War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA

So, what? America deserved it? They should retire humbly to lick their wounds and reconsider their ways? Bin Laden attacked the West because we are not Muslim not because of our human rights abuses and voracious capitalism.The Taliban was supported by and gave protection to Bin Laden and his network. They ruled a good portion of Afghanistan in 2001, which they took by force, and were culpable.If you want to talk about people throwing their weight around you should look at what the Taliban did while in power. Look at regimes like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Libya among others. Classic plush stuffed arm chair quarter-back luxuriating in the vast expanse of his freedom. Why don’t you try heading over to Kandahar and hand out a few bibles. Outsider indeed.

As I understand it, in UBL's case, it is simply a matter of us having the wrong religion.It is difficult for us 'educated' folks to imagine the mind set of a goat herder in Afghanistan. It seems to me that if some militarily superior alien force invaded Canada and started building vastly superior schools, hospitals and friction-free highways, the last thing that I would do would be to go around killing Canadians. Even if I owned a highway building company.Maybe someone else can adjust my metaphor to be more accurate.What really annoys me are those who would bask in the luxury of our society, enjoy all of it's benefits and then, out of the other side of their face, condemn the principals that have created it.

So Jar, are you saying that UBL and Al Qaeda have a defensible justification for their actions?

Just for a little context, these are the people you guys are defending.

quote:

---

GENEVA, March 9 (AFP) - A UN report accused the radical Islamic regime in Afghanistan Thursday of violating women's rights with "unabated severity," including mass abductions and forced prostitution.
The report cited testimony from refugees about the large-scale abduction of women and girls by militia of the ruling Taliban movement during fighting last year in the northern and central parts of the country.
UN rapporteur Kamal Hossain provided testimony about ethnic Hazara and Tajik women being rounded up in trucks and taken from the regions of Mazar-e-Sharif, Pol-e-Khomri and Shamali to neighbouring Pakistan and the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.
"Many suspect that women and girls end up forced into prostitution," his report said, adding that "women have been killed and maimed trying to escape from these trucks."
Women from the Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif and Shamali regions also gave accounts of forced marriages to Taliban members, it said.

---

source

quote:

---

Today it is still impossible to find women not covered by burqas, the symbol of Taliban gender domination, on the streets of Afghanistan's second city. And many women have to hide the fact that they work from their neighbours for fear of insults, or worse. The reinvigorated Taliban burn schools and behead teachers for daring to offer education to girls. Judges steeped in decades of the most conservative form of Sharia law routinely send women and girls to prison for disobeying their father's choice in marriage, or deserting violent husbands. Rape victims end up facing charges of adultery.

---

source

quote:

---

The Taliban was, quite possibly, the most brutal regime in the world. They instituted a distorted and medieval form of Sharia (Islamic law). This was a vehicle for the grave human rights abuses the Taliban imposed on the country including arbitrary arrests, torture, the war crime of attacking civilians, and extremely harsh punishments (such as public executions, amputations, beatings, and stonings) for relatively minor offences. The Ministry for Public Vice and Virtue obliged Afghans to adhere to extremely strict and conservative standards (i.e. men were required to grow beards; many forms of music were banned).

---

source

quote:

---

From the age of eight, women were not allowed to be in direct contact with men, other than a close blood relative, husband, or in-law (see mahram).[9] Other restrictions were:
Women should not appear in the streets without a blood relative and without wearing a Burqa (also Burkha, Burka or Burqua).
Women should not wear high-heeled shoes as no man should hear a woman’s footsteps lest it excite him.
Women must not speak loudly in public as no stranger should hear a woman's voice.[10]
All ground and first floor residential windows should be painted over or screened to prevent women being visible from the street.
The photographing or filming of women was banned as was displaying pictures of females in newspapers, books, shops or the home.
The modification of any place names that included the word "women." For example, "women's garden" was renamed "springtime garden".[11]
Women were forbidden to appear on the balconies of their apartments or houses.
Ban on women's presence on radio, television or at public gatherings of any kind.[12]

---

source

No, they sure aren’t. Fortunately, we can say so without too many repercussions.Have a look at the paragraphs surrounding your quote.

quote:

---

July 14, 2009
Killing terrorist leaders is difficult, is often ineffective, and can easily backfire. Yet it is one of the United States' few options for managing the threat posed by al Qaeda from its base in tribal Pakistan. By some accounts, U.S. drone activity in Pakistan has killed dozens of lower-ranking and at least 10 mid- and high-ranking leaders from al Qaeda and the Taliban.

​

Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.

​

To reduce casualties, superb intelligence is necessary. Operators must know not only where the terrorists are, but also who is with them and who might be within the blast radius. This level of surveillance may often be lacking, and terrorists' deliberate use of children and other civilians as shields make civilian deaths even more likely.

---

I agree that the drone program is wrong in alot of ways. Somehow cowardly. I also think that there is something wrong with people who would hide behind their children knowing full well that they are putting them in harms way. But hey, minor details right. Like disparaging the policy of waterboarding people who would cut your fucking head off if the positions were reversed. Like crying foul when your country unintentionally kills civilians but ignoring the fact that your enemies deliberately target schools (the ones with no girls in them) and hospitals.Having pointed these things out, I also want to say that we should and we do hold ourselves to a higher standard. In fact, can you point to any that are higher?

I agree and that is why I made the higher standard comment.In the real world, who conducts their wars with a higher regard for human rights and civilian casualties?Yes we can and should do better. Just because we are not perfect doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that the enemy is worse by magnitudes.

quote:

---

May, 2009 - According to UN figures, last year alone saw 2,200 civilians killed, over half in insurgent attacks and nearly 40 percent by foreign and Afghanforces. There are currently around 70,000 foreign troops operating in Afghanistan, more than half of them from the United States.

---

quote:

---

"These leaks also show that the Taleban are responsible for the majority of the systematic human rights violations and violations of the laws of war in this conflict, but this does not excuse NATO forces from their responsibility to protect civilians."

---

From your Amnesty Int. links. Watch out for the counter spin. How many civilians died in the Iran/Iraq war? How many did the Russians kill in Afghanistan? How many has Qaddafi Duck killed? What about the Syrians? Your own links point out that the Taliban are killing more civilians than anyone else. Intentionally. Then we could review the executions for adultery and stonings and cut off arms and honour killings that take place during peace time. How many of those slip past the 6:00 news?Look. I am not some group ‘W’ bench candidate straining at the leash and calling for blood. 56 countries have taken part in the Afghan war. SOURCE. Pakistan, China, Russia, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, UAE and Turkey among them. There was a fair chunk of the world that agreed that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do in response to 9/11. You know that there could have been as many as 40,000 people in the WTC that day. We have been in Afghanistan for 10 yrs., so yeah, I do. While we sure could do better I think that a lot of folks seem to forget that we are the good guys. It’s fucked up I know.Oh and Hiroshima?!? Come on man.

Yes it does.

quote:

---

...last year alone saw 2,200 civilians killed, over half in insurgent attacks and nearly 40 percent by foreign and Afghanforces.

---

Over half was actually over 60%. These people want to kill you Oni. All of us because we are not Muslim. Here are some quotes from Mullah Omar, the then leader of Afghanistan.

quote:

---

"I am convinced that God will defeat the big infidel and cause its downfall," he said on the 11th day of the US-led bombardment of Afghanistan.

​

"Death will definitely come one day; we don't care about this," he said, comparing the conflict to the jihad waged against Soviet forces during the 1980s.
"We just want to perish as Muslims...the goal is martyrdom," he said.

---

sourceand from Mullah Manon Niazi Governor of Mazar-e Sharif speaking to a crowd in a mosque after the fall of mazar city.

quote:

---

" The policy of the Taliban is to exterminate the Hazaras"
Maulawi Mohammed Hanif, Taliban Commander announcing their policy to a crowd of 300
people summoned to a mosque [after killing 15,000 Hazaras people in a day]
" Hazaras are not Muslim. You can kill them. It is not a sin."

---

sourceThe free world should have invaded Afghanistan even if 9/11 didn't happen.

I don’t know. Everyone wearing Nike and a McMohammed’s on every corner?The intervention is justified when the horrific-ness of the regime is abated. Define the objective, gather the willing, gird up the loins and be willing to stick it out knowing full well that it may take generations.It may be that we are just too different to integrate. The most intolerable offences are at the heart of the Taliban ideology. Even moderate sharia law offends most non-muslim people. Of course, the fact that we let our women roam around with their ankles showing is offensive to the Taliban. It is nothing less than a clash of cultures.I certainly don’t know all the answers. I do think that it is unreasonable to vilify the US for it’s behaviour in the war with Afghanistan when 55 other nations also took part. Real countries with real armies and really smart people in positions of authority. How moral is it to abandon them to their fate?

More loin girding!

Sorry to keep you waiting but I have been out revelling in fine decadent western style. Gotta keep that Great Satan alive and writhing. What, that the Taliban are killing their countrymen by the score? Or that we have paused long enough to notice that it is happening? You don’t think that they kill each other when we are not there? What about the 30 million Afghans who are living without the basic human rights that we take for granted. Every day, on and on, war or no war. It took about 2 dozen people to pull off the 9/11 attacks. Maybe 100 more zealots with $millions actually is something to worry about. As I understand it, most of the money goes back into your economy. Maybe that is the most immoral part.Wouldn’t it be nice if we could bring them into the world economy. Just give them the money to develop their own resources. The problem is that they would have to start with building schools and teaching people how to do science. Next thing you know they would be listening to music and having opinions.Shall we pass this problem onto our children as well? How is this shortsightedness different from Chamberlain’s? Do you really think that the world would be a better place if the Taliban were still ruling Afghanistan? If UBL were still alive and running training camps and perfecting his craft unmolested. If Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq. Should we stand idly by while North Korea gets some nukes. You know North Koreans are shorter than South Koreans due to chronic malnutrition. There are some really smart people at the helm in the free countries of the world. Maybe not the Bush’s and Blairs and Harper’s but all those people behind them. People whose entire lives are dedicated to deciphering satellite photos or rooting through the morass of international politics and the global economy. People who don’t care about who gets elected next but only that we can still hold elections. Maybe they know some things that we don’t see on CNN. While Pakistan and Saudi Arabia both have some dismal human rights records, do you really think that the world would be a more peaceful place had we invaded them? How so?

I think that it is a necessary goal. Every bit as realistic as eradicating polio or malaria. The US among them. I think that it is more moral than not being there. More kind than starving them down with sanctions in order to save ourselves the discomfort of boots on the ground. More humane than abandoning all of those innocents to the tyranny of the war lords and religious despots.

Yeah, it sucks Straggler, I agree. So we should just give up? Let them carry on? We are right and they are wrong. I suppose we can wait until they bring the war to us but I would rather not. That is a good question. I think that I might if my situation were different. I am not much of killer though. I would certainly go build a bridge or school. If my children wanted to go I would support that decision. Do people vote in Islamic fundamentalist regimes? If your neighbour is beating his wife and she says, through bleeding lips, that it is OK, would you look away? When the brain washed members of a cult say that it is OK for them to kill themselves and their children is that enough cause to not interfere?

Yes. Something does have to give. Should we change our opinion on universal human rights? Shall we not champion them for the oppressed? Do you really think that Islamic fundamentalists have a viable approach to the world that should be tolerated in the name of religious freedom? There is a big difference between saying that you have to behave like this and saying that you cannot behave like that.Is there ever a point when we should pick up our guns and make a stand for what we believe? The conflict is there and we ignore it at our children’s peril. What is your real world alternative? Appeasement? Peace in our time? I do not think that is what is happening in Afghanistan. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? I guess it boils down to if we believe in universal human rights all the time and for everyone or only when it is easy to do so. What do we do with criminals who commit another crime?