Troubles may not be over just yet in Afghanistan

[Sydneyfan]

I was looking around newsgroups and stumbled onto this interesting article by Robert Fisk, who as far as I know is a British journalist. In the article he discusses the situation in Afghanistan as the Northern Alliance have just liberated several cities including Mazar-i-sheif, Herat, and the capital Kabul, at the same time taking a bit of revenge.
On a personal note, it was great to see the jubilation of the people in the streets as these cities were liberated and see women revealing their faces and men being able to shave, but can the Northern Alliance be fully trusted not to massacre retreating Taliban troops?

The Taliban were an evil regime but they were created partly as a result of a vacuum of lawlessness occurring within Afghanistan following the end of the Soviet invasion. I guess this article illustrates how difficult it's going to be to restore peace in a land so ravaged by war where each group has their own reasons for mistrust and a desire for revenge.

Anyway, enough of my rambling here's the article . . . . .


War on terrorism
By Robert Fisk
13 November 2001

The Northern Alliance's sudden victories in Afghanistan may be good news
for the West but the bad news is not far behind. The Uzbek, Tadjik and
Hazara gunmen who make up this rag-tag army have a bloody reputation for
torturing and executing prisoners which ' if resumed in the coming days
' will plunge America and Britain into a moral abyss.

Chilling stories of more than 100 pro-Taliban Pakistani fighters shot
dead after their surrender in Mazar-i-Sharif ' and of Alliance gunmen
"roaming the streets'' of the abandoned city ' will not come as a
surprise to those who are aware of the atrocities committed by America's
new allies during the 1992-96 fighting in Kabul.

For the Americans ' and for the minuscule British component of the
West's military forces inside Afghanistan ' the behaviour of the
Northern Alliance presents a grave problem. As our "foot-soldiers" are
in Afghanistan, we cannot disclaim responsibility for human rights
abuses by the Alliance's gunmen; yet neither the Americans nor the
British appear to have tried to control the army they are now helping.
Indeed, it seems they may not even be able to prevent the Alliance from
entering Kabul.

The massacres committed by malicious fighting in the name of outside
powers have regularly brought shame upon their more powerful allies. The
Contras in Nicaragua and the Phalangist militiamen in Lebanon
contaminated their respective American and Israeli masters ' the latter
in the notorious Palestinian camp massacres of Sabra and Chatila in
1982. A glance at the Alliance's track record of rape, pillage and
street executions in Kabul between 1992 and 1996 suggests that the
so-called Allies ' America, Britain and just about anyone else who wants
to join in ' have good reason to exert their influence over the newly
victorious militiamen from the north of Afghanistan.

In Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat there are comparatively few Pashtun
communities, which traditionally favour the Taliban.

A bit further south the Alliance will find itself among its ethnic
enemies. In 1997, Mazar's Hazara defenders killed more than 600 Taliban
militiamen who had taken over the city and then massacred dozens of
Pakistani students who had accompanied the Taliban into the region. In
later bloodbaths, thousands of Taliban prisoners were shot into mass
graves, with dozens more Pakistanis. A Northern Alliance turncoat,
General Pahlawan Malik, subsequently executed 2,000 Taliban prisoners of
war who had been tortured and starved before being put to death.

Many were drowned in wells. Others met a more carefully planned death.
One of General Malik's generals recalled: "At night when it was quiet
and dark we took about 150 Taliban prisoners, blindfolded them, tied
their hands behind their backs and drove them in truck containers out to
the desert. We lined them up 10 at a time, in front of holes in the
ground, and opened fire. It took about six nights.''

On other occasions Taliban prisoners were locked inside containers in
mid-summer; 1,250 were deliberately asphyxiated in this way, their
corpses dragged from the containers, blackened by the heat.

Could it happen again? There is no reason to believe the Alliance has
been taking lessons in human rights. It has been receiving ammunition
from Russia and logistics from the United States. Photographs in
yesterday's Pakistani papers showed Alliance gunmen leading a small
party of Western troops through the terrain of northern Afghan-istan.
But our soldiers are highly unlikely to have been distributing copies of
the Geneva Convention to their new friends.

[Sherman]

by Sydneyfan
can the Northern Alliance be fully trusted not to massacre retreating Taliban troops?
Why wouldn't retreatingTaliban forces be legitimate miltary targets?

You might have a valid point if they were surrendering Taliban forces. But, so far as I know - a force in retreat is still a legitimate military target. After all, the idea in war is to kill as many of the other side as possible so that they simply cease to exist as a force capable of fighting back, or they give up and surrender.

Isn't it?

[NYMets]

Gee..you picked an amazing guy to quote! IMHO today's best foriegn correspondant. His book about Lebanon "Pity the Nation" is a great read!!!

[Pessimistic]

As I mentioned before. A bloodbath will occur in afghanistan. But I suppose it's nothing new so the western alliance needn't feel any guilt (should we ?)

[Sydneyfan]

Originally posted by Sherman
by Sydneyfan

Why wouldn't retreatingTaliban forces be legitimate miltary targets?

You might have a valid point if they were surrendering Taliban forces. But, so far as I know - a force in retreat is still a legitimate military target. After all, the idea in war is to kill as many of the other side as possible so that they simply cease to exist as a force capable of fighting back, or they give up and surrender.

Isn't it?

Yeah, I miswrote my previous question, it should have read surrendering Taliban forces not retreating Taliban forces.

[topjars]

Surely the peace keeping force will know the Alliances track record and snuff it out if it eventuated- This war aint over by a long shot:(

[Visro]

What about Osama Bin Laden? Oh thats right, our intentions were to get him, not screw up Afghanistan again...:rolleyes:

The whole thing is a sham. The yanky governments are trigger hungry and need something every 10 or so years to keep them above the rest. This is just the latest incident...

[Sherman]

Visro -

Tell me again - what was Australia's response the last time someone waltzed in, stole a few fully loaded domestic flights, flew them into a couple of your best known landmarks and, in the process, killed 5,000 or 6,000 of your citizens and guests?

Oh, thats right! Its never happened to Australia!

So, I suppose, you don't really have any idea whatsoever how you would react either as an individual, or as a nation. And, if I correctly read between the lines of your post, you imagine that we in the U.S. are retaliating just because we're bullies that like to periodically flex our muscle for the fun of it.

Pitiful.

[iceman]

Originally posted by Sherman
Visro -

Tell me again - what was Australia's response the last time someone waltzed in, stole a few fully loaded domestic flights, flew them into a couple of your best known landmarks and, in the process, killed 5,000 or 6,000 of your citizens and guests?

Oh, thats right! Its never happened to Australia!

So, I suppose, you don't really have any idea whatsoever how you would react either as an individual, or as a nation. And, if I correctly read between the lines of your post, you imagine that we in the U.S. are retaliating just because we're bullies that like to periodically flex our muscle for the fun of it.

Pitiful.

America blamed Osama Bin Laden for the attacks and their sole purpose of this war was to bring him to justice. So far, what theyve done is bomb the crap out of Afghanistan and are no closer to locating Bin Laden....

I think its safe to assume that Afghanistan are now totally stuffed as a nation. How are they going to be expected to rebuild once the war is over??

[London Dave]

I think the US and its coalition partners have the stated aim of destroying Al Queada (?) and the Taliban, who harbour them.

What follows after the removal of the Taliban from control of the majority of Afghanistan is anyones guess. The fact that the return of the 'king' has been mooted shows how desperatee the coalition is for ideas.

The country is run by tribal warlords, and their loyalty is to themselves (fair enough too, considering whats gone on in the past).

Plenty of 'conquerors ' have entered Kabul, none have left at a time of their choosing.

[topjars]

Originally posted by London Dave
I think the US and its coalition partners have the stated aim of destroying Al Queada (?) and the Taliban, who harbour them.

What follows after the removal of the Taliban from control of the majority of Afghanistan is anyones guess. The fact that the return of the 'king' has been mooted shows how desperatee the coalition is for ideas.

The country is run by tribal warlords, and their loyalty is to themselves (fair enough too, considering whats gone on in the past).

Plenty of 'conquerors ' have entered Kabul, none have left at a time of their choosing.

beeuaatifully put Dave!!

Visro...Get a flicken grip

[Visro]

You know, at the start I supported America's stance. But as the bombings went on with little sign of getting Bin Laden and more and more civilian casualties, my views began to change. If they wanted Bin Laden badly, they would have launched a ground war. The Taliban forces are hardly advanced and American forces would have been able to crush them in a matter of a few days. Instead it looks to be a long campaign with little sign of improvement. I just think the handling of it is shabby. The more they effect the civilian population, the more likely future terrorists are going to be born.

Anyway, next time I just wont say anything. Appears you can't say anything without being shot down in flames because other people don't agree with your view. I'm sooooooooo sorry, next time I'll keep my trap shut! :rolleyes:

[RogerC]

Funny old war, isn't it? I'd describe it as more retribution than a war. It's not a war on terrorism, as the US like to describe it - unless terrorism resides purely in Afghanistan and is only promoted by the Taliban. It's a war on something, though, and I think that with every passing day the US military are further and further away from determining exactly what the war is against.

Terrorism is a curse. But it doesn't exist in a moral vacuum. It happens for reasons. And when it happens in the back yard of the United States it becomes urgently necessary for them to ask why it happens. You can't get rid of it by blasting the hell out of a country where a terrorist is assumed to be hiding. That's a little like destroying a building to kill a rat.

Have a think about it. There was no attempt by the US to negotiate with the Taliban to bring bin Laden to justice. Just a cursory, "Hand him over." "We don't know where he is." "Right, we warned you." There's no point saying they wouldn't have cooperated. We can never know because the US military were too keen to get on with the bombing.

Nothing that has happened in Afghanistan so far is going to make terrorism less likely to occur. Because the one thing that fuels terrorism more than anything else is not money or arms or headquarters or the existence of the Taliban. It is hatred; and what has happened in the last few weeks has fuelled enough hatred to keep the terrorist networks fully stocked with volunteers for decades to come.

Installing the Northern Alliance. Now there's a good idea. That's bound to bring stability.

[BomberBoy]

Originally posted by Visro
You know, at the start I supported America's stance. But as the bombings went on with little sign of getting Bin Laden and more and more civilian casualties, my views began to change. If they wanted Bin Laden badly, they would have launched a ground war. The Taliban forces are hardly advanced and American forces would have been able to crush them in a matter of a few days. Instead it looks to be a long campaign with little sign of improvement. I just think the handling of it is shabby. The more they effect the civilian population, the more likely future terrorists are going to be born.

Anyway, next time I just wont say anything. Appears you can't say anything without being shot down in flames because other people don't agree with your view. I'm sooooooooo sorry, next time I'll keep my trap shut! :rolleyes:

Vis, You're entitled to your own opinion, and don't let anyone take that away from you.

On the ground war issue, i think America would have been to be stupid to go in to Afghanistan straight off.

Just look at the past when the Soviets tryed to invade. Even look back to the tactics used in Vietnam, with little kids used as soliders and decieving the troops. Have you seen Bin Ladens kids?

And as for the 10 million land mines, i just don't think it was feasable.

[Sherman]

First off - our intention was NOT solely to "get bin Laden". It was to find and eliminate terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda; bin Laden is a part of that but not the only part. Why would we be so stupidly arrogant as to assume we cold successfully "launch a ground war" - just like everyone else has over the last few hundred years and have any more success at it than they? Yes we want to get bin Laden - but we'll do it our way - not the British way, not the Russian way.

Next - "negotiate with the Taliban"? What is there to gain by negotiation? They harboured bin Laden as well as terrorists from several other nations, as well as terrorist training camps. If you didn't think that was so BEFORE we attacked - events since then have proven it out beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. So - what was there to negotiate? They attacked us, folks - they killed 6,000 people! What the unholy h3ll did you expect us to do? Have a group hug for peace? Are you for real? If there is ever a time for NO negotiation - it was this time. Our demand was clear - give up bin Laden AS WELL AS any other person associated with Al Qaeda and several other known terror groups. If the Taliban was a legitimate government - and they were not - check with the United Nations on that one - they would have had no question and no hesitation about surrendering these people. If an American murdered 6,000 Australians and was trying to hide out in the U.S.A. - don't you think we would surrender him to Australian justice? Wouldn't ANY legitimate government do that? Not the Taliban. Look at my post previous to this one. I ask again - how do you think YOU would react if the attack and 6,000 deaths had been directed at YOU.

Next, we have been clear right from the very start that this is NOT going to stop with Al Qaeda, bin Laden and the Taliban. Our clearly expressed public goals have been from the very start to find ALL such networks and bring them ALL to justice. Some of that will be done by force of arms. Some of it will be done through financial means and some of it will be done via diplomatic channels.

It is in the best interests of ALL civilized people to stand with us and help because we all stand to benefit. Why in God's name would anyone speak out in favor of a regime that prohibits its sisters, its wives, its mothers from - not just basic human rights - but also prohibits them the legal authority to hold a job, the legal authority to go to school, the legal authority to seek medical care from a physician unless she is female - and remember - the females can't hold a job! How could you possibly support people like that? Look - I am a moderate in politics; I am descended from black Africans, white Europeans, and native North American Indians; I seek out and appreciate the cultural differences between me and those of persons from foreign countries; I most always see "gray" instead of black and white - right or wrong. But - if you can not discern that the USA if absolutely right in what we and our allies are doing, then there is no hope for you. You have truly lost your way.

[Joe Mama]

Well put Sherman, it's easy for us here in Australia to sermonise about the misdeeds of America, when we haven't gone through a similar tragedy that the american people have gone through on September 11.

[iceman]

Originally posted by Wayde Petersen
Well put Sherman, it's easy for us here in Australia to sermonise about the misdeeds of America, when we haven't gone through a similar tragedy that the american people have gone through on September 11.
Fair call, but what about what the people of Afghanistan are going through now? You cant tell me that every bomb, shot fired has hit its target??

[Curly5]

Originally posted by iceman

Fair call, but what about what the people of Afghanistan are going through now? You cant tell me that every bomb, shot fired has hit its target??
Iceman, of course it is impossible to 100% guarantee that only airfields, trucks and ammunition supplies are going to be hit. But is that a reason to NOT take the action?

If you saw 60 Minutes the other night, about the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt from which the bombing raids are carried out, you would have seen the amazing technology that enables the US to pinpoint targets and therefore minimise civilian casualties. In fact, several planned raids that could have been successful in finding bin Laden were not carried out, due to the possibility of high civilian casualties.

I would think that the Afghani people have suffered MUCH MORE under the Taliban, and from the ground war with Russia, to say nothing of feuding ethnic factions, than from controlled airstrikes not intentionally aimed at them and which will hopefully result in a better future for them and their country.

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Sherman
Visro -

Tell me again - what was Australia's response the last time someone waltzed in, stole a few fully loaded domestic flights, flew them into a couple of your best known landmarks and, in the process, killed 5,000 or 6,000 of your citizens and guests?

Oh, thats right! Its never happened to Australia!

So, I suppose, you don't really have any idea whatsoever how you would react either as an individual, or as a nation. And, if I correctly read between the lines of your post, you imagine that we in the U.S. are retaliating just because we're bullies that like to periodically flex our muscle for the fun of it.

Pitiful.

Not pitiful at all - a legitimate view point

What happened was a tradgegy

However, the reaction to that tragedy can still be open to criticisim and cannot be justified automatically just because the tragedy occured.

Osama is still on the lose and there are terrorists all over the world, some supported by the US.

So none of these issues are simple, they never are

Certainly, the US are not beyond criticism because 4000 people died in a tragedy

It cannot be allowed to automatically excuse any retaliatory action the US take.

I am not saying what the US are doing is wrong - all I am saying is that it can be open to criticism without it being called pitiful.

Thee are two sides to every story

Ask the innocents who have died in Iraq due to US actions - many more than the number who died in the Septmember 11 incidents.

An innocent Western life is worth no more than an innocent Iraqi / Afghan life.

[Sherman]

Jars,

With all due respect - what innocents have died in Iraq because of U.S. actions? Why don't you ask why Saddam doesn't comply with United Nations resolutions which would result in economic sanctions being lifted by the United States and other countries? See - you reveal yourself as buying into all of that propaganda about the United States doing this to Iraq and the United States doing that to Iraq. Iraq - by being an outlaw nation - has visited its own disaster on its people.

Next, an innocent American life is most certainly NOT worth any more than an innocent Afghan or Iraqi life. I know of no AMERICAN who believes that it is - I only hear that tired old claptrap from non-Americans and academicians. But, we most certainly do not believe an American life is worth any LESS than an Afghan or Iraqi life.

Last - what is "pitiful" is not someone else having an opinion - what is "pitiful" is someone automatically defaulting to the position that the USA is a "bully" nation anytime it seeks to act in its own self defense or in its own best interests. ALL nations with legitimate governments - not just third world nations - have a social contract with those that consent to be governed and that contract includes defense of the people. Americans have been directly and massively attacked, on our soil, in our workplaces, in our homes. If it is acting a "bully" to defend ourselves, then so be it.

But let me again ask you - what would Australia do in similar circumstance? Cower and hide? Your national history strongly suggests you would not. Your national history shows Australia to be peopled with tough minded folk who know right from wrong and who recognize evil when it confronts them. If you honestly consider the circumstances, I submit that you are no different than us in this respect and you would most assuredly NOT be clamoring for "kiss and make nice".

[Visro]

Originally posted by Sherman
Last - what is "pitiful" is not someone else having an opinion - what is "pitiful" is someone automatically defaulting to the position that the USA is a "bully" nation anytime it seeks to act in its own self defense or in its own best interests. ALL nations with legitimate governments - not just third world nations - have a social contract with those that consent to be governed and that contract includes defense of the people. Americans have been directly and massively attacked, on our soil, in our workplaces, in our homes. If it is acting a "bully" to defend ourselves, then so be it.

What is "pitiful" is someone else continuously criticising you for having a different opinion.

I've just down a whole history (the purpose of history is to come from unbiased viewpoint too) course on American affairs since 1945 so don't say that I have no idea.

I'm not going to say much further for being the rather sad person you are, you will just criticise me for my differing opinion to yours. What I will say however is, go back over American history over the last 50 odd years since you have come out of isolation and think why America did the things it did. If America hadn't pissed off so many people, it wouldn't have so many problems with terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.

Thats all I'm going to say now. I'm not even going to bother opening up this thread anymore cause simply, I can't stand people like yourself who don't understand different viewpoints and believe all the propaganda they hear.

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Sherman
Jars,

With all due respect - what innocents have died in Iraq because of U.S. actions? Why don't you ask why Saddam doesn't comply with United Nations resolutions which would result in economic sanctions being lifted by the United States and other countries? See - you reveal yourself as buying into all of that propaganda about the United States doing this to Iraq and the United States doing that to Iraq. Iraq - by being an outlaw nation - has visited its own disaster on its people.

Next, an innocent American life is most certainly NOT worth any more than an innocent Afghan or Iraqi life. I know of no AMERICAN who believes that it is - I only hear that tired old claptrap from non-Americans and academicians. But, we most certainly do not believe an American life is worth any LESS than an Afghan or Iraqi life.

Last - what is "pitiful" is not someone else having an opinion - what is "pitiful" is someone automatically defaulting to the position that the USA is a "bully" nation anytime it seeks to act in its own self defense or in its own best interests. ALL nations with legitimate governments - not just third world nations - have a social contract with those that consent to be governed and that contract includes defense of the people. Americans have been directly and massively attacked, on our soil, in our workplaces, in our homes. If it is acting a "bully" to defend ourselves, then so be it.

But let me again ask you - what would Australia do in similar circumstance? Cower and hide? Your national history strongly suggests you would not. Your national history shows Australia to be peopled with tough minded folk who know right from wrong and who recognize evil when it confronts them. If you honestly consider the circumstances, I submit that you are no different than us in this respect and you would most assuredly NOT be clamoring for "kiss and make nice".


Children are innocents mate regardless of what their government does

All the Iraqi Govt. does is laugh in the US's face while their own children are dying

The sanctions are hurting the innocent not the wrongdoers (invading a US oil supplier being the wrong doing?)

using the line - go and ask your government why you are dying is hardly the point

Children are still dying - Arab children - If they were western children it wold all be different and Western world sentiment would be different

You can't see that because you believe in all the fervent American patriotism that clouds the truth

I never said in my post that what America was doing is wrong _ It is a very hard call in my view.

Something needs to be done – but blind violent revenge is not the answer. Osama is still free.

As to your point re Australia - I probably agree with you.

As to US being allowed to pursue its own self interest - of course this is true

Don't dress it up in that protecting Freedom bull**** though because that's not what its about

America has never been about protecting freedom in general, just their own national safety and economic progression

Yes they have a right to do that - but don't then say it is all in aid of good versus evil - because that's just crap!

[Sherman]

All right, guys - I'll let this thread go.

I appreciate hearing your point of view even though I don't agree with it.

One final thought, though - I wonder if it's me that has a mind closed to the reality of this situation, or, if it may be you.

Peace and good health -

Sherm

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Sherman
All right, guys - I'll let this thread go.

I appreciate hearing your point of view even though I don't agree with it.

One final thought, though - I wonder if it's me that has a mind closed to the reality of this situation, or, if it may be you.

Peace and good health -

Sherm

Perhaps a bit of both

I think the debate is healthy though.

Look forward to debating other subjects in the future!

[mantis]

Well the good thing to come out of all this is, the Afghanis have all taken their tellies out of their hiding places & can watch it again & women can now show their faces in public & host TV shows. :)

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by mantis
Well the good thing to come out of all this is, the Afghanis have all taken their tellies out of their hiding places & can watch it again & women can now show their faces in public & host TV shows. :)

Perhaps we could send them Denise Drysdale then?

You know, doing our bit for the war effort and all that...:D