GameBanshee Forums

This is of course mere speculation, but I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts about this issue.

The Taliban's control 90% of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have suffered tremensously during the Taliban's extreme fundamentalist regime.

What do you think? Would the people actually benefit from a US attack on Afghanistan, or would it lead to increased suffering?

I cant see any benefit to these people.
Perhaps to bloody the nose of the US is enough. Gives them a sense of victory.

The people of Afganistan could only benifit from one thing - if we find out that the Taliban are harboring bin Laden and take out both camps, while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum (in real life, you can never truly avoid civilian casualties).

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>I cant see any benefit to these people.
Perhaps to bloody the nose of the US is enough. Gives them a sense of victory.</STRONG>

??? What do you mean? Do you mean you think the oppressed people suffering under the Taliban dictatorship can't be helped in any way, regardless?

Does anybody benefit from an attack on their nation?

And just to point out many of the things the Taliban have made into laws have been practiced by custom and tradition by the people for nearly 3 centuries.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>??? What do you mean? Do you mean you think the oppressed people suffering under the Taliban dictatorship can't be helped in any way, regardless?</STRONG>

Don't argue with him CE, he's the type, who is only happy. If they wipe the country off the face of the earth. Not caring about, who else lives in the country. With thinking like that, is the reason this world is so F*cked Up.

I don't think that it was the Afghanistan people who did this. I think it was one of the many terrorist groups that hate the US. If it was the Afghanistan, we would have known about the attack long before it happened. Our intellagence is not that bad, and our spies know what the Afghanistan people/government know.
At least that is what I believe.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Does anybody benefit from an attack on their nation?

</STRONG>

No, of course not I meant in the long run, since the country and it's people have now been sufferening invasions and civil war for over 20 years.

<STRONG>
And just to point out many of the things the Taliban have made into laws have been practiced by custom and tradition by the people for nearly 3 centuries.</STRONG>

The Taliban's set out to make Afghanistan the purest muslim state in the world. I'm sure some laws they had made are congruent to what many muslims in the area have practised for a long time. But even if the Taliban's were initially popular because some people hoped they would bring peace to a country torn by long time war, they absolutely don't have the support of the majority of the people.

(My sources for this information: newssites like BBC, Swedish newspapers and people I know who hide Afghanistan refugees seeking asylum here.)

EDIT: Trink, I was speculating what would be the best thing to do if it turns out that Bin Laden is responsible, and he is indeed hiding in Afghanistan.

@DP: Thanks I thought I just had misunderstood something.

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

Hi again everyone..just another plea for rational, civil responses here. No flaming, inappropriate comments etc.

@CE I'm not picking on your topic, but I think it also has the possibility of getting hostile, so I'm asking before there's any problems.

T'lainya: I'm probably thinking to far ahead here, watching the news and thinking of the future. Maybe it's better to resume discussion about his kind of topics later. Everybody is still in a state of shock, me too

The taliban are not practicing Islam not matter what they say or do.

As for no support of the people, i wouldn't say that.
The taliban have made the country safe which they control.
They enforce customs which were outlawed under the russians.
But however they seem to think they are at war with everybody and esp. the west.

The Taliban do have support among the people.
Also these refugees, i wouldn't be surprised if half of them aren't pakistanis.

There is an opposition but very small.
It is like the situation with Saddam.
The Taliban have done some good and done some bad.
Only the Afghani people know what exactly is best for them.

This topic can be related to any oppressed people. The real question is, who is best to judge what is better? I have no idea what would be best for people in Afghanistan, or any of the other unstable countries. (Unstable as in human rights, etc.) We can all have opinions on what sort of government is better, but it is hard to say from the outside.

Although, I understand that under the muslim law in Afghanistan, alcohol is not allowed!!

So, that should be the first priority, giving these poor people the right to toss back a few pints

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>??? What do you mean? Do you mean you think the oppressed people suffering under the Taliban dictatorship can't be helped in any way, regardless?</STRONG>

I totally misread the question...
my apologies.

I thought the question asked how the attacks in New York could benefit these people.

The people of Afghanistan of course would suffer from an attack on their country by the US. Many refugees, deaths and strained supplies etc.

Not sure how they would be helped. Maybe with a new government?

@DP can PM me if they so choose.

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]

I disagree with this idea that one cannot judge a nation. The ONLY objective criteria for judging a nation is: the extent to which it protects and ensures the individual rights of it's own people, and (unless provoked) the rights of others around the globe.

One may always fall back on the tried and true example of an obviously evil state, such as Germany under the National Socialists. That nation itself GAVE UP it's rights as a sovereign state the moment it began it's acts of crimes against humanity. So, too, could one say that the Stalinist USSR (and USSR in later years, up until the great changes of 1989) had NO international rights. The US, or any other nation, would have been 100% within the codes of morality to INVADE that nation, and create a new government founded on individual rights and freedom (as the US did in Germany after WWII).

Note that such a war would be morally justifiable, and could ONLY have positive results for the population which was thus invaded. WHO in their right minds would rather live in Stalinist Russia as opposed to a free and democratic Russia? There is NO question but that Germans today are better off for having LOST WWII, and having been occupied and steered towards democracy, rather than having continued to live under a fascist regime.

Now, in the context of Afghanistan, couldn't the same said to be true? The Taliban is a fascist dictatorship (of a religious presuasion) that is a fact. Furthermore, the harbor a KNOWN terrorist (Bin Laden). They are a nation which, therefore, does not have the moral right to sovereignty.

PS: I know that I am walking a fine line wrt the Forum Rules here. I do not wish to anger or inflame anyone. Nor, however, did I feel I could sit back and allow some of the discussion to flow towards such subjectivist views. The day when the people of the world throw up their arms and say: "I don't know that there is any moral difference between the United States and Afghanistan;" well, that is a sad day indeed.

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>I totally misread the question...
my apologies.

I thought the question asked how the attacks in New York could benefit these people.

The people of Afghanistan of course would suffer from an attack on their country by the US. Many refugees, deaths and strained supplies etc.

Not sure how they would be helped. Maybe with a new government?
</STRONG>

Oh, now I understand your reply. Sorry, I should have made my question clearer - we're all quite upset.

I think DP reacted from assuming that your reply was actually directed towards my real question.

Personally, I don't know really what I think. To some extent I agree with Quark, to others I agree with Fas and McBane. I also agree with der Moench :confusion:

The reason I posted this question was the attack on Kabul yesterday, (that turned out to be the Northern Alliance, I think) and todays increasing evidence pointing at Osama Bin Laden.

It's very difficult to judge from the outside what is best for another country. And like McBane says: who's to judge? But at the same time I can't help thinking of the nations der Moench is mentioning in his post. And I also think about Albania.

When the Soviet union fell, the closed communist states in Europe all opened up, and I think all of us was most shocked and terrifyied about the state of Albania. Albania was the most isolated country in Europe before this, it was completely totalitarian. No information about the outside world entered Albania. The people there were manipulated to believe they had a good life. One of the first refugees who came to Sweden from Albania was a physician, and when he told about the lack of hospitals and medical aid, we all realised Albania was in reality a country as poor as the 3rd world countries. When media started sending documentaries and news from Albania, the scenario of a country with 3rd world standard in education, social services, medical aid, etc etc unfolded. Every day there were people who starved to death.

So - my thought was simply that maybe, in the longer perspective, the people of Afghanistan would actually benefit from a US attack if it's carried out like in Quark's post and the rest of the world stands ready to take in all the refugees?
Still of course, the citizens always suffer tremendously in any war

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>The Taliban's control 90% of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have suffered tremensously during the Taliban's extreme fundamentalist regime.

What do you think? Would the people actually benefit from a US attack on Afghanistan, or would it lead to increased suffering?</STRONG>

I doubt it. Outside intervention will not create the changes that need to come from the grassroots level, and I don't see that there.