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

Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#91

Post by lukifer »

davidf18 wrote: post #55
lukifer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could remember who made this comparison (I'm guessing it was Jeremy Scahill?), but I agree with the idea that the primary hallmark of terrorism is the feeling of utter powerlessness to respond or defend yourself, making drone warfare just as terrorizing as a suicide bomber. I remember when Maryland residents lived in constant fear of going outside for a few weeks in 2002, due to a pair of uncaught snipers [1…

The primary hallmark of terrorism is targeting civilians (as opposed to military or infrastructure targets such as trains or refineries or factories). If a drone is used to attack a factory or a military target that is not terrorism. If a drone is intentionally used to attack a civilian, non-infrastructure target (eg, a wedding) then that is terrorism.

I think "terror" can't help but be about perception, regardless of legal definitions. If only a single attack per year kills a civilian through accident, yet it is dramatic and publicized every time, it can still lead to a reaction of public terror, even if it is a less likely cause of death than slipping in the bathroom. Suicide bombers and UAVs are equally capable of creating this mass psychological effect; intent (both real and perceived) is a secondary factor.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#92

Post by sanderjd »

pessimizer wrote: post #79
sanderjd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Source? Debating the definitions of words is often silly, but I think it's worth pointing out that 1) the definition of "terrorism" isn't broadly agreed upon, and 2) the definition you're using is more narrow than peoples'. The definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks…

>2) the definition you're using is more narrow than peoples'. Most people's definition of terrorism is "any violent act committed by a Muslim without clear monetary gain," so this definition is actually much more general. >"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" War, then? As you said, though, debating definitions is a waste of time.

Whoops, missed a word: "more narrow than many peoples'".

I disagree with you that "most people" use the definition you claim, but of course neither of us have any data and we both think the debate is silly anyway.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#93

Post by rbanffy »

AJ007 wrote: post #41
eevilspock wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good time to listen to or reread Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of the Military-Industrial Complex. "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast…

The Military-Industrial Complex is often brought up in the context of US capitalism, but was quite relevant to the USSR. In that case, a giant chunk of the country's economy was taken up for military production. The military commanders, KGB, and all of those employed by the USSR's Military-Industrial Complex had a strong interest in justifying their continued existence.

It's worth noting many believe excessive military spending was a key factor in taking down the Soviet Union.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#94

Post by GHFigs »

sanderjd wrote: post #39
spingsprong wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.

> Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Source? Debating the definitions of words is often silly, but I think it's worth pointing out that 1) the definition of "terrorism" isn't broadly agreed upon, and 2) the definition you're using is more narrow than peoples'. The definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks…

The definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks certainly fit into.

I think the point is that drone strikes (targeting angry people with guns and bombs) are meaningfully different than someone blowing themselves up in a a crowded market or mosque (targeting people whose religion is slightly different from his or her own).

You can say they're the same because they're "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", but there's something of a different quality to those political aims that warrants a distinction.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#95

Post by sanderjd »

GHFigs wrote: post #94
sanderjd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Source? Debating the definitions of words is often silly, but I think it's worth pointing out that 1) the definition of "terrorism" isn't broadly agreed upon, and 2) the definition you're using is more narrow than peoples'. The definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks…

The definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks certainly fit into. I think the point is that drone strikes (targeting angry people with guns and bombs) are meaningfully different than someone blowing themselves up in a a crowded market or mosque (targeting people whose religion is slightly different from his or her own). You c…

Certainly no disagreement that there are things far worse than drone strikes.

I regret making a comment that encourages this sort of debate over what terrible things should and shouldn't be labeled a certain way.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#96

Post by jessaustin »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #80
jessaustin wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really a cop-out to blame the voters. We're never going to be as well-informed, persuasive, or powerful as a five-star general who is also a re-elected President. ( No one will ever be that well-informed, persuasive, or powerful.) Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed and sent the money back to the Treasury, and the media couldn't have incited any riots about it. Do you think O…

> We're never going to be as well-informed, Cries of "we're too stupid, save us from ourselves!" are unlikely to ever be answered with acceptable solutions. > or powerful as a five-star general who You have all the power in the world. You don't seem to know it. Maybe that's the problem. > Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed No, Congress could have done that. Not Ike. He might have…

Why... people treat me like a kook?

You might want to re-read your comment. Upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7949955), I've already made the unnecessary-military argument you're struggling to articulate, and I mentioned the "standing army" phenomenon here because Eisenhower's voters had lived most of their lives in that intellectual climate. It's clear that he could have relied on that built-in skepticism in a way that no leader today could.

Now I'm "a pig" because I'm a little skeptical of the tired Eisenhower hagiography one always reads in these threads? Just face it, your hero didn't save us. Anyway the MIC is just a specific example of a general trend with this nation. You might even like some of the other examples: the War on Drugs, the War on Immigrants, the War on Fat, etc. If a system always does the same thing, one expects that system to keep doing that thing. "Voting" isn't somehow external to the system under discussion.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#97

Post by mark_l_watson »

davidf18 wrote: post #88
taniraja wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about Police but according to this the IDF would be terrorists by targeting Palestinian children.

The IDF does not target children. Please cite your references before making such a statement. OTOH, during Operation Cast Lead (I was in Israel for that entire 3 week war) Hamas did deliberately use children as human shields: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1304

I have read reports from Doctors Without Borders and other sources that the Israelis kill about ten times the number of Palestinian children than the Palestinians kill Israeli children. I don't want to get into a political flame war here, but the facts seem pretty solid in my opinion on which side is harsher to civilians. A little off topic, but a a very good friend who is an Israeli is very critical about his government for just this reason.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#98

Post by mark_l_watson »

dragonwriter wrote: post #29

That's a silly conclusion, since the US has been engaged in essentially non-stop war since at least WWII (with a developing national security state based on that permanent war footing), most of which didn't involve drones. Drones certainly lower the political cost of war, but they aren't something that "risks" war without end, they are something developed and deployed in an environment where "war without end" was alr…

I agree with you, but there is another view here: much of our military spending is really to serve the purpose of forcing the US dollar as the reserve currency rather that SDRs or even a partial gold standard (i.e., require a percentage, perhaps 10%, of money to be backed by gold). The books Currency Wars and The Death of Money make a pretty good case for this.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#99

Post by davidf18 »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #97
davidf18 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IDF does not target children. Please cite your references before making such a statement. OTOH, during Operation Cast Lead (I was in Israel for that entire 3 week war) Hamas did deliberately use children as human shields: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1304

I have read reports from Doctors Without Borders and other sources that the Israelis kill about ten times the number of Palestinian children than the Palestinians kill Israeli children. I don't want to get into a political flame war here, but the facts seem pretty solid in my opinion on which side is harsher to civilians. A little off topic, but a a very good friend who is an Israeli is very critical about his govern…

Like US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have regrettably killed children as well but again not by intent, Israelis have killed children, but certainly not with intent. If you're going to point out the number of children killed by Israelis indirectly by combat then you should do the same of US troops.

However, Palestinians have deliberately targeted Israeli children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alot_massacre An attack of a school, 22 children killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_massacre An attack of a school bus, 7 children killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphinarium_discotheque_suicid... An attack of a Discotheque, 21 teenagers killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre An attack of a Yeshiva (religious school), 7 children killed.

In each of these cases and many others, Palestinians are deliberately targeting children.

It is really upsetting when different groups and people single out Israel when the US and other countries do exactly the same thing as Israel. Israel is attempting to defend its citizens against terrorists to the best of its ability just as the US is trying to defend its citizens to the best of its ability.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#100

Post by mark_l_watson »

davidf18 wrote: post #99
mark_l_watson wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read reports from Doctors Without Borders and other sources that the Israelis kill about ten times the number of Palestinian children than the Palestinians kill Israeli children. I don't want to get into a political flame war here, but the facts seem pretty solid in my opinion on which side is harsher to civilians. A little off topic, but a a very good friend who is an Israeli is very critical about his govern…

Like US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have regrettably killed children as well but again not by intent, Israelis have killed children, but certainly not with intent. If you're going to point out the number of children killed by Israelis indirectly by combat then you should do the same of US troops. However, Palestinians have deliberately targeted Israeli children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alot_massacre An att…

Thanks for providing those examples, I looked at all of them. In your opinion though, is the ten to one ratio cited by Doctors Without Borders and other organizations valid, or invalid? Honest question.

Good point about US actions. A little off topic, but I strongly support the US closing most foreign military bases, staying out of the middle east and other places around the world unless allies or US interests are directly invaded. The days of my country being the world's only military super power should have ended long ago - certainly before our invasion of Iraq.

On the topic of the middle east: Europe is obviously a lot closer to the middle east that the US and I would support the idea of Europeans placing peace keeping observers in Israel, Palestine, and generally around the middle east. Sort of the same way that Canada, the US, and Mexico all have a stake in what happens in our area of the world (North America). Does that make sense to you?

Post reply on HN