some more taliban questions.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

apologies if this is going over old ground again, i have some questions. i am not necessarily for or against anything, because the truth is, i really do not know.

How would the removal of the Taliban be different to the removal of, say, Allende?

do you think the Taliban should be removed from power? this isn't necessarily (although it could be linked) to logistics, like decentralized and localized power there. should 'we' really choose regimes that 'we' like?

to those who oppose any action (i would particularly like Ed to answer this question, as i believe he will respond with a coherent argument). do you believe action of any sort should be taken? what action? this i ask, because i had a discussion with a housemate re: the taliban about 8 months ago (specifically about those big chain e-mails that go round periodically). i wasn't sure at the time it was right to 'do anything', she was adamant in that action towards removal should take place. since the WTC attacks though, she is now vehemently opposed to any action in Afghanistan. she has not posited any alternatives. i have been told i want to 'discuss' too much, that action is what counts. but i am not clear on what this action actually was (a peace walk i think). i tend to think more 'discussion' is better, even if only to clarify your own position. i have also been told that 'it is not religious'. i cannot agree with this position at all, but then my own stance has always been anti-religion. how can somebody think that. is there any truth in that? am i missing something?

to those in favour of removal (or at least action), how do 'we' deal with a) the perceived illegitimacy of the bombing, b) the support the Taliban has outside of afghanistan.

i feel fatalistic because whatever is suggested seems counter-productive, so i can't even form my own opinion.

― gareth, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Allende was democratically elected whereas the Taleban came to power through having the biggest stick.

― Richard Tunnicliffe, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Allende wasn't sponsoring the mass murder of Americans.

― scott, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i know, but is still the removal of something usa disagree/d with? I chose Allende precisely for this reason (i'm disgusted by what happened there - esp as led to the installment of Pinochet), while i detest the Taliban for obvious reasons, but will a replacement western endorsed Gov have more or less legitimacy than the Taliban (i do not know, as Taliban foreign backed imperialists also)

― gareth, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

she is now vehemently opposed to any action in Afghanistan. she has not posited any alternatives.

In that case, don't let her off the hook. In fact, directly tell her that if she has no alternatives then implicitly she wants to do nothing. If that pisses her off, good -- it'll make her think more about what *can* be done, and it need not be militaristic.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I have to start by explaining my first principles, what I believe if you will.

I beleive that every human being has the freedom and right to live in any way in which they choose so long as their way of life does not impinge on any other human's rights and freedoms to do the same.

from this you can derive society.

Therefore if you kill somebody you remove there right and freedom to live in the manner of their choosing.

Therefore I abhor killing.

This was reinforced on september the 11th when I saw individual people leap to their deaths and the moment when many more lost their lives.

noone should be killed. Even if the perpetrators of 11/9/01 are caught they should not face the death penalty.

this is where I start and this is clear in my mind, however this is where things start to break down. Under my first principle the taleban disgust me because they strip people of the basic right to the freedom to determine their lives. However military action disgusts me for the same reasons.

I have no answers. The only answer is the ideal of democracy. Democracy is a utopian ideal that cannot be achieved by humans. No one on this earth has their full basic freedom, under my first principle.

Don't be fooled by my first principle, along with the right comes the responsibilty to maintain the rights of all others.

Killing is not the answer. I don't know what the answer is.

― Ed, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

...

― Mike Hanle y, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"no-one should be killed"

Are you saying that any action which causes the death of innocent people is wrong, regardless of a) intent, and b) the innocent people, perhaps a great many more of them, who may be saved as a consequence.

A) Every time you get behind the wheel of a car there's a chance you may kill an innocent person. You could say the chances of doing so are far less than with a bombing raid and that's true of each individual journey, but we don't only make a single journey and it's a fact that millions have had their rights, their freedom, their lives wiped out because of auto accidents. Does this mean we should not drive?

B) Hypothetically, if a fanatical regime were planning to set off a nuclear weapon, but by obliterating the command centres of this regime (and in the process all the innocent people who happened to be nearby) such an outcome could be averted, would it be wrong to act? - I don't think such a scenario is so far removed from what's happening at present.

― scott, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If someone has "no alternatives" though, that doesn't make bombing a default action.

― Kerry, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

scott, this is why its very hard for me to come up with any answers. All life is priceless so the notion of trading lives is a very difficult one for me to come to terms with, I cannot realy make that exchange in my mind. in extremis then, I suppose that I would have to compromise my position, in answer to part B. I do not believe that we are in that situation yet. I do want to see the perpetrators of sept 11 to answer for their crimes in a court of law. (along with those of the Cole, sudanes bombing, bombing of iraq and afganistan and all other attrocities committed throughout our recent history)I do not think anyone should die for their crimes but in this case I do believe that many people require the ultimate sanction of their freedom being permanently removed.

― Ed, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

one year passes...

and what now?

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 20 May 2003 10:10 (twenty-two years ago)

we hold a sweepstake on how long it takes for the taliban to regain control of afghanistan?

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 20 May 2003 10:12 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.