It appears to be 70, rather than 30.
U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
301–310 of 319 posts
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
So anything they fight for must be bad no matter what it is? Even if they’re hunting down ISIS and al Qaeda members just like we are?
I assumed your hypothetical was framed in terms of the existing situation and interests. That it wasn’t along the lines of: “the US government has fallen to ISIS and cannot police its own territory; China accidentally kills some US civilians while bombing extremists.” If that was your hypothetical, then I think you’d be surprised how few Americans would be outraged. I’m pretty sure it’d make for a decent movie.
Sure, it’s in terms of the existing situation. Why can’t there be an ISIS cell in the US right now, or at least why can’t the Chinese think there is one?
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The site doesn’t differentiate between terrorists and civilians killed It does[0]. > It’s not like Pakistan is running low on terrorists or the state intelligence service ISI isn’t sponsoring their activities. I don't know how to respond to that, since there isn't a question in there, just a belligerent statement. I suppose the best way is to simply not engage. [0]: http://pakistanbodycount.org/definitions.html
I saw the definitions page but my point is about the tally number which seems to be conflating everything together[1] (adding dead terrorists into the tally), which I think is disingenuous. Compared to, for example, https://www.iraqbodycount.org , which only counts civilian deaths (which I assume based on the name is the inspiration for this page). [1]: http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack.php
True, and I don't know what the rationale behind their specific motivation is, but if I were to make a website, I'd do the same. That's not to say that they shouldn't be more transparent about their methodology. The truth of the matter is that there's very little known about the people that actually die in these strikes.
There is a fair amount of confusion on whether the deaths reported to be terrorists are actually terrorists. Some say they are not especially since the dead are never charged. There are also reports that the Pakistani military straight-up calls civilians terrorists[0] but these are heavily contested by the military[1] itself.
If you had a dataset which was heavily reported to be mislabelled, what would you do?
Personally, I'd do the same but perhaps add a better explanation.
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Reuters is generally a reliable source, but I agree with your double standard points. This was a horrible accident, but you have to realize there are probably some very bad people they intended to target and the US doesn't blow up random Afghan farmers for fun and games. HN is quite the liberal community so I'm not surprised if some of the posters here think the Trump administration is more evil than the peop…
I like to imagine the reaction if it happened here. Imagine that, say, China blew up 30 Americans in the US with a missile. And their reaction was, “sorry, my bad, I thought they were terrorists.” Can you imagine the response? I think we’d have a nuclear war before the end of the day.
Recall that time when the U.S. blew up a Chinese embassy. The excuse was "sorry, our bad, we were using an outdated map."
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
The British thought the founding fathers were rebels, which is not the same thing as terrorists(not that they had that word to use anyway)
Nope, rebel is the positive (or at least neutral) version of terrorist, the terrorist for your side. This exact oratory slight of hand is used constantly in media, virtue signaling through word choice.
No, there is a vast difference in tactics between rebels and terrorists. Rebels may use terrorism, terrorists may be rebels, but the two are not synonyms.
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
For it to matter to the USG is has to be "X drone strike kills 30 pine nut farmers in [some US state]"
We already know that the current US administration and senate majority does not care about the lives of their own citizens either. Mass shootings, police brutality, the stoking of hate crimes and the absence of a modern social safety net, withholding support to domestic climate refugees, inadequate industrial regulation, are directly killing many US citizens right now. Those deaths could be prevented but our governme…
You’re misunderstanding.
If X was not the USG, then the USG would care and probably go to war with any countries potentially related to, or sounding similar to, X
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed your hypothetical was framed in terms of the existing situation and interests. That it wasn’t along the lines of: “the US government has fallen to ISIS and cannot police its own territory; China accidentally kills some US civilians while bombing extremists.” If that was your hypothetical, then I think you’d be surprised how few Americans would be outraged. I’m pretty sure it’d make for a decent movie.
Sure, it’s in terms of the existing situation. Why can’t there be an ISIS cell in the US right now, or at least why can’t the Chinese think there is one?
Because the US government is a) strong and b) doesn't think there's one.
Neither of those is true of Afghanistan. The Taliban is quite capable of at least holding on, and the non-Taliban Afghani government isn't opposed to US support.
As evidence of this, President Ghani's reaction was to promise check and balances to reduce casualties, not kick the US out of the country.
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh you mean like how the US government has a handle on it's own homegrown extremism?
As someone from a Muslim country that’s battling extremists—your false equivalence is ignorant, and your ignorance is dangerous.
As a muslim from a Muslim country, how so?
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone from a Muslim country that’s battling extremists—your false equivalence is ignorant, and your ignorance is dangerous.
As a muslim from a Muslim country, how so?
Extremists in Bangladesh are locally organized, capable of coordinated attacks, and part of an international movement. Extremists in the US are neither of those things. Often, Incidents in the US are chalked up to “white national extremists” based on nothing more than some murdered having searched such websites. There used to be an organized extremist threat in the US back when the KKK was active, but that was crushed. What’s left is remnants. That’s not true in Bangladesh. Extremists systematically killed journalists a few years ago. Before it was banned, the Islamist party got 3 million votes in national elections. Extremism is being bankrolled from foreign countries through schools that teach such views. There is a deep well of support for such views among the people—1/3 of Bangladeshis believe that people who leave Islam should be executed. And, finally, there is a real risk of extremists taking over the State, as happened with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
None of that is true in the US. People who say “hurr durr but Republicans are a white nationalist party” do so out of ignorance, because they have no idea what it’s like to have extremists actually threaten your democracy. And their ignorance is dangerous. It’s dangerous to a world that needs US leadership to overcome extremism. Their false equivalency and apologism undermines the people in countries like Bangladesh who continue to fight for liberal democracy and the rule of law.
Re: U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it’s in terms of the existing situation. Why can’t there be an ISIS cell in the US right now, or at least why can’t the Chinese think there is one?
Because the US government is a) strong and b) doesn't think there's one. Neither of those is true of Afghanistan. The Taliban is quite capable of at least holding on, and the non-Taliban Afghani government isn't opposed to US support. As evidence of this, President Ghani's reaction was to promise check and balances to reduce casualties, not kick the US out of the country.
So it’s nothing about the morality of killing dozens of innocents. It’s just might makes right?