Once in Guantánamo, Afghan Now Leads War Against Taliban and ISIS | Hacker News Reader

Once in Guantánamo, Afghan Now Leads War Against Taliban and ISIS

nytimes.com

43 pointspma13 comments

More slowly, he recounted the long list of relatives he lost over these decades of calamity, from a brother who died in the war against the Soviets in the 1980s to his 70-year-old brother-in-law, who was beheaded this month. The Taliban killed more than 19 relatives in all.

Indeed, it seems very likely that on the other side there are numerous individuals who have suffered similar losses and fight for similar reasons. And moreover, it seems likely that both sides will continue to inflict further deaths that will continue the process. And here, the idea that the tactic of using drone strike to kill Taliban leaders and "incidentally" many bystanders, could help put an end to the situation seems both absurd and grotesque.

Moreover, for as long as the war on drugs and geopolitical maneuvers pumps significant funds into underdeveloped, lawless areas, conflicts in those areas seem fated to continue in their present fashion - you'll always have machine guns and people with considerable motive to use them against people in the next village. The brutal views of ISIS and similar groups just seems a logical generalization of such a situation.

I guess it's not common knowledge that the ruling Shia-dominated government operated death-squads on a large scale in Iraq, targeting Sunni-ethnicity tribe people group now supporting ISIS/ISIL/daesh/etc.

"Not only counter-insurgency units such as the Wolf Brigade, the Scorpions and the Tigers, but the commandos and even the highway patrol police have been accused of acting as death squads."[1]

One more instance of after X many family members members have been killed, how much effort do you think someone is going to take to get revenge? And how many family members of someone else will they kill in that process?

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

There is an interesting reframing of "us versus them" here [1]:

It's the side of tribalism -- the primitive instinct that says your "group" has to win at all costs, and I honestly don't care how you define your group (race, religion, country, way of life) because ultimately I think there are the only two sides:

A. Those who think their tribe has to dominate Earth; B. Those who think tribes can coexist.

It's especially interesting to see that even when offered revenge on the people who took the life of his family immediately, Hajji chose the longer and more abstract fight against the entire organization whose flag he believes they were operating under.

1. http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-to-keep-terrorists-from-r...

I find it ironic hat the author is dividing all of humanity into two tribes (A and B) and then stating that they cannot coexist.

Except that A by definition has a mandate of non-coexistence.

I'm sure plenty of "it's us or them" people justify it on the basis that the other group thinks "it's us or them."

In any case, I'm not criticizing the author. This sort of thing is a fundamental paradox of tolerance. It's hard to tolerate those who would not tolerate you.

The philosopher Karl Popper wrote about this and called it the Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I hope that this is not another textbook case of abused gets abuser, and "fiercely effective fighter". To put traumatized people at charge, is a good new for the innocent civilians trapped in the villages currently controlled by terrorists?. I doubt so.

How sweet, wonderful propaganda, mean while other innocents at Guantanamo experience the joys of anal rehydration and the Kafka esque life of indefinite imprisonment without trial.

But yeah, I'm glad the NY times can share such heart warming news.

Well, to me, "the US government is keeping innocents in Guantanamo that could be fighting the Taliban and ISIS" doesn't sound like pro-government propaganda.

Trotting out the token good case scenario while torture occurs in the bad case is classic propaganda, but way to defend torture, you get a hold star today.

It is a much better story than: Former prison camp detainees join ISIS with renewed vigor (certainly the most likely scenario)

And unfortunately with a much better reason.

So when the NYT maintains such a page, is it also part of their propaganda?

http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo

And when Newsweek reported on a case that reflects negatively on the US, is it also propaganda?

http://www.newsweek.com/morocco-delays-terrorism-trial-relea...

Not to mention the controversial one it published in 2005:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Quran_desecration_controv...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com