What is wrong with the Islamic world?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Well, you stated the Taliban were not indiginous Afghans, which they are/were.

No i said most are from other muslim countries. The war with Russia had a very high percentage of foriegn Muslims fighting with the taliban and the other afgan war lords....and they remained after the Taliban took power...

As I said, the recieved foreign backing, but so did a lot of other factions. And I'm sure the Taliban's rule keft a lot of bad taste in the mouhs of Afghanis, but then I'm also fairly certain that's exactly what I'd tell the people who deposed them.

During our patrols we talk to everyone we can as part of our PR and recon. Most if not all we talked to were glad the Taliban were gone that they did not live in fear from there secret police...I don't believe they were telling us what we wanted to hear as they told us plenty of what they don't like about our operations and other NATO operations....

I firmly believe that Canadian troops are making a difference there in improving life for the average Afganis....it is because of our repution that the Afgan goverment has asked that Canadian troops to move south to help in some of the more problem areas of the country...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

While you say

No i said most are from other muslim countries. The war with Russia had a very high percentage of foriegn Muslims fighting with the taliban and the other afgan war lords....and they remained after the Taliban took power...

this is not true, the Taliban did not come into existence until after the Soviet occupation.

Most if not all we talked to were glad the Taliban were gone that they did not live in fear from there secret police..

They did not have 'secret police', the Taliban made no secret of their intentions nor their methods. They publicly flogged people in soccer stadiums for transgressions...you are either making this up or actually have no clue about the history of Afghanistan.

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.

(Taken from "Info,please".

[Army Guy]

Flea bag:

QUOTE

No i said most are from other muslim countries. The war with Russia had a very high percentage of foriegn Muslims fighting with the taliban and the other afgan war lords....and they remained after the Taliban took power...

this is not true, the Taliban did not come into existence until after the Soviet occupation.

I stand corrected...please exchange the word taliban for Afgan Mujahideen fighters...The Taliban did not take come onto the scene until 1994...that being said the rest of my statement still stands true with a high percentage of the Muslims fighters being from other countries other than Afgan. And that they remained well after the War with russia ended. See link below...

My Webpage

QUOTE

Most if not all we talked to were glad the Taliban were gone that they did not live in fear from there secret police..

They did not have 'secret police', the Taliban made no secret of their intentions nor their methods. They publicly flogged people in soccer stadiums for transgressions...you are either making this up or actually have no clue about the history of Afghanistan.

Flea bag for the most part,you are a well inform person. And your right about the Taliban not making it a secret of thier intentions or methods...But they did make heavy use of Secret police to instill fear into the people.

please read a few of the links below... and no i did not make any of it up...

My Webpage

My Webpage

My Webpage

[PatM]

Army, for consistancy - better change all those names of Islamic groups fighting the soviets to "terrorists". After all, these are all the same people using all the same tactics against the US that they used against the soviets. The only thing that has changed is who they are fighting.

[Army Guy]

PatM:

Army, for consistancy - better change all those names of Islamic groups fighting the soviets to "terrorists". After all, these are all the same people using all the same tactics against the US that they used against the soviets. The only thing that has changed is who they are fighting.

A good majority of those war lords that were fighting Russia, support what is happening in Afgan today, and the direction thier country is going...the northern alliance is a good example.

You have this impression that the US is the only nation that is combating the taliban forces. They are not, Coalition forces are made up of many european, British, french, German, Canadain units.... There is more happening in Afgan than fighting ...reconstruction efforts are well under way...other nations soldiers have been re building schools, hospitals, mostly out of there own pockets and fund raising activities for a long time now.... the 1 st Canadian Roto helped rebuild the hospital there plus purchased a new Amb...all out of the soldiers pockets and through there own fund raising activites....

But thats not what you want to here...you want to piont the finger at the US and blame them for all your problems .....

And for the record you can call the Taliban anything you want ....i call any group of people that stone a young girl because she showed her face in public a terrorist...i call any group that public excutes people for entertainment terrorists...

I call any group of people that regularly sets fire to young girls because they were talking with boys or men Terrorists...

Before you stand up for them animals you should atleast know who your defending... But you don't care as long as you can slam the US....

[moderateamericain]

I hope we are not making excuses to justify riots that killed 25 people....The blame clearly lies with those that incited the riot period.....

whether or not the story of the Qoran is true or not, it does not justify the killing of anyone...but there are some that are quick to piont the finger to the south See ,See what you did now...B.S. 25 people died in riots because someone took offense to some Rumours that happen in an interregation...

So who incited the riots? According to the chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, the Newsweek report had nothing to do with it.

Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else.

According to initial reports, the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine that U.S. military interrogators questioning Muslim detainees at the Guantanamo detention center “had placed Quran s on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book.”  By the following day the protests in the city had turned violent with reports of several individuals killed, dozens wounded, and widespread looting of government, diplomatic and nongovernmental assets.

However, Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.

It seesm to me that attempts to pin the blame on news week is part of a concentrated effort by the right-wing to cow the so-called liberal media into not reporting any news that could damage the administration. It has nothing to do with how these stories (which hhave been circulating for a long time) damage the credibility of the U.S. aborad. That's already in the shitter. The target of this media crackdown is the domestic population. And, by knuckling under, Newsweek is complicit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we are all responsible for are own actions, newsweek didnt kill anyone. rioters killed people.

[Black Dog]

And for the record you can call the Taliban anything you want ....i call any group of people that stone a young girl because she showed her face in public a terrorist...i call any group that public excutes people for entertainment terrorists...

I call any group of people that regularly sets fire to young girls because they were talking with boys or men Terrorists...

Before you stand up for them animals you should atleast know who your defending... But you don't care as long as you can slam the US....

Okay, what about Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Uzbeckistan? All are grotesque regimes, yet our allies in the "war on terror". How does that jive with you?

[Guest eureka]

Same old battle cry! If someone opposes an American invader, he is a terrorist!

I suppose the Grenadians were terrorists: the Filipinos: the Panamanians: the Vietnamese. Or a dozen others.

The state actions of those you mention were terrorism; the distinction is important. The perpetrators were not terrorists any more than the Inquisition was a terrorist organization.

[PatM]

And for the record you can call the Taliban anything you want ....i call any group of people that stone a young girl because she showed her face in public a terrorist...i call any group that public excutes people for entertainment terrorists...

I call any group of people that regularly sets fire to young girls because they were talking with boys or men Terrorists...

Before you stand up for them animals you should atleast know who your defending... But you don't care as long as you can slam the US....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah good, thanks for clarifying. So anyone you don't like is a terrorist, gee, thats what I said before.

The people you describe are all people from a different country, a different religion, and a different country. In our eyes the types of people you describe are criminals. Terrorists are all criminals but not all criminals are terrorists.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Okay, what about Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Uzbeckistan? All are grotesque regimes, yet our allies in the "war on terror". How does that jive with you?

Grotesque is alittle strong, but OK... i have not once said that i as a canadian soldier that i agreed on what is happening in those countries. Nor do i have a choice on who our goverment chooses as allies...I've been to Afgan and seen with my own eyes some of the terror these Taliban "terrorists" have brought to the people of Afgan and yes it has left a bitter taste in my mouth...

Eureka:

Same old battle cry! If someone opposes an American invader, he is a terrorist!

I suppose the Grenadians were terrorists: the Filipinos: the Panamanians: the Vietnamese. Or a dozen others.

Read some of those links i gave you and tell me if those are actions of someone whos a soldier....and the answer is no to your second question. they were not terrorist.

The state actions of those you mention were terrorism; the distinction is important. The perpetrators were not terrorists any more than the Inquisition was a terrorist organization.

You lost me here can you explain it again...

PatM:

Ah good, thanks for clarifying. So anyone you don't like is a terrorist, gee, thats what I said before.

No i don't like those people who commit those acts,nor i'm i the guy defending them so i can get an opportunity to slam the US......because i call them terrorists does that make me a bad soldier...

The people you describe are all people from a different country, a different religion, and a different country. In our eyes the types of people you describe are criminals. Terrorists are all criminals but not all criminals are terrorists.

I hope you not telling me because they are from a different country, have a different religion that those acts are excussable...makes it all right ....

They are crimals but when they use those acts to send a message or to terrorize others it is called terrorism...making them terrorist.....Jugding by what you just said i can join the KKK and still not be a racist....

[Black Dog]

Yu know, I've been thinking about it and I've concluded that AG is right to label the Taliban terrorists. Basically they were a group that used violence and the threat of violence to instill fear and achieve political ends. Which is about as basic a definition of terrorism as you can get. Th ereason I like the basic version (as opposed to so many self-serving "official" definitions) is that it doesn't exclude states. For instance, under my EZ definition of terrorists, Stalin and the Soviet Communist party were terrorists. So were the Nazis. So are the IDF and occupation forces in Iraq. This definition is pretty broad, but then I don't actually see that as a problem, since I think the current popular notions of terrorism exclude so much.

Read some of those links i gave you and tell me if those are actions of someone whos a soldier

When does a soldier stiop being a soldier and start becoming a terrorist? Terrorists should be defined by their actions and not whether or not they wear a uniform.

[PatM]

I hope you not telling me because they are from a different country, have a different religion that those acts are excussable...makes it all right ....

They are crimals but when they use those acts to send a message or to terrorize  others it is called terrorism...making them terrorist.....Jugding by what you just said i can join the KKK and still not be a racist....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I am telling you is that acts which we view as criminal in our society are not necessarily criminal in another. Afghanistan practiced Sharia, islamic law. Under that law those are the punishments alloted for specific offenses. You and I many not agree (And I think I speak for both of us when I say we don't) but that does not make them terrorists any more than the US using the death penalty makes the US terrorists. AFter all, the death penalty is illegal in Canada, should we invade the US and impose a moratorium on death penalties? (Not that we wouldn't get our asses kicked, or maybe just laughed at - its the principle).

I consider burning a woman alive for some perceived "cheating" as a crime, not a terrorist act. The two are worlds apart though I don't really see one as less serious than the other.

Going back to WWII, what do you call the fire-bombing of Dresden which the Associated Press called Terror Bombing

What would you call Israeli military personnel that dress up as arabs and wander around shooting random arabic looking people? Like this

The French resistance killed MANY vichy frenchmen, police, military, and plain old every day innocent civilians. They regretted killing those not actively supporting the german occupation of france, but collateral damage is almost impossible to avoid when waging guerilla warefare.

If you had read french papers or listened to french radio, you would have heard exactly the same type of stories about them that you hear about iraqi insurgents today. Some of the stories were almost entirely true - just omitting certain facts that would explain why the resistance sabotage killed so many civilians.

Resistance scrapbook

Even the neo-cons stopped calling Afghan and Iraqi fighters terrorists, they're now called insurgents - which is yet another misnomer. Insurgents are those people that rise up against legitimate government. The people fighting and protesting against the US in those countries are a resistance to occupation, not a pile of terrorists.

[Guest eureka]

I think your revised definition, Black Dog, would pose legal and moral problems. Who would decide where the limits of state authority are? Would, say, the Saudis be terorrists because of the brutality of the regime; or the Syrians because of their use of torture?

How much lower than our standards would it have to be for the terrorist label to fit? And then, they would be terrorists in our eyes only while we would be considered as amoral societies by the "terrorist" states.

[kimmy]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion was that there seems to be considerable doubt whether the Taliban regime constituted a legitimate government. They were not recognized as such by the UN, and even in its salad days, only 3 governments (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates) recogized the Taliban as a legitimate government. Even of the world's Islamic states, only a small fraction recognized the Taliban. Perhaps this has some implications in a discussion of how Taliban fighters are to be classified?

Army Guy has stated that many of the Taliban fighters were not even Afghans, and he's right. Not only did many of the foreign volunteers who came to fight against the Soviets stay, but foreign zealots came to join the Taliban afterward.

Army Guy has stated that the Taliban employed secret police to keep the populus in line, and he is essentially correct... the detail I'm not sure of is whether these people were literally "employed". Nonetheless, if you were an Afghan doing anything contrary to the Talibans' decrees, you lived in fear that an observer would report your activities to the Taliban and you'd face extreme punishment for it. It is, as I understand it, much like the way that Soviet citizens lived in constant mistrust of their acquaintances and co-workers for fear that they might be opening themselves to a KGB observer who'd report their slightest indiscretions to the authorities. This is not post-9/11 propaganda; this is information that I learned of before 9/11. In fact, just days before 9/11, the Ottawa Citizen's Weekend Reader feature published a big feature on a female Canadian journalist who'd lived undercover in Afghanistan to report on the repulsive regime in power.

This is not merely a question of tolerating or respecting different cultures. There are some things that are intolerable; the Taliban was one of them. Anybody who believes in basic human dignity should be glad that the Taliban has been stomped down.

-k

[Guest eureka]

The Taliban was the controlling authority on Afghanistan and ruled with the cooperation of the "war-lords" who now are the effective control. Authority in Afghanistan was local and not foreign. Some foreign fighters stayed as Al Quaeda did but they were, as far as Afghanistan was concerned, mercenaries in the employ of the de facto authority.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion was that there seems to be considerable doubt whether the Taliban regime constituted a legitimate government. They were not recognized as such by the UN, and even in its salad days, only 3 governments (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates) recogized the Taliban as a legitimate government.

A very valid point. I don't know what constitutes 'official recognition', though, (I hope over 50% of those allowed to have an opinion) as some countries do not have 100% of popular 'consent' to 'be'. Juntas and coups have successfully managed countries (for a time) in the past, without major countries recognizing them, but these usually were where either the US or another country used 'proxies' to carry out the coups. They were also usually short-lived.

The US and coalition forces never had legitimate legal means to invade Afghanistan either (Iraq), but most people in the world gave the US a 'pass' on this one, out of sympathy for 9/11, and hoped the 'appropriate paperwork' would be filled out later.

[kimmy]

Some foreign fighters stayed as Al Quaeda

And some stayed and joined the Taliban instead.

And some came afterward to join the Taliban. Surely you're not under the impression that that Lind fellow was the only foreign Muslim zealot who went to Afghanistan to join the Taliban.

did but they were, as far as Afghanistan was concerned, mercenaries in the employ of the de facto authority.

Do we always recognize the "de facto authority"? What if the defacto authority in Afghanistan had been a local warlord?

I don't know what constitutes 'official recognition', though

Presumably more than 3 countries...

-k

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

I agree with you, upto the piont of the IDF.... and the coalition forces in Iraq. I don't see the use of terror, to rule, or send a message to others etc.

Stalin and Hilter were called many things and i agree they were terrorists, proablably the world most infamous ones.

When does a soldier stiop being a soldier and start becoming a terrorist? Terrorists should be defined by their actions and not whether or not they wear a uniform.

A soldier is governed by the geneva convention,when you step out side of that and deliberately target Non combatants to terrorize them to send a message then i would say you stop being a soldier...and become a terorist...

Soldiers are to target other soldiers,military installations, goverment installations,manufacture facilties, other infra structure for instance bridges,TV and radio stations etc...those civilians inside those targets are also targets.

The wearing of uniforms does not perclude anyone from being a soldier...That being said i would not want to be a soldier in an uniformed army in combat zone with out one as you would be quickly label a Spy and shot for your efforts...

PatM:

What I am telling you is that acts which we view as criminal in our society are not necessarily criminal in another. Afghanistan practiced Sharia, islamic law. Under that law those are the punishments alloted for specific offenses. You and I many not agree (And I think I speak for both of us when I say we don't) but that does not make them terrorists any more than the US using the death penalty makes the US terrorists.

Hey i'm not talking about cutting off a hand for stealing,or being flogged for whatever..i'm talking about excutions for minor offenses for public entainment or to send a piticular message to the rest of the population..

It is again'st the law in Afgan, Pakistan, India to burn women alive...it is tolerated in some courts or the punishment is laughable...the example i used was for looking and talking to men or boys (not cheating) they were set on fire in public to send a message to others that this loose behavior would not be tolerated...this was a terrorist act...

I consider burning a woman alive for some perceived "cheating" as a crime, not a terrorist act. The two are worlds apart though I don't really see one as less serious than the other.

Yes they are two worlds apart, if i murdered someone by setting them on fire then it is a crime ...but if i use that act to send a message to the rest of the women it is using terror to spread the word...and is a terrorist act...

Going back to WWII, what do you call the fire-bombing of Dresden which the Associated Press called Terror Bombing

A terrorist act. The allieds deliberatly attacked the civilian popualation. Because the germans bombed our civilians first does not make it right....

It is made very clear in the genva convention...

What would you call Israeli military personnel that dress up as arabs and wander around shooting random arabic looking people? Like this

I'd call it a very unfortunite, but we do not know the entire story...and we don't know if it was random...

The French resistance killed MANY vichy frenchmen, police, military, and plain old every day innocent civilians. They regretted killing those not actively supporting the german occupation of france, but collateral damage is almost impossible to avoid when waging guerilla warefare.

Yes it is, and colateral damage is expected,but should not be the norm...in any type of warfare...

Even the neo-cons stopped calling Afghan and Iraqi fighters terrorists, they're now called insurgents - which is yet another misnomer. Insurgents are those people that rise up against legitimate government. The people fighting and protesting against the US in those countries are a resistance to occupation, not a pile of terrorists.

Are you telling me now that the present goverments in Afgan and Iraq are not legitimate.

Resistance to occupation is crap...and when the US and coalition are gone they will be fighting each other...or someone else...most of those fighting are from other muslim countries...who have no vested interest in this fight other than the fact they get to kill infidels ( that includes Canadian soldiers, aid workers,NGO workers, any western person).

Eureka:

The Taliban was the controlling authority on Afghanistan and ruled with the cooperation of the "war-lords" who now are the effective control. Authority in Afghanistan was local and not foreign. Some foreign fighters stayed as Al Quaeda did but they were, as far as Afghanistan was concerned, mercenaries in the employ of the de facto authority.

Even the Taliban did not have full control over all of Afgan, The northen allaince for example. For that matter even when the Communist Afgan goverment was in control they did not have full control over the entire country.

the war lords are just that... War lords ,they have come to power because they are the the biggest and badest in the area...and they are not all Afganis background as you suggested.....you said "some" stayed as Al Quida but were considered mercs...a Very large portion of both the Taliban and Al Quiada were foreign fighters...I've repeated this dozens of times and have provided you with links to back this info , could you please provide links to back-up your claim.

[Guest eureka]

A "large portion" of the Taliban were not foreign fighters. They were Afghans.

The War Lords cooperated with the Taliban and Afghanistan was as it was from time immemorial - an uneasy agreement between competing authorities. (Like Canada now).

There have been many attempts by outsiders to take over Afghanistan in the past because of the lack of cohesion and all failed because Afghans are Afghans as well as brigands.

It does not matter a hoot that only three countries recognised the legitimacy of the authority. It was the authority and an unchallenged one.

[Black Dog]

I agree with you, upto the piont of the IDF.... and the coalition forces in Iraq. I don't see the use of terror, to rule, or send a message to others etc.

Then you'r enot loking hard enough. The IDF uses collective punishment, checkpoits curfews and, when necessary, violence to keep the population they occupy in check. As for the U.S. in Iraq (I speak specificaly of them because others-notably the British forces- have not resorted to the same heavy heandedness), I offer up the "pacification" of Fallujah, an operation that left hundreds of of civilians dead and thousands more homeless, as evidence of terrorism.

[Army Guy]

Eureka:

A "large portion" of the Taliban were not foreign fighters. They were Afghans.

Thanks for the links?

And why is there a difference in Afgan taliban and Pakistan Taliban ?

he War Lords cooperated with the Taliban and Afghanistan was as it was from time immemorial - an uneasy agreement between competing authorities. (Like Canada now).

It does not matter a hoot that only three countries recognised the legitimacy of the authority. It was the authority and an unchallenged one.

If it was so unchallaged then why did they only control 80 to 90 % of the country?

[Guest eureka]

Wherher there is a difference between Afghan and Pakistani Taliban seems to me to not matter much. The Taliban in Afghanistan was a homegrown authority.

Controlling only 80/90% of the country would not, I suggest, make the Taliban an illegitimate authority. A number of governments in the world at tis time do not control all territory. There are rebel movements everywhere. And, in Afghanistan, most of what was not controlled, was not in the hands of rivals for government but of local warlords.

The Northern Alliance were not an opposition until it became politic for them to be so.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Then you'r enot loking hard enough. The IDF uses collective punishment, checkpoits curfews and, when necessary, violence to keep the population they occupy in check.

What do you consider collective punishment ? Would you not consider that check pionts,curfews are part of marshall law....And what violence are they using to keep the population in check...

As for the U.S. in Iraq (I speak specificaly of them because others-notably the British forces- have not resorted to the same heavy heandedness), I offer up the "pacification" of Fallujah, an operation that left hundreds of of civilians dead and thousands more homeless, as evidence of terrorism.

My question is how do you run modern military operations against "terrorists or insurgents that continue to use innocent civilains as shields ie use the built-up areas as cover.....This is not the 1 st operation against fallujah...The insurgents know exactly what is going to happen and yet they remain in the confines of the city because of it's added safety, and the PR they get from blaming the damageand deaths on the coalition forces....

[Army Guy]

Eureka:

Wherher there is a difference between Afghan and Pakistani Taliban seems to me to not matter much. The Taliban in Afghanistan was a homegrown authority.

It goes to prove that there is a large foriegn content in the taliban....And I'm not disbuting whether the Taliban is homegrown.... But the fact that it has a large population of muslims from across the globe....

Controlling only 80/90% of the country would not, I suggest, make the Taliban an illegitimate authority

I did not imply that .....you had said ....

It was the authority and an unchallenged one.

It was challanged by more than 8 war lords during and after there rise to power...

[Black Dog]

What do you consider collective punishment ? Would you not consider that check pionts,curfews are part of marshall law....And what violence are they using to keep the population in check...

Military incursions into civilian areas, destruction of property (such as bulldozing homes and crops), checkpoints, curfews and arbitrary arrests are examples of collective punishment and are routine in the Occupied Territories.

Even martial law has limitations: it's not a licence for free reign.

My question is how do you run modern military operations against "terrorists or insurgents that continue to use innocent civilains as shields ie use the built-up areas as cover.....This is not the 1 st operation against fallujah...The insurgents know exactly what is going to happen and yet they remain in the confines of the city because of it's added safety, and the PR they get from blaming the damageand deaths on the coalition forces....

The onus is on the invader to minimize civilian deaths. But the U.S. response across Iraq, and Fallujah in particular, has been excessive and heavy-handed. And it's also been ineffective. Despite bombing Fallujah to rubble, most reports say that the insurgents (who knew the assault was coming) melted away, rather than fight the U.S. forces toe-to-toe. Many non-coms also fled, but many remained behind.

Read this summary of the destruction of Fallujah.