What should an oppressed and attacked nation do ?

[Friend]

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

where ?

[randolph85]

i don't care for any of these options.

[Friend]

i don't care for any of these options.

means ?

[randolph85]

they should fight but avoid tactics that result in civilian deaths and have a game plan for a post war afghanistan.

^ i would of voted for that.

[Friend]

they should fight but avoid tactics that result in civilian deaths and have a game plan for a post war afghanistan.

^ i would of voted for that.

How many examples of the wars (fought in the last 150 years) can you give me where there was not civilian casualty ? If you gave me up to five examples, I am ready to accept your argument OR it is your sweet wish ?

[randolph85]

How many examples of the wars (fought in the last 150 years) can you give me where there was not civilian casualty ? If you gave me up to five examples, I am ready to accept your argument OR it is your sweet wish ?

well i can give the afghan jihad of the 80s as an example or the wars waged by the prophet.

not that civilians didn't die, but generally weren't put in harms way as in bombing busy city streets, hotels, banks and the such.

[Friend]

well i can give the afghan jihad of the 80s as an example or the wars waged by the prophet.

not that civilians didn't die, but generally weren't put in harms way as in bombing busy city streets, hotels, banks and the such.

Wars of the times of the Prophet pbuh were wars of the swords and arrows fought in separate place from the population. The chance civilian deaths was nil as compared to the current era wars of missiles, bombs and what not.
The 80s war is not a good example. We know of the blasting in peshawar markets and if there was not civilian casualty then why such huge migration from Afghanistan to the neigbhour countries.

[Toramana]

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.

I am not mixing two things. I am basing my argument on the general meaning of "non-interference" in the internal matters of a nation oppressed or not. Pressuring Burma would be equivalent to interference in its internal affairs. Theoretically, as your point suggests a "nation" (irrespective of whether it qualifies that definition or not) should be free to sort out its matters even if that sorting out involves committing the genocide of a group.

In extreme case, if Burma doesn't desist from the ethnic cleansing of Muslims, humanity would no longer be able to stay indifferent and would interfere with force. And the Burmese military rulers will respond with force. So ultimately, it boils down to bulldozing.

Don't use the politically loaded word "bulldozing".

[randolph85]

Wars of the times of the Prophet pbuh were wars of the swords and arrows fought in separate place from the population. The chance civilian deaths was nil as compared to the current era wars of missiles, bombs and what not.
The 80s war is not a good example. We know of the blasting in peshawar markets and if there was not civilian casualty then why such huge migration from Afghanistan to the neigbhour countries.

i am not talking about the atrocities of kafirs, i am talking about the legitimate struggle of muslims who stain their jihad by acts of carelessness. millions of afghans left afghanistan because of the carnage the commie kaffirs brought to their homes, not because of the righteous(for the most part) mujahadin of the time.

the afghan mujahadin fought the russians in the mountains, on the highways, at their bases. it was not routine for them to bomb hotels, banks, busy city streets as it is today where civilians are maimed and killed.

the argument that civilians die in war by muslims as if it has to be inevitable is a defeatist attitude, its easy for the aggressors to say it since its not their civilians but when muslims say it, its pathetic. bombing a convoy on a rural highway is fine, bombing a convoy in busy downtown kandahar is not fine.

[Toramana]

i am not talking about the atrocities of kafirs, i am talking about the legitimate struggle of muslims who stain their jihad by acts of carelessness. millions of afghans left afghanistan because of the carnage the commie kaffirs brought to their homes, not because of the righteous(for the most part) mujahadin of the time.

the afghan mujahadin fought the russians in the mountains, on the highways, at their bases. it was not routine for them to bomb hotels, banks, busy city streets as it is today where civilians are maimed and killed.

the argument that civilians die in war by muslims as if it has to be inevitable is a defeatist attitude, its easy for the aggressors to say it since its not their civilians but when muslims say it, its pathetic. bombing a convoy on a rural highway is fine, bombing a convoy in busy downtown kandahar is not fine.

Sorry to deflate your claims but they did attack buildings, roads, power grids & electric poles, airports, etc. When they attacked Jalalabad in 1989, they plundered govt installations as well as common people. The steel stolen from Jalalabad at that time was sold in large quantities to the Itifaq foundry of Nawaz Sharif.

After the fall of Najib govt, they cause more bloodshed and destruction than during the preceding Najib era.

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

Sorry to deflate your claims but they did attack buildings, roads, power grids & electric poles, airports, etc. When they attacked Jalalabad in 1989, they plundered govt installations as well as common people. The steel stolen from Jalalabad at that time was sold in large quantities to the Itifaq foundry of Nawaz Sharif.

After the fall of Najib govt, they cause more bloodshed and destruction.

Don't forget how they destroyed the city of Kabul.

[randolph85]

Sorry to deflate your claims but they did attack buildings, roads, power grids & electric poles, airports, etc. When they attacked Jalalabad in 1989, they plundered govt installations as well as common people. The steel stolen from Jalalabad at that time was sold in large quantities to the Itifaq foundry of Nawaz Sharif.

After the fall of Najib govt, they cause more bloodshed and destruction than during the preceding Najib era.

i was specifically talking about the anti soviet jihad, not the mess afterwards. also, i don't put infrastructure on the same level as human lives. there was far more bloodshed during the soviet era than the mujahadin era.

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

i was specifically talking about the anti soviet jihad, not the mess afterwards. also, i don't put infrastructure on the same level as human lives.

But it was the same people who caused the mess afterwards.

[randolph85]

But it was the same people who caused the mess afterwards.

but it was not the same war and the participants of the first war were not always the same people in the next civil war. power and greed does strange things to people.

[Haris]

I agree with Randolph.


However, what if the only way to fight effectively against the oppressor is to use tactics that involve high civilian casualities? - because otherwise there would be a stalemate at best or defeat at worst.

Should the defenders adopt those tactics or continue fighting in the manner which would minimise civilian deaths? The latter probably resulting in defeat and possibly harsher conditions imposed on the defenders by the oppressors.

Or should the defenders and oppressors work out some agreement that, while ending the war, strongly favours the interests of the oppressors?