Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
They were removed they were not the government of that country. Beyond that they weren't recognized by the US as a legitimate government, they were never granted recognition.
There is no gray, they weren't a country, they spent as much time terrorizing their own people as they did as a resistance to the coalition
Canada declared the Taliban as an enemy terrorist group, mainly because they provided aid and material support to Al Qeada and bin laden. We do have Omar making bombs though so in a real sense from a Canadian perspective he was a terrorist.
As well He was trained by Al Qaeda members, his old man provided material support and did fund raising that directly benefited Al Qaeda and its cause.
Omar also worked with Al Qaeda as a translator in Afghanistan. By every definition he was a member of a terrorist group. Not the Taliban, but Al Qaeda.
The group that he was with when attacked were foreign fighters as well, not the Taliban, Therefore with a Terrorist Group,
There to me is no debate. He received training from a terrorist group, we have him on video building bombs that were used against the Coalition, and he was a citizen of Canada. On top of it, he was building bombs with Al Qaeda members.
Basically by building those bombs whether they were used by the Taliban or Al Qaeda which were used against the Coalition which included Canada, Omar a Canadian Citizen did perform an act that at the most was treasonous, at the least was providing material or training support to a group that was at war with Canada.
I don't consider him a freedom fighter, or some member of a resistance.
If he was Al Qaeda he was a terrorist
If he identified as Taliban, then he was an insurgent, that was not the government at the time, and spend as much time attacking civilians as it did coalition forces..
To the second part, its irelevant I guess. I had sworn that I wasn't going to get back into this thread. But the portrayal of the acts that Omar did in Afghanistan as somewhat heroic or even justified to me are wrong.
Isn't the whole defense here that he was part of a terrorist group but he was brain washed by his dad so its not his fault.
|
I understand that they were never officially recognized as the government by the UN, but when the recognized government had been awol for 5 years and the taliban controlled 95% of the country it's difficult to not consider them as the governing body of that country. their neighbouring countries viewed them as such, regardless of their atrocious treatment of their own people. Let's be honest here there are plenty of recognized governments that do the same. I'm not defending their actions at all, or trying to paint a picture of them as freedom fighters, my only argument is that their actions against the coalition do not fit the definition of terrorism, to me I consider it warfare, whether the actions were committed by the taliban or al Qaeda supporting the taliban.
As for Khadr, I don't see his actions as heroic or honourable at all, but a terrorist is defined as a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. We can sit here and debate whether or not the taliban were the government of Afghanistan, I gave you my view on this above, this is where the gray area begins to present itself. The taliban were fighting a US coalition who's goal was to remove them from power over the country of Afghanistan. Since in my opinion they were the defacto governing body of that country at that time I don't agree with the argument that them fighting a coalition force, even one backed by the UN, to be an act of terrorism, a country defendin itself isn't terrorism, even if I don't agree with their actions or ideology overall. I also don't consider the United States' combat actions during their non UN backed invasion of Iraq to be terrorism. I see both situations simply as war. While Khadr was certainly involved with al Qaeda, even trained by them, in my opinion without him commiting an actual act of terrorism, I don't agree with labelling him a terrorist. This isn't meant to glorify him or his side, I'm just saying that by definition he is not a terrorist, even if he was making bombs for al Qaeda or the taliban. If providing weapons to al Qaeda makes you a terrorist, what does that make the US government? If the taliban are considered terrorists and therefore not recognized by the UN as a legitimate government yet the UN recognized American government can go to war with a country against the UN's wishes, what does that say about the legitimacy of the UN?
War really blurs the lines between right and wrong, I guess I just see what he did as understandable for lack of a better term. Especially when his age and upbringing are taken into consideration. But even with blurred lines I can't consider what the government did as understandable. Consider again the definition of a terrorist, a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. A kid throwing a grenade at and making bombs to fight opposition forces during a war, to me doesn't seem to fit that description, but it does seem describe what our government did or at the very least complied to have done to him. Yet neither in my view are considered a terrorists or a terrorist group in the case of the government. With that being said neither side should be considered saints either by any means.
For what it's worth I agree with a lot of what you wrote, just not that any ties to or involvement with terrorist groups makes you a terrorist, I save that distinction for the cowards who carry out the actual acts and attacks themselves.