What is terrorism ?

[Pessimistic]

Word has it that the US is/will supply money for arms for rebels in afghanistan to 'overthrow' the taliban.

It looks like its going to be a 'dirty' war after all, and High principles don't apply.

The rebels will be using terrorist tactics and there would be no guarantee that many millions of innocents might die.

Like it or not the taliban is the 'government' of afghanistan and the opposite to terrorism is the rule of law and they are it.

Lets hope cool heads prevail

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Word has it that the US is/will supply money for arms for rebels in afghanistan to 'overthrow' the taliban.

It looks like its going to be a 'dirty' war after all, and High principles don't apply.

The rebels will be using terrorist tactics and there would be no guarantee that many millions of innocents might die.

Like it or not the taliban is the 'government' of afghanistan and the opposite to terrorism is the rule of law and they are it.

Lets hope cool heads prevail

Yeah...nice "rule of law".

Hold on a second, I know what we can do...we can forget about what happened on Sept 11 and just get on with our lives. Get off the grass!!!

 

[Westy_Boy]

Very good point, Pess.

How was Bin Laden taught in the art of warfare/terrorism in the firstplace? ..... by the American CIA, 20 years ago, in the hope that his 'rebels' would defeat the USSR. So in effect, America taught Bin Laden how to bring down a superpower.

By 'helping' the Northen Alliance in Afghanistan, who's to say that they aren't handing over weapons/aiding in intelligence/training the NEXT Osama Bin Laden right now? ... so much for learning from the mistakes of the past.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Hay people, what do you suggest they do? Send the taliban a xmas card asking them to please not support terrorist activities in the US? tHE TALIBAN ARE CORRUPT AND EVIL, the way they treat there own people is a disgrace. The US are considering there responses very carefully, they dont want innoccent civilians killed, they dont want to upset the whole muslim world, but respond they must, getting to bin laden is a priority the whole world should be focusing on, dont be fooled the taliban is being run by bin laden, they fear him more than the States.

 

[Westy_Boy]

This isn't an argument on whether or not to capture Bin Laden, Bubba. If the Al Queda is responsible, capture them, and kill every last one of them for what they have done.

But it's the way in which they might go about it (such as the indiscriminant killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who are against Bin Laden and the Taliban themselves) which is worrying a lot of people. And the fact that they are aiding a rebel group in performing acts of terrorism ... well, that's another matter.

The issue being discussed is: America is choosing to aid a militant group to help serve its own purpose.... exactly what happened in the Afghani/Russian war (the US trained/gave money/weapons to bin laden because he was seen as an 'ally' against a common enemy back then). Who's to say that in twenty years, if the Northern Alliance gets up and defeats the Taliban and holds power, that they want declare their own holy war on America? The Northern Alliance have performed numerous terrorist attacks too.... all I'm saying is don't give them money/weapons to terrosists just because at the moment they're classed as allies.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
This isn't an argument on whether or not to capture Bin Laden, Bubba. If the Al Queda is responsible, capture them, and kill every last one of them for what they have done.

But it's the way in which they might go about it (such as the indiscriminant killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who are against Bin Laden and the Taliban themselves) which is worrying a lot of people. And the fact that they are aiding a rebel group in performing acts of terrorism ... well, that's another matter.

The issue being discussed is: America is choosing to aid a militant group to help serve its own purpose.... exactly what happened in the Afghani/Russian war (the US trained/gave money/weapons to bin laden because he was seen as an 'ally' against a common enemy back then). Who's to say that in twenty years, if the Northern Alliance gets up and defeats the Taliban and holds power, that they want declare their own holy war on America? The Northern Alliance have performed numerous terrorist attacks too.... all I'm saying is don't give them money/weapons to terrosists just because at the moment they're classed as allies.

Westy boy you make some valid points, after all the States backed Iraq in there war against Iran, they backed the taliban in there fight against the russians etc etc, at some point you would hope they picked a better partner, however im not sure how else they are going to be successful against the taliban, the terrain is too hard for a successful ground assault, the taliban have shown they dont care how many of there civilians are sacrificed, there neighbours eg Pakistan will not let attacks eminate from there borders, even the Saudis have ruled that out.

The taliban are getting increasingly tougher in there wording of statements, they now say they do know bin ladens whereabouts whereas previously they claimed they didnt, they have told there people the States are too 'cowardly' to attack, in an obvious taunt, the northern alliance may be the States only hope of capturing bin laden ....... but i do hear you when you worry we are just arming yet another terrorist faction ...... surely anything is better than the taliban who are currently utting to trial two Australians charged with the death penalty for the dastardly act of preaching christianity! But then again who knows what factions are better if any in that region.......... Its a tough situation whatever they decide

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Like it or not the taliban is the 'government' of afghanistan

A "goverment" that took power by force. A "government" that does not allow elections. A "government" that passes "laws" that prevent half their population from holding jobs or even being educated. A "government" that outlaws male doctors from attending female patients and outlaws female doctors all together. Doesn't sound like much of a "government" to me.

and the opposite to terrorism is the rule of law and they are it.

Rule of terror more like. Perhaps you could go over and ask some of Afganistan's female population what they think about the Talibans "rule of law".

 

[Pessimistic]

Re: Re: What is terrorism ?

Originally posted by Dave


A "goverment" that took power by force. A "government" that does not allow elections. A "government" that passes "laws" that prevent half their population from holding jobs or even being educated. A "government" that outlaws male doctors from attending female patients and outlaws female doctors all together. Doesn't sound like much of a "government" to me.



Rule of terror more like. Perhaps you could go over and ask some of Afganistan's female population what they think about the Talibans "rule of law".

Will the northern Alliance call elections ?

Why do we seem to care more about how the taliban treats its 'people' now americans have been killed ?

I was encouraged when the US said they would take a long term approach but this sounds very short term to me.

That's why Pakistan is edgy about being involved. The americans come over, start a war, make voters at home happy then buzz off.
Pakistan is then left at war with afghanistan, something it normally tries to avoid.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Re: Re: Re: What is terrorism ?

Originally posted by Pessimistic


Will the northern Alliance call elections ?

Why do we seem to care more about how the taliban treats its 'people' now americans have been killed ?

I was encouraged when the US said they would take a long term approach but this sounds very short term to me.

That's why Pakistan is edgy about being involved. The americans come over, start a war, make voters at home happy then buzz off.
Pakistan is then left at war with afghanistan, something it normally tries to avoid.

Pess i abhored the taliban WAAAAAY before the terorist attacks, from there decimation of sacred budhist sites, to there capture of christians preaching, and there treatment of there fellow afghans as reported expertly by four corners earlier this year..... so the need to get rid of the taliban was already fixed in my mind BEFORE the cowardly attack on New York

 

[Dave]

Re: Re: Re: What is terrorism ?

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Will the northern Alliance call elections ?

I don't know, I'm not saying there are any better. I'm only responding to your statement about the Taliban and it's "legitamacy".

Why do we seem to care more about how the taliban treats its 'people' now americans have been killed ?

I don't, I've always been disgusted with them.

I was encouraged when the US said they would take a long term approach but this sounds very short term to me.

That's why Pakistan is edgy about being involved. The americans come over, start a war, make voters at home happy then buzz off.
Pakistan is then left at war with afghanistan, something it normally tries to avoid.

I'd say Pakistan's also edgy because it has a very large population of muslims that aren't sounding too happy about the idea of their government supporting the us in an attack on another muslim state.