Does the Afghans have the right to kills American soldiers?

Simple question really:

Do Afghans have a legitimate right to fight, kill any and all American soldiers in Afghanistan?

Pros and Cons.

Trolls Welcome.

My thoughts, yes they do.

The reason is debatable.

What do you guys think?

oz

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".

Yeah, I have to agree. They do have a right.

If they are being shot at, they got a right to shoot back.

If its war, it is acceptable.

VVV

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?

They'd only shoot them because they hate our freedom, so naturally, no, since freedom haters have no rights.

the american have no right to invade any country like this...

so of course the afghan have right to defend their country...

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:

The Afghanis have every right to kill and maim as many coalition soldiers .as they can.
We are the agressors and invaders.
Though the US goverment is trying a young man for just that,it seems rather hypocritical of them to do so.
In fact it is another example of US arrogance.
No country has the right to detain people from another country by going there, and kidnapping them.
I would say that the Iraqis,Afghanis,and any other country who is under attack has the right to shoot back..
The actions of the US in the foriegn policy department have shown the world that it is just as evil and corrupt as the opposition;be it russia,china, or any other world power.
There will be a price amerika will have to pay for its adventures in empire building someday......perhaps soon too.

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.

Put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

A technically and militarily advanced country invades your homeland. What do you do? Surrender? Fight to protect your culture, your way of life, your dignity, etc?

I would fight. And so should these people whose country has been invaded by an offensive force.

I've seen enough videos of young US soldiers over there,and the things that are being done in what can only be described as a complete lack of understanding the culture being invaded. These actions are only creating more enemies of the US.. who maybe were not before the invasion and disrespectful behaviours of the invader force.

Originally posted by Tayesin
Put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

A technically and militarily advanced country invades your homeland. What do you do? Surrender? Fight to protect your culture, your way of life, your dignity, etc?

I would fight. And so should these people whose country has been invaded by an offensive force.

Since when was terrorism part of an individuals culture?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Since when was terrorism part of an individuals culture?

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are just a terms a government uses when they aren't confident about how to deal with a group they consider the enemy and must turn to propaganda rather than competent action.

The Crown liked to throw that around about America and Americans in the early days.

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" (

Would anyone have the right to attack an invading force that wasn't invited into their country? Yes, I believe they do.

Putting aside all the bad feelings about this crusade, the fact remains that the Americans are not there as guests to the Afghani people. To put it another way - If China occupied the US for geo-political reasons, do you think the US people would not find a reason to fight back?

Thought provoking thread Oozyism.

Cheers
Shane

Originally posted by EnlightenUp


The Crown liked to throw that around about America and Americans in the early days.

Good point, how many of our brave Hanoverian employees were shot from the cover of the forest, often from behind I'll wager.

Another hate America thread, oh goody, not sure how I'd start my day without one. We should either pull out, or just go ahead and let the air force do it's job. Showing propoganda films of someone saying what he said....hmmmm did he say that, or was he describing what he does with his goat, maybe he was describing dinner, maybe he was describing how he choked his wife out for not having dinner ready....who knows.All in all, just more anti anything other than the U.S. propoganda...very poorly done, not evern cleverly worded......

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Since when was terrorism part of an individuals culture?

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are just a terms a government uses when they aren't confident about how to deal with a group they consider the enemy and must turn to propaganda rather than competent action.

The Crown liked to throw that around about America and Americans in the early days.

I'm not sure how you can say that the Taliban aren't an enemy but hey there you go....