[Jim]

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A suicide car bomb blast near a voter registration site killed 16 people, 14 of them children, and wounded 58 in southeastern Afghanistan on Sunday morning, according to a senior police official and the U.S. military.

The U.S. military released this photo of the blast near a voter registration site.

A Taliban spokesman said one of his group's fighters carried out the attack.

When security guards stopped the car at the entrance to the Mandozai district headquarters, the driver detonated the explosives inside the car, Khost provincial security chief Mohammad Yaqoub said.

A security guard and an Afghan National Army soldier were among the dead. There were no military casualties, said U.S. Col. Gregory Julian. Coalition and Afghan forces worked together to evacuate the wounded to military and civilian hospitals, he said.

The military released photos of the incident, saying they "provide further proof the Afghan militants are not interested in the welfare nor benefit of the Afghan people."

Dozens of tribal elders were meeting nearby in the district administrative office at the time of the bombing, the police official said. The Mandozai district is in the Khost province.

Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman speaking by phone from an undisclosed location, said the suicide bombing was carried out by Qari Hameedullah, a Taliban fighter.

Elsewhere, a rocket attack in Kabul killed three teenage sisters and injured four other people Saturday night, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office said in a statement.

The girls died when one of two rockets fired on Kabul crashed into a house in the southern part of the city. In the statement, Karzai called those who fired the rockets "enemies of Afghanistan" who "can't achieve anything by firing rockets but the killing of innocent civilians."

The president called the suicide bombing an "un-Islamic act" and said those behind it "are not aware of the Islamic teachings which outlaw the killing of innocent people. Those who ordered and executed this attack cannot escape the revenge of Afghans and God's punishment."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/...bomb/index.html

[Honu]

Ten bucks says the driver of the car bomb said "Allahu Akbar" as he set off the bomb.

[Coexist]

Ten bucks says the driver of the car bomb said "Allahu Akbar" as he set off the bomb.

You know, I almost posted something very similar to this last night, but my reply came out much worse so I decided against it.

[Jim]

Thing is, this article is one of many that flies in the face of the wannabe extremists (like from "those forums") that would decry the glories of the taliban, claim that Muslims dont do these things, and that it is really Mossad or CIA (or some other phantom group) who are carrying out these attacks.

[Musa]

The president called the suicide bombing an "un-Islamic act" and said those behind it "are not aware of the Islamic teachings which outlaw the killing of innocent people. Those who ordered and executed this attack cannot escape the revenge of Afghans and God's punishment."

Because Hamid Karzai is full of "Islamic" acts.

[Honu]

Musa, please don't tell me you are defending the Taliban here. Are the suicide car bombing and the random launching of rockets into civilian territory "Islamic acts"?

Sounds an awful lot like the Taliban are adopting Hamas tactics.

[Musa]

Musa, please don't tell me you are defending the Taliban here. Are the suicide car bombing and the random launching of rockets into civilian territory "Islamic acts"?

Lol, I don't see how I defended their acts. All I did, was find the hypocrisy of Hamid Karzai mildly funny. I pray for those innocents that were killed to be among those who enter jannah.

Sounds an awful lot like the Taliban are adopting Hamas tactics.

Maybe that is becasue all oppressed people have used similar tactics.


Do you think the Northern Alliance is any better? You know that hundreds have left the Northern Alliance, to join the Taliban in the fight against imperialism.

This post has been edited by Musa: 19 January 2009 - 05:13 PM

[LtTony]

...all oppressed people have used similar tactics.

"All"? Another of your sweeping statements. Examples please of other "oppressed peoples" using suicide bombers as a regular tactic.

[Rhoda]

I am sure there will be world wide protests against this killing of innocent civilians and especially children. Signs, effigies, flag burnings, chanting, threats---that sort of thing.

Have they started yet?

[Musa]

"All"? Another of your sweeping statements. Examples please of other "oppressed peoples" using suicide bombers as a regular tactic.

Can you find me an oppressed people who have not resisted? Not all resistance involves suicide bombers. However, every resistance involves people willing to sacrifice their life. And all resistance involves deaths of civilians. 80% of Iraqi resistance is targeted AGAINST foreign troops, yet 85% of those killed have been Iraqi. So you should know that these so-called terrorist attacks, are not so random and sectarian as the media and government have made them out to be.

You should see the movie 'Meeting Resistance'. Here is a short trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U623_GTYX-8

I am sure there will be world wide protests against this killing of innocent civilians and especially children. Signs, effigies, flag burnings, chanting, threats---that sort of thing.

Have they started yet?

First off, it was not mass amounts. The ignition of a suicide bomb does minimal damage compared to the damage caused by the US military or the IDF simply pressing a button to destroy an entire building. But that's not to justify it. I'm obviously against Suicide Bombing. However, there are reasons. It is not purely immoral. You should also note, the reason that such protests exist, is because those protesting the US killings and whatnot, have little power in the world arena. Protest is a way for those without much a voice, to stand together, and shout to be heard.

This post has been edited by Musa: 19 January 2009 - 08:00 PM

[Rhoda]

It is not purely immoral.

Yes, it is, particularly when it targets children, as these men surely did.

[Honu]

Lol, I don't see how I defended their acts. All I did, was find the hypocrisy of Hamid Karzai mildly funny. I pray for those innocents that were killed to be among those who enter jannah.



Maybe that is becasue all oppressed people have used similar tactics.


Do you think the Northern Alliance is any better? You know that hundreds have left the Northern Alliance, to join the Taliban in the fight against imperialism.

Try for once to directly answer my questions. Are you defending the Taliban? Are these acts "Islamic"?

Do you believe that the Taliban represent the "oppressed" and the deliberate killing of civilians is justifiable under the circumstances?

[LtTony]

QUOTE ...all oppressed people have used similar tactics.

"All"? Another of your sweeping statements. Examples please of other "oppressed peoples" using suicide bombers as a regular tactic.

Can you find me an oppressed people who have not resisted? Not all resistance involves suicide bombers. However, every resistance involves people willing to sacrifice their life. And all resistance involves deaths of civilians. 80% of Iraqi resistance is targeted AGAINST foreign troops, yet 85% of those killed have been Iraqi. So you should know that these so-called terrorist attacks, are not so random and sectarian as the media and government have made them out to be.

You're crawfishing away from a specific question by me (i.e., suicide and car bombings on civilian targets) regarding a specific remark by you. In the process, you undercut yourself, imo.


I don't think there is an issue that wars involve resistance. I'm talking about what kind of resistance, in light of your comment, "...all oppressed people have used similar tactics" to somehow justify some (unspecified by Honu) used by the Taliban and Hamas.

So exactly what tactics are we talking about? Suicide bombings? Car bombs in markets or pedestrian bridges or schools or cafes? As a regular tactic. By a bonafide resistance group. That you or I or both support. I'm trying to refine it as much as possible.

Now, as far as your other comments....

"Not all resistance involves suicide bombers."
"However, every resistance involves people willing to sacrifice their life."

True. And true.

And all resistance involves deaths of civilians.

Unfortunately, true. At least to some degree, but I'd bet more civilians have been killed in wars than military personnel.
Do those defending themselves get a free pass, too? I mean does the other side get the same consideration? Because you seem to imply your loyal and moral "resistance" can be excused for collateral damage, but not those you personally oppose. I see where you're going here, and it seems hypocritical, or at least narrow-minded.
I think "resistance" can be a vague, nebulous term, depending on who is wielding it. I don't want to quibble at this point. As I said, I see where you're going.

80% of Iraqi resistance is targeted AGAINST foreign troops, yet 85% of those killed have been Iraqi.

Where did you pull the first stat from? And I'll bet the second stat is much, much higher.

So you should know that these so-called terrorist attacks, are not so random and sectarian as the media and government have made them out to be.

Ah, the evil media in cahoots with the US government again. That must explain why the Bush administration was so popular among the MSM. (Insert Jewish/Zionist conspiracy here.)

I don't recall any source saying these attacks were generally random, and not all were sectarian, either. Many were, though, sadly. (The US, btw, is partly responsible for that, imo.)

The ignition of a suicide bomb does minimal damage compared to the damage caused by the US military or the IDF simply pressing a button to destroy an entire building. But that's not to justify it. I'm obviously against Suicide Bombing.

Oh, (not so) obviously. And you're not trying to justify it. But then you step in the big pile of manure, when you say:

"However, there are reasons. It is not purely immoral."

Rhoda's reply will suffice here. Otherwise, I don't know where to begin with that one.


"...the reason that such protests exist, is because those protesting the US killings and whatnot, have little power in the world arena. Protest is a way for those without much a voice, to stand together, and shout to be heard."

I understand. But while they're at it, maybe they should ask themselves what they might be doing that leaves them with so little influence. At the same time, the US, for example, should undertake a critical self-examination of its policies.

This post has been edited by LtTony: 19 January 2009 - 10:58 PM

[Musa]

Try for once to directly answer my questions. Are you defending the Taliban? Are these acts "Islamic"?

Do you believe that the Taliban represent the "oppressed" and the deliberate killing of civilians is justifiable under the circumstances?

I think that the Taliban is not such a black and white issue, as they are often made out to be. I think they are well-intended Muslims (besides, who are we to judge intent?) who have taken certain aspects to an extreme. I think what it boils down to, is that they have not set priority straight. First and foremost in an Islamic state, Islam must be preserved. After that, human life is the most important. They have put little unimportant aspects above all this, which has caused some major human rights issues. I think a good example to explain what I'm trying to say (and I don't know if the Taliban do this, but it's just an example), the strict punishments regarding stealing, such as cutting off hands and whatnot, are supposed to only deal with those who have the things they need, and who are stealing purely out of greed. However, some Muslims have forgotten the entire part about it needing to be purely out of greed, and maybe they should set their priorities straight, which would be to try to first minimize poverty. Then they can work on punishing criminals for poverty-related crimes. Does that make sense? There's nothing WRONG with women working. They should not be prevented. However, there are reasons to believe it may be better for a woman to take care of the home/family. So if they want women to stay in and take care of the home, they should not make it illegal for women to go to school and whatnot. Rather, they should improve the education system and the economy, so that men are able to sustain an income without the wife working as well.

Basically, I think the Taliban has priority messed up, and I think they have taken certain things to an extreme. I think the Taliban represents a population that has been under attack for decades, whether it be from the East or from the West. They formed as a movement to drive out the Soviets, just as the American militias formed as a movement to drive out the British. What do you think the British called American rebels? Terrorists. Today, the Taliban continues to protect their homeland, by fighting the Americans. I do not support attacks against civilians. I do, however, understand fighting foreign militaries. I do not know the specifics of this incident, however, I know that most of their attacks have been perpetrated against military personnel or government officials. Whether or not civilians are killed, well, that often depends on the efficiency of their weapons.

[Musa]

I don't think there is an issue that wars involve resistance. I'm talking about what kind of resistance, in light of your comment, "...all oppressed people have used similar tactics" to somehow justify some (unspecified by Honu) used by the Taliban and Hamas.

Well-established militaries have the capabilities to use high-tech weapons and whatnot. Resistance movements on the other hand, have very few options and use what is at their disposal. Often the weapons they use (like the Qassam Rocket for Hamas) are the weapons that are easily accessible. Though their weapons are inefficient, and often result in civilian deaths, you cannot simply expect them to sit down for that reason. I gurantee you if Israel only had Qassam Rockets, they'd be firing Qassam Rockets, just as Hamas is. And if Hamas had all the technology Israel has, I gurantee you that they'd be targetting government personel rather than civilians. Do you doubt that?

Do those defending themselves get a free pass, too? I mean does the other side get the same consideration? Because you seem to imply your loyal and moral "resistance" can be excused for collateral damage, but not those you personally oppose. I see where you're going here, and it seems hypocritical, or at least narrow-minded.
I think "resistance" can be a vague, nebulous term, depending on who is wielding it. I don't want to quibble at this point. As I said, I see where you're going.

Yes, I will always support the oppressor, and never the oppressed. If America is fighting in Afghanistan, who am I to support? The Afghans that make up the civilian militias, or one of the strongest militaries in the world? I'm going to support the Afghan militias. No doubt. I believe in people's right to resistance. The Qur'an says "Permission to fight is granted to those who have been wronged". Furthermore, the Qur'an also says "Permission to fight in the cause of God against those who attack you, but do not aggress as God does not like aggressors"(Qur'an: 2:190). And Islam has always taught good etiquitte to civilians, regardless of which side they may be on, "They donate their favourite food to the poor, the orphan, and the captive by saying that we feed you for the sake of God; we expect no reward from you, nor thanks". (Qur'an: 76:8-9). However, there are exceptions as to when Muslims can break the strict laws of conduct towards civilians, mainly, when as a result, they will be left defenseless.

80% of Iraqi resistance is targeted AGAINST foreign troops, yet 85% of those killed have been Iraqi.

Where did you pull the first stat from? And I'll bet the second stat is much, much higher.

It was in the documentary "Meeting Resistance", which I think everyone should see. It is basically a ccompilation of interviews with the resistance in Iraq, from all different backgrounds (religious, secular, socialist, baathist, shia, sunni, females, etc.) I also found the stat of 80% targetted against foreign troops here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm.

"However, there are reasons. It is not purely immoral."

Rhoda's reply will suffice here. Otherwise, I don't know where to begin with that one.

As I said, morality is not always humans natural reaction. I think when you have put a country in the situation that America has put Afghanistan or Iraq in, that form of resistance must be expected. Someone is driven to do a suicide mission, they do not simply wake up one day and decide to go do something awful. There's an entire psychology behind a suicide bomber, and it often involves a lot of death, occupation, etc. Suicide bombers are a creation of oppression. And as I said, it is not right. Neither is it right when the Partisans killed German collaborators or civilians, but that is not to say they as individuals did anything wrong. I guess it is a case where I can understand where they come from (though I can never feel the pain they have felt), and I cannot blame them, for they are simply a creation from their situation, and yet, I know that whenever civilians are killed, it is a tragic event. As the Qur'an says, "To kill a soul, is to kill all of mankind, and to save a soul, is to save all of mankind". Significance of a human life is unlimited. So I really don't care who kills how many. But it is important to understand WHY people become suicide bombers, if you wish for a solution to arise. It's not going to stop anytime soon, until someone is brave enough to address the roots of the problems.

My point summed up: Suicide Bombing, killing civilians, etc. is NOT permitted in Islam. However, often Muslims, like any other person, follow their human instincts. It is the human instinct that is a reaction to their condition that leads well intended Muslims into these awful acts.

"...the reason that such protests exist, is because those protesting the US killings and whatnot, have little power in the world arena. Protest is a way for those without much a voice, to stand together, and shout to be heard."

I understand. But while they're at it, maybe they should ask themselves what they might be doing that leaves them with so little influence. At the same time, the US, for example, should undertake a critical self-examination of its policies.

I agree, we need better tactics. At least those of us in solidarity with their struggle. I wish we could start using AIPAC as an example of how we could organize hah. Protests are not, and have not, gotten us anywhere concerning foreign policy. Unfortunately, the side of the oppressed often has very little influence in politics.


I cant tell if any of this made sense. Honestly, I'm half asleep right now lol. If you need clarification, let me know.

Insha'Allah, may we all be guided to the light.

Salam,
Musa

[Honu]

I think that the Taliban is not such a black and white issue, as they are often made out to be. I think they are well-intended Muslims (besides, who are we to judge intent?) who have taken certain aspects to an extreme. I think what it boils down to, is that they have not set priority straight. First and foremost in an Islamic state, Islam must be preserved. After that, human life is the most important. They have put little unimportant aspects above all this, which has caused some major human rights issues. I think a good example to explain what I'm trying to say (and I don't know if the Taliban do this, but it's just an example), the strict punishments regarding stealing, such as cutting off hands and whatnot, are supposed to only deal with those who have the things they need, and who are stealing purely out of greed. However, some Muslims have forgotten the entire part about it needing to be purely out of greed, and maybe they should set their priorities straight, which would be to try to first minimize poverty. Then they can work on punishing criminals for poverty-related crimes. Does that make sense? There's nothing WRONG with women working. They should not be prevented. However, there are reasons to believe it may be better for a woman to take care of the home/family. So if they want women to stay in and take care of the home, they should not make it illegal for women to go to school and whatnot. Rather, they should improve the education system and the economy, so that men are able to sustain an income without the wife working as well.

Basically, I think the Taliban has priority messed up, and I think they have taken certain things to an extreme. I think the Taliban represents a population that has been under attack for decades, whether it be from the East or from the West. They formed as a movement to drive out the Soviets, just as the American militias formed as a movement to drive out the British. What do you think the British called American rebels? Terrorists. Today, the Taliban continues to protect their homeland, by fighting the Americans. I do not support attacks against civilians. I do, however, understand fighting foreign militaries. I do not know the specifics of this incident, however, I know that most of their attacks have been perpetrated against military personnel or government officials. Whether or not civilians are killed, well, that often depends on the efficiency of their weapons.

I asked you to answer 4 specific questions and once again you have dodged giving clear specific answers. Let me ask them one last time in the hopes of getting a straight answer:

1.Are you defending the Taliban?
2. Are these acts "Islamic"?
3. Do you believe that the Taliban represent the "oppressed" and the (4.)deliberate killing of civilians is justifiable under the circumstances?

Let me add, your attempt to make some sort of historical connection between the Taliban opposing the coalition in Afghanistan and American colonists opposing the British in the late 1700's shows either an appalling ignorance of history or a pathetically shallow attempt at moral equivalency.

[Honu]

I also found the stat of 80% targetted against foreign troops here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm.

And the statistic is over 2 years old and compiled prior to the "surge". Since then attacks against the govt have decreased and attacks against civilians have increased.

If America is fighting in Afghanistan, who am I to support? The Afghans that make up the civilian militias, or one of the strongest militaries in the world? I'm going to support the Afghan militias. No doubt. I believe in people's right to resistance.

And here is the root of the issue. You blindly support whoever the US is fighting regardless of circumstances. Without any attempt at analyzing WHY the US might have found it important to invade Afghanistan you automatically side with "the little guy". Frankly. you lack the historical perspective as to the rationale for the US attack on Afghanistan since you were what, ten years old at the time? Instead you buy into the simplistic "people's right to resistance" bulldroppings and are all too willing to justify the senseless murder of innocent children.

[LadyGarnetRose]

First off, it was not mass amounts. The ignition of a suicide bomb does minimal damage compared to the damage caused by the US military or the IDF simply pressing a button to destroy an entire building.

Are you SERIOUS?

9/11/01 "suicide bomb" 4 757's handled by 19 suicide BOMBERS killed 3000 people wounded 6,000 with their "mininal damage" caused 3 buildings to collapse with their "minimal damage" and left a 16 acre crater in lower Manhattan.

And the Taliban HIDES the men that planned these attacks.

8/7/98 "suicide bomb" 2 car bombs, 1 in Dares Salaam, Tanzania another in Nairobi, Kenya on US Embassies, 212 killed, 4,000 wounded with their "mininal damage"

And the Taliban HIDES the men that planned these attacks.

6/25/96 "suicide bomb" Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 1 car bomb, 20 dead, 372 wounded, if the car could have gotten closer to Khobar there would have been a lot more damage.

And the Taliban HIDES the men that planned these attacks.

Yes, I will always support the oppressor, and never the oppressed. If America is fighting in Afghanistan, who am I to support? The Afghans that make up the civilian militias, or one of the strongest militaries in the world? I'm going to support the Afghan militias. No doubt. I believe in people's right to resistance. The Qur'an says "Permission to fight is granted to those who have been wronged". Furthermore, the Qur'an also says "Permission to fight in the cause of God against those who attack you, but do not aggress as God does not like aggressors"(Qur'an: 2:190). And Islam has always taught good etiquitte to civilians, regardless of which side they may be on, "They donate their favourite food to the poor, the orphan, and the captive by saying that we feed you for the sake of God; we expect no reward from you, nor thanks". (Qur'an: 76:8-9). However, there are exceptions as to when Muslims can break the strict laws of conduct towards civilians, mainly, when as a result, they will be left defenseless.

You aren't supporting the oppressed, you are supporting the oppressor.


The US Supported Afghanistan against the Russians. The US Supported Kuwait against Saddams invasion. The US Supported Saudia Arabia when we were ASKED to go there to defend Kuwait and Saudia Arabia against Iraq...

How are we repaid for giving help to those that asked?

BY THEM TURNING AROUND AND BOMBING US.


Those that do this, can die a horrific death for all I care. They deserve NO QUARTER NO PITY. They aren't OPPRESSED. The Taliban is RICH do you NOT GET THIS? The ones doing the oppressing are Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Taliban, these groups are not "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" they are rabid swine that need to be destroyed.

[LtTony]

I asked you to answer 4 specific questions and once again you have dodged giving clear specific answers. Let me ask them one last time in the hopes of getting a straight answer:

1.Are you defending the Taliban?
2. Are these acts "Islamic"?
3. Do you believe that the Taliban represent the "oppressed" and the (4.)deliberate killing of civilians is justifiable under the circumstances?

Let me add, your attempt to make some sort of historical connection between the Taliban opposing the coalition in Afghanistan and American colonists opposing the British in the late 1700's shows either an appalling ignorance of history or a pathetically shallow attempt at moral equivalency.

Honu: If I may...

Here's what I get out of his replies:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes, civ. casualties are an unfortunate part of a noble struggle.

As far as moral equivalency, he is parroting the "party line." That's the best they've got.

Along with, as you point out:

And here is the root of the issue. You blindly support whoever the US is fighting regardless of circumstances. Without any attempt at analyzing WHY the US might have found it important to invade Afghanistan you automatically side with "the little guy".

This post has been edited by LtTony: 20 January 2009 - 02:45 AM

[Murteza]

Are you SERIOUS?

9/11/01 "suicide bomb" 4 757's handled by 19 suicide BOMBERS killed 3000 people wounded 6,000 with their "mininal damage" caused 3 buildings to collapse with their "minimal damage" and left a 16 acre crater in lower Manhattan.

And the Taliban HIDES the men that planned these attacks.

8/7/98 "suicide bomb" 2 car bombs, 1 in Dares Salaam, Tanzania another in Nairobi, Kenya on US Embassies, 212 killed, 4,000 wounded with their "mininal damage"

And the Taliban HIDES the men that planned these attacks.

6/25/96 "suicide bomb" Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 1 car bomb, 20 dead, 372 wounded, if the car could have gotten closer to Khobar there would have been a lot more damage.

And the Taliban HIDES the men that planned these attacks.




You aren't supporting the oppressed, you are supporting the oppressor.


The US Supported Afghanistan against the Russians. The US Supported Kuwait against Saddams invasion. The US Supported Saudia Arabia when we were ASKED to go there to defend Kuwait and Saudia Arabia against Iraq...

How are we repaid for giving help to those that asked?

BY THEM TURNING AROUND AND BOMBING US.


Those that do this, can die a horrific death for all I care. They deserve NO QUARTER NO PITY. They aren't OPPRESSED. The Taliban is RICH do you NOT GET THIS? The ones doing the oppressing are Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Taliban, these groups are not "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" they are rabid swine that need to be destroyed.

and the US supported SOeharto to toppled Soekarno in Indonesia and once become the most ruthless country...learn your country atrocities before make such comment.

and also, learn some history. alas u dont have a reason to become that dumb considered u are living in the US, the most developed country