Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out.

[Don Roley]

You don't think there is a fuzzy line, if not a clear line, between the popularly supported Taliban as a government entity, and al Qaeda, a jihadist / terrorist organization?

I do not think the Taliban is widely supported. But even so, if they are trying to kill us, does that not make them an enemy just like a soldier or terrorist? And if so, then what is wrong about trying to kill members of those trying to kill you? We kill generals by snipers in war. Are you trying to say that if we know that a Taliban general (i.e. someone who directs military operations against us) we should not try to eliminate them?

Sounds really warped to me.

 

[jazkiljok]

I am not asking if assassination is legal. Ford's executive order only covers world leaders, the second, or third, or forth in line would not be covered by Ford's order.

well, he just meant killing people for political reasons (such as castro)-- not killing people who are actively waging violent actions against your country or country men (such as gaddafi back in the 80s). one two and three were covered by that as well.


Y

ou don't think there is a fuzzy line, if not a clear line, between the popularly supported Taliban as a government entity, and al Qaeda, a jihadist / terrorist organization? If we can confligrate 'terrorist' into any popularly supported leadership role, what restrictions are placed on the label 'terrorism' or 'terrorist'?

the taliban were essentially a defacto partner with alqueda- they harbored alqueda training camps and alqueada had sworn to attack us and did. the taliban pretended for awhile that osama had nothing to do with 9/11-- they were given ample opportunity to turn him over and keep ruling their little caveman empire. but osama also provided them with big bucks from the sauds and other sources-- and was very close to the taliban leadership-- so they weren't ready to hand him over. the end result for the U.S was that you couldn't make a distinction between taliban and alqueda. so, we backed a northern warlord and his militia and used them to overthrow the taliban.
the victors then had an election and voted in new leadership.

but yes, we use the term terrorist loosely at times. and yes,we can bend it to our political goals. but, some times if the shoe fits..

But I do not believe that just because an Predator drops a laser guided bomb, that we are therefore in a combat situation. If we are going to start assassinating people with the United States Military, let's have a debate about it; let's us figure out what rules and ethics by which we are going to execute these tactics.

in afghanistan-- the taliban are considered enemy insurgents against the democratically voted in gov't. we're there at their behest at this point in time. so--- the coalition military is there to help afghanistan republic forces kill or capture enemy combatants. how they do it, is really irrelevant as is the status of the insurgents, whether they be lowly farmers, mullahs, or clan heads.

The fact is, the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan. Are they all legitimate targets? If so, it seems to me we need to do a whole lot more killing over there. And we are going to be creating more enemies with each killing

.

the Taliban have been given the opportunity to become a legit political entity (at least thru back door negotiations with the current gov't) --as long they put down the guns. but they aren't ready for that and think the coalition forces will eventually tire, and go away. you other point isn't really relevant-- the only way to stop an insurgency militarily, is to kill the insurgents at a rate much higher than they can recruit new combatants-- so, yes if they are with the enemy insurgents (i.e. Taliban) then they are valid targets for killing. think Viet Cong here.

A correct analogy is the Hyrda, you cut off one head, and two more grow in its place. So, we, as a country, better be damn sure of the destination.

well, yeah. big prob with insurgencies--- and from a military perspective you have to decide if one leader is worth killing.

are we sure of the destination? well, the destination is clear (peace and democracy etc)-- it's the journey there that is muddled right now.

 

[michaeledward]

the taliban were essentially a defacto partner with alqueda

Was the United States Government a "defacto partner" with Timothy McVeigh? or any of the White Supremisist groups, or apocolytic militias?

The fact that these people operate within the boundaries of the United States does not make the nation guilty of their offenses; nor does it implicated that the United States believes in these peoples opinions. While I will grant you a closer connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban; tied by religious beliefs, they are not the same entity. Just the same as the United States Military is not Timothy McVeigh.

I don't ask these questions to defend the Taliban, or to say whether the Taliban are right or wrong. These questions are asked for self-examination. What our country does defines us. Our behavior will be used to measure us against history.

 

[Don Roley]

Was the United States Government a "defacto partner" with Timothy McVeigh? or any of the White Supremisist groups, or apocolytic militias?

The fact that these people operate within the boundaries of the United States does not make the nation guilty of their offenses; nor does it implicated that the United States believes in these peoples opinions. While I will grant you a closer connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban; tied by religious beliefs, they are not the same entity. Just the same as the United States Military is not Timothy McVeigh.

I have trouble believing that you are defending the Taliban by trying to make a loose comparison with McVeigh.

McVeigh was not the financer of the government, nor had he ever met the leaders of the nation and advised them. And if he had commited a crime against another nation, the US would have given him up instead of running cover for him.

If you take a look at the facts, it is clear that the Taliban and Al Queda worked hand in hand. It is not a case of criminals in a country- they worked together! They still are working together! So you can't say that they are uninvolved with people actively trying to kill us and should not be targets just like anyone else.

This is so strange, even by the scale I am used to for Martialtalk.

 

[Don Roley]

You don't think there is a fuzzy line, if not a clear line, between the popularly supported Taliban as a government entity, and al Qaeda, a jihadist / terrorist organization? If we can confligrate 'terrorist' into any popularly supported leadership role, what restrictions are placed on the label 'terrorism' or 'terrorist'?

For the moment, we do not know the combat situation around this airstrike. So, it could be that it was a combat situation: Us Guys Shooting at Them Guys and Them Guys Shooting as Us Guys.

But I do not believe that just because an Predator drops a laser guided bomb, that we are therefore in a combat situation. If we are going to start assassinating people with the United States Military, let's have a debate about it; let's us figure out what rules and ethics by which we are going to execute these tactics.

The fact is, the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan. Are they all legitimate targets? If so, it seems to me we need to do a whole lot more killing over there. And we are going to be creating more enemies with each killing.

I suppose that if you believe that the Taliban should not be shot at, then this article should cause you to be alarmed.

It seems clear to me. If they are operating in the field or somehow involved in the planning and orginization of operations to kill Americans or innocent people, then they are targets. It is the same as any enemy general. If we were to target a person in the government of Zimbabwe I could understand your concerns. But if someone is actively engaged in trying to kill us as the Taliban are, then I do not see why we should be constrained (as you seem to desire) from killing them when and wherever we can.

 

[michaeledward]

I suppose that if you believe that the Taliban should not be shot at, then this article should cause you to be alarmed.

It seems clear to me. If they are operating in the field or somehow involved in the planning and orginization of operations to kill Americans or innocent people, then they are targets. It is the same as any enemy general. If we were to target a person in the government of Zimbabwe I could understand your concerns. But if someone is actively engaged in trying to kill us as the Taliban are, then I do not see why we should be constrained (as you seem to desire) from killing them when and wherever we can.

Well ... rest assured, there is no alarm here, Don Roley. No joy, no sweet smell of victory either, mind you. Perhaps, a bit of sadness, that we have come so low; celebrating the spread of peace and democracy from aircraft launched armament.

From the article you listed, there were no reports that the actions in Musa Qala posed any threat to American Service members or even the Afghanistand allies. I guess that begs the question "what does 'actively engaged' mean?

Dropping a bomb on a car from an airplane did nothing to assist the people of Musa Qala who were reported as being overrun by the Taliban. Quite possibly, there will be some revenge killings in the town, because of this assassination. Sure, the local General offers words about a 'surgical and deliberate' response - at some undetermined point in the future. Looking at Afghanistan and Iraq as a whole - one has to wonder about the credibility of those words.

The article mentions no information about collateral damage. In addition to the Taliban Leader - which one? Can't be sure? maybe Abdul Gafoor, but maybe not - who else died in this strike?

What this really seems like to me, is that someone wants to publish some 'Good News'. It may be a case of there being "No there, there". Kinda like all the stories about how our military 'Killed the #2 man' in this terrorist group. To me, it seems there are an awful lot of #2 men out there, eh?

 

[Kreth]

:deadhorse

 

[Don Roley]

Well ... rest assured, there is no alarm here, Don Roley. No joy, no sweet smell of victory either, mind you. Perhaps, a bit of sadness, that we have come so low; celebrating the spread of peace and democracy from aircraft launched armament.

From the article you listed, there were no reports that the actions in Musa Qala posed any threat to American Service members or even the Afghanistand allies. I guess that begs the question "what does 'actively engaged' mean?

Oh, I would think that in planning and orginizing attacks and operations that involve shooting at folks in Afghanistan covers the definition of actively engaged. I think we can be pretty sure that a Taliban commander in the field was somehow engaged in thinking about killing Americans.

I don't see anyone celebrating peace and democracy while dropping bombs. There is still a battle between the Taliban and the people that don't think stoning homosexuals to death is civilized behavior.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, I would think that in planning and orginizing attacks and operations that involve shooting at folks in Afghanistan covers the definition of actively engaged.

Actively engaged against whom? In this supposition.

I think we can be pretty sure that a Taliban commander in the field was somehow engaged in thinking about killing Americans.

Just as long as we are dropping our bombs on people who are thinking bad things, eh?

I don't see anyone celebrating peace and democracy while dropping bombs.

I see that article as celebratory. And, although the tone has changed significantly in recent months, much of what the President has been telling us over the past four years is how great we as a nation are, because we are spreading democracy. Bringing "The Almighty's Gift to Mankind" to others around the world. I wonder why the Almighty needs the US Military to deliver his gift?

There is still a battle between the Taliban and the people that don't think stoning homosexuals to death is civilized behavior.

And this battle should be fought by the United States military because .... ?

 

[Don Roley]

And this battle should be fought by the United States military because .... ?

Because the Taliban gave support, and continues to give support to the group that caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. They have made no secret of the fact of their intentions. Everyone involved in their orginization can be counted as working for their aims, and that involves attacking the US and its citizens.

This all seems obvious to me. I can't understand why anyone could think that the Taliban is blameless in the attacks of 9-11 and think they should not be hunted down when and wherever they can.

 

[Cruentus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800299.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=14984


So, I am confused... Are we debating Al-Zarqawi's participation in international terrorism?

 

[Don Roley]

So, I am confused... Are we debating Al-Zarqawi's participation in international terrorism?

Take a look at post #116. The post prior to it was six months earlier. From that point on it seems this thread has spread to the discussion of whether we should kill terrorists whenever we can, or wait for them to have a gun in their hand and trying to kill Americans at the time of their death.

When I saw the post about the latest death of a Taliban commander, I decided to post it here rather than wait for another post like #116.

 

[michaeledward]

Because the Taliban gave support, and continues to give support to the group that caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. They have made no secret of the fact of their intentions. Everyone involved in their orginization can be counted as working for their aims, and that involves attacking the US and its citizens.

So we are certain that this Taliban leader was involved in protecting al Qaeda's tactics of September 11th, 2001? The article didn't seem to say that.

Knowing where in the hierarchy of Mullah Omar, Mr. Gafoor fell would be a useful fact to add to the article, I think. That would certainly help to explain and justify the assassination.

This all seems obvious to me. I can't understand why anyone could think that the Taliban is blameless in the attacks of 9-11 and think they should not be hunted down when and wherever they can.

You were making the argument that we should hunt them down and kill them because they are opposed to homosexuality, weren't you?

I don't think I put forth an argument that the Taliban is blameless in 9-11.

To me, it does seem strange how .... "stoning homosexuals to death" and the events of 19 al Qaeda members on September 11, 2001 are blended up into one thing in your argument.

 

[Don Roley]

So we are certain that this Taliban leader was involved in protecting al Qaeda's tactics of September 11th, 2001? The article didn't seem to say that.

Well, we don't know if every German Soldier we killed in WWII was a supporter of the Nazi policies. But because they were part of the movement and orginization involved with fighting us, they were still targets.

I really do not see why we would need to capture and not kill people that willingly joined the Taliban knowing what they do about its policies and actions and then figugure out in a trial if they were part of anything like 9-11. I just can't see the logic.

 

[Cruentus]

Take a look at post #116. The post prior to it was six months earlier. From that point on it seems this thread has spread to the discussion of whether we should kill terrorists whenever we can, or wait for them to have a gun in their hand and trying to kill Americans at the time of their death.

When I saw the post about the latest death of a Taliban commander, I decided to post it here rather than wait for another post like #116.

Ah... cool. Thanks for bringing me on the same page, because I was pretty lost otherwise.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, we don't know if every German Soldier we killed in WWII was a supporter of the Nazi policies. But because they were part of the movement and orginization involved with fighting us, they were still targets.

Did those soldiers remain targets through 1950? Were we still dropping bombs on them after we restored governance to Germany?

Since we have returned governance of Afghanistan to the locals, and we have touted so highly their elections, one begins to wonder why we continue to carry out combat operations in a foreign soveriegn country.

I really do not see why we would need to capture and not kill people that willingly joined the Taliban knowing what they do about its policies and actions and then figugure out in a trial if they were part of anything like 9-11. I just can't see the logic.

It would be best to continue to not see logic. As most of the those who were part of 9-11 were Saudi, and not Afghani, the logic leaps for continued attacks in Afghanistan are required. It seems to me that shortly after 9/11, even the criminally incompetent Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said there weren't any good targets in Afghanistan.

But, it would seem the end result of all these rantings ... is that we are assassinating people without even being able to determine if we are shooting at the right people. But, we count it as a win anyhow.

 

[Don Roley]

Did those soldiers remain targets through 1950? Were we still dropping bombs on them after we restored governance to Germany?

Of course the answer is no- because there were no German soldiers shooting at us.

The Taliban has killed Americans in recent weeks. They hate us because we drove them from power. They are not going to stop coming after us and so I think we should not stop going after them.

It would be best to continue to not see logic

Oh what a nice personal attack! Be assured that I will not lower myself to that level as I have tried to follow the instructions of the moderators.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh what a nice personal attack! Be assured that I will not lower myself to that level as I have tried to follow the instructions of the moderators.

It was not a personal attack. It was a re-iteration of your statement. You said ...

I really do not see why we would need to capture and not kill people that willingly joined the Taliban knowing what they do about its policies and actions and then figugure out in a trial if they were part of anything like 9-11. I just can't see the logic.

The technique used is called 'feedback'; where in I feed back to you the words you spoke, to confirm that we are in agreement about what you said.

Now, if you don't want to 'lower yourself', perhaps you would wish to address the point; which was, that the majority of the attackers on September 11th, 2001 were Saudi descent, as opposed to Afghani.

One arguement you make is that the 'Taliban' are shooting at us, still. The counter argument is that we are an occupying force in their country. It woudl seem to me, based on our actions, we have become the 'muscle' for the new strongman leader we have put in place.

As Saddam had his Fedayeen, so does Karzai have the NATO forces; so does Maliki have President Bush's Surge.

 

[Don Roley]

Now, if you don't want to 'lower yourself', perhaps you would wish to address the point; which was, that the majority of the attackers on September 11th, 2001 were Saudi descent, as opposed to Afghani.

One arguement you make is that the 'Taliban' are shooting at us, still. The counter argument is that we are an occupying force in their country. It woudl seem to me, based on our actions, we have become the 'muscle' for the new strongman leader we have put in place.

But of course, there is a reason why we knocked the Taliban out of power and put a new government in place. It had to do with them supporting and shielding the guys that killed thousands of our citizens. And we kind of do not want them to come back and be able to repeat that, eh?

The Saudi Arabian government is hardly working as the Taliban are to kill us. They are doing things that we do not like. But we are working with them and they have made changes. We want more.

Perhaps we should talk about the Taliban instead of trying to bring in red herrings, eh? If I read this all correct, you think that we were wrong to attack the Taliban even though they would not let us go after Al Queda that they had been sheltering. Now you say you feel sad when you hear about one of their commanders getting killed. What exactly makes you think that they are not terrorists and valid targets? I really do not see your logic.

(BTW- that is of course what I meant when I said "I just can't see the logic" and not that I am unable to see logic as you implied with your response of "It would be best to continue to not see logic". I do not see how you can make the conclusions you make and remain logical. If you could explain it so that we all can understand it without insults, perhaps we can have a valid discussion, eh?)

 

[michaeledward]

Perhaps we should talk about the Taliban instead of trying to bring in red herrings, eh? If I read this all correct, you think that we were wrong to attack the Taliban even though they would not let us go after Al Queda that they had been sheltering. Now you say you feel sad when you hear about one of their commanders getting killed. What exactly makes you think that they are not terrorists and valid targets? I really do not see your logic.

I would posit that you are reading this incorrect.

I am fairly certain that I made no statements in this thread concerning the invasion of Afghanistan in the Fall of 2001.



And, I will remind you of the words I used:

Perhaps, a bit of sadness, that we have come so low

The sadness that I feel is about the plural pronoun 'we' in that sentence. The unmentioned anticedent in that sentence is the American population. I mentioned, I believe, no emotional impact concerning the assassination of Mr. Gafoor.