Empi Rapper I challenge you to a debate on Afghanistan, one in which you actually have to source your claims and post intelligently. Reply if you dare.
----
Link to Commentary Thread.
Saviors of the Japanese
Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper] ----- {closed}
Empi Rapper I challenge you to a debate on Afghanistan, one in which you actually have to source your claims and post intelligently. Reply if you dare.
----
Link to Commentary Thread.
Last edited by Senno; November 22, 2008 at 10:13 PM. Reason: Added link to Commentary Thread.
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
Re: Calling out Empi Rapper on Afghanistan
I assume you are talking about the fight club?
I accept. We can begin as soon as you like.
Edit: sorry, I responded to the challenge on my visitor page, I didn't know it had already been posted here in the fight club.
Last edited by Roman Rapper; November 22, 2008 at 09:54 PM.
Saviors of the Japanese
Re: Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper]
Sure...
You have repeatedly claim that the Western Allies are thugs that target Afghan Civilians, however, the Human Rights Watch, many times a critic of the US disagrees with you and states the opposite is true:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/07/3...re-afghanistan
Taliban war on children
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10984/section/3Since early 2006, Taliban, Hezb-e Islami, and other armed groups in Afghanistan have carried out an increasing number of armed attacks that either target civilians or are launched without regard for the impact on civilian life. While going about ordinary activities-walking down the street or riding in a bus-many Afghan civilians have faced sudden and terrifying violence: shootings, ambushes, bombings, or other violent attacks.
These insurgent attacks have caused terrible and profound harm to the Afghan civilian population. Attacks have killed and maimed mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, parents, and children, leaving behind widows, widowers, and orphans. Many civilians have been specifically targeted by the insurgents, including aid workers, doctors, day laborers, mechanics, students, clerics, and civilian government employees such as teachers and engineers. Attacks have also left lasting physical and psychological scars on victims and eyewitnesses, and caused tremendous pain and suffering to surviving family members.
This report is about insurgent attacks and their consequences. It is based on accounts provided by witnesses, victims, and victims' relatives, and a thorough review of records and reports of incidents in 2006 and through the first two months of 2007. The report also includes an assessment of statements by insurgent groups themselves, who often claim responsibility for attacks that kill and injure large numbers of civilians.
Anti-government forces are not the only forces responsible for civilian deaths and injuries in Afghanistan. At least 230 civilians were killed during coalition or NATO operations in 2006, some of which appear to have violated the laws of war. While there is no evidence suggesting that coalition or NATO forces have intentionally directed attacks against civilians, in a number of cases international forces have conducted indiscriminate attacks or otherwise failed to take adequate precautions to prevent harm to civilians. Human Rights Watch has reported on several of these cases and will continue to monitor the conduct of such forces. But in this report we focus on the civilian victims of insurgent attacks, and on the effects of these attacks on civilian life in Afghanistan.
Civilian deaths from insurgent attacks skyrocketed in 2006. Though exact casualty numbers from previous years are not available, increases in overall numbers of insurgent attacks in 2006 indicate that 2006 was the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since 2001. Roadside bombs and other bomb attacks more than doubled since the previous year. Human Rights Watch counted 189 bomb attacks in 2006, killing nearly 500 civilians. Another 177 civilians were killed in shootings, assassinations, or ambushes.
Overall, at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 separate armed attacks by anti-government forces in 2006. (Almost half of these attacks appear to have been intentionally launched at civilians or civilian objects.) Hundreds of civilians also suffered serious injuries, including burns, severe lacerations, broken bones, and severed limbs. The total number of civilian casualties-Afghans killed or wounded in insurgent attacks-was well over 1,000 for the year.
Suicide bombings, once very rare in Afghanistan, now occur on a regular basis. At least 136 suicide attacks occurred in Afghanistan during 2006-a six-fold increase over the previous year. (This count is a subset of the 189 bomb attacks noted above.) At least 803 Afghan civilians were killed or injured in these suicide attacks (272 killed and 531 injured). At least 80 of these attacks-a clear majority-were on military targets, yet these 80 attacks caused significant civilian casualties, killing five times as many civilians as combatants (181 civilians versus 37 combatants).
Civilian deaths and injuries from insurgent attacks have continued in 2007. In the first two months of 2007, insurgent forces have carried out at least 25 armed attacks resulting in civilian casualties, including suicide attacks and other bombings, shootings, kidnappings, and executions. These attacks have killed at least 52 Afghan civilians and injured 83 more.
Insurgent attacks have also done significant damage to civilian property. In addition to bombings and other attacks that resulted in damaged shops, buildings, and infrastructure, insurgents specifically targeted local schools, which are often the only symbol of government in remote areas. In 2006, bombing and arson attacks on Afghan schools doubled, from 91 reported attacks in 2005 to 190 attacks in 2006. Attacks have continued into 2007.
Violations of the Laws of War
Civilian casualties during armed conflict are not necessarily the result of violations of international humanitarian law (the laws of war). The nature of modern armed conflict is such that civilians are frequently killed and injured during fighting that is nonetheless in accordance with the rules of warfare.
However, Human Rights Watch investigations found that many civilian casualties from insurgent attacks in Afghanistan in 2006 were intentional or avoidable. Insurgent forces regularly targeted civilians, or attacked military targets and civilians without distinction or with the knowledge that attacks would cause disproportionate harm to civilians.
Such attacks violate international humanitarian law. Serious violations of international humanitarian law are considered war crimes, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the R0me statute of the International Criminal Court, which Afghanistan ratified in 2003.
There is little question that responsibility for most attacks lies with the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Taliban spokesmen have claimed responsibility for over two-thirds of recorded bombing attacksprimarily those in the southern and southeastern provinces-although in some cases their claims may be unfounded boasts. As for attacks in eastern and northern areas of Afghanistan, there is significant evidence of involvement by the Hezb-e Islami network under the command of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, which has been increasingly active in insurgent activities. Other groups associated with Taliban and Hezb-e Islami forces, including Jaish al Muslemin and forces under Jalaluddin Haqqani, are likely responsible for other attacks in eastern areas and districts around Khost and Jalalabad.
Justifications by Insurgents
Insurgent forces in Afghanistan often claim that their military operations are generally lawful, or that the targeting of civilians is legally permissible.
Media statements by various Taliban commanders and spokesmen, and documents attributed to the Taliban shura (council), indicate that Taliban leaders consider it permissible to attack Afghan government workers and teachers, employees of non-governmental organizations, or anyone who supports the government of President Hamid Karzai. Taliban spokesmen have claimed responsibility for various kidnappings and killings of foreign humanitarian aid workers, claiming that they are killed because they are "spying for the Americans" or for NATO or coalition forces.[2]
Such statements are blatantly contrary to international law, which prohibits all intentional attacks on civilians not directly involved in hostilities, and they implicate Taliban leaders in war crimes. Such statements also facilitate and encourage lower level commanders to continue violating the laws of war.
While insurgent spokespersons and commanders have at times expressed concern for the security of civilians, these statements are unconvincing given the record of insurgents detailed in this report. Many Afghans, referring to the high number of civilians who have been killed in insurgent attacks, told Human Rights Watch that they considered insurgents' claims of concern preposterous. Moreover, when Taliban and other insurgent leaders make these statements, the focus typically is placed on civilians who do not work for the government or NGOs; thus, statements of concern primarily serve to highlight insurgents' disregard for the security of other civilians, such as civilian government workers, whom they do not consider to be "innocent." Expressing concerns for some civilians does not justify unlawful acts against others.
Types of Illegal Attack
Insurgent groups in Afghanistan have carried out the following types of illegal attacks in recent years:
Intentional attacks on civilians, such as assassinations of civilian officials or schoolteachers, or bombings aimed at crowded bazaars or other civilian objects such as schools or medical clinics.
Indiscriminate attacks, in which the attacker uses a means (type of weapon) or method (how the weapon is used) that does not distinguish between civilians and combatants; for instance, an anti-vehicular landmine on a commonly-used road, or a suicide bomber who is sent to detonate in a populated area without regard to civilian loss.
Disproportionate attacks, in which an attack is expected to cause civilian harm that is excessive in relation to anticipated military goals; for instance, when a bomb directed at a minor military target can be reasonably expected to cause high loss of civilian life.
Some insurgent attacks also appear to be primarily intended to spread terror among the civilian population, a tactic that violates international humanitarian law. Insurgents have targeted civilian government personnel and humanitarian workers, apparently with the intent of instilling fear among the broader population and as a warning not to work in similar capacities, and have delivered numerous messages and announcements threatening Afghans to not work for government offices or non-governmental humanitarian organizations. Insurgent groups have also carried out several bombings in civilian areas which appear to be specifically intended to terrorize local populations. In addition, anti-government forces have regularly threatened civilian populations by posting written documents, so-called night-letters, warning civilians not to cooperate with the government or with international forces.
During many attacks, particularly suicide bombings, insurgents have disguised themselves as civilians, in violation of the international legal prohibition against perfidy. Perfidious attacks are ones in which a combatant feigns protected status, such as being a civilian, in order to carry out an attack. Such attacks have contributed to a general blurring of the distinction between civilians and combatants in Afghanistan, which in turn has raised the risk for civilians of being mistakenly targeted during military operations carried out by government and coalition forces. Notably, NATO forces in the last months of 2006 appear to have repeatedly mistakenly opened fire on civilian vehicles approaching convoys, erroneously believing, based in part on past perfidious attacks, that they were suicide attackers.
International humanitarian law requires combatants, in all military operations, to take all feasible precautions to avoid, or at least minimize, loss of civilian life and property. Yet insurgents have conducted many intentional attacks on civilians, which are clear war crimes. They have also attacked military objectives causing indiscriminate or disproportionate harm to civilians in violation of the laws of war.
Many recorded insurgent attacks took place in the midst of crowded civilian areas, or in close proximity to residential and commercial areas. In addition, bombers in many cases used very powerful explosives, the blast effects of which would be known to cause considerable loss of civilian life and damage to civilian buildings beyond the destruction or neutralization of the military target.
Often such attacks have involved suicide bombers on foot or in vehicles. While a suicide bomber is theoretically a very precise weapon, Human Rights Watch found that in practice suicide bombers frequently detonated their explosives prematurely or inaccurately, and without regard to minimizing civilian loss. Also, these attacks almost invariably involved the attacker feigning civilian status, which greatly increases risks to civilians. The willingness of Taliban and other insurgent commanders to continue to deploy in highly populated areas a weapon-suicide bombers-that in practice is highly indiscriminate amounts to a serious violation of international humanitarian law, a war crime.
Human Rights Watch is also concerned about the actions of government and international forces in protecting civilian populations from the effects of hostilities. International humanitarian law requires all parties to a conflict to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under their control against the effects of attacks. That includes avoiding locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. These obligations apply to both insurgents and Afghan government and international forces. Thus, while Afghan government and international forces are responsible for providing security for the civilian population, they should also act to avoid placing civilians at risk in the event of insurgent attacks, such as unnecessarily placing military installations in populated areas or patrolling in crowded places.
***
Beyond the deaths and the injuries, Afghans have been deeply scarred emotionally by insurgent attacks.
"Sharzad," a 9-year old girl, was severely injured in a Kabul bombing in March 2006 aimed at a senior member of the Afghan parliament: her stomach was torn open, spilling her intestines. Sharzad told Human Rights Watch that the bombing occurred just after she left a shrine where she had just offered prayers; she was walking with her brother.
The explosion happened on our way home. It cut my stomach open and I thought I was going to die. . . . Sometimes I dream about that day-I have nightmares. I thought that I would not survive. I started saying the holy Kalimah [the martyr's prayer] when I was hurt that day, because I thought I was going to die.
Ghulam, from Kabul, told Human Rights Watch about how his morning commute in July 2006 was turned into a nightmare by a bombing on the bus he was riding:
The explosion was very bright and made a nasty sound. Inside the bus was like hell. The bus was engulfed in flames. . . . The first thing I realized was that I was very badly burnt. . . .
The man sitting next to me died on the spot, I couldn't move him. I was bleeding very badly but I managed to get out of the bus. I shouted at the police and people to come and help me but everyone was scared and were screaming and running away from me.
Attacks have caused immense grief among surviving relatives. Mohammad Hashim, whose wife Bibi Sadaat was shot and killed in a May 2006 ambush in northern Afghanistan, likely by insurgent forces, lamented his loss:
She was a good wife. It was like we were newly married everyday. She was my best friend. . . . I am lost now and the only thing I have found is depression. Whenever I enter a room that she had been in, I get depressed. . . . Because my wife is dead, I have not only had enough of this government-I have had enough of this world.
Insurgent attacks on civilians have also severely harmed the fabric of daily life in Afghanistan. Besides the obvious and primary effects of attacks-death and injury to hundreds of civilians-attacks have caused broader harms. Ordinary Afghans-farmers, taxi drivers, builders-are already struggling with broken local economies, a lack of employment, and inadequate health care, education and social services. Since many attacks have been launched at humanitarian and development workers and government officials, many vital government and development programs have been suspended in unstable areas. The result is that already low levels of development and humanitarian assistance have dropped even lower, making life for Afghan civilians even more difficult.
Many Afghan families have been displaced by the widespread and seemingly random violence, and refugees abroad appear hesitant to return to increasingly unsafe areas. Over 100,000 Afghans have been displaced because of security problems and hostilities in southern districts in the last year. Hundreds of thousands of refugees in Iran and Pakistan remain unwilling to return to their homes in these areas, in part because of security problems; most returns in recent years have been to urban centers like the capital, Kabul. And many others have avoided return. Over 3 million refugees remain outside of Afghanistan.
Armed conflict and displacement has been especially serious in and around southern and southeastern provinces, including Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgon, Zabul, Paktia, Paktika, and Kunar. These are areas in which Taliban and other insurgent forces have tribal or family roots, or other base of support, and which are close to the Pakistan border. Over 70 percent of recorded lethal bomb attacks in 2006 occurred in these provinces. Many Afghans and humanitarian workers consider the rural districts in these areas to be "conflict zones." Governmental, developmental and humanitarian assistance in these areas is almost non-existent.
It is not surprising that these areas are particularly unstable. There is strong evidence that insurgent groups operate freely in areas across the border, in Pakistan's tribal areas, with minimal interference from Pakistani authorities. Many insurgent groups regularly cross the Pakistan border and take refuge in border areas or even in Pakistani cities like Chitral, Peshawar, and Quetta. There are increasing and detailed reports about Pakistani government officials at various levels providing assistance or support to insurgent groups active in Afghanistan, even as bomb attacks and other violence have begun to spread into Pakistani territory. Some local Pakistani officials have even openly admitted to providing support.
In this context, Pakistan's continuing insistence that it is vigorously cracking down on insurgent groups has become impossible to take seriously. However, it would be erroneous to suggest that all of Afghanistan's instability is connected to insurgents having easy sanctuary in Pakistan. Insurgent-related activity (and its accompanying problems) is not limited to southern and southeastern provinces on the Pakistan border. On the contrary, anti-government forces have carried out numerous bombings and killings in northern and western provinces, and in Kabul city, and general instability has affected life in almost all parts of the country. Almost one-in-three insurgent attacks in which civilians have been killed have taken place outside of the border areas. Insurgent groups are operating with ease throughout many parts of Afghanistan.
***
Many Afghans complained to Human Rights Watch about intentional attacks on civilians and about the high toll on civilians when military targets were attacked.
Mohammad Aresh, quoted at the beginning of this report, the victim of a July 5, 2006 bombing in Kabul that appeared to have targeted civilians, could not understand why insurgents would carry out such an attack. "What's my mistake?" he told Human Rights Watch. "Why does the Taliban want to kill me?"
I am a worker. I don't have any enemies. I don't know any of these Taliban. . . . I don't know any of these people. I am not their enemy. I didn't see any ISAF people [NATO forces] that day [when the bombing occurred] . . . I just saw my people, Afghan people. What was the target, the people? The Taliban, they are targeting everybody and nobody. I don't know what or who was the target that day. I don't know what their target is.
Habibullah, who lost a brother in a May 2006 bombing in Kabul that appeared to have been meant for a passing NATO convoy, condemned those who carried out the attack: "The bastards-they blew themselves up. They did not kill the foreigners. They only killed innocent people. It was like they tried to kill children."
I highlighted the bold due to the fact that it states there is no evidence that the Coalition targeted civilians, while compared to their accounts the Taliban brag about killing civilians and do so intentionally. So it seems the Taliban are the thugs...
Looking more at the Human Rights Watch let's see what they say about the conflict:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/06/0...rence-june-12-
Wait among other things they support the international troops in the Afghanistan and call for more troops?
In case you didn't know, the Human Rights Watch has been a critic of the War on Terror in general.
Some talks of the Taliban before the US invasion to show how awful these people were:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2001/02/1...acres-detailed
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2000/12/1...curity-council
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1998/10/3...scribe-taliban
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1998/09/1...sive-continues
http://www.du.edu/intl/humanrights/taliban.pdf
That should be enough for now.
Its quite obvious removing the Taliban and keeping them out of power is necessary to preserve and defend the Human Rights of the Afghans.
Oh and from the last source:
1- Complete ban on women's work outside their houses
including on female teachers, doctors, engineers and…
2- Complete ban on Women's movement outside their
houses without a mahram (father, brother or husband).
3- Ban on dealing with a male shopkeepers.
4- Ban on being treated by a male doctors.
5- Ban on studying at schools, universities or any other
educational institutions.
6- Compulsory wearing of long veil (Burqa) which covers
women head to toe.
7- Whipping, beating and verbally abuse of women who's
covers are not with accordance to what Taliban wants, or
the women is without her mahram.
8- Whipping women on public for having non-covered
ankles.
9- Public stoning of women for having sex outside
marriage (a number of lovers are stoned to death under
this rule.)
10- Ban on all use of make-ups. (a number of women's
finger have been cut for having painted nails).
11- Banning women from talking or shaking hands with
non-mahram males.
12- Banning women from laughing loudly (No stranger
should hear the voice of a women).
13- Ban on wearing high heel shoes which would produce
sound while walking as hearing the sound of a women's
step is forbidden.
14- Banning women's use of a taxi without a mahram.
15- Banning women's presence in radio, television or
gatherings of any kind.
16- Banning women play of any sport or entering a sport
center or club.
17- Banning women to ride a bicycle or a motorcycle even
with their mahrams.
18- Banning women's wearing of brightly colored clothes
(in their terms “sexually attracting colors”).
19- Banning women's gatherings on festive occasions
such as the Eids or for a recreational purpose.
20- Banning women from washing clothes next to rivers or
on public place.
16
on public place.
21- All place names with ‘women’ in it has been change for
example “women's garden” has been renamed “spring
garden”.
22- Banning women from appearing in the balcony of their
apartments or houses.
23- Compulsory painting of all windows so women could
not be seen from the outside.
24- Banning male tailors from take measurements or
sewing women's clothes.
25- Banning from the use of female public baths.
26- Public buses has been divided into separate ones for
male and females ban on travel in the same bus by men
and women.
27- ban on wearing pants with wide sleeves even under
their veil.
28- Ban on being photographed or filmed.
29- Ban on women's picture to be printed on newspapers
or books or hang in houses, shops,….
30- Ban on listening to music not only on women but on
men as well.
31- Total ban on watching movies, television, video on
everyone.
Last edited by Farnan; November 22, 2008 at 10:20 PM.
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
Re: Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper]
After I saw Farnan's pathetic attempt to turn my argument into a straw man with the very first line of his post I had decided that I wouldn't bother responding to this. However, there appear to be many people in the commentary thread who are genuinely laboring under the impression that the odious nature of the Taliban meant that we were right to invade Afghanistan.
With this in mind, I felt it was important to lay out for everyone exactly why this is wrong. Firstly, as I wrote above, I do not believe that the coalition forces are deliberately targeting civilians. Here is what I do believe:
1. Our troops are not taking nearly as many precautions as they should to prevent the killing of innocent civilians. In fact, the Human Rights Watch report that Farnan helpfully supplied says as much itself. The primary reason for this is that, whether we realize it or not, most of us simply do not consider the Afghan people to be equal to us.
2. Although most of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan have been caused by operations by the Taliban and not by the Coalition, I put it to you that it was obvious before the war began that the Taliban were always going to respond in that way, so therefore those deaths have been caused, fundamentally, by the invasion itself.
3.Increasingly over the last 7-8 years the invasion has primarily served the purpose of reinforcing in the minds of Muslims the belief that the western world has launched an offensive against them with the aim of stealing their land and their resources.
4. Any sensible person must realize that eventually our troops are going to have to leave the country. When this happens, much of the progress that has been made in dismantling the Taliban will slowly be undone. What cannot be undone however, is the tens of thousands of deaths of innocent men, women and children that have been directly caused by the invasion.
Now, It has become common knowledge that the casualties being suffered by the coalition in Afghanistan (particularly by the British) have actually been higher in the last few years of the war than they were in the first few years following the invasion. Why is this? I'll tell you why: it's because of my point 3 written above.
The truth is that, before the invasion, most Muslims - even some of those who were relatively extremist - despised the Taliban, and rightly so.
This hatred they have for the Taliban has not necessarily changed; it's just that they have come to hate us even more. Look at the Muslims in Pakistan, for example. whereas before they dismissed talk of a western plot to overthrow Muslim lands as a "conspiracy theory", they are now beginning to wonder if it may be true.
That is the primary reason why the war has actually got bloodier and harder for the coalition the longer the invasion has gone on. If you would have said to an average Muslim in Pakistan in 2001 that the Coalition army would still be Afghanistan in 2015 they would not have believed you. (you all do now realize we will still be there by then, right?)
But now many of them have come to believe that our troops have no intention of leaving Afghanistan, ever. They believe we are there to stay. When this is coupled with the knowledge they have that we have killed more than half a million Iraqis with our invasion of Iraq, and that we are showing no signs of leaving Iraq any time soon either, it is understandable, I think, that so many Pakistanis have crossed the border to fight and defend their Afghan brothers from this imperialist oppression.
And that is the fundamental problem with the Afghanistan invasion. We have no way of putting down the Taliaban army without inflicting severe casualties on innocents and staying in their nation long term, yet the more casualties we inflict, and the longer we stay, the more Muslims there are that are willing to take up arms against us.
Now, I know what many of you may be thinking. You're thinking, "well, I'm not a soldier and I'm not a Muslim living in that region. Me and my family don't need to be concerned with these people". But perhaps you're imagining that you yourself will be immune from the killing. Perhaps you are imagining that your own supple flesh will never be ripped from your bones as a result of being caught in a explosion.
Well, I'm here to tell you all that you are increasingly mistaken in this belief. The longer this thing goes on, the more risk we are all at from retaliation at home in the form of terrorism.
You may think it is heartless for me to say that it is a good thing that so many of our soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, but you all must realize that if we don't suffer significant causalities then our leaders are going to be encouraged to repeat this same mistake again, and this will lead to inflaming the Muslim world against us even more.
Finally, does anybody actually believe that the people who decided we should invade Afghanistan did so because they wanted to help the Afghan people? Seriously, Farnan, do you believe that?
Only a fool would believe that. The western world has sent many armies to Afghanistan in the past; our reason for doing so was never to help the native people then, and it certainly is not our reason for doing so now.
Saviors of the Japanese
Re: Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper]
Originally Posted by Empi Rapper
Yes you have. Please stop changing your arguments and then say you never argued otherwise.
Source people don't care about Afghans as much as the US? And from a non-biased source.1. Our troops are not taking nearly as many precautions as they should to prevent the killing of innocent civilians. In fact, the Human Rights Watch report that Farnan helpfully supplied says as much itself. The primary reason for this is that, whether we realize it or not, most of us simply do not consider the Afghan people to be equal to us.
The Taliban were conducting these kind of massacres before the US even thought of Afghanistan.2. Although most of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan have been caused by operations by the Taliban and not by the Coalition, I put it to you that it was obvious before the war began that the Taliban were always going to respond in that way, so therefore those deaths have been caused, fundamentally, by the invasion itself.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2001/02/1...acres-detailed
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2000/12/1...curity-council
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1998/10/3...scribe-taliban
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1998/09/1...sive-continues
Thus your argument that their deaths were only due to the fact the US invaded is false. Furthermore, I'd argue thousands of women's lives were saved due to no longer being stoned for made up offenses and minor offenses.
Nope, that was Iraq different war. Sorry.3.Increasingly over the last 7-8 years the invasion has primarily served the purpose of reinforcing in the minds of Muslims the belief that the western world has launched an offensive against them with the aim of stealing their land and their resources.
What cannot be undone were the thousands of innocent Hazaris, children and especially women who were saved by the invasions. I'd argue those deaths would have occurred regardless if the US invaded or not. Remember Afghanistan was in the midst of a civil war when we allied with the Northern Alliance forces.4. Any sensible person must realize that eventually our troops are going to have to leave the country. When this happens, much of the progress that has been made in dismantling the Taliban will slowly be undone. What cannot be undone however, is the tens of thousands of deaths of innocent men, women and children that have been directly caused by the invasion.
Furthermore, if a stable government is created then the Taliban won't come back.
Nope, actually the reason violence has increased is due to a ceasefire between Pakistan and the Taliban in Waziristan meant the Taliban could regroup there and use it as a base to continue attacks in Afghanistan.Now, It has become common knowledge that the casualties being suffered by the coalition in Afghanistan (particularly by the British) have actually been higher in the last few years of the war than they were in the first few years following the invasion. Why is this? I'll tell you why: it's because of my point 3 written above.
The truth is that, before the invasion, most Muslims - even some of those who were relatively extremist - despised the Taliban, and rightly so.
This hatred they have for the Taliban has not necessarily changed; it's just that they have come to hate us even more. Look at the Muslims in Pakistan, for example. whereas before they dismissed talk of a western plot to overthrow Muslim lands as a "conspiracy theory", they are now beginning to wonder if it may be true.
That is the primary reason why the war has actually got bloodier and harder for the coalition the longer the invasion has gone on. If you would have said to an average Muslim in Pakistan in 2001 that the Coalition army would still be Afghanistan in 2015 they would not have believed you. (you all do now realize we will still be there by then, right?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan_Accord
Along, with this was a change in tactics by NATO forces from chasing Taliban to rebuilding the country which has resulted in the Taliban regrouping.
Source?But now many of them have come to believe that our troops have no intention of leaving Afghanistan, ever. They believe we are there to stay. When this is coupled with the knowledge they have that we have killed more than half a million Iraqis with our invasion of Iraq, and that we are showing no signs of leaving Iraq any time soon either, it is understandable, I think, that so many Pakistanis have crossed the border to fight and defend their Afghan brothers from this imperialist oppression.
I've been kind enough to provide you plenty.
Actually, a large majority of Muslims in Afghanistan want us to stay there, as does Iran and Pakistan till Afghanistan is stable. One of the few countries that want us to leave is Saudi Arabia.And that is the fundamental problem with the Afghanistan invasion. We have no way of putting down the Taliaban army without inflicting severe casualties on innocents and staying in their nation long term, yet the more casualties we inflict, and the longer we stay, the more Muslims there are that are willing to take up arms against us.
Source?Now, I know what many of you may be thinking. You're thinking, "well, I'm not a soldier and I'm not a Muslim living in that region. Me and my family don't need to be concerned with these people". But perhaps you're imagining that you yourself will be immune from the killing. Perhaps you are imagining that your own supple flesh will never be ripped from your bones as a result of being caught in a explosion.
Well, I'm here to tell you all that you are increasingly mistaken in this belief. The longer this thing goes on, the more risk we are all at from retaliation at home in the form of terrorism.
Last time I checked more and more Islamic scholars are rallying against the Taliban. Recently 73 Islamic schools in Pakistan issue a Fatwah against the Taliban.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191915.php
So your arguing allowing the Taliban to come back is a good thing?You may think it is heartless for me to say that it is a good thing that so many of our soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, but you all must realize that if we don't suffer significant causalities then our leaders are going to be encouraged to repeat this same mistake again, and this will lead to inflaming the Muslim world against us even more.
You do realize that is what it means if NATO leaves and that is what you want.
Actually it was due to the US being attacked on 9-11-01, however they remain there to prevent a Taliban return, which is why I endeavored to show how awful that would be.Finally, does anybody actually believe that the people who decided we should invade Afghanistan did so because they wanted to help the Afghan people? Seriously, Farnan, do you believe that?
Next post better have sources or I am pretty sure I can declare victory.
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
Re: Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper]
I've presented the reality of the situation for all to see. I'm finished here.
Always remember that there are now 1.3 billion Muslims living on this planet, and no matter what happens, we are all going to have to live on this planet together. The current policy is doing nothing but increasingly tensions between the West and the Muslims. If we are not careful this is going to lead to our destruction. Imperialism will create problem for us now just as it always has.
Saviors of the Japanese
Re: Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper]
Proof Muslims hate War in Afghanistan?
Proof for your reality?
Last edited by Farnan; November 24, 2008 at 02:37 PM.
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
Re: Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper]
I'm going to close this and the commentary thread up, as they have attracted some rather hasty and hot comments. If you have any grievance or if the both of you want to re start after a bit of calming down, PM me.
Edit: Opened by Empis request.
Last edited by Каие; November 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM.
Re: Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper]
I just wanted to make it clear that, contrary to Kb8's claim, I have not "conceded". I feel I have already done enough to win. Cheers.
Re: Afghanistan [Farnan vs Empi Rapper]
Closed again due to lack of continuation. PM if you protest. Again.
Posting Permissions
