Hacker News Reader

Comment by streptomycin | Hacker News Reader

The report raised warnings that other countries might adopt the same rationale as the United States has for carrying out lethal strikes outside of declared war zones. Using an example of a current crisis, it said that Russia could use armed drones in Ukraine under the justification that it was killing anti-Russian terrorists and then refuse to disclose the intelligence that served as the basis for the strike.

“In such circumstances,” the report asked, “how could the United States credibly condemn Russian targeted killings?”

Good question.

View on HN

Targeted killings are wrong, but Russia isn't doing this anyway.

They still send in troops/police that try to disarm suspects, because the Russian population in some regions would feel oppressed if they started assassinating suspects without a trial and they don't need a new Chechnya.

And outside of Russia they intervene much less militarily than the US is doing right now. (compared to the US, Russia's interventions are almost nonexistent)

Well, if the Russian's are targeting terrorists (those people who attack civilians) then we should applaud their efforts for saving civilian lives.

If it's an armed conflict between two groups of people who both consider themselves "citizens" of their locale and another country steps in, is it their right to decide which are the citizens and which are the terrorists?

Terrorists are people who target civilians, regardless of which country they are in.

So police are terrorists?

Not sure about Police but according to this the IDF would be terrorists by targeting Palestinian children.

The IDF does not target children. Please cite your references before making such a statement.

OTOH, during Operation Cast Lead (I was in Israel for that entire 3 week war) Hamas did deliberately use children as human shields: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1304

I have read reports from Doctors Without Borders and other sources that the Israelis kill about ten times the number of Palestinian children than the Palestinians kill Israeli children. I don't want to get into a political flame war here, but the facts seem pretty solid in my opinion on which side is harsher to civilians. A little off topic, but a a very good friend who is an Israeli is very critical about his government for just this reason.

Like US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have regrettably killed children as well but again not by intent, Israelis have killed children, but certainly not with intent. If you're going to point out the number of children killed by Israelis indirectly by combat then you should do the same of US troops.

However, Palestinians have deliberately targeted Israeli children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alot_massacre An attack of a school, 22 children killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_massacre An attack of a school bus, 7 children killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphinarium_discotheque_suicid... An attack of a Discotheque, 21 teenagers killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre An attack of a Yeshiva (religious school), 7 children killed.

In each of these cases and many others, Palestinians are deliberately targeting children.

It is really upsetting when different groups and people single out Israel when the US and other countries do exactly the same thing as Israel. Israel is attempting to defend its citizens against terrorists to the best of its ability just as the US is trying to defend its citizens to the best of its ability.

Thanks for providing those examples, I looked at all of them. In your opinion though, is the ten to one ratio cited by Doctors Without Borders and other organizations valid, or invalid? Honest question.

Good point about US actions. A little off topic, but I strongly support the US closing most foreign military bases, staying out of the middle east and other places around the world unless allies or US interests are directly invaded. The days of my country being the world's only military super power should have ended long ago - certainly before our invasion of Iraq.

On the topic of the middle east: Europe is obviously a lot closer to the middle east that the US and I would support the idea of Europeans placing peace keeping observers in Israel, Palestine, and generally around the middle east. Sort of the same way that Canada, the US, and Mexico all have a stake in what happens in our area of the world (North America). Does that make sense to you?

Even if you make the assumptions that killing terrorists is always a good thing, that it is possible to accurately identify terrorists, that it is possible to kill them without collateral damage, etc... How do you know if they are honest about their intentions? Just take Putin's word for it?

Well, at times there will be collateral damage when targeting terrorists just as when targeting other enemy combatants. Sure, Putin's (or any other's intent) is a different matter, but on the whole, any country should be allowed to use drones or any other technology to target individuals who target their civilians (eg, terrorists) as well as their military and infrastructure. What they do not have the right to do is target civilians with drones.

Imagine Russia blows up some people in Ukraine and claims they were terrorists, but the evidence is too secret to share. How should the US respond? Just congratulate them and move on?

> any country should be allowed to use drones or any other technology to target individuals who target their civilians (eg, terrorists)

According to Russia, this definition have in several instances included regular Ukrainian troops, who according to the Ukranian government, is fighting terrorists/insurgents that are targeting Ukranian civilians on Ukrainian territory. See how this gets messy quickly, when either side have completely different versions of events?

The "we need to protect our civilians (even if they live in a different country, were born there, and have never been our citizens) against individuals who are targeting them" argument is one of history's oldest excuses for going to war. Sometimes it may be justified, but it also very often conveniently ignore that the "targeted civilians" may themselves have been insurgents or terrorists or infiltrators who were legitimate targets.

It's a popular excuse whether or not it is true, because assuming your attacks go well, it gets very hard to find out the truth when everyone involved has been conveniently killed.

If the US can do it, why not Russia?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com