Comments on: Primer: Afghanistan http://ondit.com.au/primer-afghanistan/ On Dit, Online Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:43:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: T.Mackay http://ondit.com.au/primer-afghanistan//comment-page-1#comment-55 T.Mackay Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:08:57 +0000 http://ondit.com.au/blog/?p=143#comment-55 You have missed the point of my response. I was arguing was that our continued participation with the US' 'geopolitical' (a post-Marxist buzz word to replace imperialism) ventures will continue to make Australia a threat to Islamist violence. This includes retaining troops within Afghanistan. Objectives don't even seem to be clear. If it is to eliminate the Taliban, how will this prevent future acts of 'terrorism'? I made it clear in my response that the Taliban did not have anything to with the 2001 attacks. We scoff at those that still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible, but by equal measure, many still accept that the Taliban were. There is no difference. You have missed the point of my response. I was arguing was that our continued participation with the US’ ‘geopolitical’ (a post-Marxist buzz word to replace imperialism) ventures will continue to make Australia a threat to Islamist violence. This includes retaining troops within Afghanistan. Objectives don’t even seem to be clear. If it is to eliminate the Taliban, how will this prevent future acts of ‘terrorism’? I made it clear in my response that the Taliban did not have anything to with the 2001 attacks. We scoff at those that still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible, but by equal measure, many still accept that the Taliban were. There is no difference.

]]> By: T Diment http://ondit.com.au/primer-afghanistan//comment-page-1#comment-49 T Diment Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:36:55 +0000 http://ondit.com.au/blog/?p=143#comment-49 Whatever your opinion on the original invasion, this article is dealing with the current situation in Afghanistan and Australia's part in it. I doubt that many people believe that we should have been there in the first place, but now that we are, what is the responsible course of action when pulling troops out could produce a situation like that in Iraq after the Gulf War? How do we balance our alliance with the US with our own social conscience, and how will a government elected on promises to reduce troop numbers retain credibility if they don't? Personally, I feel that throwing our troops after the US' into every situation is extremely irresponsible, and that an international trade agreement (which gains little for us anyway) is not worth international unrest and the expected increase in international terrorism (not that we've seen any of that here yet), and certainly isn't worth the loss of the nation's confidence in their elected government. Whatever your opinion on the original invasion, this article is dealing with the current situation in Afghanistan and Australia’s part in it. I doubt that many people believe that we should have been there in the first place, but now that we are, what is the responsible course of action when pulling troops out could produce a situation like that in Iraq after the Gulf War? How do we balance our alliance with the US with our own social conscience, and how will a government elected on promises to reduce troop numbers retain credibility if they don’t?
Personally, I feel that throwing our troops after the US’ into every situation is extremely irresponsible, and that an international trade agreement (which gains little for us anyway) is not worth international unrest and the expected increase in international terrorism (not that we’ve seen any of that here yet), and certainly isn’t worth the loss of the nation’s confidence in their elected government.

]]> By: T.Mackay http://ondit.com.au/primer-afghanistan//comment-page-1#comment-39 T.Mackay Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:17:49 +0000 http://ondit.com.au/blog/?p=143#comment-39 "It is within Australia’s interest to prevent Afghanistan from returning to a breeding ground for terrorism." Wouldn't it be in our interest to sever our ties with the US and stop participating in aggressive, illegal and grossly unethical imperialistic activities which create, motivate and prolong 'terrorism'? The Taliban were not responsible for the New York attacks on the 11th of September, 2001. They were actually willing to cooperate in the extradition of suspects to the US, on the grounds that sufficient evidence was provided - it never was and it never has been. The US acted belligerently and bombed/invaded Afghanistan hastily without a legitimate 'just cause', taking advantage of world-wide sympathy and exploiting the opportunity for both propaganda and geopolitical reasons - prior to the attacks, the Taliban were aligned with the US. Surprise, Surprise, the Taliban became an enemy when tensions arose over the Trans-Afghan oil pipeline. It is true that the Taliban consists of militants and extremists from the Mujahideen, as does many Islamic terrorist cells/groups. The Mujahideen, however, were originally a paramilitary force initiated and funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets. As such, Afghanistan was used as a proxy state during the Cold War. When the Soviets retreated, the Mujahideen took no time in noticing that the US was guilty of the very same thing as their Soviet enemies - occupation. Additionally, support for Israeli terrorism, occupation of the territories and US military facilities in Saudi Arabia all factor into the hatred necessary for terrorism to exist. 'Success' in Afghanistan will not do anything to solve this issue. The vast majority of suspects were citizens of Saudi Arabia - including Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is a strong US ally, providing not only oil, but also massive financial assistance. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy in any traditional and even linguistic sense. There is not even consensus as to what 'terrorism' even means. If it means the use of violence and/or intimidation of civilian populations in order to achieve ones ends, then this includes those 'fighting' this tactic, especially the US. There was no national body solely responsible for harbouring these terrorists. Suspects were trained and funded from all regions of the world, particularly Saudi Arabia, but also France, Germany and even the US. Why weren't these countries also targeted? How can one declare war on one nation, when terrorism transcends national/international boundaries? So this is either proto-nationalist or post-nationalist combat. Our continued alliance with the US will remain to antagonise potential and current 'terrorists' and will threaten our national security. Afghanistan was originally a 'breeding ground for terrorism' because the US, our ally, created those terrorists. “It is within Australia’s interest to prevent Afghanistan from returning to a breeding ground for terrorism.”

Wouldn’t it be in our interest to sever our ties with the US and stop participating in aggressive, illegal and grossly unethical imperialistic activities which create, motivate and prolong ‘terrorism’?

The Taliban were not responsible for the New York attacks on the 11th of September, 2001. They were actually willing to cooperate in the extradition of suspects to the US, on the grounds that sufficient evidence was provided – it never was and it never has been. The US acted belligerently and bombed/invaded Afghanistan hastily without a legitimate ‘just cause’, taking advantage of world-wide sympathy and exploiting the opportunity for both propaganda and geopolitical reasons – prior to the attacks, the Taliban were aligned with the US. Surprise, Surprise, the Taliban became an enemy when tensions arose over the Trans-Afghan oil pipeline.

It is true that the Taliban consists of militants and extremists from the Mujahideen, as does many Islamic terrorist cells/groups. The Mujahideen, however, were originally a paramilitary force initiated and funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets. As such, Afghanistan was used as a proxy state during the Cold War. When the Soviets retreated, the Mujahideen took no time in noticing that the US was guilty of the very same thing as their Soviet enemies – occupation. Additionally, support for Israeli terrorism, occupation of the territories and US military facilities in Saudi Arabia all factor into the hatred necessary for terrorism to exist. ‘Success’ in Afghanistan will not do anything to solve this issue.

The vast majority of suspects were citizens of Saudi Arabia – including Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is a strong US ally, providing not only oil, but also massive financial assistance.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy in any traditional and even linguistic sense. There is not even consensus as to what ‘terrorism’ even means. If it means the use of violence and/or intimidation of civilian populations in order to achieve ones ends, then this includes those ‘fighting’ this tactic, especially the US.

There was no national body solely responsible for harbouring these terrorists. Suspects were trained and funded from all regions of the world, particularly Saudi Arabia, but also France, Germany and even the US. Why weren’t these countries also targeted? How can one declare war on one nation, when terrorism transcends national/international boundaries? So this is either proto-nationalist or post-nationalist combat.

Our continued alliance with the US will remain to antagonise potential and current ‘terrorists’ and will threaten our national security. Afghanistan was originally a ‘breeding ground for terrorism’ because the US, our ally, created those terrorists.

]]>