You've all heard on the new; radio; newpaper or what ever, all of these terrorist attacks. You've all heard about USA declearing a war on terrorism.
Well what dawned on me the other day was that most of these "terrorist" attacks aren't terrorist attacks.

The offical FBI meaning of terrorism is
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Is this saying that the USA bombing bagdad (spelling?) is a terrorist act? I know there are people out there who will think so and people who wont (the last group thinking i'm a completely idiot for even thinking this).

First of all to decided if its a terrorist attack or not we have to look at the definition.
Is it an unlawful attack. Unlawful meaning not complying with in the bounderies of the law. And if i remember right USA went to war against UN law thing. USA's attacks (or so they say) is for the better of the people of Irqa and is against its fomer government. Which fits directly with their own FBI definition.

So I ask are the USA they terrorists them selves?
And if not why not?

Is it because they are at war and there fore their attacks arn't terrorist attacks?
If so nor would the attacks of the Al-Qaida or Iraq becaues USA has decleared war against them so they are at war if USA are.

Is it because they are not attacking civilain targets?
Dream on. I'm sure you've all heard of the bombing of the TV and radio centres in Bagdad.

So once again. Is the USA commiting terrorism?
Are the Al-Qaida or Iraqi people commiting terrorism?

And why do you think this way?

Thanks :)

[ May 15, 2003, 06:56: Message edited by: Ruler of the Known Universe ]

Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire of the 1991 Gulf War. It can also be argued that the language of UN resolution 1441 provided enough justification.

Iraq has not been accused of terrorism, but rather support for terrorist organizations.

Al-Qaida is not a recognized state and so therefore cannot officially declare war on another state.

I think that Israel is as much terrorists as Palestina. They got the country as an excuse for the WWII but no-one listened on the Palestinians. Meaby they should have.

And if Al-Quaida isn't a real state, then the USA can't declare war on them.

Not officially, obviously, but they can make a concerted effort to treat them as international criminals and bring them to justice. The "War on Terrorism" is merely a term, just as the "War on Drugs" was and is.

As for the terrorism definition, terrorism can only exist outside of a declared war situation, and tends to deliberately target civilians to the exclusion of the military. Now, the US was very clear and gave the Iraqis lots of warning that they would be waging war, and they made more effort than has ever been made before to target only military targets and exclude civilian ones. That doesn't mean that civilians were not hurt, but I defy anyone to find an example of an offensive strike that was planned so carefully to minimize damage to the civilians.

@BTA
resolution 1441 did not provide enough justification. I bet if you call that enough justification there would be dozens of things you could invade USA on. USA have also violated or gone out of agreements they have signed.
@Depaara
If you've got a problem with the definition argue with the FBI not me.
I wounld not call a few months lots of warning. How would you like to be told by a doctor that you only have a few months to live? you'd ask why you didn't have more notice that your going to die (and if in USA sue the doctor).
As i said in my previous post they purposely bombed the TV centre thingy in Bagdad. This is not a military target. It may have been used by the military but most things in Iraq were.

Which brings me back to what i said before. If resolution 1441 is a good enough reason to invade Iraq then USA bombing the TV thing in bagdad is a good enough reason to invade USA. In some international law (i think its the ginevor (spelling?) convention) people are prohibited to destroy/disable media sources.

Now, the US was very clear and gave the Iraqis lots of warning that they would be waging war, and they made more effort than has ever been made before to target only military targets and exclude civilian ones. First of all USA did not officially declared war to Iraq. And this according to the international law is breaking the law not supporting him. And because they did not declared a war now the USA are not justifying their presence in Iraq.
And please you call the palaces of Saddam Husein which were in civilian areas as military targets; Because they targeted them and some missiles managed to hit them some others ended up on some poor guys homes and destroyed their homes and killed their families.
As for terrorism i think that the definitions are ok but we must not forget that these definitions take various forms as it suits the powerfull. That is the only way i can explain the calling of Palaistinians as terrorists since for many other countries besides USA and Israel they are freedom fighters (a little extreme freedom fighters but they are) Not to mention the calling of Kurds as terrorists too because they want to have their own nation and Turkey does not want to.
Or Talibans are called as terrorists because they didn't bend over when the USA demanded Bin Laden. Ok and now Afganistan is once again tormented by warlords and the heroin production ,which during Taliban's administration was almost shut down, is going sky high again.
Or the Zapatistas who only want a future for their race (indians) and the poor of their country are called terrorists because this doesn't fit the WASP goverment of Mexico. And i can go on for pages :(

Bombing a televisionstation CAN be justified, since it was being used to spread militairy propaganda. There are no such things as soaps and quizzes in Iraq to bore the people with, it was only being used for the glorification of Saddam.

Therefore as a target, it was legitimate in time of war.

@ Ruler of the known universe

Invade the US ? Who would be capable of doing that you think ?

And how far do you think they'd come ?

I think it would be fun to watch though. Go ahead, try and invade. :D

Who said American taxpayers weren´t supporting terrorists??

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Coorperation (http://www.benning.army.mil/whinsec/)

Anti-WHISC (http://www.flora.org/library/wtc/monbiot5.html)

@BTA
resolution 1441 did not provide enough justification. I bet if you call that enough justification there would be dozens of things you could invade USA on. USA have also violated or gone out of agreements they have signed... If resolution 1441 is a good enough reason to invade Iraq then USA bombing the TV thing in bagdad is a good enough reason to invade USA. Hmmm. First, I said it could be argued, not that everyone would agree. Second, based on what you wrote here, I'm guessing you don't know what resolution 1441 stated.

Oh, one thing in addition: I think you're missing the point of my first post. I didn't say war should be waged on anyone who violated an agreement. The agreements Iraq violated were agreements that provided for the cease fire of the war in 1991. Iraq didn't hold up their end, so the cease fire was ended.

@BTA
The agreements Iraq violated were agreements that provided for the cease fire of the war in 1991. Iraq didn't hold up their end, so the cease fire was ended. No matter how many times this point is made on these boards (you have made it several times as have I and others) it gets ignored.

Ignorance can be (and is often) selected.

On topic:

Is it because they are not attacking civilain targets?
Dream on. I'm sure you've all heard of the bombing of the TV and radio centres in Bagdad.
You are implying that the TV and radio stations in Bagdad were civilian. They were government, which makes them legitimate targets.

According to Amnesty International a tv station is not a military target even if it serves propaganda purposes.

Amnesty International today cautioned that the bombing of the Iraqi state television station in Baghdad by US allied forces could be a breach of the Geneva Conventions.

"The bombing of a television station, simply because it is being used for the purposes of propaganda, cannot be condoned. It is a civilian object, and thus protected under international humanitarian law," the organization said.

According to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions Article 52 (2) "Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." URL: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140462003

Well, I would have to say that a television station used by the military to disseminate disinformation about the progress of the enemy's campaign is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, and its destruction offered a definite military advantage.

Well, I would have to say that a television station used by the military to disseminate disinformation about the progress of the enemy's campaign is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, and its destruction offered a definite military advantage.Then I guess that the same applies for BBC, CNN,FOX etc. Of course, if iraqis had attacked any one of them, then it would be a terrorist act against innocent civilians, right?

Human Rights Watch Organisation states the following:

Under international humanitarian law (the laws of war), armed attacks on civilian TV or radio stations are prohibited if they are designed primarily to undermine civilian morale or to psychologically harass the civilian population. Although stopping enemy propaganda may serve to demoralize the Iraqi population and to undermine the government's political support, neither purpose offers the "concrete and direct" military advantage necessary under international law to make civilian broadcast facilities a legitimate military target. Civilian TV and radio stations are only legitimate targets if they become military objectives, that is, if they are used in a way that makes an "effective contribution to military action” and their destruction in the circumstances ruling at the time offers “a definite military advantage." Civilian stations could become military targets if, for example, they are used to broadcast military communications or if they are otherwise used concretely to advance a military campaign.

In addition, should stations become military objectives, the principle of proportionality in attack must be scrupulously respected. This means that planners and military commanders should verify at all times that the risks involved to the civilian population in undertaking such attacks do not outweigh the perceived military benefit. Special precautions should be taken in relation to buildings located in urban areas. Advance warning of an attack must be given whenever possible. http://hrw.org/press/2003/03/iraqtv032603.htm

[ May 15, 2003, 23:41: Message edited by: BOC ]

Such arguments are unpersuasive since the motives behind the attacks on the Iraqi state run television are not known to the authors.

It is easy to say the attacks were simply to stop the propaganda to demoralize the civilian population and undermine political support, but the civilians weren't doing the fighting, and they already hated the regime, so if that were the only goal, there would have been no point.

TV stations are civilian unless:
they are run by the military on military ground

even if they spread propaganda (or tell the people to worship the devil or to commit crimes (which might be ileagal but dos not change their status)).

so although i totally agree that it helped the us/uk troops to bomb them, it was still a war crime.

what bothers me most is that a lot of americans fail to see that they are not the "good" ones.
fighting someone evil (like sadam is without doubt) dos not automaticly make you the good one.

this war was against the internatial law (for a lot of reasons) which was created mainly due to the effort of the US after WW2. in a Just world they would be put on trial and fined for their crimes (since international law dosnt punish people but the whole contry in such a case (although they did otherwise in nurnberg)).

of course i know that wont happen but at least the american people should realize that they are not waging war for the good of the world or the iraqi people but for their on gain (economical or in terms of security (which is ridiculus in the case of the iraq)).

not that i expect that any americans agree with me on this
but its driving me nuts to see some americans pride themselfs for the "noble" cause they are sending their fellow citenzens to death.
when it only benefits some huge companies and a president hoping for reelection.

i guess i cant blame them i had the chance to view some "fox news" and read the "wall street jornal" and i didnt know if i should laugh or cry...
those tv stations in iraq cant be much worse

As i said before first and foremost USA did not declared war against Iraq. In order to declare war officially there is a paper called DoW that must be given to the attacked country and to the UN in order to offically declare war on another country. Thus the "war" the USA waged upon Iraq was by all laws illegal. Secondly IMHO military targets are the places were military personnel works and not anything else.
So were there any military personnel in TV station of Bagdad no then what are we talking about. Not to mention the incident of Palaistine hotel were two reporters were putting their camera and someone "thought" they were snipers. We all know the rest of story.
And please there were no cease fire agreement between Iraq and USA. There was a disarmament agreement between Iraq and UN and as i remember this was resolution 1441.
So why do you believe that USA was justified to attack Iraq against the will of the UN and who thinks that it ok to have an occupation of Iraq by USA.
I know that many americans don't like it but this is the truth, their goverment has screwed up the whole thing and by doing this has just justified and prove right Bin Laden who said that USA is the greatest enemy for the muslims.

Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire of the 1991 Gulf War. It can also be argued that the language of UN resolution 1441 provided enough justification. I think BTA's wording is very correct :cool: : It can also be argued that. I think BTA has given one of the lawyers positins, without claiming it's the only one there is. I think that's a very accurate description of a plausible legal position.

Well, I would have to say that a television station used by the military to disseminate disinformation about the progress of the enemy's campaign is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, and its destruction offered a definite military advantage. I agree there with BTA too, excpet in one point. I agree, that at some point, IIRC, the UK/US decieded, that it should be bombed. They didn't plan that from the beginning, afterwards there were many who argued, not planning to destroy it from the beginning, was a grave mistake. Were I do not agree is, that it's destruction offered a definite military advantage. I am not sure, but if my memory don't fails me here, the attack was a failure, i.e. the Iraqi TV was after a few hours on air again and remaind till the end.
But I don't want to say, that the bombing of the TV-station has no legal consequences. At least, the UK/US has to pay for the damage done.

But the big loss of reporters, surely is one of the main problems of the war. Mainly because one dead reporter gets easily more reporting than 200 dead "normal" people. And there are even countries, where high-ranked politicans get their share for mistakes they are thought of as responsible.


An American tank apparently shelled the Palestine hotel, which housed hundreds of journalists covering the Iraq war. Mr Aznar's Defence Minister, Federico Trillo, called the attack "a very serious mistake".

Mr Aznar supported the invasion and is seen as a central member in the "coalition of the willing" - to the dismay of much of Spanish public opinion.

The Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, was also the target of a protest in parliament, when a dozen Spanish photographers turned their backs on him and raised pictures of Mr Couso, to the cheers of opposition lawmakers.

In another protest, Mr Anzar arrived at parliament to find photographic and radio equipment strewn on the ground as 30 or 40 journalists downed their tools. They met him in stony silence.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw found himself embroiled in the tensions when, at a news conference with his Spanish counterpart Ana Palacio, some 20 Spanish journalists walked out after just one question.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2934271.stm

@BTA and some parts @ Pac Man as well
resoulution 1441 stated that Iraq had to disarm or face imediat (spelling?) and harsh consecenses. I might be wrong about the above sentence but, no where did it give USA permission to invade Iraq.
I don't know for sure but its highly likely that the terms of the cease fire were forced on Iraq as much as the terms of the treaty of Versailles were forced on Germany.
Well, I would have to say that a television station used by the military to disseminate disinformation about the progress of the enemy's campaign is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, and its destruction offered a definite military advantage.
This is what we call propergander (spelling?) is it not? And if so the USA are just as guilty of it as Iraq.

@ Ragman
With an opinon like that I'm guessing you're from a Eurpoean country, right?
But i must agree with you. The "fighters for freedom justice and democracy" aren't as good as they seem to be.

@Pac man
As to your first point see above, and your second point asking who could attack the USA, well thats easy. No one alone could stand a chance.

@Jack Funk
They might not have been civilains but they are still protected by international laws.

I think I've covered every thing any one has said against my case, and if not its not because i'm ignorant (Jack Funk) but because i simply either missed it or thought it wasn't worth the effort to reply to :) .

Pac man, Pride Comes Before A Fall, undoubtly, some other country will soon be able to rival the US.

And the US, I think would fall under the category of terrorist under some of their actions in Iraq, especially the intentional targeting of Iraqi citzens, like the mall and resturaunt. And do not forget Aghganistan, even though the Al-qaeda is based there, the marines targeted small rural villages.

@Tarsahk
the marines targeted small rural villages How smart of you for noticeing. But i think you failed to notice that these small rural villages in most cases probably hosted Al-qaeda.
And as much as I would like it to be true, I doubt in the near future any country would be able to rival the USA alone .

Ruler of the known universe wrote:

resoulution 1441 stated that Iraq had to disarm or face imediat (spelling?) and harsh consecenses. I might be wrong about the above sentence but, no where did it give USA permission to invade Iraq.
I want to point out, that that's too a plausible legal postition. It is the by far the majoritiy position. There is a tiny minority of lawyers, who argue a different way, i.e. saying it gave the US the authority to do it. As I said before, the minority opinion of those is based on plausible argumentation. It is just not a convincing argumentation. But they are entiteld to their opinion.

Warning, vain attempt on sarcasm following:

Hey, even if they are a tiny minority, it's not like we crush their right of free speech and make them pose naked on the cover of a magazine.

Just followed by another one:

Strangley enough, those tiny group of lawyers are concentrated on one spot of the world map. :confused:

Yes, there might be a tiny mintority who think that but I never said that they weren't entitled to their own opinon (and if i did, opps sorry). All i said was that no where did it say that the USA could illigally invade Iraq if they did not disarm in the time frame USA saw.

Just to clarify to BTA and Jack Funk:
Resolution 687 (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr687.htm) which incorporates the cease fire agreement from Desert Storm supersedes the only resolution giving specific authority to use force, namely Resolution 678.

Resolution 687 is not conditional, so can thus not confer the right to use military force to enforce compliance.

Read the conlcusions of the Markland Group (http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/sect_9.html) here. I believe this was written before the adoption of 1441, and thus does not comment on this one.

1441 is thus the only resolution that can be used to justify military action. Whether or not it does is for lawyers to debate, not me.

[DOUBLE EDIT] DAMNED TYPOS! [EDIT]

[ May 16, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Viking ]

BTA

Such arguments are unpersuasive since the motives behind the attacks on the Iraqi state run television are not known to the authors.
The motives perhaps are not known , but assumptions based on some facts can be made.If Iraqis had used the tv station for other military activities (such as broadcasting military communications) and not only for propaganda, Pentagon would claimed that the bombing took place because of this. As far as I know Pentagon never claimed this.

It is easy to say the attacks were simply to stop the propaganda to demoralize the civilian population and undermine political support, but the civilians weren't doing the fighting, and they already hated the regime, so if that were the only goal, there would have been no point. During the war, when the members of the U.S administration were asked why Iraqis had not revolted against Saddam, they always answered that the fear and the feeling that Saddam had still power prevented them from doing so. One of the tools that Saddam used to achieve this was tv propaganda. Therefore, one of the reasons for the attack was to stop this propaganda in order to undermine any political support.

As for which the main reason could be, in my opinion is the fact that Iraqis were winning the propaganda war by showing american POWs or destroyed american equipment.

@Ruler
I think I've covered every thing any one has said against my case, and if not its not because i'm ignorant (Jack Funk) but because i simply either missed it or thought it wasn't worth the effort to reply to First, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant. I am on most subjects. The problem is when an opportunity to be educated is ignored. That is what I mean by selective ignorance.

You are new here, so let me give you some background. This topic is not new. It has been effectively beaten to death on these forums. And no matter how many times the issue of the violation of the cease-fire comes up, the same people (not you) will repeatedly insist that the coalition had no justification to take military action. That is what prompted my comment.

When you are losing a war and agree to a cease-fire to end hostilities, then you have to live up YOUR agreement or face the possibility that the war will resume.

Again @Ruler

If resolution 1441 is a good enough reason to invade Iraq then USA bombing the TV thing in bagdad is a good enough reason to invade USA. I don't follow your logic, but, go ahead and invade.

One more time @Ruler

I don't know for sure but its highly likely that the terms of the cease fire were forced on Iraq as much as the terms of the treaty of Versailles were forced on Germany When you are losing and want a cease-fire, you are clearly getting the terms forced upon you. It's the cease-fire or the opposition will continue to attack (ie. use force). So what is your point?

@ Jack Funk
Ok, thanks for the background, but arguing weather or not the coalition had the rights to invade Iraq was not the point of this. Lets just say they did have rights. Would this mean that all the "terrorist" attacks commited by Iraqie civilians during the "war" (not war massicure) weren't terrorist attacks like the USA claim them to be. And if they are then clearly the USA (and the UK of course) would be in some of their attacks.

IMO none of these recent attacks, resent as in after 11th september 2001 (i think?), were terrorist attacks. It is all just another form of amarican propreganda.

(the following is off topic slightly)
I don't know for sure but its highly likely that the terms of the cease fire were forced on Iraq as much as the terms of the treaty of Versailles were forced on Germany And maybe i didn't make my self clear enough about this. The USA in the 1920s if memory serves, decided that the terms of the treaty were forced unfairly on Germany. This ended up resulting in some treaty or something (i think it was the kellog brand pact (kellog and brand been two forien minister) but i'll have to check this) which easied off the terms. What germany did in WWI was much worse than what Iraq did in the gulf war, yet USA sees it fit to strech the wording of resoultion 1441 to give them right to attack. In the 1920s USA said that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles shouldn't have been foced upon the Germans, but then in the 1990s they go and do the same thing on Iraq.

(back on topic :) )

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If resolution 1441 is a good enough reason to invade Iraq then USA bombing the TV thing in bagdad is a good enough reason to invade USA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't follow your logic, but, go ahead and invade My logic here is quiet simple, if Iraq broke some international treaty and the consecences of this is invasion and the destruct of their government then shouldn't the same apply for the USA?

What germany did in WWI was much worse than what Iraq did in the gulf warsounds more like WWII
(there were no war crimes in the 1st one that im aware of)

Oh there are war crimes in every war ragman, just some wars much more than others.

ROTKU, the small villages were suspected of aiding the Al Quada, so going in with guns blazing was kind of excessive.

Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire of the 1991 Gulf War. It can also be argued that the language of UN resolution 1441 provided enough justification.

Iraq has not been accused of terrorism, but rather support for terrorist organizations.I have to add a bit to BTA's remark. He displays the official US position on the war against iraq. It is, however, pretty much undisputed that these arguments are insufficient and cannot justify a war. The US-british attack on iraq was an agression. That may be legalistic but still.

As for afganistan and Al Quaida he's right.

Sorry, Rugusa, but i don't see any conection between your quote there and afganistan and Al Quaida
@Tarsahk
If i'm correct then some of these 'small' villages were suspected of habouring Al Quaida as well. But I do agree in the fact that the USA took it to the extrem.

Al-Qaida is not a recognized state and so therefore cannot officially declare war on another state.It was the sentence after BTAs remark I quoted above: As for afganistan and Al Quaida he's right. As war is an international dispute, the march into a land that isn't even ruled by a recognised* gvt cannot be considered an act of war, maybe a violation of territorial integrity - but even that's questionable in a failed state.
Anyway - discussing this is kinda pointless as the US fighting in afganistan was backed by a UN resolution - they were justified; for the US afganistan was a "legal" conflict.

* = The taliban were officially recognised only by their godfathers, pakistan, and saudi-arabia. Neither the UN nor any other country recognised them. Afganistan was still considered to be a failed state.

@ Ragusa
What exactly do you mean by a "failed state"?
Sorry I'm not to fimilar (spelling?) with all these law terms.

A failed state is a country in which govertnmental control and the rule of law and order collapsed, where governmental institutions don't work anymore - like somalia that is ruled by warlords, opposing any regime they're not in. Failed states are usually a result of extended civil war.

Sorry a bit of topic but i'm curious (spelling?)now. When was the last civil war in afganistan?
I can't remember there ever been any. But i am sure there have been some some time or another.

Afghanist, irrc, has never been a state in the last 200 years. At least, not a state, as we think of. It is a typical failed state. But failed is given the history wrong, becuase there was never a "state" which could have failed.

But it was a "puffer-zone" between the Russian and the British Empires. The 1848 invasion of the British endend with the famous night of the long knives. A lot of invasions followed, but Afghanistan acutally was never the fuss worth to controll it. Just an anarchy with a important geographical position. The Oil-fields in the countries north of central Asia don't make matters better. Oil from central-Asia is either transported through Russia, China or.... Afghanistan. Which of the countries will be favoured from other countries?

The invasion of Afghanistan through the russians was a civil war. There was a socialist Goverment which suddenly faced resistance from the inside. So, the Russians took the chance for an invasion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/country_profiles/1162668.stm

It was at the centre of the so-called "Great Game" in the 19th century when Imperial Russia and the British Empire in India vied for influence.

And it became a key Cold War battleground after thousands of Soviet troops intervened in 1979 to prop up a pro-communist regime, leading to a major confrontation that drew in the US and Afghanistan's neighbours.

But the outside world eventually lost interest after the withdrawal of Soviet forces, while the country's protracted civil war dragged on.

The troublesome point is, the west supported a "holy war" against the atheist russian intruders. There was a great call for soldiers all over the muslim world. Those "holy warriors" of the 80's searched after the end of the USSR for another evil Empire to resist. The classic case of a blowback. The "Afghan-warriors" had training by British and US military experts and possibly other western nations.

And now, Afghanistan is, what is was before, an uncontrolled land on a map. Anarchy and the main producer of opium in central-asia.

The last civil war in afganistan started with the withdrawal of the russian troops in 1988 or 1989 and continued until the Taliban took power and practically controlled the country and eventually ended fighting. They were welcomed by the population even as they brought back law and order, a thing long missed - that, for the beginning, compensated for their weird and to afgans unfamiliar wahhabi islamism.

Kabul was destroyed by the afgans themselves, not by the russians.

-A more obsolete link here, reporting pretty good on the information available in approx 1998: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/afghan/intro.htm
-And more actual: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/index.html

Oh, and by the way. At the beginning of the 90's, people who were in Afghanistan at that time, always stress, that women used to were mini-skirts in Khabul at that "pre-taliban" time.

@ Ragusa: What about the concept of a "Stabilized De-Facto-Regime" (stabilisiertes De-Facto-Regime)? Does it not apply on the Taliban-Regime in Afghanistan? Or was the timespan to short?

I agree that Somalia is a failed state, because the government is powerless. But Afghanistan under the Taliban was tightly controlled by them. So there was a governement. Right now, Afghanistan is a failed state, because Hamid Karsai controls only the capital.

[ May 18, 2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

As I said, no one wanted the Taliban, except the saudis (who paid them) and the pakistanis (who led and trained them). Reconsider your argument: What if another party, maybe that of a drug dealing warlord, had managed to gain control in the largest part of the country?

A country needs a little more than just a high degree of internal control. And you're basically right - even though we like the current drone in Kabul he's the weakest "leader" there, yet the best protected. But he heads an interim gvt - afganistan is struggling not to fail - failed it is when the people are fighting again.

Ragusa. Are you sure that "no-one" wanted the Taliban? Is it so that they followed wahabi style Islam? They were paid by the Saudi government? Perhaps the US would have objected to this if they had known? I don't remember the US being overly fond of extremist Islamic governments...

You mention that the Taliban brought back law and order but were a failed state because like Somalia there was no law and order...

I find it interesting that Yago mentions that women wore mini-skirts in Kabul before Taliban. Perhaps some. You can see photos of women in Kabul now who wear burqa and there is no Taliban to force them to do so.

My point is that it one thing to make comments like these about Afghanistan, but unless you have been there it is probably best to avoid gross generalisations.

Is slightly going into another direction, from history of Afghanistan to ANC, a former terrorist organisation.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/chronology/special-chrono/mandela.htm

1987 July UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher appoints a more proactive Ambassador to Pretoria, Robin Renwick who had helped to negotiate Zimbabwe's indepedence in 1979. However, Prime Minister Thatcher is still opposed to the ANC and calls them a terrorist orgaisation at the Commonwealth Summit in Vancouver in October.

1993 December Mandela wins the Nobel Peace Prize, together with FW de Klerk (Norway)

1994 April Mandela contests the April 1994 election as the head of the ANC for the National Assembly. Taliban:

Where did the Taliban come from?

The first devotees came from the poverty-stricken refugee camps that sprung up along the Pakistani border during the Afghan-Soviet war. The young men of these camps learned a fierce and fundamental strain of Islam through the madrassas, Islamic schools that dotted the Afghan-Pakistani border. In September 1994, Mohammad Omar, then a mullah and today the leader of the Taliban, created the militia in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar. From the start, its goal was to unite a divided and war-plagued Afghanistan under a strict and unyielding version of Sharia -- Islamic law as written in the Koran, the life of Mohammed and his followers, and Muslim scholars through the ages.
Initial victories

The Taliban's growing power in Kandahar attracted the attention of the Pakistani government, which hired the Taliban in November 1994 to protect convoys traveling between Pakistan and Central Asia. Taliban successes against local warlords attracted more followers and emboldened the Taliban to take control of Jalalabad, the eastern city bordering Pakistan on Sept. 11, 1996. Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, was occupied by the Taliban on Sept. 27, 1996.
Support

Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the mujahedeen -- Islamic warriors -- once united against the Soviets, divided along ethnic and regional lines.

During this civil war, the Taliban promised an end to the corruption and chaos plaguing much of the country. That young men followed, to the word, the teachings of mullahs was neither unusual nor radical within the context of Afghanistan's history. Since the Anglo-Afghanistan wars of the 19th century, religious leaders have played a major role in galvanizing opposition.

The Taliban gained the support of both disaffected mujahedeen as well more recent graduates from the madrassas. Ethnic allegiance also secured Taliban membership. Most of its members are Pashtun, the majority ethnic group that ruled Afghanistan for 2 1/2 centuries but lost power following the Soviet occupation. The Taliban's popularity and predominant military might gave it a tentative legitimacy to rule the country, and by June 1997 the militia controlled two-thirds of the country
http://www.unomaha.edu/afghanistan_atlas/talhist.html

Mini-Skirts:

But Afghan women were not always so down-trodden. While the world celebrated the millennium in 2000, Afghan women were stuck in the Middle Ages. The irony is that Afghan women got the vote at the same time as their western counterparts in the early part of the 20th century. They entered the last century with great promise.

In 1964 the constitution guaranteed them equal rights and women were found in all professions - media, law, politics and government - 70% of teachers and 40% of doctors were women. The veil was optional and life for women like Sara in Kabul's swinging middle class was fun.

Sara: "As teenagers we were walking the streets at night and we were going to movie theatres. I mean there was no question about being Muslim. However, there was freedom with that and people had the freedom of choice, whether to wear the burqua in the rural areas or wear a scarf without anything, like I was walking with short sleeves and mini skirts. I can't describe the happiness, the joy that we felt at the time."

A million Afghans died before the Soviets withdrew, defeated by the Mujahideen who were hailed as heroes. Armed by the West, these predecessors of today's Northern Alliance took Kabul and wreaked havoc in a spree of rape and killing.

This was the beginning of gender apartheid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1899783.stm

In the light of the articles I've found, I think I change my statement from above. Afghanistan seemed to be once a functioning state. I always new Afhganistan only as part of the great game, a.k.a. land of British and Russian invasions.

[ May 18, 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Yago ]

Ragusa, it was the CIA which trained Osama and the Taliban.

Kharzaj,
the Taliban are following wahhabi islam and wahhabi islam schools, also called Taliban schools, received generous funds from Saudi Arabia and guidance from the pakistani ISI. You can get a glimpse on that here (http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-extremismfails.html) and here (http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/ground_zero_and_the_saudi_connection.htm) and here (http://www.westerndefense.org/articles/Iran/december01.htm). For excellent background info I strongly recommend regular reading of good newspapers and news magazines, specialised books even; I can only recommend the FAZ, Zeit and the Spiegel but as these are german you might need an alternative; libraries for example ... even a simple search on google, like "wahhabi + taleban" can work wonders ... :rolleyes: ...

How unwanted the taliban were can be seen at the number of countries who had diplomatic relations with them: Only two, Saudi Arabia & Pakistan vs the rest of the world, a brief glimpse on how many others that might be here (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html), not following their example.

A degree of law and order is one criterium, not the only one. More on the failed state here (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList377/438B7C44BDEAC7A3C1256B66005DCAAB): The political and legal approach
Three elements can be said to characterize the phenomenon of the "failed State" from the political and legal point of view.

Firstly, there is the geographical and territorial aspect, namely the fact that "failed States" are essentially associated with internal and endogenous problems, even though these may incidentally have cross-border impacts. The situation confronting us then is one of an implosion rather than an explosion of the structures of power and authority, the disintegration and destructuring of States rather than their dismemberment.
Secondly, there is the political aspect, namely the internal collapse of law and order. The emphasis here is on the total or near total breakdown of structures guaranteeing law and order [2] rather than the kind of fragmentation of State authority seen in civil wars, where clearly identified military or paramilitary rebels fight either to strengthen their own position within the State or to break away from it. [3]
Thirdly, there is the functional aspect, namely the absence of bodies capable, on the one hand, of representing the State at the international level and, on the other, of being influenced by the outside world. Either no institution exists which has the authority to negotiate, represent and enforce or, if one does, it is wholly unreliable, typically acting as "statesman by day and bandit by night".

From a legal point of view, it could be said that the "failed State" is one which, though retaining legal capacity, has for all practical purposes lost the ability to exercise it. A key element in this respect is the fact that there is no body which can commit the State in an effective and legally binding way, for example, by concluding an agreement.The "but you haven't been there objection", taken serious, would make about any dispute in the alley pointless - it doesn't bring you any further. As you haven't been there too - how can you for certain say I'm wrong? For the sake of argument, how about for once believe me what I say? Unless you do so we have no basis for discussion.
I suggest you search info on the web (or elsewhere, in more reliable sources) to check my points for validity (or invalidity if you prefer that) and when you find something to object I will check if I'm wrong. This way we can constructively exchange arguments.

**************************************************
Erebus,
you are simplifying. Take a look at the map and reflect a sec: How might the US have brought support to afganistan? In any case they would have had to pass other countries: Russia (kinda unlikely ...), iran (after "Eagle Claw" ??!, never ...), china (very reserved to the US) or india - via their narrow strip of Karakorum territory - very inhospitable terrain) or ... pakistan - the pro-west (they had strong ties to the british) country with harbors and long open border to afganistan. Supporting a guerrilla group is almost impossible to undertake in another country without that country supporting it.

Yes, the CIA helped the mujaheddin, among them the taleban as well - but they had pakistani support and were tolerted by pakistan. In fact the pakistani ISI was cooperating with the CIA. When the US decided to ignore afganistan after the withdrawal of the russians the ISI overtook the wole taleban coordination as they had an interest in stability in afganistan - in times of war it has first of all been pakistan to harbor the refugees, quite an expensive luxury.
The intimate involvement of the ISI and the taleban has also rised questions on how reliable an ally the ISI is in the war against terror.

[ May 18, 2003, 11:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

How unwanted the taliban were can be seen at the number of countries who had diplomatic relations with them: Only two, Saudi Arabia & Pakistan vs the rest of the world, a brief glimpse on how many others that might be here, not following their example.
3 countries, you have forgotten the UAR (United Arab Emirates)

Unwanted. That is another question. Afhanistan is a key part of the Great Game. Maybe the public looses interest, but no country, at least the British, forget a key country of the Great Game.

As you have seen in my post above, the Taliban were welcomed, because people thaught, they'd bring peace, law and order.

And diplomatic relations with Pakistan were enough, to have enough relations for trade, without having other countries make their hands dirty.

At least enough relations, to send people to Argentina and Texas, to make business deals.

A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Last month, the Argentinian firm, Bridas, announced that it was close to signing a two-billion dollar deal to build the pipeline, which would carry gas 1,300 kilometres from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, across Afghanistan.

Last month the Taleban Minister of Information and Culture, Amir Khan Muttaqi, said the Taleban had held talks with both American and Argentine-led consortia over transit rights but that no final agreement had yet been reached. He said an official team from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan should meet to ensure each country benefited from any deal.

However, Unocal clearly believes it is still in with a chance - to the extent that it has already begun training potential staff.

It has commissioned the University of Nebraska to teach Afghan men the technical skills needed for pipeline construction. Nearly 140 people were enrolled last month in Kandahar and Unocal also plans to hold training courses for women in administrative skills.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

When the US decided to ignore afganistan after the withdrawal of the russians the ISI overtook the wole taleban coordination as they had an interest in stability in afganistan - in times of war it has first of all been pakistan to harbor the refugees, quite an expensive luxury.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. As I stated before, no country of the Great Game gets forgotten. And Pakistan has always been a key ally for the British. That's the region with China, India, Russia, Iran, Pakistan. No country there gets forgotten be strategical analiysts. And the connection bettwen the British (and the US ?) and Pakistan have alway been tight.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/632611.asp?cp1=1#BODY

Benazir Bhutto: The Taliban were actually students in university who decided to go back to Afghanistan after the Russians left. My reports were that the Taliban were being welcomed by the people and that they were building peace. Initially we thought the Taliban was a stabilizing force. My government was keen to establish ties with Central Asia, so we were quite pleased and we encouraged them initially.... We wanted to import wheat and export cotton to Central Asia and wanted a route that would give us access to Central Asia through Kandahar [where the Taliban is headquartered]. We were trying to bypass Kabul and establish an enclave in the south. The Taliban were supposed to give us safe passage.
Benazir Bhutto, former PM of Afghanistan, Education:

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P024

She passed her O-level examination at the age of 15. In April 1969, she got admission in the U. S. at Harvard University's Radcliffe College. In June 1973, Benazir graduated from Harvard University with a degree in Political Science. After graduating from Harvard, Benazir joined Oxford University in the fall of 1973. Just before graduation, Benazir was elected to the Standing Committee of the most prestigious Oxford Union Debating Society. What did she learn there, in Harvard and Oxford ?

Sidenote: The biggest countries ever been ruled by woman, were...... islamic ones and India. Unthinkable in Germany, France, USA, Spain and Italy, I guess.

Let's not get into a meaningless debate here. We should not make assumptions. I have more than 10 years of experience with muslims and I have travelled in muslim countries so I have some idea of what I am talking about. I may well be wrong, but I will not assume that you are either. You are more than welcome to your opinions and I base mine on my experiences and first hand knowledge.

Ragusa.

I have my experiences of Taliban from muslims and Afghans, not the net, not second hand opnions nor interpretations from second hand sources. Many people laughed at the wahabi Taliban connection. Not my idea, theirs, so I trust that opinion over the net. The Taliban may be extremists, but they are not Wahabis, at least they are quite different from the Arab wahabis.

So if the world does not want a nation that means it should just go away? What counts is that the people inside the country want the leaders.

Did you assume that I have never been to Afghanistan, or because you have not, therefore I have not? My point is that people who have been and lived there are more reliable sources of information than those who have not. I prefer to take my information from people who lived in Kabul and Qandahar over someone from a place called Melbourne or Bergheim...

You are welcome to use the net to look for information about Afghanistan and I'll stick to those sources that are not quite so second hand or perhaps biased.

There were many who were against some of the Taliban policies and there were others who were for them. It is one thing to announce that "nobody" wanted or supported the Taliban and another to hear opinions that supported them.

I remember a newspaper article in which an Afghan stated that he would support the Taliban now because the current government (which is not a failed state for the above reasons?) is not coming up with the goods. How many states have recognised Afghanistan now? Is it because they are doing a better job than the Taliban or is it because "we like them because they are not the Taliban"?

Yago. I know what you mean about Afghanistan and mini skirts. If some women, even a handful, in Kabul at that time wore miniskirts and now they don't is it because they are oppressed?

I recall that when Hikmetyar came along with the Mujahideen the western world lamented the oppression of women because they wore a burqa. Then when the Taliban came along people expected freedom and celebrated but they were again forced to wear a burqa. Now that Karzai is "in charge" they still wear a burqa. And in all cases the same photos were used.

This burqa thing has nothing to do with governmental changes nor Kabul. It is something that some (if not most) women in the region have been using for a long long time. (Not all people live in cities). There are women in Australia from Afghanistan who wear burqas, is the Taliban forcing them to do so here?

There are burqa wearing women who are highly educated in muslim countries and even in (shock horror) "the West" that wear a burqa. Who forces that? Themselves. It is the same force that allows women to not wear a burqa.

Why not criticise the Turkish government that has made it illegal to wear clothes like that? If a Turkish woman wants to wear a burqa it is illegal, is that not restrictive of human rights? I agree that women (and men) should not be forced to do anything that they don't want to, can that include taking off a turban or a burqa?

Here in Australia some people asked to make Islamic dress illegal because terrorists can hide behind it! This is taking away freedoms from people. It is because oppressive regimes exist in the Middle East that people leave to places like Australia hoping that the locals will accept them as they are.

We could say that in Saudi Arabia western women are forced to wear a burqa if they work there. Who disputes that the Saudi government is not tough and also oppressive? Does that mean that we should ask for the same here vis a vis muslims?

As I mentioned before please don't turn this into a meaningless debate. I am aware of the issues and I won't assume that you are unread or unaware. I just take my information from other sources.

I apologise if I have offended.

Yago. I know what you mean about Afghanistan and mini skirts. If some women, even a handful, in Kabul at that time wore miniskirts and now they don't is it because they are oppressed?

I recall that when Hikmetyar came along with the Mujahideen the western world lamented the oppression of women because they wore a burqa. Then when the Taliban came along people expected freedom and celebrated but they were again forced to wear a burqa. Now that Karzai is "in charge" they still wear a burqa. And in all cases the same photos were used.

This burqa thing has nothing to do with governmental changes nor Kabul. It is something that some (if not most) women in the region have been using for a long long time. (Not all people live in cities). There are women in Australia from Afghanistan who wear burqas, is the Taliban forcing them to do so here?
1. Traditional clothes of the Arabs (I know, Afghans are no Arabs). Now, some Arabs were their clothes out of religious duty, others just out simpe "tradition", i.e. their just used to it. But the main point is, those clothes (male or female) are just fantastic. Ever watched how Arabs easily move through the worst heat in a southern European city ? The clothes they wear (male and female) are fantastic, I own some too, but too get them to work, you need the whole thing. But fragments work fine enough for me. And their inspire European fashion (at least French) a lot. Arab clothes are the proof, that humans can overcome problems which are posed by great heat with ingenuity and style.

2. This means, under traditional Arab clothes (male/femal), you often find a western-style educated modern mind, not a backwarded fool.

3. A handful, in Kabul. Now, in Afghan-urban- areas, I don't think, that only a "handul" wore mini-skirts. I actually think, it used to be a lot. But in rural areas and people who remain connected to traditon, they were burkhas out of personal choice and there is nothing wrong with it. And a lot do that. And, as stated in 1. (but I know nothing about Burkhas), that does not mean, they are backwarded or forced by laws to do so.

4. The mini-Skirt and the women-rights example also gets one of my main point through. Most Arab countries (Yemen, Saudi-Arabia taken out, but even those are way more complicated), have traditionally good educated females in strong positions. Especially the very secular Iraq.

Why not criticise the Turkish government that has made it illegal to wear clothes like that? If a Turkish woman wants to wear a burqa it is illegal, is that not restrictive of human rights? I agree that women (and men) should not be forced to do anything that they don't want to, can that include taking off a turban or a burqa?
Now Turkey is a very different case. (If i'm not mistaken, Iran under the Shah had similar rules). Turkish women don't wear burqas, because turks have a different culture, i.e. burqas are form central-asia. Islam is like christanity, split in thousands of different cultures and creeds.

A lot of turkish are allevits, one of those many factions of islam. Allevits don't wear veils. Other turks wear veils. Allevits don't. In fact, I was together with 2 turkish girls in school, on of them wore a veil, the other was allevit, there quarrels where always funny.

To the rules in turkey, that forbids women in offical functions to wear a veil. That is a typical law in a typical European laiciste (sp ?)country. That's no big problem. Or in other words, islamists who have a problem with it, are like Bavarians or Lucerenes(sp ?), who are protecting their crucifix.