Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 145 posts

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#71

Post by midasuni »

P-ala-din wrote: post #55
photochemsyn wrote: post #20

The US record in Afghanistan is arguably even more ridiculous (and psychotic) than in Iraq. We went in with a pretty good justification (Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism) - although to be honest, the argument for doing the regime change op in Saudi Arabia was far more robust, as members of the Saudi government aided the hijackers and Saudi Royal family members were a…

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism If we put in mind what we know post hoc about the torture and inhumane interrogation techniques used in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, wouldn't you agree that it's reasonable to assume that there was a high risk of torture? and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition. In fact, let's take it even a step further in…

If that were the real situation then the taliban could have taken Bin Laden into custody and hand him over for trial in a neutral country (say the Netherlands alike Lockerbie trial, or somewhere like China or India)

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#72

Post by holoduke »

pkphilip wrote: post #33
oh_sigh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are hated? I think you hang out in a fairly small social circle if that is the norm. Or are you just one of those self-hating Americans who thinks everyone else is just like you? Guessing that's the case from the use of "y'all"

You should travel more and ask people outside the US what they actually think about US military policy. Note, some people do distinguish between what the US establishment does and what ordinary American civilians do but that is not always the case.

Ordinary Americans are quite nationalistic and rarely leave their country. World knowledge is very poor amongst the mid and low class American citizens.

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#73

Post by propogandist »

GaryTang wrote: post #6

And a more recent airstrike… https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/politics/kabul-drone-strike-u...

This won't get coverage as it would put the blame on Biden administration. NYT is out to try and win support for the current administration, I don't believe they care about actual accountability for wrong doing.

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#74

Post by mannerheim »

rendall wrote: post #70
missedthecue wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Taliban can not be expected to negotiate in good faith. It would be beyond naive to think they would.

Can you say more about that? Why not? Have they broken agreements before?

In this specific case, the Taliban still to this day doesn't believe bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, so their supposed offer to hand over bin Laden back then if they were given proof he was responsible probably wasn't made in good faith.

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#75

Post by GoodJokes »

photochemsyn wrote: post #20

The US record in Afghanistan is arguably even more ridiculous (and psychotic) than in Iraq. We went in with a pretty good justification (Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism) - although to be honest, the argument for doing the regime change op in Saudi Arabia was far more robust, as members of the Saudi government aided the hijackers and Saudi Royal family members were a…

To your first paragraph, there is no ethically sound reason to invade another country. That is where these conversations should begin and end. It also has the added benefit now of not just being ethically correct, but economically correct when it comes to the interest of a nation state.

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#76

Post by rendall »

mannerheim wrote: post #74
rendall wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you say more about that? Why not? Have they broken agreements before?

In this specific case, the Taliban still to this day doesn't believe bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, so their supposed offer to hand over bin Laden back then if they were given proof he was responsible probably wasn't made in good faith.

... I don't see how that follows, logically.

These can all 3 be true: The Taliban does not believe that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. They would hand over bin Laden if they saw credible evidence. Their bar for credibility is quite high.

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#78

Post by lordgrenville »

Barrin92 wrote: post #4
bayesian_horse wrote: post #2

As horrible as those allegations are, let's appreciate that the U.S. military may be about the only military force that is both capable of committing these mistakes/war crimes and investigating them. Just imagine what would happen if Russian or Chinese military lawyers or journalists tried to do something similar.

>U.S. military may be about the only military force that is both capable of committing these mistakes/war crimes and investigating them I'd prefer if they just not did them in the first place. I consider the alleged transparency simply to be a more subtle form of propaganda. It simply exists to give more credibility to warfare. It's in a sense how everything around American society is structured. When you make everyo…

Following through on your analogy, though, this would be akin to "secondary patriotism" - responding to criticism of your country with mitigation: "well, we've done bad things, but at least we have mechanisms for internal criticism and improvement". Put that way it doesn't sound so bad.

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#79

Post by boomboomsubban »

midasuni wrote: post #71
P-ala-din wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism If we put in mind what we know post hoc about the torture and inhumane interrogation techniques used in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, wouldn't you agree that it's reasonable to assume that there was a high risk of torture? and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition. In fact, let's take it even a step further in…

If that were the real situation then the taliban could have taken Bin Laden into custody and hand him over for trial in a neutral country (say the Netherlands alike Lockerbie trial, or somewhere like China or India)

The Taliban offered to cooperate in turning Bin Laden over to another country. The US refused.

Re: How the U.S. hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

#80

Post by missedthecue »

rendall wrote: post #76
mannerheim wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this specific case, the Taliban still to this day doesn't believe bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, so their supposed offer to hand over bin Laden back then if they were given proof he was responsible probably wasn't made in good faith.

... I don't see how that follows, logically. These can all 3 be true: The Taliban does not believe that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. They would hand over bin Laden if they saw credible evidence. Their bar for credibility is quite high.

Why isn't bin Laden saying verbatim to the public that he's responsible enough? If that's not enough, what could the coalition forces possibly say that would convince the Taliban?

There isn't high bar to cross. They've already decided what they think. That's what I mean by 'bad faith'.

Post reply on HN