U.S. drone pilot leaks footage reveals accidental killing of children and adults(eminetra.co.uk)
eminetra.co.uk
U.S. drone pilot leaks footage reveals accidental killing of children and adults
https://eminetra.co.uk/u-s-drone-pilot-leaks-footage-reveals-accidental-killing-of-two-children-and-two-adults-in-afghanistan/663346/
270 comments
Their defense will probably be something like: but it's one step less reckless than just throwing bombs.
We need to seriously examine our own morality for allowing these ghouls to basically genocide brown people.
We are absolutely the baddies; between Iraq, Afghanistan and our air strikes on Syria, Libya, and Yemen during the same period killed 1 million civilians. We’re within an order of magnitude of the Holocaust, and we all just pretend everything is ok. I really don’t know why there aren’t more discussions of how this is basically the Islamic Holocaust.
We are absolutely the baddies; between Iraq, Afghanistan and our air strikes on Syria, Libya, and Yemen during the same period killed 1 million civilians. We’re within an order of magnitude of the Holocaust, and we all just pretend everything is ok. I really don’t know why there aren’t more discussions of how this is basically the Islamic Holocaust.
It's not about morality per se, and rather about understanding the people, organizations, and mechanisms that allowed it to happen. Afghanistan wasn't my war (Iraq), but I've spent most of my lifes free time since I got my brain back (left the military) tackling this topic.
I think it was Ge. Wesley Clark or maybe Col. Wilkerson who said something to the effect of "There was a policy coup, some very hard nosed people took over and never informed the rest of us".
Its true, there was a policy coup, but I've traced it much further back. Besides the JFK episode, the biggest one was Woodrow Wilson and his handlers.
A good examination of these things though is uncomfortable and difficult even for those of us with a passion for truth, but the public doesn't want to hear about it. The elite don't want to discuss it (often because they make money off it). The media wont discuss it because it is controlled by the same people that pushed us into war.
I keep coming back to the media angle, and I also think thats one of the reasons for the increasing attacks on the freedom of the internet; essentially the oligarchs finally understood that as the last bastion of anarchistic freedom of thought, it was their primary threat.
I think it was Ge. Wesley Clark or maybe Col. Wilkerson who said something to the effect of "There was a policy coup, some very hard nosed people took over and never informed the rest of us".
Its true, there was a policy coup, but I've traced it much further back. Besides the JFK episode, the biggest one was Woodrow Wilson and his handlers.
A good examination of these things though is uncomfortable and difficult even for those of us with a passion for truth, but the public doesn't want to hear about it. The elite don't want to discuss it (often because they make money off it). The media wont discuss it because it is controlled by the same people that pushed us into war.
I keep coming back to the media angle, and I also think thats one of the reasons for the increasing attacks on the freedom of the internet; essentially the oligarchs finally understood that as the last bastion of anarchistic freedom of thought, it was their primary threat.
>>>Its true, there was a policy coup, but I've traced it much further back. Besides the JFK episode, the biggest one was Woodrow Wilson and his handlers.
Glad to see you call out Wilson, I consider him possibly the worst President ever. Federal Reserve Bank? His fault. Federal income tax? His fault. European intervention? His fault.
Glad to see you call out Wilson, I consider him possibly the worst President ever. Federal Reserve Bank? His fault. Federal income tax? His fault. European intervention? His fault.
Until you can actually pierce the National Security curtain to have a frank discussion involving details on Ways and Means in the Intelligence Community, this is a "pointless act of hyperbolic futility". The answer will just be "Need to know, and you don't" or some other platitude. As what you're asking in the end is what are the inputs that drive these decision making processes. This will never be a public conversation.
Note, I think it's an absolutely sound and necessary thing to happen, I just never see it happening.
Note, I think it's an absolutely sound and necessary thing to happen, I just never see it happening.
Yep, as you can see now any discussion of it is downvoted into oblivion / killed immediately. It’s not astroturfing but I think the cognitive dissonance between what we believe our country is versus what it actually does is too great. We all wonder how German citizens could have gone along with Nazi atrocities.. and the truth is that they largely didn’t know about them and what they did find out was considered “fake news”.
I'm reminded of a bit Stephen Colbert did, about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal back when he was on the Daily Show. "Even if this is something we did, it's not something we would do."
I was a big fan of his show in the 00s, but in hindsight I think Colbert did a great disservice to the media landscape in this country by normalizing this kind of sarcastic mimicry. It gives the far-right plausible deniability so they can say “lol it’s just a joke I don’t actually think that” when it doesn’t go over well.
You can't outlaw stupid. Society shouldn't be relegated to the lower common denominator
Genuine question - how do you get that 1 million figure?
There are many estimates, but the estimate in Iraq alone is 1/2 Million children deaths -- back in 1996. The US State Secretary Madeline Albright -- on video -- not only doesnt deny it but says it was worht the cost!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bntsfiAXMEE
In the case of Iraq, the deaths were due to two reasons
- President Bush 1's strategy to destroy civil infrastructure (water purification plants, sewage plants), which resulted in...bad water and mass deaths via disease
- President Clinton's sanctions which disallowed almost everything as dual use and prevented critical relief, essentially starving society for 8+ years.
The interview is from half-way thru the Clinton term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
In the case of Iraq, the deaths were due to two reasons
- President Bush 1's strategy to destroy civil infrastructure (water purification plants, sewage plants), which resulted in...bad water and mass deaths via disease
- President Clinton's sanctions which disallowed almost everything as dual use and prevented critical relief, essentially starving society for 8+ years.
The interview is from half-way thru the Clinton term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
It’s 800,000 direct civilian combat deaths and likely several times that from the ancillary dangers of war (starvation, land mines, etc). The designation of “non civilian combatant” was grossly overapplied (see OP about “he had a radio” or “he had an AK-47” as if every Afghan household didn’t have one after 40 years of war).
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
The cited source does not support the stated proposition. Your link says 335,000 civilians, and it counts all deaths, not just those caused by the U.S.
I was directly involved in U.S. CIVCAS mitigation measures in a Daesh convoy engagement by U.S. air power in the summer of 2016. I cannot comment on anything that transpired within the classified space. However, there was substantial reporting on the discrepancy between the measures implemented by U.S. drone strikes during the engagement, and measures implemented by Iraqi helicopters during the engagement. I encourage you to think about what that discrepancy might mean, if true, about how you're using those numbers.
I was directly involved in U.S. CIVCAS mitigation measures in a Daesh convoy engagement by U.S. air power in the summer of 2016. I cannot comment on anything that transpired within the classified space. However, there was substantial reporting on the discrepancy between the measures implemented by U.S. drone strikes during the engagement, and measures implemented by Iraqi helicopters during the engagement. I encourage you to think about what that discrepancy might mean, if true, about how you're using those numbers.
I don’t think the guy is missing the point here.
Looking at the breakdown:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20...
I dont see how it can be seen as anything but a humanitarian disaster
Looking at the breakdown:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20...
I dont see how it can be seen as anything but a humanitarian disaster
Actual combatants have been estimated closer to 150,000 (the only numbers we have are DOD numbers which have been shown to be highly suspect whenever things have been leaked from people like Chelsea Manning).
[deleted]
> “We killed two innocent men and a charger,” the U.S. official wrote in a personal journal that day, using the military jargon “charger,” which means child.
Got to wonder why the need to replace a 5 character 1 syllable word with a longer 7 character 2 syllable word, a little easier to stomach than saying, writing, or feeling like you just killed a child?
Got to wonder why the need to replace a 5 character 1 syllable word with a longer 7 character 2 syllable word, a little easier to stomach than saying, writing, or feeling like you just killed a child?
Just a guess, but it could also be because "charger" is easier to decipher over a bad radio connection.
My guess is saying you killed a child makes you sick to your stomach and it's easier to say charger.
same reason casinos uses chips instead of cash. it reduces the emotional connection by introducing an apathetic layer.
Checkout Ben Anderson's 2 part ~30 minute report from Afghanistan for Vice from around 10 years ago [0][1]. He was embedded with British troops and ANA during a patrol with a lot of gun fights. The British strafed an empty field, almost bombed themselves twice and once an Apache launched a Hellfire missile into a compound with British and ANA troops in it and hit a building where a family with small children were hiding. Noone was hurt luckily. My point being, it's not always malice: sometimes it's just a chain of people making small mistakes and bad decisions that end up adding up.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_yOI_WVGdY
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1JNuFPiTbs
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_yOI_WVGdY
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1JNuFPiTbs
> My point being, it's not always malice
Correct, yet the malice lies on said situations being allowed to continue time and time again, and fester
Correct, yet the malice lies on said situations being allowed to continue time and time again, and fester
Sounds very much like "Generation kill". Soldiers are happy when one day, finally, they kill more enemy combatants than civilians!
It's never malice. Nobody goes, "hey, this compound is 100% only women and children, let's bomb it."
Reality: "A patrol nearby said they took fire from the compound at such and such grid coordinates" It gets bombed. Turns out the unit on the ground was mistaken.
War is hell. War criminals should be punished. But it's not a war crime to make a mistake. I love seeing these posts because it's clear that almost nobody here has experienced war. My ROEs were ridiculously strict on the ground in southern Afghanistan.
It's important to have some context as well:
> According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.
So sure. Both sides have killed civilians. But one side tries it's best to be accountable and limit human suffering while still carrying out missions. The alternative is to not be there at all.
Reality: "A patrol nearby said they took fire from the compound at such and such grid coordinates" It gets bombed. Turns out the unit on the ground was mistaken.
War is hell. War criminals should be punished. But it's not a war crime to make a mistake. I love seeing these posts because it's clear that almost nobody here has experienced war. My ROEs were ridiculously strict on the ground in southern Afghanistan.
It's important to have some context as well:
> According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.
So sure. Both sides have killed civilians. But one side tries it's best to be accountable and limit human suffering while still carrying out missions. The alternative is to not be there at all.
Thank you for this perspective.
> But it's not a war crime to make a mistake.
I suppose that you are from the USA and your family is living there. Imagine that some afghan-controlled drone intended to kill some U.S. soldiers (a legitimate target because they are enemy combatants). But instead they kill your family. If it was a mistake, by the own account of the drone operator, would you still maintain that the killing of your whole family was not a war crime? Would you defend the drone operator in that case? Please notice that at the moment when they were killed, they were just enjoying a picnic in a field, minding their own business, unbeknownst that in another valley a few miles away there was a secret military training camp. I need to hear from you if you honestly think that the murderer of your family would be innocent in that case.
I suppose that you are from the USA and your family is living there. Imagine that some afghan-controlled drone intended to kill some U.S. soldiers (a legitimate target because they are enemy combatants). But instead they kill your family. If it was a mistake, by the own account of the drone operator, would you still maintain that the killing of your whole family was not a war crime? Would you defend the drone operator in that case? Please notice that at the moment when they were killed, they were just enjoying a picnic in a field, minding their own business, unbeknownst that in another valley a few miles away there was a secret military training camp. I need to hear from you if you honestly think that the murderer of your family would be innocent in that case.
There is such a thing as criminal negligence in choosing and attacking enemy targets.
But no, adding a whole bunch of emotional baggage to the act does not suddenly make any collateral death a war crime as you imply here.
Bombing runs are woefully innarcurate though, so the good thing is when we have better weapons we'll start using those instead. Unlike insurgency groups who will often kill civilians as a means. Think that was partly the above poster's point.
But no, adding a whole bunch of emotional baggage to the act does not suddenly make any collateral death a war crime as you imply here.
Bombing runs are woefully innarcurate though, so the good thing is when we have better weapons we'll start using those instead. Unlike insurgency groups who will often kill civilians as a means. Think that was partly the above poster's point.
Why would I defend an enemy combatant? The issue is whether it is a war crime, it is not. That in no way diminishes the horrible hellscape that is war.
>>>If it was a mistake, by the own account of the drone operator, would you still maintain that the killing of your whole family was not a war crime?
That's not a war CRIME, that's just war. If/when the shooting eventually starts with the Chinese (or the North Koreans), I and my family live down the street from some of the likeliest theater ballistic missile targets in the region. If an errant TBM levels my apartment building, I'll absolutely do everything I can to terminate the enemy soldiers with extreme prejudice...but I recognize that they are doing their jobs, and unless it is proven they were clearly aiming for a civilian target (such as a sports event), then no, I wouldn't consider their acts CRIMINAL.
That's not a war CRIME, that's just war. If/when the shooting eventually starts with the Chinese (or the North Koreans), I and my family live down the street from some of the likeliest theater ballistic missile targets in the region. If an errant TBM levels my apartment building, I'll absolutely do everything I can to terminate the enemy soldiers with extreme prejudice...but I recognize that they are doing their jobs, and unless it is proven they were clearly aiming for a civilian target (such as a sports event), then no, I wouldn't consider their acts CRIMINAL.
I'm going to be a little dismissive of the question, but that's how the laws work in the united states. If someone was drunk that's a little different, but from the perspective of someone making a mistake on the road, and a family ends up dead - the person that made the mistake (assuming they prove that in court) does not end up with a murder charge. It may still end up being manslaughter and jail time.
Now to more specifically reply. So in the United States we may certainly have war on our doorstep at some point in the future. But our country tries to prevent that at ALL COSTS. We do so by making sure other countries are stable. We may fuck up by inserting into the wrong countries. but if ALL COUNTRIES just stabilize themselves we would NEVER have to go. And by the way, that's why the united nations was created. It would (or should) never allow the united states to insert themselves in a war that was not just. It may end up in an unjust position, but that's not where we started.
Now to more specifically reply. So in the United States we may certainly have war on our doorstep at some point in the future. But our country tries to prevent that at ALL COSTS. We do so by making sure other countries are stable. We may fuck up by inserting into the wrong countries. but if ALL COUNTRIES just stabilize themselves we would NEVER have to go. And by the way, that's why the united nations was created. It would (or should) never allow the united states to insert themselves in a war that was not just. It may end up in an unjust position, but that's not where we started.
> that's not where we started.
This is just wishful thinking. The difference between the Afghanistan when Bush decided to invade it and now is that the Taliban are stronger, have more equipment, and basically sure nobody will ever invade them again after the lessons they gave to the USSR and the USA.
Same when you look at Irak or Libya. Your idea of stabilizing is completely at odds with what happens in reality.
This is just wishful thinking. The difference between the Afghanistan when Bush decided to invade it and now is that the Taliban are stronger, have more equipment, and basically sure nobody will ever invade them again after the lessons they gave to the USSR and the USA.
Same when you look at Irak or Libya. Your idea of stabilizing is completely at odds with what happens in reality.
> But our country tries to prevent that at ALL COSTS.
I agree. Allcaps included.
> We do so by making sure other countries are stable.
Ehh... that part is more dubious. For example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Central_Intelligence_...
I agree. Allcaps included.
> We do so by making sure other countries are stable.
Ehh... that part is more dubious. For example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Central_Intelligence_...
What am I supposed to be looking at here. I see an operation to capture Osama. Black sites, some weird other stuff. But I am not finding a specific example of something causing instability (at least on purpose).
I counted at least three (successful) coup d'état, and I'm not sure if I should count also the operations in Cuba. Also, there are many items about guerrilla and anti-guerrilla support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponso...
No one else would be given such a charitable viewpoint. Especially since it was a freaking radio that set off the kill process.
Nestled in between "malice" and "honest mistake" is "criminal negligence". When you put yourself in that position - when you invade a country - every resulting civilian casualty is on you. You do not have the moral standing to decide what is and is not acceptable "collateral damage". War is hell, but you chose to make war there. The civilians didn't.
>the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009
Or to phrase it another way, allied forces killed a third as many civilians as the actual Taliban, a regime noted for its extreme brutality and callous attitude to human life. I'm not impressed.
>the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009
Or to phrase it another way, allied forces killed a third as many civilians as the actual Taliban, a regime noted for its extreme brutality and callous attitude to human life. I'm not impressed.
And every time we slaughtered a family in the middle east over the last 20+ years we've given a man or a son or an uncle with no remaining family a reason to hate the US and to revolt against it. There are almost certainly more Taliban and other terrorist group members who have a legitimate reason to dislike the US than there were 20 years ago.
The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked.
Source please.
Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
>>> The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked.
>> Source please.
> Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
If that's "plain old common sense," so is QAnon.
In reality they're both conspiracy theory lies that have the psychological advantage of making the world comic-book simple for their adherents.
>> Source please.
> Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
If that's "plain old common sense," so is QAnon.
In reality they're both conspiracy theory lies that have the psychological advantage of making the world comic-book simple for their adherents.
Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”.
If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem.
It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.
If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem.
It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.
> Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”.
Except that the opinion is question was not formed by critical thinking.
> If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem.
No, there's an important difference between having an a different opinion than "our overlords" and having an opinion that's a paranoid comic book fantasy.
> It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.
That's the kind of claim you need evidence for, it's not something you just get to assume (unless you're fine with defective reasoning processes). Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations." I wouldn't be surprised if that claim spawned from "9/11 truther" conspiracy theories.
Except that the opinion is question was not formed by critical thinking.
> If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem.
No, there's an important difference between having an a different opinion than "our overlords" and having an opinion that's a paranoid comic book fantasy.
> It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.
That's the kind of claim you need evidence for, it's not something you just get to assume (unless you're fine with defective reasoning processes). Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations." I wouldn't be surprised if that claim spawned from "9/11 truther" conspiracy theories.
> That's the kind of claim you need evidence for
Where exactly would such “evidence” come from? Do you think the CEO of Raytheon would ever utter such a statement even if it were 100% true?
> Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations."
I fail to see how anyone could believe that bombing people from the sky and invading a couple countries would win over favor from potential terrorists. In fact, it would seem the exact opposite is true. We should’ve spent the trillions of dollars using economic diplomacy instead. Now, one could argue honestly that our leaders are just complete idiots. I just happen to think they knew exactly what we were doing.
Where exactly would such “evidence” come from? Do you think the CEO of Raytheon would ever utter such a statement even if it were 100% true?
> Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations."
I fail to see how anyone could believe that bombing people from the sky and invading a couple countries would win over favor from potential terrorists. In fact, it would seem the exact opposite is true. We should’ve spent the trillions of dollars using economic diplomacy instead. Now, one could argue honestly that our leaders are just complete idiots. I just happen to think they knew exactly what we were doing.
> Source please.
Maybe not a bullseye, but these are the folks behind "the war on terror." They had a plan for the war prior to 9/11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
Maybe not a bullseye, but these are the folks behind "the war on terror." They had a plan for the war prior to 9/11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
The Patriot Act was sitting in a drawer waiting to be pulled out when the opportunity presented itself. 9/11 gave them the opportunity. Thousands of pages of laws got passed within months, with virtually no review.
[deleted]
> to phrase it another way, allied forces killed a third as many civilians as the actual Taliban
> According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.
Interesting. How do you get one third out of those numbers?
> According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.
Interesting. How do you get one third out of those numbers?
>>>How do you get one third out of those numbers?
25% / 75% = 1/3.
25% / 75% = 1/3.
Strange phrasing. Sounds worse than: America and its allies were responsible for 20-25% of civilian casualties. The UN doesn't use that phrasing.
[deleted]
I would think that deploying lethal force without positive target ID is against ROE.
Maybe not malice but also not just simply accidents - more like negligence. We can't dismiss mistakes in war as simply a cost of doing business.
> But one side tries it's best to be accountable and limit human suffering while still carrying out missions.
Is that side really doing their "best"? I feel like a lot of these mistakes are avoidable with better procedures, training, and reducing being in situations where mistakes are even possible. I'm not expecting a war to go perfectly but is tens of thousands of accidental civilian killings the best we can do?
> But one side tries it's best to be accountable and limit human suffering while still carrying out missions.
Is that side really doing their "best"? I feel like a lot of these mistakes are avoidable with better procedures, training, and reducing being in situations where mistakes are even possible. I'm not expecting a war to go perfectly but is tens of thousands of accidental civilian killings the best we can do?
>>>We can't dismiss mistakes in war as simply a cost of doing business.
When you are putting fallible human beings into the most stressful and demanding situations imaginable, it's unreasonable to NOT factor in a baseline level of human error.
>>>I feel like a lot of these mistakes are avoidable with better procedures, training,
What specific procedures would you like to adjust? Escalation of Force? Rules of Engagement? The entire Joint fires killchain?
https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/its-about-time-the-pressin...
>>>I'm not expecting a war to go perfectly but is tens of thousands of accidental civilian killings the best we can do?
Against adversaries that actively use the civilian population as human shields, or who pretend to be civilians themselves to exploit our ROE? Yeah, that's a decently low casualty rate for TWO DECADES of dropping bombs on a country, across countless thousands of aircraft sorties.
It's still led to some technical solutions to the problem of collateral damage, which is why we have the Small Diameter Bomb family: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb
and also the R9X variant of the Hellfire missile: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ag...
When you are putting fallible human beings into the most stressful and demanding situations imaginable, it's unreasonable to NOT factor in a baseline level of human error.
>>>I feel like a lot of these mistakes are avoidable with better procedures, training,
What specific procedures would you like to adjust? Escalation of Force? Rules of Engagement? The entire Joint fires killchain?
https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/its-about-time-the-pressin...
>>>I'm not expecting a war to go perfectly but is tens of thousands of accidental civilian killings the best we can do?
Against adversaries that actively use the civilian population as human shields, or who pretend to be civilians themselves to exploit our ROE? Yeah, that's a decently low casualty rate for TWO DECADES of dropping bombs on a country, across countless thousands of aircraft sorties.
It's still led to some technical solutions to the problem of collateral damage, which is why we have the Small Diameter Bomb family: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb
and also the R9X variant of the Hellfire missile: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ag...
> it's unreasonable to NOT factor in a baseline level of human error.
I'm not saying human error doesn't exist, but that the amount we tolerate is too high.
> Yeah, that's a decently low casualty rate for TWO DECADES of dropping bombs on a country, across countless thousands of aircraft sorties.
It's easy to reduce that casualty rate: stop dropping bombs on a country for two decades. My point is that the cost of a civilian death is too low. If we considered the moral cost and not just the strategic cost, our calculations would conclude that we can't afford to start this war. The dubious moral reasons for doing it are not outweighed by the moral harm that would result.
I get that you're addressing the technical aspects of collateral damage in a war, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In a justified war, we can tolerate civilian deaths as a necessary evil, but if the war is not just, then aren't all such deaths an unnecessary evil?
I'm not saying human error doesn't exist, but that the amount we tolerate is too high.
> Yeah, that's a decently low casualty rate for TWO DECADES of dropping bombs on a country, across countless thousands of aircraft sorties.
It's easy to reduce that casualty rate: stop dropping bombs on a country for two decades. My point is that the cost of a civilian death is too low. If we considered the moral cost and not just the strategic cost, our calculations would conclude that we can't afford to start this war. The dubious moral reasons for doing it are not outweighed by the moral harm that would result.
I get that you're addressing the technical aspects of collateral damage in a war, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In a justified war, we can tolerate civilian deaths as a necessary evil, but if the war is not just, then aren't all such deaths an unnecessary evil?
[deleted]
We're talking about drone attacks, not invitations to our lemonade social. It is always malice.
This might help clear it up: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malice
This might help clear it up: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malice
[deleted]
> Nobody goes, "hey, this compound is 100% only women and children, let's bomb it."
Actually, people do. That happens fairly regularly in conflicts. Civilians are often a target by policy. Plus, by neglect - superiors not caring what this or that sociopath does.
In Afghanistan case, there was period when per policy anyone with walkie talkie counted as valid target. Phones did not worked. So there is fair chance some attacks hit civilians and it was policy.
Actually, people do. That happens fairly regularly in conflicts. Civilians are often a target by policy. Plus, by neglect - superiors not caring what this or that sociopath does.
In Afghanistan case, there was period when per policy anyone with walkie talkie counted as valid target. Phones did not worked. So there is fair chance some attacks hit civilians and it was policy.
Didn't they knowingly bomb weddings? Is he saying the US was surprised that innocent women and children were at weddings?
But in this case it is malice. The Taliban destroyed cell phone towers so walkie-talkies were extremely common. Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.
>Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.
Anywhere I can find info on this?
Anywhere I can find info on this?
https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-fa...
This link was posted in another thread and seems to be the source that broke the news today.
This link was posted in another thread and seems to be the source that broke the news today.
Yea but you said the US "declared" "every" person w/ a radio a "target".
This story doesn't show any of the 3 words I put in quotes.
Edit: can I get an explainer on the downvotes to both my comments?
This story doesn't show any of the 3 words I put in quotes.
Edit: can I get an explainer on the downvotes to both my comments?
You could try to explain what you think the difference between
> US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.
and the policy described in the article is, attempting that will likely lead you to why you are downvoted.
> US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.
and the policy described in the article is, attempting that will likely lead you to why you are downvoted.
1. The US did not make any sort of declaration
2. Not everyone with a walkie talkie will have this new guideline applied to them. Even just going off the article, someone with a radio could be treated with suspicion by these new guidelines, as they could be a spotter.
3. They are not defacto a "target" as described above^, although that is what the poster claimed.
The poster's statement was hyperbole to the point of being an outright lie.
The poster's statement was hyperbole to the point of being an outright lie.
they said "a legitimate target", not "everyone was targeted".
That's not the US military's position and the linked article doesn't even make that claim.
(Had to wait since I was silently barred from posting due to 'karma'/downvotes. Not a great algo for public discussion imo, although I acknowledge this thread is now in the weeds. At the very least it should be made public and obvious that I cannot reply.)
(Had to wait since I was silently barred from posting due to 'karma'/downvotes. Not a great algo for public discussion imo, although I acknowledge this thread is now in the weeds. At the very least it should be made public and obvious that I cannot reply.)
[deleted]
If it's a choice between malice and incompetence then I say incompetence is malice.
it's not malice. it's more the recklessness and carefree attitude towards collateral damage just because of the war mindset. like "looks like a threat, let's bomb it in case. if any innocents get hurt everyone will understand it's just a casualty of war"
> The answer is much worse than I could imagine: “a guy with a radio … which is reasonable grounds for suspicion”. Nothing accidental about it. These should be considered war crimes.
nothing new, there's a well known quote from a former NSA/CIA director: "We kill people based on metadata" [1]
[1] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base...
nothing new, there's a well known quote from a former NSA/CIA director: "We kill people based on metadata" [1]
[1] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base...
Before they were killing people with two-way radios they were killing sim cards the algorithm said should die :( (or so I hear).
>> seeing as they usually had no idea who or where the enemy was.
CIA considers any Adult Male over 16 and under 65 to be "the enemy" in most of these places...
CIA considers any Adult Male over 16 and under 65 to be "the enemy" in most of these places...
> These should be considered war crimes.
It's not a war crime unless you lose the war.
It's not a war crime unless you lose the war.
The US didn't exactly "win".
It didn't lose to the extent that indemnities could be imposed on it.
America’s drones have made children afraid of blue skies in more than 7 countries over the course of the past two decades.
I’m not sure anyone really knows why or what has been achieved by it.
I’m not sure anyone really knows why or what has been achieved by it.
Google is complicit. In 2017-2018, Google Cloud division developed software for the US military to watch drone footage and classify things like "man with a radio". Diane Greene, Urs Holzle, and Jeff Dean got up and lied about it to me and other Googlers in a meeting in April 2018. Specifically, they said it was only a $9M project, but it was already negotiated to $18M and on track for $270M of extensions. They also said a lot of words trying to rationalize their moral failure, greed, and callousness.
Do you know what keyhole can do?
A Hellfire missile apparently costs $150K [0].
Given that it's apparently OK to launch one of these at a single suspected enemy informant, couldn't we have saved a lot of time, money and lives by just bribing the entire population of Afghanistan to not do things that the West doesn't like?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire
Given that it's apparently OK to launch one of these at a single suspected enemy informant, couldn't we have saved a lot of time, money and lives by just bribing the entire population of Afghanistan to not do things that the West doesn't like?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire
The money for a missile could be given to the population, but then it would not go to the missile’s manufacturer. But the whole point of the war is to give money to arms makers. They are the only ones who benefit from the war and who lobby for it.
Infrastructure and industry were the solution to Afghanistan. A tribe which owns a large share in the local mining operation is a tribe which does its best to keep the peace.
The US could have built a lot of roads and propped up a lot of barely profitable enterprises with the money spent on all those military operations.
The US could have built a lot of roads and propped up a lot of barely profitable enterprises with the money spent on all those military operations.
>just bribing the entire population of Afghanistan to not do things that the West doesn't like?
Lol we also did that.
Lol we also did that.
No, most of the foreing aid got stolen by the corrupt Afghan government. see https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/taliban-take-kabul-via-path-... . They didn't even pay their servicemen, that's the reason for the quick surrender. Interesting why very few in the US are asking how they could spend more than a trillion of the taxpayers money without any oversight.
Well the strategy was technically always to bribe the warlords, bribing random citizens is ineffective.
But I'm confused why you think we disagree.
But I'm confused why you think we disagree.
So like 30-50k per person for the total cost of the war. Or 1.6k-3k per year. I guess that's doable but it's probably not a lot of money. Plus the power structures still want to take advantage of any situation, it's not like 3k is going to pacify a warlord in the country.
So nope let's go with teh hellfire.
So nope let's go with teh hellfire.
[deleted]
[deleted]
As much as I love to check hackernews, I’m not normally able to chime in with relevant information on most topics. I feel like this may be one where I can actually do that though as I’m former military and my job directly related to drones on a daily basis. Depending on what’s asked, I may not be able to answer but I’d love to help by sharing any knowledge or information on the subject that I can as I’ve gained so much from others sharing on different topics on here. Ask away and I’ll check back in 15-20 minutes.
Editing to add on that I’ll continue to check back on this for at least the rest of the day in case there’s anything else I can potentially shed more of a light on.
Editing to add on that I’ll continue to check back on this for at least the rest of the day in case there’s anything else I can potentially shed more of a light on.
How much accountability do remote pilots have for incidents like this? I.e., is there an ammo budget? What happens if a pilot decides to "go GTA" and destroy things for fun?
To be clear and so I’m not misleading, I was neither a pilot or a sensor operator so I cannot guarantee you that there isn’t more to it than what I know. As far as I understood the drone pilot works in conjunction with a sensor operator. Because the drone pilot is an officer he is the one to fire the missile but the sensor operator controls the laser to direct the missile. I would strongly believe that there are other emergency stops available due to my experiences but at the bare minimum, the sensor operator could always direct the missile away and the sensor operator themselves can’t do anything without the pilot actually launching the missile.
Editing to add in that hellfire missiles cannot be redirected once launched.
Editing to add in that hellfire missiles cannot be redirected once launched.
> "go GTA"
Is this an actual thing people think drone operators do? Surely the same that would happen to any military personnel who did the same with their weapons, except with a drone there's perfect camera footage to evidence it as well.
Is this an actual thing people think drone operators do? Surely the same that would happen to any military personnel who did the same with their weapons, except with a drone there's perfect camera footage to evidence it as well.
One of the other major things that made me want to offer any information I can is the lack of knowledge on the topic I’ve seen posted on here and places like Reddit. I just would never attempt to have an actual discussion on Reddit though. When you have a topic so shrouded in secrecy and the only articles that people see about them are articles like these, it’s not too surprising though. There’s just so many variables to account for from the administration in office during the strike, to the human managers that happened to be on the clock at the time.
I still don't see what's unusual about drones. What stops fighter pilots from doing the same thing?
Would you still have signed up if you knew then what you know now?
I want to preface this with the fact that a few specific incidents left me disillusioned with the military and that I don’t think people really understand just how horrible war is. That being said I wouldn’t change the decisions I made. I truly believe the work that I did was a net positive and that my work contributed to saving the lives of both military members and civilians. Unfortunately not everything goes perfectly and I still struggle with those things mentally to this day. The things that do still haunt me aren’t the extremely hard to avoid tragedies, they were the events caused by poor leadership and people being placed in positions they didn’t deserve to be in. I think one thing most people don’t consider is that at the end of the day the military and government overall work and function very similarly to the businesses they work or have worked at. The big difference is that the incompetent manager doesn’t mess up part of a presentation, order, or whatever else you may be working on. It leads to innocent lives being lost to an avoidable situation and ends up being referred to as a tragedy.
Back when I enlisted, I decided that I would rather live with the regrets of joining than the regrets of not joining.
If you may indulge me as someone who's not martially minded, may you please give a few examples of what could be the regrets of not joining?
It was simply something that I wanted to do. Not joining would not be true to myself.
A friend and I were having a discussion about the merits of the war. He was antiwar, and I was not opposed to it. During the discussion he asked me "Why don't you join up then?"
I didn't have an excuse. Either I need to change my political beliefs, I am a coward and a hypocrite, or I should join. I joined.
My political beliefs have since changed. I am much closer to a libertarian now than I was before. I still am not antiwar, sometimes violence is the answer.
I learned firsthand the meaning of "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times."
A friend and I were having a discussion about the merits of the war. He was antiwar, and I was not opposed to it. During the discussion he asked me "Why don't you join up then?"
I didn't have an excuse. Either I need to change my political beliefs, I am a coward and a hypocrite, or I should join. I joined.
My political beliefs have since changed. I am much closer to a libertarian now than I was before. I still am not antiwar, sometimes violence is the answer.
I learned firsthand the meaning of "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times."
Given this is HN -
What did you see in your time in the military regarding drones and drone operations that don't have good equivalents in the civilian world (and that isn't classified and has real civilian world uses)?
Similarly, what does the civilian world do better?
Anything you wish someone would build to make life easier?
What did you see in your time in the military regarding drones and drone operations that don't have good equivalents in the civilian world (and that isn't classified and has real civilian world uses)?
Similarly, what does the civilian world do better?
Anything you wish someone would build to make life easier?
What's the mood like? Are people excited to plug in and kill the baddies? Or is it just another day in the office yada yada Mondays are the worst? Do you prefer operators with previous gaming experience? Were there ever any operators that refused mission orders? how hard would it be for someone(higher ranking) to override an operators mission?
Think about this for a second.
Your family is walking into Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods and all get killed by a missile from the sky. Or you send your children off to school and the school gets accidentally hit by a missile. Killed in an instant and the family of those victims listed above have no idea why and have zero recourse.
If this started happening on US soil on a daily basis, I wonder if more people would care. The top comment here is talking about the article text and AI vs. the topic of the article.
FTA - 3,797 we’re killed by drones. They were killed by drones they had no chance to defend themselves against.
Your family is walking into Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods and all get killed by a missile from the sky. Or you send your children off to school and the school gets accidentally hit by a missile. Killed in an instant and the family of those victims listed above have no idea why and have zero recourse.
If this started happening on US soil on a daily basis, I wonder if more people would care. The top comment here is talking about the article text and AI vs. the topic of the article.
FTA - 3,797 we’re killed by drones. They were killed by drones they had no chance to defend themselves against.
To be fair, civilians have no way to defend themselves against any even semi organized army.
This did happen on US soil: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/move-1985-bo...
Police brutality is our domestic version of drone strikes. No chance to defend yourself and zero recourse.
Do we care an adequate amount about it? Maybe, although it seems to not be the culture's cup of tea right now as much as it was in 2020.
Police brutality is our domestic version of drone strikes. No chance to defend yourself and zero recourse.
Do we care an adequate amount about it? Maybe, although it seems to not be the culture's cup of tea right now as much as it was in 2020.
Whole section about "Trump ended a rule requiring reports of all deaths from drone attacks" an not a single word about the fact that Obama made thous rules just before he left office.
This is not Journalism, if you fall for such political theater and intentionally placed stones for the next administration to look bad you are not a real journalist.
PS: I'm from Europe you can down vote anyway if you want ;)
This is not Journalism, if you fall for such political theater and intentionally placed stones for the next administration to look bad you are not a real journalist.
PS: I'm from Europe you can down vote anyway if you want ;)
[deleted]
Original source but not accessible from the EU:
https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-fa...
https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-fa...
It's great to live in Ukraine. You have all the downsides and none of the benefits of the EU.
bearclaw89(5)
Is it cynical to think this was intentionally leaked to boost support for withdrawing from Afghanistan?
The military method to define any male (and sometimes women) above a certain age as an combatant was leaked 2010. This is simply a reminder that the same indiscriminating warfare are continuing.
If anything this article reminds me of domestic terrorists that define a certain demographic as being enemy combatants and then goes to indiscriminate killing spree. The major difference seems to be that the military personal who actually operated the drones know that what they are doing is wrong, otherwise the room would not have gone silent when the two civilians and their child got killed. Then when it comes to write the report the two civilians becomes combatants and the killing get internally justified.
If anything this article reminds me of domestic terrorists that define a certain demographic as being enemy combatants and then goes to indiscriminate killing spree. The major difference seems to be that the military personal who actually operated the drones know that what they are doing is wrong, otherwise the room would not have gone silent when the two civilians and their child got killed. Then when it comes to write the report the two civilians becomes combatants and the killing get internally justified.
In certain areas of operation, yes. Anyone found in that area is considered hostile. I have not seen anything that would imply that every male in the entire country is considered an enemy combatant.
[deleted]
Is it cynical to think about all the rest of the suppressed material out of the public domain previously to reduce objections to maintaining a military involvement?
The withdrawal doesn't need more support. The public has been calling for withdrawal for years now. It's already popular. The only ones who still support staying are politicians, military suppliers, and the media.
Because spending trillions of $ on war instead of other things isn't enough.
A cynic would probably think this was intentionally leaked to stir up problems that will spill out into the west, leading towards a sentiment of history repeating itself.
Though sometimes the timing of things are just coincidences as many a horoscope has surely taught us about connecting dots that are not connected.
Though sometimes the timing of things are just coincidences as many a horoscope has surely taught us about connecting dots that are not connected.
You think the U.S. government leaked videos of themselves bombing afghan civilians in the middle of tense negotiations with the Taliban?
Entirely dismissing that possibility given the timing would be naive.
Scrolled through the comments to upvote this, or write it if it wasn't already. If it's just leaked it's pretty obvious. If it's older, I still suspect it was dug up again on purpose, but it's less glaring.
Is very reasonable, in fact.
No, it isn't.
It is realpolitik.
Nasty game for nasty people.
And it could lead to outrage and spontaneous attacks on civilians and the troops protecting them.
Well done, whatever are the reasons for publishing it now, initiated by which player ever.
It is realpolitik.
Nasty game for nasty people.
And it could lead to outrage and spontaneous attacks on civilians and the troops protecting them.
Well done, whatever are the reasons for publishing it now, initiated by which player ever.
Aside from delusional Trump loyalists that have now flip-flopped and are praising the Taliban, most Americans overwhelmingly supported withdrawing years ago.
Firstly, any goal you support could be achieved wrongly by terrible means. I support stimulatinf the economy, but not by bringing back child labour
Secondly, there has been a complete failure of leadership in rebuilding afganistan and in communicating to the public that you can't just pack up and leave.
I just listened to the podcast with an afgan vet, he was there for 10 years. On the first year they shipped a hydroelectric turbine to install in a damn. On 10 year when he was leaving, the turbine was still sitting on the construction site, noone even unwrapped it.
Secondly, there has been a complete failure of leadership in rebuilding afganistan and in communicating to the public that you can't just pack up and leave.
I just listened to the podcast with an afgan vet, he was there for 10 years. On the first year they shipped a hydroelectric turbine to install in a damn. On 10 year when he was leaving, the turbine was still sitting on the construction site, noone even unwrapped it.
Another 10 years would not have installed the turbine.
> complete failure of leadership in rebuilding Afghanistan
Agree. It's been a bipartisan failure with the aid of the media for two decades. But it's also an extremely hard problem, and it ties into an area that America is particularly bad at: state capacity. You can't build a government by being anti-government.
> and in communicating to the public that you can't just pack up and leave
Well, you can and they have. This is going to get a bunch of people killed, but that doesn't stop it happening this way, because that has basically zero traction with US voters.
> complete failure of leadership in rebuilding Afghanistan
Agree. It's been a bipartisan failure with the aid of the media for two decades. But it's also an extremely hard problem, and it ties into an area that America is particularly bad at: state capacity. You can't build a government by being anti-government.
> and in communicating to the public that you can't just pack up and leave
Well, you can and they have. This is going to get a bunch of people killed, but that doesn't stop it happening this way, because that has basically zero traction with US voters.
You could just support a bunch of preexisting local warlords instead of trying to build a national army. A lot of them probably don't like the Taliban any more than we do.
That is basically what happened and why army never had trus of many Afghans. It contained local warlords responsible for past atrocities and cruelty.
Some of these were barely better then Taliban.
Some of these were barely better then Taliban.
Ah yes, the bastion of freedom: warlords.
Not to say that this wouldn't work or is a bad idea! But the US would either have to drop the pretense that they're "liberating" Afghanistan or spin such a move harder than they've ever spun before. It was a lot easier during the Cold War when you could just call the Taliban "communist" to justify just about any military or covert action.
Not to say that this wouldn't work or is a bad idea! But the US would either have to drop the pretense that they're "liberating" Afghanistan or spin such a move harder than they've ever spun before. It was a lot easier during the Cold War when you could just call the Taliban "communist" to justify just about any military or covert action.
I wonder if Facebook Twitter etc. banning violent and bloody content has prevented the public from protesting these things more widely. It is well known that TV broadcasts of Vietnam led to outrage growing against that war.
In a similar vein, I wonder if medical privacy laws are hurting us in this pandemic. If every time the hospitals filled up with patients, camera crews went through and documented all of the people suffering and dying, would those who aren't taking the pandemic seriously have their mind swayed? Obviously those medical privacy laws exist for a reason, but perhaps there should be more effort to ethically document suffering?
In both cases, as much as I like to think facts are what sway my opinion, an emotional connection is far likelier to motivate action.
In both cases, as much as I like to think facts are what sway my opinion, an emotional connection is far likelier to motivate action.
There are many documentary videos inside ERs during the pandemic. They blur the faces of everyone who has not consented to be on camera.
In one I recently saw, they interview some very sick patients. They have to use walkie-talkies to speak to them from outside the room. Some of them are having a lot of trouble breathing but still say they don't regret getting the vaccine as they don't trust it.
Videos like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2J8zRftJE
This particular one is closer to the start of the pandemic but there are numerous others.
In one I recently saw, they interview some very sick patients. They have to use walkie-talkies to speak to them from outside the room. Some of them are having a lot of trouble breathing but still say they don't regret getting the vaccine as they don't trust it.
Videos like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2J8zRftJE
This particular one is closer to the start of the pandemic but there are numerous others.
Wow, the comments on that video. We are just so clueless.
[deleted]
Some of the horrific things I've seen on sites like 4Chan are IMO one of the reasons I'm so empathic and concerned about stuff like this. A few months ago now I saw a really horrific murder there and it messed me up for weeks. I was visibly distant that night I watch it and my girlfriend asked me what was wrong. When I tried to explain I realised there were just no words I could use to invoke a similar emotional response or concern about what occurred.
The 9/11 attacks were awful, but I think part of the reason there was such a strong emotional response was simply because for the most part the media showed us exactly what happened. We saw people dead and others desperately trying to escape. We saw the sacrifices emergency responders had to make. We heard from the heartbroken parents who would never see their child again... So yeah, I think you're right, and I'd even go further to say I think it's probably a duty to watch content like this and does us a disservice when the media sanitises terror attacks (such as the ones which have happened in Europe more recently) when they report on them. As awful as it sounds you need to see parents looking at their now deceased and blooded child to even begin to understand the unbelievable suffering involved in these events. Whenever someone says to me something like "terror attacks aren't a big problems, it's just x number of deaths" you know they're saying that because they're getting sanitised information from the media because that isn't a possible any feeling human could have if they saw the suffering involved. I know a similar unemotional rationales are used in support of drone strikes, and I accept the arguments for against their use are complex, but at the very least there needs to be far more caution and accountability. If there is one thing videos of drone strikes have shown me is that there is currently a total disregard for the loss of innocent human lives by people who know there will be zero consequences for their actions.
The 9/11 attacks were awful, but I think part of the reason there was such a strong emotional response was simply because for the most part the media showed us exactly what happened. We saw people dead and others desperately trying to escape. We saw the sacrifices emergency responders had to make. We heard from the heartbroken parents who would never see their child again... So yeah, I think you're right, and I'd even go further to say I think it's probably a duty to watch content like this and does us a disservice when the media sanitises terror attacks (such as the ones which have happened in Europe more recently) when they report on them. As awful as it sounds you need to see parents looking at their now deceased and blooded child to even begin to understand the unbelievable suffering involved in these events. Whenever someone says to me something like "terror attacks aren't a big problems, it's just x number of deaths" you know they're saying that because they're getting sanitised information from the media because that isn't a possible any feeling human could have if they saw the suffering involved. I know a similar unemotional rationales are used in support of drone strikes, and I accept the arguments for against their use are complex, but at the very least there needs to be far more caution and accountability. If there is one thing videos of drone strikes have shown me is that there is currently a total disregard for the loss of innocent human lives by people who know there will be zero consequences for their actions.
That form of sanitization came from traditional media and civil society.
Did they broadcast violent and bloody content from there?
Genuine question. The downside to fb/Twitter etc allowing bloody/violent content would be that you’d get gore trolls and it would turn into /b
Genuine question. The downside to fb/Twitter etc allowing bloody/violent content would be that you’d get gore trolls and it would turn into /b
Downside for the Twitter/FB stockholders, for sure. Downside for everyone else? In the short term, also yes. In the long term, total upside as we all log out due to said gore trolls.
They could just close the comments for violent content that should be seen and let the still valuable testimony sink in a respectful silence.
They did. Facebook, and Twiter both have plenty of it. The enforcement is obviously very selective.
The selective enforcement is much harder to prove than selective endorsement, and much sneakier at influencing the public opinion.
The selective enforcement is much harder to prove than selective endorsement, and much sneakier at influencing the public opinion.
What’s “Fbtw”?
The mandatory draft probably did more than the coverage.
baybal2(2)
Pretty sure the protests during Vietnam were just as large, if not more so.
Journalism finds a way, like internet, and genetically modified dinosaurs.
Journalism finds a way, like internet, and genetically modified dinosaurs.
> Pretty sure the protests during Vietnam were just as large
That is the parent comment's point: there was more graphic coverage of the Vietnam available to a typical viewer, so the feeling against it was stronger.
That is the parent comment's point: there was more graphic coverage of the Vietnam available to a typical viewer, so the feeling against it was stronger.
And then they had to criminalize drugs to have a publicly accepted reason to violently suppress the protests.
The Iraq/Afghanistan war protests were large at the start, tapered off, and became a non-issue after a few years. Especially in the middle when we were "winning".
Few care about the cost to Afghans. The cost to Westerners has been fairly well hidden from discussion.
Few care about the cost to Afghans. The cost to Westerners has been fairly well hidden from discussion.
hhsbz(2)
The journalist seems reckless for publishing a photo of the journal. Transcribe that to protect your source.
"protect your source?" We don't do that no more. Leakers are either heroes whose integrity must be honored and anonymity protected, or traitors who should be hounded beyond legal authority. Depending on who likes what they said.
> accidental killing of children
On purpose is a war crime now, so it has to be accidental.
Starting/continuing a war is not accidental though. It sure can be baseless (imho most if not all recent US wars were baseless).
On purpose is a war crime now, so it has to be accidental.
Starting/continuing a war is not accidental though. It sure can be baseless (imho most if not all recent US wars were baseless).
The war on ISIS? I heard Raqqa was lovely under their control.
> The war on ISIS? I heard Raqqa was lovely under their control.
You heard something does not make it a good reason to go to war.
Some neighbourhoods of the US are "said to be lovely /s" but does that warrant an invasion?
ISIS took hold of places in Syria because Assad was facing an "attempt to replace" by the US.
You heard something does not make it a good reason to go to war.
Some neighbourhoods of the US are "said to be lovely /s" but does that warrant an invasion?
ISIS took hold of places in Syria because Assad was facing an "attempt to replace" by the US.
[deleted]
I wonder will this hatred ever end;
I wonder and worry my friend;
I wonder;
I wonder, wonder don't you?
- S. Rodriguez
Can someone explain the origins of the slang for 'charger'? That one would not occur to me.
We didn't use this term in Iraq, so I wouldn't call it "military jargon for child" like the article does.
It is common for units to come up with code words for various things, especially when the topic is emotionally charged or could be used for propaganda or intel. For example, almost nobody would use the term "FKIA" over the radio, even on a secure channel; they might say "flowers" instead.
It is common for units to come up with code words for various things, especially when the topic is emotionally charged or could be used for propaganda or intel. For example, almost nobody would use the term "FKIA" over the radio, even on a secure channel; they might say "flowers" instead.
River City = reduced comms = something very bad happened, probably KIA
Thanks. I never knew that River City = Reduced Comms. Sure I knew what it was and what it was for but never what the codeword was originally.
It means someone who starts running towards a group of soldiers. This may mean they are carrying explosives, but it may just be a play to get the soldiers to shoot an unarmed child in broad daylight.
If that is the case, a charger is someone that poses a potential threat to a service member due to physical proximity. Turning around and using that term to refer to a kid on the back of a motorcycle you killed from thousand of miles away with an errant drone strike seems disingenuous.
Is the idea to pollute the record of history by using the term incorrectly?
Is the idea to pollute the record of history by using the term incorrectly?
[deleted]
Probably from "charge" in its sense of something to take care of
This reads like an AI-generated translation. It looks like the source that they're plagiarizing is this Daily Mail article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9924567/US-drone-pi...
The points of difference have a strong smell of machine translation. E.g. "Killing for the sake of killing" turns into "I’ll kill you for the killing"; "Connecting Vets" becomes "Veterinary connection".
@dang This article should probably replace the submitted URL (edit: or alternatively, that article in the top reply comments)
related discussion thread: (identifying abuse of machine translation in published journal papers)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28107614 ("Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science")
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9924567/US-drone-pi...
The points of difference have a strong smell of machine translation. E.g. "Killing for the sake of killing" turns into "I’ll kill you for the killing"; "Connecting Vets" becomes "Veterinary connection".
@dang This article should probably replace the submitted URL (edit: or alternatively, that article in the top reply comments)
related discussion thread: (identifying abuse of machine translation in published journal papers)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28107614 ("Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science")
From another comment chain (credit to @belter), this seems like the original source: https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-fa...
Comment chain (along with archive link for EU access): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28299929
Comment chain (along with archive link for EU access): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28299929
I've edited my comment above to clarify an ambiguity. The Daily Mail article isn't the original source of the news story, but it's the textual source that the submitted URL is plagiarizing off of.
Given the video in the link that you sent - I wouldn't say that it's "accidental" - they said they killed anyone who met the "criteria" and the "criteria" was anyone who touched a walki talki because the Talian has taken the phones offline and they suspected ISIS was communicating via walki talki. This was described as basically killing for the sake of killing (agree) - but accidental makes it sound a lot less sinister.
They are describing a particular incident when they were aiming at a man carrying a walky-talky, but the missile instead struck a different motorcycle with two adults and toddler. So killing those three people were accidental.
> This site isn't currently available in the EU
Do you happen to know another source or archived version?
Edit: thanks for the updated links!
Do you happen to know another source or archived version?
Edit: thanks for the updated links!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28300227
Added that to the top level as well
Added that to the top level as well
oauea(3)
No it's not, see:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210825045512/https://www.audac...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210825045512/https://www.audac...
Note for other readers: “no it’s not” refers to the Daily Mail not being the original source.
The submitted link (eminetra.co.uk) does look like a ML-generated copy.
The submitted link (eminetra.co.uk) does look like a ML-generated copy.
Correct. Thanks ricardobeat
@dang
Thinking better about it...per suggestion of perihelions maybe change to original source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210825045512/https://www.audac...
or the Daily Mail link?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9924567/US-drone-pi...
Thinking better about it...per suggestion of perihelions maybe change to original source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210825045512/https://www.audac...
or the Daily Mail link?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9924567/US-drone-pi...
When we often look at drones and the advent of AI and the fear of automated killing drones but lets take another perspective. AI that assists in preventing innocents being killed. Still manually controlled but an AI to override hostile action when it deems it wrong. We all focus upon AI to identify and select targets, but an AI to help identify and prevent innocents being impacted - surely that approach would be a worthy goal?
After all - no military want's collateral damage.
The worst part about the use of drones is not the collateral killing of civilians and their children; if done far away it has in the long run next to zero impact on the perception of the war among the attackers families.
By using drones, the attackers are safe; their families won't mourn their beloved ones who won't return back from war zone, therefore they won't experience what war really is about, which has nothing to do with heroism and defending the homeland and other propagandistic idiocy commonly depicted in war movies.
Every country should count their losses after a war, including winners. If we take away that, we eliminate the number one thing that can discourage the creation of an eternal state of war, so all is left is 100% business, which is something the weapons industry and their elected puppets in charge would absolutely love.
One would say: why isnt Afghanistan sending drones to Phoenix or San Diego? What led to this country / group of combattant to be so behind.
Im French and I live in China with a child born here. The two militaries I paid taxes to maintain are able to find ways to resist US aggression to a point where it would become really painful to treat us like they treated Afghanistan, and we are just as old as Afghanistan.
At some point, these people need to move their asses and at least ask for our help. We understand the US is a huge threat to most of us, we're ready to help, if only you make simple compromises.
But no, they ll spend their time in teenage wet dream, exploiting their population, provocking America before being ready to resist them. So they take the drone and we roll our eyes - how can people in 2021 be so blind to how to build a country...
Im French and I live in China with a child born here. The two militaries I paid taxes to maintain are able to find ways to resist US aggression to a point where it would become really painful to treat us like they treated Afghanistan, and we are just as old as Afghanistan.
At some point, these people need to move their asses and at least ask for our help. We understand the US is a huge threat to most of us, we're ready to help, if only you make simple compromises.
But no, they ll spend their time in teenage wet dream, exploiting their population, provocking America before being ready to resist them. So they take the drone and we roll our eyes - how can people in 2021 be so blind to how to build a country...
This person actually just called for Afghanistan to request assistance from China in attacking the US... I don't even... wow...
Straight out of /r/sino
Straight out of /r/sino
> We understand the [British|Soviets|Mujahideen|Americans] is a huge threat to most of us, we're ready to help, if only you make simple compromises.
It's kind of funny to think of Chinese citizens meming themselves into another Forever War the same way Americans did 20 years ago.
Even without context, you have to be seriously ignorant to believe that the right solution is starting a war in Afghanistan!
It's kind of funny to think of Chinese citizens meming themselves into another Forever War the same way Americans did 20 years ago.
Even without context, you have to be seriously ignorant to believe that the right solution is starting a war in Afghanistan!
It's not a worthy goal, because that's not how it's ever going to be fielded. The West has always used its tech to attack entities with far less resources and far less ability to strike back. So the end result is that we use tech to kill more people "because the computer said so". The kids in this article were killed over a radio, not something that is uncommon in Afghanistan and would probably culminate in whole villages being wiped out.
Sadly, you'd be wrong about that last one.
Even in cases where they would want as few casualties as possible, I believe no military would want some "pos tech" telling them what to do (and especially what not to do).
Even in cases where they would want as few casualties as possible, I believe no military would want some "pos tech" telling them what to do (and especially what not to do).
> I believe no military would want some "pos tech" telling them what to do (and especially what not to do).
https://www.wired.com/story/pentagon-inches-toward-letting-a...
Also many an anti rocket/missile system that is automated and AI is (maybe already is in some aspects of tracking) being worked upon.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/10/7/p...
So whilst the step towards automated weapons of destruction does seem inevitable, there is clearly more acceptance of weapons for preventing lives ending unfairly already.
https://www.wired.com/story/pentagon-inches-toward-letting-a...
Also many an anti rocket/missile system that is automated and AI is (maybe already is in some aspects of tracking) being worked upon.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/10/7/p...
So whilst the step towards automated weapons of destruction does seem inevitable, there is clearly more acceptance of weapons for preventing lives ending unfairly already.
The problem is that you imagine that the AI will have the final word, but I imagine that the drone operator will have two button. One to launch the missile and another to override the AI block. And they will just get use to press the two buttons just in case.
On the other hand, AI can be used to identify possible targets, and the drone operator must just click to confirm the strike. The risk is that it's possible to combine an AI with a low threshold to report possible cases and internal rules that encourage drone operators just to confirm any AI report.
On the other hand, AI can be used to identify possible targets, and the drone operator must just click to confirm the strike. The risk is that it's possible to combine an AI with a low threshold to report possible cases and internal rules that encourage drone operators just to confirm any AI report.
An AI can't see more than the human eye looking at the same video feed. They need higher quality optics or lower flying drones.
It's not like this is a hard problem for a human to solve given an image of sufficient quality.
It's not like this is a hard problem for a human to solve given an image of sufficient quality.
I rather avoid an Oblivion like future.
Yes, many do seem to worry about AI more than nuclear weapons - more so if they even cross streams so too speak.
But I do wonder how much of things are driven by worst case hoilloywood visualsations of things. Certainly the whole cold war and peoples mentalities, was very much media driven from the fear aspect. Will AI share the same and will we get to the stage that we see anti AI groups form and the term and history of Luddite gets revised!
Certainly many worry's, but also opportunities. Certainly don't want any AI working out a way to game Asimov's rules of robotics.
But I do wonder how much of things are driven by worst case hoilloywood visualsations of things. Certainly the whole cold war and peoples mentalities, was very much media driven from the fear aspect. Will AI share the same and will we get to the stage that we see anti AI groups form and the term and history of Luddite gets revised!
Certainly many worry's, but also opportunities. Certainly don't want any AI working out a way to game Asimov's rules of robotics.
As the first generation to grow up in freedom after Salazar's dictatorship, having family members fighting in the colonial wars, and knowing enough from PIDE/DGS deeds, I am quite aware how worst cases turn into reality.
I bet HNers with similar life experiences can confirm.
I bet HNers with similar life experiences can confirm.
You do have a point, but note how some predictions have come true. We have a real 1984 going on with only real difference being hashtags along the lines of "omg. room 101. emoji_here".
An old soldiers take: https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_gallimore_why_it_matters_ho...
In summary drones make it to easy for the countries like the UK and the US to kill with no risk to their own service men. The missiles are not magic, there will be collateral damage. Solders on the ground could mitigate this
In summary drones make it to easy for the countries like the UK and the US to kill with no risk to their own service men. The missiles are not magic, there will be collateral damage. Solders on the ground could mitigate this
"kill with no risk to their own service men"
Reducing the risk to your own troops is a fundamental concern of most armies out there and has been for millennia.
Robot warfare is a logical endpoint of such development. I cannot see anyone opting out of this race and remaining militarily relevant.
Reducing the risk to your own troops is a fundamental concern of most armies out there and has been for millennia.
Robot warfare is a logical endpoint of such development. I cannot see anyone opting out of this race and remaining militarily relevant.
> Robot warfare is a logical endpoint of such development
Robot vs. Robot is unlikely to settle wars - we may as well play chess rather than wage war and humans have too much bloodlust to solve differences that way. What is likely to happen is having country A's robots in country B's homeland killing humans, while battling country B's robots in A's homeland. What constitutes a "war front" will be really confusing when the next war between great powers comes.
Robot vs. Robot is unlikely to settle wars - we may as well play chess rather than wage war and humans have too much bloodlust to solve differences that way. What is likely to happen is having country A's robots in country B's homeland killing humans, while battling country B's robots in A's homeland. What constitutes a "war front" will be really confusing when the next war between great powers comes.
The goal of a war usually isn't to rack the highest bodycount, but to break the opponent's will. IDK how this works with fully robotic armies, but some devastation of the homelands is probably expected. The concept of a war front has been already muddled since the advent of airplanes.
> The concept of a war front has been already muddled since the advent of airplanes.
True, but airplanes have to fly back. I'd say cruise missiles, then UAVs/drones and loitering munitions have continued to blur the lines. Having loitering bots of war on the ground will be a further escalation.
True, but airplanes have to fly back. I'd say cruise missiles, then UAVs/drones and loitering munitions have continued to blur the lines. Having loitering bots of war on the ground will be a further escalation.
> The missiles are not magic, there will be collateral damage. Solders on the ground could mitigate this
I have no data about this but my gut tells me a drone could operate more safely than a ground team. The drone pilot is under much less stress while foot soldiers have to make live and death decisions in split seconds.
Also drone strikes are easier to audit than opaque small team operations in enemy territory.
I have no data about this but my gut tells me a drone could operate more safely than a ground team. The drone pilot is under much less stress while foot soldiers have to make live and death decisions in split seconds.
Also drone strikes are easier to audit than opaque small team operations in enemy territory.
You know the worst thing about this, and everything else that's happened in Afghanistan in the past 20 years? The Taliban unconditionally surrendered in 2001: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/08/18/taliban-surren...
Talk about a waste: of lives, of money, of time, of effort that could have gone to far more productive purposes.
Talk about a waste: of lives, of money, of time, of effort that could have gone to far more productive purposes.
According to today's NYTimes, the proffered surrender wasnt quite unconditional - the Taliban requested amnesty in exchange for disarming.
Rumsfeld turned them down on the pretense of demanding unconditional surrender. My suspicion is America's persisting collective rage and the firehose of defense spending were beyond anyone's control at that point.
Rumsfeld turned them down on the pretense of demanding unconditional surrender. My suspicion is America's persisting collective rage and the firehose of defense spending were beyond anyone's control at that point.
Per https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/news/rumsfeld-rejects-pla... which I think is describing the same incident it was not an "unconditional surrender", though it was somewhat close: the conditions were about immunity from prosecution or punishment for Mullah Mohammed Omar (Taliban's leader at the time).
The casualties of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were mostly on civilians. It is not war, it is a genocide or muslim people because they don't want to let the West take their land/resources.
The answer is much worse than I could imagine: “a guy with a radio … which is reasonable grounds for suspicion”. Nothing accidental about it. These should be considered war crimes.