, who knows, as good as we are? That was much of my point.

Re: The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged

#40

Post by rdancer » Sun, Dec 27, 2015, 12:45 AM UTC

golergka wrote: post #37

rdancer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? You are making a lot of assumptions, which Greenwald actually addresses and refutes at the beginning of the article. The targets are often not…

> The targets are often not combatants; in fact, many of the targets have no known identity at all. I'm genuinly curious — do you honestly think that the fact that attack X killed civilians means that it was supposed to killed civilians? That people who make this kind of decision had reasons to believe that they actually made the right choice? We're all very wise in hindsight — but I find it very hard to believe that…

While it is not quite possible to look into the heads of the operators, targeters, and the chain of command, the documents that have been publicly available for some time, as well as the actions of the allied governments paint a clear picture:

Non-combatants are targeted as a matter of course, deliberately in double-tap attacks, in "signature" strikes, and targetting of public gatherings such as weddings and funerals. Morover, the intended and collateral casualties can not only be seen in hindsight, but right there on the target acquisition screen.

The US government does not prosecute war crimes committed by its own citizens, no matter how egregious, or how public they have become. What you are asking is the kind of certainty that comes with some investigation. It is hard to see when you don't want to look. The scraps that the likes of Greenwald have managed to piece together (largely documented in reportages for The Intercept) are very damning, but the whole picture must be even worse. Do you really mean it that you don't see how civilians are deliberately targeted?

We should have an objective in these wars, which is something that we've never had. If there is nothing that we want to achieve apart from fighting terror with terror forever, and in the process shuttering civil liberties at home, we should leave.