• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Afghanistan inigma

ricksfolly said:
There are no insurgents in Afghanistan, only invaders and patriots...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Calling the Taliban patriots is stretch. They really only get to be called that if they win which they haven't yet. Right now they are rebelling against an "elected" (and I do use this term loosely) government, which makes them insurgents, by definition.
 
hallam said:
Calling the Taliban patriots is stretch. They really only get to be called that if they win which they haven't yet. Right now they are rebelling against an "elected" (and I do use this term loosely) government, which makes them insurgents, by definition.
Click to expand...

If that's true, where do the attackers come in, and who are they attacking? There's over a hundred thousand doing something. Maybe they're training the Afghanistan army. No, that isn't it. They already have 250,000 soldiers on the payroll.

If the Taliban are rebelling against the elected government, shouldn't they be called rebels. I still don't see where insurgents fits in, but if a native afghanistan fights for his space against invaders, that makes him a patriot, at least, that was what they called them in 1776.

rickfsfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
There are no insurgents in Afghanistan, only invaders and patriots...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

What kind of patriots slaughter THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of their own people to set them free?
 
Last edited:
Using a western term like "patriot" for clannish people with some of the highest levels of consanguinity in the world seems pretty ridiculous to me.
 
ricksfolly said:
I only heard that Taliban abuse some women, have strict laws, and men must wear long beards. Where do you get your information?

ricksfolly
Click to expand...



If this is all youve heard I think I should be asking you where you get yours.
 
Last edited:
ricksfolly said:
If that's true, where do the attackers come in, and who are they attacking? There's over a hundred thousand doing something. Maybe they're training the Afghanistan army. No, that isn't it. They already have 250,000 soldiers on the payroll.

If the Taliban are rebelling against the elected government, shouldn't they be called rebels. I still don't see where insurgents fits in, but if a native afghanistan fights for his space against invaders, that makes him a patriot, at least, that was what they called them in 1776.

rickfsfolly
Click to expand...

Please stop being vague. Which attackers are you talking about? If you mean US and NATO soldiers, then I think everyone knows where they come from. If you mean the Afghan national forces, they come from Afghanistan. If you mean the Taliban, then they come from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Insurgents are rebels. You only have to go up against an authority to be considered an insurgent. Insurgents can be from outside of the country or inside. There is no definite boundary here for the term.

And if you remember you correctly, those we call patriots were first called rebels. They won that is what made them patriots. Now for individuals who are for the Taliban, they may consider the Taliban fighter patriots now, even call them that. But the Afghan National forces are the established (again i use this term as loosely as possible) authority making the Taliban rebels or insurgents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom