Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

People take real risks when telling on others. That it may be later revealed and their targets may try to take revenge is part of that.

There's no clear just way to view the entire situation. Though Assange was unreasonable to call them all "spies and traitors", if that's what he did.




> People take real risks when telling on others. That it may be later revealed and their targets may try to take revenge is part of that.

I'm not sure if you meant to defend him but that describes Julian Assange's own situation pretty well.


I only meant to point out that being an informant for occupying force is not some clear cut morally good situation from an outside POV on the informant, when the giving of information leads to:

- killing people by bombings

- locking people up without usual safety/legal process regards, and torturing them (either directly, or by having a pretty nasty jail)

Innocent people are often killed, and locked up. This is not some precise process.

Also being an informant druing war for one side is not the same thing as being an informant for police in the peaceful western country, or informing on curruption via leaks. These are wildly differing contexts.

You can't view informants with high regard, unviersally. People will falsely report on neigbours, to settle some past grudge, because they know trigger happy Americans will bomb/storm the place, if they can make the story plausible enough. Even if you assume good reports, bystanders get killed, or snatched up too. And through all this you have to still assume us-vs-them mentality, that all Taliban members are bad, and informing on them is good.

So there's a grain of truth in the view that was ascribed to Assange, above. But it's unreasonable, to go full way, and make all informants be traitors and whatnot.

There's this book, that makes good points about the complexity of the situation in Afghantistan, and the US intervention:

https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/125006926...


>There's this book, that makes good points about the complexity of the situation in Afghantistan, and the US intervention:

Sorry, no. The US has terrible foreign policy, yes, but religious fanatics like the Taliban are a cancer on humanity. They seek to keep women as chattel and murder homosexuals and anyone else that doesn't conform to their insane ideology.

Anyone who informs on them is a hero, and people like Assange who go after them are villains. It's no coincidence that Assange is buddy-buddy with racists like Sean Hannity (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-ass...). He just wants to be in the news, and doesn't care if he has to stand side-by-side with fascists, racists, and religious fundamentalists to get there.


No, to what? The book is not an advocacy for Taliban.


I'm sure there are lots of fascinating details, unexpected side-effects, and counterintuitive observations to be found in a moral accounting of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. I've watched (and read) "Generation Kill," which examines similar situations in the Iraq War. I have friends and relatives who fought in Afghanistan. I've also read a number of books on the subject. I can appreciate the twisty-turny nature of morality in war, and how not all informants may have good intentions.

On the other hand, the Taliban seeks to keep girls out of school, treat women as chattle, throw homosexuals from rooftops, eliminate the Hazara people, behead apostates, and stone adulterers in football stadiums. Lots of people in Afghanistan hate them, and would inform on them to protect themselves and their loved ones, at a level of personal risk which neither you nor I can likely comprehend. So there's that.


I aggree to all that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: