I don't think anyone would suggest the West was defending itself from the people of Afghanistan. I thought the idea was to defend the people of Afghanistan and the West from Al-Q and Taliban oppression and violence?<quoted text>
Yeah, that makes sense.
I guess like a lot of things, the bondaries get a bit blurred.
Was the west defending itself against the people of Afghanistan, or perhaps Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the hijackers were from that nation?
In the exceedingly unlikely event of the NRA destroying the Shanghai WFC.
I wonder whether China would get UN support to invade America.
People say things like "The West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq" as if the attack was on the nation or the people instead of oppresive regimes therein. The aim was obviously to defend them and us. Talk about things getting blurred - that is exactly right. That is why when I was in the Army I always mistrusted the UK politicians and public as much as any enemy to the front,(for different reasons obviously!:-)
Everyone does their best from their own viewpoint, but it is a fairly chaotic and ignorant world. People talk of the Taliban as if they are an homogenous group, but they range from the lad who just thinks his family is in danger at lashes out at 'the foreign invaders' all the way to the ideologues and fanatics like senior Al-Q leaders. Most of the Taliban we can probably work with quite well and the very first of the early movement seem to have been fine men.
Someone once said that it only took 50,000 armed men to lay-waste to a nation of 20 millions. As I see it, the majority of us need to establish some solidarity against the violent minority. It doesn't matter if one is Western, Afghan, Muslim or atheist. The important thing is to establish peace and democracy as far as possible. Perhaps we have learned from past interventions how very badly such interventions can go wrong? However, many Syrians don't currently think so and see the West as self-interested and at best and uncaring or perfidious at worst.