AN Afghan man is dead and relations between Australian troops and local villagers have soured after a violent protest by several hundred men sparked by a rumour that Diggers were burning copies of the Koran.
The soldiers were conducting a regular burn off of rubbish and documents in a pit outside the secure blast walls of forward operating base Mirwais in the Chora Valley north of the main base at Tarin Kowt on Thursday when all hell broke loose.
Misunderstandings are probably common between foreigners and Afgans but do you think this particular misunderstanding would have happened if it werent for the way the media has reported this florida fool?
Well, yes, because the Taliban have been using the same propaganda story for years to kick up anti-ISAF sentiment - it happened in Delaram earlier this year with rumours of the USMC 'chopping up Korans with axes', it happens pretty regularly all over Afghanistan. Also, you seem to imply that the people of Tarin Kowt are tuned in to the international media, have cable or get the newspaper each morning. Most Afghan villages barely have a current handle on what is happening in Kabul, let alone the rest of the world. I'm sure the Taliban might have used the media interest to coordinate another round of this standard propaganda drive, but equally the media might simply be more attuned to this particular story and have picked up on the latest iteration of a common problem.
Either way, what are you suggesting? Limit the media reporting of things which might be potentially inflammatory? Limit freedom of expression for people to do those things? Someone, somewhere in the world, is capable of taking offense at pretty much anything that happens. The solution is for those people to man up and not bow to mob mentality, or for us to ignore it when it happens. Trying to censor any potentially offensive act or word will simply mean that more people demand that we censor more things, and will destroy one of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy.
If censoring potentially offensive acts is where this is going, well I'm offended that anyone demands that I don't be offensive. There's a Catch 22 for you.
Altalicious, I don't know which Afghanis you've been talking to, but the idea of someone from Afghanistan calling themselves "Pashtun first, Muslim second" is completely counter to my experience of the region. I should clarify, though, that my "experience" with Pashtun culture is visiting my father's side of the family in Karachi twice in the last twelve years; I haven't spent any time with Afghani Pashtuns, and only a little time with their Pakistani counterparts.
Afghanis are the currency. Afghans are the people.
I talked to Afghan villagers in rural areas throughout Helmand and Kandahar, from about 30 different tribes from the Ghilzai and Durrani lines. Also, a good number of Tajik and Hazara both civilians and in the military. It's not an uncommon view, either, I've seen it in several histories in of the country.
Part of the issue may be that the Durrani are mostly un-represented in Pakistan, with most Pakistani Pashtuns being from a limited number of Ghilzai and Lodin tribes. Furthermore, your family are likely to be of one tribe from a specific area - there are always variation when you look at such a small sample size. And Karachi is much more of a melting pot of Punjabis, Baluch and other Urdu ethnicities: I don't know exactly what effect that will have on Pashtun culture, but it makes it a minority element as well as an urbanised one (as opposed to rural Afghanistan) and that will have a significant effect. Finally: they aren't Afghan. Don't believe this stuff about all Pashtuns thinking they are just Pashtuns and not adhering to national identities. Afghans are very pround, and very nationalistic in many ways, and I heard just as many Pashtuns talk about themselves as Afghans as I did Tajiks and Hazara.
But my impression of Pataan culture (as it's called in Pakistan) is that even among the conservative Pakistani Muslim society, they represent an extreme fundamentalist segment of the populace. I mean, when we last visited in '02 they had a poster of Osama hung on one of their doors, with jets and an explosion in the background. It was pretty surreal.
So to say that Afghani Pashtoons put ethnicity before religion to such a degree, when their ethnic brethren just a few dozen miles away are the polar opposite, sounds a little odd to me. Let's be clear: I'm not calling you a liar, or purporting to have a better understanding of the matter... but I am very interested in knowing who it is you've talked to.
I haven't talked to any Pakistan Pashtuns, but as above I don't think the two are directly comparable. Aside from anything else, there is a notable difference in attitudes according to tribal lines within Afghanistan, let alone in an entirely different country where (generally disliked by Pashtuns) Punjabi Muslims are thrown into the mix. By the way, it's a few hundred miles - which is enough to change entire ethnic, religious and national identities in that region. And different tribes. And a change from being a homogenous ethnic area to being a heterogenous mix of ethnicities.
They put both Afghan and Pashtun identity before Muslim identity in public (both to other Afghans and to foreigners, before you ask), but that doesn't mean they don't consider themselves Muslim and don't hold it of importance. As a parallel, they also hide their women as far away from public view as is practically possible. They don't do this because they feel women are unimportant, but because as a Pashtun proverb goes: "if you own a fabulously valuable jewel, do you flaunt it or hide it away?"
So what do you propose to crack down on radical Islam Alta?
The West can't 'crack down' on radical Islam. The problem is what is being sold to the masses throughout the mid-East, central Asia, Africa, Indonesia; that's where the solution needs to come. The solution needs to be internal to Islam, not imposed from outside. Similarly, the problem is an idea; the solution needs to be ideological. Troops will not solve the problem. Development, though key to addressing concepts of unfairness and the environment in which radicalism thrives, will not kill the basic idea.
But the start-point will have to come from the West, because the balance in those countries is too delicate for their governments to take such a risk. Western governments have to acknowledge that there is a strain of Islam which is openly violent, anti non-Muslim (and in some cases, anti- anyone who doesn't agree with them whether Muslim or not), and espouses terrorism and radicalisation. They have to acknowledge that this strain of Islam, though not the entirety of the religion, is becoming increasingly popular in these regions.
The first place they need to do this is in their own countries; this is why the 'moderate Muslim' debate is so important. It is not okay to deal with Muslim 'community leaders' who only barely condemn terrorist attacks (see the difference between condemning 9/11 and non-condemnation of attacks in Israel and Muslim countries), and espouse radical views on much of the rest of Islam, or who welcome religious figures who do. The 'moderate Muslim' community is out there, but they are younger; they are the Sufis rather than the Wahabis; they are more open to secularism without necessarily being of it. The diaspora in western countries works to spread radicalisation into the West; it needs to be turned to spread moderatism into the mid-East.
The second place they need to do this is with the governments of allied countries in the region. Our diplomatic efforts need to focus not simply on narrow national self-interest, but within NATO, the UN or - if those are characteristically gridlocked - an ad hoc coalition of western governments which put significant pressure on regional governments to sort their shit out. The radical movements of Islam within these countries are as much of a threat to their governments and people as to ours; they need to recognise this (in most cases they do), and then take steps to deal with it. This will require some help from the West (ie US in Pakistan) in terms of materiel, finance, and development expertise. But the status quo of Saudi Arabia and 90's / early 2000's Pakistan where religious extremism is allowed to thrive to make life easier for the government of the day is unsustainable.
The third, and most important, factor in all this is not a place, but a method. There needs to be some serious theological discussion of Islam and its place in the world. Instead of politicians simply stating that Islam is a religion of peace and hoping that nobody notices the bombings, more Islamic scholars and mullahs need to make the arguments for Islam being a religion of peace, and hammer it home, publically and worldwide. It also needs to be done in a quasi-political / populist manner; there is no use in scholars writing interminable philosophical tracts about why radicalism is bad. This is already done. Nobody reads them or hears them. The themes of Islamism are simple and catching: western injustice, violent revenge, salvation. The themes to counter that need to be also simple: Islamist hypocrisy, helping fellow Muslims, honour. The themes which need to supercede both of those are the most important, and are the most difficult part. Does Islam focus on their proud history? Counter anti-scientific religiosity with an appeal to the golden age of the 12th and 13th centuries? I'm not a theologian, so I won't get into it, but hopefully you get the point. If the current radicalism being preached is the equivalent of the Reformation, then we need a well planned, coordinated and convincing Counter-Reformation.
The problem with this approach is that it relies on people being honest with what is happening at the moment. Most people in the West are not - politicians, population, Muslims and everyone else. Western leaders - and as this thread demonstrates, often their populations - are generally afraid of stating their own values (freedom of speech, tolerance, often secularism) for fear that it will be seen as a ideological war between East and West. It is not. It is an ideological war between East and East. Solving its problems will require leadership from within Islam at every level, but it also requires the West to recognise the problem and help before it is too late.
Saudi Arabia will continue encouraging some degree of radicalism, since the legitimacy of the royal family depends on having the scholars not complain too much.
Europe is far more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US is. As long as oil remains an important resource, Western backing of oppressive governments in the region will continue. Egypt and Saudi Arabia demand things from the West, not the other way around; there's no way to pressure these governments into more liberal reform. Religious extremism is a threat to these governments, certainly, but so is liberalism.
Saudi Arabia will continue encouraging some degree of radicalism, since the legitimacy of the royal family depends on having the scholars not complain too much.
Europe is far more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US is. As long as oil remains an important resource, Western backing of oppressive governments in the region will continue. Egypt and Saudi Arabia demand things from the West, not the other way around; there's no way to pressure these governments into more liberal reform. Religious extremism is a threat to these governments, certainly, but so is liberalism.
European Union exports less oil and imports more of it despite having twice as much population as the U.S. It also has alternative countries (Russia, Norway, Kazakhstan, Turkey?) and sources of say, natural gas more nearby then the United States has. I don't think it's dependence on oil is nearly as much as the U.S.'s, though admittely I haven't looked into the situation very in-depth.
AN Afghan man is dead and relations between Australian troops and local villagers have soured after a violent protest by several hundred men sparked by a rumour that Diggers were burning copies of the Koran.
The soldiers were conducting a regular burn off of rubbish and documents in a pit outside the secure blast walls of forward operating base Mirwais in the Chora Valley north of the main base at Tarin Kowt on Thursday when all hell broke loose.
Misunderstandings are probably common between foreigners and Afgans but do you think this particular misunderstanding would have happened if it werent for the way the media has reported this florida fool?
Well, yes, because the Taliban have been using the same propaganda story for years to kick up anti-ISAF sentiment - it happened in Delaram earlier this year with rumours of the USMC 'chopping up Korans with axes', it happens pretty regularly all over Afghanistan. Also, you seem to imply that the people of Tarin Kowt are tuned in to the international media, have cable or get the newspaper each morning. Most Afghan villages barely have a current handle on what is happening in Kabul, let alone the rest of the world. I'm sure the Taliban might have used the media interest to coordinate another round of this standard propaganda drive, but equally the media might simply be more attuned to this particular story and have picked up on the latest iteration of a common problem.
Either way, what are you suggesting? Limit the media reporting of things which might be potentially inflammatory? Limit freedom of expression for people to do those things? Someone, somewhere in the world, is capable of taking offense at pretty much anything that happens. The solution is for those people to man up and not bow to mob mentality, or for us to ignore it when it happens. Trying to censor any potentially offensive act or word will simply mean that more people demand that we censor more things, and will destroy one of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy.
If censoring potentially offensive acts is where this is going, well I'm offended that anyone demands that I don't be offensive. There's a Catch 22 for you.
What I am suggesting is limit religion.
Technicus Rex on
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazi's. You can't trust people. - Super Hans.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Egypt and Saudi Arabia demand things from the West, not the other way around; there's no way to pressure these governments into more liberal reform.
Pretty much this.
Currently, the West has very limited leverage over the Middle East and will continue to do so until a viable and renewable alternative to oil is found.
The Middle East continues (and will continue) to suffer from the Resource Curse, and as long as the those in power can leverage that power over their foreign and domestic policy, no change will happen.
As has been said by people as questionably intelligent as President G.W. Bush, the oil trade is key to sustained terror and oppression in the Middle East.
OUR FLAGS GET BURNT AROUND THE WORLD BUT WE CANT BURN A BOOK?
I'll tell you why... Our nation is one of the few that up holds a certain standard of freedom that is allotted to EVERY LEGAL AMERICAN, with that being said if we burn this book no longer can we turn our noses up at those around the world who burn our flags. We are no better than the heathens that burn our flag..... 8-)
Egypt and Saudi Arabia demand things from the West, not the other way around; there's no way to pressure these governments into more liberal reform.
Pretty much this.
Currently, the West has very limited leverage over the Middle East and will continue to do so until a viable and renewable alternative to oil is found.
The Middle East continues (and will continue) to suffer from the Resource Curse, and as long as the those in power can leverage that power over their foreign and domestic policy, no change will happen.
As has been said by people as questionably intelligent as President G.W. Bush, the oil trade is key to sustained terror and oppression in the Middle East.
Althermore reason to shift to a green economy.
You know, I'd never thought of renewable energy as being the remedy to terrorism, but it has a nice bumper-sticker ring to it. :P
In all seriousness, though, while I would agree that you'd limit, say, the Saudis' or Iran's ability to fund terrorist groups, I don't think you'd stamp out terrorism.
It's not so much a matter of funding terrorism as funding repression of political opposition, which is what then generates dissent and terrorism.
If it were about that, wouldn't the opposition use terror against the oppressors, and not the west?
Logically, yes. But in their point of view, it's Western consumerism/imperialism that funds/feeds their domestic oppression. If the West went away they think their dictators would throw gumdrops at protestors rather than bullets, or at the very least be easier to overthrow in the name of Allah (peace be on his name).
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
It's not so much a matter of funding terrorism as funding repression of political opposition, which is what then generates dissent and terrorism.
If it were about that, wouldn't the opposition use terror against the oppressors, and not the west?
They do both. When said oppressive government is being funded by another nation, you can understand a certain amount of backlash.
But then Iran and Saudia Arabia- and any number of other nations- do fund terrorist groups of their own ON TOP of that, of course.
I don't know if I agree with "oppressing groups politically drives them to terrorism against their own countrymen" though. I mean, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two countries I know of off-hand who are pretty much agreed-upon as funding terrorism, but they don't have a big issue with domestic terrorism. Iraq and Afghanistan, on the other hand, who in principle allow for dissenting opinions and representative government, suffer acts of domestic terrorism on a daily basis.
Logically, yes. But in their point of view, it's Western consumerism/imperialism that funds/feeds their domestic oppression. If the West went away they think their dictators would throw gumdrops at protestors rather than bullets, or at the very least be easier to overthrow in the name of Allah (peace be on his name).
I find this line of reasoning very sketchy and presumptuous of terrorists' motivations.
I'd elaborate, but I'm supposed to be taking an online test right now. >_<
Logically, yes. But in their point of view, it's Western consumerism/imperialism that funds/feeds their domestic oppression. If the West went away they think their dictators would throw gumdrops at protestors rather than bullets, or at the very least be easier to overthrow in the name of Allah (peace be on his name).
I find this line of reasoning very sketchy and presumptuous of terrorists' motivations.
It is a little presumptuous I admit, but my general aim was to say that they use the "idea" of the West as being the root of their evils. That their problems would be easier to deal with if we weren't oppressing them by proxy, propping up local dictators and what have you.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Egypt and Saudi Arabia demand things from the West, not the other way around; there's no way to pressure these governments into more liberal reform.
Pretty much this.
Currently, the West has very limited leverage over the Middle East and will continue to do so until a viable and renewable alternative to oil is found.
The Middle East continues (and will continue) to suffer from the Resource Curse, and as long as the those in power can leverage that power over their foreign and domestic policy, no change will happen.
As has been said by people as questionably intelligent as President G.W. Bush, the oil trade is key to sustained terror and oppression in the Middle East.
Althermore reason to shift to a green economy.
Shh . . . don't let the neocons hear you.
But yes, completely.
In all seriousness, though, while I would agree that you'd limit, say, the Saudis' or Iran's ability to fund terrorist groups, I don't think you'd stamp out terrorism.
I don't think the concept of "terror" will ever be eradicated from the human psyche, but I certainly think the conditions that foster widespread terrorism can certainly be reduced if not eliminated altogether. State sponsorship (or blind eyes) are a big part of these conditions, which is basically what all of the Middle East is engaged in to differing degrees. You have your obvious instigators like Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon, your passive tolerators like Jordan, the Emirates, Yemen, and finally the anti-terror states that are still oppressive as hell in Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
Basically it's just Turkey and Israel holding a torch for secular tolerance, and that's a stretch in both cases.
Regardless, there are always going to be people willing to do stupid shit for a stupid cause. Just look at the dumbass in Washington that threw acid on herself in hopes that Oprah would put her on the show where she could talk about Jesus. The best we can hope for is a state that doesn't foster or support terror, or even go out of its way to stamp it out.
Like, I would right now settle for an Iran that just said, "Okay jihadis, if we catch you, you're going to jail. We're not actually going to go looking for you, but we're still going to pay lip service to the idea that murdering others for religious reasons is stupid. Even though we really don't think so, just don't be so brazen about it. Keep that shit indoors."
Instead it's a real place where suicide bombers are given memorial parades and children's TV shows preach hate and genocide.
I can't say I agree with that tactic, as it could be used against other people just as easily. Like, say, cities billing people who supported Draw Muhammad day.
Edit: For a more enforce-able example, charging costs to protest organizers.
I can't say I agree with that tactic, as it could be used against other people just as easily. Like, say, cities billing people who supported Draw Muhammad day.
I don't know, did anyone need specific police protection for that? I see it as on the same level as billing idiots who ill-advisedly and ill-preparedly go hiking in the woods and get lost, necessitating a helicopter pulling them out of some gorge in the arse end of nowhere.
The Cat on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
I'm sure there's some 1st Amendment issues there. The bill doesn't state, "Freedom of Speech, except where it's inconvenient, void where prohibited."
The last thing we need is people being put into bankruptcy because they're expressing constitutionally-protected views. Talk about letting the terrorists win . . . .
Like, I would right now settle for an Iran that just said, "Okay jihadis, if we catch you, you're going to jail. We're not actually going to go looking for you, but we're still going to pay lip service to the idea that murdering others for religious reasons is stupid. Even though we really don't think so, just don't be so brazen about it. Keep that shit indoors."
Instead it's a real place where suicide bombers are given memorial parades and children's TV shows preach hate and genocide.
That sounds more like Gaza. Not Iran.
And hey, it's not like U.S. doesn't support terrorism either. It just does it in a covert fashion. It's not like U.S. doesn't have a large sub-set of it's population throwing their support behind abortion clinic bombers, Israel, air strikes against Iraqi cities, or whatever. United States is responsible of far, far, far worse things then Iran ever has been. Iran just does it's terrible things in a far cruder and more obvious fashion.
It's not so much a matter of funding terrorism as funding repression of political opposition, which is what then generates dissent and terrorism.
If it were about that, wouldn't the opposition use terror against the oppressors, and not the west?
They do. They also target perceived foreign powers, but bombing campaigns in Egypt are hardly unknown. You just don't hear about it, because political leaders being bombed and shot at in the third world is just, well, not new and not news.
So that's Egypt, which is nominally democratic but authoritarian in practice. The practice of opposition has nominal legitimacy, after all. Saudi Arabia, with its wholly absolute monarchy, tends to have its domestic terrorism directed at foreigners in the country instead.
I don't know if I agree with "oppressing groups politically drives them to terrorism against their own countrymen" though. I mean, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two countries I know of off-hand who are pretty much agreed-upon as funding terrorism, but they don't have a big issue with domestic terrorism. Iraq and Afghanistan, on the other hand, who in principle allow for dissenting opinions and representative government, suffer acts of domestic terrorism on a daily basis.
Comparing to Iraq and Afghanistan - governments whose stability are themselves rather tenuous - may be misleading. Compare with other governments in the region, like Egypt, Kuwait, the UAE, etc.
Saudi Arabia has the characteristic of being centralized but without having actual monolithic authority, too - to put it concretely, the Saudi royal family has trouble keeping check of what causes its numerous members like to back. Note that Iran does suffer from domestic terrorism, including bombing campaigns.
I reckon you could get any soldier worth the title to denounce soldiers killing civilians for fun. As demonstrated by the fact that they were reported by a soldier.
That you seem to think that would be exceptional says more about your prejudices & the sterotypes you seem to believe in than it does about soldiers.
Like, I would right now settle for an Iran that just said, "Okay jihadis, if we catch you, you're going to jail. We're not actually going to go looking for you, but we're still going to pay lip service to the idea that murdering others for religious reasons is stupid. Even though we really don't think so, just don't be so brazen about it. Keep that shit indoors."
Instead it's a real place where suicide bombers are given memorial parades and children's TV shows preach hate and genocide.
That sounds more like Gaza. Not Iran.
And hey, it's not like U.S. doesn't support terrorism either. It just does it in a covert fashion. It's not like U.S. doesn't have a large sub-set of it's population throwing their support behind abortion clinic bombers, Israel, air strikes against Iraqi cities, or whatever. United States is responsible of far, far, far worse things then Iran ever has been. Iran just does it's terrible things in a far cruder and more obvious fashion.
I reckon you could get any soldier worth the title to denounce soldiers killing civilians for fun. As demonstrated by the fact that they were reported by a soldier.
That you seem to think that would be exceptional says more about your prejudices & the sterotypes you seem to believe in than it does about soldiers.
I was in the military, I'll say killing civilians for fun is wrong. Not that it doesn't happen in war though.
Like, I would right now settle for an Iran that just said, "Okay jihadis, if we catch you, you're going to jail. We're not actually going to go looking for you, but we're still going to pay lip service to the idea that murdering others for religious reasons is stupid. Even though we really don't think so, just don't be so brazen about it. Keep that shit indoors."
Instead it's a real place where suicide bombers are given memorial parades and children's TV shows preach hate and genocide.
That sounds more like Gaza. Not Iran.
And hey, it's not like U.S. doesn't support terrorism either. It just does it in a covert fashion. It's not like U.S. doesn't have a large sub-set of it's population throwing their support behind abortion clinic bombers, Israel, air strikes against Iraqi cities, or whatever. United States is responsible of far, far, far worse things then Iran ever has been. Iran just does it's terrible things in a far cruder and more obvious fashion.
Air strikes aren't terrorism there Chrystal.
Terrorism is not the only wrong thing, or the worst thing in the world. I rate bombing busy cities somewhere along the same scale.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Like, I would right now settle for an Iran that just said, "Okay jihadis, if we catch you, you're going to jail. We're not actually going to go looking for you, but we're still going to pay lip service to the idea that murdering others for religious reasons is stupid. Even though we really don't think so, just don't be so brazen about it. Keep that shit indoors."
Instead it's a real place where suicide bombers are given memorial parades and children's TV shows preach hate and genocide.
That sounds more like Gaza. Not Iran.
And hey, it's not like U.S. doesn't support terrorism either. It just does it in a covert fashion. It's not like U.S. doesn't have a large sub-set of it's population throwing their support behind abortion clinic bombers, Israel, air strikes against Iraqi cities, or whatever. United States is responsible of far, far, far worse things then Iran ever has been. Iran just does it's terrible things in a far cruder and more obvious fashion.
Air strikes aren't terrorism there Chrystal.
Terrorism is not the only wrong thing, or the worst thing in the world. I rate bombing busy cities somewhere along the same scale.
If you're going to lump any overt act of declared war, "terrorism," then I think our dialogue here is going to get very parsed and clumsy.
Remember how the Allies "terrorized" Germany by liberating France?
Like, I would right now settle for an Iran that just said, "Okay jihadis, if we catch you, you're going to jail. We're not actually going to go looking for you, but we're still going to pay lip service to the idea that murdering others for religious reasons is stupid. Even though we really don't think so, just don't be so brazen about it. Keep that shit indoors."
Instead it's a real place where suicide bombers are given memorial parades and children's TV shows preach hate and genocide.
That sounds more like Gaza. Not Iran.
And hey, it's not like U.S. doesn't support terrorism either. It just does it in a covert fashion. It's not like U.S. doesn't have a large sub-set of it's population throwing their support behind abortion clinic bombers, Israel, air strikes against Iraqi cities, or whatever. United States is responsible of far, far, far worse things then Iran ever has been. Iran just does it's terrible things in a far cruder and more obvious fashion.
Air strikes aren't terrorism there Chrystal.
Terrorism is not the only wrong thing, or the worst thing in the world. I rate bombing busy cities somewhere along the same scale.
If you're going to lump any overt act of declared war, "terrorism," then I think our dialogue here is going to get very parsed and clumsy.
Remember how the Allies "terrorized" Germany by liberating France?
Devil's advocate: was Dresden terrorism?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
War crimes and terrorism are not the same thing, hence why we treat both differently.
A soldier sawing off the head of a random jackass to terrorism the populace, that's a war crime. You doing the same thing in Times Square and claiming you will do the same to all conservatives, that's terrorism.
Though the act is the same, the reasons, logic, and motive are not. And, like it or not, a uniformed soldier commands a respect a civilian does not, and with it comes certain rules. Hence why the really iffy issue of private contractors or spec ops forces operating with no uniform and outside of the norm (which would be a good thread, I shall make it).
If the Chinese were ever to invade and take over (yes I know it's bullshit) their soldiers are governed by certain laws. Direct acts of war are fine, and legal. But you really wouldn't expect recorded decapitations because they are actual soldiers. You can expect them to give you aid, and they would go out of their way not to kill you. No military, outside of LOL Muslims, is going to engage in that sort of jackassery via official sanction.
Now a non uniformed fuckwit, that just happened to grab a gun and sharp piece of metal and is out own his own crusade, probably will.
This is why we have rules for shit. An Iraqi army commando blowing up a military convey, act of war, it's legal and it's legit. Him doing the same to an aid mission, war crime. You doing both, terrorism, depending on your motives.
Terrorism has no proper definition (outside of almost meaninglessly vague terms like 'use of terror to achieve goals',) and hence I don't think you can say terrorism is restricted to non-soldiers, nstf or even say that it must not be sanctioned by a government or that it can't be 'legal' (scare quotes because there's no universal definition on what is or is not legal in warfare.)
As an aside I bet I can get you to acknowledge that 'soldier' itself is a really, really vague term.
Anyhow, perhaps arguing over what is or is not terrorism would better be done in it's own thread.
I view 'terrorism' in the post-9/11 world as any act of pre-meditated violence by a non-state actor/group that is committed on political grounds (versus personal grounds like love/hate, money, etc). That seems to be a good definition but I'm sure there is something I'm overlooking. Anyone?
A soldier, or government agent, is given the right to kill others of the same status, and if needed civilian actors up to no good. As a result, we have very specific rules governing their functions in society, we strip them of many fundamental rights, and we have laws that apply only to them to hold them accountable.
This is a societal contract, and like or not, soldier is the original and most important job. Without them, nothing else is possible.
Any person can give up their rights, and obey that code of law, and dawn a uniform or get a badge. Once done so they have a code to up hold, and they have rules that will govern their life, and they give up many freedoms.
A random jackass that just picks up a weapon and acts out on his on whim, for his own goals, or the goals of other jackasses, is not the same on any level. He has no such societal contract, nor do the rules and codes of a soldier apply to him.
This doesn't mean that there aren't jackass soldiers, or that their aren't good men among rogues, both happen, all to frequently. But at the end of the day you know the rules of a soldier and he is bound by strict rules of how to treat you, and how to deal with you. A random fuck head is not.
This is why the Michgan Militia is consisdered a terror, and rogue organisation. But the national guard is not.
Further devil's advocating, and this is closer to the actual topic of the thread: what's the difference between terrorists (under your definition: random jackass who picks up a weapon and acts out for his or a group of jackasses' goals) and a freedom fighter? Perspective?
For a more specific request: what's the difference (recall, legally) between the Taliban today and the Northern Alliance in September/October of 2001? Because if it's purely about ideology, we have a problem with terrorism being a nebulous word that is used to gain popular support for whatever policy the government likes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Freedom fighter's are usually trying to overthrow government and set up their own. Terrorists are generally just trying to obtain specific political goals or destabilize.
Edit: I'd argue that the Taliban who are trying to retake Afghanistan are closer to rebels/freedom fighters than terrorists. Though their close ties with Al Qaeda has made them indistinguishable
Posts
Well, yes, because the Taliban have been using the same propaganda story for years to kick up anti-ISAF sentiment - it happened in Delaram earlier this year with rumours of the USMC 'chopping up Korans with axes', it happens pretty regularly all over Afghanistan. Also, you seem to imply that the people of Tarin Kowt are tuned in to the international media, have cable or get the newspaper each morning. Most Afghan villages barely have a current handle on what is happening in Kabul, let alone the rest of the world. I'm sure the Taliban might have used the media interest to coordinate another round of this standard propaganda drive, but equally the media might simply be more attuned to this particular story and have picked up on the latest iteration of a common problem.
Either way, what are you suggesting? Limit the media reporting of things which might be potentially inflammatory? Limit freedom of expression for people to do those things? Someone, somewhere in the world, is capable of taking offense at pretty much anything that happens. The solution is for those people to man up and not bow to mob mentality, or for us to ignore it when it happens. Trying to censor any potentially offensive act or word will simply mean that more people demand that we censor more things, and will destroy one of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy.
If censoring potentially offensive acts is where this is going, well I'm offended that anyone demands that I don't be offensive. There's a Catch 22 for you.
Afghanis are the currency. Afghans are the people.
I talked to Afghan villagers in rural areas throughout Helmand and Kandahar, from about 30 different tribes from the Ghilzai and Durrani lines. Also, a good number of Tajik and Hazara both civilians and in the military. It's not an uncommon view, either, I've seen it in several histories in of the country.
Part of the issue may be that the Durrani are mostly un-represented in Pakistan, with most Pakistani Pashtuns being from a limited number of Ghilzai and Lodin tribes. Furthermore, your family are likely to be of one tribe from a specific area - there are always variation when you look at such a small sample size. And Karachi is much more of a melting pot of Punjabis, Baluch and other Urdu ethnicities: I don't know exactly what effect that will have on Pashtun culture, but it makes it a minority element as well as an urbanised one (as opposed to rural Afghanistan) and that will have a significant effect. Finally: they aren't Afghan. Don't believe this stuff about all Pashtuns thinking they are just Pashtuns and not adhering to national identities. Afghans are very pround, and very nationalistic in many ways, and I heard just as many Pashtuns talk about themselves as Afghans as I did Tajiks and Hazara.
I haven't talked to any Pakistan Pashtuns, but as above I don't think the two are directly comparable. Aside from anything else, there is a notable difference in attitudes according to tribal lines within Afghanistan, let alone in an entirely different country where (generally disliked by Pashtuns) Punjabi Muslims are thrown into the mix. By the way, it's a few hundred miles - which is enough to change entire ethnic, religious and national identities in that region. And different tribes. And a change from being a homogenous ethnic area to being a heterogenous mix of ethnicities.
They put both Afghan and Pashtun identity before Muslim identity in public (both to other Afghans and to foreigners, before you ask), but that doesn't mean they don't consider themselves Muslim and don't hold it of importance. As a parallel, they also hide their women as far away from public view as is practically possible. They don't do this because they feel women are unimportant, but because as a Pashtun proverb goes: "if you own a fabulously valuable jewel, do you flaunt it or hide it away?"
Also: in Urdu, the adjective would be "Afghani;" I guess I should use English adjectives in this context, though.
The West can't 'crack down' on radical Islam. The problem is what is being sold to the masses throughout the mid-East, central Asia, Africa, Indonesia; that's where the solution needs to come. The solution needs to be internal to Islam, not imposed from outside. Similarly, the problem is an idea; the solution needs to be ideological. Troops will not solve the problem. Development, though key to addressing concepts of unfairness and the environment in which radicalism thrives, will not kill the basic idea.
But the start-point will have to come from the West, because the balance in those countries is too delicate for their governments to take such a risk. Western governments have to acknowledge that there is a strain of Islam which is openly violent, anti non-Muslim (and in some cases, anti- anyone who doesn't agree with them whether Muslim or not), and espouses terrorism and radicalisation. They have to acknowledge that this strain of Islam, though not the entirety of the religion, is becoming increasingly popular in these regions.
The first place they need to do this is in their own countries; this is why the 'moderate Muslim' debate is so important. It is not okay to deal with Muslim 'community leaders' who only barely condemn terrorist attacks (see the difference between condemning 9/11 and non-condemnation of attacks in Israel and Muslim countries), and espouse radical views on much of the rest of Islam, or who welcome religious figures who do. The 'moderate Muslim' community is out there, but they are younger; they are the Sufis rather than the Wahabis; they are more open to secularism without necessarily being of it. The diaspora in western countries works to spread radicalisation into the West; it needs to be turned to spread moderatism into the mid-East.
The second place they need to do this is with the governments of allied countries in the region. Our diplomatic efforts need to focus not simply on narrow national self-interest, but within NATO, the UN or - if those are characteristically gridlocked - an ad hoc coalition of western governments which put significant pressure on regional governments to sort their shit out. The radical movements of Islam within these countries are as much of a threat to their governments and people as to ours; they need to recognise this (in most cases they do), and then take steps to deal with it. This will require some help from the West (ie US in Pakistan) in terms of materiel, finance, and development expertise. But the status quo of Saudi Arabia and 90's / early 2000's Pakistan where religious extremism is allowed to thrive to make life easier for the government of the day is unsustainable.
The third, and most important, factor in all this is not a place, but a method. There needs to be some serious theological discussion of Islam and its place in the world. Instead of politicians simply stating that Islam is a religion of peace and hoping that nobody notices the bombings, more Islamic scholars and mullahs need to make the arguments for Islam being a religion of peace, and hammer it home, publically and worldwide. It also needs to be done in a quasi-political / populist manner; there is no use in scholars writing interminable philosophical tracts about why radicalism is bad. This is already done. Nobody reads them or hears them. The themes of Islamism are simple and catching: western injustice, violent revenge, salvation. The themes to counter that need to be also simple: Islamist hypocrisy, helping fellow Muslims, honour. The themes which need to supercede both of those are the most important, and are the most difficult part. Does Islam focus on their proud history? Counter anti-scientific religiosity with an appeal to the golden age of the 12th and 13th centuries? I'm not a theologian, so I won't get into it, but hopefully you get the point. If the current radicalism being preached is the equivalent of the Reformation, then we need a well planned, coordinated and convincing Counter-Reformation.
The problem with this approach is that it relies on people being honest with what is happening at the moment. Most people in the West are not - politicians, population, Muslims and everyone else. Western leaders - and as this thread demonstrates, often their populations - are generally afraid of stating their own values (freedom of speech, tolerance, often secularism) for fear that it will be seen as a ideological war between East and West. It is not. It is an ideological war between East and East. Solving its problems will require leadership from within Islam at every level, but it also requires the West to recognise the problem and help before it is too late.
Europe is far more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US is. As long as oil remains an important resource, Western backing of oppressive governments in the region will continue. Egypt and Saudi Arabia demand things from the West, not the other way around; there's no way to pressure these governments into more liberal reform. Religious extremism is a threat to these governments, certainly, but so is liberalism.
European Union exports less oil and imports more of it despite having twice as much population as the U.S. It also has alternative countries (Russia, Norway, Kazakhstan, Turkey?) and sources of say, natural gas more nearby then the United States has. I don't think it's dependence on oil is nearly as much as the U.S.'s, though admittely I haven't looked into the situation very in-depth.
What I am suggesting is limit religion.
Pretty much this.
Currently, the West has very limited leverage over the Middle East and will continue to do so until a viable and renewable alternative to oil is found.
The Middle East continues (and will continue) to suffer from the Resource Curse, and as long as the those in power can leverage that power over their foreign and domestic policy, no change will happen.
As has been said by people as questionably intelligent as President G.W. Bush, the oil trade is key to sustained terror and oppression in the Middle East.
I'll tell you why... Our nation is one of the few that up holds a certain standard of freedom that is allotted to EVERY LEGAL AMERICAN, with that being said if we burn this book no longer can we turn our noses up at those around the world who burn our flags. We are no better than the heathens that burn our flag..... 8-)
Althermore reason to shift to a green economy.
You know, I'd never thought of renewable energy as being the remedy to terrorism, but it has a nice bumper-sticker ring to it. :P
In all seriousness, though, while I would agree that you'd limit, say, the Saudis' or Iran's ability to fund terrorist groups, I don't think you'd stamp out terrorism.
If it were about that, wouldn't the opposition use terror against the oppressors, and not the west?
They do both. When said oppressive government is being funded by another nation, you can understand a certain amount of backlash.
But then Iran and Saudia Arabia- and any number of other nations- do fund terrorist groups of their own ON TOP of that, of course.
Logically, yes. But in their point of view, it's Western consumerism/imperialism that funds/feeds their domestic oppression. If the West went away they think their dictators would throw gumdrops at protestors rather than bullets, or at the very least be easier to overthrow in the name of Allah (peace be on his name).
I don't know if I agree with "oppressing groups politically drives them to terrorism against their own countrymen" though. I mean, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two countries I know of off-hand who are pretty much agreed-upon as funding terrorism, but they don't have a big issue with domestic terrorism. Iraq and Afghanistan, on the other hand, who in principle allow for dissenting opinions and representative government, suffer acts of domestic terrorism on a daily basis.
I find this line of reasoning very sketchy and presumptuous of terrorists' motivations.
I'd elaborate, but I'm supposed to be taking an online test right now. >_<
It is a little presumptuous I admit, but my general aim was to say that they use the "idea" of the West as being the root of their evils. That their problems would be easier to deal with if we weren't oppressing them by proxy, propping up local dictators and what have you.
Shh . . . don't let the neocons hear you.
But yes, completely.
I don't think the concept of "terror" will ever be eradicated from the human psyche, but I certainly think the conditions that foster widespread terrorism can certainly be reduced if not eliminated altogether. State sponsorship (or blind eyes) are a big part of these conditions, which is basically what all of the Middle East is engaged in to differing degrees. You have your obvious instigators like Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon, your passive tolerators like Jordan, the Emirates, Yemen, and finally the anti-terror states that are still oppressive as hell in Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
Basically it's just Turkey and Israel holding a torch for secular tolerance, and that's a stretch in both cases.
Regardless, there are always going to be people willing to do stupid shit for a stupid cause. Just look at the dumbass in Washington that threw acid on herself in hopes that Oprah would put her on the show where she could talk about Jesus. The best we can hope for is a state that doesn't foster or support terror, or even go out of its way to stamp it out.
Like, I would right now settle for an Iran that just said, "Okay jihadis, if we catch you, you're going to jail. We're not actually going to go looking for you, but we're still going to pay lip service to the idea that murdering others for religious reasons is stupid. Even though we really don't think so, just don't be so brazen about it. Keep that shit indoors."
Instead it's a real place where suicide bombers are given memorial parades and children's TV shows preach hate and genocide.
doesn't really make up for the shitstorm, but hah
Edit: For a more enforce-able example, charging costs to protest organizers.
I don't know, did anyone need specific police protection for that? I see it as on the same level as billing idiots who ill-advisedly and ill-preparedly go hiking in the woods and get lost, necessitating a helicopter pulling them out of some gorge in the arse end of nowhere.
The last thing we need is people being put into bankruptcy because they're expressing constitutionally-protected views. Talk about letting the terrorists win . . . .
That sounds more like Gaza. Not Iran.
And hey, it's not like U.S. doesn't support terrorism either. It just does it in a covert fashion. It's not like U.S. doesn't have a large sub-set of it's population throwing their support behind abortion clinic bombers, Israel, air strikes against Iraqi cities, or whatever. United States is responsible of far, far, far worse things then Iran ever has been. Iran just does it's terrible things in a far cruder and more obvious fashion.
They do. They also target perceived foreign powers, but bombing campaigns in Egypt are hardly unknown. You just don't hear about it, because political leaders being bombed and shot at in the third world is just, well, not new and not news.
So that's Egypt, which is nominally democratic but authoritarian in practice. The practice of opposition has nominal legitimacy, after all. Saudi Arabia, with its wholly absolute monarchy, tends to have its domestic terrorism directed at foreigners in the country instead.
e:
Comparing to Iraq and Afghanistan - governments whose stability are themselves rather tenuous - may be misleading. Compare with other governments in the region, like Egypt, Kuwait, the UAE, etc.
Saudi Arabia has the characteristic of being centralized but without having actual monolithic authority, too - to put it concretely, the Saudi royal family has trouble keeping check of what causes its numerous members like to back. Note that Iran does suffer from domestic terrorism, including bombing campaigns.
Don't be silly. Real christians would never do that.
I reckon you could get any soldier worth the title to denounce soldiers killing civilians for fun. As demonstrated by the fact that they were reported by a soldier.
That you seem to think that would be exceptional says more about your prejudices & the sterotypes you seem to believe in than it does about soldiers.
I vote that we change the thread's title to Christians vs America ... since that's what most here really want to talk about.
Air strikes aren't terrorism there Chrystal.
I was in the military, I'll say killing civilians for fun is wrong. Not that it doesn't happen in war though.
Terrorism is not the only wrong thing, or the worst thing in the world. I rate bombing busy cities somewhere along the same scale.
If you're going to lump any overt act of declared war, "terrorism," then I think our dialogue here is going to get very parsed and clumsy.
Remember how the Allies "terrorized" Germany by liberating France?
Devil's advocate: was Dresden terrorism?
DarkCrawler isn't calling bombing campaigns terrorism (though I think a case could be made).
A soldier sawing off the head of a random jackass to terrorism the populace, that's a war crime. You doing the same thing in Times Square and claiming you will do the same to all conservatives, that's terrorism.
Though the act is the same, the reasons, logic, and motive are not. And, like it or not, a uniformed soldier commands a respect a civilian does not, and with it comes certain rules. Hence why the really iffy issue of private contractors or spec ops forces operating with no uniform and outside of the norm (which would be a good thread, I shall make it).
If the Chinese were ever to invade and take over (yes I know it's bullshit) their soldiers are governed by certain laws. Direct acts of war are fine, and legal. But you really wouldn't expect recorded decapitations because they are actual soldiers. You can expect them to give you aid, and they would go out of their way not to kill you. No military, outside of LOL Muslims, is going to engage in that sort of jackassery via official sanction.
Now a non uniformed fuckwit, that just happened to grab a gun and sharp piece of metal and is out own his own crusade, probably will.
This is why we have rules for shit. An Iraqi army commando blowing up a military convey, act of war, it's legal and it's legit. Him doing the same to an aid mission, war crime. You doing both, terrorism, depending on your motives.
(I have my own reason, but I'm curious)
As an aside I bet I can get you to acknowledge that 'soldier' itself is a really, really vague term.
Anyhow, perhaps arguing over what is or is not terrorism would better be done in it's own thread.
To stop rampant chaos?
A soldier, or government agent, is given the right to kill others of the same status, and if needed civilian actors up to no good. As a result, we have very specific rules governing their functions in society, we strip them of many fundamental rights, and we have laws that apply only to them to hold them accountable.
This is a societal contract, and like or not, soldier is the original and most important job. Without them, nothing else is possible.
Any person can give up their rights, and obey that code of law, and dawn a uniform or get a badge. Once done so they have a code to up hold, and they have rules that will govern their life, and they give up many freedoms.
A random jackass that just picks up a weapon and acts out on his on whim, for his own goals, or the goals of other jackasses, is not the same on any level. He has no such societal contract, nor do the rules and codes of a soldier apply to him.
This doesn't mean that there aren't jackass soldiers, or that their aren't good men among rogues, both happen, all to frequently. But at the end of the day you know the rules of a soldier and he is bound by strict rules of how to treat you, and how to deal with you. A random fuck head is not.
This is why the Michgan Militia is consisdered a terror, and rogue organisation. But the national guard is not.
For a more specific request: what's the difference (recall, legally) between the Taliban today and the Northern Alliance in September/October of 2001? Because if it's purely about ideology, we have a problem with terrorism being a nebulous word that is used to gain popular support for whatever policy the government likes.
Edit: I'd argue that the Taliban who are trying to retake Afghanistan are closer to rebels/freedom fighters than terrorists. Though their close ties with Al Qaeda has made them indistinguishable