←back to thread

U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

(www.reuters.com)
350 points tepidandroid | 2 comments | 19 Sep 19 16:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.43s | source
Show context
zxcvbn4038 ◴[20 Sep 19 09:44 UTC] No.21024866[source]▶
Notice the wording - the drone targeted the workers. The drone didn’t make a decision and target the workers, the drone pilot targeted the workers, and whomever was standing behind them gave the order to launch the missle. The whole “I’m just doing what the computer said” defense only works in movies.
replies(6): >>21024939 #>>21024956 #>>21025279 #>>21025977 #>>21026083 #>>21026908 #
justin66 ◴[20 Sep 19 14:16 UTC] No.21026908[source]▶
> Notice the wording - the drone targeted the workers. ... The whole “I’m just doing what the computer said” defense only works in movies.

Fair enough, but I would not read too much into that choice of words. For example:

“The workers had lit a bonfire and were sitting together when a drone targeted them,” tribal elder Malik Rahat Gul told Reuters by telephone from Wazir Tangi.

I don't believe that Malik Rahat Gul (or possibly, his translator) was attempting to relieve anyone of moral agency or responsibility, do you?

replies(1): >>21027288 #
1. wstuartcl ◴[20 Sep 19 14:49 UTC] No.21027288[source]▶
I do see at first glance it could be seen as a simple choice of words, however, I do think it really leaves many readers with a different takeaway.

“The workers had lit a bonfire and were sitting together when a drone targeted them,” tribal elder Malik Rahat Gul told Reuters by telephone from Wazir Tangi.

“The workers had lit a bonfire and were sitting together when a drone pilot targeted them,” tribal elder Malik Rahat Gul told Reuters by telephone from Wazir Tangi.

Small change, large impact on the takeaway.

replies(1): >>21027502 #
2. justin66 ◴[20 Sep 19 15:06 UTC] No.21027502[source]▶
Someone needs to tell that guy to choose his words a little more carefully after dozens of his neighbors are killed.

I think the person I was responding to was implying that the wording was chosen to downplay what had been done. I don't think that is likely, given the identity of the only person quoted in the article to use that choice of words.

> Small change, large impact on the takeaway.

Meh.