Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeremyt | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

> unavoidable collateral damage?

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> unavoidable collateral damage

First responders and funerals are unavoidable collateral damage?

I do not see why intention matters.

Motive is important in how we judge almost everything in life. Why would this be any different?

Is that so? I am not sure. Also this leads to 'I hit you because I love you' excuses.

And that is all they are, excuses.

Motive matters, but it isn't the final word.

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.

I was responding to a comment stating "I don't see why intention matters"

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.

I don't think that is the best example. It can be as simple as someone intentionally running over a cat versus backing out and not noticing it.

intention is all that matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com