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

91–100 of 150 posts

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

#91

Post by rayiner »

woodruffw wrote: post #44
elvis10ten wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit off tangent: Why do we still use the phrase “women & children” in 2022 in times of war? That language seems to exclude men that aren’t involved. Why not innocent adults & children?

I think it’s a convenience phrase, meant to impart unambiguous innocence. But it’s definitely a little dated, in both directions.

It’s not “dated.” The mechanics of why you try to preserve the lives of women and children in war haven’t changed at all.

I can’t imagine the thought process that says “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”

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

#92

Post by AussieWog93 »

erklik wrote: post #86
AussieWog93 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty "hot" take. The Chinese government are funding/supporting all kinds of unsavoury things all around the world (yes, the same way as the US does), in addition to the political abuse that is doled out domestically (Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Shanghai, and depending on your definition of "domestic", the constant threats of invasion aimed at Taiwan).

> around the world I am curious. What conflicts or wars is the Chinese governemnt funding around the world or is involved in? Who are the Afghans or Yemenis of the Chinese government?

>I am curious. What conflicts or wars is the Chinese governemnt funding around the world or is involved in? Who are the Afghans or Yemenis of the Chinese government?

In terms of active conflicts happening right now in 2022, none I could name off the top of my head. That's not say there isn't any, of course, but they're not as big/well known as the American ones.

My comment was more about them propping up foreign dictatorships when it's in their national interest (again, similar to what the US does), such as what they've been doing for decades in Kazakhstan, Cambodia and North Korea and are starting to do now in Africa.

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

#93

Post by Aeolun »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #82
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.

> there's a population of people who got lied to and manipulated in order to kill people Who isn't manipulated in situations like this? Remember Iraqi soldiers killing babies? And Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? The first to get manipulated are always the general public. After that it just matters who does the killing... if it's "our guys", then every bombed wedding and reuters reporter is foreing militant o…

To be fair, in light of recent events, I think it’s mostly a matter of scale.

Indiscriminately bombarding cities feels somehow worse than this targeted killing, and somehow better, because it’s nothing personal.

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

#94

Post by Aeolun »

d0mine wrote: post #88
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?

Because it is how propaganda works: dehumanize the enemy, and the opposite for your side: make your hangman as human as possible. It is aimed at people who don't believe there were no war crimes and therefore the spin is necessary to get sympathy for the killers. A similar spin was with the Abu Ghraib: torturers were humanized and their victims dehumanized.

It’s also good for your psychological wellbeing. If you’re just ‘destroying goods’ so to say, you don’t really have to worry about the fact they have wives and children.

Conversely, what is described in this article is the worst of both worlds. After spending days looking at their lives you are most definitely killing a human/father/grandfather.

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

#95

Post by Biologist123 »

k1m wrote: post #56
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?

Your comment reminded me of this bit from Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZOLq82m2Ks

Frankie Boyle. No man says it straighter.

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

#96

Post by stanfordkid »

Aeolun wrote: post #93
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a population of people who got lied to and manipulated in order to kill people Who isn't manipulated in situations like this? Remember Iraqi soldiers killing babies? And Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? The first to get manipulated are always the general public. After that it just matters who does the killing... if it's "our guys", then every bombed wedding and reuters reporter is foreing militant o…

To be fair, in light of recent events, I think it’s mostly a matter of scale. Indiscriminately bombarding cities feels somehow worse than this targeted killing, and somehow better, because it’s nothing personal.

I mean... it is highly likely such events happened at much larger scale than the US public was made aware of in Iraq. How "precise" was shock and awe? I doubt the incentives are aligned for anyone to know.

Even Obama had several instances of drone killings inadvertently killing large groups of civilians -- for example: https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral...

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

#97

Post by elzbardico »

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?

When America kills women and children, they are not humanized. Institutional racism goes beyond borders.

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

#98

Post by FpUser »

>"And sometimes what the customer wanted did not seem right. 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"

All nice and dandy. And the world looks the other way.

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

#99

Post by stanfordkid »

rayiner wrote: post #91
woodruffw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s a convenience phrase, meant to impart unambiguous innocence. But it’s definitely a little dated, in both directions.

It’s not “dated.” The mechanics of why you try to preserve the lives of women and children in war haven’t changed at all. I can’t imagine the thought process that says “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”

It's a biological reality that's gotten lost in our modern world. It's kind of funny no one seems to blink an eye that women and children are allowed to leave Ukraine but men have to stay and fight. The idpol segments seem to think that trans men shouldn't have to stay and fight and that is the true outrage. Personally I think men (or any human being that chooses) should be allowed to flee. Honor shouldn't be enforced by the state.

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

#100

Post by juanani »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #79
elliotloglog wrote: post #66

> 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 existent…

The air force really isn't interested in wasting multi thousand (or more) dollar bombs on people that don't deserve them and in a manner that just makes more people hate them and makes their job harder. They also aren't interested in burning out their teams of expensive professionals. Just because you're hearing about them address the latter doesn't mean they stopped caring about the former.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN