Axed Canadian

Again that isn't a universal concept for all. It is a perception "we" share, thus to boggle down such actions into right and wrong distracts from the point of this news piece. The poitn of course being that there is discontent with the situation, and that "we" are increasingly looked on as invaders versus helpers.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Boy... reading some of the responses here, like this one (Sorry Omar), is really making me rethink my thoughts on S.P. Huntington's theory on "Clash of Civilizations!" But which civilisation would I be in?

I think i came into this thread misunderstanding the context of some of the replies?

My apologies to Omar and no need to worry about that particular comment. I tend to have a big mouth at times and an equally sized foot for it to fit in. I also have this tendency at times of underestimating the dimness of this little ol' bulb of mine between my ears.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Some muggers, rapists and murders can be brave. It does depend on how much immediate danger there is in their crime though. We recognise this sometimes, think of bank robbers, cowboys, and bushrangers. They're often no more than muggers rapist and murders, and we accept they are brave.

I still wouldn't operate with "brave" in this context. The concept of bravery carries with it a sense of moral quality, it'd be very confusing if we started applying to it any act that involves risk. The kind of people you mention would be more appropriately termed "rogue", "daring", "audacious" or maybe even "bold". If you used "brave" you'd have to explain yourself afterwards, which isn't effective communication.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Last time I checked Afghanistan was occupied by the US government and Nato forces, spin it as you like but resistance to occupation is one of the basic human rights just like liberty. While most Afghanis may don't want to use this right some do and the kid in the story did it.

Is it possible to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan and at the same time believe the Afghans are right to defend themselves against it? This seems like too much of a self-contradiction to be workable in real life. You may feel as if many operate with a double standard under which it's okay for NATO forces to kill Afghans but not vice versa, but this is a logical necessity of supporting the operation. In any case it's not as if anyone needs to be granted a formal right to defend themselves, self-defense is a god-given right that can be used by anyone regardless of any consensus.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Finally, I never knew there was a list of lawful weapons one could use to kill his enemy, especially blue eyed blondies from the Europe, would any one please send me the list.

Actually we have yet to develop such a list, seeing as we prefer to stay alive and all. At the moment I'm busy imagining the outrage if I made a similar request concerning "brownies from the Middle East" or "big-nosed Negroes from Africa".

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Regi   Based on your argument people have been fighting war the wrong way for the past 3000 years.   There is no contradiction here whatsoever. One guy is fighting because his government was attacked on 9/11 and the other is fighting because his government was attacked on 7/10/2001. Both are doing their duty and both committed no wrong.   What you are saying is in effect if one country declared war on the other for any reason the second nation should just throw its weapons and open its doors. The least I could say about this is naive.

I can't see how you were able to read this out of my post. All I said was that if you're going to support the operation in Afghanistan then you can't consider it right for the enemy to fight back. I one truly believes in the merits of this operation then one must also believe it would be better if every Afghan merely surrendered. Of course it rarely happens this way, and so there is armed conflict. In armed conflict people fight for what they believe in, not for what they consider to be merely one of two equally valid agendas.

I still wouldn't operate with "brave" in this context. The concept of bravery carries with it a sense of moral quality, it'd be very confusing if we started applying to it any act that involves risk. The kind of people you mention would be more appropriately termed "rogue", "daring", "audacious" or maybe even "bold". If you used "brave" you'd have to explain yourself afterwards, which isn't effective communication.

Well I am having to explain myself afterward aren't I? But yes, you are correct in that, when I am in company where I don't want this discussion they are safer words.
However, since people can cope with this with discussion on AE I will stick with using Brave. I think rather than bravery implying a sense of moral quality the problem is more than bravery is a moral quality. Its a single moral quality, of a possible many, but in this case we can say it is a moral quality that the kid possesed. The problem comes when people don't like acknowledging any moral qualities in their enemies (or crims), so they are happy to acknowledge that he was audacious, but not that he was brave. I cited the example of bank robbers, cowboys and bushrangers as these are all examples of criminals that have been subject to positive propaganda (as opposed to muggers, rapists and murderers), even though the person is exactly the same. A brigand who was considered a muderer by his contemporaries becomes a Bushranger (perhaps even a hero) by later generations. His actions are identical, but the contempories suppress his moral characteristics because they didn't like him, and later generations over enlarge them because they do like him. "Everybody knows" bushrangers are brave, even though they basically are muggers, rapists, and murderers.

Personally I think you should always acknowledge the positive attributes of even your worst enemy, and to do other wise is dishonourable on your part.

Is it possible to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan and at the same time believe the Afghans are right to defend themselves against it? This seems like too much of a self-contradiction to be workable in real life. You may feel as if many operate with a double standard under which it's okay for NATO forces to kill Afghans but not vice versa, but this is a logical necessity of supporting the operation.

I don't think so. I think this depends highly on the society. In societies that shirk at war and have no real interest in the operation daemonising the enemy is probably necessary to keep support (thus they have no moral right to fight back). But in societies that are used to war, and have a real interest in being there, its highly counter-productive (because believing your own propaganda isn't going to bring you victory, which relies upon understanding your enemy)

In armed conflict people fight for what they believe in, not for what they consider to be merely one of two equally valid agendas.

Definitely in Afghanistan & Pakistan the majority of people are fighting for one of two valid agendas. Its only a few who would be 'pro Taliban' or 'pro NATO'. Most will have their own agenda which will cause them to back one side or the other. And I certainly include the Pakistan Army & Government in this group.
There was a recent incident in Afghanistan where a foriegn patrol was ambushed by Taliban, it wouldn't have been much of a problem except for the fact all the local villagers came out and fought with the Talibs. Afterwards they asked the villagers why they fought for the Taliban, when NATO already knew they weren't involved with them. The answer was simple; this was the most exciting thing to happen in their valley for 20 years and they weren't about to miss out. Since they had to choose a side to join in, they chose the Taliban, after all they were locals and not invaders.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 16-Apr-2009 at 02:24

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim That's true. What did he before and after again? I haven't seen it reported anywhere.

I want to ask, what is motivating the Canadian government to this war despite the fact that they have lost over a hundred personnel KIA (and how knows how many WIA)? I don't think Australia has lost 1/10th that amount. Our forces are serving in Oruzgan province.

Originally posted by DukeC It was in the story.

Its not in the story at all. All that is in the story is the type of sickening cowardly patriotism that fills you with disgust to be allied with such people. If we all had that type of bravery we'd be afraid to leave the city incase we got dirt on our shoes.

Like I said, read it again. He was a social activist before he joined the forces to go to Afghanistan. And despite a lot of the rhetoric, not everyone serving in the NATO forces in Afghanistan sees themself as some bit player in neo-colonialism.

Oh right, so if I don't see myself as something it means I'm not one? This makes him a hero does it? That he was foolish enough to see white as black?

And just recovering from the the type of injury he sustained takes a type of courage that few possess.

Rubbish. What's the alternative? Suicide? My mum's cousin has recovered from just as bad or worse in a similar story. Why aren't you singing her praise as a hero? Are you prepared to admit that its because the solider is being used for propaganda purposes while she isn't?

I don't think the young man who attacked him had that kind of courage. He was probably brought up to believe in some sort of devine ascension for an act of violence again an outsider to his culture. ... Like most extremists, the Taliban are unable to see any shades of grey, everything is black or white.

Prove it. You have no knowledge of his motives and I'm sure you have never met a Talib so don't make unfounded guesses based on war propaganda.

Honestly Duke, I can't make any judgements about the soliders involved but this kind of reporting just makes me want to throw up. Honour your war dead, but do it in a way that actually honours them, not in a way that looks like the whining of a jingoistic media. Its extremely irritating. Do you seriously think that you can win any war thinking like that? Let alone win a war against a people who have been fighting for 30 years, and join in a firefight because its fun?

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 07-May-2009 at 05:10

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Its not in the story at all. All that is in the story is the type of sickening cowardly patriotism that fills you with disgust to be allied with such people. If we all had that type of bravery we'd be afraid to leave the city incase we got dirt on our shoes.

Honestly Duke, I can't make any judgements about the soliders involved but this kind of reporting just makes me want to throw up. Honour your war dead, but do it in a way that actually honours them, not in a way that looks like the whining of a jingoistic media. Its extremely irritating. Do you seriously think that you can win any war thinking like that? Let alone win a war against a people who have been fighting for 30 years, and join in a firefight because its fun?

Edited by DukeC - 07-May-2009 at 19:46