Print Page | Close Window

Axed Canadian

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Description: Debates on topical, current World politics
Moderators: Leonidas, SearchAndDestroy, Hugoestr, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=11440
Printed Date: 15-Aug-2018 at 14:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Axed Canadian
Posted By: malizai_
Subject: Axed Canadian
Date Posted: 03-May-2006 at 10:55

Axe Attack Highlights Resentment

Shocking assault on a Canadian soldier reflects wider sense of anger many Afghans feel about the foreign troop presence in the south.

By Abdullah Shahin in Kandahar (ARR No. 211, 14-Apr-06)

Shinkay is a small, poor village in the volatile southern province of Kandahar and is little known outside the region. But one warm spring day in early March it became famous.

Around 45 people were gathered under trees in Shinkay, listening intently to a group of foreign visitors. Captain Trevor Greene, 41, was part of a team of soldiers that meets regularly with villagers across Kandahar province, trying to find out what their concerns and needs are.

The Canadians took over from United States troops ensuring security in Kandahar in February.

As a gesture of respect, Captain Greene had removed his military helmet, and sat unprotected among the Afghans. Suddenly, a thin youth sneaked up behind him and brought an axe down on his bare head.

The attacker was quickly gunned down by Canadian soldiers. He was later identified as Abdul Karim, just 16 years old.

Greene spent two weeks in hospital in Germany. He is now back home in Canada, and is expected to make a full recovery.

The incident highlights the strong emotions felt by many Afghans under what they see as a hostile foreign occupation.

Immediately after the attack, the questions swirled: Was Abdul Karim a Taleban insurgent? Was he mentally ill? Were the other villagers complicit in the attack?

The Canadian military initially said that the attack was part of a well-planned ambush.

This attack has had a very negative effect on our mission, said Lieutenant-Colonel Ian Hope, who heads the Canadian task force in Kandahar. "We have launched an investigation into the case, and we want to get complete information about the attacker.

But Captain Julie Roberge, spokesperson for the Canadian forces, told IWPR that this assessment has since changed, We do not think there was a plan, but we will continue to investigate."

Shinkay residents, including people close to the assailant, say that the attack was a protest by a young boy outraged at the behaviour of foreign troops, particularly the Americans.

The foreigners themselves make people stand against them, said Tela Mohammad, a village elder, who introduced himself as a close relative of the attacker. Abdul Karim was not linked to the Taleban, nor did he know anything about any factions or groups.

According to Haji Mohammad Esa, a resident of the Shah Wali Kot district where Shinkay is located, Abdul Karim was a quiet boy, the son of a poor cobbler in the village.

Karim was always alone. He didn't have much contact with the other villagers, said Esa. We were all surprised when he suddenly attacked the soldier. But I think the main reason he did it was because he was angry at the foreign troops.

The Canadians have had a difficult time since they took from the Americans.

There are now more than 2,200 troops from Canada in Kandahar province, and they are increasingly coming under attack. Over 20 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, two of them in the weeks immediately preceding the attack on Greene.

The residents of Shah Wali Kot do not make a distinction between the Canadians and soldiers from the United States. In fact, villagers say, the Canadians are now beginning to behave like the more aggressive US troops.

We have gone to see the Canadians in Kandahar several times, said Esa. We have asked them to have more respect for our culture and beliefs, but they don't.

Villages like Shinkay have been the target of intensive searches by the US-led Coalition Forces in the area, who are tasked with finding and stamping out the insurgency. Even military insiders say privately that the American forces are sometimes overzealous in their efforts.

US troops do not show proper respect for our culture and religious beliefs, said Esa. They enter homes without permission and disturb people, which makes people hate them.

When US troops come to a house, they do not even let the owner open the door, said Ghulam Mohammad, another villager. They just break down the door and enter the house. That has made people very upset.

The Taleban, for their part, put pressure on local residents not to cooperate with Coalition forces. This leaves Afghans caught between two opposing sides.

Our village has been searched more than 40 times over the past four years, said Esa. Foreigners accuse us of being Taleban and al-Qaeda. The Taleban and al-Qaeda accuse us of having links to the government. We do not know what we are being punished for.

This uneasiness in the face of conflicting forces may explain one of the most perplexing features of the case. The media made much of the fact that all of the children had been led away to their homes right before the attack, bolstering the theory that the villagers had prior knowledge of the violence.

But Ghulam offered another reason, saying, The Taleban have warned us many times that helping foreigners is helping our enemies. We are afraid of foreigners when they come to visit us, because they bring the Taleban in their wake. When foreigners come here, we try to keep our children at home, because we fear the Taleban.

Like Esa, Ghulam said that Abdul Karim was acting alone.

He was acting on his own feelings, said Ghulam. If he'd had links with the Taleban or al-Qaeda, they would have given him weapons. He wouldn't have had to use an axe.

Afghan officials in Kandahar declined to be interviewed on the incident.

Despite the problems and the dangers, Lt-Col Hope says his troops are determined to continue efforts to better the lives of ordinary Afghans.

The enemy wants to worsen the living condition of poor people, he said. But the Canadian soldiers will fulfill the promise they made to the Afghan government.
---->iwpr.net

Seems like the canadians are set to pickup where the US left off. Anyhow the outlook doesnt seem to be good.

Also one can deduce a moral from the story; if u have a helmet dont take it off while in afghanistan, also be weary of wood cutters, 16 yr olds and people on motorbikes and cars and donkeys and those wearing turbans.



-------------
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
http://www.antiwar.com - antiwar.com
http://www.crimesofwar.org - crimesofwar.org



Replies:
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 03-May-2006 at 14:29

It's a real story showing the emotion of a real patriot Afghan who even doesn't completly know his good and bad but still knows that Afghanistan has been invaded and he could be amongs the ones who could take back its freedom.

Jut think if 16 year old boy may have that courage and ability to do so, what if there is a bunch of those 16 teenagers demanding freedom (which seems something in a very near futur), what could they do with a courage such like this and what would be the future of the foriegn troops ???
I guess the history has to witness another super power going down in hands of Afghans.



-------------




Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 03-May-2006 at 15:12
I only see the negative influence of elders on the 16 year old...who was  11-12 when the war has begun,


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 03-May-2006 at 16:20

Originally posted by mamikon mamikon wrote:

I only see the negative influence of elders on the 16 year old...who was  11-12 when the war has begun,

I agree with you dear mamikon,
There could be some influence of elders on him but still think of his age only 16. Can you tell me one thing and that is; "Is it possible to motivate an American child of 16 to go and fight for his country?" in case ever America is invaded ???

I was talking about the courage, I mean while you know that your are going to be killed and you are only 16 would you had managed that attack? One thing is for sure that the boy was a real "Brave Heart" !!!



-------------




Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 00:14

I personally think that the kid acted on impulse, and was not willing to forgo some displeasure that he had been caused.  I dont think he had reached yet the age of pragmatism and had yet to master the art of dealing with intrigues, like his elders.

However, I think the boy has done more than stick that axe in the head of the canadian, especially having thereafter been shot and killed.. I think the fact that a boy has done this in the presence of grown men, will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those men having been outdone by a child and attained martyrdom.

Gharanai,

I think it will be exaggerated to think that all pushtun think of the americans as hostile invaders least of all the feudal tribal elders whos power had all but finished at the hands of the taliban, having been  replaced with influential clergy. Each tribal leader has its own views and its own interests close to its heart. Some act for the betterment of their tribe, others for their self. the tribesmen will have to follow thier leader regardless of their personal opinion. The problem for the forces arise when to some tribes the foreign influence becomes disadvantageous vis a vis other tribes or in general. As for any personal vendettas arising from loss of face and indignation etc.. at the hands of foreigners, then the right of retribution of the person offended is independent of the elders. The same can  be extended to the tribe itself. But this is not likely to result in a mass uprising as long as the foreigners are not meddling in their daily affairs. 



-------------
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
http://www.antiwar.com - antiwar.com
http://www.crimesofwar.org - crimesofwar.org


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 01:23

Originally posted by malizai_ malizai_ wrote:

As a gesture of respect, Captain Greene had removed his military helmet, and sat unprotected among the Afghans. Suddenly, a thin youth sneaked up behind him and brought an axe down on his bare head.

All the Canadians had their helmets removed as was Canadian policy.

Quote
The attacker was quickly gunned down by Canadian soldiers. He was later identified as Abdul Karim, just 16 years old.

The Canadians also had their weapons stowed, the attacker was killed by Afghani soldiers who were with the Canadians.

Quote
Greene spent two weeks in hospital in Germany. He is now back home in Canada, and is expected to make a full recovery.

Leftenant Greene(now Captain) recieved a serious brain injury and will be disabled for life. He is awake but paralized.

As for the attack being the actions of one individual as the story points out the adults removed the children minutes before the attack and immediatly after the attack the Canadians and their Afghan escorts came under small arms and RPG fire. Clearly it was a planned operation.

This story is propaganda and inacurate, are you a member of the Taleban malizai? 

 



 



Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 03:47

Malizai you nasty Taliban you, quoting from

http://www.iwpr.net/?p=arr&s=f&o=261075&apc_state=henparr - http://www.iwpr.net/?p=arr&s=f&o=261075&apc_stat e=henparr #



-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 06:12
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

Originally posted by malizai_ malizai_ wrote:

As a gesture of respect, Captain Greene had removed his military helmet, and sat unprotected among the Afghans. Suddenly, a thin youth sneaked up behind him and brought an axe down on his bare head.

All the Canadians had their helmets removed as was Canadian policy.

Quote
The attacker was quickly gunned down by Canadian soldiers. He was later identified as Abdul Karim, just 16 years old.

The Canadians also had their weapons stowed, the attacker was killed by Afghani soldiers who were with the Canadians.

Quote
Greene spent two weeks in hospital in Germany. He is now back home in Canada, and is expected to make a full recovery.

Leftenant Greene(now Captain) recieved a serious brain injury and will be disabled for life. He is awake but paralized.

As for the attack being the actions of one individual as the story points out the adults removed the children minutes before the attack and immediately after the attack the Canadians and their Afghan escorts came under small arms and RPG fire. Clearly it was a planned operation.

This story is propaganda and inacurate, are you a member of the Taleban malizai? 

A bit disappointed in your short-sighted, tunnel vision. The purpose of the post was to highlight growing resentment, the prevalence of which was not so widespread at the first arrival of foreign forces. When they were wrongly presumed to be there to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It was a story with the reference present from IWPR which u failed to notice.

DukeC

I will spell out for you explicitly what you lack in capacity to draw out from inferences. Key points of my post aimed to highlight were:

They have taken over from the Americans in an environment already full of resentment and although they may see themselves as making a distinct effort from the Americans, 'some' of the local populace may not.

They must not let their guard down. They are floating in a sea of hostility.

Secondly, because of this event any goodwill that the Canadians could have built with the locals to distinguish themselves from the Americans has evaporated from the very outset.

As for Mr.Greene I am genuinely sorry for the waste of his life in an imperial cause, but equally tragic is the loss of the 16 yr old who's story we may never know and who's life has been curt short one way or another well before it should have.



-------------
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
http://www.antiwar.com - antiwar.com
http://www.crimesofwar.org - crimesofwar.org


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 11:24

I don't think you understand Canadians, learn your history. Terrorists based out of Afghanstan have killed thousands in the West and there is a strong resolve to see that never happens again. If, as it seems, you believe that Afghanstan will once again become a haven for terrorists, you're the one who's mistaken.

And you're still spouting what I consider to be propaganda "They must not let their guard down. They are floating in a sea of hostility". Sounds to me like you're singlehandedly declaring war on Canada.



Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 12:57

Now I don't support anyone "getting axed", but I don't understand why it was done on a Canadian. If the article says things are getting hostile because the way the Americans treat them, then why kill another country who seems to be trying to treat you on fair grounds, even putting his guard down to show respect to the people.

I love how Gharanai praises this idiot too. The kid wasn't exactly bright, was his idea to attack the guy who shows more respect then the others? I don't know, usually heroes actually show some smarts or go out of their way to do something right for their people. When a action this kid did happens, it's usually considered idiotic. What he did won't help his people, it's just going to make where he lives more stricter by an Army that seemed willing to go down to these peoples eye level instead of acting on a high horse and being rude and more policing and less willing to talk to the people.



-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 14:30
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

Now I don't support anyone "getting axed", but I don't understand why it was done on a Canadian. If the article says things are getting hostile because the way the Americans treat them, then why kill another country who seems to be trying to treat you on fair grounds, even putting his guard down to show respect to the people.

I love how Gharanai praises this idiot too. The kid wasn't exactly bright, was his idea to attack the guy who shows more respect then the others? I don't know, usually heroes actually show some smarts or go out of their way to do something right for their people. When a action this kid did happens, it's usually considered idiotic. What he did won't help his people, it's just going to make where he lives more stricter by an Army that seemed willing to go down to these peoples eye level instead of acting on a high horse and being rude and more policing and less willing to talk to the people.

IMO malizai and others are just trying to justify the killing of Canadians who are in Afghanistan as part of a U.N. sanctioned multinational force to bring peace to the country. Whatever their motivation is to portrait this attacker as a hero only they really know, but I don't believe it has anything to do with concern for the Afghan people. This whole thread is a load of cr*p.



Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 16:28

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

I don't think you understand Canadians, learn your history. Terrorists based out of Afghanstan have killed thousands in the West and there is a strong resolve to see that never happens again. If, as it seems, you believe that Afghanstan will once again become a haven for terrorists, you're the one who's mistaken.
And you're still spouting what I consider to be propaganda "They must not let their guard down. They are floating in a sea of hostility". Sounds to me like you're singlehandedly declaring war on Canada.

Dear DukeC,
I would like to tell you that once you have a proud history then it's in mind of each and every citizine of yours, so we I don't think we have learn ours as we know much about it really.

Second you  said "If, as it seems, you believe that Afghanstan will once again become a haven for terrorists, you're the one who's mistaken."

Now I ask you to know your history (oh sorry I ment British history) and if you had some time try to read some about Russians as well, then come up with proves that your ARMY is better in any way than the might of those two Empires.
Then I guess we could talk about your comment .



-------------




Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 16:38
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

I don't think you understand Canadians, learn your history.

 

Whatever! To be honest it is not an area of interest to me, unlike tribal societies as in Afghanistan, surrounding regions and the caucases.

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 If, as it seems, you believe that Afghanstan will once again become a haven for terrorists, you're the one who's mistaken.

 

There has been no discussion of such. But since u mention it, the region has not yet ceased to become a haven. You seem to wrongly assume that it has for it to become "once again".

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

And you're still spouting what I consider to be propaganda "They must not let their guard down. They are floating in a sea of hostility". Sounds to me like you're singlehandedly declaring war on Canada.

It is ur opinion and u r entitled to it. Frankly, i dont care.  I have layed out the reasons for the post and am not going to elaborate any further. You want to defend Canada, fine, but do it elsewhere, since Canada and Canadians have not been attacked here, not by me anyway.



-------------
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
http://www.antiwar.com - antiwar.com
http://www.crimesofwar.org - crimesofwar.org


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 16:46

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

I love how Gharanai praises this idiot too. The kid wasn't exactly bright, was his idea to attack the guy who shows more respect then the others? I don't know, usually heroes actually show some smarts or go out of their way to do something right for their people. When a action this kid did happens, it's usually considered idiotic. What he did won't help his people, it's just going to make where he lives more stricter by an Army that seemed willing to go down to these peoples eye level instead of acting on a high horse and being rude and more policing and less willing to talk to the people.

Well, I agree that the Kid was not soo bright and was too young for this action. I only talked about his courage I mean how many 16 year old Canadians who could you name who served there lives for the Nation???

Now that you say this isn't going to help the Nation, you are totaly wronge. Do you know what's going on here, I mean everyone is telling each other that if a 16 year old boy could do that why can't we. I know this sounds wierd but don't forget that revelutions always sound wierd at start but when they end you see a fall down of a might.

And I can assure you one thing that from this act onward Canadian Army will never again put down his guard to show some respect but will keep it always up for his/her life.

I hope you got my point.



-------------




Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 18:32
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Now I ask you to know your history (oh sorry I ment British history) and if you had some time try to read some about Russians as well, then come up with proves that your ARMY is better in any way than the might of those two Empires.
Then I guess we could talk about your comment .

 

Learn your history, the Canadians have a reputation as some of the best close quarters fighters in the world. It's all that hockey we play I guess. We take war a lot more personally than the Americans, and I doubt many Canadians will be taking their Kevlar off or letting their guard down around Afghanis anymore. It's a shame really because we aren't there to enforce Imperialism as you seem to believe but to bring some sort of stability to a country that deserves it as much as any other place in the world. Painting the Canadians as some sort of surogate Americans is simplifying the situation out of all perspective. Talk to me about this later in the fall (after the summer capaign season) and tell me your impression of what Canadians are capable of and I guarentee you your view will be different. The sad thing is there'll be a lot of dead people on both sides by that time.



Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 18:44
Originally posted by malizai_ malizai_ wrote:

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

I don't think you understand Canadians, learn your history.

 

Whatever! To be honest it is not an area of interest to me, unlike tribal societies as in Afghanistan, surrounding regions and the caucases.

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 If, as it seems, you believe that Afghanstan will once again become a haven for terrorists, you're the one who's mistaken.

 

There has been no discussion of such. But since u mention it, the region has not yet ceased to become a haven. You seem to wrongly assume that it has for it to become "once again".

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

And you're still spouting what I consider to be propaganda "They must not let their guard down. They are floating in a sea of hostility". Sounds to me like you're singlehandedly declaring war on Canada.

It is ur opinion and u r entitled to it. Frankly, i dont care.  I have layed out the reasons for the post and am not going to elaborate any further. You want to defend Canada, fine, but do it elsewhere, since Canada and Canadians have not been attacked here, not by me anyway.

Read between the lines of this thread starting with the title "Axed Canadian". What you're saying in words and tone is we are the enemy and should be defeated. As for you not caring about Canadian history or culture, that's your loss because it's as rich and meaningful as any other peoples. I have no doubt that opposition to Canadians and other forces in Afghanastan is going to grow as the Taleban once again tries to take control of the country. I wish it wasn't the case but Canadians will be doing their talking on the battlefield for the first time in more than 50 years. Watch and learn, before you know it you'll know more about Canadian character than you ever thought possible.



Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 19:58

Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Well, I agree that the Kid was not soo bright and was too young for this action. I only talked about his courage I mean how many 16 year old Canadians who could you name who served there lives for the Nation???
 

He didn't serve his life for his nation, he let some immoral cowards like the Taleban are talk him into throwing his life away.



Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 05-May-2006 at 08:01

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

Read between the lines of this thread starting with the title "Axed Canadian". What you're saying in words and tone is we are the enemy and should be defeated.

Thats really funny. Now i have to read between what i wrote to find the conspiracy. What is so controversial about using the term "Axed Canadian", I didnt write Axed Canadian Thug or something. In fact my reply is more an explanation for others that may read your 'i am a canadian and victim' propaganda ploy to discredit some imaginary enemy. Mr Greene was not a victim either, he was a soldier in a theater of war and i am sure knew of the risks when he joined the service.

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 As for you not caring about Canadian history or culture, that's your loss because it's as rich and meaningful as any other peoples

Canadian culture or history is not "an area of interest" to me, although i am familiar with some regarding the commonwealth. Although u may be able to extend ur history to european history if you have european ancestry etc.

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

I have no doubt that opposition to Canadians and other forces in Afghanastan is going to grow as the Taleban once again tries to take control of the country. I wish it wasn't the case but Canadians will be doing their talking on the battlefield for the first time in more than 50 years. Watch and learn, before you know it you'll know more about Canadian character than you ever thought possible.

US policy decisions are why canadians are there and i hope it is not because the canadians find a need to show worth of character in battlefields, as u espouse.  There is nothing glorious about war no matter which side you are one. The glory bs is there to recruit gullible minds in absence of a real cause.



-------------
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
http://www.antiwar.com - antiwar.com
http://www.crimesofwar.org - crimesofwar.org


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 05-May-2006 at 15:43

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

It's a shame really because we aren't there to enforce Imperialism as you seem to believe but to bring some sort of stability to a country that deserves it as much as any other place in the world. Painting the Canadians as some sort of surogate Americans is simplifying the situation out of all perspective.


Dear DukeC,
I you go through my other posts you will find that I have always appreciated and mentioned the sincere and cordial service of Canadians to our Nation, and I have never equalized them with the Americans and as usual I would say that the nations who in real means are helping Afghans are Germany, Japan, Canada and some other of ISAF member nations.

The problem is that I as an educated Afghan may understand the difference between Americans and Canadians but how in the world is a resident of a rural area who even don't know much about is own country, goint to differenciate Canadians from the Americans. For them all of the foriegners are one and they are the people who have accupied their nation.



-------------




Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 05-May-2006 at 15:52

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

He didn't serve his life for his nation, he let some immoral cowards like the Taleban are talk him into throwing his life away.

I guess you are right some how, as if he was motivated by Taliban and Al-Qayeda then for sure that was just a waste of life as I really don't count the latter turned Taliban (most of whom were foriegners) as servents of country but enemies of.



-------------




Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 06-May-2006 at 15:13

      Capt. Trevor Greene

From a fellow British Columbian, best wishes in your recovery.



Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 02:54
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=0480a110-f215-4530-bdfe-4375907f88af - http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=0480a110-f215-4530-bdfe-4375907f88af
 
Some details on that recovery.
 
 
EDIT / Northman:
 
The link didn't work - now it does.
 
 


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 03:17
Thanks again Northman


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 06:13
Good news for the bloke, but that article is sickeningly patriotic.

Getting an axe to the head doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a casualty. The guy who wielded the axe however, that guy's brave! (and dead?)


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 14:41
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Good news for the bloke, but that article is sickeningly patriotic.

Getting an axe to the head doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a casualty. The guy who wielded the axe however, that guy's brave! (and dead?)
 
Strange how people can have totally different views on the same story.
 
In my opinion, the guy who used the axed is/was a brainwashed lunatic of the same caliber as those who rammed the planes into WTC - albeit in a lesser scale.
How can you call such actions bravery - they are shameless examples of the worst kind of cowardice ever known to man.
 
How much courage does it take to kill anyone who is totally unprepared?
I'll answer it for you - none!
It only takes a lunatic, a brainwashed idiot who is mislead to think he is serving a higher purpose - and mislead to think he will be rewarded with 72 virgins if he is killed himself.
 
I think any country has a right to honour their dead soldiers killed in service - call it patroism or whatever you want, and feel free to blame them for it.
But don't call shameless murderes and terrorists brave, please!
 


-------------


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 15:44
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Good news for the bloke, but that article is sickeningly patriotic.

Getting an axe to the head doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a casualty. The guy who wielded the axe however, that guy's brave! (and dead?)
 
No getting an axe to the head doesn't make him a hero, it's what he did before and after that does.
 
Try taking off the cultural blinders for a minute and read it again and maybe you'll get a little more out of the story.
 


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2009 at 02:32
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

In my opinion, the guy who used the axed is/was a brainwashed lunatic of the same caliber as those who rammed the planes into WTC - albeit in a lesser scale.
How can you call such actions bravery - they are shameless examples of the worst kind of cowardice ever known to man.

Give credit where credit is due North. I do not condone his actions, would not have allowed him to do it if I had the opportunity, and will not defend his motives. But lets not distort the English language here either.
Brave means: "Possessing or displaying courage;" (and courage means "The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.")

So the kid was brave. A 16 yr old with a homemade axe, attacking a fully grown soldier armed with an automatic rifle is brave. By definition.
Quote It only takes a lunatic, a brainwashed idiot who is mislead to think he is serving a higher purpose - and mislead to think he will be rewarded with 72 virgins if he is killed himself.

Ah yes, Patriotism. Dead

Tell me, what the hell is the difference between the Kid & the Solider?
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

No getting an axe to the head doesn't make him a hero, it's what he did before and after that does.
 
Try taking off the cultural blinders for a minute and read it again and maybe you'll get a little more out of the story.

That's true. What did he before and after again? I haven't seen it reported anywhere.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2009 at 16:40
Originally posted by malizai_ malizai_ wrote:

 I think the fact that a boy has done this in the presence of grown men, will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those men having been outdone by a child and attained martyrdom.
IS he really a "martyr" according to the islamic definition or are you using the term martyrdom from a nationalistic perspective. From the  Islamic definition of martyrdom, he does not appear qualify. The Koran or hadith (or both) appear to forbid attacking people through treachery or guise of truce. Instead, enemies are to be given warnning that they will face attack etc. 
 
The Canadian Officer was apparently under the direct impression that he would not be treated as hostile by the people present. He did not have ready access to weapons and was attacked from behind after he made himself vulnerable.
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Brave means: "Possessing or displaying courage;" (and courage means "The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.")
Brave and dishonorable at the same time. His dis honor is shown by the fact that he was probably using his religion as a justification and then directly violated teachings of that religion.
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

As for the attack being the actions of one individual as the story points out the adults removed the children minutes before the attack  
Good point. What really happened is far different than the Taliban propaganda. Using children as props to attack a person by surprise while feigning peace is not only cowardly but it is also apparently against the religion of the attackers. It is perfectly acceptable, however, under Chairman Mao's rules of guerilla warfare.  
  
  
 
 


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2009 at 22:17
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Getting an axe to the head doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a casualty. The guy who wielded the axe however, that guy's brave! (and dead?)


Boy... reading some of the responses here, like this one (Sorry Omar), is really making me rethink my thoughts on S.P. Huntington's theory on "Clash of Civilizations!"





Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 01:37
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Brave and dishonorable at the same time. His dis honor is shown by the fact that he was probably using his religion as a justification and then directly violated teachings of that religion.

Definitely.
Quote Boy... reading some of the responses here, like this one (Sorry Omar), is really making me rethink my thoughts on S.P. Huntington's theory on "Clash of Civilizations!"

But which civilisation would I be in?


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 01:57
By applying a definition of bravery that doesn't depend on the moral nature of the act but solely on the risk involved then of course we'd all have to agree that this axeman was brave, the 9/11 pilots even more so. We'd also have to agree it'd be quite brave to rape a child in public, so I for one am not too crazy about this understanding of bravery.

-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 02:01
I see where Omar is coming from. Bravery is often associated with a degree of honour, and a profound understanding of the situation and its dynamics that one finds oneself in. But according to what Omar is saying, it only involves the ability to not be intimidated by a situation in order to do what you feel like doing.

So by Omar's definition. Most muggers, rapists and murderers are quite brave. These people know there is a risk (they may get caught/ their victim may fight back) and yet they summon the nerve to go through with their action despite the circumstances.

However, most people associate bravery with someone who does an action which is necessary. The boy's action was not necessary. He broke the rules of conflict and hospitality which are held in common by both the Afghans and the foreign force serving there. He was most likely brainwashed into doing something that the situation definitely did not call for, and which went against the better judgement of people who were wiser. When you do something which is dangerous out of good judgement, it is called bravery. When you do something dangerous out of ignorance, it is called recklessness.


-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 02:10
Wow, interesting parallel thought patterns there Reg. Didn't see your post until after I submitted mine.

-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 03:47
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

In my opinion, the guy who used the axed is/was a brainwashed lunatic of the same caliber as those who rammed the planes into WTC - albeit in a lesser scale.
How can you call such actions bravery - they are shameless examples of the worst kind of cowardice ever known to man.

Give credit where credit is due North. I do not condone his actions, would not have allowed him to do it if I had the opportunity, and will not defend his motives. But lets not distort the English language here either.
Brave means: "Possessing or displaying courage;" (and courage means "The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.")

So the kid was brave. A 16 yr old with a homemade axe, attacking a fully grown soldier armed with an automatic rifle is brave. By definition.
Quote It only takes a lunatic, a brainwashed idiot who is mislead to think he is serving a higher purpose - and mislead to think he will be rewarded with 72 virgins if he is killed himself.

Ah yes, Patriotism. Dead

Tell me, what the hell is the difference between the Kid & the Solider?
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

No getting an axe to the head doesn't make him a hero, it's what he did before and after that does.
 
Try taking off the cultural blinders for a minute and read it again and maybe you'll get a little more out of the story.

That's true. What did he before and after again? I haven't seen it reported anywhere.



The kid is a Muslim peasant that has no clue of superior western values, the soldier does Dead.


I think your analogy was superb Omar. There isn't much difference between the two aside from the fact that one does this out of employ and the other for free.



-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 03:52
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Getting an axe to the head doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a casualty. The guy who wielded the axe however, that guy's brave! (and dead?)


Boy... reading some of the responses here, like this one (Sorry Omar), is really making me rethink my thoughts on S.P. Huntington's theory on "Clash of Civilizations!"





Don't worry, Moses Obama will save us all with the extra 17, 000 troops, and ya'll Republicans called him a tree hugger LOL.

I am really not sure where you would get that from. Omar made a good analogy about two sides without judging either one. When it comes down to basics there isn't much difference between these two sides. A soldier is a soldier, whether he does get a pay check or a flawed ideology that will compensate after the fact.


-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 04:01
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

By applying a definition of bravery that doesn't depend on the moral nature of the act but solely on the risk involved then of course we'd all have to agree that this axeman was brave, the 9/11 pilots even more so. We'd also have to agree it'd be quite brave to rape a child in public, so I for one am not too crazy about this understanding of bravery.


Well... actually Bill Maher a comedian, and a talk show host here got fired for saying that the hijackers were brave for flying the plane into the building while soldiers remote control rockets into buildings... (what a great example of freedom of speech eh?.. ) of course he never pandered to terrorists, nor is he favorable to religion, nor religious based violence, but he made a point - and if the sides were turned around I am pretty sure he would be praised for the point, but eh what do we know... we live in cities with plumbing, electricity, and no bombs stuck in the front facade... we must know better don't we?




-------------



Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 09:26
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

I am really not sure where you would get that from. Omar made a good analogy about two sides without judging either one. When it comes down to basics there isn't much difference between these two sides. A soldier is a soldier, whether he does get a pay check or a flawed ideology that will compensate after the fact.


From a neutral ground there isn't any reason to claim moral superiority from either side, as they both fight for what they believe in. It comes down to whether one supports the operation in Afghanistan or not. If the operation is morally sound then opposing it must necessarily be wrong, and vice versa.

Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

Well... actually Bill Maher a comedian, and a talk show host here got fired for saying that the hijackers were brave for flying the plane into the building while soldiers remote control rockets into buildings... (what a great example of freedom of speech eh?.. ) of course he never pandered to terrorists, nor is he favorable to religion, nor religious based violence, but he made a point - and if the sides were turned around I am pretty sure he would be praised for the point, but eh what do we know... we live in cities with plumbing, electricity, and no bombs stuck in the front facade... we must know better don't we?


Freedom of speech is ever a comfortable lie for hypocrites. I wish we'd just drop the charade and be honest about the fact that certain opinions aren't allowed, it would be more consistent and easier to uphold. In this case Bill Maher's employer must be allowed to decide whether he wants to invest in someone who openly says the 9/11 hijackers were brave. Regardless of what one thinks of the statement it must be a serious liability to have a public figure like that on your paylist.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 15:48
Interesting thread. In my view, the boy was less brave and as Constantine said, more reckless, as bravery indicates a conscious willingness to endure hardship. If the boy believed that he was to get 72 virgins or whatever at death, then no idea of hardship would have influenced him.

The difference between he child and the soldier is that one is acting in accordance with law, and the other isn't. The ideology behind the act of attempted murder, and the subsequent murder of this boy by soldiers must necessarily be circumscribed by legality, whether you agree with it ethically or not. The boy was murdered by the Afghan soldiers, but murdered legally.




-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 16:55
Again Law is a perception - especially as this happened in Afghanistan not Canada.

-------------



Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 17:33
UN law is most certainly not a perception, but I see what you mean. This young man's idea of what is allowed is different to the soldier's, but the fact remains that he was lawfully killed and the soldier was unlawfully attacked, one through ideology, and one devoid of it.

-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 18:02
Again that isn't a universal concept for all. It is a perception "we" share, thus to boggle down such actions into right and wrong distracts from the point of this news piece. The poitn of course being that there is discontent with the situation, and that "we" are increasingly looked on as invaders versus helpers.

-------------



Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 01:17
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

UN law is most certainly not a perception, but I see what you mean. This young man's idea of what is allowed is different to the soldier's, but the fact remains that he was lawfully killed and the soldier was unlawfully attacked, one through ideology, and one devoid of it.

UN law most certainly is a perception. It just happens to be one that most people share most of. When UN law starts become a hindrence though, countries will shamlessly brake it, often with their populations right behind them.

Nor is the soldier devoid of ideology in anyway. He was fighting for Canada wasn't he? Against the Talibs?
Originally posted by Reg Reg wrote:


From a neutral ground there isn't any reason to claim moral superiority from either side, as they both fight for what they believe in. It comes down to whether one supports the operation in Afghanistan or not. If the operation is morally sound then opposing it must necessarily be wrong, and vice versa.

Exactly right.

The problem with this thread is that it is far too tainted with war propaganda, or the modern equivilent. All positive traits, bravery, heroism, courage, honour, apply to the 'good guys' (in this case the Canadian solider), and all negative traits, cowardice, dishonour, brainwashed, lunacy apply to the 'bad guy'.
Facts don't play any part, critical thinking plays no part, we are just supposed to regurgitate this good guy/bad guy crap. Even worse, if you do apply the words according to their facts & meanings, you suddenly become a heretic.

Lets get the facts clear of the clouds.
-> The Kid was brave. He attacked his enemy in the face of certain death. He is also dishonourable, suicidal, and reckless, but suicidal and recklessness often go hand-in-hand with bravery. I had a teacher who knew of a guy who at the battle of El Alamain single handedly charged a German machine gun post that was pinning down his unit. He had to run in clear view of the gun, and by all rights should have been killed. For some reason the Germans didn't see him, so he got their and bayonnetted them. That guy too, was brave reckless and suicidal.

-> Some muggers, rapists and murders can be brave. It does depend on how much immediate danger there is in their crime though. We recognise this sometimes, think of bank robbers, cowboys, and bushrangers. They're often no more than muggers rapist and murders, and we accept they are brave.

-> We have no idea about the Kids motivation. So stop speculating. 72 virgins is old christian propaganda, even if he is fully in on the Taliban ideology he has probably never heard of it! Calling him brainwashed, wanting to die for 72 virgins is buying into your own propaganda. Everybody is brainwashed, the only difference whether we like the way they were brainwashed or not. Generally, people in this forum will like the way the Canadian was brainwashed [educated] more than the way the Kid was.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 01:56
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote Boy... reading some of the responses here, like this one (Sorry Omar), is really making me rethink my thoughts on S.P. Huntington's theory on "Clash of Civilizations!"

But which civilisation would I be in?


I think i came into this thread misunderstanding the context of some of the replies?

My apologies to Omar and no need to worry about that particular comment. I tend to have a big mouth at times and an equally sized foot for it to fit in. I also have this tendency at times of underestimating the dimness of this little ol' bulb of mine between my ears. Embarrassed




Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 07:56
Hello to you all
 
I wasn't going to comment here but the last few posts forced me to do it.
 
Last time I checked Afghanistan was occupied by the US government and Nato forces, spin it as you like but resistance to occupation is one of the basic human rights just like liberty. While most Afghanis may don't want to use this right some do and the kid in the story did it.
 
Second point, as far as I know the US was attacked not Canada. Those who did the attack were a terrorist group and the Nato treaty doesn't cover terrorist groups. It talks about states. Plus the Taliban was never a state according to the Nato members which means Canada has no business fighting there.
 
Third point, the kid sacrificed his life to kill his enemy, this is a brave act by a brave kid and those who said it wasn't would say the opposite if the kid was Canadian and the Soldier was Afghan.
 
Fourth point, and this might be controversial, the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are nothing but mercenaries since the only state with a right to have a military presence in Afghanistan is the US. Mercenaries have no rights under Geneva conventions (77 protocol). The guy got what he asked for for being in a place where he or his country has no business in being there.
 
Finally, I never knew there was a list of lawful weapons one could use to kill his enemy, especially blue eyed blondies from the Europe, would any one please send me the list.
 
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 09:07
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Some muggers, rapists and murders can be brave. It does depend on how much immediate danger there is in their crime though. We recognise this sometimes, think of bank robbers, cowboys, and bushrangers. They're often no more than muggers rapist and murders, and we accept they are brave.


I still wouldn't operate with "brave" in this context. The concept of bravery carries with it a sense of moral quality, it'd be very confusing if we started applying to it any act that involves risk. The kind of people you mention would be more appropriately termed "rogue", "daring", "audacious" or maybe even "bold". If you used "brave" you'd have to explain yourself afterwards, which isn't effective communication.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Last time I checked Afghanistan was occupied by the US government and Nato forces, spin it as you like but resistance to occupation is one of the basic human rights just like liberty. While most Afghanis may don't want to use this right some do and the kid in the story did it.


Is it possible to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan and at the same time believe the Afghans are right to defend themselves against it? This seems like too much of a self-contradiction to be workable in real life. You may feel as if many operate with a double standard under which it's okay for NATO forces to kill Afghans but not vice versa, but this is a logical necessity of supporting the operation. In any case it's not as if anyone needs to be granted a formal right to defend themselves, self-defense is a god-given right that can be used by anyone regardless of any consensus.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Finally, I never knew there was a list of lawful weapons one could use to kill his enemy, especially blue eyed blondies from the Europe, would any one please send me the list.


Actually we have yet to develop such a list, seeing as we prefer to stay alive and all. At the moment I'm busy imagining the outrage if I made a similar request concerning "brownies from the Middle East" or "big-nosed Negroes from Africa".


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 10:00
Hello Regi
 
Based on your argument people have been fighting war the wrong way for the past 3000 years.
 
There is no contradiction here whatsoever. One guy is fighting because his government was attacked on 9/11 and the other is fighting because his government was attacked on 7/10/2001. Both are doing their duty and both committed no wrong.
 
What you are saying is in effect if one country declared war on the other for any reason the second nation should just throw its weapons and open its doors. The least I could say about this is naive.
 
Second point, the whole argument of this thread was "evil barbarian Afghan boy vs. Canadian Hero".
 
Some people here say attack by vaccuum bombs and candy size and appearence cluster bombs is the humane way to kill people (despite most of the victims are civilians) but attacking the enemy with an axe (even though it was the only weapon available) is a crime.
 
The first act is the supreme act of bravery while the second one is first rate cowardice.
 
Now that is double standards.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 10:34
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Regi
 
Based on your argument people have been fighting war the wrong way for the past 3000 years.
 
There is no contradiction here whatsoever. One guy is fighting because his government was attacked on 9/11 and the other is fighting because his government was attacked on 7/10/2001. Both are doing their duty and both committed no wrong.
 
What you are saying is in effect if one country declared war on the other for any reason the second nation should just throw its weapons and open its doors. The least I could say about this is naive.


I can't see how you were able to read this out of my post. All I said was that if you're going to support the operation in Afghanistan then you can't consider it right for the enemy to fight back. I one truly believes in the merits of this operation then one must also believe it would be better if every Afghan merely surrendered. Of course it rarely happens this way, and so there is armed conflict. In armed conflict people fight for what they believe in, not for what they consider to be merely one of two equally valid agendas.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Second point, the whole argument of this thread was "evil barbarian Afghan boy vs. Canadian Hero".
 
Some people here say attack by vaccuum bombs and candy size and appearence cluster bombs is the humane way to kill people (despite most of the victims are civilians) but attacking the enemy with an axe (even though it was the only weapon available) is a crime.
 
The first act is the supreme act of bravery while the second one is first rate cowardice.
 
Now that is double standards.

Yes, but it's war. It's only natural for people to look out for their own while condemning the enemy. As stated before, no one goes to war believing the cause of the enemy to be as just as one's own, so you can't expect them to treat each other as equals. Double standards become the rule.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 18:09
Hello Regi
 
I would have said see my post above but I think some explaination is needed.
 
First of all there is a complete difference between right (as in human rights) and right (as in correct). One might have the first right but is not on the second right of the issue.
 
The only contradiction is in your head. Wars have been fought for 3000 years based on that assumption and because of it there are Geneva conventions, laws of wars, POWs and what not. From the hundreds of Nazi Generals and millions of German soldiers only a few were procecuted because while it was wrong of them to wage war on other states it was the State not the individual who was doing the wrong thing.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2009 at 02:12

Quote I still wouldn't operate with "brave" in this context. The concept of bravery carries with it a sense of moral quality, it'd be very confusing if we started applying to it any act that involves risk. The kind of people you mention would be more appropriately termed "rogue", "daring", "audacious" or maybe even "bold". If you used "brave" you'd have to explain yourself afterwards, which isn't effective communication.

Well I am having to explain myself afterward aren't I? But yes, you are correct in that, when I am in company where I don't want this discussion they are safer words.
However, since people can cope with this with discussion on AE I will stick with using Brave. I think rather than bravery implying a sense of moral quality the problem is more than bravery is a moral quality. Its a single moral quality, of a possible many, but in this case we can say it is a moral quality that the kid possesed. The problem comes when people don't like acknowledging any moral qualities in their enemies (or crims), so they are happy to acknowledge that he was audacious, but not that he was brave. I cited the example of bank robbers, cowboys and bushrangers as these are all examples of criminals that have been subject to positive propaganda (as opposed to muggers, rapists and murderers), even though the person is exactly the same. A brigand who was considered a muderer by his contemporaries becomes a Bushranger (perhaps even a hero) by later generations. His actions are identical, but the contempories suppress his moral characteristics because they didn't like him, and later generations over enlarge them because they do like him. "Everybody knows" bushrangers are brave, even though they basically are muggers, rapists, and murderers.

Personally I think you should always acknowledge the positive attributes of even your worst enemy, and to do other wise is dishonourable on your part.

Quote Is it possible to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan and at the same time believe the Afghans are right to defend themselves against it? This seems like too much of a self-contradiction to be workable in real life. You may feel as if many operate with a double standard under which it's okay for NATO forces to kill Afghans but not vice versa, but this is a logical necessity of supporting the operation.

I don't think so. I think this depends highly on the society. In societies that shirk at war and have no real interest in the operation daemonising the enemy is probably necessary to keep support (thus they have no moral right to fight back). But in societies that are used to war, and have a real interest in being there, its highly counter-productive (because believing your own propaganda isn't going to bring you victory, which relies upon understanding your enemy)
Quote In armed conflict people fight for what they believe in, not for what they consider to be merely one of two equally valid agendas.

Definitely in Afghanistan & Pakistan the majority of people are fighting for one of two valid agendas. Its only a few who would be 'pro Taliban' or 'pro NATO'. Most will have their own agenda which will cause them to back one side or the other. And I certainly include the Pakistan Army & Government in this group.
There was a recent incident in Afghanistan where a foriegn patrol was ambushed by Taliban, it wouldn't have been much of a problem except for the fact all the local villagers came out and fought with the Talibs. Afterwards they asked the villagers why they fought for the Taliban, when NATO already knew they weren't involved with them. The answer was simple; this was the most exciting thing to happen in their valley for 20 years and they weren't about to miss out. Since they had to choose a side to join in, they chose the Taliban, after all they were locals and not invaders.



-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2009 at 09:33
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I would have said see my post above but I think some explaination is needed.
 
First of all there is a complete difference between right (as in human rights) and right (as in correct). One might have the first right but is not on the second right of the issue.
 
The only contradiction is in your head. Wars have been fought for 3000 years based on that assumption and because of it there are Geneva conventions, laws of wars, POWs and what not. From the hundreds of Nazi Generals and millions of German soldiers only a few were procecuted because while it was wrong of them to wage war on other states it was the State not the individual who was doing the wrong thing.


I can't help but get the impression my posts are ambiguous since I feel as if I keep replying to rebukes for things I never intended to say in the first place.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. I ethical debates I often try to apply as wide a perspective as possible in an attempt to make my statements universally applicable to human history, which is why I don't take Geneva conventions and the like into account. I'm interested in how different human individuals and societies think about war and ethics, as this is what I believe is ever the decisive factor, and not theoretical treatises on what should be right and wrong. The significance of such documents is limited as their stipulations tend to be ignored the moment they become too inconvenient. Far from providing any guarantees they usually end up as political tools to legitimize war.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 18:22
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


That's true. What did he before and after again? I haven't seen it reported anywhere.
 
It was in the story.
 
Like I said, read it again. He was a social activist before he joined the forces to go to Afghanistan. And despite a lot of the rhetoric, not everyone serving in the NATO forces in Afghanistan sees themself as some bit player in neo-colonialism. In fact most of the Canadians there really want to make a difference.
 
And just recovering from the the type of injury he sustained takes a type of courage that few possess.
 
I don't think the young man who attacked him had that kind of courage. He was probably brought up to believe in some sort of devine ascension for an act of violence again an outsider to his culture. He attacked an unarmed man who had removed his helmet to show his respect to the locals. He wasn't  part of a sweep to clear local Talibs out, he was there to help reconstruct the water system. Isn't there supposed to be a tradition of generosity to outsiders in the Pushtun culture?
 
Like most extremists, the Taliban are unable to see any shades of grey, everything is black or white.


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 17:50
And on the subject of courage, two of the latest fatalities with the Canadian forces in Afghanistan have been female.
 
Karine Blais was just 21 and at a time in life when most Canadian women her age are in college, starting their careers or even a family, she had the guts to be serving in a combat zone that had already taken the lives of 116 Canadians. An IED was detonated under the armored vehicle she was riding in killing her instantly. It's how most Canadians have been killed since 2007 as the Taliban soon found they were less than successful in open combat with the Canadians.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-May-2009 at 00:29
I want to ask, what is motivating the Canadian government to this war despite the fact that they have lost over a hundred personnel KIA (and how knows how many WIA)? I don't think Australia has lost 1/10th that amount. Our forces are serving in Oruzgan province.

-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 06-May-2009 at 17:51
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I want to ask, what is motivating the Canadian government to this war despite the fact that they have lost over a hundred personnel KIA (and how knows how many WIA)? I don't think Australia has lost 1/10th that amount. Our forces are serving in Oruzgan province.
 
Originally it was to avoid having to send Canadians to Iraq as that war was looming in 2002. Afghanistan was a relatively quiet country after the fall of the Taliban and Canada was involved in security and rebuilding operations in the north near Kabul. The planned move to the south in the Kandahar region in 2006 by Canadian Forces also coincided with a resurgent Taliban, and a new Bush friendly government here under PM Harper.
 
Instead of rebuilding, security has become Canadas' #1 mission in Afghanistan since mid 2006. I think a lot of the political motivation behind the mission is still a holdover from Harpers support for the war on terror, but that's rapidly changing as Obama is refocusing on stablilizng the region as much as he can. The Canadian government has recently indicated it's willing to negotiate with Taliban forces, something it hadn't been willing to do while Bush was in charge in the U.S.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 07-May-2009 at 05:07

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

It was in the story.

Its not in the story at all. All that is in the story is the type of sickening cowardly patriotism that fills you with disgust to be allied with such people. If we all had that type of bravery we'd be afraid to leave the city incase we got dirt on our shoes.
Quote
Like I said, read it again. He was a social activist before he joined the forces to go to Afghanistan. And despite a lot of the rhetoric, not everyone serving in the NATO forces in Afghanistan sees themself as some bit player in neo-colonialism.

Oh right, so if I don't see myself as something it means I'm not one? This makes him a hero does it? That he was foolish enough to see white as black?
Quote
And just recovering from the the type of injury he sustained takes a type of courage that few possess.

Rubbish. What's the alternative? Suicide? My mum's cousin has recovered from just as bad or worse in a similar story. Why aren't you singing her praise as a hero? Are you prepared to admit that its because the solider is being used for propaganda purposes while she isn't?
Quote I don't think the young man who attacked him had that kind of courage. He was probably brought up to believe in some sort of devine ascension for an act of violence again an outsider to his culture.
...
Like most extremists, the Taliban are unable to see any shades of grey, everything is black or white.

Prove it. You have no knowledge of his motives and I'm sure you have never met a Talib so don't make unfounded guesses based on war propaganda.

Honestly Duke, I can't make any judgements about the soliders involved but this kind of reporting just makes me want to throw up. Honour your war dead, but do it in a way that actually honours them, not in a way that looks like the whining of a jingoistic media. Its extremely irritating. Do you seriously think that you can win any war thinking like that? Let alone win a war against a people who have been fighting for 30 years, and join in a firefight because its fun?



-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-May-2009 at 18:08
Maybe it's a Canadian thing, we do honor our soldiers and considering our military history and the fact we've spent the last 30 years trying to sort out other peoples wars I don't see that as bad.


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-May-2009 at 19:41
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Its not in the story at all. All that is in the story is the type of sickening cowardly patriotism that fills you with disgust to be allied with such people. If we all had that type of bravery we'd be afraid to leave the city incase we got dirt on our shoes.
 
Hmm...I went over it again and it seems merely factual to me...

"Every once in a while a true hero emerges, someone whose struggle against the odds, against adversity, bad luck, destiny -- whichever you call it -- shows us the true nature of courage. We know their names, and they are few. Christopher Reeve. Rick Hansen. Terry Fox."

The main focus of the story is on Trevor Greene overcoming his medical disability not the Taliban, unless you think we're being sickening cowardly patriotic about Rick Hansen or Terry Fox too, then your statement makes no sense to me.

Quote Oh right, so if I don't see myself as something it means I'm not one? This makes him a hero does it? That he was foolish enough to see white as black?
 
It's a UN sanctioned mission, what's your point? Western forces wouldn't even be in Afghanistan if the Taliban hadn't aligned itself with an organization that declared defacto war on the US. Even the Sudanese government was smart enough to see how stupid what Al Qaeda was doing was. I think the old saying, " Don't stand next to a person who's throwing shit at a guy with a gun" applies here.
 

Quote
Rubbish. What's the alternative? Suicide? My mum's cousin has recovered from just as bad or worse in a similar story. Why aren't you singing her praise as a hero? Are you prepared to admit that its because the solider is being used for propaganda purposes while she isn't?
 
If your mom's cousin has had her brain cleaved in two and has gone from a vegatative state to talking and recovering her motor functions (or something similar), then all praise to her. No I'm not prepared to admit this is about propaganda, not living here you probably have no idea how proud we are of people like Fox and Hansen both also BC natives, I grew up in the town Rick Hansen is from and I spent four years in Vancouver so I have no problem relating to Trevors story, the Afghan thing is just peripheral as far as I care really. 
Quote
Prove it. You have no knowledge of his motives and I'm sure you have never met a Talib so don't make unfounded guesses based on war propaganda.
 
I don't have to prove a thing, the Taliban have a well established record of violence against anything outside their very limited idea of acceptable. It would have been bad enough if they restricted their activities to just Afghanistan, but like I said their inherant ignorance and xenophobia resulted in support for a organization that had the ability to truly piss the US off but not protect their former hosts from the inevitable response.

Quote Honestly Duke, I can't make any judgements about the soliders involved but this kind of reporting just makes me want to throw up. Honour your war dead, but do it in a way that actually honours them, not in a way that looks like the whining of a jingoistic media. Its extremely irritating. Do you seriously think that you can win any war thinking like that? Let alone win a war against a people who have been fighting for 30 years, and join in a firefight because its fun?

I think it's meant more for domestic consumption, I thought it was a great story.
 
As for our military record, I think it speaks for itself. As long as NATO and the UN is active in Afghanistan I think you can count on annoying Canadians to be contributing.Smile
 


Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 07-May-2009 at 20:27
I am too tired to read all the comments, but I believe that that 16 yr old boy got what he deserved. I really do hate to sound liek an ass that way. BTW, Everyone! Stop insulting soldiers from the fronts of Iraq and Afghanistan! Disrespecting soldiers is a pet peeve of mine, so bugger off! If you insult soldiers from any nation, you deserve to be in the middle of their firefight!

-------------
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 07-May-2009 at 23:48
@Northman
Regards dear Northman,
Wish you are doing fine and I am pleased to have an arguement with you after a while as  I really learn alot from your replies.
So wish to hear some of your views on mine.
 
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

 
In my opinion, the guy who used the axed is/was a brainwashed lunatic of the same caliber as those who rammed the planes into WTC - albeit in a lesser scale.
I totally agree with you that majority (not all) of these attacks are taken by some brainwashed youth you are catagorized in three main catagories:
1 - Ones who are living in a very poor condition of life and requires money for the survival of his/her family so they are paid for it.
2 - Ones who are motivated in the name of religion (Islam) and are promised good return in the life after death.
3 - Ones who have suffered and lost family members and loved ones and are totally motivated by the actions of the apposing side.
 
Now comes the role of world's deadlest weapon (THE MEDIA) which totally desolved the real story of the boy and made the survivour a Hero or shall I say an axed Hero.
This boy who was just 16 had lost his mother, two of his brothers and cousin due to the deadly bombardment of the Allies, and this was the only cause that made him do such an action, I mean he didn't know anything about the bombers, he just knew that it was the foriegners who bombed them.
 
Now he was an uneducated 16 years old villager who could hardly differentiate between good and bad, but what would you like to say about the cruel judgement of the educated, civilized, modern, un-brainwashed (if you guess so because I guess the Euro-American people are the most brainwashed people in the world by their governments and media) and highly democratic people of America who sent their sons for the revenge of people whom they even didn't know.
And what about the so called Allies of it, I mean they weren't harmed in anyway (as far as you can differentiate b/w a real attack and a made attack), so then why did they send their sons.
 
If they had the right to take revange of their fellow countrymen from people (Afghans) who required to travel 100s of milles just to make an international call (and people think they were capable of attacking America in their own safehouse, that should be the biggest blunder of history ha Confused), how in the world didn't this little boy have the right to take his revange from the invaders?
Still I really am sorry for the Canadian as he too is/could be a son to a mother, a husband to a wife and a father to his children, but you shall also understand the devotoin and emotion of that child too, he too was a son and a borther to someone.
 
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

How can you call such actions bravery - they are shameless examples of the worst kind of cowardice ever known to man.
How much courage does it take to kill anyone who is totally unprepared?
I'll answer it for you - none!
 
I totally agree with you about it and I guess soo shall be the invaders learnt this lesson that there is no bravery in bombing 100s of innocent civilian and then making exceuse for it, while facing Taleban on ground is like hiking a volcano mountain bare footed. Shocked Now what kind of a bravery would that be classified in?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?hp - Here a recent example .
 
 
Quote It only takes a lunatic, a brainwashed idiot who is mislead to think he is serving a higher purpose - and mislead to think he will be rewarded with 72 virgins if he is killed himself.
I guess those lunatics at least have something that they die for (by your reference 72 virgins) which I totally demote and am against.
But what about the soldiers from all around the world who are fighting a war that was never theirs and has nothing to do with them?
What are they fighting for? For a medal? Oh I just remembered that most of them are mercenaries and are paid so I guess they are fighting for money which they will for sure be spent on women, alchohole, drugs and for sure preferable if possible some virgins as well.
 
So doesn't that make them both equal?
Oh no, those westerners again out smarted our poor people as they are taking their money in this life and enjoying it while ours are saving it for live after DEATH (which means they don't take anything in this life).
 
Quote I think any country has a right to honour their dead soldiers killed in service - call it patroism or whatever you want, and feel free to blame them for it.
But don't call shameless murderes and terrorists brave, please!
 
 
Dear Northman can you please define the word terrorist because I am so confused with it as I guess their is no difference in actions of your so called terrorists (which were Mujahideen *FREEDOM FIGHTERS* till yesterday) and our so called terrorist (the invaders).
 
I mean please let me know in simple words what does a terrorist mean? As far as in simple words it means "any person who terrorize someone else is a terrorist" that's what the word means I guess (if I am mistaken please correct me as English is not my mother tongue).
 


-------------




Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 07-May-2009 at 23:52
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy The Canadian Guy wrote:

I am too tired to read all the comments, but I believe that that 16 yr old boy got what he deserved. I really do hate to sound liek an ass that way. BTW, Everyone! Stop insulting soldiers from the fronts of Iraq and Afghanistan! Disrespecting soldiers is a pet peeve of mine, so bugger off! If you insult soldiers from any nation, you deserve to be in the middle of their firefight!
 
Well dear TCG,
It really depends who is saying and from where is he saying, I mean same think back in here is thought about the Canadian soldier that he got what he deserved.
I mean no one invited them to get over here and no one told them that there was a party going on so just hang out here.
For sure when you go to war, there would be casualities and he was one amongst them, but still it's good that he still is alive.
 
Or shall I say that it would had been better for him if he had died as now every time he will see the mirror he will be killed once.
 


-------------




Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 08-May-2009 at 01:08
Man! Why you so hateful to my nations soldiers? We do not attack civilians, American soldiers do! We do fight now and kill and of our enemies, but we don't go and murder civies!

-------------
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 08-May-2009 at 15:33

Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:


@Northman
Regards dear Northman,
Wish you are doing fine and I am pleased to have an arguement with you after a while as  I really learn alot from your replies.
So wish to hear some of your views on mine.

Hello dear Gharanai – Since my first reaction to this thread, I have kept my tongue to let others air their opinion, but I will be happy to give you my view on your questions.
Before doing so, maybe I should stress the fact, that Denmark actually has the largest contingent of troops in Afghanistan and we have also had the largest number of casualties (both numbers compared to population). The last number is probably due to the fact that the major part of our troops are located in the most troubled region, Helmand. 
 
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:


In my opinion, the guy who used the axed is/was a brainwashed lunatic of the same caliber as those who rammed the planes into WTC - albeit in a lesser scale.

Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

I totally agree with you that majority (not all) of these attacks are taken by some brainwashed youth you are catagorized in three main catagories:
1 - Ones who are living in a very poor condition of life and requires money for the survival of his/her family so they are paid for it.
2 - Ones who are motivated in the name of religion (Islam) and are promised good return in the life after death.
3 - Ones who have suffered and lost family members and loved ones and are totally motivated by the actions of the apposing side.
Now comes the role of world's deadlest weapon (THE MEDIA) which totally desolved the real story of the boy and made the survivour a Hero or shall I say an axed Hero.
This boy who was just 16 had lost his mother, two of his brothers and cousin due to the deadly bombardment of the Allies, and this was the only cause that made him do such an action, I mean he didn't know anything about the bombers, he just knew that it was the foriegners who bombed them.

I don’t think we disagree a whole lot here. The boy was a victim himself, no matter whether the reason for his action was number 1, 2 or 3. The first two examples is a victim of brainwash, and the last example an understandable but misplaced reaction from someone who is in distress and can only see one direction to place his hatred.
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Now he was an uneducated 16 years old villager who could hardly differentiate between good and bad, but what would you like to say about the cruel judgement of the educated, civilized, modern, un-brainwashed (if you guess so because I guess the Euro-American people are the most brainwashed people in the world by their governments and media) and highly democratic people of America who sent their sons for the revenge of people whom they even didn't know.
And what about the so called Allies of it, I mean they weren't harmed in anyway (as far as you can differentiate b/w a real attack and a made attack), so then why did they send their sons.
If they had the right to take revange of their fellow countrymen from people (Afghans) who required to travel 100s of milles just to make an international call (and people think they were capable of attacking America in their own safehouse, that should be the biggest blunder of history ha  ), how in the world didn't this little boy have the right to take his revange from the invaders?

Now, this is probably where we have different perceptions – and I will try to make my answer simple and clear to avoid any misunderstandings.
First of all, I don’t consider myself brainwashed by any media or by my government, but am perfectly capable of making my own conclusions and opinions. They can be more or less educated, but they are mine and shaped from what I think is a relatively open and critical mind and a mindset based on freedom and equality for all humans, regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity or any other factor that may be seen as a divisor between us.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned answer to 9-11. George W. Bush thought he had to do something in return, so he (or rather others for him) decided to take out the terrorists they thought was hiding among the Taliban.
I never thought that to be a good idea, and I still don’t think it’s a good idea. But that is not the point.


Reading your posts, I get the perception that you want us to believe that the ISAF forces are there to fight and kill all Afghani people. I know you are too intelligent really to believe that.
They are there to secure and stabilize the country after the US overthrew the Taliban government. They are there to help the country to get a better future than the previous several hundreds of years of wars and oppression of normal citizens. They are there to provide conditions for freedom, equality, education, human rights and maybe even democracy for ALL Afghani people – including the women.

I don’t believe they can do this by fighting the Taliban – they can only do it by winning the trust of the locals and they work hard to achieve that. But - if you risk getting an axe to your head when you peacefully meet with the locals, that option will evaporate as well.
Bottom line is, as long as your countrymen are mislead to think that ISAF is the enemy, or – if the Afghani people prefer a radical Islamic country under the oppressive rule of Taliban, then there really isn’t much hope for your country.


You have previously stated that you prefer a peaceful country under Taliban, compared to the present situation. But don’t you think the things I mentioned above are worth fighting for?
Right now you have 50,000 troops from 41 countries fighting for those rights and for you in your own country – why don’t you help them if you value those rights?
It’s really up to you (and your countrymen).

Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:


Still I really am sorry for the Canadian as he too is/could be a son to a mother, a husband to a wife and a father to his children, but you shall also understand the devotoin and emotion of that child too, he too was a son and a borther to someone.
 
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:


How can you call such actions bravery - they are shameless examples of the worst kind of cowardice ever known to man.
How much courage does it take to kill anyone who is totally unprepared?
I'll answer it for you - none!

 
I totally agree with you about it and I guess soo shall be the invaders learnt this lesson that there is no bravery in bombing 100s of innocent civilian and then making exceuse for it, while facing Taleban on ground is like hiking a volcano mountain bare footed.   Now what kind of a bravery would that be classified in?
Here a recent example.

You are wrong assuming that ANYONE in the ISAF need to learn lessons to find out that there is no bravery connected to bombings civilians, and yes – it’s tragic and totally unacceptable when things like this happen, and there is unfortunately no way to remedy what already happened.
I hope the incident will be fully investigated and proper action will be taken to avoid future similarities.

Yes, hiking volcanoes…   but what will you suggest instead – to leave Taliban alone to educate more suicide bombers to travel the world and spread horror?
The locals of Afghanistan need to learn that the only peaceful way to coexist with the rest of the world is to get rid of Taliban. I understand it is difficult if/when a family member is Taliban. It’s difficult to deny him shelter and protection in the family – but some are apparently willing to take the risk and he (the Taliban) is willing to jeopardize the family by hiding amongst them. 

Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

It only takes a lunatic, a brainwashed idiot who is mislead to think he is serving a higher purpose - and mislead to think he will be rewarded with 72 virgins if he is killed himself.

Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:


I guess those lunatics at least have something that they die for (by your reference 72 virgins) which I totally demote and am against.
But what about the soldiers from all around the world who are fighting a war that was never theirs and has nothing to do with them?
What are they fighting for? For a medal? Oh I just remembered that most of them are mercenaries and are paid so I guess they are fighting for money which they will for sure be spent on women, alchohole, drugs and for sure preferable if possible some virgins as well.
 
So doesn't that make them both equal?
Oh no, those westerners again out smarted our poor people as they are taking their money in this life and enjoying it while ours are saving it for live after DEATH (which means they don't take anything in this life).

There are more than 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, sanctioned by the UN, and I cannot vouch for the motives for each and every one of them. Most of them are there in an attempt to stop or reduce the terrorism we have seen all over the world for the past 4 decades, so it is definitely their war as well. Apparently you don’t see that connection, but that was the main purpose from day one – to take out the terrorist camps.
They are also determined to make a difference by trying to secure and develop your country to become a safe and good place for all citizens - and in time, a country that can sustain itself and be rid of the constant civil wars, fighting and killings that have been going on for many years – of course with the help of the thousands of humanitarian workers present in Afghanistan.
You cannot consider a life under a radical Taliban government with heroin as your country’s main product as a good society for your kids and grandkids to inherit, can you?
(read question on bottom)
 
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

I think any country has a right to honour their dead soldiers killed in service - call it patroism or whatever you want, and feel free to blame them for it.
But don't call shameless murderes and terrorists brave, please!
 
 
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:


Dear Northman can you please define the word terrorist because I am so confused with it as I guess their is no difference in actions of your so called terrorists (which were Mujahideen *FREEDOM FIGHTERS* till yesterday) and our so called terrorist (the invaders).
 
I mean please let me know in simple words what does a terrorist mean? As far as in simple words it means "any person who terrorize someone else is a terrorist" that's what the word means I guess (if I am mistaken please correct me as English is not my mother tongue).

You are not the only one who is confused. Whether someone is a terrorist or not is a matter of perspective.
In 1340 a Danish knight slew a German count in my town. The German had every right to be here, but still we consider the knight to be a hero – a freedom fighter. Had it not been for him, I would probably have been a German citizen. The German history books consider him a terrorist.
The Danish resistance movement under WWII was also considered terrorists in the beginning, also by our own government. History has changed that perception.

In my own opinion, a terrorist is someone who attack, kill or endanger innocent people by purpose, ie. a suicide bomber, a hi-jacker etc. etc.
The Mujahideen’s are not (necessarily) terrorists - the Taliban are not terrorists – but perhaps some of their actions could be considered actions of terror and someone is definitely educating and sheltering terrorists.

So my friend – my answer is neither as short nor as clear as I aimed it to be, but nevertheless you’ve got some answers.

Like stated above, now I have a few questions for you!

1. Say, the foreign troops, humanitarian workers and all pulled out tomorrow and left your country on its own – what would happen?
2. Say, you could decide and shape anything about the future for your country – how would you do that, what would you do?



-------------


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 08-May-2009 at 17:34
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy The Canadian Guy wrote:

Man! Why you so hateful to my nations soldiers? We do not attack civilians, American soldiers do! We do fight now and kill and of our enemies, but we don't go and murder civies!
 
Dear TCG I never said that I hate the Canadian soldiers, infact they are much much better than the Britians and US when it comes to dealing with the civilians.
What I wanted to tell you is that, the nationality doesn't matter over here in Afghanistan, same as most of the west who considers all the muslims as terrorists.
 
Take a person from Afghanistan's Nooristan area and suit him with some military uniform beside it send a Latin American with black hair and a bit brownish body tune wearing local clothes, and send them both to the general people who are fighting.
 
Believe me though the Afghan would be swearing in local language that he is not one of them, he won't be spared while the other guy could easily blend with the people.
So what I want to say is that those people don't know any nationality, all they know is that the invaders shall be killed, sadly that's all what they know and they are unable to differentiate between good invaders and bad.
 


-------------




Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 08-May-2009 at 22:10
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

 
I mean no one invited them to get over here and no one told them that there was a party going on so just hang out here.
 
That's nonsense, Al Qaeda sent out four passenger-ladden flaming airliners crashing into buildings in the U.S. as an invitation for the rest of the world to come visit Afghanistan which was its' host at the time.
 
US leaders would have been irresponsible not to take down the Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and anyone who tried to get in their way, which the Taliban was foolish enough to do. And allies like Canada would have been faithless not to support the US after all it has done for defence of the free world.
 
 


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 08-May-2009 at 22:19
@Northman
First of all thanks alot for your wonderful and informative reply and answers to the questions and I sure do enjoy reading your detailed answers to questions and scenarios.
 
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

First of all, I don’t consider myself brainwashed by any media or by my government, but am perfectly capable of making my own conclusions and opinions. They can be more or less educated, but they are mine and shaped from what I think is a relatively open and critical mind and a mindset based on freedom and equality for all humans, regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity or any other factor that may be seen as a divisor between us.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned answer to 9-11. George W. Bush thought he had to do something in return, so he (or rather others for him) decided to take out the terrorists they thought was hiding among the Taliban.
I never thought that to be a good idea, and I still don’t think it’s a good idea. But that is not the point.

If the media don't have effect then do you "REALY" believe that it was the Al-Qaida who attacked the twin towers and staged the path for the US to get in to the middle east?
 
Quote
Reading your posts, I get the perception that you want us to believe that the ISAF forces are there to fight and kill all Afghani people. I know you are too intelligent really to believe that.
They are there to secure and stabilize the country after the US overthrew the Taliban government. They are there to help the country to get a better future than the previous several hundreds of years of wars and oppression of normal citizens. They are there to provide conditions for freedom, equality, education, human rights and maybe even democracy for ALL Afghani people – including the women.
You are absoloutly right saying that I am intelligent enough to believe that ISAF is there to kill all Afghans.
For sure they are there to rebuild the country that has suffered and are helping its people build a better life, the way they want.
But the problem is that the Afghans don't want it as nothing in this world is for FREE, with one hand they are feeding the nation and with the other they are stabbing them with knife.
 
I mean the accomplishment for the establishment of a better society is way less than the devastations to the society.
In the first 2-3 years the ISAF and all other donors were given a good amount of time to show what they have in pocket for the people but sadly they didn't delievered when they were supposed to be.
That's why people got against them, instead of winning minds  and hearts of people (as you mentioned and as others say shall be done) they have just scratched their feelings and hearts.
 
You see if your government just riase 0.01% of General Tax most of your countrymen would be on the road protesting against it, and the gov would be standing by and considering their demand, but over here if you want to express your demand you either get killed or at least detained.
Therefore, most of the people in order to get their basic right they join groups which then use them mostly as their weapon of mass distruction.
 

Quote You have previously stated that you prefer a peaceful country under Taliban, compared to the present situation. But don’t you think the things I mentioned above are worth fighting for?
Right now you have 50,000 troops from 41 countries fighting for those rights and for you in your own country – why don’t you help them if you value those rights?
It’s really up to you (and your countrymen).

What you are speaking is not a surprise to me, as again you all are just dependent on the news and info from media and that's all what you get.
 
For sure anyone in the world would love a service which you described from people who do it for free and you don't lose anything in the process.
But sadly those things are good in stories only not in reality, can you tell me a single country who will get in my country, send millions of dollars and their sons and daughters in return for nothing? Come on now that could be a big joke I mean no country is there in the world who help others without considering their own interest.
So I don't consider these help as help but just a common interest of both parties.
 

Quote I hope the incident will be fully investigated and proper action will be taken to avoid future similarities.
Ha as if it was the first of its kind and would be investigated, come on now no one believe in those investigations...Wink
It is war and I guess we have to believe it now that everything is fare in love and war!

Quote Yes, hiking volcanoes…   but what will you suggest instead – to leave Taliban alone to educate more suicide bombers to travel the world and spread horror?

Well to me I consider both suicide bombings and aerial bombings as equal, in both the target are innocent people, so in that mater I guess there is no need of a new group to spread such a horror as we already do have the master (the US) in place and is spreading the horor around the world. hahhaahhah LOL

Quote You cannot consider a life under a radical Taliban government with heroin as your country’s main product as a good society for your kids and grandkids to inherit, can you?
Well I guess Afghanistan was producing 15% of world heroin at the time our foriegn friends arrived and now it is producing more that 90%.
For sure a wise guy wouldn't like his grandkids to inherit this society as well.
 

Quote In my own opinion, a terrorist is someone who attack, kill or endanger innocent people by purpose, ie. a suicide bomber, a hi-jacker etc. etc.
 
Do I have to comment on this one as well as you said it yourself.
 
Quote
1. Say, the foreign troops, humanitarian workers and all pulled out tomorrow and left your country on its own – what would happen?
2. Say, you could decide and shape anything about the future for your country – how would you do that, what would you do?
 
I would like to answer both of them in one answer as both are connected.
 
If the foreign troops and humanitarian workers pull out tomorrow the same things will happen again what happened back in 1991-1996, when we made Russia to withdraw and then demolished the communist government and at the end we got the US saying good job done boys, bye bye now.
 
Now what we (or maybe if I say what I want would be better) want are these steps which should be taken in numerical order:
 
First- The amount of money that the foreign troop are spending on their soldiers, give us half of it to train our own military, so we could defend our country in future as well.
Or are these foreign troops are here for ever to protect us?
2- Set a date of withdrawl and don't interfere when it comes to reconciliation with our fellow countrymen, and by them I don't mean the rude extreamists who come from miles away and try to merge with our people.
3- THE MOST IMPORTANTENT, withdraw.
4- Help us rebuild the country by providing the required materials.
5- Help us use our rich mines of natural resources which could help the country to become a very stable country.
 
Now these steps will allow us to"
1- Build a good work environment which will help out the people find the necesity of their day to day life.
2- Build a solid education system, which we used to have a little of it in the past.
3- Try to act as a responsible country and solve our problems in a peaceful way.
4- Differentiate between Islam and extreamism and englighten our people (our people of our region)  not to ruin the name of Islam.
 
 
These are some steps that I would like to see happen, and for sure it can take place if the rest of the world realy wants it that way, otherwise Afghanistan will remain the Battlefield and Graveyard of empires and superpowers.
 

 


-------------




Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 08-May-2009 at 22:27
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

That's nonsense, Al Qaeda sent out four passenger-ladden flaming airliners crashing into buildings in the U.S. as an invitation for the rest of the world to come visit Afghanistan which was its' host at the time. 
Now to be honest that's why I call media/gov brainwashing as Al-Qaida never had such powers and scale and never any these small organizations will have to reach out America and strike it right out there.
 
I would simply LOL on such understandings, come on now guys these people are some low level fighters who don't have anything more that a AK-47, a RPG and some grenades. LOL
 
Let me suggest you a movie (I am sure that you would be saying how fool I am  to accept what movies show, but what I want to tell you is how easy it is to stage such an action and make a street fighter or a small time villian a world known Terrorist), named "Body of Lies", nice movie for sure you will enjoy watching it and maybe will get something of it as well.


-------------




Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 08-May-2009 at 22:36
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Now to be honest that's why I call media/gov brainwashing as Al-Qaida never had such powers and scale and never any these small organizations will have to reach out America and strike it right out there.
 
I would simply LOL on such understandings, come on now guys these people are some low level fighters who don't have anything more that a AK-47, a RPG and some grenades. LOL
 
Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up, we'll just blame it all on the suicide bomb fairy.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 04:20
Gharanai, your contribution to these threads is valuable beyond description Thumbs Up

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

Maybe it's a Canadian thing, we do honor our soldiers and considering our military history and the fact we've spent the last 30 years trying to sort out other peoples wars I don't see that as bad.

Hey Duke. Its not just Canadians. Elements of Australians, Brits, and I'm sure Americans do it too. And I'm equally certain alot to most Canadians don't do it.
Quote Hmm...I went over it again and it seems merely factual to me...

Its not as much what it says but how it says it. Although often this type of reporting is in defiance of the facts I'll admit that as far as I know this one looks alright.

Its so corney & hero-worshipy. The people who write this stuff must've led very sheltered lives!
Quote It's a UN sanctioned mission, what's your point? Western forces wouldn't even be in Afghanistan if the Taliban hadn't aligned itself with an organization that declared defacto war on the US. Even the Sudanese government was smart enough to see how stupid what Al Qaeda was doing was. I think the old saying, " Don't stand next to a person who's throwing shit at a guy with a gun" applies here.

That's all true but it doesn't change anything.
I mean just because the US was attacked doesn't mean they aren't trying to wield thier influence. (In fact they are trying to use their influence to ensure they aren't attacked again)
Quote If your mom's cousin has had her brain cleaved in two and has gone from a vegatative state to talking and recovering her motor functions (or something similar), then all praise to her. No I'm not prepared to admit this is about propaganda, not living here you probably have no idea how proud we are of people like Fox and Hansen both also BC natives, I grew up in the town Rick Hansen is from and I spent four years in Vancouver so I have no problem relating to Trevors story, the Afghan thing is just peripheral as far as I care really.

It was due to a doctors mistake rather than an axe but otherwise pretty similar.
What the reporter is doing is using the story of this solider for propaganda. Its far beyond reporting the good news of his recovery, its glorifying him, his injury beyond all sense. Turning him into a Martyr for the cause rather than a human being
Originally posted by Canadian Guy Canadian Guy wrote:

BTW, Everyone! Stop insulting soldiers from the fronts of Iraq and Afghanistan! Disrespecting soldiers is a pet peeve of mine, so bugger off! If you insult soldiers from any nation, you deserve to be in the middle of their firefight!

I think the only soldiers who have been insulted in this thread are the Taliban ones, so can I assume you are annoyed at their soldiers being insulted?

Rather we're arguing over how to show respect.
I consider articles like the one DukeC posted to be very disrespectful, as do I consider demonising their enemies to be disrespectful to the people who fight them.

Originally posted by North North wrote:

I understand it is difficult if/when a family member is Taliban. It’s difficult to deny him shelter and protection in the family – but some are apparently willing to take the risk and he (the Taliban) is willing to jeopardize the family by hiding amongst them.

You know someone said to me just yesterday that part of the problem is that westerners expect people to fight for ideology before they fight for family. Kind of funny you come out and say this the day after.
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up, we'll just blame it all on the suicide bomb fairy.

I think you misunderstood. Just because 3 buildings in NY were destroyed (2 by aeroplanes) and there was an explosion at the Pentagon doesn't mean that the first group blamed was responsible, or responsible in the first way stated. I mean there has never been an wholistic inquiry into 9/11, all we are doing is taking the conspiracy theory of George W Bush as Gospel - a man who only a year later tried to sell us the WMD story about Iraq.

GWB's story makes perfect sense assuming you believe that Al-Qaedia train super-terrorists with cloaking devices and non-causal powers that conveniently leave incriminating evidence that amazingly survives firestorms that destroy skyscrapers.
Al-Qaedia may well be responsible for the attacks, but they sure as hell didn't do it in the way we're told they did.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 12:04
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Now what we (or maybe if I say what I want would be better) want are these steps which should be taken in numerical order:
 
First- The amount of money that the foreign troop are spending on their soldiers, give us half of it to train our own military, so we could defend our country in future as well.
Or are these foreign troops are here for ever to protect us?
2- Set a date of withdrawl and don't interfere when it comes to reconciliation with our fellow countrymen, and by them I don't mean the rude extreamists who come from miles away and try to merge with our people.
3- THE MOST IMPORTANTENT, withdraw.
4- Help us rebuild the country by providing the required materials.
5- Help us use our rich mines of natural resources which could help the country to become a very stable country.
 
Now these steps will allow us to"
1- Build a good work environment which will help out the people find the necesity of their day to day life.
2- Build a solid education system, which we used to have a little of it in the past.
3- Try to act as a responsible country and solve our problems in a peaceful way.
4- Differentiate between Islam and extreamism and englighten our people (our people of our region)  not to ruin the name of Islam.
 
These are some steps that I would like to see happen, and for sure it can take place if the rest of the world realy wants it that way, otherwise Afghanistan will remain the Battlefield and Graveyard of empires and superpowers.
 
I can accept someone saying to the rest of the world  'just go away and leave us alone'. I can accept someone saying 'help us get rid of the indignity of Taliban rule'. I can accept someone saying 'help us get rid of the corruption of Karzai's government'. I can understand someone saying 'help us build a peaceful stable country, since we have never been able to do that for ourselves for long'.
 
But saying 'Just give us a whole stack of money and go away, or we will remain your graveyard' smacks just a teeny bit of extortion.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 13:14

Gharanai, I'm certainly no expert in these affairs, but it's obvious to me that you have been listening so much to hate-speeches and anti western propaganda, that you fail to see and understand the underlaying reasons for what is happening at your own doorstep.
I'm maybe naive, but ducking some of my questions and avoiding to reflect on statements by making a laugh at them, isn't very productive.      
However, let me comment on a few of your statements...

Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:


If the media don't have effect then do you "REALY" believe that it was the Al-Qaida who attacked the twin towers and staged the path for the US to get in to the middle east?

You want us to believe that Al-Qaida is a few villans running around in the backlands of Afghanistan with an AK-47, and randomly throwing a few grenades now and then. They are not.
They are a well established world-wide terror organisation with cells in almost any country you can think of. No one has any proof that they were behind 9-11, but unless you can come come up with another similar organisation capable of staging an event like that, my guess is that they indeed were behind that attack.
It was well coordinated, long term planned and involved a great number of people - not the typical method for an arbitrary suicidal aeroplane hijacker.
Right now Al-Qaida hasn't got the power they had in those years, but the radical millitary groups of Taliban are becoming stronger as we speak...  not a good perspective.  

Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

You have previously stated that you prefer a peaceful country under Taliban, compared to the present situation. But don’t you think the things I mentioned above are worth fighting for?
Right now you have 50,000 troops from 41 countries fighting for those rights and for you in your own country – why don’t you help them if you value those rights?
It’s really up to you (and your countrymen).
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:


What you are speaking is not a surprise to me, as again you all are just dependent on the news and info from media and that's all what you get.
 
For sure anyone in the world would love a service which you described from people who do it for free and you don't lose anything in the process.
But sadly those things are good in stories only not in reality, can you tell me a single country who will get in my country, send millions of dollars and their sons and daughters in return for nothing? Come on now that could be a big joke I mean no country is there in the world who help others without considering their own interest.
So I don't consider these help as help but just a common interest of both parties.

What news where Gharanai?? - I was referring to YOUR previous statement.

Name me one thing a westerner living a comfortable life in Europe or the US possibly could want from Afghanistan - at least, I can't think of anything.
But - you are right, we are not doing it for free. We are doing it in an attempt to stop terrorism and violations of human rights. So in return, we want your country and its people to stop sheltering terrorists and move forward, leave the medieval ages behind and to join a global community of prosperity and peace.
Is that a heavy price for our help and money?

Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:


1. Say, the foreign troops, humanitarian workers and all pulled out tomorrow and left your country on its own – what would happen?
2. Say, you could decide and shape anything about the future for your country – how would you do that, what would you do?
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:


I would like to answer both of them in one answer as both are connected.
 
If the foreign troops and humanitarian workers pull out tomorrow the same things will happen again what happened back in 1991-1996, when we made Russia to withdraw and then demolished the communist government and at the end we got the US saying good job done boys, bye bye now.
 
Now what we (or maybe if I say what I want would be better) want are these steps which should be taken in numerical order:
 
First- The amount of money that the foreign troop are spending on their soldiers, give us half of it to train our own military, so we could defend our country in future as well.
Or are these foreign troops are here for ever to protect us?
2- Set a date of withdrawl and don't interfere when it comes to reconciliation with our fellow countrymen, and by them I don't mean the rude extreamists who come from miles away and try to merge with our people.
3- THE MOST IMPORTANTENT, withdraw.
4- Help us rebuild the country by providing the required materials.
5- Help us use our rich mines of natural resources which could help the country to become a very stable country.
 
Now these steps will allow us to"
1- Build a good work environment which will help out the people find the necesity of their day to day life.
2- Build a solid education system, which we used to have a little of it in the past.
3- Try to act as a responsible country and solve our problems in a peaceful way.
4- Differentiate between Islam and extreamism and englighten our people (our people of our region)  not to ruin the name of Islam.
 
These are some steps that I would like to see happen, and for sure it can take place if the rest of the world realy wants it that way, otherwise Afghanistan will remain the Battlefield and Graveyard of empires and superpowers.

You are not facing reality my friend.
Like you say, if the ISAF pulled out tomorrow, the events of 1991-1996 would repeat themselves. If I'm not mistaken, it was exactly this period where Taliban was founded by some of the most radical Mujihadeens and where they subsequently took power, allowing the camps of terrorists to blossom all over the country.
So if we follow your advice and withdraw our troops now, the Taliban will be back in power in less than a month - Your country would return to the Middel Ages in a heartbeat.
Are you seriously telling me you want this to happen?

How do you imagine the humanitarian help you suggest to continue/expand can function without protection from troops?
With Taliban in power, it isn't possible to help anyone.
It's bad enough, even as it is. Humanitarian workers are kidnapped and killed weekly.

Can you guarantee their safety without the troops? - no? - right, I didn't think you could.

So your good dreams for Afghanistan can only happen with the troops still remaining there for some years - and if you don't realise it, those dreams are already in progress.

Don't fight your own dreams.


-------------


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 14:28
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But saying 'Just give us a whole stack of money and go away, or we will remain your graveyard' smacks just a teeny bit of extortion.


Oh I am really extreamly sorry if those words of mine sounded like a extortion call as we are not in a position to extort any country but for sure others are not avoiding this method, by implementing a state of "Either obey to our orders or get killed!" I guess that would better sound a extortion call.


-------------




Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 14:38
Afghanistan as a "graveyard of empires" is rather a haughty conceit.  Historically, the "empires" have come and they have gone, not because Afghans defeated them so much as because they all eventually realize Afghanistan isn't worth the effort.
 
We will leave too, but why should we give Afghanistan anything?  What do we get out of it?  It is no wonder NATO countries have been reluctant to waste much on the place.
 
Any presence in Afghanistan for the US "empire" after 9/11 just became another excuse to make the long contemplated (but not planned) move into Mesopotamia where there is something of value.
 
 


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 15:10

Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:


I'm maybe naive, but ducking some of my questions and avoiding to reflect on statements by making a laugh at them, isn't very productive.

Oh I am sorry as those laughs were not ment to avoid the question, so sorry if I have missed a question, please repeat it.

Quote
You want us to believe that Al-Qaida is a few villans running around in the backlands of Afghanistan with an AK-47, and randomly throwing a few grenades now and then. They are not.
They are a well established world-wide terror organisation with cells in almost any country you can think of. No one has any proof that they were behind 9-11, but unless you can come come up with another similar organization capable of staging an event like that, my guess is that they indeed were behind that attack.
It was well coordinated, long term planned and involved a great number of people - not the typical method for an arbitrary suicidal aeroplane hijacker.
Right now Al-Qaida hasn't got the power they had in those years, but the radical millitary groups of Taliban are becoming stronger as we speak...  not a good perspective. 

I really don't say that AlQaida doesn't exist or is a small time gangsters but what I said was about the time period when 9/11 happened for sure back then they were nothing but a bunch of US supplied and Pakistan trained guerilla fighters who fought the US war against the Soviets in the name of Islam.

As far as you want me to answer you of "a similar organisation capable of staging an event like 9/11", I would just say search for three letters  a C, an I and an A.
That will be of more help, for sure.

 

Quote Name me one thing a westerner living a comfortable life in Europe or the US possibly could want from Afghanistan - at least, I can't think of anything.
But - you are right, we are not doing it for free. We are doing it in an attempt to stop terrorism and violations of human rights. So in return, we want your country and its people to stop sheltering terrorists and move forward, leave the medieval ages behind and to join a global community of prosperity and peace.
Is that a heavy price for our help and money?

The one thing that you asked about would be better illustrated by a western government official as it is a question for me too that why in the world would you come to medieval (as you mentioned) country and start dividing the country in the name of religion back in 1970s and 80s, so that you (by you I don't exactly mean YOU) could give a defeat to the Soviets that you faced back in Vietnam and take you revenge which costed hundreds of thousands of Afghan lives.
I mean no one did ask them for it.
Again back to your question, as far as I guess and any wise guy would, the only reason that you all are here is just for Geo-political superiority against the emerging powers of China and Russia.

Quote
So if we follow your advice and withdraw our troops now, the Taliban will be back in power in less than a month - Your country would return to the Middel Ages in a heartbeat.
Are you seriously telling me you want this to happen?

First of all what do you think of Taleban?
Where they the people who attacked the US or any other country in the world?
No, they are not!
Then can you please answer me what is the demand of the Taleban from current government?
Let me tell you they are ready to lay down their arms and reconcile with the government in cause the foriegn troops are out.
I am sure that you would be saying that "Do you really believe that?"
If you read my layout carefully, you will find out that my first step was to establish a strong army FIRST, SECOND the Foriegn troops shall set a date of withdrawl (I mean come on for sure they are going to go out sometime, or are they permenantly here?), this date will ease a little of tension b/w the government and Taleban reconcilation process and will make them merge with the government.

Quote How do you imagine the humanitarian help you suggest to continue/expand can function without protection from troops?
It's bad enough, even as it is. Humanitarian workers are kidnapped and killed weekly.

The UN (on small scale), Red Cross and Red Cresent orgainzations were operating freely during the Taleban government, never they had an issue of security while moving around the most remote areas in the country.
And now with the mighty Police of the world, they are afraid to even step out of Kabul?
What do you want me to think of it?

Quote With Taliban in power, it isn't possible to help anyone.

WHY?
You (the west) are so friendly and helping with Saudi Arabia, who are implementing same laws of Sharia as the Taleban did (except the girls schooling which was allowed during the begining of the gov but after the introduction of extreamism it was stopped, you won't believe it but it was Maulavi Mutawakil, then foriegn minister of Taleban who was campaigning for this right till the end of the government).
If it is POSSIBLE to help all in that situation, why in the world it won't be POSSIBLE to work in this part of the world.
Don't you think it is a double standard policy?

Quote Can you guarantee their safety without the troops? - no? - right, I didn't think you could.

Yes, for sure we can.
For you information we provided them the security they required in the worst time of Afghan History 1992-96, then what is this time compared to that?

Quote ......those dreams are already in progress. Don't fight your own dreams.

I never dreamed of my fellow countrymen killed like this, I never dreamed of my country broken in parts, I never dreamed of a foriegner telling me what's right and whats wrong.

So for sure it's not what I wanted, want or will want.

Let me just stage a short play for you.

Guess what we (Afghans) become the world power and step in to europe telling you to adopt our way of life under Islamic laws (same as Democracy and Capatalism is implemented on us), or we are going to lable you Terrorist (fighting for you rights, which you have inherited through out your history), living in Machine Age (compared to what you call ours the Medieval Age).

How will that sound to you? Will you forget your centuries old traditions and way of life and simply adopt what we would be asking you for, because to Us (not only Afghans but all muslims) that's the correct way of life (same as you all guess that your way of life is the correct one).

For 1010% your answer and the answers of many many more of people out there would be "NO WAY", so what do you think we are some animals whom you (agian I don't mean you yourself) will tell to follow your path and we will?

No my dear we too have our traditions, culture, way of life and opinion and no one ever can or will be able to implement their on us.



-------------




Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 15:26
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Afghanistan as a "graveyard of empires" is rather a haughty conceit.  Historically, the "empires" have come and they have gone, not because Afghans defeated them so much as because they all eventually realize Afghanistan isn't worth the effort.
I guess what you want to say is infact the new empires were so stupid that they didn't take the words and history of past empires and tried their luck for something.
Haa I don't understand why don't they think and read the past before moving/taking decision.
 
Help Center
 
 
 
 
Quote We will leave too, but why should we give Afghanistan anything What do we get out of it?  It is no wonder NATO countries have been reluctant to waste much on the place.
 

Because you have taken what they had, at least give them that.

 
Exactly what I am saying, we are a poor nation and we can't provide anything in return for your GREAT service, so why don't you leave as on our own.
 
What I mentioned in my previous post regarding the west help was just in cause they are soo generous and have lots and lots of money and don't know how to use them, then they shall proceed with those steps.


-------------




Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 18:01
Gharanai,
 
I said what I wanted to say.  There always seemed reasons to go into Afghanistan, and there have always been reasons to leave.  The US and NATO will let you alone in due time.
 
Great Powers are not usually generous without good reason.  Ongoing, I suspect we will do our best to get out on the cheap.
 
 
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 20:18
Gharanai, I suppose you'll just dismiss this as empty propaganda:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-finds-mass-graves-of-hazara-killed-by-taliban-656771.html - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-finds-mass-graves-of-hazara-killed-by-taliban-656771.html
 
And of course the blowing up of the statues at Bamiyan was just a CIA false-flag operation I guess. Just as al-Qaida must have been lying when it claimed responsibility for 9/11. And when the Taliban were asked to extradite the leaders involved, they just said 'Right, OK, any time'.
 
You should take time to read the Security Council Resolutions explaining, justifying and authorising the invasion of 2001 and the setting up ot the transitional authority in 2002:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm - http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
 
But of course you would fall for and applaud this piece of blatant hypocrisy:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/taliban-claim-karzai-govts-executions-infringe-human-rights_100118860.html - http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/taliban-claim-karzai-govts-executions-infringe-human-rights_100118860.html
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-finds-mass-graves-of-hazara-killed-by-taliban-656771.html -  
 
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 03:29
Originally posted by North North wrote:

Gharanai, I'm certainly no expert in these affairs, but it's obvious to me that you have been listening so much to hate-speeches and anti western propaganda, that you fail to see and understand the underlaying reasons for what is happening at your own doorstep.


I'm not sure if this post is more funny or worrying.
Doubting the perfection of liberal-western thought is considered "hate speech" and "anti western propaganda" is it? Unfortunately I am inclined to believe that is gradually becoming true, but that may just be because of my increased awareness, rather than any actual change.

Don't you think it's sign of a screwed up world when the Dane tells the Afghan that he doesn't understand other Afghans?
I mean, that's like me, telling you, how your country should deal with ultra-right wing Danes. When all I have to go by is news reports by, say, SBS and Al Jazeera... hmmm... somehow I think you will have a better idea than me...
Quote Name me one thing a westerner living a comfortable life in Europe or the US possibly could want from Afghanistan - at least, I can't think of anything.

Heroin, Carpets, cooking, immigrants. Not all by the same person of course.
Originally posted by Pike Pike wrote:

Afghanistan as a "graveyard of empires" is rather a haughty conceit.

I believe George Tennant of the CIA said it in 2001 as well, but the only evidence I can find of that is my own post. Regardless, its not a new saying about Afghanistan
Quote We will leave too, but why should we give Afghanistan anything?  What do we get out of it?
Well alot of people say that if the US hadn't withdrawn cold turkey after the soviets 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
I don't necessarily believe that, but that's what your supposed to get out of it.
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

Gharanai, I suppose you'll just dismiss this as empty propaganda:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-finds-mass-graves-of-hazara-killed-by-taliban-656771.html

Purely matter of factly - so don't take this comment as indicitive of my opinion - but on what basis are you saying it's not?
Quote And of course the blowing up of the statues at Bamiyan was just a CIA false-flag operation I guess.

It was a publicity stunt, meant to improve their internal popularity.

(The Taliban I mean, not the CIA )
Quote Just as al-Qaida must have been lying when it claimed responsibility for 9/11.

Have they actually done this? I'm not sure if they have...
Quote And when the Taliban were asked to extradite the leaders involved, they just said 'Right, OK, any time'.

They did.

The Taliban said give us proof and we'll hand bin Laden and AQ over to a third country (like an international court). The US said no deal and attacked.

I don't really think you can blame a country for wanting evidence before it extrodites someone. Nor can you really blame them for refusing to extrodite them to a country they won't receive a fair trial in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

Sorry, it looks like by October 2001 they were prepared to get rid of him without evidence.

This little story to me is the biggest cruncher of them all. The west didn't even try to work with the Taliban, they just waltzed in and declared their own realities. They could've got everything they wanted without firing a single shot, but they refused. That means either there is something they want which we don't know, or they are so full of their own arrogance that they think they can do anything (by 'they' I mean decision makers in Washington, which given that it was neo-cons at the time I'm inclined to suspect both are true)

I think what is possibly in the worst interests in the western elite is a fair and open trial of bin laden. That would be very interesting!


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 11:38
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

Gharanai, I suppose you'll just dismiss this as empty propaganda:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-finds-mass-graves-of-hazara-killed-by-taliban-656771.html

Purely matter of factly - so don't take this comment as indicitive of my opinion - but on what basis are you saying it's not?
To be precise I didn't actually say it wasn't. However:
(a) I don't know Patrick Cockburn, but I knew his father quite well, and he was famous as a left-wing commentator and anti-establishment figure. I certainly would have trusted his father.
(b) Patrick Cockburn's record as an investigative journalist and authority on Iraq is impressive.
(c) The Independent is one of the UK's most reliable newspapers.
(d) The story is consistent with much other well-documented information about the Taliban.
(e) I know of no reason to doubt the reliability of UN officials, especially given the multinational make-up of the UN team there.
Quote
Quote And of course the blowing up of the statues at Bamiyan was just a CIA false-flag operation I guess.

It was a publicity stunt, meant to improve their internal popularity.

(The Taliban I mean, not the CIA )
Probably true, but that's no excuse.
Quote
Quote Just as al-Qaida must have been lying when it claimed responsibility for 9/11.

Have they actually done this? I'm not sure if they have...
They've claimed it, but I agree they might have done that just to improve their image. Generally speaking though if someone confesses to something it's because they did it.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html - http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html
and many other references.
Quote
Quote And when the Taliban were asked to extradite the leaders involved, they just said 'Right, OK, any time'.

They did.

The Taliban said give us proof and we'll hand bin Laden and AQ over to a third country (like an international court). The US said no deal and attacked.
Not exactly how the UN Security  Council say it (my emphasis of course):
Quote
Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime,
Quote
I don't really think you can blame a country for wanting evidence before it extrodites someone. Nor can you really blame them for refusing to extrodite them to a country they won't receive a fair trial in.
They might have had a leg to stand on if they had put them on trial themselves, and allowed the evidence against them to be heard in public court. Otherwise it was just legalistic waffle: the al-Qaida people being sought weren't, after all, Afghani citizens.
 
Check out the wording of SC resolution 1373, which is the resolution the Taliban failed to comply with.
Quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

Sorry, it looks like by October 2001 they were prepared to get rid of him without evidence.
Check your timeline. Your third quote is in fact the earliest and shows the Taliban completely unwilling to co-operate. Your first shows the Taliban (allegedly - in a 'secret deal') ready to possibly concede well after the invason while the rule was already tottering. And the thirs is completely mislabelled in the headline. The headline says "Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover in 1998" whereas the story quite clearly says that the Taliban refused a handover in 1998.
Quote
This little story to me is the biggest cruncher of them all. The west didn't even try to work with the Taliban, they just waltzed in and declared their own realities. They could've got everything they wanted without firing a single shot, but they refused. That means either there is something they want which we don't know, or they are so full of their own arrogance that they think they can do anything (by 'they' I mean decision makers in Washington, which given that it was neo-cons at the time I'm inclined to suspect both are true)
You misread the stories, as I pointed out above. Bin Laden was never even taken into custody, even though there was plenty of evidence that (even pre-9/11) he had been involved in terrorist activities. In a situation like that what a civilised country does is take the person into custody while the evidence is prepared until either serious bail is arranged, the charges are dropped or the trial is heard. ou don't protect them or give them refuge, especially following a UN resolution demanding that you don't.
Quote
I think what is possibly in the worst interests in the western elite is a fair and open trial of bin laden. That would be very interesting!
What is in everyone's best interest is the elimination of the Taliban.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 13:50
No-No Omar - you aren't going to get away with that my friend.
Stop changing what I said to make it a good story.
 
It's entertaining, but you should use your academic abilities a little more precisely and with more care.
  • I said that he, in my opinion, didn't understand the core reasons for what is happing around him (at his own doorstep).
  • You changed that to mean he didn't understand other Afghans - and that is a totally different issue.
I could be wrong in my observation of course, but that doesn't give you the right to change the meaning of my words.
 
Just for reference...
Originally posted by North North wrote:

Gharanai, I'm certainly no expert in these affairs, but it's obvious to me that you have been listening so much to hate-speeches and anti western propaganda, that you fail to see and understand the underlaying reasons for what is happening at your own doorstep.
 
Originally posted by Omar Omar wrote:


Don't you think it's sign of a screwed up world when the Dane tells the Afghan that he doesn't understand other Afghans?
 
*******************************************************
 
Dear Gharanai
 
Thank you for elaborating your thoughts in your lenghty answer to me.
In return to what you said about discussing with me, I also enjoy and learn a lot discussing with you.   
However...
From your answers, it's evident that we have different sets of values and different perceptions of what we consider basic human rights.
I strongly support and believe in the human rights of the UN, whereas (as I read you) you prefer to support the rule of Taliban and subsequently adhere to their Sharia laws - two incompatibel mindsets.
 
One thing though - you were asking what I thought of Taliban.
I think they want total power at any cost - and thats why I think your thoughts about a peaceful merger with your current administration is an illusion. They wont stop untill everyone has submerged under their rule.
Just look acroos the border to Pakistan, where a million commoners are on the run from the Swat Valley where the Taliban took power a few months back.
Things like this will never stop untill the Taliban's are history - or untill they are in full power where they can continue to provide a safe haven for Al-Qaida and other terrorists - like they did before the invasion.
 


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 14:12
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

I strongly support and believe in the human rights of the UN, whereas (as I read you) you prefer to support the rule of Taliban and subsequently adhere to their Sharia laws - two incompatibel mindsets.
I think it's a mistake to conflate the rule of the Taliban with sharia (or any other settled legal system).
 
I find it impossible to believe that Taliban rule is compatible with - let alone enjoined by - Islam or Islamic teaching.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 14:42
Omar,
 
My point about Afghanistan as some "graveyard" was that it has been more a "playground" of great powers.  They come; they play and they leave.  There have been differing reasons why that happened, but essentially it has not changed that much.
 
This business about "oh, if you had stayed to 'build Afghanistan' 9/11 would not have happened...."  Come on.  That was never the case, and the cultural disconnect was already in action.  Infidels are infidels in Afghanistan or in the Gulf.  The only demonstrated way to "get along" with tribal groups like that is to let them alone.  After the Soviet presence left, we let them alone in Afghanistan - didn't work.
 
 


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 08:51
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

They might have had a leg to stand on if they had put them on trial themselves, and allowed the evidence against them to be heard in public court. Otherwise it was just legalistic waffle: the al-Qaida people being sought weren't, after all, Afghani citizens.

I'm not sure that the Taliban would be particularly concerned with international notions of citizenship, assuming they even understood them.

The points you make a true, but there is still the chance that - under threat of invasion - the Taliban would have handed him over. Sure it may have required some negotiation and heavy handed diplomacy but the change in position by the Taliban between 1998/Sept 10 and the invasion convinces me that it was probably possible. That route was never pursued, the neo-cons were too interested in revenge, so we can never really know for sure. I think for the US emotions got in the way of objectivity.
Originally posted by North North wrote:

It's entertaining, but you should use your academic abilities a little more precisely and with more care.

    * I said that he, in my opinion, didn't understand the core reasons for what is happing around him (at his own doorstep).
    * You changed that to mean he didn't understand other Afghans - and that is a totally different issue.

I could be wrong in my observation of course, but that doesn't give you the right to change the meaning of my words.

In that case sorry North, I'll take it that you didn't mean to sound that way, although to be honest I really don't see what the difference is between your wording & mine. (And in any case, I meant the whole post, not just that line)
Originally posted by North North wrote:

I strongly support and believe in the human rights of the UN, whereas (as I read you) you prefer to support the rule of Taliban and subsequently adhere to their Sharia laws - two incompatibel mindsets.

Don't take this the wrong way North, but they* are only incompatible because they are both radical extremes - at least in this context. If you (not you personally of course) come in with the goal of building a Britain, Denmark, or even an India in Afghanistan you are bound to fail because the countries are so dissimilar. If you come in with the goal of building a stable state, that could be done, but it'd look a lot more like Iran than you might like.
If you refuse to compromise on such a lofty ideal as imposing the same view of human rights as Europe has on Afghanistan you'll fail. You have to keep your objective (stable, reasonable government) in mind and know your culture well enough not to impose demands that have nothing to do with the objective (European descendent version of Law for example)

If I were running the US-NATO forces, this would be my plan for defeating the Taliban.
(1) Raise the core of army, enough to defend the major cities
(2) Withdraw all foriegn forces
(3) Put some ideological distance between the foriegn forces and my forces. Fight a defensive and highly cautious style of war.
(4) Fight fire with fire, illiteracy with education. Take the fight to the real battle ground - public opinion. Introduce Sharia - real Sharia, with university trained Qazis (Judges), legal theorists and a justice everyone can understand.
(5) Use education as your major weapon - both village level public education, and scholarships to foriegn schools. If the Talibs bomb a school, rebuild it, keep persisting and keep being generous. Offer scholarships, offer Mullah Omar's son a scholarship to Medina university. Undermine the Taliban ideologically.
(6) Be quick to forgive, and slow to judge.

Then you have the government offering law, security and education, as opposed to the Taliban offering only security. Compared to the current situation where the government is offering a mis- or non-applied foriegn law, and reconstruction - something no-one can really identify with, except possibly as bribes.

*But it really is a great stretch of the imagination to call Taliban's laws sharia. Its hard to imagine they have read a book about sharia, certainly none of the fundamental texts on the subject.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 11:30
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by North North wrote:

It's entertaining, but you should use your academic abilities a little more precisely and with more care.

    * I said that he, in my opinion, didn't understand the core reasons for what is happing around him (at his own doorstep).
    * You changed that to mean he didn't understand other Afghans - and that is a totally different issue.

I could be wrong in my observation of course, but that doesn't give you the right to change the meaning of my words.

In that case sorry North, I'll take it that you didn't mean to sound that way, although to be honest I really don't see what the difference is between your wording & mine. (And in any case, I meant the whole post, not just that line)
Like I said Omar, I could be wrong in my observations - indeed borderline ignorant - but when I'm quoted, I like to be quoted correctly.

Originally posted by Omar Omar wrote:

Originally posted by North North wrote:

I strongly support and believe in the human rights of the UN, whereas (as I read you) you prefer to support the rule of Taliban and subsequently adhere to their Sharia laws - two incompatibel mindsets.

Don't take this the wrong way North, but they* are only incompatible because they are both radical extremes - at least in this context. If you (not you personally of course) come in with the goal of building a Britain, Denmark, or even an India in Afghanistan you are bound to fail because the countries are so dissimilar. If you come in with the goal of building a stable state, that could be done, but it'd look a lot more like Iran than you might like.
If you refuse to compromise on such a lofty ideal as imposing the same view of human rights as Europe has on Afghanistan you'll fail. You have to keep your objective (stable, reasonable government) in mind and know your culture well enough not to impose demands that have nothing to do with the objective (European descendent version of Law for example)
Again, you give my words way more content than actually stated and I can only agree to what you say.
However, I was not suggesting that the west should build a new Britain or India. I was conveying my observation to Gharanai about our different set of values.
Hardly a suggestion on how to build a state.  
Quoting myself...
From your answers, it's evident that we have different sets of values and different perceptions of what we consider basic human rights.
I strongly support and believe in the human rights of the UN, whereas (as I read you) you prefer to support the rule of Taliban and subsequently adhere to their Sharia laws - two incompatibel mindsets.
 
Originally posted by Omar Omar wrote:

But it really is a great stretch of the imagination to call Taliban's laws sharia. Its hard to imagine they have read a book about sharia, certainly none of the fundamental texts on the subject.
I have no idea what Taliban read - I can merely observe how they act and how they punish people in public and for what. Seemingly following what most people (including me) think is a harsh interpretation of Sharia. 
That is why I wrote "their Sharia laws"
 
 


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 12:52
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


If I were running the US-NATO forces, this would be my plan for defeating the Taliban.
(1) Raise the core of army, enough to defend the major cities
(2) Withdraw all foriegn forces
(3) Put some ideological distance between the foriegn forces and my forces. Fight a defensive and highly cautious style of war.
(4) Fight fire with fire, illiteracy with education. Take the fight to the real battle ground - public opinion. Introduce Sharia - real Sharia, with university trained Qazis (Judges), legal theorists and a justice everyone can understand.
(5) Use education as your major weapon - both village level public education, and scholarships to foriegn schools. If the Talibs bomb a school, rebuild it, keep persisting and keep being generous. Offer scholarships, offer Mullah Omar's son a scholarship to Medina university. Undermine the Taliban ideologically.
(6) Be quick to forgive, and slow to judge.
How is that different from what the Northern Alliance was trying to do pre-2001?
Quote
Then you have the government offering law, security and education, as opposed to the Taliban offering only security.
But the Taliban doesn't offer security. That's why so many people are fleeing from Swat. The Taliban just offers death if you disagree.
 
You sound just a tad like the people who used to say "now if only the Jews would negotiate with Hitler...".
Quote
 Compared to the current situation where the government is offering a mis- or non-applied foriegn law, and reconstruction - something no-one can really identify with, except possibly as bribes.
I'd agree the UN is obviously not throwing the right bribes around enough to the right people.

 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 18:45
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Hey Duke. Its not just Canadians. Elements of Australians, Brits, and I'm sure Americans do it too. And I'm equally certain alot to most Canadians don't do it.
 
Sure they do, we still go on about our role in the first world war and battles like Vimy Ridge and Passendale, of which the largest budget movie in Canada was just made last year. And while there's doubt about some of the aspects of the Afghanistan mission here, there's little criticism of our soldiers. Every Friday is an informal "support the troops" day and people are encouraged to wear our national colours.
Quote
Its not as much what it says but how it says it. Although often this type of reporting is in defiance of the facts I'll admit that as far as I know this one looks alright.
 
Maybe it puts a human face on someone you don't want to see as human?

Quote Its so corney & hero-worshipy. The people who write this stuff must've led very sheltered lives!
 
hero-worshipy? Why not look up some stuff on Smokey Smith who was with the Seaforth Highlanders also from Vancouver and got the VC at Ortuna in Italy. The guy took on a bunch of panzers and German paratroopers pretty much alone and survived. He's still reveered even though he's gone now. Trevor Green wasn't just brave to put his life on the line in Afghanistan, he made a difference here at home before going.
Quote That's all true but it doesn't change anything.
I mean just because the US was attacked doesn't mean they aren't trying to wield thier influence. (In fact they are trying to use their influence to ensure they aren't attacked again)
 
There's no doubt that Bush and Cheney took everything sideways and I'm glad to see them gone. There's a new administration in the White House now though, one that seems to be serious about U.S. security AND human rights.
Quote It was due to a doctors mistake rather than an axe but otherwise pretty similar.
What the reporter is doing is using the story of this solider for propaganda. Its far beyond reporting the good news of his recovery, its glorifying him, his injury beyond all sense. Turning him into a Martyr for the cause rather than a human being
 
That happens here too sometimes, best wishes to her.
 
This is something the public in Canada is interested in. Like I said we spent almost four decades sending Canadians around the world to try and help other people sort out their differences. People got used to low casualties and more or less respect for the Blue Helmets. The attack on Trevor Greene upset and pissed off a lot of people. It wasn't just the seriousness of the injury it was the way it was done. Canadian Peacekeepers have tried to maintain good relations with local groups on their missions and this appeared to be a setup of the kind you see in Mafia movies. They got him to relax and let his guard down and then tried to kill him. It caused a real adjustment both in peoples perceptions here but also in how the military looked at the mission. 
 
I find the whole initial tone of this thread disrespectful to the man and the forces he served in. The title itself "Axed Canadian" seems to me intended to remove his humanity, this story restores it as far as I'm concerned.
 


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 22:19
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Gharanai, I suppose you'll just dismiss this as empty propaganda:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-finds-mass-graves-of-hazara-killed-by-taliban-656771.html - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-finds-mass-graves-of-hazara-killed-by-taliban-656771.html
 
And of course the blowing up of the statues at Bamiyan was just a CIA false-flag operation I guess. Just as al-Qaida must have been lying when it claimed responsibility for 9/11. And when the Taliban were asked to extradite the leaders involved, they just said 'Right, OK, any time'.
 
 
My dear friend gcle,
First of all thanks for keeping the argument on and for your information that you have shared till now, and regarding the Mass Graves of Hazaras by Taleban, I would never close my eyes on things that are true and totaly agree with this piece of information.
But what you are missing is that Afghanistan has been watching ethnic wars since centuries back, it was The Iron Amir (Amir Abdul Rahman Khan 1880-1901) who killed thousands of Hazaras by cutting their heads and setting his chair on them.
 
It was Abdul Ali Mazari (Leader of Hezb Wahdat 1992-96) who killed thousands of Pashtuns alone in the capital city of Kabul, then came the Taleban in revange and so did happened with themselves where thousands of Taleban were murdered after surrendering to the Northern Alliance (For reference check out this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vbmCRImZR4 - link , I am sure you won't like that video as it's a really sad one).
 
Anyways the statue of Bamyan for sure was a action of extream anti-Afghan tradition and culture, and was and still is condemed by majority (which includes me too) of the people as well as the Taleban of then.
To be honest I am sure you don't want me to start another Flame War, as most of the fellow Pakistani forumers won't like my words a little bit (I am sure that you are a wise guy and got my point).
 
As far as the Security Council Resolutions is concerned, to be honest I don't know anything by that name (Security Council) as it's a biased council where before every deal everyone knows what the outcome is going to be.
 


-------------




Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 23:17
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

Dear Gharanai
 
Thank you for elaborating your thoughts in your lenghty answer to me.
In return to what you said about discussing with me, I also enjoy and learn a lot discussing with you.   
However...
From your answers, it's evident that we have different sets of values and different perceptions of what we consider basic human rights.
I strongly support and believe in the human rights of the UN, whereas (as I read you) you prefer to support the rule of Taliban and subsequently adhere to their Sharia laws - two incompatibel mindsets.
 
First of all thanks for recommenting and glad that you are too enjoying the discussion.
Dear friend as far as your word regarding the preception of the Human Rights is concerned, you are 100% right in saying that we both have different preceptions on that stack.
 
You believe in Human Rights of UN, but I to be honest don't recognize UN and to make it a pioneer in setting the human rights would be the most obscure thing, when we see that they play just the role of and movie watcher when it comes to matters out of its power.
Or shall we say that do they really have any power to implement any right or way of life on people, when they just sit and watch when the Israel attacks the Palestine and Lebanon and voilates thousands of rules set by the so called UNITED NATIONS, where were they when the US against the decisions of UN and so called Security Counsil went on and invaded Iraq? Wasn't that a breachment of the UN basics?
So I guess you are right in that section that we don't take our source of human rights from the same place.
 
As far as the Taleban are concerned, I niether like them not hate them, because my moto is that I only care and struggle for the people of Afghanistan, for the well being of them, for peace of them and for better future of them.
Most of the people around may think of me an Opportunist, and they are right I am one, I don't care whether its a Capitalist, a Communist, a Fascist or an Extreamist government, until my people are in a better living condition, I like them.
Now if you check my previous comments you will find that all I have done is just a comparison that the "Living situation of the people of Afghanistan was much better under Taleban compared to now under US".
 
As far as the Sharia Law is concerned I would love to live under a TRUE Sharia Law, the law that's set my Allah not some extreamist who is trying to exploit young people.
That reminds me of a great line of a Pakistani movie where a Mawlana states that, "Beard is in Islam not Islam in Beard".
A very powerful line which has deap meanings and which shows that you shall first become a TRUE muslim then you shall care for your beard.
 
Anyways,  Iguess once again my fingers kept typing so sorry for another long answer.
 


-------------




Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 12:50
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

How is that different from what the Northern Alliance was trying to do pre-2001?

That's the first I've heard of that, but even if they were trying to do so the Northern Alliance had neither the public support, the funding, or the operational based to do so.
Not to mention at that time it was the Taliban receiving foriegn funding & weapons.
Quote But the Taliban doesn't offer security. That's why so many people are fleeing from Swat. The Taliban just offers death if you disagree.

Put it this way, if your bicycle was stolen and you wanted it back who would you report it to? The Afghan (Or Pakistani) police or the Taliban?

David Kilcullen asked this question to Afghans in a study, and nearly everyone said the Taliban.
Quote You sound just a tad like the people who used to say "now if only the Jews would negotiate with Hitler...".

NATO is loosing this war, even Karzi is sounding bitter about the foreign troops. Is it better to get some leverage over the Taliban or to continue as is and face a total defeat. I can't see how NATO can ever win this war without negotiating with the Taliban.

I'd have them ideologically kneecapped if at all possible please.
Quote I'd agree the UN is obviously not throwing the right bribes around enough to the right people.

That's a good way of putting it.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 13:49
Originally posted by Omar Omar wrote:

NATO is loosing this war, even Karzi is sounding bitter about the foreign troops. Is it better to get some leverage over the Taliban or to continue as is and face a total defeat. I can't see how NATO can ever win this war without negotiating with the Taliban.

I'd have them ideologically kneecapped if at all possible please.
 
You are right, NATO and ISAF may never win this battle until they don't recognize the Taleban as a considerable force.
That's what Mr. Kazai has been try to teach the foriegners that it is impossible to deal with Taleban by force or millitary means and I guess now Mr. Karzai finally has made the west to think his way.
The recent change in the US commander of the Afghanistan war, is a big step towards a deal with the Taleban.
It was Gen. David McKiernan, who said 2 days back, after Mr. Karzai asked the bombardment to be stopped, that the bombardments will continue which raged the people of Afghanistan who then took it to the road in a protest against the strikes.
 
The new commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is more known as a person who tries to resolve the problems with negotiations rather than fight, though he was the commander of US forces in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal  became public in 2004.
 
So lets just be optimistic and hope he could bring some peace and stability, which has left Afghanistan since long but was restored to some limit under the duo of Gen. Karl Eikenberry and Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi.
Gen. Eikenberry has been named as the new US Ambassador to Afghanistan, which is also considered a plus change in the strategy of US.
 
So lets just hope for the best and pray that conditions get better at least better than now.
 


-------------




Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 15:00
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

My dear friend gcle,
First of all thanks for keeping the argument on and for your information that you have shared till now, and regarding the Mass Graves of Hazaras by Taleban, I would never close my eyes on things that are true and totaly agree with this piece of information.
But what you are missing is that Afghanistan has been watching ethnic wars since centuries back, it was The Iron Amir (Amir Abdul Rahman Khan 1880-1901) who killed thousands of Hazaras by cutting their heads and setting his chair on them.
Why does that make a difference? Richard I had 3,000 Saracens killed after the siege of Acre. That wouldn't justify another Bitish leader - or even a Saracen one - doing the same thing.
 
OK to the middle bit.
Quote
As far as the Security Council Resolutions is concerned, to be honest I don't know anything by that name (Security Council) as it's a biased council where before every deal everyone knows what the outcome is going to be.
No international decision is reached without the participants first determining what the outcome is going to be. That doesn't mean the council is biassed one way or another, it's just the way international diplomacy works.
 
It was because Bush/Blair knew what the outcome of a Security Council debate in 2003 wouod have been that they didn't ask for SC approval of the Iraq invasion: they knew they wouldn't get it. As for the SC approval of the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban, you might note that Russia or China could have blocked it: they didn't, and made it known in advance they wouldn't.
 
Moreover it wasn't and isn't just the Security Council that ruled that way; the General Assembly went along with it. Look for instance at the resolution  at http://www.afghanistan-un.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2001_3.pdf - http://www.afghanistan-un.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2001_3.pdf
and in particular at the long list of international agreements and covenants on human rights Afghanistan had agreed to and failed to preserve.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 15:14
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote But the Taliban doesn't offer security. That's why so many people are fleeing from Swat. The Taliban just offers death if you disagree.

Put it this way, if your bicycle was stolen and you wanted it back who would you report it to? The Afghan (Or Pakistani) police or the Taliban?
In Pakistan the police I guess. In Afghanistan today, neither. I'd just let it go. I certainly wouldn't want the Taleban to know I existed.
 
Put it this way, if you're a woman looking to be educated, do you go to the Taliban? (I realise that the Karzai government has also been backsliding on this, but it's still preferable.)
Quote
David Kilcullen asked this question to Afghans in a study, and nearly everyone said the Taliban.
Just like the people who pointed out that Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler did so well reducing unemployment among Germans.
Quote
Quote You sound just a tad like the people who used to say "now if only the Jews would negotiate with Hitler...".

NATO is loosing this war, even Karzi is sounding bitter about the foreign troops.
I suspect Karzai is sounding bitter because the foreign troops aren't letting him have his personal way on everything. NATO is interested in establishing a rational political situation in Afghanistan. Karzai is interested in Karzai.
Quote
Is it better to get some leverage over the Taliban or to continue as is and face a total defeat. I can't see how NATO can ever win this war without negotiating with the Taliban.
A likely outcome will be that the NATO countries get fed up with the effort, and get out and leave the Afghans to their own devices. Which will doom Afghanistan to at least decades of impoverishment and repression and civil war. A lot of Afghans, maybe a majority, will deserve just that: one can only feel sorry for the rest. If so though, I personally wouldn't vote for a dollar's worth of aid to go to the country.
Quote
I'd have them ideologically kneecapped if at all possible please.
Not sure who you meant by that Smile
Quote
Quote I'd agree the UN is obviously not throwing the right bribes around enough to the right people.

That's a good way of putting it.
Sadly yes. Once upon a time the British knew how to handle situations like this.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 17:26
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Why does that make a difference? Richard I had 3,000 Saracens killed after the siege of Acre. That wouldn't justify another Bitish leader - or even a Saracen one - doing the same thing.
Dear gcle,
I guess you totaly misunderstood me, as I ment that these killings and graves are common over this part of the world as we have been facing it since centuries (thanks to the British strategy of Divide and Rule).
It's something same like the suppression of Black people in the US and some parts of the Europe, those people have seen such treatement since centuries and now it's a common thing for them.
 
Quote
No international decision is reached without the participants first determining what the outcome is going to be. That doesn't mean the council is biassed one way or another, it's just the way international diplomacy works.
 
It was because Bush/Blair knew what the outcome of a Security Council debate in 2003 wouod have been that they didn't ask for SC approval of the Iraq invasion: they knew they wouldn't get it. As for the SC approval of the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban, you might note that Russia or China could have blocked it: they didn't, and made it known in advance they wouldn't.
 
Moreover it wasn't and isn't just the Security Council that ruled that way; the General Assembly went along with it. Look for instance at the resolution  at http://www.afghanistan-un.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2001_3.pdf - http://www.afghanistan-un.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2001_3.pdf
and in particular at the long list of international agreements and covenants on human rights Afghanistan had agreed to and failed to preserve.
 
I wouldn't like to comment on this section of your comment, as you are providing me data and materials of a source that I do not recognize.
Anyway as far as Russia and China was concerned regarding the Taleban, more than any other country those two were interested in the removal of Taleban as it was growing in number and strenght day after another, while Russia was already fighting the religious uprisings in Chechnya in the west they didn't wanted another religious group in Uzbekistan (most of whose nationals are still fighting in the ranks of Taleban) and Tajikistan.
China is a country where religion has very minnor independence and the growing number of muslims Uyghurs in Xinjiang autonomous region, is a big hurdle in there way.
Now during the Taleban rule most of the Uyghurs did came to Afghanistan for their Sharia studies which the Chiness authorities didn't like a bit.
 
So I don't think Russia and China ever wanted to avoid invasion of Afghanistan, though they would had risked their arch-rival US taking a step nearer to them (Russia-China).
 


-------------




Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 17:29
Oh I forgot to mention a recent news, while reading it I was soo much surpirse and was laughing at it as just a day back I was talking about it on this thread.
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090512/ap_on_hi_te/eu_ireland_wikipedia_hoaxer - Here is the link


Edit:
Dear Northman,
In my previous post I mentioned 3 catagories of Taleban and in 3rd catagory I mentioned people who have lost someone special.
Here I have found some pictures (though it's not of Afghanistan, but has no difference), I want you to see it then tell me what do you think that the boy would be thinking afterwards?

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CMGHARA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CMGHARA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml - Here is the  forum_posts.asp?TID=21078&PID=513412#top - link (you can find it at the bottom).




-------------




Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 09:57
Sorry, I missed a couple of posts here.

DukeC I'm running out of words to explain what I mean. If we continue at this rate we're going to abstract the issue so much we'll be agreeing with each other. I'll think about how to phrase it right, and maybe a few examples and get back to you.

Originally posted by North North wrote:

Again, you give my words way more content than actually stated and I can only agree to what you say.
However, I was not suggesting that the west should build a new Britain or India.

I didn't mean you personally North



Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

In Pakistan the police I guess. In Afghanistan today, neither. I'd just let it go. I certainly wouldn't want the Taleban to know I existed.

In Pakistani police probably stole your bike in the first place! , Even my family has been robbed by the Pakistani police. A few years ago all my aunts were going to a wedding, and withdrew all their jewelry from the bank the day before. The bank tipped off the police who attacked the house that night. The police went over the wall, subdued our guard (who was only armed with a whistle, because if he was armed with a gun he'd have been shot on sight. We're not rich enough to afford enough guards to put up a fight) and then got in via a bedroom window. At which point there was nothing that could be done, they took the Jewelry and left.
Quote Put it this way, if you're a woman looking to be educated, do you go to the Taliban? (I realise that the Karzai government has also been backsliding on this, but it's still preferable.)

Well I already said the Taliban did not offer anything for education. But if I was a woman looking for an education the best choice would be people smugglers to the west, or to get into Iran. You're not going to get much of an education in either Afghanistan or Pakistan regardless of who's in power unless your rich, especially if your a woman.
Quote Just like the people who pointed out that Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler did so well reducing unemployment among Germans.

If anything that's my point. If you want to prevent these types you have to remove their advantage. Get someone else who can make the trains run on time.
Quote
Sadly yes. Once upon a time the British knew how to handle situations like this.

True, perhaps they still are. They haven't had much of a chance to demonstrate it recently.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 16:31
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

In Pakistan the police I guess. In Afghanistan today, neither. I'd just let it go. I certainly wouldn't want the Taleban to know I existed.
 
Now you see dear gcle, you have made a very bad dicision by going to police in Pakistan, as you will find that the bicycle that you want to complain for is in the Police Station and an (Awal Dar) would be using it (ex. was provided by Omar).
 
When we were in school we used to tell a joke about Pakistan police which is; "Once there was a meeting between Head of police or several countries, a question was put through to all which asked that Once a robbery accures after how long your police gets the news?
Germany answered 10min, Britain 12min, France 15min, US 20min, and so on when it came turn of Pakistan the head of police said that we get the tip 2 days in advance as there is no robbery until we are not informed?"
 
So for sure most the people in Swat and south of Afghanistan will refere to Taleban while in North of Afghanistan they will refere to local malitias and only to police in central areas. Same goes in Pakistan, if you are in Sindh you will seek the help of local feudals or if you are an Urdu speaker you will seek help of MQM, if Pashtun you will go to local groups.
In Baluchestan no one boders to report anything to police as the local tribal leaders or (Mirs and Nawabs) are the gov there.
So only in center and some parts of Punjab you may go to Police only to find a report taken and that's it.
 
So if you are in the region I strongly advice you not to waste your time. Wink


-------------




Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 19:33
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

In Pakistan the police I guess. In Afghanistan today, neither. I'd just let it go. I certainly wouldn't want the Taleban to know I existed.
 
Now you see dear gcle, you have made a very bad dicision by going to police in Pakistan, as you will find that the bicycle that you want to complain for is in the Police Station and an (Awal Dar) would be using it (ex. was provided by Omar).
Well, I said 'I guess'. I really don't know and I suspect it depends who I am, as it would in most countries. So I'll take your and Omar's word for the Pakistan police being corrupt.
 
However, my main point was that a stolen bicycle is trivial compared to the things I would not dare to go to the Taliban about. I wish there was an Afghan woman contributing to this debate. Or an Afghan Shiite.
Quote  
When we were in school we used to tell a joke about Pakistan police which is; "Once there was a meeting between Head of police or several countries, a question was put through to all which asked that Once a robbery accures after how long your police gets the news?
Germany answered 10min, Britain 12min, France 15min, US 20min, and so on when it came turn of Pakistan the head of police said that we get the tip 2 days in advance as there is no robbery until we are not informed?"
I've heard the same joke told about the police in Chicago and a few other places in the US and Italy. Schoolyard humour isn't a good guide to anything.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 19:58
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Why does that make a difference? Richard I had 3,000 Saracens killed after the siege of Acre. That wouldn't justify another Bitish leader - or even a Saracen one - doing the same thing.
Dear gcle,
I guess you totaly misunderstood me, as I ment that these killings and graves are common over this part of the world as we have been facing it since centuries (thanks to the British strategy of Divide and Rule).
Basically that's just silly. They were more common before the British even arrived, and they have become common again since the British left. Take responsibility for your own history.
Quote
It's something same like the suppression of Black people in the US and some parts of the Europe, those people have seen such treatement since centuries and now it's a common thing for them.
 
Quote
No international decision is reached without the participants first determining what the outcome is going to be. That doesn't mean the council is biassed one way or another, it's just the way international diplomacy works.
 
It was because Bush/Blair knew what the outcome of a Security Council debate in 2003 wouod have been that they didn't ask for SC approval of the Iraq invasion: they knew they wouldn't get it. As for the SC approval of the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban, you might note that Russia or China could have blocked it: they didn't, and made it known in advance they wouldn't.
 
Moreover it wasn't and isn't just the Security Council that ruled that way; the General Assembly went along with it. Look for instance at the resolution  at http://www.afghanistan-un.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2001_3.pdf - http://www.afghanistan-un.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2001_3.pdf
and in particular at the long list of international agreements and covenants on human rights Afghanistan had agreed to and failed to preserve.
 
I wouldn't like to comment on this section of your comment, as you are providing me data and materials of a source that I do not recognize.
Then you can hardly expect anyone else to recognise you, can you? There's a very sound reason why the massive majority of the whole world, despite all its ideological differences, was and is against the Taliban. Not all of us have forgotten the lessons of the fight against ideological tyranny in so many places in the last century.
 
Have you ever heard of a pro-Taliban demonstration anywhere except in Afghanistan and maybe in Pakistan?
Quote
Anyway as far as Russia and China was concerned regarding the Taleban, more than any other country those two were interested in the removal of Taleban as it was growing in number and strenght day after another, while Russia was already fighting the religious uprisings in Chechnya in the west they didn't wanted another religious group in Uzbekistan (most of whose nationals are still fighting in the ranks of Taleban)
You just make this stuff up, don't you? Uzbeikstan was one of the foremost leaders in proposing and supporting action against the Taliban in 2001/2.
This was as recent as a year ago: http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2008/april/apr72008.html#8 - http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2008/april/apr72008.html#8
but Uzbekistan was one of the earliest antagonists of the Taliban.
'Most of its nationals' means about seven million people, just counting men, no? I'll grant you a few Muslim extremists from Uzbekistan, but fewer than from many foreign countries.
Quote
and Tajikistan.
China is a country where religion has very minnor independence and the growing number of muslims Uyghurs in Xinjiang autonomous region, is a big hurdle in there way.
Now during the Taleban rule most of the Uyghurs did came to Afghanistan for their Sharia studies which the Chiness authorities didn't like a bit.
 
So I don't think Russia and China ever wanted to avoid invasion of Afghanistan, though they would had risked their arch-rival US taking a step nearer to them (Russia-China).


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 09:28
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...Schoolyard humour isn't a good guide to anything.
But experience is. Wink
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Basically that's just silly. They were more common before the British even arrived, and they have become common again since the British left. Take responsibility for your own history.
I have never said that I am not responsible for my history, but me and you can not change a world known fact, can we?
 
Quote
Then you can hardly expect anyone else to recognise you, can you?
Now that's the most amazing thing I have heard, it means before 26 June 1945  no one recognized that there was a country by the name of Afghanistan, or US or USSR or Britain or Persia or Greece and so on.
No dear it is your own diplomatic status that makes you recognize a government not the UN, if you were true then how Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognized the Taleban government while Northern Alliance's representive was present in UN HQ, doesn't that sound like a funny joke? LOLLOLLOLLOL
 
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Anyway as far as Russia and China was concerned regarding the Taleban, more than any other country those two were interested in the removal of Taleban as it was growing in number and strenght day after another, while Russia was already fighting the religious uprisings in Chechnya in the west they didn't wanted another religious group in Uzbekistan (most of whose nationals are still fighting in the ranks of Taleban)
 
Originally posted by glce glce wrote:

You just make this stuff up, don't you? Uzbeikstan was one of the foremost leaders in proposing and supporting action against the Taliban in 2001/2.
 
 
Did I sound the opposite as I guess I too said that the Russians didn't wanted another religious group in Uzbekistan, which for sure is with the support of then (and current) government of Uzbekistan.
 
What I was refering to is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan
and
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=30405 - http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=30405
 
 
Originally posted by glce glce wrote:

This was as recent as a year ago: http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2008/april/apr72008.html#8%20 - http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2008/april/apr72008.html#8
 
So for sure Uzbekistan will offers assistance to NATO in Afghanistan as it doesn't want the IMU in power and an end to Mr. Islam Karimov's government (which is by most western countries counted illegitimate, refere to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan#Politics - Link1 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Karimov#Human_rights_and_press_freedom - Link2 for more).
 


-------------




Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 16:05
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...Schoolyard humour isn't a good guide to anything.
But experience is. Wink
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Basically that's just silly. They were more common before the British even arrived, and they have become common again since the British left. Take responsibility for your own history.
I have never said that I am not responsible for my history, but me and you can not change a world known fact, can we?
 
Quote
Then you can hardly expect anyone else to recognise you, can you?
Now that's the most amazing thing I have heard, it means before 26 June 1945  no one recognized that there was a country by the name of Afghanistan, or US or USSR or Britain or Persia or Greece and so on.
That's quite silly. No it doesn't at all. I meant since you, Gharanai, don't recognise the UN, then you can't expect anone else to recognise you, Gharanai.
Quote
No dear it is your own diplomatic status that makes you recognize a government not the UN, if you were true then how Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognized the Taleban government while Northern Alliance's representive was present in UN HQ, doesn't that sound like a funny joke? LOLLOLLOLLOL
Not in the least. The UN recognises Afghanistan, it's you that don't. It would be nice if you didn't just try and make up smart-ass jokes and instead paid attention to what people say.  
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

Anyway as far as Russia and China was concerned regarding the Taleban, more than any other country those two were interested in the removal of Taleban as it was growing in number and strenght day after another, while Russia was already fighting the religious uprisings in Chechnya in the west they didn't wanted another religious group in Uzbekistan (most of whose nationals are still fighting in the ranks of Taleban)
 
Originally posted by glce glce wrote:

You just make this stuff up, don't you? Uzbeikstan was one of the foremost leaders in proposing and supporting action against the Taliban in 2001/2.
 
 
Did I sound the opposite as I guess I too said that the Russians didn't wanted another religious group in Uzbekistan, which for sure is with the support of then (and current) government of Uzbekistan.
 
What I was refering to is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan
and
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=30405 - http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=30405
I know about the IMU, and I said you would find some Islamic extremists from Uzbekistan with the Taliban. After all there were even Islamic militants from the US and Britain. However, unlike your ridiculous claim, the majority of the population of Uzbekistan are most definitely not fighting for the Taliban.
Quote  
 
Originally posted by glce glce wrote:

This was as recent as a year ago: http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2008/april/apr72008.html#8%20 - http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2008/april/apr72008.html#8
 
So for sure Uzbekistan will offers assistance to NATO in Afghanistan as it doesn't want the IMU in power and an end to Mr. Islam Karimov's government (which is by most western countries counted illegitimate, refere to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan#Politics - Link1 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Karimov#Human_rights_and_press_freedom - Link2 for more).
 
So admit you were wrong with that silly stuff about the majority of the Uzbek population. Apart from anything else, statements like that destroy any credibility the rest of your posts may have.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 17:19
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


If I were running the US-NATO forces, this would be my plan for defeating the Taliban.
(1) Raise the core of army, enough to defend the major cities
(2) Withdraw all foriegn forces
(3) Put some ideological distance between the foriegn forces and my forces. Fight a defensive and highly cautious style of war.
(4) Fight fire with fire, illiteracy with education. Take the fight to the real battle ground - public opinion. Introduce Sharia - real Sharia, with university trained Qazis (Judges), legal theorists and a justice everyone can understand.
(5) Use education as your major weapon - both village level public education, and scholarships to foriegn schools. If the Talibs bomb a school, rebuild it, keep persisting and keep being generous. Offer scholarships, offer Mullah Omar's son a scholarship to Medina university. Undermine the Taliban ideologically.
(6) Be quick to forgive, and slow to judge.
How is that different from what the Northern Alliance was trying to do pre-2001?
Quote
Then you have the government offering law, security and education, as opposed to the Taliban offering only security.
But the Taliban doesn't offer security. That's why so many people are fleeing from Swat. The Taliban just offers death if you disagree.
 
You sound just a tad like the people who used to say "now if only the Jews would negotiate with Hitler...".
Quote
 Compared to the current situation where the government is offering a mis- or non-applied foriegn law, and reconstruction - something no-one can really identify with, except possibly as bribes.
I'd agree the UN is obviously not throwing the right bribes around enough to the right people.

 


Some of those concepts are too complicated for American strategists to bother with. As history demonstrates, they would much rather use a sledge hammer to push a pin to cork since it is more economically viable. In addition there is a latent institutionalised racism and contempt for non-European/white nations which deems them unworthy of constructive engagement.

(2) Is exactly how the Soviet Union left the army, but that didn't stop the Taliban.  rather than being defeated in battle the commie Afghans were defeated in will and the same shall be repeated.  And after the crimes inflicted on non-combatant Afghans in the last 8 years they will be hungry for revenge.







-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net