Taliban, terrorist or self-defense?
Tovarish1
Active member
Taliban have very different political views than the Afghan population. Most of the population just want to lead regular lives with peace. Taliban want to implement harsh rules and make the law "extreme Islam". Stoning innocent people for disagreeing with them is NOT self defense. They're terrorists and rebels who've created unjust laws.
Partisan
Active member
Based on what? The taliban were perceived to be unpopular by the western press, but they enforced law and order - even if it was according Sharyia law!
I'm not too sure that we in the West have a good handle on the Afghan public, all I know is that they must be very unhappy with frequent drone attacks and collateral damage, along with a government foisted on them, which is a self sustaining entity, through its corrupt practices.
But truly I'm not an Afghan, I'm just an external observer, who has a lot of his governements debt invested in a practical and coherent strategy for projecting foreign policy, now I've just got to wait for a politicain that can do this - much like the Afghans.
Naddoður
Active member
Terrorist" is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning.
Currently, the term "terrorist" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Alternatively, or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism, and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces -- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the like.
In determining whether an act is "terrorist" or not, it would be more useful to eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead, utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving the application of force:
Expected result of the violence: Let's define a "terrorist" action as the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.
Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.
Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorist actions. Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorist actions.
Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.
Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.
While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.
Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. As with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied. And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions, the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorist" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.
Moreover, by not allowing the use of the term "terrorist" to be used as an "argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's tactics.
At the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians will be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and would not be able to deny being terrorists because of the alleged validity of their goals.
All in all, then, these suggested definitions would tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope most people would welcome.
Naddoður
Active member
The United States, with support from the United Kingdom and the Northern Alliance invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001 as part of its "War on Terrorism". The military campaign was initially dubbed Operation Infinite Justice but quickly renamed Operation Enduring Freedom, due to the perceived religious connotations of the former. British military operations against Afghanistan were codenamed Operation Veritas.
According to the US, the purpose of Operation Enduring Freedom was to target Osama bin Laden, suspected of planning and funding the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, and his terrorist network al-Qaida, as well as the Taliban government in Afghanistan which allegedly provided support to al-Qaida and gave them safe haven.
In the weeks prior to the military action in Afghanistan, US President George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban to:
1. deliver Al-Qaida leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States
2. release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens
3. protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country
4. close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities".
5. give the US full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure
President Bush further stated that the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban refused to directly speak to Bush, noting it would be an insult to Islam, but made statements through their Pakistan embassy. Their initial response was to demand evidence of bin Laden's culpability in the September 11th attacks and to offer to try him in an Islamic court. Later, as the likelihood of military action became more imminent, they offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral nation. Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October, in order to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid the impending retaliation from the United States. President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as unacceptable.
The U.N. Security Council also issued a resolution on September 18, 2001 directed towards the Taliban demanding that they hand over suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden and close all terrorist training camps immediately and unconditionally. The council also referred to a resolution it adopted in December 2000 demanding that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States or a third country for trial in the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998.