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

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

#341

Post by sofixa » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 12:42 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #148

jussij wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'Law of War' clearly defines how attacks on civilians can constitute a ware crime: Article 51(5)(b) forbids any attack ‘which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’. Such attacks will be classified as a war crime. https://leg…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices 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, 14%, 15% and 20% for 2009, 2010 and 2011 were committed by NATO troops? That's terrible, especially considering the Taliban aren't known for their great human rights record.

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

#342

Post by beckman466 » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 1:19 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.

https://twitter.com/SachaBaronCohen/status/10160820330999971...

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

#343

Post by michael1999 » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #334

michael1999 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA ran torture sites around the world, and famously deleted the tapes. That would be a nice start.

I guess I defaulted to understanding this in terms of US troops. What three letter agencies do is beyond me.

You were careful with your claims, and I can understand your desire to defend the reputation of the regular uniforms. But you can imagine how unsatisfying that kind of lawyerly response is to someone on the outside who watches the USA do whatever they damn well please, much less someone kin to the kidnap/torture victims.

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

#344

Post by bayesian_horse » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 2:34 PM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #188

baybal2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 way to fix this is to return the country to city states. No central ruler.

Then the city states go fight each other. Or somebody assembles a large enough militia to loot one city after another. Or multiple city states band together and lord it over others.

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

#345

Post by bayesian_horse » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #184

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…

Why are you sure China had their fingers in there just as well? Why not Japan? Germany? Italy?

Germany and Italy did have troops in Afghanistan, but they worked to keep the peace.

And China has not only a border with Afghanistan, it also has a history of shady dealings with neighbor countries in trouble.

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

#346

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 3:07 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #249

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly? I don't understand. I never understood what was the real reason for the war. Multiple theories have been put forward that I am aware of but they all seem (to me) to be "just so" stories trying to find a post-hoc explanation for what seemed to be an invasion completely without reason. Oil interests, heroin trade, geopolitical advantage, democracy and human rights (actually that was one of the explanations…

> revenge for 9/11, none of all that makes any sense Attacking al-quaeda after 9/11 didn't make sense?

But the US didn't attack Al-Qaeda. It attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. It killed their civilians, destroyed their infrasructure, obliterated their states. How is that attacking Al-Qaeda?

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

#347

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 3:13 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #240

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very heavy accusation to lob at the US people I think. Who says this and where does the 80% number come from? And why would the US people want their country to invade a country on the other side of the world, that was no threat to them and was clearly not capable of defending itself against the might of the US army? Why would the US people want their country to invade anyone? And 80% of them? This I find ver…

https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghani... 88% approval in the US in Oct 2001.

Thanks, also to the other users who linked to sources.

All very disappointing.

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

#348

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

vlan0 wrote: post #244

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very heavy accusation to lob at the US people I think. Who says this and where does the 80% number come from? And why would the US people want their country to invade a country on the other side of the world, that was no threat to them and was clearly not capable of defending itself against the might of the US army? Why would the US people want their country to invade anyone? And 80% of them? This I find ver…

There are likely many factors. In terms of civilian supporting the invastion, or at the very least, being neutral on invading was very much a popular opinion. Patriotism was extremely high following the attacks, and whether it was correct or not, many folks would see not supporting the invasion as unpatriotic. So likely do to social norms and group dynamics, it was unpopular to be against the war. It might be hard to…

So a kind of mass indoctrination to a militaristic concept of "patriotism", as I understand it? A concept that is not satisfied unless someone is invaded.

Thanks for explaining.

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

#349

Post by kodah » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

michael1999 wrote: post #343

kodah wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I defaulted to understanding this in terms of US troops. What three letter agencies do is beyond me.

You were careful with your claims, and I can understand your desire to defend the reputation of the regular uniforms. But you can imagine how unsatisfying that kind of lawyerly response is to someone on the outside who watches the USA do whatever they damn well please, much less someone kin to the kidnap/torture victims.

I think in my most recent memory "war crimes" is a trigger word for an event where a bunch of "activists" harassed active duty service members live on Twitch about war crimes. I shouldn't conflate the two, but they're easily conflatable given how hyperbolic issues are at this point.

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

#350

Post by kodah » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #338

kodah wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geneva convention is internationally set

But the trial was a US military one and not an international. So the US military judges decided if US soldiers did something wrong.

Sort of, but not really. The UCMJ doesn't supersede Geneva Convention; if anything the Law of Land and Warfare builds on it. I can understand why civilians would think that though, we don't really teach people about how the military works so unless you've been in it, it's a black box where you fill in all the knowledge void with supposition.