TandemJeremy
To the republicans he was a freedom fighter - same as mandela was a terrorist to the SA government of the time.
Moshe Dayan?
It all depends on your viewpoint
BS ... Well known, widespread and often repeated BS (particularly by supporters of terrorist groups to justify the actions of those they support.) But BS all the same.
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
Intention is everything, and you shouldnt use cheap phrases to bung genocidal mass murdering nullwits in the same category as people trying to use military means to achieve a political end without deliberately causing civilian suffering (whether you agree with their aims or not).
(I'm not saying that you (TJ) would actually do this personally ... I just don't like the phrase. Its too easy and seems more like a way to avoid thinking about the subject than an actual answer).
Intention is everything
Why?
A sweeping generalisation that means absolutely nothing...
Is that for every British person killed, the British Forces have killed 50-100 people (also there is a large difference between 50 dead and 100 dead - so which is it?)? Does that make it worthwhile? As we are already thinking we shouldn't be there due to our losses, are the native people thinking the same due to their losses?
That just makes the person on the radio sound like a right eejit...move along as you have nothing to contribute...
Well there's a pretty fine line, if any at all, between being pretty damned careless and taking civilians by mistake and actually setting out with that intention. When you send a remote weapon on thin evidence to a location with hundreds of civilians (including children) purely because there might be a "terrorist" there also you are pretty much intentionally wiping out innocent people. And the justification is that the "terrorist" intends killing innocent people! So what it comes back to is the idea that it is more acceptable for innocent Afghans to be killed than it is for innocent Brits - it's ok, there not the same value as the humans we have here.
......are the native people thinking the same due to their losses?
I've mentioned it before but its probably worth mentioning it again. Many of the Taliban killed (whatever the total figures) aren't 'native' to Afghanistan.
Afghanis, it seems, are finally getting tired of years of fighting and are more interested in peace. Many of the people who make up the numbers of the Taliban are religious extremists from other parts of the world who are in Afghanistan purely to 'fight the West'.
Most of the Afghanis who do assist the Taliban (tier 3 personnel mainly) only do so for financial gain. They have an AK, they have a family, they need money. Very few want a return to the bad days of Taliban rule by fear, but a small number will do anything to put bread on the table.
mmmm thanks Dick, not sure what your post contributes either TBH
[b]For every British soldier killed, 50-100 Taliban have been killed[/b]
aye, and for every british soldier killed 20-40 (?dunno cos they won't say)british soldiers have arms/legs [i]insert body part[/i] blown off.
was there a comment recently that injury rate(not absolute figures) was approaching that of ww1...
grumm
I mean that there is an enormous difference between
a) launching a missile or firing a weapon with the intention of killing an enemy combatant, (and perhaps killing an innocent bystander by accident).
and
b) Doing the same thing with every actual intention of killing as many innocent bystanders as possible.
Like the germans (?) bombing that tanker in Afganistan last week. They thought it was surrounded by enemy combatants and they were wrong.
But morally they are on a different planet from someone who would plant a bomb on the same tanker and detonate it in a market square.
Intention is not "everything" in all circumstances, but it matters when you're trying to spot the difference between acts of war and acts of terrorism (which was my point).
Wow Polaris.
Do you think it's a similar ratio for taliban?
eat_the_pudding - I really don't agree.
It's all using violence to achieve political ends. Whether you aim to kill people deliberately or you are just allowing it to happen is irrelevant - the end result is the same.
And the fact is, that while the Americans commemorate 9/11 - in their response they/we have killed many orders of magnitude more than the terrorists ever would or could.
Morally different yes ETP, but I imagine anyone on the reciving end of an attack cares more about the end result.
Modern technology seems to breed different assumptions. I found this quote interesting
The disparities between combatant deaths and civilian deaths merely represent a long-term trend in modern armed conflicts. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross and various U.N. reports, the ratio of civilian to combatant casualties was between 5% and 10% in the First World War and then dramatically leapt to 50% during the Second World War.11 By the 1990s, 75% of all casualties resulting from armed conflicts were civilian, and in some cases the rate has allegedly reached as high as 90%.
My point was that I didn't understand the need to do the comparison - it sounds aslmost as though it justifies the deaths...although we lost one of our men, we managed to bag 50-100 of theirs at the same time) - I don't see the need for the comment as it just comes across as senseless and nonsence.
This particular 'conflict' seems to be getting to people but not for the reasons of wanting to win, so telling us that sort of information isn't going to win any support (in general)...it's simply highlighting the fact of how pointless this 'war' is.
Well I have to take issue - the difference is pretty bloody minimal really. And, as I said before, the irony of killing innocent people in order to stop a terrorist killing innocent people is just too much.
We call some groups extremists - but it is difficult to imagine a stance more extreme than spending billions upon billions on the mass killing of people on the scant premise of protecting our (greedy) way of life.
glenp - But would we need to spend billions defending 'our (greedy) way of life' if it weren't for the fact some people believe that their particular understanding of a book or their misguided belief in some leader gives them a right to want to attack it?
The scale of destruction groups such as the Taliban are capable of inflicting isn't restricted by ambition, just ability.
Putting it simply, we have bigger clubs.
grumm, glenp
I'm not saying I agree with everything that the UK and the US have done in Afghanistan & Iraq, and they _should_ do more and more to minimise the chance of killing civilians.
I'm just saying .... what I've said clearly already.
But try this,
a) Driver runs over child in the street, and then reverses back to "make sure"
b) Driver reverses over child in driveway who was tragically playing in an unexpected place.
Same culpability?
I'm not saying that either is a guiltless scenario or that accidents automatically make everyone blameless, just that the two situations are morally different and that the difference matters.
If you can't see that then ...
Should've gone to spec savers
Dont know why we just dont pull the boys out and then Nuke em ?
eat_the_pudding
The analogy might be more accurate if b) was
'the driver is going way too fast along a road, sees a whole group of children in the way, thinks 'ah **** it I'm not stopping, then ploughs into them and kills them.'
Which is worse, killing one child deliberately, or killing many children through recklessness?
ooOOoo
Absolutely.
I wasn't suggesting that two things being "morally different", means that one is "horrible" and the other is "a wonderful way to spend the afternoon".
Just different, not recommended.
Pity you can't ask the children at that stage....their opinion would count the most.
ADT - you mean like this? 😕
[img] 
[/img]
Saw this a lot after 9/11...
grumm - Or perhaps more a more realistic analogy to current operations on the ground,
b) The Taliban herd children against their will onto the track at a blind corner of the Nuremberg Ring, to provide a degree of protection from high speed vehicles that are known to be operating in the area.
The Taliban are well-known for using locals as 'human shields' and whilst this isn't an out and out excuse for accidental deaths the allied forces may cause among the civilian population they have as much if not more blood on their hands for using such tactics.
Do you see British troops on TV dragging groups of locals along when they are on patrol or trying to keep them away?
grumm "
"ah **** it I'm not stopping
Yes, yes, you've got it!
That is precisely the dictionary style definition of "unintentional" and "accidental" I was trying to put across.
My _whole_ point was obviously about how nasty johnny taliban is an evil monster, only outweighed by nastier tommy tommy, with his necklace of childrens teeth and a reckless attitude.
Gold star for comprehension and goodafternoon.
The Taliban are well-known for using locals as 'human shields' and whilst this isn't an out and out excuse for accidental deaths the allied forces may cause among the civilian population they have as much if not more blood on their hands for using such tactics.
It's certainly a handy excuse - when you drop a 2000lb cluster bomb how far away do the civilians have to get to not be a human shield?
tommy tommy, with his necklace of childrens teeth and a reckless attitude.
Er... I was using your own somewhat silly analogy, not talking literally. 🙄
It was a somewhat silly analogy to try and demonstrate my point that:
"2 actions (one deliberate and one accidental) are morally different, even if the result is the same."
I think you read it as:
"2 actions (one deliberate and one really *in' deliberate) are morally different even if the result is the same, or *'in worse."
To clarify, reckless disregard =/= accidental, and not what I was getting at.
I'm off before I get SOIWOTI disease, or have to defend lots of other things I haven't said 🙂
In all seriousness, I have recommended it before in these discussions,but Martin Shaw's book, The Modern Western Way of War: Risk-Transfer War and Its Crisis in Iraq (Polity, 2005) is extremely interesting on this.
War is dumb.
The reason I have read for the high number of deaths on the Afgan side is that the traditional method of Afgans having a war was to meet up after lunch in the middle of nowhere, wave their AK47s in the air and fire at passing clouds then go home feeling better for having a war.
This has been proved to not work against squaddies as they do sneaky things like "take cover" and "aim" which spoils the out come.
I guess this is why they are resorting to "road side bombs"
SSP
oOOo, no i don't think it's a similar level for the Taliban, do you?
The terrorist vs freedom fighter- let's call it the Mandela Maneouvre- isn't very effective... The comparison you're looking for here is "French resistance"
Why is Nelson Mandela always trotted out as an example of a former terrorist who is now considered
respectable ?
As far as I am aware, Mandela was never convicted of killing anyone. At his trial Mandela was accused of sabotage - something which he freely admitted. Surely however, this is not the best example of a 'terrorist' ? Specially as the target of his sabotage actions was a regime which under international norms, would have been considered illegal.
Its a shame that someone who is supposedly a spokesperson for the armed forces has come out with such a bollocks statement. I'd be surprised if they were actually a soldier, rather than a political lickspittle! Clearly they have little knowledge of military history.
The use of body count as a worthwhile measure of the success of a military mission went out with the Vietnam war, not only is it meaningless, it is positively destructive to the goals of a hearts and minds operation - those killed are someones family and neighbours , and its those villagers that we need to win the approval and trust of.
The fight against the Taliban specifically, and the islamic fundamentalist movement in general, is a worthwhile and valuable one - it is absolutely one element of the continuing fight against facism and intolerance in all its forms - however the foundation of a true COIN operation has been lost and the lessons of past campaigns are repeatedly being ignored, with certain on our allies trapped in kinetic warfare mindset and seeing every gathering of people as a target, rather than a patient surgical cat and mouse COIN operation with the priorities placed on providing security and support for local villagers.
Until we as a nation, and a coalition in general are willing to begin making sacrifices on a home front, pushing the budget and support needed into providing massive reconstruction, improvement and security effort, from hospitals for people with quite literally nothing, to helicopters for the troops that are there to protect them, then we will never see a peaceful resolution to the problems in a part of the world that deserves so much more.
In the longer term, we need to look at what we can do for the locals, at the moment we buy drugs from them via the taliban, funding the enemy, whilst at the same time promoting a wave of crime and violence on our domestic front - lets mature our drug policies and stop fighting the inevitable, we learnt years ago that the greatest way to prevent war was trade, lets legalise the drugs and take away the enemy funding in one fell swoop.
I urge you to sit down and read a few of Michael Yon's dispatches from the front line
[url] http://www.michaelyon-online.com/an-artery-of-opium-a-vein-of-taliban.htm [/url]
[url] http://www.michaelyon-online.com/do-americans-care-about-british-soldiers.htm [/url]
that ratio is gonna drop...
they have just aquired aircraft[img] 
[/img]
hope this doesnt offend any1...if it does im sorry and mean no offence to anyone
so the definition of terrorism is killing civilians? Dresden, Hiroshima anyone?
or shall we try a different definition? unlawful attacks, bay of pigs, Nicaragua, Iraq?
maybe Korea, Vietnam, Laos,
How about propping up governments, or sponsoring coups, like the Shah in Iran. Who is right the revolutionary or the person supporting the government?
Or is a terrorist act where only a few people are killed rather than a lot? Partisans in WW2?
War is always about interests, Civilians will die, one side will always denigrate the other in whatever way seems appropriate.
The loser will always have committed war crimes whilst the winner, well that will be forgotten.
defenition of terrorism is terrorising people...scaring them...i think you find trying to scare your opponent into defeat is a tactic used in every war...
I agree with Zulu-Eleven,
on the subject of casualty numbers and lack of bodies. Yes, surprisingly the Taleban take care removing their dead.
Another interesting report from Sean Smith
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/17/black-watch-afghanistan-british-soldiers
[i]The Taliban don't leave their bodies. Occasionally there will be a news report that 30 insurgents were killed in this place, 20 Taliban defeated in that place, but this is a surreal conflict, a narrative without clear beginnings and endings, without substantiation. High explosive is zooming back and forwards, so the enemy is certainly there, but go to the position from where they have been firing and there is usually nothing to be seen. Once, we arrived at a compound from where there had been firing and found four glasses and a teapot set out on a tray; the tea in the pot was still hot enough to drink. But you don't see anything, not a thing. I never even saw a blood trail. It's like a ghost war.
..all the civilians had fled this part of Helmand; the walled compounds were silent and locked, the lush irrigated fields, now largely empty since the opium crop had finished, seemingly abandoned. There was no question that the people who were in the building were fighters. A missile was launched, either with programmed co-ordinates, from nearby Camp Bastion, or dropped from an aerial assault; I didn't see. But a few days later as we came back from a patrol I noticed a head in one of the fields. As soon as we got close to it we could see it had a pigtail.
It was a girl, a young girl of perhaps 14 whose body had been flung out of the building by the force of the bombing. But why was she there? Had the fighters kept her there to do their cooking? Why had no one come looking for her? I don't suppose anyone will ever know
'I took some flesh home and called it my son.'
Anyone who thinks any of this war and weaponry stuff is cool or justified should [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/afghanistan-airstrike-victims-stories ]read this[/url].......
Is western democracy really that great that we have to force it on the rest if the world?
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
Dresden
Hiroshima
Gaza
Bombardment of Copenhagen by Nelson in 18-something
etc
etc
etc
all terrorism by your definition
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 - MemberNo, 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?
