Afghanistan

[theprestige]

References?

Especially references.

 

[Ziggurat]

Breathtaking in its ignorance.

How many Al Qaeda attacks have there been, and how many killed - apart from 9/11?

I can't be bothered checking,

You can’t be bothered to check, but you want to lecture others about ignorance? Wow. I admit, I did not see that coming.

 

[Orphia Nay]

While there's no doubt some elements of the Taliban are indulging in sadistic fantasies, they're certainly trying to stand up to criticism as a government:

Afghan universities will be segregated by gender, and a new Islamic dress code will be introduced, the Taliban has said.

Higher Education Minister Abdul Baqi Haqqani indicated women would be allowed to study, but not alongside men.

That's a 1000% improvement on their previous position of not allowing women to study at all.

And an interesting side-note in that story:

The announcement comes after a demonstration by women supportive of the Taliban's gender policies at Shaheed Rabbani Education University in Kabul yesterday.

Hundreds of women, most of them wearing black niqabs and carrying small Taliban flags, listened to speeches that praised the new regime and attacked those involved in large demonstrations across the country demanding the protection of women's rights.

Higher Education Minister Abdul Baqi Haqqani indicated women would be allowed to study, but not alongside men.

Thanks for trying to stay on topic.

Yes, some things have changed a lot in 20 years, even if some things haven't.

Also of note,

"The newly installed minister also said that the subjects taught in universities will be reviewed. He told reporters that the Taliban wanted to "create a reasonable and Islamic curriculum that is in line with our Islamic, national and historical values and, on the other hand, be able to compete with other countries"."

I wonder what that will mean.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I wholeheartedly agree. I would respect a political party that espoused the goals while repudiating terrorism as a tool to achieve those goals. Sinn Fein didn't do that. As you say, they affiliated with the IRA.

Actually, yes, they did.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-09-02-9809020076-story.html

Usually the emissary of an enemy army, sent to negotiate terms under flag of truce, is well-understood to be a member of that army and a party to their aggression.

Only if the other side recognises that it is an army. The British government did not recognise the IRA as an army, only as terrorists.
Interestingly, so did you, until this last point.
Which are they- an army or a terrorist organisation?

Carrot and stick are well-recognized tools of extortion. The extortionist that offers the carrot as an alternative is complicit in the same extortion racket as his partner who is offering the stick.

Sinn Fein wasn't a disinterested third party, trying to bring peace as a neutral facilitator of negotiations. They were the IRA's political arm, trying to advance a terrorist agenda by offering more terrorism as an alternative to negotiating with them.

Not really, no. They wanted Northern Ireland to be reunited with Eire. That is not, in itself, a terrorist agenda.
I see no real issue with trying to do this by political means, either. Negotiation is negotiation: extortion is something different. It would be just as easy to argue that the British government was doing exactly the same thing.
The accords actually happened, and actually worked, because both sides stepped away from the kind of inflammatory language and entrenched hostility that you are displaying here.
Thankfully.

I'm not saying you should never negotiate with terrorists. I'm just saying you should be clear that's what's going on.

And I would not characterise your post here as 'knowing what's going on'.

 

[Ziggurat]

"The newly installed minister also said that the subjects taught in universities will be reviewed. He told reporters that the Taliban wanted to "create a reasonable and Islamic curriculum that is in line with our Islamic, national and historical values and, on the other hand, be able to compete with other countries"."

I wonder what that will mean.

It means he's admitting it will be religiously dogmatic but he still wants to pretend that they will be competitive even though obviously they won't be.

 

[abaddon]

References?

Is your google broken?

Just take one single attack, for example. Madrid 2004. 193 dead in a single Al Qaeda attack. That one attack blows The Atheist's claim out of the water (haha) on it's lonesome.

Want more? I got them. But you could look them up yourself were you vaguely motivated.

 

[Ziggurat]

Breathtaking in its ignorance.

How many Al Qaeda attacks have there been, and how many killed - apart from 9/11?

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Why should we exclude 9/11 in our considerations of the risk that Al Qaeda poses? That doesn't actually make any sense.

 

[abaddon]

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Why should we exclude 9/11 in our considerations of the risk that Al Qaeda poses? That doesn't actually make any sense.

It's even more nonsensical than that. Not only does our protagonist want to exclude 911, he wants to exclude any attack not on western soil. Thus the Bali bombings are excluded, The USS Cole is excluded. And so on. Also, deaths of brown people must be excluded because they simply do not count as people. Or victims. Or deaths.

 

[theprestige]

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Why should we exclude 9/11 in our considerations of the risk that Al Qaeda poses? That doesn't actually make any sense.

Well, it is interesting that even without their big one-time set piece, AQ still beat sharks by two decimal places.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, yes, they did.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-09-02-9809020076-story.html

Yeah, after almost a hundred years of being the terrorist political wing, they finally gave up. So yes, I will concede that after 1998, some terrorist affiliates renounced their affiliation in a (largely successful) attempt to avoid being caught up in any eventual Nuremburg for their complicity in terrorism.

Only if the other side recognises that it is an army. The British government did not recognise the IRA as an army, only as terrorists.
Interestingly, so did you, until this last point.
Which are they- an army or a terrorist organisation?

Please don't do this. A fighting force is a fighting force. The emissaries of a fighting force are part of that force. A terrorist organization is just an army that commits the war crime of not observing the principle of military distinction. My argument does not depend on the UK government officially declaring "that's an army!". You know this.

Not really, no. They wanted Northern Ireland to be reunited with Eire. That is not, in itself, a terrorist agenda.

Don't do this. The terrorist agenda was using terrorism to pursue this goal. You know this.

I see no real issue with trying to do this by political means, either. Negotiation is negotiation: extortion is something different. It would be just as easy to argue that the British government was doing exactly the same thing.

I am indeed open to the argument that the British government engaged in terrorism during the conflict.

The accords actually happened, and actually worked, because both sides stepped away from the kind of inflammatory language and entrenched hostility that you are displaying here.

Sinn Fein and the IRA tried to have it both ways: Terrorism, and negotiations to stop the terrorism. Another word for that is extortion. Sinn Fein was a party to that extortion racket.

Thankfully.

I believe it's possible to be thankful for the outcome and also honest about what happened and who was involved.

And I would not characterise your post here as 'knowing what's going on'.

I'm aware of the nature of our disagreement. If we can at least agree that Sinn Fein was indeed affiliated with terrorists from roughly 1905 to 1998, I'm happy.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm aware of the nature of our disagreement. If we can at least agree that Sinn Fein was indeed affiliated with terrorists from roughly 1905 to 1998, I'm happy.

No, and it would really help your position if you did some actual research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sinn_Féin

 

[Arcade22]

Yeah I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who is obviously insane and genuinely thinks 9/11 and other Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks aren't a threat sufficient enough to warrant a military response.

Terrorists killing (and continuing to kill) hundreds and even thousands of people at once in countries around the world is just a "nothing burger" that we can't do anything about.

 

[Michel H]

Is your google broken?

Just take one single attack, for example. Madrid 2004. 193 dead in a single Al Qaeda attack. That one attack blows The Atheist's claim out of the water (haha) on it's lonesome.

Want more? I got them. But you could look them up yourself were you vaguely motivated.

So, to try to justify your claim of approximately 4813 fatalities from Al Qaeda attacks:

Al Quaeda attack fatalities 2000-2016 = 4813 approx (excluding 9/11 of course)

you just quote the 193 fatalities from the Madrid train bombings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings).

How serious is this? (this doesn't seem very serious to me). If you make a claim, it is up to you to back it up.

The attack in Spain indicates that the U.S. illegal invasions of 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq) did not neutralize Al Qaeda (this was obviously to be expected: how can one hope to defeat an international jihadist organization by just invading Afghanistan?), but may in fact have stimulated them and made them more dangerous:

The bombings constituted the deadliest terrorist attack carried out in the history of Spain and the deadliest in Europe since 1988.[4] The official investigation by the Spanish judiciary found that the attacks were directed by Al-Qaeda in Iraq,[5][6] allegedly as a reaction to Spain's involvement in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings).

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Michel H- I agree that the legal justification for the Iraq invasion was highly dubious, but I'm not sure about Afghanistan. On what grounds do you say it was illegal?

 

[theprestige]

Michel H- I agree that the legal justification for the Iraq invasion was highly dubious, but I'm not sure about Afghanistan. On what grounds do you say it was illegal?

The invasion of Iraq was backed by UNSC resolutions and a voluntary coalition of like-minded sovereign states. I have yet to see a higher legal authority for invasion of a sovereign state than that.

 

[Michel H]

Michel H- I agree that the legal justification for the Iraq invasion was highly dubious, but I'm not sure about Afghanistan. On what grounds do you say it was illegal?

Because the United Nations Charter states that;

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

(https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law.../prohibited-and-permissible-use-law-essay.php).

The invasion of Afghanistan was neither in self-defense against an armed attack by Afghanistan (as a country) against the U.S. nor authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force.

One might say that the 2001 attack in the U.S. was itself a revenge attack by Muslims who felt persecuted by the U.S., who were themselves acting in self-defense. Indeed, we do know that this was bin Laden's point of view:

God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the US Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

— Osama bin Laden, 2004

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden).

According to American journalist Chris Hedges:

We Americans kill with an inchoate fury. The evil we do is the evil we get

(https://www.rt.com/op-ed/534562-al-qaeda-americans-terrorism/).

So, I believe that the best method for the U.S., to protect its citizens is to stop constantly implementing policies which generate anger and unnecessary suffering throughout the world (economic sanctions, massive support for the occupying power Israel, too frequent use of military methods, stockpiling of nuclear bombs, excessive military spending ...). This is, I think, the right approach, which could produce really good results.

There is some limited improvement with the current Biden administration, but this limited improvement is not enough, in my opinion.

 

[The Atheist]

I will take that bet.

Cool - how much do you want on it?

I'll put up a gorilla right now.

Al Quaeda attack fatalities 2000-2016 = 4813 approx (excluding 9/11 of course)

It is like you never check anything, ever.

Oh I just love it when people PWN themselves without any input from me at all.

I did state "in the western world" and I think your figures are nonsense, so as just asked, please provide evidence for your outlandish claim.

Here's a handy list to start with: https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-56711920110502

Since 9/11, I can see 45 in the UK and not much else.

Sharks looking good at this stage.

Try reading next time.

 

[The Atheist]

You can’t be bothered to check, but you want to lecture others about ignorance? Wow. I admit, I did not see that coming.

Except, it turns out I was pretty close to the mark.

Al Qaeda attacks on the west have killed about 200, while sharks are known to have killed half that number, with unquestionably many more not known.

It's even more nonsensical than that. Not only does our protagonist want to exclude 911, he wants to exclude any attack not on western soil. Thus the Bali bombings are excluded, The USS Cole is excluded. And so on. Also, deaths of brown people must be excluded because they simply do not count as people. Or victims. Or deaths.

What utter bollocks.

The question was about western retaliation for Al Qaeda attacks. Since we know from Rwanda, CAR, Zimbo, China and numerous other countries, the west doesn't involve itself in wars where brown and black people are dying.

And as to deaths, your position is laughable. Take all Al Qaeda deaths and it will be a fraction of the lives lost in or due to the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Look, numbers!

The war on Afghanistan cost in excess of $2T and 7000 American lives directly lost during the Afghanwar.

Since A'stan and Iraq 30,000 US grunts have topped themselves.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military/killed

Yet, here you and a couple of other notables are, claiming the war was morally right and saved lives.

I call ******** on that.

Terrorists killing (and continuing to kill) hundreds and even thousands of people at once in countries around the world is just a "nothing burger" that we can't do anything about.

There are stupid positions to espouse, then there are idiotic ones.

I've stated it now several times - if USA stopped encouraging others to attack it due to its indiscriminate killing of brown people, they wouldn't attack America.

The thing America could do is keep its vile military-industrial complex out of other countries.

And while you're wallowing in your faux righteousness, ask yourself what the west is doing to stop Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and other groups that only kill black people.

 

[dudalb]

I note a line has been passed. One of the pro Taliban defenders here has pretty much stated that the 9/11 attacks were justified.
I knew it would come to this.just a matter of when.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except, it turns out I was pretty close to the mark.

Al Qaeda attacks on the west have killed about 200, while sharks are known to have killed half that number, with unquestionably many more not known.

"Unquestionably"? I question it, very much.

And why the restriction to just the west? Why exclude 9/11? Might as well exclude shark attacks that happen in waters deeper than 5 feet for your comparison.

The question was about western retaliation for Al Qaeda attacks. Since we know from Rwanda, CAR, Zimbo, China and numerous other countries, the west doesn't involve itself in wars where brown and black people are dying.

This is rich, given that you apparently don't even want us to. After all, you've excluded Al Qaeda murders outside the west, because apparently you don't think they matter.

The war on Afghanistan cost in excess of $2T and 7000 American lives directly lost during the Afghanwar.

Since A'stan and Iraq 30,000 US grunts have topped themselves.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military/killed

Yet, here you and a couple of other notables are, claiming the war was morally right and saved lives.

Pearl Harbor only killed 3,000 US troops. But WW2 killed over 400,000 US troops. I guess that means we should have stayed out of the war. Hitler really wasn't so bad. And he did have grievances against the Jews.

I've stated it now several times - if USA stopped encouraging others to attack it due to its indiscriminate killing of brown people, they wouldn't attack America.

This is stupid and wrong.

History quiz: what was the first foreign war that the US was involved in?

And while you're wallowing in your faux righteousness, ask yourself what the west is doing to stop Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and other groups that only kill black people.

Once again, you didn't bother to check, did you? Here's but one example, easily located:
https://prnigeria.com/2019/02/27/us-mnjtf-intelligence-insurgency/