The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

I've received criticism for this piece from some 'fellow travelers', or from fellow counter-jihadists, for my references to the Taliban being 'fighters'. See what you think. 

It’s ironic that just days after a possible US/UK military ‘intervention’ in Syria we are reminded about another intervention – the one in Afghanistan. In this case, Taliban jihadists have just attacked a US base in eastern Afghanistan (Sunday, 1st September). Three of their fighters were killed in the process.
This means that the war in Afghanistan has not been won after 13 years. If we intervene in Syria (even if not so directly as in Afghanistan), how long will the deadly consequences of such an intervention in that country last?
One thing I did note about the British reports on this attack was the wording. The journalists uniformly called the Afghanistan fighters ‘militants’ and ‘insurgents’. When Islamists kill civilians in the West they are also sometimes called ‘militants’ or ‘radicals’. They are terrorists and/or jihadists. Even when they deliberately kill civilians in their own countries, they are still terrorists and/or jihadists. However, when they kill US or Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan, they are fighters. On that issue, I agree with the Western Left.
Of course many Afghan Muslims are going to fight against a foreign force within their midst. That’s why we should have no illusions about any military intervention in Syria. Even if we did help the Sunni victims of Assad (if they are victims of Assad), as well indirectly – or directly - help the Islamists or ‘militants’ (them again) in the process, then there will come a time when most Syrians will no longer need or want our help. Who knows, perhaps that would occur only a week or so after they had achieved their victory against Assad. And then would it be Iraq all over again?
As for the Afghan fighters. I’m not romanticising the Taliban, or carrying out a piece of (Marxist) theorising which miraculously turns them from being Islamic zealots  into being ‘liberationists’ or ‘anti-imperialists’. I’m simply saying that when they fight US and Afghan troops - though not when they kill civilians in the random manner they do every day - they are fighters. This is not to say there were no good reasons for going into Afghanistan in October 2001. But once there, most Afghan Muslims were almost bound to fight against them – even those who weren’t Islamic fanatics. This is a vague case of patriotism/nationalism – even if it is indeed Afghanistan and therefore that loyalty is primarily to the tribe (Pashtuns or other tribes) rather than to the whole of Afghanistan (let alone to the Afghanistan state). In addition, it may well be the case that most – though not all – those men in the Afghan army - and even the police - are there for financial or career reasons; not for any deep hatred of the Taliban or, conversely, out of love for the American troops and what they’re doing in their country. In fact the many renegade actions of Afghan troops and police over the last 13 years have shown that to be the case.
The Taliban actions in this instance were clearly military in nature and part of their war effort. They attacked a US base in eastern Afghanistan. After a long gun battle, three Taliban were dead. Luckily no American soldiers were killed.
Before the gun battle, the fighters, not the ‘militants’ or ‘insurgents’, had torched NATO supply trucks on the road leading to the US Torkham base in the Nangarhar province.
British soldiers are said to be pulling out of Afghanistan in 2014; though some will remain there in an ‘advisory capacity’. This is something that many British Muslims appear to forget when they - as well as their Leftists enablers - accuse us of being ‘foreign occupiers’, ‘colonialists’ and all the rest. Indeed the same is true about Iraq. British troops pulled out of that country in 2011. Nonetheless, there are still 66,000 US troops in Afghanistan but no US troops in Iraq. The last US troops pulled out of Iraq in 2011. The US Government has also promised to pull out all troops from Afghanistan in 2014… and then do you honestly think that Islamic terrorism will suddenly stop either here in the West or in the Muslim world? Of course not! A jihad that’s been going on for 1,400 years is hardly likely to stop just like that. Other reasons and justifications will be found - both by Muslims and Leftists - for further terrorist attacks. What’s happening in Syria? Israel’s ‘treatment of Palestinians’? The banning of the burka in France? The lack of a clampdown on ‘Islamophobes’ in the UK and Europe?  Western non-Muslim ‘personnel’/workers – not troops! – in Saudi Arabia? A church being built too near one of Birmingham’s Muslim ghettos (if churches are built at all nowadays)? Another ‘blasphemous’ film or book?
Even though in this case only I’ve called the Taliban ‘fighters’, as I said, they are not always so. In fact they are usually terrorists or just plain killers. And what can be more terroristic than killing your own people? This is a daily fact that many Western and American Muslims systematically ignore.  Muslim-on-Muslim killing far exceeds Western-on-Muslim killings by many orders of magnitude. It always has done. But most Western Muslims have never really been that concerned with Muslim-on-Muslim killing. (The long-running Palestine Muslim-on-Muslim intrafada - which has claimed more lives than those claimed by the Israelis during the three intifada - is a very good example.) Muslims killing Muslims doesn’t play into Islamists’ ideological and religious game-plans. However, the singular exception to this (for Sunnis) is when Shia kill Sunnis, or (for Shia) when Sunnis kill Shia; which is precisely the case with Syria.
As for the Left, most Leftists have no interest in Muslim-on-Muslim killing either.  In the Afghanistan case particularly, there have been dozens of Muslim civilians killed by the Taliban recently. Then again, Muslims are killing Muslims on a massive scale in Iraq too; as well as in Syria. What many Leftists and Muslims will now say is that the West, miraculously and predictably, is somehow responsible for all these deaths too. It always was responsible, according to Muslims; and has been ever since Muslims lost the last of their many imperialist empires after World War One. In the Left’s case, this is the position you are bound to adopt if you treat all Muslims as children without free will or conscience. Similarly, if you treat them as children who are literally incapable of changing their own political, social and economic environments. This is the Leftists’ condescending vision of all Muslims as the endless victims of us ‘white folk’ (though not Leftist ones!) in the West.
The Taliban’s terrorism against its own civilians is deliberate – as terrorism always is. The terror in their terrorism is vital. It’s not just about getting rid of foreign or even domestic enemies. Hence the many civilian (Muslim) causalities of the Taliban’s Islamic piety.  More specifically, through such terror the Taliban is not only trying to scare the ‘Christian Crusaders’ out of Afghanistan. The terror is aimed primarily at Afghan civilians as well as at Afghan troops. It’s a warning shot to show the non-Islamist – until now - Afghan forces what they’re up against. It’s also telling Afghan civilians – Muslims - that they must support the Taliban otherwise death shall await them.

Tags: Afghanistan?, Syria?, US, What, about, attacks, in, on, recent, the, More…troops

Views: 157

Replies to This Discussion

I'm sure when the Russians invaded Afghanistan they were fighters, or at least considered part of the Army. Or were they originally the Mujahideen, and they morphed into the Taliban. Any way, I suppose it depends on your perspective. The only trouble I have with them being referred to as fighters is they use terror against the people they are supposed to be fighting for.

Of cause they're not fighting for the people exactly, they're fighting to protect Islam. Or because being a sheep herder or poppy grower is too much hard work.

The thing is, they'll kill anyone, including themselves. I think Islam makes its followers behave as though they have some kind of illness. Its like they're been attacked by a parasite, sometimes they look like ordinary people, sometimes they look like fighters, but eventually they have to behave like the parasite. (islam)  

As for calling them fighters? Emmmm. What are they fighting for. For the right to keep fighting until the world is under the Sharia. And then everyone will just keep on fighting.  Maybe they are the purest form of fighters human kind has produced.

Personally I think they're brainwashed killers. But history will have to decide I feel.

On a related note, I was explaining some background on the Syria situation to a friend last night.  Have you noticed how successful the Western interventions in the Middle East are?

Let's leave politics and morality aside for a minute, and just judge if the number of deaths that has occurred, would be less that those that would have occurred, if the US/EU hadn't helped to topple the existing (but flawed) regime.  I ask this because many Iraqis would rather be back under Saddam Hussein now, with all his faults, life was safer and better.

So, which countries has Western intervention and disruption made worse?

  • Iraq
  • Afghanistan (we could have left after bin Laden's escape)
  • Iran (yes, we helped the Islamic revolution in at least 2 ways)
  • Egypt  (the West was involved with Mubarrak's overthrow)
  • Libya
  • Syria (we've already intervened by giving support to the rebels)
  • Tunisia?

With a track record like that, I think we should just stay out of Syria.

N.B. I'm not talking about the conceited Leftie's view that "I know what is best for you dumb Iraqi people".  I'm talking about what those people themselves would say they prefer.  If its a choice between democracy+daily bombs v. an authoritarian regime, most people will choose the latter.

My basic point was that if you have foreign forces on your soil, you will fight them regardless of the foreign forces’ plans or your own politics. This is the case, historically, even if many of your ‘people’ aren’t great fans of what you’re doing. During WW2 in France, for example, the French Resistance was up against a lot of pro-Nazi French.

I don’t know if the Taliban is brainwashed. It depends on whether you mean self-brainwashed or brainwashed by others. They are certainly self-brainwashed but, then again, many of these people – not all – have no education so they have no way of critically dissecting what they believe. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is full of educated rich people. Same too with Hamas and the Muslims Brotherhood generally – full of middle-class university-educated Islamists (CAIR especially!).

paul collings said:

Personally I think they're brainwashed killers. But history will have to decide I feel.

They are, brainwashed by their religion, and by tribal influence. But that's not to say most of us aren't to some degree suffering the effects of our up bringing and social pressures ect. The only difference is our way of life does allow for a certain amount of personal freedom, and choices.

It is true that there are many educated people in many Islamic organisations that we are in conflict with, although they take their instruction from the Quran, so as intelligent as they are, they work everything back through their mind until what they do matches up with some verse from the Quran.

Everything they do is governed by the word of Allah.

I understand what your saying about fighting foreign forces. No one likes an occupying force. No matter how friendly. Even in Britain we can see that, with the Celts and Anglo Saxons, and later with the conquest of Britain by the French king William the Conquer. Notice history (british) always referred to him as 'conquer' as though his reign was never legitimate, even though he did a lot of good in with the bad.   For centuries us Brits hated the French.

So back to the question of 'are they fighters'.  Do we measure them by our standards. People are often saying we should not measure Islam by our standards. We should not make the mistake of believing that their idea of religion is the same as  a Christian or Hindu ect  would. So should we believe that their idea of a fighter is the same.

When it suits, Islam use's our standards against us. Telling us we,re intolerant. referring to us as  Crusaders, they claim every lose as a victory while claiming victimhood in the same breath, and even if we pull out of every Islamic country they will keep on coming bringing  their death cult with them.

When they kill us they claim victory, when we kill them they claim victory. Their 'fighters' are no more than cannon fodder for an ideology.  And yes we could say the same about our own fighters through out history.  But, fighting to enforce a never changing ideology, to stop any outside influence that may somehow pollute Islam. Its a fine line.

Yes you will fight people who invade you. But do you keep fighting when they've left or been defeated. What are you if you never stop fighting.  Again its a fine line, and I think its down how you view the validity of your cause. We view them as terrorist, or 'insurgents' because it suits our reasoning for being there.

They will call themselves fighters who are protecting their Country? Tribe? Islam?  I think if we call them fighters we give them some sort of credibility I don't want them to have. But this will not stop them calling themselves what they will.

Ansars,  Mujahideen,  they're all fighting or helping Islam or Muhhamad or Allah.  I don't want to help them, so I'll not call them fighters.  

 

     

     

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service