Does the Afghans have the right to kills American soldiers?, page 1

reply to post by oozyism

---

I guess they have as much right and more aptitude than the French did in WW2, interesting point you raise I'd always just assumed they did for fairly obvious reasons, lol not that guys who face obliteration every moment of their lives would be afraid of being charged if it turned out to be a "crime".

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

---

Does having the right to do something, means it is the 'right' thing to do?

Why is it called a right? Does that mean it is the right thing?

reply to post by EnlightenUp

---

[sarcasm the above post]

That being said, I feel for Afghans, you know for some years, there was no violence in Afghanistan, nor any resistance? Do you guys remember that, what do you think happened?

Everyone was sick of conflict and let Americans do their thing, in the hope of having a stable government, economy, stable country as a whole.

Instead they got drugs, heavy corruption (corruption means anything goes, for money).. And they got this:

reply to post by oozyism

---

Just what were they carving next to the doorway?



ETA: Looking at it closer, it looks like it could even be a star of David.

reply to post by oozyism

---

Thanks for the vid oozy, terrible times but I really enjoyed the music.

reply to post by oozyism

---

It's a right to do so. Not a privelage.

They are basically being invaded by coalition forces, so yes they have a right to defend themselves.

Is it the "right" thing to do? Is it the "right" thing to invade their country? Does America have a "right" to invade Afghanistan?

Should they just stand there and get shot? I don't think so.

VVV

reply to post by oozyism

---

I don't think anyone has a "right" to kill another human being, although I think that everyone is entitled to protect themselves if their life is in danger and as such if someones trying to kill me then you better believe that I'm going to kill them before they suceed.

As VVV mentions above, it is a war after all.

Explanation: S&F!

Here is the independant standard I'm using to assess whether the issue raised is legal in a GLOBAL sense...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org]

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Tyranny (description) [freedictionary.com]

tyranny [ˈtɪrənɪ]
n pl -nies
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)
a. government by a tyrant or tyrants; despotism
b. similarly oppressive and unjust government by more than one person
2. arbitrary, unreasonable, or despotic behaviour or use of authority the teacher's tyranny
3. any harsh discipline or oppression the tyranny of the clock
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political unit ruled by a tyrant
5. (Historical Terms) (esp in ancient Greece) government by a usurper
6. a tyrannical act
[from Old French tyrannie, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant]
tyrannous adj
tyrannously adv
tyrannousness n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Oppression (definition) [freedictionary.com]

oppression [əˈprɛʃən]
n
1. the act of subjugating by cruelty, force, etc. or the state of being subjugated in this way
2. the condition of being afflicted or tormented
3. the condition of having something lying heavily on one's mind, imagination, etc.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

So as for tyranny and oppression... well there was/is the totally corrupt voting discrepencies [very large ones! o ] that have recently taken place in Afghanistan and the US backs the current regime under Mr Karzai with the forceful might of the US military apparatus and has done so for the past 8+yrs!

Fraud shadow over Afghanistan vote count (Last Modified: 19 Sep 2010 12:29 GMT) [english.aljazeera.net]

Peter Galbraith, the former UN deputy special representative for Afghanistan, who was sacked for having complained about fraud in last year's presidential vote, said the elections were "significantly fraudulent".

"This is hardly the voice of the Afghan people," he told Al Jazeera.

"Very few Afghans voted. The estimates are in the range of three million. A year ago, there were six million votes even removing the one and a half million that were fake Karzai [Afghan president] votes."

Galbraith's comments came as General David Petraeus, commander of Nato and US forces in Afghanistan, and Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, both congratulated Afghans for their courage in participating in the elections.

"I am interested in the optimistic statements that have been made both by General Petraeus and the UN because a year ago, they were exactly the same kind of optimistic statements even though it was clear that there had been massive fraud," Galbraith said.

Afghan votes sold to highest bidder (by Amanda Hodge, Kabul September 21, 2010 12:00AM ) [theaustralian.com.au]

Mr Mir said he was disappointed by the low voter turnout, which he estimated could even have dipped below 20 per cent in Kabul city, indicating a deep apathy and disillusionment.

One international NGO observer said the going price for a single vote was 300 ($7) to 500 Afghanis. "It's quite a marketplace now," the observer told The Australian yesterday.

"I think this system, the kind of monetisation of politics here, has become much more pronounced since the last election."

A large number of violent incidents witnessed by independent election observers involved not the Taliban but warlords, local powerbrokers and militia seeking to influence the poll result.

Afghanistan [wiki]

Since the late 1970s Afghanistan has experienced a continuous state of civil war punctuated by US secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet afghan regime in 1979 and following 6 months later occupations in the forms of the 1979 Soviet invasion and the October 2001 US-led invasion that overthrew the Taliban government. In December 2001, the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to help maintain security and assist the Karzai administration. The country is being rebuilt slowly with support from the international community and dealing with Taliban insurgency.

Personal Disclosure: Australia has [through recently heavily engaging the "enemy" (<=== term used very loosely OK!) ] been losing Diggers [including several Digger Dogs ] and Australian soldiers are DEFINATELY NOT Americans, regardless of our ally status with the US! But I don't hate the Afghanis for doing what they are doing and although I am not a big fan of the US currently [Don't visit then Mr. President! ] ... I don't hate them either [for dragging Australia into this quagmire, although I conceed that under Howard we literally ran after Bush/Cheney/USA's beck and call! ] as Australia is big and old enuff now to decide for itself what it does and to take care of itself... and as a matter of fact... so is Afghanistan!

Why would that be OL?

Because they are cluey enuff to spin a profit from their votes! ... Thats WHY!

Alert: Possible Terror-related activity in NW Ohio
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags

\'Bin Laden died of natural causes\'
  Posted 8 days ago with 17 member flags

Insider Information - Contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan, crimes against humanity
  Posted 14 days ago with 9 member flags

Was it a drone that almost caused mid-air over Denver?
  Posted 11 days ago with 9 member flags

U.S. government smear campaign against reporters exposing the drone wars
  Posted 14 days ago with 8 member flags

CIA/Mossad plan to NUKE NYC July 4th, 2012 or 2013 Times Scare "Ball Drop"?
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags

Chicago Hospitals Prepare for MAY 20-21 2012 NATO Summit \'Bomb\' Attack, Martial Law \'Red Zone\'
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags

US shadow war in Horn of Africa revealed by blogger
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: