Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by darawk 2783 days ago
> In any built-up area

Was it being done in built-up areas? I see the word 'rescuer' being used in these articles. But I notably do not see the word 'civilian'. A terrorist who tries to save the lives of his terrorist buddies is still a 'rescuer', and that's exactly who these drone strikes ought to be targeting.
1 comments
PhasmaFelis 2782 days ago
The term "village" is used repeatedly. If you think that--when there's an explosion in a village--it's reasonable to assume that the only people who rush to assist are terrorists, then you need to provide proof of that, not ask me to prove the opposite. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
link
darawk 2782 days ago
> The term "village" is used repeatedly. If you think that--when there's an explosion in a village--it's reasonable to assume that the only people who rush to assist are terrorists, then you need to provide proof of that, not ask me to prove the opposite. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Do you believe that the CIA is purposefully targeting random villagers for drone strikes?

If yes...why?

If no...then you must believe that the CIA is intelligent enough to have asked the very same question that you have, and concluded that the likely respondents would in fact be enemy combatants.

link
PhasmaFelis 2782 days ago
> Do you believe that the CIA is purposefully targeting random villagers for drone strikes?

Of course not. I believe that the CIA doesn't care who dies as long as they get their guy, and if they make everyone afraid to help drone strike victims, then it's much more likely that any terrorists who survive the initial attack will bleed out on the ground. (Innocents too, but they don't care about them.)

This is hardly an unusual claim. You can't be unaware that the CIA is infamous for decades of murder and abuse.

link
darawk 2782 days ago
> Of course not. I believe that the CIA doesn't care who dies as long as they get their guy, and if they make everyone afraid to help drone strike victims, then it's much more likely that any terrorists who survive the initial attack will bleed out on the ground. (Innocents too, but they don't care about them.)

So, your supposition is that the CIA is purposely killing civilians to deter them from giving aid to possible terrorists?

> This is hardly an unusual claim. You can't be unaware that the CIA is infamous for decades of murder and abuse.

The CIA has certainly assassinated people over the years. They've certainly fomented revolutions and meddled in geopolitics in myriad ways. I'm unaware of any explicit campaign to target civilians, though. Are you?

link
PhasmaFelis 2782 days ago
> So, your supposition is that the CIA is purposely killing civilians to deter them from giving aid to possible terrorists?

That's what I just said, yes.

> I'm unaware of any explicit campaign to target civilians, though. Are you?

There's been enough evidence presented so far that I believe it's now on you to demonstrate that it's false, if you can.

Maybe this has worked for you before, demanding indisputable evidence for every fiddly detail, hoping that your opponent takes the bait and gets bogged down in minutiae?

link
darawk 2782 days ago
> There's been enough evidence presented so far that I believe it's now on you to demonstrate that it's false, if you can.

Zero evidence has been presented that the CIA targeted civilians intentionally. All you'd have to do to prove me wrong is link it, if it's already here.

> Maybe this has worked for you before, demanding indisputable evidence for every fiddly detail, hoping that your opponent takes the bait and gets bogged down in minutiae?

Maybe this has worked for you before? Where you insist evidence has been supplied elsewhere without ever providing any of your own?

link