Support the Talibiani not the war?

[Hiero]

We had a discussion where some "communist" said they support the troops, but now the war. And that they support people who join the army.

These statements had several assumption inherent. The first was that most people were talking about the United States army, and that other people would pick up on this assumption. If not the US, then other 1st world nation's armies. Secondly it viewed US imperialism as legitimate, that it isn't as abhorent as other regimes such as the Nazi army, Saddam's army, child armies in Africa etc. That joining the US army is not such "evil" but a legitimate career option, and by joining the army you are not supporting and upholding US imperialism.

The general idea is that workers join the army to escape employment and economic problems, and that they are still "workers" after joining the armed part of the state.

So I am wondering then, on the flip side do you support the armed militants in irregular anti-american armies, such as the Taliban. In both cases, these are armies that work to uphold reactionary regimes, in my opinon the US army is worse because it upholds a whole imperialist regime that is the real centre of capitalism. And it is more so true in the Taliban issue that these people come from worse economic and employment positions, and joining the anti-American fight in Afghanistan seems quite logical.

Now surely if you support the poor north American trooper who has been coerced by structural conditions to join the army, you can surelly support the poor Afghani?

[spartan]

I think the difference between a US soldier and a Taleban volunteer is that more often than not the US soldier is from a poor background (about half of the US army is non-white) and is consequently joining for the money and to escape his past life (though I am sure loads join because they are patriots).

The Taleban fighters on the other hand, are mostly ideologically-motivated (and lets remember that their ideology includes oppressing women, homosexuals, anyone who isn't muslim, etc).

The US has no right to be in Afghanistan and I fully support the Afghans who resist their prescence there.

However, that doesn't mean I won't criticise aspects of those who are resisting either (uncritical support for any movement is wrong in my opinion as it allows them to get away with stuff they should be rightly criticised for, which is dangerous).

Also who was it that said US imperialism isn't as bad as Nazism and Saddam, etc?

[Hiero]

However, that doesn't mean I won't criticise aspects of those who are resisting either (uncritical support for any movement is wrong in my opinion as it allows them to get away with stuff they should be rightly criticised for, which is dangerous).

Well you uncriticaly support thoose who join the army because they are poor. I say these recruits do not join on a non-ideological basis.

Ideology does not have to be conscious, and where other's ideology is different to our unconscious ideology it appears conscious. Such as we assume that the Afghani joins the Taliban because he has a coherent ideology and the otherhand the poor US marine is just a bit dumb and lacks ideology.

In the 1st world, and some 1st world "communist" adobt this postion, there are set values that assume certian norms. Part of these norms is the existance of settler/imperialist states and their armies. So when someone does join the army it is a normal non-ideological act. When really by joining the army, and people saying that it is because they are poor, these ideas came from unconscious ideaology, that is settler mentality.

From the settler/imperialist point of view the Taliban breaks these norm. The recruit here is driven by an ideology, he consciously joins the army to defeat US imperialism and create Islamic"fascism".

What I am speculating is that in both cases unconscious ideology motivates both recruits. We can't realistic assume the Taliban fighter has coherent knowledge in Taliban ideology, I would imagine many of these fighters are illiterate. This unconscious ideology assumes other cultural norms. First that Islam is a norm, and Islamic society is the will of god and nother exists outside of that norm, in a way it is natural. Secondly that fighting for Islam is a norm, and so joining the Taliban has no inherent ideological motives.

So back to so called "communist" supporting troops joining war, I say this is embedded in imperialist mentality that assumes imperialism and 1st world structures as norms. From a real Communist perspective and anti-imperialist perspective, joining the army is an ideological act, as it assumes the US army should be a legitimate force. For instance Communist and anti-imperialist always denied the existance of Israel, because we are against colonialism and for national-liberation. If we truely are against capitalism and imperialism then we are against acts that legitimatise the system.

Now surelly some acts which justify the system are inevitable. The most obvious is the day to day economic activities that one will encounter. So going to work, or buying commodities. These are the true necessities for life. However at times of mass conflict between oppressed/exploited and oppressor/exploiter these day to day activities are boycotted as sign that they masses no longer recongnise the legitimacy of the system. Such is an example of in South Africa where the colonised began boycotting on mass the white owned buisness.

So while all acts under capitalism do justify the system in some way, there are some acts which can be avioded and should be condemned. One is joining an imperialist army. And to conclude, joining any army does have ideological motives, however these ideological motives are unconscious and are absorbed into society and so the acts are seen as norms.

[Killfacer]

a key factor is the fact that the taliban want to opress all women, stop you watching TV, make you pray to god, kill gays/lesbians, destroy books and just generally dick about. Personally i find it difficult to support someone who thinks im a heretic scumbag who deserves to burn in hell.

[Bud Struggle]

a key factor is the fact that the taliban want to opress all women, stop you watching TV, make you pray to god, kill gays/lesbians, destroy books and just generally dick about. Personally i find it difficult to support someone who thinks im a heretic scumbag who deserves to burn in hell.

Exactly.

You may not LIKE Capitalist Imperialism--but in the end who's society would you rather live under (as Communism is't really and option anymore, is it?) Muslem or Capitalist.

Capitalist don't make you pray. :lol:

[Jazzratt]

I support nothing. The Taliban can just fuck right off, as can the US army.

[Bud Struggle]

I support nothing. The Taliban can just fuck right off, as can the US army.

But your right to say that is supported by the US and British armies.

They are protecting your freedoms in a dangerous world. They are not "equal". The US and Britain pretty much leave you alone to think and say what you want--the Taliban would give you rug burns on your forehead.

For you to pretend the Taliban would treat you the same as the British government--is hypocracy.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

But your right to say that is supported by the US and British armies.

They are protecting your freedoms in a dangerous world.

Wait, what?

Are you familiar with the Concept of "power projection"?

Hell, even the mighty US air force (and navy) has a hard time keeping troop cycles into and out of both war zones steady, let alone the supplies to keep those troops in the fight.

So the idea that if the army doesn't shoot up a few middle eastern villages every month or so, then the Mehdi army and the Taliban are just going to "show the fuck up" and impose sharia law on every town in the western world doesn't hold much weight now does it, eh comrade?

[Bud Struggle]

Wait, what?

Are you familiar with the Concept of "power projection"?

Hell, even the mighty US air force (and navy) has a hard time keeping troop cycles into and out of both war zones steady, let alone the supplies to keep those troops in the fight.

So the idea that if the army doesn't shoot up a few middle eastern villages every month or so, then the Mehdi army and the Taliban are just going to "show the fuck up" and impose sharia law on every town in the western world doesn't hold much weight now does it, eh comrade?

You are moving for the point. But I don't know the answer to your question. Would those Muslim guys LIKE to own you? I think yes. Has the British army and American army ALWAYS been around to protect you? I think, yes. Would Muslim extremists eat you alive if the above mention armies weren't around? I think yes.

Have they gone a bit overboard in their protection--maybe yes there, too.

You have to be fair.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

You are moving for the point. But I don't know the answer to your question. Would those Muslim guys LIKE to own you? I think yes. Has the British army and American army ALWAYS been around to protect you? I think, yes. Would Muslim extremists eat you alive if the above mention armies weren't around? I think yes.

Have they gone a bit overboard in their protection--maybe yes there, too.

You have to be fair.

Since the Muslim extremists are a couple of thousand miles away and The British and American armies aren't really there to protect me and I'm more than capable of handling the few angry teenagers who are the "muslim extremists" im my country, I think your argument is... lacking, to say the least.

And to clarify a point, I actually intend on joining the Army when I have the qualifications to get a commision as an officer so don't say I don't respect the poor sods out there "protecting" me. (Or more correctly, protecting western business and geo-political interests.)

[Bud Struggle]

Since the Muslim extremists are a couple of thousand miles away and The British and American armies aren't really there to protect me and I'm more than capable of handling the few angry teenagers who are the "muslim extremists" im my country, I think your argument is... lacking, to say the least. You are thinking of today--this has been goong on for centuries--Charles Martel, John Pointoski at the gates of Vienna. Think BIG PICTURE here The different engine.


And to clarify a point, I actually intend on joining the Army when I have the qualifications to get a commision as an officer so don't say I don't respect the poor sods out there "protecting" me. (Or more correctly, protecting western business and geo-political interests.)

Nothing personal against "YOU". Actually didn't know you exsisted before this.

[RGacky3]

I don't hope Taliban people are killed. The same way I don't hope American Soldiers are killed. I hope they can go home to their families in one piece, that being saind, I also don't want the Taliban oppressing their own people, the same way I don't want the US to oppress everyone.

That being said, I don't think every Taliban fighter is a oppressor, many are probably just scared, and trying to kick out Americans.


Have they gone a bit overboard in their protection--maybe yes there, too.

American armies hav'nt done any protecting since the war of 1812, it has nothing to do with protecting anyone or anything except for American Political and Business Interests. Thats it.

Thats like saying Stalin went overboard protecting his people from counter-revolutionaries (which is an argument Stalinists use), Stalin and the American elite care about power, their own, and they don't protect anyone.


They are protecting your freedoms in a dangerous world.

No they are not, they are protecting business interests, TomK your smarter than that.