Does the Afghans have the right to kills American soldiers?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
War is war and unfortunately it will always have innocent civilians but I really don't understand those on here who believe we are invading a country and purposefully killing innocent people.

We can always say that. Sure it sounds plausibly deniable. However, purposeful is really not something that should be attributed to it because really it amount to whatever is between "them", "they", "TPTB", "the moneyed interests", etc. and what they seek, civilians, fighters or however they would perchance be labeled. They're purposefully killing someone, whomever it may be, that is in the way. So, no, they're not purposefully killing civilians, just pushing aside some inconvenient biological matter.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


You've basically just said what I wrote but in a longer manner, at the end of the day war will always have innocent fatalities unfortunately, there isn't really anything we can do about that.

reply to post by Death_Kron


OK, here's two I pulled.

Cilivan causalities reach an all-time high

Afganistan Conflict Monitor

Wow, this is a surprisingly non-trollish thread so far! Awesome.

And I can just imagine the number puffing that occurs with some of the other causalities: "OK, he's near an AK-47, so he must be Taliban, so is this guy. This woman was near a truck-load of explosives, so let's mark her down as an insurgent as well..." It's like the Vietnam war all over again. Get out of the Middle East America! (respectfully)

Cheers
Shane

reply to post by Death_Kron


Perhaps longer (which I cannot quite see how it's longer, unless you meant you said it in a longer manner, which I think happened), but just saying it directly. Were I to be mysterious and not wishing to cast pearls before swine, you could not make heads or tails of it unless you were properly initiated. I'll save my Illuminati talk for the appropriate line of discourse.

ETA: Secondly, killing civilians and killing innocents are not equivalent. Some civilians can be guilty afterall. I'm not sure what you are sayin' when I scroll back to look.

I just ate waffles for breakfast, which was really a pre-bedtime snack.

reply to post by shamus78

Taliban and insurgent groups were responsible for 76 percent of the civilians killed this year, most of them victims of roadside and suicide bombs known as improvised explosive device (IED) attacks.

Pulled that from the first link you quoted.

It's a difficult subject, obviously I don't like to see innocent people being hurt/killed but you have to ask the question how would their life have been if our forces weren't over there in the first place, I'd say that most likely they would probably have been killed or lived a horrible live anyway.

You could argue that although that are innocent they have been unintentionally been set free, I know that sounds like a terrible thing to say but maybe it's the truth?

As I've already mentioned, I'm not that well clued up on the subject and as thus could be wrong in some of the things I'm saying but surely it would be better if some innocent people died and the conflict was eventually resolved than if we were never there in the first place and the people who weren't killed by coalition action suffered terrible hardship for the rest of their years?

I'm not on the ground in Afghan, I don't know how bad these people are being treated by the Taliban or what their living conditions are like. I could be completely wrong....

reply to post by oozyism


Considering we've killed just as many non threatening citizens as we have killed the "terrorists" there I do not see why they don't. If someone comes busting into your house threatening your life and family don't you have the right to shoot them? I don't want American soldiers to be killed bc our government uses them as pawns but the Afghans have the right to do as they are....we are on their turf...they aren't on ours.

reply to post by Death_Kron


True, Death_Kron. I don't for one minute believe that both sides aren't responsible for the civilain casualities. Both 'sides' in this silly war have committed atrocities, be it from the far off view point of a Predator drone, or the close quarter action of the Taliban.

I'm suggesting that the casualties would not have happened if the US had not leaped into action (for no real reason).

War is hell for both sides, and both sides are responsible for their actions.

But what would have happened if the US had never invaded? Could this mess had been resolved by internal, rather then external action? I personally think it could have been.

And absolutely, I agree. I'm not on the ground in Afghanistan, so have no real viewpoint on what they see and deal with on a daily basis.

I live with two refugees from this conflict, and they say that both of the sides are as bad as each other.

Loving the topic. Reasonable conversation is getting to be a rare thing on ATS

Cheers
Shane

reply to post by Death_Kron


So perhaps their lives are so pointless, trite and miserable we're doing them a favor? If they're being killed by the right people it could be considered a blessing of sorts. I see the point, I think.

reply to post by shamus78


Maybe your right that people lives would have been saved if the US hadn't got involved, like I said before I'm happy to admit that I don't know enough about the conflict to make an informed decision or stance that I could truly believe in.

It's sad that innocent people are being killed and/or injured and it's also sad that they have to live the way they do under the strict regimes of the Taliban.

From what I do know, I don't think the conflict will ever end as the Taliban are not going to give in and the US are not going to stop until they believe they have accomplished their mission. You can't win against people who has this sort of mindset, just like you can't beat a suicide fighter; he's ready to die for what he believes in and as such if you kill him then nothing has really been changed.

An alternative approach probably does need to be taken, what that approach is however I honestly couldn't tell you.

The whole affair gets a lot more complicated when you bring politics, religion and other external factors into the equation....

But your right, it's nice to have a debate on ATS without people resorting to insults or abuse, as you said it's becoming rare for that to happen on here recently

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

So perhaps their lives are so pointless, trite and miserable we're doing them a favor? If they're being killed by the right people it could be considered a blessing of sorts. I see the point, I think.

edit on 9/26/2010 by EnlightenUp because: (no reason given)

Yeah, I know it sounds a little morbid and un-human and I'm pretty shocked that I came out with it to be honest with you.

But after reading about the regime of the Taliban and how these people have to live then effectively they are being tortured day in - day out.

I'm not saying it's right for innocent people to be killed through any sort of conflict or war but what I'm alluding to is do these people have any sort of normal/happy life anyway? Therefore if they are killed they are effectively being set free, is that makes sense?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating killing anyone enduring hardship or killing anyone for any reason in fact, whether intentional or not. I'm just trying to adopt a realistic stance on a hellish situation that I'm sure some people have thought themselves but haven't had the nerve to actually say it...

I'm really sick and tired of people bashing America, you all are the first to come begging for help when crap hits the fan. All you haters want to do just that: SPREAD HATE. Its sickening.
Alot of you here talk about being 'enlightened' you definitely dont act like youre enlightened in any way shape and form.
Instead of focusing on the negative, why not focus on the POSITIVE things the Coalition has done since being in either country?

Here's a few videos to show the other side of things:






I think I made my point, but I will post more if I didnt

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Okay, I have used the terms civilians and innocents interchangeably, essentially I'm talking about innocent people who are not Taliban fighters i.e. people who have been killed in the "cross fire" and not guilty of any crime.

As I've already mentioned, this will always happen in any type of conflict/war/combat zone.

Well according to the US, it's a war...

... and it takes two for a war,

So why not?

Plus I reckon the majority of people who are "At war" with the soldiers in Afghanistan, are only fighting because they believe they are being invaded for no reason. And to me lately, that's what it looks like. So I think they're fighting for their country as much as anyone else....

reply to post by HomerinNC

Alot of you here talk about being 'enlightened' you definitely dont act like youre enlightened in any way shape and form.

I raise an objection to the validity of that statement. How would one that is not enlightened have the slightest clue about how someone who is enlightened is supposed to act when the entire experience is incomprehensible until such time as one has personally experienced it? Being a cranky bastard with an acerbic wit does at times result from its punishing effects.

Well, they have the power to give themselves the right too. But all in all, is killing someone in anyway right? Because it goes completely against the concept of having rights.

I don't think the question is formulated correctly but I'm going to interpret it as "do the Afghans have the right to fight the American soldiers?"

People who are quickly to label others and their opinions of believing Afghans have the right to fight the Americans as "bashing America" not only, I think, are acting on emotional and blind nationalistic impulses but show a lack of perspective. Obviously no one wants their fellow citizens to die but it's important that, first and foremost, we put things in perspective.

Imagine if a group of Americans, or not even necessarily American citizens but living in America, perpetrated a terrorist attack against China. How would you feel if China occupied the United States as a result of that? What about if China sent drones over Manhattan and killed one criminal with a missile strike, along with 7 civilians, because "well, innocent people die during wars"? Would you join the resistance? Would you fight the Chinese occupation?

Conspiracies aside, military action in Afghanistan was necessary -- we were told -- to fight, capture and eliminate the people who orchestrated 9/11. The United States, and allied forces, have effectively occupied a country to fight a minority of the population that engaged in criminal behavior. The military reaction to the problem was and is disproportionate, and probably unlawful.

Under international law the inhabitants of an occupied country or territory have the right to organize a resistance and fight the occupying forces. Have the resistance movements followed the rules of armed conflict? Probably not, but there's plenty more justification for the type of armed resistance the Afghans are engaged in than for what the United States has done -- preemptive war, use of mercenaries to participate in the hostilities, torture, drone attacks by civilian personnel (CIA), just to name a few.

reply to post by KerbDune


Outstanding post,



Sometimes many forget that by now after all this years of Afghanistan and Iraq occupation the two wars original intentions has lost their luster, no only many civilians has been killed but too many of our American soldiers.

They can get up one day and join the insurgency if they like, it doesn’t make it a clever thing to do.

They have as much of a "right" (which is both a hilariously and disgustingly inaccurate word to use, by the way) to kill us, as we do them.

We are a hostile force, occupying their country. Whether we are doing more harm than good is a part of a HUGE debate, but the fact of the matter is, there are those in that country that do not want us there, and will fight back to remove us.

After all that we've done to them, they'd be fools not to defend themselves anyways..