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

101–110 of 145 posts

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

#101

Post by throwaway6734 »

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.

The US military has made plenty of mistakes but it is easily the fighting force that has done the most to ensure the rise in standard of living across the globe via protection of shipping lanes and maintaining global order

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

#102

Post by boomboomsubban »

bettysdiagnose wrote: post #96
boomboomsubban wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That was after the bombing had already begun and it had to be a "country that wouldn't come under US pressure". I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh.

>country that wouldn't come under US pressure

Given the context of also asking for bombing to stop, that seems like they were trying to stop the US from using military pressure to force their will on Afghanistan. The deal wasn't even considered, who knows what they were actually trying to negotiate.

>I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh

History has now shown the US was willing to torture people associated with al Qaeda, and execute Bin Laden then desecrate his corpse. They were absolutely right to distrust the US there.

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

#103

Post by Supermancho »

rendall wrote: post #87
missedthecue wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

I cannot conclude logically that evidence sufficient for me means that anyone who disagrees is per se operating in bad faith. I'm not going to argue for the Taliban. I have no idea whether they're good faith actors or not. Regardless, they're assholes, and I'm pretty sure, as far as I can ever be, that bin Laden is responsible. But to be fair, "he claimed responsibility" isn't by itself iron-clad proof for anything.…

> Ask them what evidence they would accept no matter how unlikely.

> it means they just have a really high bar.

Nope.

Truth does not require meeting everyone's bar for evidence.

Motive, Opportunity, Means, Confession. Done. Unquestionably culpable, even if only through negligence (in controlling his own messaging).

Just as the US is for various "mistakes" made in targeted attacks.

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

#104

Post by kreeben »

icelancer wrote: post #81
rendall wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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.

bin Laden said he did it. Many times.

That seems to indicate he wasn't very fond of the US. It's not proof, though, of him being the mastermind of 9/11.

If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court?

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

#105

Post by justicezyx »

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…

> made them quite willing to hand over power to the Taliban without a fight this year.

The most ridiculous I saw from your post:

A reasonable citizen, who saw from the very beginning the ridiculousness of the whole thing, in the end, seems to suggest the whole thing should not end so abruptly?

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

#106

Post by icelancer »

kreeben wrote: post #104
icelancer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bin Laden said he did it. Many times.

That seems to indicate he wasn't very fond of the US. It's not proof, though, of him being the mastermind of 9/11. If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court?

>> If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court?

Well, they killed him, so there's that. Hard to bring a dead man to trial.

Also... it was Obama's desire to try Osama bin Laden.

“We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III.” Obama continues: “I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.”

There is no doubt that bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11. It is not remotely controversial or in any way disputed.

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

#107

Post by oh_sigh »

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.

On multiple occasions in my life I've needed to order extra pages for my passport because it was full of stamps. I've been to every continent except for Antarctica and 50 plus countries and have literally never had a negative interaction because of my nationality.

Maybe you need to travel more? You hear "Americans are hated" by.... Americans mostly. And, I would guess, Americans of a certain political bent that say it more as a badge of their identity rather than it being an honest belief in the truth(literally "America's #1!!!", but for liberals). It's a grade school level understanding of the world(as is "America #1") and I find it a fair indicator of stereotype-oriented thought patterns when I hear it.

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

#108

Post by xkcd-sucks »

vmception wrote: post #7

How long until people realize that any authority saying “justified” is not using a definition found in any dictionary. The term used by any American imbued with the option of extrajudicial killings is only to - at best - match your pre-existing agreement with the action or your likelihood of agreeing with authority. “Justified”, for these people, does not mean “other actions were evaluated in a hierarchy and we were…

Substitute "rationalized" for "justified", "lawful" etc.

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

#109

Post by kreeben »

icelancer wrote: post #106
kreeben wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to indicate he wasn't very fond of the US. It's not proof, though, of him being the mastermind of 9/11. If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court?

>> If the CIA/US military was sure of his guilt, why didn't they bring him before a court? Well, they killed him, so there's that. Hard to bring a dead man to trial. Also... it was Obama's desire to try Osama bin Laden. “We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III.” Obama continues: “I mean,…

There is plenty of doubt.

Obama: kill him or try him?

CIA: kill him

Military: kill

Obama: but why not show the world and his followers likewise, what the US of A all about?

And then you did.

There was a time, btw, when it was not remotely controversial or in any way disputed to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was the mastermind behind the assassination of JFK.

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

#110

Post by tomjakubowski »

bserge wrote: post #91
pan69 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After 9/11, the Bush administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq. On the day of the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked his aides for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at the same time. Not only Osama bin Laden."[90] President Bush spoke with Rumsfeld on 21 November and instructed him to conduct a confidential review of OPLAN 1003, the war…

The atrocious English makes me question this Wiki entry.

Rumsfeld wrote weird.
Post reply on HN