Taliban, terrorist or self-defense?

[rattler]

You are the one trolling as you add nothing to the topic, just a personal attack toward me.

I am entitled to express my opinion the same as Reaper.

Why do I believe he just wants to flame the military? Because he states it:
"So why the hell did the United States invade Afghanistan in the first place and why did Brittain, Australia, Canada and several European NATO countries even follow?"

"this is my perspective of the subject." quote Reaper

Apology offered, you were right, I was wrong, in fact and also in form.

You probably know you dont have a friend here, so that might explain why I am a bit jumpy at your posts sometimes, this time my prejudice triggered a fall out of line.

Rattler

 

[KV.]

it might have something to do with massive amounts of oil "recently discovered" in the area, if nothing else.

i did notice that soon after similar "recent discoveries" were made in Africa, after years of neglect the government decided to launch AFRICOM.

and, with the arctic ice cap melting and discoveries of oil there, Russia, the US and other countries made their rush to claim a stake in it.

of course, i will be the first to admit that i am going by memory. i can't give quotes; at least, not now.

but that is how i remember it.

Oil ? In Afghanistan ?

This is not a serious question, is it?

Tibet, anyone? (just to menton somethn in case it was a serious question, the list could go on, and on, and on)

Rattler

Actually yes - it was a serious question - I would like to know where he sees the links between Afghanistan and the Taliban to China and North Korea. Honestly I don't see it - so if someone would be able to explain it to me.. seriously...


-KV.

 

[senojekips]

Like all these definitions it fails, dismally.

Do the Taliban kill civilians to influence populations to abandon support of NATO forces? Yes. Ergo, they are terrorists.

Do we kill Insurgents and bomb their training camps to send a message to others who might wish to follow their example, Yes!.... ergo, we are terrorists.

Naaaahhh, it doesn't work.

Yes I agree that they are terrorists, but the definition fails miserably. As has been said countless times, the word terrorist all depends on your view point.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

[RMNP_CCC]

Like all these definitions it fails, dismally.Do we kill Insurgents and bomb their training camps to send a message to others who might wish to follow their example, Yes!.... ergo, we are terrorists.

Naaaahhh, it doesn't work.

Yes I agree that they are terrorists, but the definition fails miserably. As has been said countless times, the word terrorist all depends on your view point.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

The title of the thread is "Taliban, Terrorist or Self-Defense?", and I offered my input, though it's far from gospel. I never said that governments, including my own, have never sanctioned or used terror tactics. But your example does not fit the definition I presented. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda were clearly combatants. You would be hard-pressed to find many who claim that the U.S. intentionally targets civilians to influence the population at large.
The quote "One man's terrorist..." is precisely why a consensus definition of terrorism is necessary. Otherwise the decision of who is a terrorist is left to those in power, and the public must take their word for it. Worse yet, an intentionally vague definition leads to groups being demonized for having views that lie outside the normally accepted boundaries of thought.

 

[senojekips]

What crimes, in the cases of China and North Korea, are you referring to if I might ask??

You stated that the Taliban were guilty of crimes against their own people using the examples of public execution etc as an example. The countries that I quoted also do these things, yet we are not invading them.

Sentecing criminals to the death - and executing them - is that it ?
Last time I looked, the US still use the death penalty in several states too - why haven't you "invaded" those states and set things straight ?

Exactly my point, you are incorrect if you feel that we are in Afghanistan to save the people from the excesses of the Taliban.

Anyway I personally don't think you can compare, sentecing a murderer to death in China, and making a spectacle at halftime of a football match, of the execution of a woman accused (never tried in court - because - well there were no courts) of adultry, or hanging a man for not having a long enough beard.

No, the Chinese do it at designated killing grounds before the townspeople outside of the towns and the Saudis do it in the town square after prayers on Friday mornings.

Anyway, what you neglect to come to grips with, is that the Taliban were the legitimate government in the country at the time and what they do in their own country is no business of anyone else. Being a religious entity put in place by the majority of the people, to set up a fundamentalist sectarian government they are quite within their rights to ban those things that the people elected them to do. I don't agree with it, but that is a fact of life.

Well my opinion might be simplistic to you - but let me ask you this - ever been to Afghanistan mate ? Have you seen what it is like and what it was like before ?

No I have not been to Afghanistan, but as a merchant seaman I have been to many (dozens of) countries where they have laws that are different to Australia and I have come to realise that you can't judge them by your own standards it's NOT your country and your opinion of their laws is of no consequence. e.g. Saudi Arabia is supposedly our ally in this fight, they have some of the most restrictive laws you will find and they also publicly execute adulterers and others who in our countries would hardly get a second glance. If you think we are in Afghanistan to save the people from restrictive religious laws, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? No,... your views are definitely not well thought.

IF we did install a democratic government in Afghanistan and restore peoples freedoms, how long do you think it would last once we left? You make a common mistake, you judge others by the standards of your own homeland, it does not work.

I appreciate the first part of your answer on the subject, SENOJEKIPS, but we do obviously not agree.
But I do NOT appreciate you calling my opinion simplistic - yes we have different opinions - but why attack mine ? Tell me mate - what experience do you have to back up your accusation ???

12 years of service in the Navy fighting in the Borneo confrontation and Vietnam plus a further 26 years as a merchant seaman visiting countries all over the world. I would say as a result I have a far more balanced view of the laws, customs and habits of others around the world than you do. I have also come to realise that that it is pointless to judge what other countries do within their own borders by your standards. Once they start trying to do it elsewhere, it becomes a whole new ball game.

See Post 29.....

 

[A Can of Man]

Pretty much on board word for word with what senojekips said.

I personally think the word "terrorist" should be dropped altogether and more specific terms should be used.

 

[senojekips]

The quote "One man's terrorist..." is precisely why a consensus definition of terrorism is necessary.

Can you quote me just one example of where this definition is incorrect.

The very word "Terrorist" is a purely subjective term designed to evoke an emotive response, and as such really means nothing at all. It's no more than a political tool used to inflame peoples emotions.

It must be remembered that the Taliban were elected into power by the Afghan people, and as such had a legitimate mandate to install a fundamentalist sectarian state with all that it implies.

It was largely our interference in their affairs and our support of states that oppress Muslims, that encouraged them to actively turn against us.

 

[RMNP_CCC]

Can you quote me just one example of where this definition is incorrect.

The very word "Terrorist" is a purely subjective term designed to evoke an emotive response, and as such really means nothing at all. It's no more than a political tool used to inflame peoples emotions.

It must be remembered that the Taliban were elected into power by the Afghan people, and as such had a legitimate mandate to install a fundamentalist sectarian state with all that it implies.

It was largely our interference in their affairs and our support of states that oppress Muslims, that encouraged them to actively turn against us.

I agree with your views on foreign policy.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is not a definition in itself, rather it is a statement that is used to illuminate the fact that people of different social, cultural, or national groups rarely share the exact same values or implement the same policies. Note that I never disagreed with your quote, I just view it as a social given. Of course different groups view actions different ways.

As you allude to, and what A Can of Man stated, scrapping the word "terrorist" is a fine idea. You are absolutely correct that it is an appeal to emotion. The word has shifted meaning over time, referring to different groups over the approximately 220 years its been in use. It also contains a large measure of built-in support for the status quo, and as such often ignores the terror in which states are so often involved. But until that day, I'd rather call out those who claim that Nidal Malik Hassan is a terrorist, but that Joe Stack was not. And to do so requires a rigorous definition of what qualifies as terrorism....(*within our society*).

 

[senojekips]

I agree most whole heartedly, my posts are my way of saying that we should not generalise too much and in this case I see the word Terrorist as an extreme case of generalisation which can lead to all manner of false ideas.

My opinions on matters such as this are largely based on my personal experiences in the Vietnam era when tens of thousands of brave young men lost their lives and ten times that amount were maimed and suffered psychological problems, fighting for false ideas. Ideas such as "the Domino effect", and other "buzz words" of the era, stating that if SVN fell to the North the Communist hordes would sweep down from the north and devour us all.

As it was, in the end we scuttled out of Viet Nam with our tails tucked firmly between our legs after suing for peace in Paris. The South fell to the Northern communists, and that was it,... nothing happened. No communists knocking on my door wanting to overthrow my government and rape the women,...not a bloody thing. Now all my mates are going back there on Tourist jaunts, drinking tea and beer whilst exchanging "warries" with ex Terrorists, coming back as happy as Larry. I can see exactly the same happening in Afghanistan (dunno about the tourist jaunts though).

And guess what,.... We haven't learnt a single lesson from this tragic loss. Our politicians still tell "porkies" and send young men to die for no valid reason except to support them and their doctrines of fear that effectively keep them in power.

 

[RMNP_CCC]

Right on. Great post, though your Aussie jargon flew right over my head!

The idea of terrorism as an existential threat is something that's being tossed around with increasing gusto lately. Such as "If we don't win in Afghanistan, our existence as a people free from fear and want will be endangered."

I guess it's the same rhetoric, different decade.

 

[-- Dusty]

I was gonna stay out of this until you said this-

You probably know you dont have a friend here, so that might explain why I am a bit jumpy at your posts sometimes, this time my prejudice triggered a fall out of line.

Rattler

Though I prefer to be friends with everyone, I am certainly friends with Chukpike. attacking someone because you don't think they have any friends is a mark of a bully and a few other unfavorable (and not vulgar) words that I feel would make this situation worse.

So I'll withhold my judgment.

And I don't think I'm his only friend here, either.

 

[Reaper]

Gee, don't mean to sound like military bashing. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes the last thread that started with. "not bashing the military but they kill kids"

Apparently, the FBI can't put Osama Bin Laden on "the list" because of "lack of evidence" but some nimrod can accuse troops of "killing babies" with an equal "lack of evidence".

This thread rates 5 Zssss

I don't like to sound military bashing now do I because I am a military person. These occurances have forced me to ponder what is really going around in Afghanistan. Is it bashing military if you mention that you have heard something like this happen and there are news about this too?

Troll, troll troll my bait gently down the stream.............................

You're the troll here, don't comment when you have nothing to say.

As near as I can make out the Taliban are a group of fundamentalist Muslims who use the West's support of oppression of Muslims to gain votes.

Originally I think that all they wanted (and got) was political power in Afghanistan so they could declare it a caliphate, but because of our continued fight against Muslim countries and interference in their affairs, they are slowly transforming into an anti Western alliance because they can see that this will get them the support they need.

Trace this problem back to it's primary cause,..... it's not hard if you take off the blinkers.

Wait wait wait, what? West's support of opression of Muslims?

Well what you just said just adds to the fire of my post, that the Taliban are only fighting back the United States and want to be left alone?

I think we should castrate trolls.

Good idea, troll.

After ten years of war with the Russians, Russia finally didn't feel welcome anymore, and left in 1989. The country was left decimated and utterly in chaos.
During the period of Russian occupation between 600.000 and 2.000.000 Afghans were killed. Over 5.000.000 fled to Pakistan and Iran.

Does this alone not justify an intervention by Western society???

Well lets be realistic here, the Soviet Union wanted better access to the Indian Ocean for trade and their naval fleet. Control of Afghanistan would make trade with India and the Middle East easier. Afghanistan has important natural resources such as: natural gas, uranium, iron ore and copper; all which the Soviets wanted. The Soviet people were told that they were going to liberate Afghan communists. The Soviet government also said they were fighting Islamic Extremists and not to mention the United States were sworn enemies with the Soviets, so personally I doubt the United States intervened just because they were concerned for the Afghans, it was right that they did though, not saying that it wasnt. But when the United States left, Afghanistan was left in chaos like you said, just like Iraqis that rose up against Saddam in the first gulf war which were later butchered even after Bush had promised aid. Although I would argue that intervening would've been bad aswell since the country would've been in chaos without leadership.

I've never said that the United States hasnt done good things aswell, I'm not one of those nutheads that turn everything that the US has done from since WW2 to the present into negative. Infact I don't consider myself anti-American at all, I'm just trying to find out some answers because I can't think of anything to explain subject in hand of the raid of a compound. If I really was anti-American I would believe that the September 11th attacks were an inside job, that there is a conspiracy group of some sort, that the US is in every country for oil and that there are a couple of bandits putting people to war so they can make a profit without anyone intervening. That's a real anti-American and I've seen lots of those, don't call me anti-American just because I question the actions of a few in this PR war!

Why can't you execute people publicly in the following way; halftime at football matches, hang them from the few still standing street signs, execute them in the Olympic pool in Kabul, etc. etc. etc.

Oh btw. did I mention the ban of alcohol, music, singing, dancing, kite-flying, women holding jobs, girls going to school etc. etc. etc.

Do any of these facts justify an intervention by the rest of the world ???

You don't have to explain to me what punishments there are in Muslim countries and what restrictions, infact the whole religion of Islam is the same what you just described. Well it's just that there have been lots of deaths from both IEDs, airstrikes and with Afghans falling into the crossfire, so the Afghans do not seem to want to pay the prize for freedom, so why should we enforce it on them?

I am not sure why or what reasons you have for joining Military Forum, seing as you have a clear Anti-Military message you want to express

Well for one I am a military person, infact when I have finished with my studies I am going for the military. It may seem that I have an Anti-Military message but I don't, I'm just trying to find out if these people should be put in front of court or not.

you are entitled to state you opinion - so am I.

Amen.

a fundamentalist Islamic government in the middle east must be stopped. They are a vehemethly anti-progressive entity and a violent one at that.

Most Muslims that really know anything about the Taliban are not against them, why are we enforcing something on people that do not want it and do not deserve it? Do you know what the Muslims consider countries that are allied with the United States as? Kuffar, hypocrites and unbelievers for they do not apply real Islamic law. Even Saudi-Arabia is considered as a Kuffar country because they are the "pet of the US" although they do have public exterminations which does infact warm a Muslim's heart.

Why do I believe he just wants to flame the military? Because he states it:
"So why the hell did the United States invade Afghanistan in the first place and why did Brittain, Australia, Canada and several European NATO countries even follow?"

The twistingofmywords is strong in you, use it well you do, mmmhh.

Statement, or a question? Hard to say.



Also, what comes to China and North Korea, there are some pretty serious humanrights issues, not to mention Africa where no troops are stationed in at the moment, probably the largest humanrights violations in our time come from Somalia. Female circumsizion, forced marriage, forced recruit into Islamic fundamentalist forces, murdering, public extermination, pedophilia (which exists in pretty much every Islamic country though, considering their prophet was a pedophile) and etc.

 

[Reaper]

what they do in their own country is no business of anyone else.

I have a question for you senojekips that does bother me alot, I agree in a way that we should not intervene... but then again when things like this happens: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_child_bride

Is it still none of our business?

 

[senojekips]

I have a question for you senojekips that does bother me alot, I agree in a way that we should not intervene... but then again when things like this happens: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_child_bride

Is it still none of our business?

Reaper, I don't like it any more than you do, it is medieval, but, it's none of our business, the laws under which this happened are those of another sovereign state and framed by the legitimate government of that country, as much as we disagree, we have no right to interfere. They probably have objection to many of our laws.

No doubt we can object through diplomatic channels or put a trade embargo in place, but that's about it and generally our politicians won't go that far for fear of ruining diplomatic relations, even with someone as small and seemingly inconsequential as Yemen.

 

[KV.]

You stated that the Taliban were guilty of crimes against their own people using the examples of public execution etc as an example. The countries that I quoted also do these things, yet we are not invading them.

-And I also listed several other points, other than the subject of public execution, non-comparable with any of the laws in the countries you mentioned.

Exactly my point, you are incorrect if you feel that we are in Afghanistan to save the people from the excesses of the Taliban.

-As you said - you have never been to Afghanistan. You have been to several Muslim and other countries around the world correct?
Then answer me how you know why we (I am Danish, by the way) are in Afghanistan ? I am intrigued - please tell me...


No, the Chinese do it at designated killing grounds before the townspeople outside of the towns and the Saudis do it in the town square after prayers on Friday mornings.

Anyway, what you neglect to come to grips with, is that the Taliban were the legitimate government in the country at the time and what they do in their own country is no business of anyone else. Being a religious entity put in place by the majority of the people, to set up a fundamentalist sectarian government they are quite within their rights to ban those things that the people elected them to do. I don't agree with it, but that is a fact of life.

The Taliban was a legitimate government ? Where did you come across that information - As far as I remember it was never recognised as a legitimate government. Well I know that Saudi and the United Arab Emirates recognised it, but I don't know of any oher who recognised the Taliban - So how did "we" recognise it then ?


No I have not been to Afghanistan, but as a merchant seaman I have been to many (dozens of) countries where they have laws that are different to Australia and I have come to realise that you can't judge them by your own standards it's NOT your country and your opinion of their laws is of no consequence. e.g. Saudi Arabia is supposedly our ally in this fight, they have some of the most restrictive laws you will find and they also publicly execute adulterers and others who in our countries would hardly get a second glance. If you think we are in Afghanistan to save the people from restrictive religious laws, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? No,... your views are definitely not well thought.

Believe me I know - you're not the only one who have been around the world. I have been to several Muslim countries - and also of course non-muslim countries. What I have seen around the world - nothing compares to what I saw in Afghanistan. And no I wasn't just on vacation or a tourist.
Well good for you mate - you know a lot about a load of countries - but if you've never been to Afghanistan - how do you know what it is, and was like ???
I don't say that Finland is nice - simply because I have never been there. What I don't know anything about - I don't pretend to know a lot about.


IF we did install a democratic government in Afghanistan and restore peoples freedoms, how long do you think it would last once we left? You make a common mistake, you judge others by the standards of your own homeland, it does not work.

Agree with you completely - which is why we do not try to implement our idea of democrazy in Afghanistan - we know that our system does not work in a country other than our, so where you got the idea that we do I don't know.

12 years of service in the Navy fighting in the Borneo confrontation and Vietnam plus a further 26 years as a merchant seaman visiting countries all over the world. I would say as a result I have a far more balanced view of the laws, customs and habits of others around the world than you do. I have also come to realise that that it is pointless to judge what other countries do within their own borders by your standards. Once they start trying to do it elsewhere, it becomes a whole new ball game.

Well again a postulate - how do you know where I have been, what I have done, What I've seen ??? I've never said you haven't experienced anything - what I asked was if you've ever been to Afghanistan - and your answer was NO.

Well doesn't seem we are going to get any further - We don't agree and that's it.
You want to post a reply to this post be my guest - I won't bother spending anymore time on this subject - got another deployment to prepare for.

Fair winds and following sea sailor.

-KV.

 

[senojekips]

Wait wait wait, what? West's support of opression of Muslims?

Just follow the history of all this crap back a few years, and you will find that there was no Al Quaeda, or Taliban, in fact Muslim fundamentalism only became a real problem for us when Muslim clerics objected to the West's support of Israel over the oppression of the Palestinian people. This rapidly gained support from the Islamic community around the world and is the basis of 99% of our Islamic problems today.

Muslims do not hate all non Muslims per se, as our collective Goverments would have us believe. When was the last time you heard of, or read about some firebrand Muslim cleric getting up at Friday prayers and threatening death and destruction upon Brazil (They are a non Muslim country) or for that matter virtually any other country that is not supporting Muslim oppression?

It's not exactly rocket science, and it's not that people can't see the problem, it's more that they just don't want to see the truth as it does not suit their political affiliations or greed or whatever.

 

[senojekips]

And I also listed several other points, other than the subject of public execution, non-comparable with any of the laws in the countries you mentioned. And I singled out that one thing because it made a my point about your claim

As you said - you have never been to Afghanistan. You have been to several Muslim and other countries around the world correct?
Then answer me how you know why we (I am Danish, by the way) are in Afghanistan ? I am intrigued - please tell me... Yes,...I worked for many years on VLCCs and spent far too much of my life in Muslim countries.

Why are you in Afghanistan,.... Because your government sent you,... just the same as my government sent me to Vietnam. Why did they send you,... International politics, certainly not to save their people from the excesses of the Taliban.

The Taliban was a legitimate government ? Where did you come across that information - As far as I remember it was never recognised as a legitimate government. Well I know that Saudi and the United Arab Emirates recognised it, but I don't know of any oher who recognised the Taliban - So how did "we" recognise it then ? It doesn't matter if WE recognise it, it was put in place by means that are legitimate within that country, and that makes it a legitimate Government, check your reference books. We have no say under any International convention, about their methods or reasons for putting their governments into power.

Believe me I know - you're not the only one who have been around the world. I have been to several Muslim countries - and also of course non-muslim countries. What I have seen around the world - nothing compares to what I saw in Afghanistan. And no I wasn't just on vacation or a tourist.
Well good for you mate - you know a lot about a load of countries - but if you've never been to Afghanistan - how do you know what it is, and was like ???
I don't say that Finland is nice - simply because I have never been there. What I don't know anything about - I don't pretend to know a lot about. Exactly what is your point here? Are you trying to say that because I have not actually been to a country I am not aware of what is going on there. If so,... you are living in the wrong century. I can sit at my desk here in Australia and be aware of things that have happened in Denmark before you are.

Agree with you completely - which is why we do not try to implement our idea of democrazy in Afghanistan - we know that our system does not work in a country other than our, so where you got the idea that we do I don't know. Well you are bleating about the the way that the country is run, and differences between Afghanistan and what you are used to. Democratic government is one of those major differences.

Well again a postulate - how do you know where I have been, what I have done, What I've seen ??? I've never said you haven't experienced anything - what I asked was if you've ever been to Afghanistan - and your answer was NO. Well,... I've already answered why not having actually been to Afghanistan has any bearing on the discussion, and I don't know where you have actually been, but I do know you have absolutely no understanding of the rights of legitimate governments within their own countries, and accepting foreign cultures, this would suggest to me that you have never really seen much of the world or had to deal with people whose culture is nothing like your own.

My "seas" are long behind me, and if I have any say in the matter, I will never again see a body of water bigger than my bath tub.

 

[rattler]

I was gonna stay out of this until you said this-

Apology offered, you were right, I was wrong, in fact and also in form.

You probably know you dont have a friend here, so that might explain why I am a bit jumpy at your posts sometimes, this time my prejudice triggered a fall out of line.

Rattler

Though I prefer to be friends with everyone, I am certainly friends with Chukpike. attacking someone because you don't think they have any friends is a mark of a bully and a few other unfavorable (and not vulgar) words that I feel would make this situation worse.

So I'll withhold my judgment.

And I don't think I'm his only friend here, either.

Oops, the traps of internet:

By "here" I of cause meant precisely the location of this computer I am typing from, not the forum. Never did it cross my mind nor did I want to suggest Mr. C. did not have friends on the forum (nor would it be my style - I hope - to attack someone because he hasn´t), just wanted to state that *I* am not one of them, and this to explain why I jumped the gun in my reply.

I thought that was clear from context, but it seems obviously its very easy to misread something/someone...

Rattler

 

[-- Dusty]

Oops, the traps of internet:

By "here" I of cause meant precisely the location of this computer I am typing from, not the forum. Never did it cross my mind nor did I want to suggest Mr. C. did not have friends on the forum (nor would it be my style - I hope - to attack someone because he hasn´t), just wanted to state that *I* am not one of them, and this to explain why I jumped the gun in my reply.

I thought that was clear from context, but it seems obviously its very easy to misread something/someone...

Rattler

I misread it. Sorry. But thank you for clarifying it!

You oughta try being his friend. You might like him after all!

 

[A Can of Man]

You oughta try being his friend. You might like him after all!

I highly doubt it :lol: