Does the Afghans have the right to kills American soldiers?

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by oozyism

 

NO humans have no right to kill each other.
2nd

Humans should have a right to defend themselves, their family, and their country. As much as I wish we did, we dont live in a perfect world or country for that matter. Besides that, what gives the US the right to invade and occupy another country? Their people shouldnt be able to fight back? What would the USA do if another country decided they want to invade and occupy us? Shouldnt we have the right to fight back?

This whole America = the world mentality that we Americans have needs to change. Were ranked 25th in education and were no where near the top of the food chain anymore. You people need to wake up and take a look around at what America has actually become and you dont even need to look any further than the G20 in Pittsburgh. Did you enjoy watching people beaten and arrested for gathering to protest?

i would say, yes, they have a right, like anyone to kill anyone in a godless world.

but then you will have a sh## storm of payback from the troops.

i say we get right down there and cut their heads off and put it on you tube, just like them.

play by their rules.

our tech and their brutality, awesome combo!

In response to Maslo and nagabonar and others that have invoked the regime change argument:

The regime change argument, put forward by the Bush and Blair administrations and parroted by opinion makers, especially on the right, while on the surface appears to be a reasonable argument -- we all agree the Taliban and Saddam governments were barbaric -- suffers from two main problems.

First, regime change is not a legitimate justification for military action. Let me say it again: forcible regime change is unlawful. It's easier to think it's not such a big deal to remove another country's government when we're dealing with barbaric regimes, but that is the law.

And second, if you accept regime change, within the context of the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as legitimate, you have to consider that forcible regime change in the United States, or any other western country, by foreign powers is as legitimate. Both have exactly the same basis in international law: none.

Yup. As long as it's done in the name of something greater than yourself. Religion, Country, Family. All of these are good reasons to fight, kill and/or maim other people. If it's good enough for the American soldier, it's good enough for the Afghan soldier.

All's fair in love and war.

A lot of people here don't seem to understand exactly what is going on in Afghanistan or why we are even in Afghanistan.

I will try to clear up some misconceptions.

Right now the USA is fighting the Taliban.

The Taliban is the former legitimate government in Afghanistan that USA overthrew and replaced with a democracy, When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan they put Afghanistan under Sharia Law which is basically an extremely harsh and cruel interpretation of the Koran.

The Taliban are fighting to expel USA forces from Afghanistan and to overthrow the democratic government of Afghanistan on the belief that the democratic government of Afghanistan is a USA puppet government.

Al Quaeda is an International terrorist organization whose goal is to spread ISLAM through the use of terror and destroy what they call the enemies of Islam which they define as treacherous Orientals and world Jewry. Basically most of the western world.

Al Quaeda has launched attacks against Chinese workers in Africa, Japanese oil tankers, the world trade center and the British subway system.

reply to post by Returners

And none of that speaks to the legitimacy of regime change.

More, none of what you have written addresses the question being raised by the OP. Are you trying to say the Afghans have no right to fight the occupying forces because we're trying to bring them "democracy"? What is your position?

Maybe a better question would be "Is our troops in danger?" Or perhaps "Does we even have the right to be there and everywhere like such as?" Probably will lose points for this.

reply to post by KerbDune

First, regime change is not a legitimate justification for military action. Let me say it again: forcible regime change is unlawful. It's easier to think it's not such a big deal to remove another country's government when we're dealing with barbaric regimes, but that is the law.

I am not that familiar with international law, but is forcible regime change of regimes which break human rights (crimes against humanity) also unlawful? Was the bombardment of Jugoslavia unlawful?
Even if it was, I dont think its important if its lawful according to some flawed international law, which everyone knows is a joke, and in reality might makes right. The question is, is it RIGHT or moral thing to do? Is it right and moral to ignore suffering of fellow humans under barbaric rule if we have the means to liberate them?

Saying that democratic nations do not have the right to overthrow barbaric dictatorships is like saying a man which sees a neighbour beating his wife in his house cannot help her because he will breach the neighbours property. Because we are all neighbours on this planet. Clearly, this is an absurd stance, yet this is exactly what stems from blindly following of such flawed version of international law. I would say that democratic nations are at least partially responsible for all suffering in barbaric countries around the world (N. Korea, S. Arabia, Palestine, Somalia, Darfur..) because they have the means to help (superior military to oppressors) but they ignore it. US is doing at least something, even if the intent may not be humanitarian, but more like greed and power, otherwise they would overthrow also S. Arabia, and not go after Iran first.

And second, if you accept regime change, within the context of the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as legitimate, you have to consider that forcible regime change in the United States, or any other western country, by foreign powers is as legitimate. Both have exactly the same basis in international law: none.

Sorry, but international law in its present stance is no more than a joke to me, if it says you cannot forcibly change any regime, even if it is commiting horrible crimes against humanity. I dont see any moral or humanitarian obligation to follow such a stupid and cruel law, no matter who or what international authority set it in place. If thats what really international law says, than I rather prefer old fashioned "might makes right".

If some western country openly breached basic human rights of its citizens, I would be all for liberating invasion too - see Nazi Germany.

reply to post by KerbDune

More, none of what you have written addresses the question being raised by the OP. Are you trying to say the Afghans have no right to fight the occupying forces because we're trying to bring them "democracy"? What is your position?

There are only 2 options:
1. Legal democratic afghan government which is supported by Coalition forces
2. Taliban dictatorship

Majority of ordinary afhgani people would choose 1., according to polls. Therefore anyone who fights against option 1. (effectively fighting FOR option 2.) is a traitor to the people trying to reinstall fallen dictator regime against the will of people, therefore the law, both legal law, since Taliban is no longer the government of Afghanstan, and moral law, is against him.

US forces are not occupying forces, because occupation implies majority of people and the local government do not agree with foreign military presence. Since both majority of ordinary afghans and democratic government agrees and supports coalition military presence there, it is not occupation. Now, Taliban, and everyone who fights for it is an occupant.

Originally posted by nagabonar
i see that most of the posters here defend the Afghans right to shoot back at the oppressors. However, one must remember that the Coalition forces are protecting and supporting an Afghan government, under which womans and girls actually can live like human beings and educate them selves.

I never understand why people use this line of argument.

We went into Afghanistan with the purpose of capturing Osama Bin Laden and his band of merry men.

It was nothing to do with liberating people from regimes or cultural differences.

There are plenty of places in the world that treat people badly but we don't go invading them do we ?

How different cultures want to do things is up to them. It's none of our business how they behave.

reply to post by Maslo


I hear what you are saying but where does it end ?

I work as a Care Assistant in a home for the elderly. I get paid minimum wage, there are staff shortages, the budget is being cut, there is talk of closing the unit. What will happen to the frail and vulnerable old folk ?

Meanwhile bankers and bond traders, footballers and politicians are paying themselves millions for doing nothing very important.

I live in a cruel, barbaric and unjust culture.

When will anyone arrive to invaded the UK and free us from this terrible oppression ?

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by Maslo

 

I hear what you are saying but where does it end ?

I work as a Care Assistant in a home for the elderly. I get paid minimum wage, there are staff shortages, the budget is being cut, there is talk of closing the unit. What will happen to the frail and vulnerable old folk ?

Meanwhile bankers and bond traders, footballers and politicians are paying themselves millions for doing nothing very important.

I live in a cruel, barbaric and unjust culture.

When will anyone arrive to invaded the UK and free us from this terrible oppression ?

Since when is right to be wealthy one of basic human rights? You cannot seriously compare your situation or situation of elderly persons in western world with the things that were taking place in Afghanistan?

en.wikipedia.org...

Is the government of UK actively trying to violate one of these? If yes, then I am all for overthrowing it (even militarily) just show us which one. Do not confuse simple unintentional breaking of your subjective moral laws with deliberate breaking of basic human rights as defined above.

Thank you for your civil response Maslo.

Originally posted by Maslo
I am not that familiar with international law [...]
I dont think its important if its lawful according to some flawed international law, which everyone knows is a joke [...]

Your words seem to be contradictory.

You admit you are not familiar with the law but yet you know it's "flawed" and that "everyone knows it's a joke". I'm aware what most people think of organizations, treaties or laws when they hear the word "international" or "United Nations", especially in this country, but maybe you should hold judgment until you have actually looked at it or gotten more familiar with it.

but is forcible regime change of regimes which break human rights (crimes against humanity) also unlawful? Was the bombardment of Jugoslavia unlawful?

Forcible regime change is unlawful regardless of the situation. You might disagree with this, and that is a perfectly legitimate argument and concern, but I'm simply expressing what the law currently says. If my country, or any other country which is signatory to these laws, doesn't agree with them it can suggest changes, amendments or can stop being a signatory. As far as I'm aware, neither the Bush or Obama administration have made any indications they wished to do so.

Keep in mind that many of the international laws I am talking about were championed and written by people of the United States. Seems a little hypocritical of us now to say we shouldn't care about them. No one forced us to enact these laws -- we came up with them, approved them and sign the treaties on our own free will.

Regarding your question of Yugoslavia, the Clinton administration at the time advocated for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to try the accused war criminals according to international law. The US government had also supported local pro-democracy people and movements in the region. Neither of these things were done with Afghanistan or Iraq.

The bombardment of Yugoslavia has then to be put in that context. People were declared to be criminals by the competent courts, and in accordance to international law, they were considered legitimate military targets. Again, none of this happened with Afghanistan or Iraq before or at the initiation of military action in these countries.

Saying that democratic nations do not have the right to overthrow barbaric dictatorships is like saying a man which sees a neighbour beating his wife in his house cannot help her because he will breach the neighbours property.

Maybe this stems from your, admittedly, lack of knowledge of international law and I will gladly try to explain the pertinent notions.

The fact that regime change is deemed unlawful in international law doesn't mean any sort of action is unlawful. There is basis and precedent for action in cases where human rights violations and other type of abuses have occurred. If the president, prime-minister, king, or a leader in any fashion of a country or territory is deemed to be a criminal, by a competent court in accordance to international law, he will be targeted for arrest and, depending on the circumstances, could be deemed a legitimate military target. It would most likely effectively result in regime change, as the people would have to vote for a new leader.

But the point is that regime change cannot be the reason for military action.

Regarding your example and comparison of seeing a neighbor beating his wife, I completely agree that we should intervene, but, I hope you realize as well, that no third party has the power or right to divorce the woman from his husband because of it -- unless requested by at least one of the parties directly involved in the incident -- and this is exactly how international law deals with the kind of disputes we are talking about here.

In sum, international law allows -- and demands in certain circumstances -- for action to be taken against aggressors, oppressors and criminals, but all following the same set of rules and laws we expect all countries to respect. Unfortunately, the US has not conducted itself in accordance to those standards when it comes to the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

reply to post by AndrewJay

Originally posted by AndrewJay
Humans should have a right to defend themselves, their family, and their country. As much as I wish we did, we dont live in a perfect world or country for that matter. Besides that, what gives the US the right to invade and occupy another country?

Nothing I was stating in general humans shouldnt kill it causes their density to be overtaken (lowered) easily by reptillian brain activities...

Originally posted by AndrewJay
Their people shouldnt be able to fight back?

An eye for an eye ALL DAY - still humans shouldnt kill. TO many kill planet becomes more reptillian density warrents cleansing process understand... To many acting like snakes

Originally posted by AndrewJay
What would the USA do if another country decided they want to invade and occupy us? Shouldnt we have the right to fight back?

The US would do what all other nations do when invaded defend. - Still feeding larger plan of assimulation reptillian soul process, ya may be going deep for these activities....

Originally posted by AndrewJay
This whole America = the world mentality that we Americans have needs to change. Were ranked 25th in education and were no where near the top of the food chain anymore. You people need to wake up and take a look around at what America has actually become and you dont even need to look any further than the G20 in Pittsburgh. Did you enjoy watching people beaten and arrested for gathering to protest

NO I dont approve of weak acting authority figures who set bad examples of those they protect and I was in Pittsburgh when it came.

Again my friend my statement is based on humanity not political locations HUMANS NEED TO STOP KILLING BEFORE THERE IS NO USE FOR THEM IF THEY ALL TURN REPTILLIAN SOULS - RIGHT-

NO I dont approve of weak acting authority figures who set bad examples of those they protect and I was in Pittsburgh when it came.

Again my friend my statement is based on humanity not political locations HUMANS NEED TO STOP KILLING BEFORE THERE IS NO USE FOR THEM IF THEY ALL TURN REPTILLIAN SOULS - RIGHT-

I was in Pittsburgh during the g20 as well. Thats where this country is going. We live in a FREE NATION with FREE SPEECH and people were beaten and jailed for protesting in a public place and nobody has an issue with that? Nobody wants to do anything about it? A woman was beaten to the ground by the police for no reason other than speaking her mind and the American people are OK with that?

People need to get their # straight and start waking up. This is the country we're going to leave to our children and if thats not important enough to give a damn about I dont know what is. I know what I seen in Pittsburgh and it wasnt America but it will be if people dont start speaking up and defending their rights.

reply to post by Maslo


Well I could find articles of the definition which are being broken, but I'm not here to argue. The example I used was a weak one, but to illustrate that it's difficult to draw the line where human rights are concerned. What might be acceptable to one person might not be acceptable to another.

Since you brought the Declaration of Human Rights up, when are we invading Israel ?

reply to post by AndrewJay


I think most are in fear and others are too intelligent to stand in the for front IT TAKES A CETRAIN GENETIC CODE TO MAKE CHANGES MANY FEAR TRYING...

well that is a strange questions to ask by the OP.

Personally no one has the right to take anothers life in any way shape or form. But is it reasonable for them to kill an invading force cause the Invaders blame one man and blame the actions of this man on an entire nation..."yea right"

The taliban almost had heroin completely stopped...and where the heck were the CIA going to get their illegal funds to finance all their black ops.

once again...we all know that this had all began under a false flag op.
but the question in the thread remains the same...NO ONE has the RIGHT to kill another....but should the afghans be forgiven...for killing invading forces....yes they should...and Remember this is not just americans being killed there....it is people of many nations...who are STUPIDLY listening to Governments who want this to continue...and now they are going to soon pull out of there leaving the country in tatters so they move on to their next false flag op. Iran....

when are the people of the world going to say...no to their governments as if no one went to fight on government or religious beliefs...would we all not be a little wee bit happier...

What a shame to be over there knowing there is a chance you might get killed for all the wrong reasons.

AND please dont come back with support your troops crap...as i too have family over there and i completely disagree...But at the same time hope and wish them the best.

The only thing I support is peace and if anyone has noticed...peace is not and never will be achieved through war.

Every person has the right to shoot at and kill an illegal invading force.

reply to post by Maslo


HAHAHAHA.. Did you say Democracy

What do the Afghans want?

They certainly don't want corruption and drugs.

So instead of asking do they want Americans or the Taliban, they should ask, do they want corruption and drugs, or Taliban.

Corruption means anything goes, you can practically murder a 2 year old kid, and get away with it in Afghanistan. You can rape and get away with it, you can buy candidates and get away with it, you can buy voters and get away with it.

I think you have no idea what corruption means, when there is corruption, there is no Democracy, for you to call this BS Democracy shows how ignorant of the situation you are.