Hacker News Reader

Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure what is particularly surprising in this article. Surely if somebody is working as a warrior for hire, than people would hire them to do warrior stuff. Is the point here that the particular mercs are ex-US Army soldiers? In this case, I wonder if one has acquired a particular set of skills (yeah, I know, the movie reference) in the Army, and wants to monetize them in civilian market, what would be the better option? I mean, assassinations of course is not a good way of earning money, and certainly immoral in most cases, but as you can, regrettably, expect a certain number of trained software security professionals to become criminals, so you can expect from warfare specialists? Is there any way around it?

View on HN

That is some laid back attitude to murder. Are you also cool with the "warriors" "monetizing" their skills in the US " civilian market" ?

> That is some laid back attitude to murder. No, I specifically pointed out it being immoral, and criminal. Though being engaged in war or warlike scenarios, one can expect that certain situations would require confrontation that ultimately can get people killed. This is what happens in war. This is why armies exist. And if it's legitimate for US Army, why isn't it legitimate for UAE Army? And if certain person can kill other people under the star-spangled banner, why the same person can't do it under other flags? Of course there are unjust wars, but I don't see how anything changes whether it's under US flag or UAE flag.

> Are you also cool with the "warriors" "monetizing" their skills in the US "civilian market" ?

Depends on how they monetize them. If it's a justified self-defense (e.g. somebody tries to assassinate a prominent political figure, her security detail reacts and kills the assassin) - sure, if it's aggression (somebody hires ex-military to assassinate a prominent political figure) - not so much.

> Is the point here that the particular mercs are ex-US Army soldiers?

of course not. it's pretty straightforward. the point is that these were assassinations. We're comfortable with mercs doing things like "defend a convoy", "defend a target", "eliminate all hostiles in an area", etc.

that's a FAR cry from "make this man die. we won't say why, but here's the address of his mosque, and if you want to blow up his whole workplace, that's fine."

> the point is that these were assassinations

So, there are contract killers. This is not exactly news, for sure? Political murders exist pretty much since the time politics exists. Of course it's bad, but not sure what is new here.

So what's YOUR point? There has always been evil, so why bother reporting on it?

Yes, there are contract killers. Are you saying you seriously don't know what's surprising about american citizens being freelance contract killers on behalf of a foreign government, and arguing that it's a good thing to do? And our own government being unsure whether there's anything illegal about it?

> and arguing that it's a good thing to do

Seriously, how many times I need to write it's a bad thing to do so that somebody won't comment "so, you're saying it's a good thing to do, right?" It's like there's some weird font some people have installed which turns meaning of every word to its opposite.

The sentiment of your comments is just irrelevant. The news doesn't have to be surprising and no one cares that you personally aren't surprised. This is reporting that identifies a particular set of actors engaging in this immoral behavior, and therefore it is important news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com