Hellfire that usurgent

[Lethaface]

By the way, i remember there are such things as topics now

Nice video, I think it was more then clear those individuals were doing something very suspicious there at the road at night. They Apache ? crew observed them for quite a long time (the video has cuts here and there) before they decide to engage, and the hellfire did a hellova jub

Clean kill, IED disabled, nicely done. But I ain't stampeding over their dead bodies.

Although I could understand the pilot feeling aroused and or glad he successfully engaged the enemy. This forum is world wide however, theoratically taliban can also buy the game, play it and post on this forum. I bet nobody would like 'm celebrating victories over the 'infidels' using 'hallelujahs' on this very forum.

[theFightingSeabee]

Probably not, because they throw acid on girls faces, use children as suicide bombers, and execute people in the streets. They shoot women in the head for showing ankles, they take 9 yr old wives and rape them, they supply the world with heroin and opium, they steal from farmers, they ban music, etc, etc, etc. That is why we celebrate and would be angry with them celebrating our deaths. The flaw in your argument is that you compare them to us as if we were equals. Well, we're not (ok, some of every group on earth are dogs, but not overall).

[Dietrich]

The course this discussion has taken reminds me of how it seems that those in the US who protest "the war" seem to be concerned much more about Iraq than Afghanistan. For example, the fact that the organization Iraq Veterans Against The War is not called Iraq And Afghanistaion Veterans Against The War (aside from the fact that the latter name is unduly cumbersome) seems to reflect the fact that anti-war folks are against the Iraq half of the war. I wonder why.

As vehement as anti-war demonstrators in the US can be, I think they generally fail to mention Afghanistan is because the Coalition forces are generally regarded as being there to combat the Taliban -- as opposed to "killing/dying for oil" -- but also because (and, I admit, this is not-very-well-founded supposition) people generally still believe that Osama bin Laden is somewhere in the lawless border realm between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if intelligence provided broadcastable proof that he was in a position to be captured by a SOF team or simply killed by a JDAM, the cry for his blood would ring out anew in the US, and the Afghanistan half of the war would enjoy a sudden, if limited, surge in support.

[Lethaface]

The flaw in your argument is that you compare them to us as if we were equals.

Firstly, I fully, fully and fully agree with you that the practices of the Taliban are despictable. Although I dont think all of 'em are equally evil.

It strikes me though how you can say that you are not equal to them and at the same time talk about 'celebrating' their deaths.

You are equal by nature. The amount of civilization a certain group has, shouldn't mean they are less worthy then you are. This is the old colonization doctrine in a new form. And I am quite surprised someone reasonable like you could celebrate the death of a man, in any form.

Perhaps I am too nitpicky about this, but norms do become vague quite easily. You cheer for a dead Taliban, your neighbor starts cheering at the death of an Afghan with a beard (all those extreme islamists are all terrorist, right?), and before you know it a facism like hatred for Muslims has emerged.

There is a reason there are Taliban which we should look for also in our history. Apart from that, people do make mistakes, also in large groups (history showed us). While it is perhaps necesary to undertake military action (war) against those that have made wrong (in our eyes) decisions and stand on the wrong side of the line, they are not inhuman. They are humans like you and me.

By celebrating their deaths in an unrespectful way, we're not really giving the good examples to followers and might be followers of the Taliban. Remember, life is quite different when you have grown up with the poppy fields as only source of income and nothing to do apart from focusing on religion, which most of them can't even do by themselves since they can't read Arabic. Then every now and then foreigners bring mighty war machines to your country to ...., to do what actually? Destroy your only source of income? Is it strange people defend their only form of income?

We should show them our 'civilization', by paying marketprices for their poppy and try to speed up the market for other cultivation. Making it clear that captured Taliban are not tortured and that their casualties are treated with respect. That the average Afghan is REALLY better of with Nato then with the Taliban. And making sure that they are safe also after the soldiers have left. Luckily politicians more and more start to see this too.

By celebrating their deaths, disrespecting their culture, believes and society we will not only be equal to them but also not far from their ethical scale.

If we want anything coming near to world peace like the new president of the US wants so badly, we should be looking into how we can help people living under dire circumstances in those countrys, see the light. I think that a lot of Afghans currently don't recognize the US's intentions as honest. Why would that be? Are they so stupid or are we so smart?

Those accidental ill-targeted JDAM's sure wont help them seeing the light, nor does a Hellfire missile or .50 M2 on target. Those should only be used for making sure others can let them 'see the light'. Remember that every dead Taliban will likely produce several new recruits (family, friends).

If we don't want 'em to see the light we might as well nuke the whole place, thats a cost effective approach. Shooting them in the head untill they stop being Taliban is similar to catching fish and waiting for all fish to learn not to bite the hook.

Remember, the Taliban didn't invade your home country and raped your sister while occupying your house. They did what they did long time without us doing anything, untill some criminals they provided shelter bombed the Twin Towers (At least, thats the story in the news and still seems more plausible then the other theories). Fact is that the west didn't really care about the taliban throwing acid or shooting woman untill we found out the CIA trained Osama Bin Laden was still hiding there.

I too am glad when an IED wielding Taliban gets taken out. One less IED which can hurt western troops or Afghani citizens all the like. Better would be if he was arrested, put in jail and the IED dismantled. That is civilization at its peak. In this case that was not really an option probably, so they took the next best.

I would cheer when a corrupt Warlord which also serves as Governor and produces heroin from poppy gets arrested, or when the locals kick out the Taliban and hand m over to the Nato en grosse. One dead Taliban is just a small, short term victory with no real benefits over the long term. So basically you are just cheering about a dead men, which is in my eyes something barbaric. I only have respect for the dead and also hope dead Taliban may rest in peace. How different is cheering a Talibans dead by US citizens from Iraqi's hitting burned out US soldier with sticks and roping them to the back of a car for a trophy tour around the village? I would say only a 50-100 years. Our stomachs have become to weak to celebrate like that. The essence is the same though.

I respect anyone here with or without a military background not agreeing with me. However, for myself I am quite sure that they are wrong to do so and perhaps are making a grave mistake upon portraying Taliban as pure nogooders that should be exterminated to the very last man.

[lomir]

I strongly agree with many of the things you have said, Lethaface, but with some others unfortunately I don't. I would like to just give my opinion to the debate:

I really don't think anyone here thinks human beings are not equal by nature. But still some of us we'll keep celebrating the death of certain people because they are not ethically equal to us. There's something called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The fundamental freedoms for all human beings. Let's have a quick look at it:

Article 1All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 28Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Jeez, you can go through the 30 articles of the declaration and many groups will come to your mind, i.e. the Talibans, that don't (or didn't in the past) observe a single one of them. The key word is respect. As far as they don't seem to understand this word, shouldn't we be glad everytime that those dregs of society won't continue their barbarous by dying? To dream of a better world?

Perhaps I am too nitpicky about this, but norms do become vague quite easily. You cheer for a dead Taliban, your neighbor starts cheering at the death of an Afghan with a beard (all those extreme islamists are all terrorist, right?), and before you know it a facism like hatred for Muslims has emerged.

Let's change the time setting. 1943. "You cheer for a dead Waffen-SS volunteer, your neighbor starts cheering at the death of a German wearing skulls and crossbones symbols in his cap (all those extreme nazis are all criminals, right?), and before you know it a fascism like hatred for Nazis has emerged." (?) Something there makes no sense to me. What I'm trying to say is how easily the word "fascism" seems to be said nowadays just to discredit something.

If we don't want 'em to see the light we might as well nuke the whole place, thats a cost effective approach. Shooting them in the head untill they stop being Taliban is similar to catching fish and waiting for all fish to learn not to bite the hook.

Remember that every dead Taliban will likely produce several new recruits (family, friends). [...] One dead Taliban is just a small, short term victory with no real benefits over the long term.

Yee haa, nuke them all!! Come on, man, let's try to be serious. We are trying to get rid of the Talibans, not to kill the entire population of Afghanistan whomsoever. I have to disagree about the "shooting them in the head until they stop being Taliban..." thing. A fish doesn't learn. A human does, and even sometimes really fast. About the latter I have to go back to the Nazi Germany again. How many of these new recruits you talk about could you see after the end of the war? Yup, every enemy soldier that died on that war was just an small, short term victory, but add on and you'll see the long term benefits. Crystal-clear.

Remember, the Taliban didn't invade your home country and raped your sister while occupying your house.

Yes, let's keep contemplating one's navel... Next time you'll be abroad on holidays and see a man raping a woman in her house, do nothing because it's not your country, your sister and your house, huh?

They did what they did long time without us doing anything, untill some criminals they provided shelter bombed the Twin Towers (At least, thats the story in the news and still seems more plausible then the other theories). Fact is that the west didn't really care about the taliban throwing acid or shooting woman untill we found out the CIA trained Osama Bin Laden was still hiding there.

It makes no difference to me. Hitler rose the power in 1933 and until the beginning of WWII it wasn't all roses. Better late than never. Remember that

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[Dowding2]

You'll actually find that the rehabilitation of 'native' Taliban fighters into Afghani civilian life is starting to show itself as an uncomfortable truth when finding a solution to the situation. Afghanistan is not a black and white conflict, from what I can make out. The complex tribal and factional relationships at play are like shifting sands. Force of arms will not win alone. A resolution of the opium trade for instance, has to be part of the solution - burning the only income people have will push them straight into the arms of the Taliban. Some have suggested we should buy the crop and sell it on the legal (medicinal) opium market.

Foreign, non-Afghani fighters aside, many of the Afghani Taliban foot soldiers are illiterate pawns of the warlords - fighting because they are getting paid to fight rather than any ideological motivation. I suspect a more hearts and minds solution will be required there. Reconstruction (or more accurately 'construction', given the state of Afghanistan as a 'country') will play a major part in doing that.

As for dancing on the graves of dead Taliban? I'll leave that to the soldiers doing the killing, as it is their perogative to deal with the aftermath as they like. I won't lose any sleep when one of the Talibaddies buys the (poppy) farm, but I'll smile bemusedly at the armchair-bound zealots over here, who seem to have more bloodlust than many of the lads doing the killing (and dying).

[Fūrinkazan]

I agree with Lethaface because i think it's the most reasonable and human position.

If we must declare war to all the countries that don't respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we will have to declare war to almost all of the planet.

Do we respect this declaration when we use torture, even it those men were terrorists ?

Democracies should give the exemple first, by a strict respect of human rights and moral. Don't forget that also in our countries they are extremists, religious or not.

Some people may believe that democracies acts like the police of the world.

Do you think that without the terrorists attacks against United States we would be in Afghanistan ? I think that the Talibans would still be in that country doing what they want and that we would not take a part in that conflict.

Do you think that we would have send troops to free Irak if Saddam didn't start by invading Koweit ?

All the politicians of our democracies had good relations with him. We sold him weapons etc...

Where is the moral in all this. This man was a dictator and a murderer but we would still have good relations with him without Koweit.

There are many exemples of situations like this in the world.

Thinking that our countries act as the police of the world is, to my opinion, wrong. Countries act for their own interests.

We didn't react in Rwanda when almost one million people were exterminated, and there are a lot of other exemples.

During the french revolution, in 1792, Maximilien de Robespierre said in a speech about the declaration of war :

"The most extravagant idea that can come to a politician's mind is to think that we just have to come with weapons in our hands in a foreign country to make them adopt our laws and constitutions.

Nobody loves armed missionaries and the first advice that give nature and cautiousness is to fight them like enemies."

Of course, it's a good thing that Saddam is out, and Taliban are extremists who kill innocent people, but we should think also to the human cost of all those wars.

How can we give lessons of democracy if we shake hands with dictators and if we don't respect the declaration of human rights ourselves ?

[hcrof]

I personally regard the Taliban (or at least the footsoldiers) as a symptom of a deeper desease in the area. You can try to mask the symptom by killing the footsoldiers but its like scratching a rash, it keeps getting worse.

What is needed is to build a state where the people respect the rule of law and the violence will disappear naturally. It should be simple but as we have found - it isn't . Scratching that itch was much more tempting than treating it and now its getting pretty painful!

[Woodey]

It is at least an interesting question. Are "other" people less worthy of freedom? Or are the rights of local despots to crush their own people under their heal his right since they are "his" people?

The flip side is whether people who have no tradition of democracy or the education to lift them up above the cycle of dictators and warlords can be helped? Or as leaders of many countries say, their people don't want freedom.

In a world where freedom is considered less important than trading it for government protection/securitydirection maybe the thought of freedom is rightly laughed at in a majority of countries.

I myself see it as the dying of hope.

[theFightingSeabee]

I think it's in part a dying of hope, but mostly I think it's just ignorance. Most of the people of Afghanistan are illiterate (28% can read). And of those 28%, how many do you think read about the wonders of the world, great literary works, world news, etc? How many read anything other than the Koran?

The large majority are told what to think and how to live. They don't know any better. They don't have libraries and the internet. They don't have enough information to make any type of logical conclusions about anything. They live in a tiny bubble, knowing nothing more than what they can see and touch. How do they know what freedom is if they've never experienced it? I went to school from age 5 to 18, then from 27 to 33, and I still don't know much about a great many things.

Free societies that encourage education tend to be "better" in almost every way. They can field professionals who are masters of their trade. Doctors, engineers, etc, all make huge contributions to the greater society. But places like Afghanistan have very few. Are there any great people from Afghanistan? Are any great inventions, cures for diseases or new drugs, great works of art, or anything useful to all of humanity coming out of Afghanistan? NO. All you get out of there is heroin, opium, and weed, with the occasional international terrorist.

It's not the people themselves that are stupid. Many have emigrated to the US and other countries to do great things.

I see the greatest problem as being a lack of education and decades of war hasn't helped. In the coming decades, technology will continue to trickle in, the literacy rate will rise, more educated specialists will arise, and people there will begin to see life outside of Afghanistan. And with that, slowly, life may begin to improve. This process will take decades; longer if the Taliban remain in control.

[Lethaface]

As for dancing on the graves of dead Taliban? I'll leave that to the soldiers doing the killing, as it is their perogative to deal with the aftermath as they like. I won't lose any sleep when one of the Talibaddies buys the (poppy) farm, but I'll smile bemusedly at the armchair-bound zealots over here, who seem to have more bloodlust than many of the lads doing the killing (and dying).

That blood lust here is sort of the thing i am trying too preach against here (ssssht)

But over the last few years I've gotten more and more concerned about people thinking for themselves. A certain 'Wilders', politician from The Netherlands, has succeeded in growing a lot of disrespect for Muslims among the less intelligently blessed people over here, and even knows to attract quit some reasonable educated people. Of course he couldn't have done it without help of the media. The strange thing here is that if you say the same things he says in parliament about Muslims, but do it en public and change 'Muslim' into 'Jew', you will be arrested for anti-antisemitism. At least that has happened before.

The big us VS them feeling, that's the dangerous part. Wilders is just one part of this, there are plenty of other symptoms but it could fill (boring) pages.

We world has gotten so dependent on 'mass' media that too many persons rely only on a few wells of information. There are only a few press agency's world wide were all the international news in our newspapers and news bulletins come from (they only ad the sauce). Reuters, ANP, AP, Interfax, a French one and a few others but that's it.

When **** hits the fan Newc Agencies tend to send in reporters, but they do little more then talk to the wife of the ambassador who happens to work for such and so, and can give and this info. Reporters generally don't have any time to really dig something up for themselves.

A journalist from a well respected Dutch newspaper wrote a book on this subject. Only after experiencing the thing himself regularly.

We don't have the slightest idea what the average Afghan thinks about this whole thing. We only know what they are supposed to think according to "us". People celebrate the killings of other people barely knowing what it is that moves those people.

I'm not saying all Americans are FOX believers, but even the reasonable people can become biased (especially under stress) as I have witnessed among people I am close too. It is easy to mix up facts, for example Iran. It is a fact that the same centrifuges for en richening uranium until 20% are capable of en richening it to 99%. Apart from the fact that I think (naturally) Iran has interest in Nuclear weapons, the Uranium centrifuges don't mean jack ****. This little wrong detail (even before the voting incident) actually lead a good friend of me into believing bombing/invading Iran is a good thing. Apart from whether that is the case, I think it is alarming that plain BS in the news affecting public opinion, or even starting Wars (Iraq anyone, 'the smoking gun').

I try to 'take knowledge of' most news/opinion perspective items I read or see, but only 'believe' news or 'assume'/'incorporate' opinion sources are correct after I have thought it through from tip to toe.

Cheering about dead Taliban because they are just such a rapist, acid throwing, bomb dwelling scumbags of the earth is nothing much in itself, but it proves that there are plenty among us who don't care to know about ethics, politics and conflicts in the world of all humans (not just of their own), and are trapped in their own mind.

[BlackMoria]

It is at least an interesting question. Are "other" people less worthy of freedom? Or are the rights of local despots to crush their own people under their heal his right since they are "his" people?

The flip side is whether people who have no tradition of democracy or the education to lift them up above the cycle of dictators and warlords can be helped? Or as leaders of many countries say, their people don't want freedom.

In a world where freedom is considered less important than trading it for government protection/securitydirection maybe the thought of freedom is rightly laughed at in a majority of countries.

I myself see it as the dying of hope.

It is not a simple as 'their people don't want freedom'. Try explaining what 'freedom' or 'democracy' to a people who never had it - it is neither easy to explain or easy to grasp.

In Afghanistan, democracy is just another level of 'warlord' above their local tribal strongman (warlord), according to the average back country Afghani.

Any tangible trappings of democracy is centralized in the big urban centres and at that, bastardized due to outmoded thinking to encompassing all past practices and customs, and rampant corruption. In rural Afghanistan, the average afghani frankly doesn't see it. And it he doesn't see it, he sure as hell isn't going to 'get it'.

Freedom of speech (a tenet of democracy) is absolutely meaningless if opening your mouth is going to get you killed by the local warlord, the local crime gang or by the Taliban or Al-Queda.

Electing a political representative for an elected assembly is meaningless if that means the only local person is running is the warlord because everyone else is afraid to. Or given the rampant corruption, your representative is enriching himself and doing little for the people who elected him.

A free market economy means nothing if you raise only enough food to feed your family and the rest goes to warlord and his cronies or to poppy production (in which the same warlord, crime boss or Taliban takes the lion's share and leaves you just enough money for you not to starve.

The biggest failing of the west was there was no Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and Iraq. It was generally assumed that people would 'naturally' desire a democratic government but it was completely overlooked that the existing tribal (warlord) system has been in place for thousands of years and for the most part, in places of the world in which people barely eke out a living, the tribal system works.

More to the point - if a person can barely provide a living for himself under the tribal system, and his lot in life is not improved with a quasi-democracy government, then it is natural to assume that that person is not going embrace the concept of democracy with open arms because, frankly, it has no or little value to him. People stay with the status quo unless the new order is clearly of benefit to them and supports or validated their values and aspirations.

No, it is not that average person in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't want democracy - it is they don't understand it nor appreciate it potential.

Also, look at the birth and growth of democracy in history and it should come as no surprise that democracy was birth in nations that faced massive changes in the status quo due to social evolution or upheaval like the revolutions, political/religious reform movements and factors like the industrial evolution and the empowerment of the working class.

All of which either Iraq or Afghanistan has had.

Democracy may take hold in the Middle East but it is going to take a very, very long time....

[Lethaface]

Blackmoria,

Nicely put, odd that i just removed the following from my post because it was besides the point (it was still under ctrl v).

I've come to think that even Democracy isn't something that can be 'enforced'; it is to be demanded (en force) by 'the people'.