Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonlotito | Hacker News Reader

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still murder, feel free to argue endlessly with others. But it's important to realize what you are then suggesting, and the ramifications.

War sucks. Innocent die.

Cue the pedantic replies.

View on HN

Obligatory pedantic reply:

Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training and are part of a reserves contingent ergo are legitimate military targets.

Or:

Flying a plane into the pentagon.

I mean its not as clear cut as you want it to be. The dresden bombings didnt clearly target military objects. Its not as simple as classification when the one doing the classifying is so willing to act in a hypocritical grey zone.

I cant see why this comment is getting downvoted.

Mob mentality.

Probably because he purposefully ignored mentioning the two non military buildings in NYC that were also hit.

"part of the support network either through willful ignorance or" this includes all Americans who pay taxes, vote for the government, etc. Ultimately everyone shares some blame but when we see someone who's more directly responsible than ourselves, we tend to blame them and forgive ourselves. As a non-America, I see Obama voters as responsible because he told them he would attack Pakistan with drones as part of his first election campaign.

I agree that as an American who voted for those in power that I am partially responsible and would be a fair target. Living in a democracy means accepting that collectively we have chosen someone to make decisions on our behalf and even if we disagree we have chosen to operate under a set of rules that govern how we disagree and how we change things (election, etc.)

So it sounds like both of you advocate both US civilians being valid targets to kill, and also that the USA should be OK with killing foreign civilians yes?

It's a bit more nuanced. It depends on who we're at war with. If it's a nation, then sure, the nation and it's support system (workers, factories, etc.) should be valid targets. For non-state sponsored actors (terrorists, etc.), it becomes a lot more muddy. For example, in Pakistan, the general population isn't actively supporting terrorism and it's not advocated by the state so they are not valid targets. However, in areas where the Taliban have control and are supported and aided by the villages, the target list should expand.

At the end of the day, my original argument was that the delineation of military vs. civilian targets allows us to ignore our roles as citizens of a nation-state at war. I also think that many conflicts get dragged out and result in a lot more pain and suffering than if we had more flexibility.

I actually don't really understand why there's some type of "rule" of war. It's WAR, following rules seems to make something inherently savage into something we can feel okay about because there appears to be some type of logic that makes it less horrifying than it really is.

cup has a great point. We think that the Twin Towers were civilian targets but to those flying the planes, everyone in the West was probably fair game and the "enemy" even if we don't think so. Similarly, those people at weddings that were bombed probably thought they weren't fair game but we thought since they decided to host some terrorists at their wedding that they are complicit in their activities and thus are fair game. How do we classify "civilians" that may not be actively waging war but are part of the support network either through willful ignorance or by becoming human shields (like in Mogadishu, etc.)?

> It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II.

You couldn't have picked a worse example. Innocent civilians were widely targeted in WWII. Entire cities were subjected to terrorist bombing campaigns specifically to "break the morale of the population which occupies it" and "make the people conscious of constant personal danger."

WWII pretty much invented large-scale terrorism justified as military necessity.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...

I'll admit I could have picked a better example, but I also made a point to specify military targets in my comment for a reason.

> I also made a point to specify military targets in my comment for a reason.

Which is why the user above responded. US justification for these strikes is because they are deemed "military targets," and often the intel behind the strikes themselves is extremely tenuous. While on not the scale of WWII firebombing the terrorist aspects of it cannot be ignored.

Much US government documentation on their strikes speaks of the psychological aspects of those under a drone's strike zone. They cast a terrorized population in terms of being "less prone to supporting Alqaeda Top Man #85032" or other nonsense that only addresses the social impact in the narrowest terms to ensure victory can be declared in some way by the author.

In the end the population below still feels terrorized by the presence of "justice from above" with no due recourse. This is completely aside from what those in the US government wish to call it.

>Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. (...) Cue the pedantic replies.

Oh, the irony.

That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one.

Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military).

Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places like Pakistan (the US was not at war with it last time I checked) and at functions such as weddings.

Have actual weddings been targeted by drones?

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

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

I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.

Can you share the reason for why these weddings were targeted? I'm only wondering if the members might have been combatants or insurgents or terrorists? Or was their something about the wedding itself that made it a target?

What is the US policy on weddings?

An aid worker who was in Afghanistan in the 1980 told me that people often carried weapons to weddings and fired them in the air at some stage. The weapons were ceremonial. Not sure how reliable the following is, and it refers to Pakistan, but it is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Pakistan

Pretty sure it was drones. They just killed everyone, and then double-tapped to kill first responders.

> blah blah military in quotes

I used it in quotes because I was thinking of cases where I'm not sure how it would be classified. Assumed base of operations that turns out to be false? Regardless, nothing as sinister as you imply.

As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you?

> As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you?

I think you missed coldtea's point. I suspect he pointed that out because he thought it would make a difference to you. e.g., "War sucks. Innocent people die." ... But we're not at war with Pakistan. So what? Drone strikes suck. Innocent people die?

Actually, the intent is to terrorize. You are utilizing systematic violence to coerce an entire population for political reasons, and deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal.

There also isn't a war in Waziristan. Your comparison to WWII is total BS

Sorry but targeted drone strikes are the exact opposite of terrorism. If the US wanted to terrorize we could carpet bomb cities much quicker and cheaper than with drone strikes.

I 100% agree that accidental killing of unintended targets is terrorizing the native population of countries where this happens, and also leads to creating more terrorists/enemies of the US than it possibly eliminates.

Jeremy Scahill wrote a ~700 page book about this very subject that came out a few months ago. Dirty Wars. It is worth reading.

Not sure that "complete opposite" is the right term here. Drones prevent people to like sunny days, to go to school (and learn something else than becoming terrorists).

Completely agree with the second part of your comment though. But accidental killing of unintended targets should at least : -be something the US apologize for, if possible directly to families, if possible by the highest rank official. -be compensated even if money doesn't heal wounds like that. If there are no consequences (both political and financial) to those strikes, targeting errors will never be a big deal.

Drones are being used because it causes less unintended collateral damage than a bomb from a F-14. Never any collateral damage? No. Less? Yes.

If the EU starts flying drones over the US and killing wanted war criminals, would your views change? Killing is people is crude and unhelpful. It hardens the views of those who remain and creates a uniting cause.

> deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal.

How would this achieve the goal? The Taliban and AQ members don't care about innocents dying.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants? No. Disregarding their safety? That's probably closer to the truth. But just because you are a non-combatant doesn't mean you aren't supporting combatants. And that's when tough decisions have to be made. It's a horrible choice that must be made.

As for WWII, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#World_W...

Is it really a tough decision? A tough decision would be to put soldiers on the ground to do that. Killing someone in a far away country with very few chances that it will be reported looks like a rather easy solution.

Except that there is not war going on between Pakistan and the US. There should be no rationale to attack "military targets" on foreign soil because you have no authority there. Would the US tolerate Pakistan drones hovering above their schools and picking up targets at their will ?

For me, this is a key question. Another one -- would the US population allow drone strikes to take out terrorists within its own borders?

You seem very good at classifying the killings, but completely fail to classify the big picture by calling it a "war".

Here's the pedantic war reply I was expecting, despite the obvious fact that it's not legally a war.

If it was a war legally, would targeting civilians be okay?

pedant |ˈpednt| noun a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

Please explain to me how saying that an invasion is not a war is a minor detail.

Few innocents died while killing terrorists. I see no harm in that. In any case that single terrorist would have killed lots of innocent. That innocent could be from USA, Russia, Israel, India. And at that time there will be hue and cry saying it is intelligence failure.

Innocents will die either by terrorists or may be by US drones.

terrorists do not have a good kill death ratio

Then you are not in the country where bomb blasts are very common. Their KD ratio is real good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com