Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure • Hacker News Board

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#171

Post by throwaway0a5e » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

Pet_Ant wrote: post #126

koheripbal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…

> IMO, "nation building" is always an impossible mission. The objective should have been to attack, destroy the enemy, and leave - immediately. They should never do anything that makes the lives of ordinary Afghans worse who suffered more from the Taliban than the US. You can’t just bomb a country, create a power vacuum, and nope out of there. Moral cowardice in the extreme. As a counter example see Japan and Iraq.

And this sort of thinking is exactly how we wound up stuck there for 20yr.

Voter block A wants to bomb them back to the stone age and leave.

Voter block B won't tolerate wrecking the place without some pretext of "helping the people" or whatever that means.

So the compromise is to wreck the nation then spend 20yr pushing food around our plate as though we're actually going to rebuild it until voter block B is satisfied that we gave it the college try.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#172

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #112

beckman466 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone should interview him and see how he sees himself and his role, and does he consider himself to be a war criminal. Sacha Baron Cohen. Seriously, Sacha's interview with Dick Cheney where he asked him to sign his waterboarding kit was pure gold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUnUoeLSIM

That man is pure gold. Sadly the video is geoblocked, I'll have to find some alternative source.

[deleted]

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#173

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

blunte wrote: post #118

koheripbal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…

Until the full report of the investigation is released to the public, it's pointless to speculate on the decisions made after 9/11. There certainly appears to be indication that the real people behind it were not targeted for retribution. These days, unless the money trail is followed to its source, you never really know the full story. Yes I'm intionally not naming names/groups/countries, but we probably know who I'…

>> It would not be the first time that a symbolic gesture was made that would appease the victims while not actually punishing those responsible. [ed-spelling]

It's a human universal, unfortunately.

https://youtu.be/ikTrjQ3Cdbo?t=78

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#174

Post by rayiner » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

blunte wrote: post #2

Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Same as with CEOs, if you only punish the organization and not specifically the leaders, there is no disincentive to doing it again. Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. But it would require leaders of other major powers/countries to push for this. But… this will never happen because almost no leader want…

There is already an accountability mechanism: impeachment, voting out of office, etc. What you’re demanding is that non-Americans be able to depose American elected officials, which is absurd. It’s world government accountable to no one.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#175

Post by nradov » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #88

zozbot234 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been any legitimate, benevolent government there in living memory? Perhaps they're simply better off with a king, much like the frogs in Aesop's tale.

No, there weren't. The one king which ran off to Italy was somewhat moderately legitimate, and moderately popular, but not enough to survive having his key people assassinated, nor to gain meaningful foreign assistance (USA denied his plea to save his ass from communists.) It were Britishers who started this mess 140 years ago, and they must be the ones to fix this.

The British have no capability to fix this.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#176

Post by oaiey » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #123

blunte wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the first line of defense against such an invasion would be to agitate the farmers, causing them to drive all their tractors back into town. It's pretty difficult to get anything done with them ruining all transportation.

You'll certainly slow down the calvary units with tactics like those.

When they will film that one day it will be glorious. First the landing in the smoke covered canals of Amsterdam, walks through the flower fields and then the final hunt in The Hague by feet due to the tractors.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#177

Post by oaiey » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #144

blunte wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the first line of defense against such an invasion would be to agitate the farmers, causing them to drive all their tractors back into town. It's pretty difficult to get anything done with them ruining all transportation.

> It's pretty difficult to get anything done with them ruining all transportation. If the US turn destroyed all the dikes, then it could use amphibious assault ships for troop transport.

That would be very mean.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#178

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #171

Pet_Ant wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO, "nation building" is always an impossible mission. The objective should have been to attack, destroy the enemy, and leave - immediately. They should never do anything that makes the lives of ordinary Afghans worse who suffered more from the Taliban than the US. You can’t just bomb a country, create a power vacuum, and nope out of there. Moral cowardice in the extreme. As a counter example see Japan and Iraq.

And this sort of thinking is exactly how we wound up stuck there for 20yr. Voter block A wants to bomb them back to the stone age and leave. Voter block B won't tolerate wrecking the place without some pretext of "helping the people" or whatever that means. So the compromise is to wreck the nation then spend 20yr pushing food around our plate as though we're actually going to rebuild it until voter block B is satisfi…

Is it entirely unthinkable to not invade instead?

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#179

Post by rayiner » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

blunte wrote: post #118

koheripbal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…

Until the full report of the investigation is released to the public, it's pointless to speculate on the decisions made after 9/11. There certainly appears to be indication that the real people behind it were not targeted for retribution. These days, unless the money trail is followed to its source, you never really know the full story. Yes I'm intionally not naming names/groups/countries, but we probably know who I'…

After 20 years of the US getting jack shit from Afghanistan, you’d think the “we did it for the oil” people would have moved on. But no.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#180

Post by Clubber » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 1:38 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #76

You also shouldn't forget to hold the other powers to account that made it impossible to have peace in Afghanistan. Russia put out bounties on US soldiers, Iran armed the Taliban, Pakistan sheltered them and I'm sure China had their fingers in there just as well. The Taliban have never been the legitimate, much less the benevolent government of the Afghan people. If you've seen "The Handmaid's Tale" you have a genera…

>Russia put out bounties on US soldiers

That was BS. It's amazing what you find out when people are actually under oath. It was likely an intelligence "leak" to keep us in Afghanistan. These are the same organizations that tried successfully to convince us of "WMDs." I'm not sure why people continue take what they say at face value anymore, especially the news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_bounty_program

The Department of Defense (DOD), in testimony in July 2020 to the House Armed Services Committee by General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, said that U.S. defense intelligence agencies had no information to corroborate reports of a Russian bounty program in Afghanistan[37] and lacked evidence of "cause and effect linkages to a Russian bounty program causing U.S. Military casualties."[5][38]

Citing credible unnamed sources, on June 26, 2020, The New York Times reported on a Russian military program to pay bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American soldiers in Afghanistan.[17] Two days later, The Washington Post reported that the bounty program had resulted in the death of at least one U.S. soldier.[16]