What should an oppressed and attacked nation do ?

[Friend]

History proves that 'occupiers' don't mean any good, usually they are there for their own strategic interests.

In short, sitting back isn't a good idea.

da nar bachya.

[tor_khan]

Ultimately you should 'fight' for what you believe in.

P.S. I didn't vote.

[faye]

don't you have to take into consideration the fact that afghanistan had al qaeda training camps for jihad/war, against the west, specifically america?
that was a stupid thing to do and that was the invitation for external interference, whether that was the invaders prime aim or not, for wanting control of afghanistan.

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

don't you have to take into consideration the fact that afghanistan had al qaeda training camps for jihad/war, against the west, specifically america?
that was a stupid thing to do and that was the invitation for external interference, whether that was the invaders prime aim or not, for wanting control of afghanistan.

You have no proof of these claims.

[Friend]

Ultimately you should 'fight' for what you believe in.

P.S. I didn't vote.

Lala, you never vote.

[Friend]

don't you have to take into consideration the fact that afghanistan had al qaeda training camps for jihad/war, against the west, specifically america?
that was a stupid thing to do and that was the invitation for external interference, whether that was the invaders prime aim or not, for wanting control of afghanistan.

The same logic can be used by India tomorrow to attack Pakistan.
The same logic can be used by Pakistan to attack Afghanistan or vice versa.
But this is no excuse for foreigners to attack anyone otherwise there will be no peace in the world.

[faye]

You have no proof of these claims.

no. i wasn't there.
only the many reports, including from supposed taliban and people who trained there. that al qaeda was there, had training camps and had proclaimed jihad against america was verified by many. partly osamas animosity against america, was because it had bases in saudi, initially.

but if it was not true, why, in all those years of war against afghanistan, did osama not make an effort to prove his innocence, to protect the afghan people?
do you have any proof that it is not true?

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

no. i wasn't there.
only the many reports, including from supposed taliban and people who trained there. that al qaeda was there, had training camps and had proclaimed jihad against america was verified by many. partly osamas animosity against america, was because it had bases in saudi, initially.

but if it was not true, why, in all those years of war against afghanistan, did osama not make an effort to prove his innocence, to protect the afghan people?
do you have any proof that it is not true?

Seeing is believing so if you weren't there, how can you verify it?

As far as Osama goes, he never existed.

[faye]

ah yes, as i suspected, hakim. and you have proof of this?

[Toramana]

The same logic can be used by India tomorrow to attack Pakistan.
The same logic can be used by Pakistan to attack Afghanistan or vice versa.
But this is no excuse for foreigners to attack anyone otherwise there will be no peace in the world.

Well your question has two answers; from ethical point of view, there should be no interference in the internal affair of the so-called oppressed nation; from practical point of view, in most of the cases, there always would be interference for many reasons e.g., (1) the conflicting is spelling over to a broader region threatening its peace (2) there is a grass violation of human rights being done that the humanity can no longer tolerate (examples : the present Baluchistan where the Punjabi military bureaucracy and its foot-soldiers namely the Pathans of the FC are destroying Baluch people or the former East Pakistan now Bangladesh where interference by India saved Bangalis from permanent slavery and genocide) (3) interests of the powerful, etc. etc.

Even at social level, arbitration and mediation is the rule if two families are feuding or if there is a feud within a family. Sometimes, an external force interferes and that is what we have the coercive organ of the state e.g., police for.

Sometimes, a state is not a state or nation in the true sense e.g., in 1971, it was not a feud withing a nation but rather two different nations Bangalis at the one end and Punjabis at the other one fighting for hegemony the other for liberation.

In 1978, US, Pakistan, Arab, etc. countries interfered in Afghanistan by backing one side i.e., the so-called Mujahideen. During Ummayds, Arabs interfered in the internal feuding of the Spainish people imposing a hegemony over them lasting for almost 800 years. What about the attacks on India especially during the last millennium?

So this is a complicated question and cannot be answered with simple explanation of ethics. A lot depends on subjective objective conditions and on the definition of the "oppressed nation".

[Toramana]

What do you think was the interference in the case of Bosnian Muslim valid or should UN interfere in the case of Burmese Muslims or should it (have been)/ be left to the Yougoslavic or Burmese nation as their internal affair.

[faye]

The same logic can be used by India tomorrow to attack Pakistan.
The same logic can be used by Pakistan to attack Afghanistan or vice versa.
But this is no excuse for foreigners to attack anyone otherwise there will be no peace in the world.

full planet peace, will never be attained whilst different groups of people consider themselves superior to others.

[Friend]

What do you think was the interference in the case of Bosnian Muslim valid or should UN interfere in the case of Burmese Muslims or should it (have been)/ be left to the Yougoslavic or Burmese nation as their internal affair.

You are mixing two different thing. In Burmese case we don't want America or any other country to bulldoze the Burmese just because they are killing Muslims there. But what we want is to pressurize their govt to take serious steps as they are a part of the united nations.
This is what they do and should do.

[Friend]

full planet peace, will never be attained whilst different groups of people consider themselves superior to others.

True but here we are talking about principles and not human wishes.

[faye]

you were the one who first mentioned peace. stop trying to be a control freak of the thread