Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

So when is war acceptable in Afghanistan?

PCS: You write, "use the WTC events merely an excuse to attack Afghanistan, which the Americans were planning to do a few months back I believe."

I ask, "Since you are so proof happy, where is your proof of this?"

Would you have agreed with the UK declaring war on Nazi Germany without proof that Germany was not attacked by Poland?
 
Well there aint any excuse or reason to attack Afghanistan apart from OBL.OBL might be innocent of course and we'd love to find out whether he is or not.His spokesman however did a rather poor cover up today telling british muslims to avoid 'airplanes and tower blocks'.A tongue in cheek statement perhaps but hardly one to stop those extra-precious afghan innocents ending up on the windscreen.
Though incomprehension seems mutual one more attempt:you used two categories as if they were interchangeable but they could only be pertinent to each other if there weren't interchangeable:they were 1)government and2) country.It looked like you were throwing concepts around to justify a conclusion,both of those concepts made irrelevant by the fact that one or the other or both of those concepts are being bombed as I type.
 
vimto: A smiley only for the peacekeepers? How about for the peacemakers?

I think it was Neville Chamberlain who said in 1938, "We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe" and smiley faces for all
 
Taxman, what the Taleban have asked for is evidence. America resolutely refuses to give it. If we are going to preach about the rule of law in our so-called democracy then we shouldn't deny it to other people.

As for the 'evidence', it is a sobering thought that one of our top QCs had a look at it and said 'You would need better evidence than this to take a person to court for shoplifting'.

The Taleban have also offered to extradite Bin Laden to a neutral country for trial. Again, America won't have it? Why? What is America so scared of? Why is this wrong, if we're going to talk about the rule of law and fairness?

As regards the other things you're talking about - I don't know what you're trying to say. If I'm using inappropriate terminology, it may be a mistake on my part or I may be using it by way of example.

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
 
PatelsCornerShop: Thanks for the link.
This is the same type of proof against OBL. If you can accept this proof then why can you not accept the same media proof about OBL attacking the WTC.

Oh, and how about the Tabiban announcements for muslims to stay off planes and out of buildings because they will be targetted. That is as much as an admission of guilt for me.
 
Rubbish. It is not the same.

The Taleban have denied any charges against Bin Laden and against them and have asked for evidence.

The American Govt have not denied that they had already made plans to bomb Afghanistan. They have not bothered. Why?

the most you can say is that there is a case to argue. Nothing is proven, which is why if there are any charges against Laden, they should be decided in a court of law, and not by Americans who will jump to conclusions, like you've just done.

And yes, if Al-Queda made threats then those threats are NOT proof of retrospective guilt. They would've been made to panic Americans, which isn't that difficult seeing as how Americans are being so hysterical.

Any idiot knows that, even you Pauly. There are all sorts of people who openly supported and were glad of the WTC attacks. Does that mean they're guilty? No. Otherwise half the world is guilty. It means they want to wind you up and you'll fall right into their trap.

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
 
But going back to your original question…

At what point is war acceptable in Afghanistan?

Personally for my self, it would never be acceptable. If I was president bush in the aftermath of the attacks on the pentagon and the WTC, and had received intelligence reports that the attacks were properly from a terrorist organisation in Afghanistan. I would have made information available to the American people, for the reasons leading up to the events…

1.before osama bin laden issued a fatwe on the American State and people.

2. After osmin bin laden had issued the fatwa

It’s very important in a crisis situation to give a reason (outline a motive), traceable throw out a time scale. Because if you do not do this, then people make up there own hypothesis and start to blame the crisis events on theories with out foundation. A lot of the racism that the Islamic Muslim communities have experienced is because of this.

As petels corner shop has pointed out (there seems to a lack of everdence ((with a traceable source)) )
Once this motive had been established the everdence should have been presented, both in a comprehensive format to the taliban (who are protecting OBL and the al-quede net work) and the general population. This was not followed up, there was (no provision) to give the everdence for the attacks on the WTC and the pentagon. The diplomatic channels were not exsausted to breaker a deal with the taliban.

This is very very important, to present a picture as clearly as possible, both for the sake of democratic justice and for the victims of the terrible events of September the 11th. Its purely and simply a humanist thing… when somebody that you love dies (you need to know all the reasons why), and this is true for the families of the people that worked in the world trade centre and pentagon, as it is for the American population (they need to grieve).

This is not a time to go war, the coalition governments are well aware of the situation in Afghanistan, its MAD to try and appease the attacks of September the 11th, by launching a war against a country which is starving from three years of drought and 20 years of civil war and just when its approaching winter, it could end up being a very nasty humanitarian crisis. Now more than ever, we need to get rid of geopolitical boundaries and think of human life holistically. Instead of moving troops to the Persian Gulf, there should have been more open dialog with non-governmental-organisations working in Afghanistan (in order to assess the situation). And I think conclusively the results would have been no military action till after the winter in Afghanistan had passed.

With in this time, the American government could have continued a coarse of diplomacy, and also been a lot more informative, for reasons of motive and everdence of the events. Once all diplomatic roots had been explored and if it was still a no win situation, then they should had sent in snatch squads to get the main people that were behind the events of September the 11th, and then hand them over to the UN for trial. This course should have been persuade until the end of winter 2002 in Afghanistan, by this time with help on the international community and NGO working in Afghanistan, most of the population of Afghanistan should have been in a better survival position.

So if both the diplomatic and the use of snatch squads had failed, then they should have sent in coalition ground forces, to arrest the perpetrators and bring them to trail in a UN court. But the use of long distant missile attacks and bombings raids (should never be used) only as a last defensive resort, but the taliban lack the resources to launch a counter missile attack.
 
PatelsCornerShop: The Taleban are not just happy about the WTC attacks, they are stating that they are preparing for more.

Did you know that OBL has been indicted for the USS Cole attack? That terrorist attack is enough to get him.

From what I have read in the media I see enough proof that he is guilty.

And to put it plainly I trust the leaders of US, UK, Canada, Pakistan, etc when they say they have seen definite proof of OBL's guilt. I also do not see the point in jepardizing the sources of this proof during the investigations to prevent further attacks.
 
Pauly.

You seem to have difficulty sepaprating the Taleban from Al-Queda here. Are you suggesting they are one and the same? If so, that's news to a lot of people.

Anyway, given that you get even that basic fact wrong, I'll still persevere:

1. The Taleban did NOT say they are preparing for more attacks. A member of Al-Queda warned of terrible consequences arising but did not state exactly what would happen, when, and who would do it. Meaningless generalisations to make American crap their pants, as many have obviously done.

2. This is not proof of the September 11th attacks. It doesn't help Al-Queda, but America cannot be judge, jury and executioner for this one. If America is so sure of OBL's guilt, let him be tried before an international court.

3. If what you read in the media is proof enough for you, then God help us all. No wonder you are so ignorant, if you don't mind me saying so.

4. If you trust the leaders so much, then why not show the evidence to the Taleban? Pakistan requested that the Taleban should be allowed to see it. But that request was turned down. Why? What are your leaders so scared of? If OBL was an American who had just bombed Afghanistan, Americans would demand hard evidence.

5. Sure OBL has been indicted for USS Cole. It means nothing. I could take out an indictment to extradite George Bush as a war criminal if I really wanted to.

You assumptions are based on nothing more than what you've made up in your head.

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
 
So Pauly, you think a wee smiley should be in place for the terrorists who drop bombs on Afghanistan/Iraq or any other place they feel free to do so.

Are we not allowed to mention some of the nasty foreign policies of the US.

For Fuck's sake if we all want to talk about international terrorism, then surely to God we are allowed to include the States in our assessment of what constitutes war and what constitutes terror.

Who decides the definitions of these words :confused:

Is it the Teletubbies or is it the Contras :confused:

Its no use coming here and spouting out how wonderful America is in their moral superiority, when the majority of us can see that the UK/US alliance is at best faltering and at worst being shown for the sham that it obviously is.

The pro-war, right wing, lets bomb the peasant/towelhead/Islamic extremists/oh we are friends of the Afghanistan people cos we drop food on them, might as well just fuck off right now.

You Warmongers are already losing the propaganda war.

Do y'all know the reason why???

If not, let me give you a wee hint.

Its because you people are not addressing the underlying problems facing the peoples of the Midle East and beyond.

Jesus Christ, (there's a good analogy, how many of you Wamongers actually follow his teachings??) :)

What do you expect to achieve in bombing the fuck out of the Afghani people?

What do you expect the Muslim world to think of your doing so?

Who the fuck do you think you are?

You are no better than anyone on this planet.

Its simple and its easy.

Stop the fucking war, sit back and think for a minute and look into my eyes.
 
PSC: Yes OLB controls the Taliban, see http://www.msnbc.com/news/642660.asp

*No wonder you are so ignorant, if you don't mind me saying so.

I do not mind you calling me ignorant if that is what it takes to make you feel better about your argument.

I am quite sure that those who opposed the failed 1930's policies of appeasement were considered ignorant. Afterall the peace movement of Europe in the 1930's contributed to Mr. Churchill's initial political isolation.

I trust that most citizens see the unpleasant realities of today and know their history. I am relieved that England has a strong leader with PM Blair.
 
Pauly I feel so sad for you with your narrowminded and quite frankly, limited knowledge of anything beyond yer own wee world point of view.

Wake up Pauly. Come on. The world does not only involve the USA. Other peoples cultures and faiths do count as well. The US is not the be all and end all of all human thought.

Hey, we have a full fucking world to deal with here :)

In anycase, stop the war.
 
vimto: ok lemme try...

Re: include the States in our assessment

I do not claim the States are pristine in their policies. But when 7000 are killed then I have no problem with the States taking action.

I have never claimed that the States are wonderful in their moral superiority.

Re: You Warmongers are already losing the propaganda war.

Funny -- that's what the US isolationists said when some Americans wanted to enter WWII.

Re: addressing the underlying problems

Sorry when someone threatens me I do not wish to discuss their horrid childhood. That can happen before or later. the immediate concern is to subdue the villan.

Re: bombing the fuck out of the Afghani people?

The military targets are being bombed to allow for further action. Already this helps the United Alliance. These Afghanis want more US involvement.

Re: What do you expect the Muslim world to think

An international Muslim religious ruling endorsed the morality of the U.S.-led military effort against terrorists.
Please see: http://www.msnbc.com/news/642087.asp

Re: Who the fuck do you think you are?

A citizen or the world that does not want to see massive destruction. Remember WWII was the easiest war to avoid if appeasement was not the policy of the day.

Re: You are no better than anyone on this planet.

I am not claiming so...

Re: Stop the fucking war

And this cry from the 1930's was so wrong then as it is now with such madmen in control in Afghanistan.

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: Pauly ]
 
Hmmm, its rather late here Pauly but I will respond to the Northern Alliance, (not the United Alliance) Characters you mentioned.

These people, (the Northern Alliance), are despised by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and likewise by the US. There is no way that the US is going to bomb the forward positions of the Taleban in Kabul to allow the Northern Alliance to take control of the capital city. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States were all instrumental in setting up the Taleban in the first place because they suited their purposes at the time.

Really, for goodness sake can you not even make a good conspiracy theory out of that yarn? ;)
 
The short answer is that war is never acceptable anyway and definitely not for a capitalist imperialist state like America or Britain. That is the problem with posters on this board they are so thick. Click here to see why this war is wrong. :mad:

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: steelgate. ]
 
Constantly drawing parallels with WWII is glib and simplistic. Things were much more clear cut then, a powerful nation was trying to militarily control the world. Oh, hang on...

OK, that was glib of me, but there are a lot more grey areas in the contemporary picture. Terrorism is best combated by addressing the injustice that breeds it. Revenge bombing, and self-serving political interference, merely exacerbate injustice and create more terrorists in the long term. There are no easy solutions, but military solutions play into the hands of extremists.
 
Pauly,

I did not mean to be offensive. I hope you were not offended. But when you call for a war against the Government of Afghanistan:

-when your own country doesn't recognise a government

-and your own country has stated that it isn't a war against the country

-and you make no distinction between OBL and the Taleban, when your country does

then you seriously have got to examine why you're making these untrue assumptions. Saying that 'I believe it so I don't care' or that 'I read it in the papers' is weak and pathetic, not to mention simplistic.

You yourself said that you were a simple person. I was hoping that you weren't. But judging but what you say, would say that yes, you are a bit simple in the head.

PS. WWII is not the only war that was fought in the whole wide world. You yourself mentioned Vietnam, which you said was wrong. I wonder why that is? Is it because the US lost that war?

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
 
Pauly, you know, in a court of law, it is not acceptable to say 'I've seen evidence saying x did y.' Doesn't stand up and all that. If there's no justice, there's nothing.

Also, why the analogies with WWII? Do you have any idea the destruction wrought by that and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (terrorist actions of unprecidented and unequelled magnitude)? Does this mean that Japan has the right to bomb the US and use cruise missiles in order to minimise the affects of any future attacks? No. But, by US government (il)logic, they do. This is not a just war (if such a thing exists and I personally doubt it), it is simply revenge. It is not self-defence, it is hypocrisy. It is ludicrous to suggest that the war will do anything beyond wasting millions of £/$/€/whatever, whilst simultaneously inviting more terrorist attacks and increasing the international standing of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

PEACE TO ALL!

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
 
I shake my head that those who are "blinded" by their desire for peace cannot see the parallels with WWII. Things were not more clear cut then. The peace movement in the 30's was very strong and there were many who saw things not so clear cut.

Hindsight is 20/20 so the participation in WWII seems blatently correct. Of course history will not understand how people could be "blinded" again after the rulers of a country killed thousands.

Peace through superior firepower. http://www.umass.edu/afrotc/videos-music/AC130.MPG
 
If we are 'blinded by our desire for peace,' Pauly, then a lot of people must be blinded by their desire for war such that they fail to see what the war is doing to the people of Afghanistan.

PEACE TO ALL!
 
I think Pauly needs a basic lesson in reality. Please can someone teach him the difference between:

'Someone tells me what is happening. Therefore it is true.'

'Someone tells me what is happening. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not.'

'I have seen something happening. I believe it to be true.'

While people shouldn't be cynical believe that everything is a conspiracy, they shouldn't just blindly accept government propaganda either.

[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
 
I think Japan should launch a preemptive strike on America in retaliation for the biggest terrorist attack in history on Nagaski and Hiroshima. OK, it's late, but better late than never, and there was never any peace and reconciliation process, or Nuremburg-type trial.

That these two bombs were dropped when Japan was already losing the war, suggests that the generals and the boffins 'merely' wanted to test them on human beings - sick and twisted beyond words. These people should be hunted down and the US should be denounced by the international community for harbouring terrorists.

After that, Japan could join in with a country of its choice - perhaps China, given that they were once enemies - in order to supervise the installation of a democratic government (given that only 10% voted for the current one) which takes due regard for the rights of the minority peoples within US borders (like Afro- and Native-Americans).

Perhaps Japan could also halt the export of that mind-numbing, evil drug called Hollywood, which seems to be in control of the opposition Cali-faction at present, and which undermines the culture of indigenous peoples the world over.

It's about time Japan should kick ass, stop being such a wuss and show them what's what.
Don't you agree?
 
No war fought by capitalist countries is ever acceptable! Tony Blair is a supporter of the global capitalist system he is only defending the interests of global capitalism! He is a war monger and an enemy of the working class!
The second world war was just as wrong as any other war fought by capitalist countries. It was a war fought by imperialist capitalist countries over markets, trade routes and access to raw materials, that is what all wars are fought over under capitalism!
To end the threat of war we need to destroy capitalism!
 
PatelsCornerShop

I will not argue that the US has self serving policies all over the world. Then again what country does not? But there is NO rational defence for the events of Sept. 11. Hijacking civilian airplanes, destroying two civilian buildings and killing 5,000 civilians is not retaliation for bad US policy in the Middle East. What happened was not just an attack on the US but the rest of the world.

With what you are arguing at what point will there be just cause against the bad US policies? Was that at the first WTC bombing? After thebombinb of a US embassy? or is it now finished? are we now even with those who our policies have made bitter?

How can you defend such agression on innocent people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Poll
Assassination: is it ever acceptable?
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
Roadkill
R
M
no to war on iraq demo 28.9.02
Replies
15
Views
2K
Abu Arak
A
N
NO "Not clean" war - BUT CLASS WAR
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
225
Views
15K
johnwisehammer
J
N
Stop the war now! But what AFTER the war?
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
johnwisehammer
J
bezzer
protesting about war
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Dane Meech
D
Back
Top Bottom