Hacker News Reader

Comment by berntb | Hacker News Reader

>>somehow the US government is finding it even easier to erode civil liberties now than it ever did during the Cold War.

Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism.

Consider that democracies in general seems to go crazy when they have active terrorism problems and throw out human rights and the law book. E.g. Germany, USA, Israel, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, etc. (The only exception afaik is India.)

It is logical because the whole point with terror is to scare civilians -- and politicians wants to be elected again. They have to solve terror problems, no matter what.

You don't have to like this, in fact no one except companies earning money doing security likes it. All choices in the real world also has disadvantages, even democracy.

View on HN

>> Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism.

Maybe you want to update your knowledge and find out what is the worst country. You will surprised to see the so calle "best" democracies there.

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/shocking-facts-about-whos-armi...

That link shows what countries are exporting weapons to other countries. This isn't the same as "supporting terrorism," as the parent clearly states. Iran directly supports groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.

>>Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism. Really? Sounds like rewriting the history again. Everything I read pointed 911 to pakistin intelligence and Saudis

That's a strawman in that 9/11 isn't the only terrorist attack to happen in the 21st century.

Thanks, now I understood what the gp wrote. :-) I have too little experience with conspiracy theories.

I don't think it's as simple as "Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism."

Every powerful country uses violence to advance it's political goals. Every powerful country kills the civilians/citizens of other countries, publicly expressing varying amounts of regret.

The parallel comment by salimmadjd has a point about Pakistan maybe being even worse than Iran, when it comes to terror support (I do doubt that Saudi A as a country is worse).

I might stand corrected, there.

>>Every powerful country kills the civilians/citizens of other countries

To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that.

> To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that.

Democracies generally try not to publicize doing that. Unless it's done with drones apparently, then you brag about it.

Link to a democracy bragging about intentionally targeting a civilian?

That was a reference to the fact that the election related PR is focused around Obama being tough, having a kill list that he oversees and the successful drone strikes against "militants".

Because the definition of militant explicitly includes civilians in the area surrounding the targets and this was recently highly publicized I tied the two together in a flippant comment.

But I suspect you knew that already and now want to argue about the US use of drones. I'll save you the time, it's terrorism dressed in Orwellian doublespeak and it's pointless to have internet arguments about it.

The war laws are specifying when/how you can risk civilians -- there will always be dead civilians in a war, you are required to try to minimise that.

If you would want to be serious (somehow I doubt it), either (a) argue against the war laws or (b) argue that usa breaks them.

Note that in this case, the terrorists target civilians and seem to use their own civilians as shields. You have no problem with that?

You are leaving out a rather glaring example. Neither atomic bomb, dropped by the one and only country ever to use them, were dropped on military targets.

The "Democracies" of the world kill many innocent civilians, an order of magnitude in fact than any terrorist related event if you really want to compare the two. Not because the people running them are cartoonishly evil or anything, it simply reflects the massive imbalance of military power between us and whoever the terrorist are supposed to be. It's cloaked in talk of noble intentions and euphemistically referred to as collateral damage. I doubt it makes a difference to the populations affected whether they were an intentional target, or the gps on the smart bomb that just leveled your house glitched out.

I wrote: To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war

Got the answer: "kill many innocent civilians"

Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin.

Then, someone isn't morally right by being weaker, so different strength have nothing to do with it.

The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that.

And so on.

I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-(

> Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin.

You place a lot of emphasis on intentionality. While it's an aspect worth considering, I don't find it as nearly as persuasive as you seem to. Many military actions are undertaken knowing full well the result with be civilian causalities, often many, and they are done anyway. Like I said earlier, I don't think your distinction means much to the victims whether they were intentional targets or not.

> The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago,

Uh, not really. It's still within living memory for many. And I think highly pertinent when discussing current issues of nuclear weapons/proliferation.

> 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that.

I didn't get into those aspects in the interest of brevity, and because it veers a bit too off topic. I have considered them all at length, and ultimately find them unconvincing from a moral standpoint. Also notice how any actions taken by our society, or those representing it, immediately become complex and a hundred shades of grey. I'm sure those supporting acts of terrorism make similar rationales. No one buys it in that case, and I think we should be highly skeptical when our leaders seek to justify it in ours.

> I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-(

I'm not sure how to respond to such hyperbole. Everything I've stated is factually true. You can disagree with my interpretation, or the implicit conclusions I've drawn, but labeling it as simplified propaganda is just silly.

"You place a lot of emphasis on intentionality. While it's an aspect worth considering, I don't find it as nearly as persuasive as you seem to."

You are in a very small minority there. Sorry.

> You are in a very small minority there. Sorry.

I'm fine with that.

One last point worth considering - exactly what is the evidence that it is unintentional? None as far as I can tell other our leaders assert it constantly. And then turn around and do it again, repeatedly. To be clear, I don't think likely almost ever is. There's simply no advantage to it, especially in the modern information age. It's willful disregard in my opinion, which is debatably marginally better, but only marginally.

And the reason I focus on the actions of my society, the US, boils down to partly because it's my home, and there's no where you care more about than your own home. As much as I condemn the actions of Iran, or any other state, there's zero I can do about it. I'm not Iranian. I can, however, affect change here, again in the most powerful state, where it matters most. And the most fundamental principle of any moral framework is that you hold yourself to the same standards you seek to apply to others. More stringent ones, in fact, if you're serious about it.

I'm not American, from my viewpoint you are applying totally different standards to two sides.

A few levels up, I noted that democracies in general tend to go bat-shit crazy at terrorism -- and that it is probably built into the concept of democracy.

It should also be noted that modern democracies don't fight wars with each others, not even the USA. The best solution for making a better world is to work for democracy, especially in places like China which already has started to push a bit against neighbours.

>>You place a lot of emphasis on intentionality.

It is quite unusual in not seeing a difference with killing someone by losing control of your car on the way to hospital with a hurt child -- and shooting an unarmed civilian in the face...

>>Many military actions are undertaken knowing full well the result with be civilian causalities, often many

Most westerners do believe in war laws. Here is an US-critical article. Compare it with e.g. the militias in Iraq or Hezbollah. They shoot artillery at cities, etc.

You see no difference in that -- as was noted, it makes you not only in a minority, but also arguing the same position as people that really murder children point blank. You ignore all other laws too?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u...

>> Then, someone isn't morally right by being weaker, so different strength have nothing to do with it.

They do. In practice someone is often seen as morally right just because he is stronger than his oponent (politicaly or military or in some other way).

"I doubt it makes a difference to the populations affected whether they were an intentional target, or the gps on the smart bomb that just leveled your house glitched out."

You're wrong.

If an airliner (or even a weapon) goes astray and kills my family, I am going to be angry, no doubt about it.

If you've deliberately targeted my family, my anger is going to be greater by several orders of magnitude.

For example, this case that was in the news today:

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/156366185.html

Suppose the phosphorous did get there through some type of negligence on one of the nearby bases (seems plausible, at least).

Are the woman and her family going to be angry? You bet. Are they going to file a monster lawsuit? Almost certainly. Are they going to declare war on the United States, or (try to) kill a few Marines? Not a chance in hell.

Intent matters.

That, as well as the story linked (which I read carefully), are really bad analogies, for what I think of obvious reasons.

I do think intent can matter at times. Perhaps what I'm more zeroing in on is that idea that I don't find saying you didn't mean to, when you repeatedly kill civilians in very large numbers, such that certain countries have a long history of being on the receiving end of American collateral damage, as an acceptable rational/excuse. (This last part is why I think you're examples are not particularly apt)

Your intent just stops mattering as much when the body count gets to a certain number and you show no signs of changing the behavior.

If I understand right: You argue that no war is worth high collateral damage, even if involved democracies (more or less) follow the laws of war?

How about if a junta relies on that a democracy don't want to pay those prices and creates a situation where blood will flow if they don't get their will?

Arguably, both Japan 1945 and Saddam Hussein are cases of that.

Do you REALLY want dictators to rely on using their own people's suffering to get out of e.g. sanctions or surrender? I doubt it...

Sorry for coming in late. I bother writing these answers because I used to have similar opinions as you before my hair started to fall out. You are a standin for a young berntb, I guess.

I grew up in London when the IRA were leaving bombs in the trains stations, we didn't have this "throw out rights and laws" nonsense.

And Norway didn't go nuts over the Breivik attack either.

Oh, and are you aware that Israel backed Jundullah, which is a Pakistani AlQaeda?

Command of the facts helps avoid embarrassment.

Hello again!

Do you still believe in Jewish conspiracies controlling media?

Or that T-shirts of some individuals prove something about a heterogeneous country -- and are as bad as official policies in another state?!

Ah wait, you refused to touch that "logic" of yours in comment after comment...

Breivik was an individual crazy/nazi/xxx. There are hardly realistic threats for more attacks in Norway. I argued about fear of terror, not mourning after one attack.

(Edit: It is really fun that you condemn Israel for working with unpleasant groups where they have common interests -- all countries with physical threats do similar things -- but previously refused to criticise similar groups.)

And so on, sorry but I can't take you seriously.

I'm a little confused.

The UK gov't instituted a number of very harsh laws that severely curtailed the rights of UK citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts

"This part allowed for the arrest of individuals without a warrant and on reasonable suspicion that they were guilty of an offence under the Act or otherwise "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism""

(I don't think you should have too high expectations of facts and logic from ucee054, at least re politics. :-) )

Thanks for the link, I didn't know the name of the law. Also, there were some ... cough ... controversial interrogation methods in the 70s, until there was too much human rights criticism.

Anyway, I'm not an expert on the UK and IRA, but believe/assume part of the inspiration for the wonderful T Gilliam movie "Brazil" came from this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com