What should an oppressed and attacked nation do ?

[Haris]

As for the poll, I cannot answer without knowing the context.



It's very easy for us to say "fight for what you believe in no matter how strong they are" when we are not the ones forced into that position. Sometimes picking that option may be for the best but sometimes it may not. I do not envy the leaders, politicians & generals who make that decision.




An example.

• Mohammad Jan Khan was a resistance leader in the 19th Century.
• He was fighting the British. He experienced many victories & many setbacks.
• The British had reserve troops marching towards the frontier while the Afghans were winning pyrrhic victories, had outdated weapons & lacked discipline.
• Towards the end of the war, various leaders of his tribe & surrounding tribes decided (perhaps for personal gain but lets assume that they had their peoples' best interests at heart) to support the British installed puppet and to stop fighting against the British for peace.
• Mohammad Jan Khan refused and his fighters continued their resistance.
• He was eventually assassinated in a cowardly manner by the aforementioned puppet (the hired assassins did not even know who they were assigned to kill until it was too late otherwise they would have refused)

Who was right?
Some may consider him a fool to carry on fighting which may have lead to the absolute destruction of his peoples and that the tribal elders & Abdur Rahman Khan are heroes to stop fighting which ensured that their peoples lived in a country that was 'independent' & recognised by the greatest empire in the world.



Our ideals as ghairathee Pashtuns obviously dictates that the above notion is false and that he was not a fool but a hero as he bravely fought the oppressors. However, if we logically analyse the context & situation at the time then perhaps that may change?

[Haris]

^ All that is why I tell people I don't have any heroes.

When I look at history & politics, I try to do so in a detached sense.
I don't see certain figures or groups as right or wrong. Instead only different people with different strategic objectives. Whether they were good people or bad people is completely subjective and a headache to debate with those who are so partisan.




(that doesn't necessarily mean that I do not have more sympathy for a certain group or leader than I may have for others though that is a moot point)

[Tjanaparh]

If a bigger enemy attacks there are two options, as I can see :
1) Unite the nations and everybody being ready to be involved and to die for the future of your children.
2) To be not united, get killed and enslaved while some disgusting people use the chaos to get power.

[IamDZJ]

Right.
Yesterday it was the Russians, today the Americans, tomorrow it will be the Japanese. Already we barely have anything left to survive on as a nation due to all that we have lost to wars and pushing out the invaders. We need to prevent these occupations from happening or eliminating the chances before they happen by building up on our assets and the best way to do that is by uniting and not fighting with each other. No one is expecting you to set back an watch yor country be taken by others. Just smarten up and learn from your mistakes. Basically, we have to plan ahead and have a long term plan.

[Tjanaparh]

That is right! Supposedly when the Soviets left, if all what You cited had been realized, there wouldn't be the situation of today.

[Afghanistan2010]

Right.
Yesterday it was the Russians, today the Americans, tomorrow it will be the Japanese. Already we barely have anything left to survive on as a nation due to all that we have lost to wars and pushing out the invaders. We need to prevent these occupations from happening or eliminating the chances before they happen by building up on our assets and the best way to do that is by uniting and not fighting with each other. No one is expecting you to set back an watch yor country be taken by others. Just smarten up and learn from your mistakes. Basically, we have to plan ahead and have a long term plan.

The problem with the thing of being united is,that some people have sold themselves,and others work for wealth,money,power and tribalism.

We should unite not under tribalism,nationalism we should unite under the banner and i do not recognize anyother banner than that banner...under the banner of monotheism,banner of liberté,banner of the rights of the peaceloving people,the banner which is high over all the other banner.
There shall be no oppression,no hatred against people from different ethnics,no innocent should fear,but await his liberation.

this is the banner.

[IamDZJ]

Unfortunately, that banner has been misused and abused for a very long time now. People have lost faith in its power of bringing the afghans together. We need a different method and no, I am not asking you to throw your religion out of the window.

[کیش]

My life's purpose is to raise this banner(s).

[Toramana]

I think a society should be an organic body/system constantly adapting to new conditions in the immediate or broader environment and with an immune system on the watch for internal or external threats to its well-being. As a dynamic system, it should be engaged in the act of balancing and re-balancing the diverse interests of various sections of society whether class-based, ethnicity-based, profession, or creed-based. The lack of this organic flexibility caused the Saur Revolution in Afghanistan in 1970s later resulting into its fragmentation .

People cannot stay united entirely out of moral principle or common-sense. They are in constant competition for limited resources and opportunities which they try to grab as dis-proportionally as possible through family, clan, profession, class, ethnic, or religious associations and patronage systems. Even if resources were limitless, still there would be strife due to our psychological and emotional needs to asset, dominate, control, be loved endlessly, and be more secure relative to others. That is where political system and institutions, and state and its coercive organs like police, military, courts, constitution, etc. arise that reconcile these conflicting interests and keeps the society united, healthy, and strife-free. So, people will need representative political systems to stay united. The goal of unity cannot be achieved only through appeal to morality, commonsense, or any sentiment.

As for whether to resist or not, that depends on the situation. When there is asymmetrical balance of power, violent resistance is more harmful than beneficial. In that case, political and diplomatic means should be used and attention should be focused on the preservation and development of human asset and political and economic capacity of the society. It is a natural law that soon another global balance of power emerges which provides new opportunities for alliances and ways to deal with asymmetric-ity of power, which a society is entangled in.

[Friend]

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".

Pressuring Burma is not equivalent to the interference in their internal matters. If Burma is enjoying the united nations' membership and has taken oath on the united nations constitution then they have to follow its charter and must not violate the human rights on ethnic or religious differences.
Another important factor is that, it is not a group or a party is involved in those atrocities but the govt and army is killing these people so you can imagine how dangerous it is.
Again there is difference between interfering in someone's internal matters and bombarding on someone.

[Friend]

As for the poll, I cannot answer without knowing the context.



It's very easy for us to say "fight for what you believe in no matter how strong they are" when we are not the ones forced into that position. Sometimes picking that option may be for the best but sometimes it may not. I do not envy the leaders, politicians & generals who make that decision.




An example.

• Mohammad Jan Khan was a resistance leader in the 19th Century.
• He was fighting the British. He experienced many victories & many setbacks.
• The British had reserve troops marching towards the frontier while the Afghans were winning pyrrhic victories, had outdated weapons & lacked discipline.
• Towards the end of the war, various leaders of his tribe & surrounding tribes decided (perhaps for personal gain but lets assume that they had their peoples' best interests at heart) to support the British installed puppet and to stop fighting against the British for peace.
• Mohammad Jan Khan refused and his fighters continued their resistance.
• He was eventually assassinated in a cowardly manner by the aforementioned puppet (the hired assassins did not even know who they were assigned to kill until it was too late otherwise they would have refused)

Who was right?
Some may consider him a fool to carry on fighting which may have lead to the absolute destruction of his peoples and that the tribal elders & Abdur Rahman Khan are heroes to stop fighting which ensured that their peoples lived in a country that was 'independent' & recognised by the greatest empire in the world.



Our ideals as ghairathee Pashtuns obviously dictates that the above notion is false and that he was not a fool but a hero as he bravely fought the oppressors. However, if we logically analyse the context & situation at the time then perhaps that may change?

When I was making this thread so it was not specifically about the Afghanistan war but it was a general poll. But all the members posted taking Afghan war in mind.
You are right that from whose perspective are seeing the situation. For many one could be idiot fighting an invader who is far more stronger but at the same time he is a hero in the eyes of so many others. But if we agree on one thing that foreign invasion or occupation must not be accepted in any way, no matter whatever the internal differences a country has. The international community can help and assist, pressurize and take some other necessary steps but invasion is not acceptable then we can reach to a final conclusion that who is right and who is wrong because internal differences of a country should be their problems and only they are the ones to make it solved.
So for me, those who fight for the people and land no matter who they are, to which party they relate, to which religion they belong to, whether secular or religious they are great people in my eyes.

[Friend]

If a bigger enemy attacks there are two options, as I can see :
1) Unite the nations and everybody being ready to be involved and to die for the future of your children.
2) To be not united, get killed and enslaved while some disgusting people use the chaos to get power.

Very good point. That is how I think. All the people irrespective of their religion, ethnicity, tongue or party affiliation, should unite themselves and fight against the foreign occupation. The differences between the parties and people exist everywhere and should be solved during the time when there is no outsider in the country.

[Pisho]

I say fight for what u belive in.. Untill the last drop of your blood and last breath

But first we must fix the country as much as we can by ourselves..

[Afghanistan2010]

I say fight for what u belive in.. Untill the last drop of your blood and last breath

But first we must fix the country as much as we can by ourselves..

First everyone who wants to bring change (goodness),change yourself to the better.

Awal Zaan Bya Jahaaan.

[Afghanistan2010]

Unfortunately, that banner has been misused and abused for a very long time now. People have lost faith in its power of bringing the afghans together. We need a different method and no, I am not asking you to throw your religion out of the window.

Why don't you use it the right way,what prevents you.
Don't talk about the bads of the others to show your goodness,bring goodness to show the bads of others.

Use this banner,and there is no other banner, i salute to it.
Let us rise it and take away all the other banners which brought disunity,conflicts,war,sectarian violence and misery to our lifes by the help of the disbelieving people.