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

The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 150 posts

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#61

Post by [deleted] »

VictorPath wrote: post #7
thematrixturtle wrote: post #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?

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 t…

[deleted]

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#63

Post by AussieWog93 »

sgjohnson wrote: post #47
flyinglizard wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world where the US navy doesn’t sail all seas, where there are no US troops around the world, no NATO or Military Industrial Complex. That’s not a world that I, as a Westerner, would want to live in.

The alternative to the US-led global order is a global order led by some Chinese-Indian-Russian alliance. That’s definitely not a world I’d want to live in.

>Chinese-Indian-Russian alliance

I think hell would freeze over before those three teamed up.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#64

Post by [deleted] »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #37
spoonjim wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Remember that half the population has an IQ under 100 It's more than half.

[deleted]

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#66

Post by elliotloglog »

> Starting in 2015, the Air Force began embedding what it called human performance teams in some squadrons, staffed with chaplains, psychologists and operational physiologists offering a sympathetic ear, coping strategies and healthy practices to optimize performance.

“It’s a holistic team approach: mind, body and spirit,” said Capt. James Taylor, a chaplain at Creech. “I try to address the soul fatigue, the existential questions many people have to wrestle with in this work.”

Just amazing to read this, I mean after hearing all about the innocent lives taken, and then to be presented with their attempts to optimize the teams involved with it.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#67

Post by chrischen »

erklik wrote: post #53
chrischen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the US has for a very long time pretty much unchecked global power. All our free-speech, what is it good for, if it cannot effect change? Look where Snowden is. Even the captain mentioned in the article pretty much told people what he did, and so is The New York Times now, but if people don't bat an eye what's the point? Heck the whole NSA spying thing was leaked something like 5 years before Snow…

> That being said, these other countries are often not saints themselves (looking at you China). Depends on who you are, isn't it? Ask the Chinese. I am sure they love their government (I believe surveys have shown that there is high level of approval) Ask the Afghans. The Chinese aren't bombing weddings and schools. Ask the Yemenis. The Chinese aren't funding the Saudis which are causing a man-made famine in their n…

Approval is moot, as US presidential approval is rarely that high, but most Americans will probably support their government over a foreign one, as most people will support their own government (it's only rational).

I think China is big enough that it operates in much the same way as any large organization... that is to say it will be doing so many things that there will be plenty to disapprove of. Whether they do more or less harm than Americans is up in the air, but my point is really that both China and America both do some pretty disagreeable things. And yes, if you ask the Americans they will say they do less evil things, as if you ask a Chinese citizen they will most likely say America is more evil or in the best case (from my experience at least) they will say America is just as evil.

I think one of the primary anecdotal experiences I've had is that I've asked my Chinese relatives and they acknowledge China's horribly corrupt and evil, but they think America is equally as bad... whereas most Americans are ignorant of our own problems.

Unfortunately since there's really only two major world powers and spheres of influences right now, there isn't a whole lot of competition and wherever you go you'll step on some unsavory things.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#68

Post by saargrin »

zeruch wrote: post #30
mattzito wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are asserting a critical thinking skill that really, most folks don't have. You are John LeCarre, most are Tom Clancy.

hey whats wrong with tom clancy now? (except all that jack ryan trash)

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#69

Post by bayindirh »

mattzito wrote: post #5
thematrixturtle wrote: post #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?

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.

To add, I find the parts which mention the people who were killed or otherwise affected by these strikes deeply moving despite being short and concise.

In other words, the painted picture is much broader and deeper than the man itself seemingly put into the focus. In reality, he's just used as an anchor point to tie the big picture, and might be also used as a so-called decoy (or bait) in a narrowly starting, but deeply expanding story. This doesn't make his tragedy lighter, however.

To be honest, I feel sad and disturbed for everyone involved in this.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#70

Post by InCityDreams »

s5300 wrote: post #10
Animats wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>Druggie is an utterly disgusting term. I urge you to indulge in some form of empathy. is druggie

Druggies and Alkies. That's what they are, that's what they're called. Someone named them that, probably to avoid long winded over-complicated descriptions. Carlin got it best with Shell-Shock becoming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I can scare my kids with 'Druggie', less so with 'Person that has an addiction', whatever. The druggies are downtown. The sufferers are elsewhere, suffering.

Post reply on HN