However, I fail to see what that has to do with Afghanistan. Now if we had been talking about Iraq...........
Many have argued with varying degrees of credibility that the War in Afghanistan was/is a war of aggression. My personal opinion is that we were justified in invading as retaliation for 9/11, but I hardly see the justification for staying there over a decade.
Commanders have a responsibility to their troops, who are people too (in case anyone forgot that detail). Troops generally aren't keen on suicide, nor is there any reason why they should be.
Don't really see how that's relevant to this discussion. I'm not blaming the commanders or the soldiers for causing the problem (well except for perhaps certain members of the top brass).
Being all perfect and idealistic about it is easy when it's not your arse on the line.
Of course. But the point is rebel forces can say the same.
I don't mind if the two of you have that opinion.
You seemed to raise an objection to it with Aphrodite earlier.
Personally I'm still fine with the term for some purposes.
I am too, actually, in the sense that I don't object to people using the term for certain insurgent groups, though given the politicization of the term, I respect the decision of those who avoid using it to describe those same insurgent groups.
Out of curiosity-- how would you define a terrorist organization?