Hacker News Reader

>If some Chinese or Russian 'freedom' fighters decide to train militarily in US with the goal of toppling current govt of China/Russia and did actually cause deaths/damage in China/Russia, would US govt sit back and let them train in US? Probably not.

The line of argument is so simplistic it boggles my mind. Lets get few facts straight:

a. Goal of terrorists is not to topple US government. You can't draw parallels between things without understanding their motive. Primary goal of a terrorist organisation operating out of Islamist state is to flex muscle and create terror. Often it is - revenge killings so as to deter state forces (of US, India, NATO). So far with each drone strike - make no mistake US is creating more terrorists. As a Indian, I detest each time our government kills/arrests a law abiding citizen of India - for just being a Muslim. Terrorists win each time. If you can accept those innocent people as collateral damage, you should be ready to accept 9/11 or Mumbai bomb blast victims as collateral too?

b. Deep down I believe some US citizens simply do not understand how terrorists work. They think, if you drone strike a bunker with important terrorist leader - problem will simply go away.

c. Look up Operation Cyclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone). CIA trained and financed Taliban when it suited them. Did Russia drone strike key CIA administrators? India is similarly accused of training LTTE (http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2013/07/28/india-armed-tr...). A terrorist Organization which oddly enough killed our prime minister. Did Srilanka drone stike India?

The truth is - there is power and power allows powerful countries to make rules and let them get away with it. US uses drones strikes against Pakistan because they know they will get away with it. They dare not do the same against, Russia, China or even India. Assuming that drone strikes help reduce terrorism is just too naive.

>They dare not do the same against, Russia, China or even India.

Is there proof that terrorist organization leaders are operating in those countries unchecked?

Actually I gave 2 examples of India (as much it dismays as an Indian) and US where these countries have supported so called "Freedom fighters".

The reality is Pakistan or Yemen does not want terrorist on their ground more than me and you. They want them gone too. But the so called drone strikes and random killings make people angry, so there is a grass root support for terrorist organisations (at least in certain part of these countries). We are in a vicious cycle here and drones don't help.

> The reality is Pakistan or Yemen does not want terrorist on their ground more than me and you.

I dont know about Yemen but some of the Pakistani terrorist camps are actively supported by the Pakistan military.

Bravo! All human rights violations aside, what the US doesn't realize is that every new drone strike is creating new cadres for Al Qaeda and others to recruit from.

> what the US doesn't realize

Except that they do realize that (US government and military are not stupid). Everything is right on track on their book.

War on terror correlates directly to political climate for authoritarian policy Side effect of war on terror correlates directly to produce more terror More terror correlates directly to more war on terror

It's a positive feedback. They are aware.

it's irrelevent. One party has nothing to loose while the other does.

Naive.

Neither terrorists nor military leaders have anything to lose.

The ones who actually lose are those who have no say in the matter: civilians and cannon fodder.

I may not think the same way as a terrorist, but if joining some "club" made a really powerful country with really advanced weaponry want to kill me, I would probably be disincentivized from joining said "club".

At first it may be like, "Screw those bastards for killing us! Let's try to get them back!" but then after watching basically everyone I know who is a part of this group I joined get killed without us really accomplishing anything, I'd probably think more along the lines of, "Yeah, I don't want to do this anymore."

>I would probably be disincentivized from joining said "club".

What if you felt that you might be killed irrespective of whether you joined the club? Further, what if you believed that joining the club was your only hope (no matter how slim) of preventing yourself and others from being killed?

As a Indian, I detest each time our government kills/arrests a law abiding citizen of India - for just being a Muslim.

When did that happen? If anything, it is the opposite.

"The line of argument is so simplistic it boggles my mind. Lets get few facts straight":

1. Operation cyclone: This was part of the cold war, both countries fought proxy wars across the world. The Soviet Union actively aided anti-american forces in other parts of the world.

2. Sure, everybody detests improper detentions (and killing, but I haven't seen much evidence). If a country is fighting home-grown terrorism with a religious flavor, it is likely that a few people from that particular religion will get illegally arrested. Now as rational people, the important point is whether this is happening at some scale and whether this is a statistically significant number. But it will never be zero.

The problem with the most common breed of terrorism is that it is entirely religiously motivated. Left to themselves, tyranny of the majority will soon ensue in those countries. Sure you could just let them take over and leave the problem to future generations, but the bigger argument for intervention is that democratic countries should stand up for the rights of people living in countries where extremism is an active part of everyday politics.

It's very sad to see how the political/militarist propaganda is making an incredibly good job.

> The problem with the most common breed of terrorism is that it is entirely religiously motivated.

What's the religion supposed to be? Destruction of the USA? Do you think that terrorists target USA because it's written in their sacred books?

"Left to themselves, tyranny of the majority will soon ensue in those countries. Left to themselves, tyranny of the majority will soon ensue in those countries. Sure you could just let them take over and leave the problem to future generations"

There are many many countries with such regimes, and the majority of them is left to theirselves. Middle east countries are picked because they serve the political agenda.

Seriously, do you think that countries like Syria are the lucky ones which has been chosen to be "saved"?

And do you think that bombing a country will improve the situation? Hint: it won't.

>it is likely that a few people from that particular religion will get illegally arrested.

And killed. Taken together, I would be hesitant to call it a few.

>Now as rational people, the important point is whether this is happening at some scale and whether this is a statistically significant number. But it will never be zero.

This is nauseating. It never ceases to amaze me how cavalier people have become about other people's lives. If we are going to be so confident that we are just, then we should start by looking at the root cause. These dim-witted platitudes about pure religious fervor and hating us for our freedom are ridiculous. The fact that a sitting president could conduct a war over such pablum and not be roundly ostercized and impeached is testament to how little we seem to invest in determining what's really happening and whose interests are being served in our name.

Then, when the next generation of drone-terrorized and, hence, militarized individuals takes up arms against us, we will all sit back in shock and discuss how barbaric they are and how they also hate our innoncent, peace-loving populace for our freedom.

Of course, that will justify the next round of rationalized illegal detentions and collateral damage.

When you buy into this thinking, you become complicit. It is no longer being done in your name. It is being done at your behest. And, you don't even know why.

Could you not just as easily argue that drone operations take place there because they're powerless against them? Perhaps it's also their inability to protect their population adequately that America take advantage of.

In my opinion the real issue here is that innocent civilians are getting killed in a nation America have no official presence in, and certainly no state of war with and where there is no chance of recourse. Are civilians in failed or almost failed (whatever that really means) nations fair game? Is there any precedent for killing civilians without either declaring war or at least putting a presence on the ground?

Actually, there probably is - and it's probably best referred to as terrorism.

Anyway, I agree that arguing here isn't going to change anything - but I disagree that these people are fair game just because of where they are and what goes on there. I don't think it's venturing far to say some are justified in hating America, that doesn't justify terrorism.

Sure there is recourse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11...

The Pakistani Government officially supports these strikes. But their public image demands them to publicly be against the strikes.

Pakistan's government can end the under-the-table deal and officially make the Drone Strikes illegal. However, as it is right now, the drone strikes are sanctioned by Pakistan.

Its a great deal for Pakistan, and it aligns well with the US's goals. Win/win for both countries, all else considered. Whenever the US leaves Afghanistan / Pakistan for good, the Pakistani government retains their good will with their people, the US takes the bad PR garbage associated with the war... and the world becomes a safer place in the long term.

"You don't want to see drones operating in foreign nations? Use your energy helping NGO and the local govt overcome corruption, ignorance, and backbone shattering poverty. Give no space for terrorists to operate in."

Ah yes, this is the shit I just love about these arguments. Stop complaining about these things that kill thousands of innocent people. Your only appropriate action, according to some guy on the internet, is this utterly insane task he has made up. You are allowed to do that, but you're not allowed to object to drones killing people...

How? How does your brain get to this point? I'm just sitting here floored that I live in a country where a non-zero amount of people feel the way you do.

>How? How does your brain get to this point? I'm just sitting here floored that I live in a country where a non-zero amount of people feel the way you do.

If you are really are floored by this, you have a very weak sense of perspective. These conclusions are all very easy to get to if you follow this notion that members of terrorist organizations must be killed. If you set that as an unmovable goal, you will very quickly end up at these types of conclusions.

Try to gain some perspective. Just throwing a fit of incredulity doesn't help any arguments because the other side usually feels the same way about you.

"Just throwing a fit of incredulity doesn't help any arguments because the other side usually feels the same way about you."

Just as this massive exaggeration makes your point similarly difficult to take seriously. But you seem to value snark to strangers over actually relaying any sort of useful information so I'll leave you to that. Cheers.

edit: oh hey, what a shocker, a quick look at the first page of your posting history reveals literally no actual contributions and a bunch of snarky one liners. Give this guy a round of applause for these rock bottom contributions everyone! Bravo!

Your justification for the murder of innocent civilians falls short in many ways. You have simply rationalized the murderous ideological propaganda of the US military-industrial complex.

As long as you keep murdering just goatherders, you may indeed still get away with this kind of impunity. You fail to understand, however, how vulnerable the ones doing the killing are, to reprisals and retaliations.

It only takes a small bit of serious hacking and/or data mining to figure out the home addresses of everyone involved in these massacres, and from there to schedule them one by one for termination. The 40 million Target credit cards were much more difficult to obtain than that.

There is a tremendous asymmetry of information between your centralized murder engine and your decentralized enemies. The database of everyone involved on your side exists and can be stolen. The other way around is not true, regardless of all the surveillance that the NSA does. Therefore, the murderers are guaranteed to lose this conflict.

> Give no space for terrorists to operate in.

You do understand that many people in here argue that drones are a pretty good instrument to create terrorist..?

The documentary Dirty Wars suggests that the Obama administration added an increasing number of names to JSOC's kill list based on variable confidence intelligence. Isn't this the definition of mission creep?

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

A terrorist part of the 26/11 attacks on Bombay who was an informant for US DEA.

Which NGO should I contribute to for the DEA to realise that human life has value beyond the territorial borders of United States? White Men's burden is back.