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

The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#41

Post by [deleted] »

bostonsre wrote: post #36
spamizbad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US brought the practice of Bacha bazi[1] back into the mainstream with the tasset approval of the US military (basically US service members aren't permitted to interfere or discourage it). It was banned and severely punished under the Taliban. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

Again, not saying both sides are without fault, but everyone seems to ignore the fact that the taliban do horrible shit too. What do the taliban do to girls that go to school? The war is not black and white; good versus evil. Almost nothing in the world is that simple and straightforward. Do you honestly think it would become a great place to live if the US just withdrew? This is not a competition to count up who did…

[deleted]

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#42

Post by Fnoord »

cbozeman wrote: post #28
wonder_er wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was born/raised in the USA, and it's obvious that this OP is an American. > Actions like these damage American moral authority in the region America (well, technically, the federal government of the United States of America) has not had an ounce of credibility in 15 years, at least. It's laughable to assume otherwise. The USA has 5% of the global population. The rest of the 95% of the globe's population harbors no…

Please get rid of all your cobalt-containing electronics. You're part of a system of African child slave labor.

Most cobalt is from DRC and almost all cobalt from there is derived from child labor. It isn't slave labor; they get paid, though low wage. However child labor is bad as it is. It isn't as simple as boycotting though; families depend on the income. They shouldn't; children should go to school.

That's why the Fair Cobalt Alliance (FCA) [1] was initiated.

[1] https://www.theimpactfacility.com/commodities/cobalt/fair-co...

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#43

Post by drewcoo »

chrisco255 wrote: post #37
ahelwer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What corruption? This is all intentional. America benefits greatly from mass murder & destruction of countries who are insufficiently deferential to the hegemony. Countries can't keep natural resources to themselves; American corporations must be let in to siphon wealth back to the imperial core. Don't like it? Enjoy having your economy destroyed & government overthrown. With a few generations' worth of atrocities ju…

No it doesn't. An elite class of beltway insiders benefits to the detriment of the greatest portion of the American public. We've spent trillions on war and what return has the average American seen? Middle class is squeezed out. And no, our economy does not recoup as much as we spend on unproductive wars. Our economy was fine when we were non-interventionist.

> what return has the average American seen?

A return to the polls to vote for more of the same!

> when we were non-interventionist

When exactly was that? Was it when the US was only indirectly involved via education, assistance, and spook-craft? When it was only involved in "police actions" and not wars? Are we strictly speaking about the US government or also US corporations? The US has always been involved in foreign conflicts from the start.

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#44

Post by contingencies »

1cvmask wrote: post #35

This happens in every American war. The perpetrators are often promoted and encouraged. And the media often is involved in the “coverup”. In Indonesia the CIA orchestrated rebels and then a coup that resulted in the killing of over 3 million locals. And mainstream American media were involved in the cover up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia https://www.workers.org/indonesia/chap2.html http…

FWIW the gist of the opening chapter of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, set in Indonesia, was confirmed for me by an Indonesian diplomat.

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#45

Post by AndrewBissell »

drewcoo wrote: post #43
chrisco255 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't. An elite class of beltway insiders benefits to the detriment of the greatest portion of the American public. We've spent trillions on war and what return has the average American seen? Middle class is squeezed out. And no, our economy does not recoup as much as we spend on unproductive wars. Our economy was fine when we were non-interventionist.

> what return has the average American seen? A return to the polls to vote for more of the same! > when we were non-interventionist When exactly was that? Was it when the US was only indirectly involved via education, assistance, and spook-craft? When it was only involved in "police actions" and not wars? Are we strictly speaking about the US government or also US corporations? The US has always been involved in fore…

> A return to the polls to vote for more of the same!

Actually no, in 2008 Obama won a solid victory while sounding notes of change and ending the wars. Then he got elected and did what he was put there to do, which was sell the people out.

The elites have been exercising their veto over the peace vote since 11/22/63.

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#46

Post by disown »

enriquto wrote: post #33
disown wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with the ridiculous amount of "Smith is an unreliable narrator" narrative all of a sudden? Seems like every time 1984 is mentioned, you get a comment about "Smith and unreliable narrator"? > Real regimes don't mildly torture problematic people and then keep them around at length "Mildly torture"? Did we read the same book? The torture in 1984 was as systematic and torturous as possible. Of course it's fiction,…

Unreliable narrator [0] is literary device that any writer can chose to use, it has nothing to do whether the described events are facts or fiction: it can be used for both. I don't think at all that 1984 uses this technique, but if it did it could be interpreted that Smith was receiving mild torture but describing it as brutal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator

I know what an unreliable narrator is. There are hints/clues within the story to show why the narrator may be unreliable. You can't say a narrator is unreliable because the fictional world does not align with the real world. That's my point.

It would be like saying bilbo baggins is an unreliable narrator in lord of the rings because magical rings don't exist in the real world. Absurd. But you could say the narrator in fight club may be unreliable since its revealed he has mental issues and the stories don't line up within the movie/book.

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#47

Post by enriquto »

disown wrote: post #46
enriquto wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unreliable narrator [0] is literary device that any writer can chose to use, it has nothing to do whether the described events are facts or fiction: it can be used for both. I don't think at all that 1984 uses this technique, but if it did it could be interpreted that Smith was receiving mild torture but describing it as brutal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator

I know what an unreliable narrator is. There are hints/clues within the story to show why the narrator may be unreliable. You can't say a narrator is unreliable because the fictional world does not align with the real world. That's my point. It would be like saying bilbo baggins is an unreliable narrator in lord of the rings because magical rings don't exist in the real world. Absurd. But you could say the narrator i…

I agree, it is absurd to say that 1984 uses an unreliable narrator (and any other Orwell writings for that matter, it's just not his style).

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#48

Post by 082349872349872 »

enriquto wrote: post #47
disown wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what an unreliable narrator is. There are hints/clues within the story to show why the narrator may be unreliable. You can't say a narrator is unreliable because the fictional world does not align with the real world. That's my point. It would be like saying bilbo baggins is an unreliable narrator in lord of the rings because magical rings don't exist in the real world. Absurd. But you could say the narrator i…

I agree, it is absurd to say that 1984 uses an unreliable narrator (and any other Orwell writings for that matter, it's just not his style).

It's not absurd because in 1984, Goldstein's writing shows evidence of thinking like Orwell (based on Orwell's other writing) and evidence of rational thought processes, while Smith is an extremely dislikable protagonist, a wannabe acid-throwing murderer[1], which makes me think he's cardboard, suitable for the "fast-forward".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737728

[1] part II chap 8. By comparison with 1984, the FBI usually gets violent nutcases to come up with their own scenarios without such explicit prompting, but in real life these sorts of people are not lacking for supposing that (their often paranoidly fictional) ends justify the (thankfully equally fictional, at least when they procure "bombs" from HumInt sources) means, either.

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#49

Post by 082349872349872 »

idoubtit wrote: post #14
BurningFrog wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Orwell's point was that you don't need the death squads to manage tyranny.

Orwell is not subtle enough for this. In "1984" (spoiler) , the tyranny wins because they manage to torture the main characters so much that their spirits were permanently broken. If memory serves right, that was the end of the story. For a classical tyranny were deaths squads are almost never necessary, because mass control is extremely efficient, "Brave New World" is better suited.

Except "Brave New World" isn't a tyranny at all. The only person who comes to a poor end is the savage, precisely because he refused the offer (which Mond envies) of going to the islands.

Mond also summarises why contemporary people are so willing to follow visions like ISIS or QAnon:

"Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."

(NB that BNW was written after WWI, 1984 after WWII, which may, beyond the temperaments of their authors, also explain how the visions got so much darker. Note also that Huxley wrote a much-less-famous utopia near the end of his life.)

Re: The CIA’s Afghan Death Squads

#50

Post by 082349872349872 »

dugditches wrote: post #40
disown wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with the ridiculous amount of "Smith is an unreliable narrator" narrative all of a sudden? Seems like every time 1984 is mentioned, you get a comment about "Smith and unreliable narrator"? > Real regimes don't mildly torture problematic people and then keep them around at length "Mildly torture"? Did we read the same book? The torture in 1984 was as systematic and torturous as possible. Of course it's fiction,…

Because it's the same poster. Least I recall recently reading the concept here a few days ago and found it odd too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25405731

Yes, mostly me, best summarised for the moment at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737728 (tl;dr: of the two fictions, Smith et.al. require far more suspension of disbelief than Goldstein)

As for Smith's torture, I see:

Part 3, Chapter 1: hit on the elbow

Part 3, Chapter 2: beaten, but apparently not enough to break bones. Screamed at, but mostly questioned (not giving leave to urinate is another detail that makes me think Orwell was writing cathartically about his public school days. See "Such, Such Were The Joys".)

Part 3, Chapter 3: restrained. a "dial" of unclear action. scars of unknown origin (and we know that Smith already suffered from varicose lesions well before)

Part 3, Chapter 4: mention of dentures (but had he lost teeth from torture, or from his poor living conditions beforehand?)

Part 3, Chapter 5: failure to be tortured by rats

That's a lot of alleged hours of O'Brien's time, which presumably would be spent (as O'Brien, unlike Smith, got excellent marks on his A levels, thereby getting into the Inner Party) doing something of value for Oceania, rather than enabling Smith's narcissism. It's obvious Smith doesn't have any useful information to give up. How much of an example "pour encourager les autres" could Smith possibly be, considering the oh-so wide, expansive, nature of his circle of friends and acquaintances? The O'Brien of Part 3 is also cardboard, and reminds me of nothing so much as Johnny Hale from "Such, Such Were The Joys".

Consider also:

No sensory deprivation, no waterboarding. Nothing that approaches even Korean-War-era physiological-limit techniques.

Post reply on HN