british army loses in afganistan

[opsmonkey]

no mate by sub-state actors it means groups below the main political leaders and parties.. for instance lobby groups in the UK are considered sub-state actors..

they operate below the main state and its objectives..

it does not mean sub as in sub-standard..

Hamas arent "terrorists".. they are a political party that has a paramilitary wing called Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades..

In the same way Sinn Fein were / are the political arm of the IRA.

It is the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, that is listed as a terrorist organisation and therefore western govts. refuse to enter dialogue until Izz ad-Din al-Qassam lay down their arms

[on_the_jazz]

no mate by sub-state actors it means groups below the main political leaders and parties.. for instance lobby groups in the UK are considered sub-state actors..

they operate below the main state and its objectives..

it does not mean sub as in sub-standard..

Hamas arent "terrorists".. they are a political party that has a paramilitary wing called Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades..

In the same way Sinn Fein were / are the political arm of the IRA.

It is the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, that is listed as a terrorist organisation and therefore western govts. refuse to enter dialogue until Izz ad-Din al-Qassam lay down their arms

I thought there was no distinction between the political and military wing. Hamas as a whole has been on the EU list since 2003. Unfortunately I can't find any proof either way on any of the gov sites! (might be lack of sleep so I'll confirm tomorrow).
I understood substate and I meant since Hamas is not substate it should not fall under the definition. I also think its a bad definition because it puts any state leaders outside the definition of terrorist.

[opsmonkey]

i get what your saying but i dont think you can say any western govt has used intimidation of non-combatants, especailly civilians, by the threat or use of violence..

I know the USA under Bush had a policy of tow the line or we're going smash you, but never once did they intimidate non-combatants with the threat of violence.. all threats were made against particular state leaders not the inhabitants.. namely two 'military' regimes..

Its the wrong way to do business but its not an act of terrorism, more an act of terrorising

The USA and ultimately the UK govts. were wrong under Jus Ad Bellum terms to invade Iraq, however not when comencing operations in Afghanistan

As for Hamas your right there is no distinction between the political and military wing by western govts. which was the same of Sinn Fien and the UK govt. before the Good Friday agreement..

Its just a way of not doing business with someone you dont want to.. If they enetered into dialogue then there would be more chance of peace.. The yanks have a strong Jewish influence on their foreign policy and in turn they exert pressure on other govts.

i think the definition stands up as no state actively targets non combatants but it can through state sponsored acts,

Iran supports the Afghan and Iraqi insurgency with weapons.. Iran doesnt directly partake in 'terrorism', but it does provide the means for other to do so..

Terrorism is a 'blanket' word used by the media, often it uses 'Terrorist' when it should be using 'Insurgent'.. The American media is the worst for this, ours is getting better

I do though know what your saying, that the USA and the UK were guilty of what could be perceived as 'terrorisim' by invading Iraq but its more like terrorising.. which is a different kettle of fish

[on_the_jazz]

i get what your saying but i dont think you can say any western govt has used intimidation of non-combatants, especailly civilians, by the threat or use of violence..

Too many examples to name but the ones we've probably heard about most in our lifetime:

Border between Pakistan or Afghanistan: Lots of bombings which lead to the death of civillians. They are being intimadated with more bombing although there is no real proof of anything.

Afghanistan: US said to give them Bin Laden. Taliban say show us some proof and we'll send him. US say no we don't need proof and end up invading to get him. You can say it was to fight terror or overthrow the taliban (who I agree were extreme and oppressive) but back then the reason was to get Bin Laden and at that point in time there wasn't enough evidence.

Palestine: We want you people to be more democratic. The Palestinians go and democratically elect (a lot of effort was made to ensure it was a fair election - it was all overseen). After all that it's oh no we don't like who you've elected we'll hit you with more sanctions! Next time elect who we tell you or else.

Cuba: Do as we say. They say no. Bang, sanctions, embargo, etc. No country in the world apart from the US and Israel believe its justified (this is based on the only 2 votes keeping it in place).

All this is before you go into support of corrupt regimes (eg. Saudi), and before you go into the funding and support of militaries within other countries to get who you want in power (eg. Nicaragua back in the day).
Also there's the whole Israel thing, Russia, Syria, it just goes on.

Its the wrong way to do business but its not an act of terrorism, more an act of terrorising

It meets every part of your definition. You're basically saying the definition only applies when its not us. When Afghanistan was invaded one of the first things they did was cut off the fuel and food supplies which put like 7 million people at risk of starvation. You probably know this better than I do since you were there, but there was a huge outcry about it and other countries had to get involved to somehow stop all these civillians dying.

Sorry, the reply was kinda long and tbh I think you and I could argue about this all day so I'll leave it now and also try to remember the old "don't discuss politics and religion" thing .

edit: Oh yeah and I completely agree with you on all the other points you made above.

[thered]

i have studied this in great detail on my course and it can be said that Terrorism is:

The premeditated coercive intimidation of non-combatants, especailly civilians, by the threat or use of violence for political purposes by sub-state actors..

However, we are not in Afghanistan to fight 'Terrorists' we are there to fight an Insurgency, which is different..

Afghanistan is not about oil as there are no oil fields in Afghanistan.. if anything it is about drugs.. 90% of Heroin on UK streets comes from Helmand Province.. But this is not the main reason we are there, all the drug money does is fund taliban operations.

Originally we went in to dispose the Taliban government who were turning a blind eye to 'Al Qaeda' running terrorist training camps, which resulted in 9/11..

The Taliban govt. was overthrown, now our job is to "assist the elected Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance"

In doing this we are fighting a Taliban Insurgency..

Insurgency = armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority

The Taliban are engaged in guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, which is us as we try to help the Afghan govt create an Army

WW2 was a 'kill or be killed' era.. Millions of people died to protect a way of life, to prevent an invasion.. This is to be expected in a 'war'

Afghanistan is not the same as WW2, its not the same high stakes.. This is why you have an uproar at 182 dead British Soldiers..

I find your comment maxi about a "song and dance over the casualty rate" highly offensive. As someone who has seen active service in Helmand Province in 2008 and went to 7 repatriation services whilst i was there, each life lost is a tragedy.. Especailly when its a result of overstrech by troops on the ground or a lack of suitable equipment which should not be the case in the 21st century.. I'm sure if it was a relative or friend of yours that had died you wouldnt regard it as a 'song and dance'

Just for clarification it is not the job of NATO or the British Army to burn poppy fields, this has nothing to do with the NATO mission..

The poppy fields are the responsibilty of the PEF (Poppy Eradiaction Force) which is Afghan controlled.. Before they burn all the fields you first have to find alternate crops for the farmers to grow, sell and feed their families otherwise there will be massive humanitarian implications

i find your post quite interesting but im not gonig to pretend i know anything about this conflict really, all i know is that in my opinion and the same as iraq we should not be there at all our army should be there to protect us from invaders and terrorist attacks on our shores

it is my belief if we never followed america around like lap dogs invading foriegn countries then thre probably wouldnt be as much hatred for this country to warrant any terrorist attacks from these muslim countries

[maxi1968]

sorry if i sounded offensive ops monkey ,my point was about the media coverage .i know that families are suffering through this .as i you pointed out its against insurgents,whare do they come from .mainly pakistan,the pakistani government launched an offensive against them in thier own back yard.the british army is not an offensive army it just isnt big enough.so in a nut shell get in do the job support the troops ,give them what they need brown