Slashdot Mirror

Have a good read: http://www.livingunderdrones.o...

If you are deliberately killing innocent people with drones, you aren't doing it right. That is why they don't deliberately target innocent people.

That's the point: they don't deliberately target innocent people. Drones seem to still kill a fuckton of civilians, though.

Former US drone pilot quits, regretting bombing innocents, including children

U.S. Accused of Using Drones to Target Rescue Workers and Funerals in Pakistan

Living Under Drones: Stanford International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic"

Open source and 'bad people' can use your code.

Puh-leese, that ship has already sailed. They worked hard to re-elect a guy who, according to the NYU/Stanford report has killed nearly a thousand civilians with drones, including 176 children, not to mention the number of injured.

That's a fantastically low number for a US president.

Open source and 'bad people' can use your code.

Puh-leese, that ship has already sailed. They worked hard to re-elect a guy who, according to the NYU/Stanford report has killed nearly a thousand civilians with drones, including 176 children, not to mention the number of injured.

If these programmers' work was actually influential in the election's outcome (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument...) then they share in the responsibility for every additional man, woman, and child who will be murdered in the next four years. They could have chosen to work for one of the peace candidates, but declined to.

There are no 'good people' in this equation. There are only political opponents.

The daily mail is your source? Seriously? A tabloid known for sensationalizing its reports, using dubious sources, etc? Wow.

Yup. A much better source is the original report.

"and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble." ... Yeah. That's bullcrap. That is not US strategy or tactic. Never has been.

I.e., the quote from page 74 of said report, "There is now significant evidence that the US has repeatedly engaged in a practice sometimes referred to as "double tap," in which a targeted strike site is hit multiple times in relatively quick succession. Evidence also indicates that such secondary strikes have killed and maimed first responders coming to the rescue of those injured in the first strike.", is false?

(Note that the report wasn't claiming that this was a deliberate attempt to kill or injure first responders, just that it was happening.)

FYI quoting the Daily Mail makes you look like an ignorrant racist. It's widely ridiculed as a poorly researched right-wing propaganda machine in the UK.

I'm not saying they're lying about this particular story

They're not. As the report to which they're referring (as found through the Slashdot story about it) says in the Executive Summary, "Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning." and says, on page 74, "There is now significant evidence that the US has repeatedly engaged in a practice sometimes referred to as "double tap," in which a targeted strike site is hit multiple times in relatively quick succession. Evidence also indicates that such secondary strikes have killed and maimed first responders coming to the rescue of those injured in the first strike."

but I'm willing to bet there are several less inflammatory ways to interpret their source's data.

Yes, a less inflammatory source than the Daily Mail (such as the original report) would have been a better choice.