Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter

[Pangloss]

So they are more important because some of your tax money was used to train them? I guess that makes my dogs more important than most of the people on the planet, since I use my money to feed them.

 

No, they're more important because of the situation on the ground. If they're too focused on protecting individuals then they're not doing their job. But as I said before, I'm not suggesting our soldiers don't have to follow the rule of law, or that Iraqi citizens aren't entitled to some level of protection.

 

 

As for indiscriminate bombing, why was the BBC/Al Jazeera office blown up? Why were so many villages bombed? Why was infrastructure such as power stations and water supply targeted in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Why the use of depleted uranium and daisy cutters in both Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

Accidents and incidental damage happen in war, and the rest of that is not necessarily indiscriminate just because you don't like what they're doing. Infrastructure is often targeted because it was an asset for the enemy at the time. Depleted uranium is used because it cuts through armor.

 

If you want to see every aspect of conflict as negative, that's your prerogative, but that just proves my point that this is about ideological opposition to war -- no war, regardless of the cost. Certainly you're welcome to feel that way. Obviously I disagree.

 

 

Ah, but the major argument against, made by the pharmaceutical companies and their friends in western governments, is that there is a glut of medicinal opiates on the market. In the rich western/northern countries that's true, but in the developing world the opposite is happening, and poor people in the developed world often cannot afford those same medicines at current prices.

 

The pharmaceutical corporations are afraid they'll lose some of their profit margin (there is no patent on morphine) so the poppies aren't being made legal.

 

Interesting. Sound like a separate issue, really, but I'd be willing to hear more about it, perhaps in another thread. Same with your accusations about Karzai.

 

 

There's not much point in freeing somebody if they're dead.

 

Oh yes, I think there very much is.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss said, about the war in Afghanistan

 

"I believe our response was warranted, we enjoyed international cooperation and support, and our effort there is noble and above-board."

 

In fact, I did not say it was unwarranted. I said it was a mistake. The full truth of my statement will become increasingly clear over time. The reason it was a mistake had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with results.

 

Afghanistan is a lousy country to invade under any circumstances. The mountainous nature makes it perfect for guerilla resistance. And the tribal nature of the inhabitants means uniting them under a central government is pretty much impossible. You can have a properly elected government, and the outlier tribes will still attack you. Victory is almost impossible, but the cost of the futile effort to obtain victory can be immense.

 

The British and the Russians left ignominiously and so will the current US/Canadian/other allied groups.

[jryan]

A terrorist uses terror as it's main tool and rarely (if ever) in history has a terrorist organization faught for a way of life that is actually free.

 

Freedom fighters use guerilla warfare to combat larger armies and often fight for actual freedom.

 

ie. The Taliban faught the Russians using terror and guerilla tactics, and a way of life that was anything but free... so they are terrorists.

 

On the other hand, the Northern Alliance faught the Taliban using guerilla tactics, did not use terror, and faught for a more moderate and open Afghanistan... so they were freedom fighters.

 

 

Since one word means something good, and the other something nefarious, all roving bands of terrorists consider themselves freedom fighters, even though they bake their opponents in ovens, walk into discos wrapped in TNT, and murder girls because they have the audacity to be raped in their country.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss said, about the war in Afghanistan

 

"I believe our response was warranted, we enjoyed international cooperation and support, and our effort there is noble and above-board."

 

In fact, I did not say it was unwarranted. I said it was a mistake. The full truth of my statement will become increasingly clear over time. The reason it was a mistake had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with results.

 

Ah. Pardon me, I misunderstood. I got it now.

 

 

Afghanistan is a lousy country to invade under any circumstances. The mountainous nature makes it perfect for guerilla resistance. And the tribal nature of the inhabitants means uniting them under a central government is pretty much impossible. You can have a properly elected government, and the outlier tribes will still attack you. Victory is almost impossible, but the cost of the futile effort to obtain victory can be immense.

 

The British and the Russians left ignominiously and so will the current US/Canadian/other allied groups.

 

Well you're right, if we do nothing to stop that from happening. I do agree with those who point out that military actions alone cannot solve that sort of thing. It takes an across-the-board effort, which I believe was undermined by our efforts in Iraq.

 

We can still do something about that, though. I understand your pessimism, but I don't share it.

 

But I guess I've said that before and I don't mean to last-word you on this, I mainly just wanted to clear up my misunderstanding from before.

[jryan]

I think there is a primary difference between the entirety of modern history in Afghanistan and the current push towards democracy. This time women are involved.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/10/04/afghan.women/index.html

 

I can't find the article here, but there was another article I read that studied the role of women in oppressive societies such as the Taliban, and the findings were rather startling. Because men are placed on such a high pedistal in such societies, and women are so low, the women actually had quite a strong hand within their own home.

 

The reason for this was that many men did not want the stigma of having an upstart wife. So they wouldn't turn them in for not following the rules in the home as it would cause a backlash for the them as well.

 

Eventually the true hardliners burned through (unfortunately in some cases that is a literal term) their matrimonial prospects and were left single while the more capitualting men had peace in their home. The hardliners then took out their brutality on women in the streets which lead women to turn up the heat on their husbands at home (or turn down the heat, as the case may be).

 

It got to the point where cliques of women would gather in secret to look through American glamour magazines and make makeshift beauty salons.... a great afront to the male dominated culture. These women's husbands, however, didn't seem to mind too much.

 

It was on this backdrop, in Afghanistan, that a rather suprising thing happned. A group of women from N.O.W. (rather bravely I might add) travelled to Afghanistan in the days following the defeat of the Taliban when the area was still very much in flux and began to reach out to the women of Kabul to organize. They had expected to find women weakened by years of abuse... what they found was an incredibly strong group of women who were already taking their new freedom and running with it.

 

I saw some documentary footage of this NOW trip and it was rather funny. The NOW women were both happy and perplexed to find that when reaching out to the women of Afghanistan the most frequent request was for new makeup.

 

It is because of this that I do not give up hope.A good number of husbands and wives have had time to assess the situation they lived in, and may return to, and I believe they will fight very hard against the return of the Taliban.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a small and funny side note: There is a quirky realization coming from the break-up of Al Qaeda cells in Iraq. As they clear out numerous cells, and go through the houses to find weapons caches they are fining there are two other "contraban" items in these cells that are much more pleantiful than guns. The contraban? Booze and pornography.

 

Al qaeda used it as a recruiting tool.... the mulahs operating as the spiritual heads of the jihad issued a fatwa that all sins commited prior to martyrdom were excused, so naturally the new recruits all quickly became drunk perverts.