[Closed] For every British soldier killed, 50-100 Taliban have been killed

Is western democracy really that great that we have to force it on the rest of the world?

Well it depends whether it serves our best interests or not.

For example ......... in the case of Saudi Arabia 'western democracy' would really be crap idea.
As the Saudi royal family fully cooperates with needs of western petroleum companies.

So why spoil everything by insisting that they introduce 'western democracy' when it could result in them electing a government which doesn't even like us very much ?

Therefore the answer to the question is, yes in the case of Iran 'western democracy' is a really great idea.
But in the case of Saudi Arabia it would be a rubbish idea.

Is western democracy really that great that we have to force it on the rest if the world?

No, but is Fascism in all its forms, and here specifically in the the form of Theocratic Islamic Fundamentalism such a threat to the inherent freedoms that we see as the principle of universal human rights, that it is right and just we should try and defeat it?

Absolutley

But is what we're doing actually going to defeat fascism? It seems pretty plain right now that it won't. Locally, it may make a difference (it may make it better or worse, we're yet to see end results, I'll need to ask again in 20 years) but globally military intervention has had a polarising effect, which I think has only been negative.

Zulu-Eleven - why the need to describe Islamic Sharia movements/governments as 'Fascist' ?

'Fascist' isn't simply a term which you can use to describe any organisation or government which you don't happen to like.

One of the most important prerequisites of a Fascist movement is the supreme role of 'the party' which when in government, functions at every level of society. This is not the situation in Islamic states, indeed they tend to have no real party structures at all.

Another characteristic of a Fascist government is the role of the military. The military are usually very highly involved in the government. Islamic governments do not tend to include elements from the general staff/high commands.

Fascists put great emphasis on strong infrastructures (or state monopoly capitalism to use a Leninist term) to facilitate the smooth running of capitalism - the Nazis built the first motorways in the world and Mussolini made the trains run on time (allegedly) Even General Franco an extreme right-wing Fascist, carried out the wholesale nationalisation of Spain's railways. Islamic governments put no such emphasis on strong infrastructures. Indeed the infrastructures in countries which practise sharia law often resemble those from a distant feudal society.

On foreign policy, Fascist governments follow highly aggressive, nationalist, expansionist, and imperialist policies. Islamic governments tend not to follow such policies - in fact examples of Islamic states which practise sharia law attacking and invading other countries are very thin on the ground. Furthermore they tend to form strong international links which run contrary to nationalistic attitudes.

On all the main characteristics which distinguishes Fascist movements/governments, the theocratic Islamic movements/governments fail. Indeed many 'western' countries are far closer to the defining characteristics of Fascism than the Islamic ones.

No, you're describing your own interpretation of 'classic' Fascism from the first half of the 20th century - which incidentally we could quite easily tick most of the boxes you described for communist governments worldwide, indeed on your points above our Labour government would qualify as a Fascist organisation.

The totalitarian regime espoused by those who wish to see an islamic state, conforms directly with the key characteristics of a Fascist movement - it has contempt for free speech, democracy and human rights, a hatred of non conformity, such as atheists, homosexuals and liberated women, and a belief in the collective righteousness of the state (in this case in the form of a combined church and government)

[i]The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State.....The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....[/i]

Those were the words of Mussolini, replace the word state with church, and you can see absolutely the parallels with the islamic state as espoused by wahabi mullahs quoting the will of Allah.

If you deliberately set out (as your primary aim) to kill and maim civilians and non combatants as part of a military operation, you are a terrorist.
Eniskillen bombing - terrorism
My Lai massacre - terrorism
9/11 - terrorism

The word "terrorist" just shows what side your on - it conveys no other useful information.

Glad this got some more sensible comments than the first page. Just to point out that the rep I heard didn't make this his main point - but he mentioned it at the end after defending many points that weren't "going so well"

I'm not sure what definition the Taliban fit into myself, but they are obviously very dogmatic. I only posted this really beacuse I felt we never hear about the number of deaths of the people we are fighting.

I'm lucky not to be the one out there fighting, whether it's there or Iraq. As I've read a few times recently it seems the guys out there are dying and losing limbs so we don't have to. As well as trying to rebuild nations at the same time. If there weren't Taliban there, or alledged weapons of mass destruction would you have voted for our troops to go purely to help these citizens? I know realistically I wouldn't.

I didn't realise I posted this on 9/11. Amazing to think that two wars were started by 30 guys with some knives.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

No, you're describing your own interpretation of 'classic' Fascism from the first half of the 20th century - which incidentally we could quite easily tick most of the boxes you described for communist governments worldwide, indeed on your points above our Labour government would qualify as a Fascist organisation.

I don't suppose you realise that you have completely contradicted yourself Zulu-Eleven ?

You claim that I am using an [i]"interpretation of 'classic' Fascism from the first half of the 20th century"[/i] and then you go on to provide your own definition of Fascism which you take from an article written by Mussolini
[u]in 1932[/u] ! 😯

Of course you are completely right with the latter - the definition of Fascism hasn't changed over the years, any more than the the definitions of socialism, capitalism, feudalism, etc, change over the years.

.

You claim that [i]"we could quite easily tick most of the boxes you described for communist governments worldwide"[/i] and yet you are extremely selective in what you pick as quotes from Mussolini. Because [u]in exactly the same article[/u] which you quote from, Mussolini says, quote :

[b]" Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism "[/b]

I presume you accept that Mussolini is an expert on Fascism, since you yourself, quote direct from him.

.

You also claim that [i]"indeed on your points above our Labour government would qualify as a Fascist organisation"[/i]. Now that's just plain silly.

I have already stated that [i]"many 'western' countries are far closer to the defining characteristics of Fascism than the Islamic ones."[/i] But to single out "our Labour government" as particularly Fascist, is plainly absurd. Let's go through the points I made.

Firstly the supreme role of 'the party' under a Labour government [i]does not[/i] exist - you don't need to be in the party to be a civil servant or police chief.

Secondly, the military does not play a significant political role under a Labour - there are no generals in the government.

Thirdly, whilst 'state monopoly capitalism' is a characteristic of all advanced capitalist countries, Labour and Conservative governments have historically had exactly the same level of commitment towards it - there was never any significant difference between Heath and Wilson, or Thatcher and Blair.

Finally, I fail to see any significant differences between Labour and Conservative governments on general foreign policy. Certainly they have both had strong commitments to aggressive imperialist policies. But when it comes to nationalism (a vital characteristic of Fascism) attitudes towards the EU shows the Conservatives to be immeasurably more nationalistic than Labour.

.

To label Islamic movements as 'Fascist' inappropriately, is pointless. Unless of course it is an attempt to deflect criticism away from yourself. It is a highly amusing fact that the BNP often likes to label it's opponents as 'Fascist'. In the same way as they constantly make the ridiculous and absurd claim that they themselves, are the victims of racism.

Indeed Zulu-Eleven, I have often thought that you yourself have often displayed 'classic' (but not racist) Fascist tendencies. And your recent expressions of huge admiration for Dan Hannan and his extreme right-wing and highly nationalistic policies, have reinforced those beliefs for me. Your readiness to inappropriately label those you disagree with as 'Fascist', suggests that it a deflective strategy.

1 British life lost is 1 too many, & Please remember when you talk of these lost lives they mean some thing.
It was the most humbling moment of my life to stand & salute the body of a young man who gave his life for this goverments cause as he was carried aboard the aircraft to bring him home to his family.
So even if you don't think what is happening is right please remember we are still out here doing the best we can & will be for many years to come.

1 British life lost is 1 too many, & Please remember when you talk of these lost lives they mean some thing.

Why is it only British lives lost that matter?

the whole concept that a british life is more important than any other totally baffles me. why should an accident of birth make your life more valuable?

Surely 1 life lost is 1 too many

So even if you don't think what is happening is right please remember we are still out here doing the best we can & will be for many years to come.

I have no issue with this and an important point not to forget.

The Mandela / Adams / Dayan comparision is simply to illustrate how hard it is to define a terrorist.

Moshe Dayan spent two years in british jails as a terrorist then was released and fought on the allied side in WW2

What was the "shock and awe" tactics of the gulf war but terrorism?

How do you define a civilian and a terrorist in Afghanistan?

And the really difficult one - find a moral difference between the Maquis in WW2 and the Taliban? Both are opewrating without uniforms using sneak attacks against invading forces and a puppet government. Define a moral difference?

And the really difficult one - find a moral difference between the Maquis in WW2 and the Taliban

The maquis were fighting the nazis whereas the taliban are nazis ? Best not to lose sight of just how bad the taliban are in all of this but I take your point about the freedom fighter/terrorist thing.

The maquis were fighting the nazis whereas the taliban are nazis ?

They're still fighting a foreign occupation though aren't they. I wonder how many people on here would welcome foreign invaders with open arms.

And in Vichy France where the maquis operated there was a puppet government of Frenchmen in charge not Germans.

Try this one then - the Contras in Nicaragua.

Democratically elected Sandinista government, American financed cross border terrorists. Which side was morally right?

Alternatively ernie, your reluctance to accept that the Islamic fundamentalist movement bears significant common traits with Fascist movement's might just be because you're unwilling to step aside from your entrenched left wing rhetoric that anything the bourgeois and imperialistic west does must per-se be bad and evil, whereas the war against "right wing fascism" was good and wholesome and completely different.

Which is also exactly why I said you had chosen "your own interpretation" of Fascism, after all, uncle Joe was a thoroughly good chap wasn't he? or is one type of totalitarian government that rules through fear and oppression different and morally "better" than another?

as for your assertion of Daniel Hannan as having "extreme right-wing and highly nationalistic policies" I'd say that if thats "extreme" right wing then bring it on!

What was the "shock and awe" tactics of the gulf war but terrorism?

Strategic HE bombing of military targets. No civilian homes or meeting areas were deliberatly targeted.

And the really difficult one - find a moral difference between the Maquis in WW2 and the Taliban? Both are opewrating without uniforms using sneak attacks against invading forces and a puppet government. Define a moral difference?

The French people didn't vote for the Vichy government. The Afghans voted for theirs. The peacekeeping force in place are at the request of the Afghan government.

And the really difficult one - find a moral difference between the Marquis in WW2 and the Taliban? Both are operating without uniforms using sneak attacks against invading forces and a puppet government. Define a moral difference?

The Marquis was predominately made up of French-born people.

The Taliban are predominately made up of people born outside the state of Afghanistan.

The Marquis wanted to expel a foreign invader and puppet government and allow the people of their country the right to self-determination.

The Taliban want to expel a UN recognised international force which is largely welcomed by the Afghan people as it is allowing them to work towards self-determination and the introduction of such basics as education and equality for all. They then wish to exert their own middle ages values on the population, denying education to the masses and treating women as sub-human.

Aye, the Taliban and Marquis are just the same.

🙄

The French people didn't vote for the Vichy government. The Afghans voted for theirs.

How in any kind of vaguely meaningful way did the Afghans vote for their government?

The Taliban want to expel a UN recognised international force which is largely welcomed by the Afghan people as it is allowing them to work towards self-determination and the introduction of such basics as education and equality for all. They then wish to exert their own middle ages values on the population, denying education to the masses and treating women as sub-human.

Yes that's the propaganda story we like to put about. The Afghans are all desperate for democracy and equal rights for all, it's just those evil foreign Taliban terrorists stopping them and oppressing them.

The reality is, Karzai's (supposedly) democratic, freedom-loving government has introduced some measures the Taliban might consider a bit harsh (I'm exaggerating, but not much). Many of these measures have popular support.

Edit: Starving your wife if she refuses sex - seems pretty reasonable eh? Not at all like something the evil foreign Taliban would do: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8204207.stm

While the Taliban regime pre 9/11 might not have been hugely popular, what it did bring to the country was stability - which is something severely lacking now.

Errm m- the british forces are a foreign invader ( they are not native and they were not invited there by any local government) and the "government"now is a puppet regieme.

No meaningful democracy in the appointment of Karzai

Of courxe the comparison is absurd on the face of it but try to actually find any meaningful difference that can be shown and its much harder.

Aye, stabiluty and brutal oppression of women. Nice

Advocate for Afghan women killed
Amid increasing attacks by Taliban militants, Safia Ama Jan, director of Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs in Kandahar, was shot and killed this morning. A local Taliban commander claimed responsibility for the murder, according to the Associated Press, [b]and it's thought that Ama Jan was killed in reprisal for her successful attempts at [i]educating women.[/b][/i]

Henious crimes indeed.

So who was happy with the 'stability', the men perhaps?

So instead we are helping install a government which has passed laws officially declaring men can starve their wives to death if they are refused sex. Great.

Moral difference between the taliban and Saudi Arabian government?

No, but is Fascism in all its forms, and here specifically in the the form of Theocratic Islamic Fundamentalism such a threat to the inherent freedoms that we see as the principle of universal human rights, that it is right and just we should try and defeat it?

....they are not native and they were not invited there by any local government.....

They are part of a UN recognised (and approved) force and as there was no UN recognised 'government of Afghanistan' before 2001 just who would have been the people to invite them?

The Organization of the Islamic Conference itaself left the Afghan seat empty during the Taliban years and ****stan is the only country to have recognised the Taliban government.

So instead we are helping install a government which has passed laws officially declaring men can starve their wives to death if they are refused sex. Great.

An elected government can change this sort of thing. A totalitarian regime that bases its moral compass on a book of stories might not be so easily convinced.

Sooty - I don't disagree with you at all. I am simply trying to make the point that it is very hard to
1) make a moral case for the invasion of Afghanistan that would not mean the same moral case could be used for the invasion of Saudi
2) that its almost impossible to define the difference between someone fighting an invader as a terrorist or as a freedom fighter.

Its all about your viewpoint.

Alternatively ernie, your reluctance to accept that the Islamic fundamentalist movement bears significant common traits with Fascist movement's.......

My refusal to accept that Islamic fundamentalist movements bear any significant common traits with Fascism, is simply because it is factually incorrect. I can't accept something just because it suits you mate.

The basic requirement of all Fascist movements is an all powerful highly authoritarian party structure. This is quite incompatible with 'Theocratic Islamic Fundamentalism'.

It works very effectively however, with atheist movements such as Ba'ath Party of Iraq. Indeed it would very fair to describe Iraq under Saddam Hussein as highly 'Fascist'. Under Saddam Iraq was a dictatorship with all powerful highly authoritarian party which functioned at all levels of society (the de-Ba'athication of Iraq is considered by many to have been one of the great mistakes of the occupation forces) The country was highly militarised - at one time having the something like the second or third largest standing army in the world. The armed forces played an integral role in the government. Iraq had a highly expansionist foreign policy. State monopoly capitalism was also highly developed.

And finally, Iraq under Saddam was extremely anti-communist and anti-trade union, a prerequisite of all Fascist movements and something which most endeared Saddam to the West. Indeed publicly hanging communists was something which Saddam clearly took great delight in ordering.

Fascism also works pretty well within Christian movements such as the Christian Phalange party of Lebanon. The only way fascism could work within any sort of Islamic movement, would be if it [i]wasn't[/i] a theocratic fundamentalist one.

.

you're unwilling to step aside from your entrenched left wing rhetoric that anything the bourgeois and imperialistic west does must per-se be bad and evil

Complete bollox.

I don't see it as a struggle between 'good and evil' and my opposition to bourgeois/free-market fundamentalism [i]is not[/i] based on it being 'evil', but based simply on the fact that I believe there is a better alternative.

I have already said in the past on this forum that were I, living a feudal society, I would be very strongly arguing in favour of establishing Capitalism.

And I certainly support a bourgeois democratic Iraq over a Ba'ath Party dictatorship......... I don't believe we should be attacking other countries though.