Fallen soldiers in Afghanistan : who's to blame ?

[Danny Z]

He died because he was doing a noble job for humanity, Afghanistan was not invaded for no reason and the maintenance of foreign forces in Afghanistan is stopping other attacks on unarmed harmless civilians that otherwise would still be taking place if the training terrorist camps were still in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan have the right for democracy the way they see it and they had their share of building the democracy they wanted after the soviet left and before the Americans invaded, they chose to have Taliban. As far as I am concerned Afghan people can elect whoever they want, if they want the Taliban then good for them and Taliban should gain power if they are elected but if they decide to engage in international terrorism then they will be invaded and be dealt with.
Marc died so we can live in our cities safe from those terrorists.

[Xguy]

I can't beleive there are people who still beleive that Iraq and Afhganistan wars are for protecting people and spreading democracy, wake up people and smell the oil and the heroin.

[Kasparov]

In any country under occupation, it is legitimate to target foreign soldiers .

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by Kasparov

In any country under occupation, it is legitimate to target foreign soldiers .

You should go blow yourself up and kill some Belgian minesweepers working in South Lebanon... Those are easy targets.... This conversation never happened!

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by Xguy

I can't beleive there are people who still beleive that Iraq and Afhganistan wars are for protecting people and spreading democracy, wake up people and smell the oil and the heroin.

7aj tekhlot 3ebbes bi ramadan, read my post well, they can choose the democracy they want and they had the choice to do it before they were invaded.
Yes the war was to protect people, if 9/11 had not happened, Taliban who were representing Afghanistan back then would still be ruling Afghanistan, so the war happened not to spread democracy but to stop Taliban from spreading international terrorism.
You wake up and stop being anti American on every occasion that presents itself, you sometimes have to think.

[moughtarib]

Originally Posted by dodzi

You should go blow yourself up and kill some Belgian minesweepers working in South Lebanon... Those are easy targets.... This conversation never happened!

Belgian minesweepers are in Lebanon as peace keeping force under the UN flag and not a military alliance like the Nato forces in Afghanistan.

Those are very different legal grounds for calling a soldier 'occupying' or not.

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by moughtarib

Belgian minesweepers are in Lebanon as peace keeping force under the UN flag and not a military alliance like the Nato forces in Afghanistan.

Those are very different legal grounds for calling a soldier 'occupying' or not.

It takes a second to google some information before putting your foot in your mouth
Google UN security council resolution 9122

[moughtarib]

Originally Posted by Danny Z

It takes a second to google some information before putting your foot in your mouth
Google UN security council resolution 9122

Don't be disrespectful + you're wrong

The ISAF is not a UN force; it is a NATO force with a UN Mandate. IE: its chain of command is the NATO (an alliance of countries) and not the peacekeeping missions wtih a UN commander.

Simply put, the soldiers in Afghanistan are NOT blue helmets where as in Lebanon the belgians are.

That is why NATO are an occupying force and not peacekeepers. The NATO deposed one government and placed another. In Lebanon the UN didn't depose any government.

NATO Topics: NATO in Afghanistan - Factsheet

Lets take 3 exampls:

A. the French resistance had a right to fight the Nazi even though the french government (Vichy) gave them authority to stay in France.

french resistance = taliban
Nazi = NATO
Vichy = kabul govt/UN mandate

B. The syrian presence in lebanon was an occupation or not?

1. They arrived on 'invitation' from the Lebanese government and an Arab League resolution
Leb govt = kabul govt
Arab league = UN mandate
2. they more or less shaped governments and politics in lebanon

...so if the Syrian presence in Lebanon is an occupation then so is the NATO presence in Afghanistan an occupation

It doesn't matter if the foreign force is doing 'good/better' for the country or not in defining if its an 'occupation' or not. Our personal opinions cannot shape the facts of the legal definitions of these forces. I agree that the NATO staying in Afghanistan is better for its people than Taliban taking over again; but that doesn't mean they are not occupiers and resisting them is legitimate.

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by moughtarib

Don't be disrespectful + you're wrong

The ISAF is not a UN force; it is a NATO force with a UN Mandate. IE: its chain of command is the NATO (an alliance of countries) and not the peacekeeping missions wtih a UN commander.

Simply put, the soldiers in Afghanistan are NOT blue helmets where as in Lebanon the belgians are.

That is why NATO are an occupying force and not peacekeepers. The NATO deposed one government and placed another. In Lebanon the UN didn't depose any government.

NATO Topics: NATO in Afghanistan - Factsheet

Lets take 3 exampls:

A. the French resistance had a right to fight the Nazi even though the french government (Vichy) gave them authority to stay in France.

french resistance = taliban
Nazi = NATO
Vichy = kabul govt/UN mandate

B. The syrian presence in lebanon was an occupation or not?

1. They arrived on 'invitation' from the Lebanese government and an Arab League resolution
Leb govt = kabul govt
Arab league = UN mandate
2. they more or less shaped governments and politics in lebanon

...so if the Syrian presence in Lebanon is an occupation then so is the NATO presence in Afghanistan an occupation

It doesn't matter if the foreign force is doing 'good/better' for the country or not in defining if its an 'occupation' or not. Our personal opinions cannot shape the facts of the legal definitions of these forces. I agree that the NATO staying in Afghanistan is better for its people than Taliban taking over again; but that doesn't mean they are not occupiers and resisting them is legitimate.

So the US army in France and Germany, 1944-1945 and later on... Were they Nazis too? In that logic you'll have this:

Nazi resistance=French resistance
US army=Nazi regime
Konrad Adenauer and Charles DeGaulle=Vichy

Nice logic!

[moughtarib]

Originally Posted by dodzi

So the US army in France and Germany, 1944-1945 and later on... Were they Nazis too? In that logic you'll have this:

Nazi resistance=French resistance
US army=Nazi regime
Konrad Adenauer and Charles DeGaulle=Vichy

Nice logic!

Yes in the legal sense they were.

I'll spare your ego and invite you to seperate between the 'legal' grounds and the 'political/human/our view of what is right and better' grounds when discussion such issues.

Thats all I have on the subject.