|
Oh, to be a Kabulian. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
and now i wanna hear those again who yelled and cried to stop the bombings...who sympathized with the so so sooo poor taliban who gets the american bombs up their ass :whip: --> thats for the pacifists here
no, the war's not over yet, not at all, but what would have happned without the merican strikes? The northern alliance didnt stand a chance and today they rule some 70% of afghanistan |
Yep, I'd have to agree with cweb that you must either be slightly insane or slightly misinformed.
The various factions that make up the Northern Alliance have just as bad a history as the Taliban and practice the same sort of Islamic fundamentalism (forget the Arabic name for it now). Did you hear what they started doing when they got into Kabul? Murdering Pakistanis and anyone who didn't agree with them? Sure, on the face of it they may not seem quite as strict as the Taliban (they may seem like the good guys for overturning many of the strict rules about music, beards etc.) but we'll see where Afghani-American relations are in 20 years.
America has a long history of assisting the "enemy of the enemy" in situations like these, and a long list of failures. Didn't the Americans fund many of these anti-Russian factions in Afghanistan including some of Osama's current day Al-Quieda factions? And didn't they fund the Iraqi's in the 80's to get back at the Iranian Ayatolah?
The fact that the Northern Alliance has taken Kabul means nothing. They don't have to listen to the UN and set up a fair government, and if they don't agree with the UN and the US on this point, what are the US going to do? Kick them out as well? Just keep booting people out of power until they have a government they agree with? Do they have the right to do that?
Please take a closer look at the objectives of the war: get Bin Laden, eliminate terrorism. So far they are no closer to getting Bin Laden (with Colin Powell and other high-ranking US officials conceding that their chances of catching him are in actual fact quite slim) and they have simply instated a group that promotes a different sort of terrorism into power..... but at least it's not an anti-US form of terrorism though is it? Well, we'll see if it's still that way in 20 years when the US refuse to vacate all the Middle-Eastern territories they've invaded and occupied.
There's something to be said for pacifism. It may not give mindless twats like Bush the quick, instant-gratification they desire, but, unlike war, it rarely makes the problems any worse. Carpet bombing an Islamic state, booting the government out of power then telling them who the new government is going to be is hardly likely to please the Osama Bin Ladens or Sadam Husseins of this world now is it? If the Amercians had just gotten their troops out of Saudi Arabia - or at least away from the holy places - I doubt Bin Laden would have had the sort of motivation he did to fly three planes into major US landmarks.
Now I'm not saying that what happened on Sept 11 was the US fault - because the people we're talking about here aren't rational - but the US's self-righteousness and their own brand of new-age, economic imperialism is leading this planet down the fast road towards self-destruction.
If only George Dubya could have an encounter with Ghandi's ghost or something. At least then the planet would stand some semblance of hope. |
|
|
| Sir. Lunchalot |
| quote: | Originally posted by cweb
And it caused problems in europe too. for example germany: many people there are against the war, at least 20% I would say. But NO political party is agaainst it. BESIDE the PDS (communists) and the NPD (Nazis). That is not a good sign.
|
Where did you get that information from? Maybe you should inform us (the german public) about this as well? We are all very well aware of the terrorist threat for all the western civilization and all I can say to all the so called "pacifists" is: WHAT is the alternative??
But not only does it have something to do with defenfing our culture and society but also with taking responsibility for what is going on in this world. And also remember that it was not us (with us I mean the western world in general) who attacked first...
It`s too easy to sit in a "neutral" country that is not taking any responsibility for anything outside their own country and not participating in any effort to end this terror regime and just bitch about the countries who take responsibility! |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | all I can say to all the so called "pacifists" is: WHAT is the alternative?? |
Erm, strangely enough, pacifism is. Pacifism doesn't just mean sitting around twiddling your thumbs saying "hmmmmm, that's interesting" it simply represents the philosophy of minimalising conflict in order to get a problem solved.
In this case I don't think either pacifism nor this militant action will satisfy the rather lofty aims of Mr. Bush, but, in a scenario where you have two unfavourable alternatives, it's always best to go with the lesser of two evils. Pacifism may not irridicate terrorism, but it's also less likely to provoke future terrorist attacks. Militantism, on the other hand, is more likely than not to add fuel to the fire that is radiply becoming a raging inferno. For every terrorist you murder, you create a new one, even more full of vengeful anger than the first. Seeing as military action cannot, regardless of what Mr. Bush thinks, come anywhere near irridacting terrorism, you tell me what the best course of action is? Taking into account not just the next few months, but the next few decades?
| quote: | | But not only does it have something to do with defenfing our culture and society but also with taking responsibility for what is going on in this world. And also remember that it was not us (with us I mean the western world in general) who attacked first... |
Ah, so they bombed three of our building which gives us a responsibility to carpet bomb their enitire country until they learn to "love" the west?
As Ghandi once said, "if everybody took an eye for an eye, the entire world would be blind".
| quote: | | It`s too easy to sit in a "neutral" country that is not taking any responsibility for anything outside their own country and not participating in any effort to end this terror regime and just bitch about the countries who take responsibility! |
I'm not sure where cwebs country stands (Switzerland) but my country - Australia - is not just offering political support to the 21st century version of the crusades, but strong military support as well.
Does that mean I have an obligation to agree with it then? |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
I don't know if u wrote this post before or after my SECOND posting where i referred to cweb's commentary.
First..why do u guys get so fast so personal? Any1 not sharing ur opinions is either misinformed or even insane, think about that.
Look, you dont tell me ANY news with "America has a long history of assisting the "enemy of the enemy" in situations like these" and "The various factions that make up the Northern Alliance have just as bad a history as the Taliban ".
Where did i say that that's it, the Taliban are gone, Long live the N.A. , we won, hasta la vista?
I just see it as a first step TOWARDS the solution of the problem. A first step that wouldnt have been achieved WITHOUT the bombings- fact.
Ill go further and say that if we'll let the N.A. rule, its gonna be THEM whol us in 10, 15 years. Just as the Taliban, just as Saddam. Thus i hope that the US have learned from the past! Apparently they have since the actually prohibited the N.A. to enter Kabul, sine they wanna form a new government respecting the wishes and attitudes of ALL ethni groups in the country( and there are many). Im not sure if the N.A. would join such a governement but the Taliban's refusal is prooved.
"Just keep booting people out of power until they have a government they agree with? Do they have the right to do that? "
Its not that easy, Renegade. It's not that "we dont agree" with them as in....their economical views contradict ours,..it's a situation of WAR. The Taliban was attacked due to their support of Terrorism (culminating in their assist to those horrible attacks on sept. 11th)in the first place. The fact that they treated women like or WORSE than animals is another reason to fight them but was NOT our main motivation. Oops...i speak as "we"..:), but i feel part of it..
Anyway, this war's topic is "war against terrorism" meaning war against the terrorists themselves and those supporting them!--> the Taliban.
today's blackest terror-sheep is Al Quaida with their leader Bin Laden plus the Taliban helping them. Thats why they bomb. Now u can argue about the HOW but not about the IF to fight this war.
"? Well, we'll see if it's still that way in 20 years when the US refuse to vacate all the Middle-Eastern territories they've invaded and occupied."
please dont mix things that don't belong together..we're talking about the war against terror and not the "reasons" for it.
If u wanna discuss the latter im ready, but those 2 things MUST be seperated.
"There's something to be said for pacifism. It may not give mindless twats like Bush the quick, instant-gratification they desire, but, unlike war, it rarely makes the problems any worse. "
Let's recall the WW2 situation...when Chamberlain gave up Czecoslovacia just in order to get along with Hitler...we all know what happened then, and we also know WHO eventually destroyed the camps in auschwitz etc...not the pacifists but the allies (u wont believe but they TOO killed innocents when bombing Berlin or Dresden!)
Doing nothing is sometimes interpretated as a sign of weakness giving terrorists thei kind of justification of their acts motivating them to impress more the next times..and as i said, negotiationg with maniacs who're ready to DIE just in order to kill ya too is, "slightly insane" :toothless
"but the US's self-righteousness and their own brand of new-age, economic imperialism is leading this planet down the fast road towards self-destruction. "
thats a bit one-sided and rewuires another specific discussion...
your, slightly insane,
TranceGiant |
|
|
| Sir. Lunchalot |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
[B]
Pacifism may not irridicate terrorism, but it's also less likely to provoke future terrorist attacks. Militantism, on the other hand, is more likely than not to add fuel to the fire that is radiply becoming a raging inferno. For every terrorist you murder, you create a new one, even more full of vengeful anger than the first. Seeing as military action cannot, regardless of what Mr. Bush thinks, come anywhere near irridacting terrorism, you tell me what the best course of action is? Taking into account not just the next few months, but the next few decades?
|
I don`t believe pacifism will stop provoking more terrorist action. Osama bin Laden`s goal is not that we all live together in peace. His goal is, as he stated it, to kill all americans, to be more recise all unbelievers. This means that everyone who is not a muslim like the taliban wanted them to be is to be killed, so not reacting is not going to stop him but will make it easier for him.
The current military action is, in my opinion, not going to irridicate terrorism but it can stop new terrorist attacks happening right now. You have to show them that they oversteped a boarder, that`s what the attack on Afghanistan is about. To really stop terrorism other actions have to be taken.
The reactions of the Afghanistan people on the current events show me that what is happening right now is right. If you`d let things go on the way they were they`d have more terrorists in the end then now that Afghanistan has the chance to become a peaceful country. Now they can`t pervert children in their so called koran schools where they teach them that every non muslim is to be killed.
| quote: | | Ah, so they bombed three of our building which gives us a responsibility to carpet bomb their enitire country until they learn to "love" the west? |
Don`t misuse the word responsibility. We don`t bomb against the counrty or the people of Afghanistan but against the cruel regime of the taliban and al quaida of Osama bin Laden. If we wanted to "bomb them until they love us" we`d be bombing cities and not just forces of the taliban. The action that you take when you "fill" your responsibility with more than words can either be good or bad. If we`d attack civilians I`d agree with you, but we`re only bombing military units of a regime that not even the Afghanistan people like. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Where did i say that that's it, the Taliban are gone, Long live the N.A. , we won, hasta la vista?
I just see it as a first step TOWARDS the solution of the problem. A first step that wouldnt have been achieved WITHOUT the bombings- fact.
Ill go further and say that if we'll let the N.A. rule, its gonna be THEM whol us in 10, 15 years. Just as the Taliban, just as Saddam. Thus i hope that the US have learned from the past! |
Well the fact that they've already given the "enemy of the enemy" enough support and power to become a realistic threat then, no, I'd say they haven't learnt a damn thing.
Getting the NA into power was just the most violent way possible of maintaining the status quo. Sure, terrorist attacks originating from Afghanistan may die down over the next couple of years, but what then? How long before the Afghani people become tired of being occupied by the US - or at least the UN - troops? And in the mean time, how much more pissed off are all the other old foes of the US going to get? Do you think Bin Laden and Hussein aren't going to feel more justified in their quest to destroy the west?
| quote: | | Apparently they have since the actually prohibited the N.A. to enter Kabul, sine they wanna form a new government respecting the wishes and attitudes of ALL ethni groups in the country( and there are many). Im not sure if the N.A. would join such a governement but the Taliban's refusal is prooved. |
Yep, and that approach worked didn't it?
Like I said in my previous post, the TA marched into Kabul and started murdering people. They may be the lesser of two evils (which isn't saying much and is debatable anyway), but, depending on just how much assitance they were provided by the US, they may also be the more powerful of two evils.
And I don't see why the NA would necessarily want to agree with the US and the UN anyway. I think they need the military support of these two bodies, but it doesn't mean they aren't going to be just as corrupt and just as horrible to their own people. Remember, they're from the same form of fundamentalist Islam (or at least share virtually the same ideologies) as the Taliban, so I fail to see how having them in power is going to solve anything at all.
| quote: | | It's not that "we dont agree" with them as in....their economical views contradict ours,..it's a situation of WAR. The Taliban was attacked due to their support of Terrorism (culminating in their assist to those horrible attacks on sept. 11th)in the first place. The fact that they treated women like or WORSE than animals is another reason to fight them but was NOT our main motivation. |
Yep, but again, the NA support terrorism as well, just not necessarily the "anti-US" form of it. They're still murdering bastards, and while they won't be attacking the US any time soon, we can still expect the same sort of brutal government we had with the Taliban, just, this time, not directed at the US.
The first thing they did when they entered Kabul was to start murdering people - Pakistani's in particular - who didn't want them there. You think the NA will allow these "ethni-groups" to be represented in their government? Somehow, I doubt it.
Oh, and the NA have a record of treating their women (and men) just as badly as the Taliban. So I don't think that's necessarily a justified motivation for what's going on over there.
| quote: | | Let's recall the WW2 situation...when Chamberlain gave up Czecoslovacia just in order to get along with Hitler...we all know what happened then, and we also know WHO eventually destroyed the camps in auschwitz etc...not the pacifists but the allies (u wont believe but they TOO killed innocents when bombing Berlin or Dresden!) |
Yes, but there is a big difference between handing over a country and not invading one. I'm not saying that the US should start handing over countries to be invaded, I'm just saying that they should vacate countries they've already invaded themselves.
| quote: | | Doing nothing is sometimes interpretated as a sign of weakness giving terrorists thei kind of justification of their acts motivating them to impress more the next times..and as i said, negotiationg with maniacs who're ready to DIE just in order to kill ya too is, "slightly insane" |
No, pacifism doesn't promote terrorism, it simply takes away any reason the terrorists might have to commit acts of violence such as the events that occurred on Sept 11. And again, pacifism doesn't just mean sitting back and "turning the other cheek" so to speak (though I suppose that it could) it just simply refers to the most peaceful way, like I said before, of acheiving what needs to be done.
Having said that, in my opinion, doing absolutely nothing would still be a better alternative in terms of detering terrorist action - in the long run especially - to the military action taking place now. |
|
|
| Sir. Lunchalot |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
And again, pacifism doesn't just mean sitting back and "turning the other cheek" so to speak (though I suppose that it could) it just simply refers to the most peaceful way, like I said before, of acheiving what needs to be done.
Having said that, in my opinion, doing absolutely nothing would still be a better alternative in terms of detering terrorist action - in the long run especially - to the military action taking place now. |
Well then tell us what exactely the pacifistic way is. Don`t just say it`s not "turning the other cheek" but be more specific. What exactely should be done. Don`t just say: The most peaceful way to achive what needs to be done.
Tell us 1. What needs to be done? and 2. What does this peaceful way look like?
Don`t bitch at us just because we are specific about what we think that needs to be done.
Please tell us. |
|
|
| cweb |
Puh, way too much text at the moment for me (I have to write a two side-text for tommorrow). Fortunately I have someone here who looks to have the same way of thinking about this mess. BTW: good posts Renegade.
@Sir L: What do you want to know, where I have the 20% from? Thats just a guess. I'm on different german forums, not just political ones, and at least half of the users is against the war. So I just guessed... |
|
|
| cweb |
@TranceGiant
1. relax, im not completely insane.
hope so :stongue:
2. maybe u should re-read my post, i pointed out that the war is not over AT ALL. I DO know what Mudjaheddin are (the guerilleros fighting sowjet invaders) and im also aware of the fact that the northern alliane cant be the solution either.
That's got nothing to do with the fact that the US-intervention is not ONLY bad, cruel SENSELESS as ppl wanna see it but can also achieve positive changes.
I donno if u heared Bush, but he himself didnt wanna the N.A. to go into Kabul in order to controll the city. The US wants to form a multiethnical new government, what I think would be the best solution as well.
Yeah a multethnical government...day-dreaming! Thsts just not gonna happen! Its a nice idea, but how to achieve that? Bush supposedly want the 87-year-old Schah blabla (!!!87??? almost dead...) to be the chief. What does the US think? they can say: youre the chief and all are happy??
3. The war as i said aint over yet, i guess its just the beginning..but u HAVE to admit that the situation for the afghan ppl as well as for the fight against terrorism has bcame much better DUE TO american strikes.
The Taliban who were a poweful politial movement, ruling a whole country support Bin Laden's Al- Quaida are now a little bunch of loosers hiding in caves. Id say that IS a sucess in the war against terror but not its end.
First of all: ....the situation is for those who have SURVIVED (never forget the colateral dammage!) better!
then: They have just achieved that Osama have to flee to another country or is hidden in the bush. Perhaps the activities for Osama is hampered for two years. BUT THEN he will come back!
What i wanna say is that all those who scream "stop the war" never thought about alternatives! If u ask me...i prefer to kill my enemy instead of getting killed by him and since negotiating with him hasnt worked out it's time to make business.
Pitty about the German crisis but ..every1 has his right to have his own opinion and if the majority is against Schroeders idead then let it be so
But if the US wants to kill their enemies they have to kill more than half of the world!!!!
alternatives: Im with you that you have to do something against the terrorism. But you have to do that 2-dimensionally! First you have to find the terrorists, second you have to solve the reasons why terrorists exist. For the second point the US seems to do nothing (destroying 1 terrornet is not really that great for that matter). But they do even the first point the wrong way, for heavens sake! IF you weant to kill the terrorist, you have first of all to try to observe him. Bombing a country in which he supposedly live is not good for 2 reasons: 1)big amount of coleteral damage 2) you give him the opportunity to flee (if he is not a dumb he is gone). You have to try to find him exactly and KILL HIM with a special commando, thats the best solution. This way the terrorists disappear and the folk is not dead. Problem is this coul cost many US soldats. And for the government is much easier to bomb a country (and risk the deads of millions!) than risk the life of an US soldier!
You have to consider one thing: This is not a standard war, you cant fight against Nations you have to fight against a WORLDWIDE activity.
Terrorists do exist almost everywhere: does the US bomb the Kosovo??? UCK is as much a terroristic organisation as the taliban, they are just americanfriendly and are not a problem therefore.
Hopefully Renegade is available and can take part again, cos he has the better language:( and maybe more time. See ya sometime tommorrow |
|
|
| cweb |
one last thing:
I see no country I would rather live in than the Switzerland, beside some lonely island, where peace is still there. |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sir. Lunchalot
Where did you get that information from? Maybe you should inform us (the german public) about this as well? We are all very well aware of the terrorist threat for all the western civilization and all I can say to all the so called "pacifists" is: WHAT is the alternative??
But not only does it have something to do with defenfing our culture and society but also with taking responsibility for what is going on in this world. And also remember that it was not us (with us I mean the western world in general) who attacked first...
It`s too easy to sit in a "neutral" country that is not taking any responsibility for anything outside their own country and not participating in any effort to end this terror regime and just bitch about the countries who take responsibility! |
I agree with this post 100%. Excellent job, Sir Lunchalot!
When it comes to terrorism, there is NO alternative. You cannot be a pacifist when it comes to terrorism. Otherwise, what are you going to do, be silent? compromise with people knee-deep in blood? allow even more murder and destruction? appease criminals and murderers? :rolleyes:
Europeans, remember how Czechoslovakia was sacrificed to "appease" the Nazis? to "preserve peace" and pacify tensions? and what came out of it?
Look at Israel. Israel has a long history of battling terrorism, perhaps like no other country. In Israel, the official policy is to NEVER negotiate with terrorists or give in to their demands - EVEN in extreme circumstances, when ther may be hostages. Sounds a bit harsh to you? It turns out Israel has the best security in the world! In Israel, there are almost no hijackings anymore. It's important to let terrorists know they will NOT achieve their goals. But that being a pacificist in dealing with terrorists is a good thing? Not in this case, my friends... |
|
|
| cweb |
here I'm again (but just a few secs, man this articel I have to write will cost me half the night, goddamit!
@Eugene:
Israel secure???? hmm...dont think so! they are facing terror almost every day!m and it wont be solved until they accept a state named palastina (if it ends after that is of course another question).
You can not compare Germany to a whole bunch of organisations! You can fight a country in a common war, but you have to search for diferent ways to fight against worldwide terrorism.
As I said you have to kill terrorists, here Im with you;). but there are reasons (dont blame the islam, its just a tool) behind terrorism and you have to kill them too!! If you just bomb a regime and hunt one terrorist or one terrorist organisation, you'll lose no matter what!
and for that lanchelot quote: I would write almost exactly the same if I would be german or an "Ösi:D"! And Im really happy that our government(country) is not in the NATO, else they would probably act the same as Germany! |
|
|
|
|
