[Zimphire]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL14858.htm

Afghans behead Taliban in revenge for beheadings
22 Jun 2004 16:46:13 GMT
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, June 22 (Reuters) - Afghan soldiers beheaded four Taliban fighters after guerrillas cut off the heads of an Afghan interpreter for U.S.-led forces and an Afghan soldier, a government commander said on Tuesday.

The interpreter and the soldier were beheaded after becoming separated from a patrol of Afghan and U.S.-led foreign troops in the Arghandab district of Zabul province on Monday night, Namatullah Tokhi, commander of the government's 27th division in the province, told Reuters.

He said government troops later captured and killed four Taliban guerrillas in the same way. "They cut of their heads with a knife, so when our forces arrested four Taliban, we cut off their heads too."

[CD Hanks]

[BRussell]

[Atomic Rooster]

Do we know if these people who were 'captured' and beheaded were innocent or what?

Two wrongs make a right? These people are no better then the scum in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

So are you condoning this Zimphire?

You're famous for starting threads with a link and no comment from yourself.

[Spliffdaddy]

you're

not 'your'

[lil'babykitten]

Lovely. More beheadings is what this world needs.

[voodoo]

This discussion is giving me a headache.

[Sod Off Sadr]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Lovely. More beheadings is what this world needs.

If terrorist heads roll, I'm all for it.

[Logic]

Originally posted by voodoo:
This discussion is giving me a headache.

Just think how lucky you are to still be able to have a headeache /tasteless joke

[Lerkfish]

the statement was retracted, for whatever reason:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/1087998098

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the statement was retracted, for whatever reason:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/1087998098

Welcome back lerk.

[mr. natural]

Afghanistan? Oh yeah, I remember that place now. Didn't we bring Peace, Freedom & Democracy™ to them awhile ago?

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Do we know if these people who were 'captured' and beheaded were innocent or what?

Do you think anyone that is part of a terrorist organization is innocent?

Two wrongs make a right? These people are no better then the scum in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

I agree.

So are you condoning this Zimphire?

Of course not

Your famous for starting threads with a link and no comment from yourself.

I was just posting news. Stop being such a whiner.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Afghanistan? Oh yeah, I remember that place now. Didn't we bring Peace, Freedom & Democracy™ to them awhile ago?

What kind of post is that?

We have that here, but there is still murder and killing and rape here as well.

These things don't form in a vacuum.

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Determined to part of a terrorist organization how?

Huh?

Who gets to determine that, and is it before or after they are beheaded? Its easy to label anyone you just killed or want to kill as a "terrorist". Its a lot harder to prove it. The advantage of course, if you kill them right away is you don't have to mess with pesky trials or anything, or the annoying complication of the corpse attempting to prove its innocence. Its very easy to make corpses seem guilty.

Are you saying they didn't really know if they were Taliban or not? I know you are trying to play the "Don't do bad things unless you know for sure" game.

But how do you know what they knew Lerk? You are assuming.

If this even happened.

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I am guarding against the indiscriminate use of the term "terrorist" to label anyone we wish to kill. Some are labeling Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" also, although they have not committed any acts of terror but are instead fighting soldiers who invaded their country.

The group who beheaded this Korean are being called insurgents. I don't know if they are, but that line has been blurring. Insurgents have also been blowing up Iraqis standing in line to get jobs in the Iraqi army. I'd call that terrorism.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, I wasn't assuming anything, you were. You had already labeled them "terrorists", which is an interesting assumption. the story says they were taliban, not terrrorists.
"Taliban" does not necessarily equal "terrorist"...in fact, I don't believe any of the Taliban WERE terrorists themselves, they harbored Al Queda, the terrorists, and that makes the leaders of the group guilty of harboring terrorists, but not of being terrorists, any more than hiding a fugitive murderer makes you guilty of murder.
Taliban is a group that adheres to a philosophy, like "republican" or "communist" or "libertarian". Merely pointing out that someone is taliban does not make them guilty of a crime.

I am guarding against the indiscriminate use of the term "terrorist" to label anyone we wish to kill. Some are labeling Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" also, although they have not committed any acts of terror but are instead fighting soldiers who invaded their country.

,
I was just going to post nearly the same, but you were quicker.

Taliesin

[Powerbook]

Hey - let's just replace 'terrorist' with 'animal' and there are no more problems. Or are there?

PB.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, I wasn't assuming anything, you were. You had already labeled them "terrorists", which is an interesting assumption. the story says they were taliban, not terrrorists.

They are two of the same. They support terrorism as well. Anyone that supports terrorism is also a terrorist.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The group who beheaded this Korean are being called insurgents. I don't know if they are, but that line has been blurring. Insurgents have also been blowing up Iraqis standing in line to get jobs in the Iraqi army. I'd call that terrorism.

In that case, yes, point taken, the line is blurring. But in this case, as far as I can tell from the report, these were taliban guerillas fighting soldiers.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

They are two of the same. They support terrorism as well. Anyone that supports terrorism is also a terrorist. [/B]

And who decides what is terrorism and what not?

[christ]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The group who beheaded this Korean are being called insurgents. I don't know if they are, but that line has been blurring. Insurgents have also been blowing up Iraqis standing in line to get jobs in the Iraqi army. I'd call that terrorism.

And you may well be right.

Now relate that to the Taliban that were killed by the Afghans that Zimph called terrorists.

Zimph, in his inimitable style, has decided that the Taliban are terrorists, and Lerk (long time no see, by the way) pointed out that they are not synonyms, any more than 'idiot neo-con religious zealot' and 'Bush-supporter' are synonymous.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
And who decides what is terrorism and what not?

Hopefully not you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL14858.htm

Afghans behead Taliban in revenge for beheadings
22 Jun 2004 16:46:13 GMT
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, June 22 (Reuters) - Afghan soldiers beheaded four Taliban fighters after guerrillas cut off the heads of an Afghan interpreter for U.S.-led forces and an Afghan soldier, a government commander said on Tuesday.

The interpreter and the soldier were beheaded after becoming separated from a patrol of Afghan and U.S.-led foreign troops in the Arghandab district of Zabul province on Monday night, Namatullah Tokhi, commander of the government's 27th division in the province, told Reuters.

He said government troops later captured and killed four Taliban guerrillas in the same way. "They cut of their heads with a knife, so when our forces arrested four Taliban, we cut off their heads too."

Do you agree with retaliatory terrorism such as this?

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hopefully not you.

So you can't answer who decides what terrorism is and instead decided to pull a personal attack on me instead?

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[Zimphire]

No.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Logic:
And who decides what is terrorism and what not?

Oh come on, it's not hard to define terrorism objectively. It's the intentional targeting of civilians. You could include a phrase like "for political reasons" if you want to distinguish it from run-of-the-mill criminal activity.

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Oh come on, it's not hard to define terrorism objectively. It's the intentional targeting of civilians. You could include a phrase like "for political reasons" if you want to distinguish it from run-of-the-mill criminal activity.

Also note, that defending oneself from terrorists, and terrorism is also not terrorism. No matter how someone might spin it.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

They are two of the same. They support terrorism as well. Anyone that supports terrorism is also a terrorist. [/B]

Then I think your just died and so loved ex-president Reagan was a terrorist, since he supported terrorists!

Besides your CIA is a terrorist-organization, not mentioning your paramilitary units, so the whole USA is made up of terrorists, except those americans who don't pay taxes and who don't vote, since the CIA is financed through taxes, etc..

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Oh come on, it's not hard to define terrorism objectively. It's the intentional targeting of civilians. You could include a phrase like "for political reasons" if you want to distinguish it from run-of-the-mill criminal activity.

Then I think what the western allies did to civilians towns in Germany is terrorism, and also what the US did in Japan with its atom-bombs, and also what the US did in Vietnam with its napalm, etc.. is also terrorism as they deliberately targeted civilians to break their will to resist anylonger...

Taliesin

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Also note, that defending oneself from terrorists, and terrorism is also not terrorism. No matter how someone might spin it.

It could be. Terrorism is simply a tactic. If the US (or Israel or whoever) targeted civilians in order to stop terrorism, we would be using terrorism too. I hope we don't do it, and I don't think we do, but we should be willing to call it what it is. The best example I can think of is the use of the atom bomb against Japan - it targeted civilians. It's a weird example because of its scale, and because terrorists usually are weak and engage in terrorism against a stronger opponent, but I think it fits.

[edit]Taliesin we posted at the same time but I'd have to basically agree. But I'd also say that some groups habitually practice terrorism - that's their dominant tactic. Others may periodically engage in terrorism, and that doesn't make it OK, but it may not be their primary tactic. I think that's the case in WWII - the US was engaged in massive military engagements across the world, and although a few instances fit the terrorism definition, and shouldn't have been done, that's far from organizations that do nothing but terrorism.

[Logic]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Oh come on, it's not hard to define terrorism objectively. It's the intentional targeting of civilians. You could include a phrase like "for political reasons" if you want to distinguish it from run-of-the-mill criminal activity.

Then why is it so difficult for the people in this world to determine what is terrorism and what is not?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Also note, that defending oneself from terrorists, and terrorism is also not terrorism. No matter how someone might spin it.

I agree.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Logic:
Then why is it so difficult for the people in this world to determine what is terrorism and what is not?

I suppose it's because people tend to say us = good guys, them = terrorists.

[Logic]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I suppose it's because people tend to say us = good guys, them = terrorists.

Then again, who should decide who's a terrorist and who is not. It is very important that someone does it, because the recent trend is to say that those who "support" "terrorists" deserve just they same as the "terrorists" themselves.

That is why I asked Zimph the question.

[PacHead]

It is very simple. ALL islamic terrorists = BAD

WE = GOOD

Anybody who does not agree with this is the enemy ASAIAC.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Then I think what the western allies did to civilians towns in Germany is terrorism, and also what the US did in Japan with its atom-bombs, and also what the US did in Vietnam with its napalm, etc.. is also terrorism as they deliberately targeted civilians to break their will to resist anylonger...

Taliesin

Are Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by itai195:
Are Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations?

*question of the day*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*question of the day*

[swrate]

Originally posted by PacHead:
It is very simple. ALL islamic terrorists = BAD

WE = GOOD

Anybody who does not agree with this is the enemy ASAIAC.

ALL islamic terrorists = BAD = unislamic terrorists = GOOD


ME = BAD = Terrorist

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by PacHead:
It is very simple. ALL islamic terrorists = BAD

WE = GOOD

Anybody who does not agree with this is the enemy ASAIAC.

Kudos to you, you have been really consistently ironic for all your postings, and you sounded so convincing, but here you have exaggerated a bit too much to keep up the facade of meaning it seriously anymore.

But let's pretend that you are serious for the sake of discussion:
ALL islamic terrorists=BAD? Well you should have told it the CIA and the administration at that time that actually recruited these same islamic terrorists in the different arabic neo-colonies and called them freedom-fighters..

Taliesin

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by itai195:
Are Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations?

Hey, Talespin

the only appropriate answers are 'yes' or 'no'

I can help you with the spelling if you like.

*wanders off shaking his head...fassade*

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by BRussell:
[edit]Taliesin we posted at the same time but I'd have to basically agree. But I'd also say that some groups habitually practice terrorism - that's their dominant tactic. Others may periodically engage in terrorism, and that doesn't make it OK, but it may not be their primary tactic. I think that's the case in WWII - the US was engaged in massive military engagements across the world, and although a few instances fit the terrorism definition, and shouldn't have been done, that's far from organizations that do nothing but terrorism.

That is a good point, but all the organizations that are commonly called terroristic organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, are also only periodically resorting to retaliation-operations, like I use to call what all others call terrorist-attacks, depending on the behaviour of the israelic army. These organizations have an education-, as well as a social- as well as a political- as well as a religious wing.

Their military operations are divided into guerillia-warfare against the israelic army and retaliation-operations for the civilians Israel kills.

So, I would never call Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist-groups.

But Al-Kaida is a terrorist-group, as much as the CIA is, which is no wonder as the relation between CIA and Al-Kaida is one of master and student.

Taliesin