If a foreign power blew up my wedding with a drone strike because they thought someone there was on their watch list (correctly or not) I'd be likely to take up arms against them.
I don't understand how anyone can think this isn't going to happen, wouldn't matter that I'm an atheist not religious or anything else either.
Shit is all fucked up, We should never have gone into Iraq the second time and the case for Afghanistan while stronger was still debatable.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are foreign drones flying over US soil. Probably not weaponized but I'm sure there are plenty EU/Asia/ME fugitives that are hiding in USA, so that reconnaissance drones would be fine.
Its not like government of ME countries is fine with drones taking out their citizens, whether terrorist or not.. they get paid money and for sure more than just that.
Islamic militants coming from Russia are terrorizing the Middle East. On the one hand, Putin is pretending to fight ISIS in Syria. On the other hand, he is shaking hands with ISIS sympathizer Kadyrov.
I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.
You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?
A scientist attempting to find a cure for cancer accidentally mixes up some chemicals and causes a huge explosion which results in 1000 deaths. Alternately, a terrorist sets off a bomb in a public place killing 1000 people.
Should they each be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?
Your scientist had no intent on killing anyone. Drone strikes are intended to kill. It's an unapt comparison for a discussion about two groups deliberately killing people. One classified as "terrorism" and the other classified as "war as usual/collateral damage" when they kill innocent people.
Not if you assume punishment is the appropriate response to a crime. But if you think a mixture of public safety, admonishment, and rehabilitation is the better response, then yes probably.
If you are against any use of force which could have collateral damage, then you are effectively against any use of force. That's a principled stand, but not actually very realistic.
No, I'm against any use of force that isn't clearly self defence.
(Very Very hypothetically) Russia annexes half of western Europe and starts massing troops on the border and deploying landing craft then you can open fire.
It's not very realistic purely because of the way the world currently works, as Von Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means" and it shouldn't be.
There's a difference between being against any use of force that could have collateral damage, and firing anti-tank missiles into populated areas. The former is tragic, the latter is sheer stupidity.
Fortunately weaponized lasers are coming. Those should succeed in reducing collateral damage almost entirely. All that needs fixing after that is the often-faulty intelligence, and weeding out gung-ho idiot drone operators.
> the human rights group Reprieve has confirmed this reality vividly, finding that, in Pakistan, in attempts to take out 41 men, American drones actually killed an estimated 1,147 people (while not all of the 41 targeted figures even died). In other words, this hasn’t proved to be a war on terror, but a war of terror
If that is true, then it's not "could have", it's "almost definitely will".
I'd have agreed with you completely on that if it wasn't for the drone strike on the wedding. Once that happened I could no longer call these strikes specifically targeted attacks.
That's like saying "you can't see any difference between killing 10 people and killing 100 people"? Uh, sure I do, but doesn't mean that necessarily means you have to treat them differently. There are a practically infinite number of variations on how murder can be done but they're all murder. And in our case, they're all terrorism. Doesn't mean you need an infinite number of consequences for them.
Thank you for doing this! It might help in your campaign to compare "terrorism" as the US media puts it, and George Bush's "Shock & Awe" campaign -- designed to intimidate and scare their enemy for a political purpose :)
That and the Bush's family relations with the Bin Laden family in the decades past.
"political purpose" in this case meaning deterring people from attacking us.
I'm no fan of how Bush handled things but painting flying airliners filled with civilians into skyscrapers filled with civilians and hitting government and infrastructure targets after publicly declaring war with the same brush is ridiculous.
Attacking civilians is bad in any context and strictly illegal.
Declaring war then attacking government, military, and critical infrastructure after such a declaration is quite different from flying a plane of civilians into a civilian building out of nowhere. Equating the two is as disingenuous as comparing a loan shark beating someone for non-payment to someone getting evicted.
It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as "Shock & Awe".
When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the hypocrisy of the elected leaders of your enemies would be to mirror their tactics as precisely as possible as opposed to escalation. Mirroring puts it in people's mind that they need to oppose further violence from their side to stop future attacks against themselves.
Sadly, the other side adopting a strict eye for an eye approach to retaliation (tit for tat) might be the only way that either side can actually avoid making the whole world blind, since it would at least promote dialogue where people on both sides at least ask themselves "When we commit X against them, they commit X against us. Maybe we should try to stop committing X and see if they will too". The current approach of planning out attacks that escalate the conflict just makes things worse.
I'm curious if there has been any solid game theory research into the impact of tit-for-tat retaliation versus escalating retaliation.
and Civilization simulator ends up with the planet in nuclear-winter, 3 nation-states turning all resources into armies, forgoing peace treaties and maintaining borders via nuclear bombardment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_play...
---
The problem with disarmament, of course, is that if A disarms and B doesn't.. A is vulnerable to B.
After being robbed twice, a game developer & his wife seriously considered purchasing a guard dog or a firearm. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of escalation and wondered where it would end.
He built "The Castle Doctrine" -- a game where a man with a wife and kids spends his money fortifying his home against invaders, then invades other homes to take their treasure.. to spend on more fortifications.
For a start, the drone strikes are at least claimed to be against strategic targets and not just indiscriminate killing of civilians. That's something that can't be said for the likes of the Brussels attacks.
That's true for some, but not all things usually classified as terrorism. For example the IRA bomb aimed at Margaret Thatcher, with other people being collateral damage, was considered a terrorist attack at the time, even though its goal wasn't to indiscriminately kill civilians. The Greek group 17 November is another example, which exclusively carried out targeted assassinations (their first success was killing the Athens CIA station chief). The term is a bit fuzzy, though, so quite a few different kinds of attacks get grouped under it depending when and who we're talking about.
It's only terrorism when "they" do it. That's basically the working definition.
Same goes with war crimes; cf. the U.S. attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, 2015. No matter what the facts are in that case, the U.S. is never going to admit responsibility for a war crime. Blaming the pilots for "human error", no consequences for any commanding officers, is the path they will take.
The Brussels atttacks were against strategic targets though.
As for the indiscriminate killing of civilians, what else would you call the example from the article?
> in Pakistan, in attempts to take out 41 men, American drones actually killed an estimated 1,147 people (while not all of the 41 targeted figures even died).
I think a lot of Americans would object to that, in part because our drone strikes have very specific targets--they are not intended to cause general terror.
That said, from the perspective of people on the ground, there is no doubt that they are generally terrifying and horrifying. While the strikes might help degrade ISIS leadership and operations, they also help create extremely strong anti-US emotions by killing innocent men, women, and children.
The hard question is, what is the alternative? Ignore ISIS? That's dangerous. Put boots on the ground? Not going to happen--the American people are sick of that. So perhaps drone strikes are simply the least terrible of several terrible options.
Maybe, although it's hard to imagine there's no intent for drone strikes to act as a deterrent. It's not identical to idiomatic terrorism, but also not completely different.
> Ignore ISIS? That's dangerous.
There are no choices available here that aren't extremely dangerous. None. Least of all the cookie-cutter 'war hawk' attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place.
Personally my suspicion is that ignoring them is probably the least dangerous. ISIS is an organisation that feeds on radicalisation, it feeds on aggression. Aggression is its recruiting tool.
Build a mosque. Build a mosque so f%cking huge and beautiful that even hearing about it makes ISIS fighters weep.
Change the music and all this will be over in a few years. Feed the war machine and we're here for another generation at least.
There is a great deal of difference between joining the military because you want a career and to defend your country (for example joining the Japanese Defence Force) and joining other militaries.
It is perhaps naive to join the US or UK military and not expect to deployed to fight in often pointless wars with no clear strategic goals beyond "something must be done, this is something ergo we must do it".
That said the entire PR effort of both militaries is around serving your country and been the "good guy", it's not until you are inside the factory you see how the sausage is made, remember most of us aren't 18-19 year old kids often from a poor background.
Lots of people do things I think are strange (going to a cold stone building to worship a being who most likely doesn't exist, blowing yourself up because a man who claims a better of understanding of being who probably doesn't exist than you says so etc etc).
The military is the only way out of really bad living situations for some, including a number of friends I've made in life.
I'd say that that means there should be other ways of doing public service and escaping your roots for it, but there's nothing like the military for that in the USA.
Dumb political topic, inflammatory headline, link to Salon. (Though I suppose the third implies the first two.)
I know the right answer is "flag and move on", which I mostly do with these types of articles, but jeez. This has been happening a lot recently. The HN front page has seriously gotten a lot worse just over the past few months.
To be fair, this is an international war. It's not the U.S. that's fighting ISIL, it's NATO. I doubt the drone strikes help things, but when you look at what ISIL does it would be equally wrong to stand by and let it happen.
There are no easy answers on what should be done in conflicts like these. I'm pretty sure drones are the wrong answer, but I don't know what a better one would be. Maybe as a species we just haven't developed the right ethical code to avoid getting into these horrible messes, because in one form or another they keep returning. It's always war somewhere.
I don't think anyone would argue that at least some of these individuals who are targeted are really bad people who are trying to do orders of magnitude more damage other populations.
So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? The US has settled on killing them with drones as the "best" solution and its leaders I think truly believe that this minimizes collateral damage. Is there a better course of action besides just letting these people work toward their horrific goals? I think that history has proven that you can't just leave people like this alone and expect them to chill out, so what do you do?
> So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person?
Honest question: has assassination ever actually been effective at effecting the political change the assassin wants?
It's probably easier now to assassinate someone than it ever has been in human history, but the actual number doesn't seem higher per capita (maybe it is, feel free to correct me on that).
1. The goal of US drone assassinations is not to effect political change but to keep the status quo. That's a different question than one you asked.
2. On a more general level, your question can be rephrased as 'has violence ever been effective at making a (political) difference'. The answer to that is - absolutely. It has actually been the most effective strategy at effecting change throughout history.
Ok - re #2 - look at what % of political movements succeeded despite most of their leaders being killed. I'd say that since majority of political movements succeed with live leaders, it must mean that the ones whose leaders were killed in time, did not succeed.
It's like the WW2 story about looking for holes in returning fighter planes :)
These are the right questions. Drones have been determined to be the most effective military weapon at this time, both militarily and politically (the American public doesn't want to send troops in but they also don't want these groups to exist). I think there is a dilemma here.
But this isn't limited to just Drone killings. This applies to much broader contexts...for example the governmental handling of Aaron Swartz comes to my mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz).
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the US government isn't always acting in the best interests of the people or liberty...so how did we get here and how do we fix it? What is a better method?
And that is where I think this conversation starts to get very gray very fast.
That's certainly a valid argument on a case by case basis, but as discussed in the article drone strikes are seen as a contributor to radicalisation... which makes it deeply ineffective, or even counter-effective, on a long-term policy basis.
1. Walk the walk. Stop doing evil in the world. Evil begets evil. Time and again our national policies put self interest ahead of morality. We support dictators. We arm terrorists. We arm everyone, because there is so much profit in it. We invade other countries on false pretenses. We invade a country promising to back the long suffering minority, but abandon them as soon as our self-interests are fulfilled. Then 10 years later we invade the country again, leaving it in ruins. We bomb other countries without declaring war. We ignore international law, because we can get away with it. We imprison and torture foreign suspects ignoring our own laws and morality about such imprisonments, but of course they're foreigners so morality gets suspended. This is all just off the top of my head.
2. And if we really must attack, send in troops. Yes, some of our troops may die. But it is more honest. War should not be easy. And when we say fuck it, our troop are more valuable than civilians in the firing line, what does that say about our morals? See #1.
I find that pieces like this one skewer the debate. The debate should be about war and the use of force, not drones. What's the alternative to drones? It's either boots on the ground, or not waging war. I think a lot of people, including myself, would prefer the latter. But if we're choosing between boots on the grounds, and drones, we should look at the facts. I don't have them at hand, but I have a strong suspicion that drones are the better option if you care for the people, both American and native. If you abolish the drones but continue the war, that's not a particularly desirable result. So let's focus on the negatives of war in general, not the negatives of a particularly effective technology that it can be waged with.
I think the aspect of operators' mental health which the article brought up was very important, though. These people are soliders, but are they treated as such? Why are they not given more support? Why are they not selected more carefully and given better psychological training beforehand? It's a budget question, of course, but it still desperately needs to be addressed.
67 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadI don't understand how anyone can think this isn't going to happen, wouldn't matter that I'm an atheist not religious or anything else either.
Shit is all fucked up, We should never have gone into Iraq the second time and the case for Afghanistan while stronger was still debatable.
It's fucking absurd to the point of tragedy.
Its not like government of ME countries is fine with drones taking out their citizens, whether terrorist or not.. they get paid money and for sure more than just that.
And that is all they are, excuses.
Should they each be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?
It isn't unavoidable, don't fire the damn missiles from the Drone.
The US and UK are like a little kid who fucks with a hornets nest, gets stung and retaliates by getting a flamethrower.
(Very Very hypothetically) Russia annexes half of western Europe and starts massing troops on the border and deploying landing craft then you can open fire.
It's not very realistic purely because of the way the world currently works, as Von Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means" and it shouldn't be.
Fortunately weaponized lasers are coming. Those should succeed in reducing collateral damage almost entirely. All that needs fixing after that is the often-faulty intelligence, and weeding out gung-ho idiot drone operators.
If that is true, then it's not "could have", it's "almost definitely will".
First responders and funerals are unavoidable collateral damage?
That and the Bush's family relations with the Bin Laden family in the decades past.
I'm no fan of how Bush handled things but painting flying airliners filled with civilians into skyscrapers filled with civilians and hitting government and infrastructure targets after publicly declaring war with the same brush is ridiculous.
Attacking civilians is bad in any context and strictly illegal.
Declaring war then attacking government, military, and critical infrastructure after such a declaration is quite different from flying a plane of civilians into a civilian building out of nowhere. Equating the two is as disingenuous as comparing a loan shark beating someone for non-payment to someone getting evicted.
It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as "Shock & Awe".
When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the hypocrisy of the elected leaders of your enemies would be to mirror their tactics as precisely as possible as opposed to escalation. Mirroring puts it in people's mind that they need to oppose further violence from their side to stop future attacks against themselves.
Sadly, the other side adopting a strict eye for an eye approach to retaliation (tit for tat) might be the only way that either side can actually avoid making the whole world blind, since it would at least promote dialogue where people on both sides at least ask themselves "When we commit X against them, they commit X against us. Maybe we should try to stop committing X and see if they will too". The current approach of planning out attacks that escalate the conflict just makes things worse.
I'm curious if there has been any solid game theory research into the impact of tit-for-tat retaliation versus escalating retaliation.
and Civilization simulator ends up with the planet in nuclear-winter, 3 nation-states turning all resources into armies, forgoing peace treaties and maintaining borders via nuclear bombardment. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_play...
---
The problem with disarmament, of course, is that if A disarms and B doesn't.. A is vulnerable to B.
After being robbed twice, a game developer & his wife seriously considered purchasing a guard dog or a firearm. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of escalation and wondered where it would end.
He built "The Castle Doctrine" -- a game where a man with a wife and kids spends his money fortifying his home against invaders, then invades other homes to take their treasure.. to spend on more fortifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs (interview with the developer)
--
Not the scientific rigor you were asking for but an interesting exploration.
Same goes with war crimes; cf. the U.S. attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, 2015. No matter what the facts are in that case, the U.S. is never going to admit responsibility for a war crime. Blaming the pilots for "human error", no consequences for any commanding officers, is the path they will take.
Drone strikes that hit civilians and a specific target are sloppy assassinations, and terrorism.
As for the indiscriminate killing of civilians, what else would you call the example from the article?
> in Pakistan, in attempts to take out 41 men, American drones actually killed an estimated 1,147 people (while not all of the 41 targeted figures even died).
Really the only problem we have is the fact the US keeps using it as a tool of assassination which results in too much collateral damage:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-...
That said, from the perspective of people on the ground, there is no doubt that they are generally terrifying and horrifying. While the strikes might help degrade ISIS leadership and operations, they also help create extremely strong anti-US emotions by killing innocent men, women, and children.
The hard question is, what is the alternative? Ignore ISIS? That's dangerous. Put boots on the ground? Not going to happen--the American people are sick of that. So perhaps drone strikes are simply the least terrible of several terrible options.
Maybe, although it's hard to imagine there's no intent for drone strikes to act as a deterrent. It's not identical to idiomatic terrorism, but also not completely different.
> Ignore ISIS? That's dangerous.
There are no choices available here that aren't extremely dangerous. None. Least of all the cookie-cutter 'war hawk' attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place.
Personally my suspicion is that ignoring them is probably the least dangerous. ISIS is an organisation that feeds on radicalisation, it feeds on aggression. Aggression is its recruiting tool.
Build a mosque. Build a mosque so f%cking huge and beautiful that even hearing about it makes ISIS fighters weep.
Change the music and all this will be over in a few years. Feed the war machine and we're here for another generation at least.
EDIT: And there it goes.
It is perhaps naive to join the US or UK military and not expect to deployed to fight in often pointless wars with no clear strategic goals beyond "something must be done, this is something ergo we must do it".
That said the entire PR effort of both militaries is around serving your country and been the "good guy", it's not until you are inside the factory you see how the sausage is made, remember most of us aren't 18-19 year old kids often from a poor background.
Lots of people do things I think are strange (going to a cold stone building to worship a being who most likely doesn't exist, blowing yourself up because a man who claims a better of understanding of being who probably doesn't exist than you says so etc etc).
I'd say that that means there should be other ways of doing public service and escaping your roots for it, but there's nothing like the military for that in the USA.
I know the right answer is "flag and move on", which I mostly do with these types of articles, but jeez. This has been happening a lot recently. The HN front page has seriously gotten a lot worse just over the past few months.
But I wondered why anyone would want to join an organization that does that.
I guess having your wedding hellfire-missiled might be a motivator.
There are no easy answers on what should be done in conflicts like these. I'm pretty sure drones are the wrong answer, but I don't know what a better one would be. Maybe as a species we just haven't developed the right ethical code to avoid getting into these horrible messes, because in one form or another they keep returning. It's always war somewhere.
So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? The US has settled on killing them with drones as the "best" solution and its leaders I think truly believe that this minimizes collateral damage. Is there a better course of action besides just letting these people work toward their horrific goals? I think that history has proven that you can't just leave people like this alone and expect them to chill out, so what do you do?
Honest question: has assassination ever actually been effective at effecting the political change the assassin wants?
It's probably easier now to assassinate someone than it ever has been in human history, but the actual number doesn't seem higher per capita (maybe it is, feel free to correct me on that).
It crumbled for many reasons but the assassination wasn't one of them.
2. On a more general level, your question can be rephrased as 'has violence ever been effective at making a (political) difference'. The answer to that is - absolutely. It has actually been the most effective strategy at effecting change throughout history.
2) This is not a valid generalization and represents a leap of logic. I was talking specifically of assassinations.
It's like the WW2 story about looking for holes in returning fighter planes :)
But this isn't limited to just Drone killings. This applies to much broader contexts...for example the governmental handling of Aaron Swartz comes to my mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz).
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the US government isn't always acting in the best interests of the people or liberty...so how did we get here and how do we fix it? What is a better method?
And that is where I think this conversation starts to get very gray very fast.
2. And if we really must attack, send in troops. Yes, some of our troops may die. But it is more honest. War should not be easy. And when we say fuck it, our troop are more valuable than civilians in the firing line, what does that say about our morals? See #1.
---
The US is Quietly Helping Saudi Arabia Wage a Devastating Aerial Campaign in Yemen: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/30/us-quietly-helping-saudi...
How Bribes to Politicians From Arms Dealers Keep Wars Going. And How the Wars Keep the Politicians Going: http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/25/bribes-politicians-arms-dea...
I think the aspect of operators' mental health which the article brought up was very important, though. These people are soliders, but are they treated as such? Why are they not given more support? Why are they not selected more carefully and given better psychological training beforehand? It's a budget question, of course, but it still desperately needs to be addressed.