Afghanistan Crisis

[WhiteRoseKillie]

10 minutes ago, Ric said:

This is not a new thing, if you put it in context of the Crusades.

Maybe not bombing, and despite being a millennia ago, it was western powers trying to enforce their dominance upon the middle east (and the surrounding region).

..or the Moors doing the same in Iberia. As I think we established over the last couple of days, levels of cúntery are not dictated by race, creed or any other arbitrary measure as much as by opportunity Humans are just cúnts.

Edited August 27, 2021 by WhiteRoseKillie

[Ric]

Just now, Newbornbairn said:

Why?

They've had nuclear weapons for 50 years and never even used them when they were invaded in 73. Why would they use them now when they're striking peace deals with countries in the region? 

Does Israel even count as being in the region? It's 2000 miles from Kabul and has to cross Jordan, Iraq and Iran to get there.  

That's not really representing the position properly imo.

For a start the 6 day war, in 1967, was at the same time as Israel was developing it's nuclear weapons. At that time they were not "battefield ready" for the lack of a better term, what's more after the initial strike by the Arab forces, Israel soon took a strong position and was easily "winning the war". It would make no military sense to use them then. By the time the Yom Kippur war rolled around in 1973, Israel were defending occupied territories that they had won in 67. Again it would not make sense to use nuclear weapons on their border.

So if you are asking "why would they, because they haven't before" those are the two main reasons domestically, internationally there was considerable influence being put upon them by both sides of the Cold War.

The Israel of 1967 or 1973 is not the Israel of now which is guided by a choice between far right politics and extreme far right politics, Netanyahu was no Golda Meir.

As for whether they are relevant in this situation, yes, I would say that considering they are already at war with Iran (either directly or via proxy).

 

[Michael W]

42 minutes ago, Ric said:

What I want to know is whether Afghan hounds were being airlifted out.

I don't know why he's bothering - they'll just get knicked by a bunch of Romanians with a white van. They're safer in Afghanistan. 

BEAWARE

[Ric]

11 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

You shoud maybe try listening to it between 1000-1800 - O'Brien, Fogarty and Mair don't deserve that insult. When Nawaz stands in for O'Brien, mind*, we tend to get a different type of know-it-all nonsense. 

*As this week - dear lord, that man doesn't like to be disagreed with. 

Oh, I never listen to voxpop's even for the most mundane topics.

Essentially for people to be motivated enough to phone in and discuss something, it's very likely their views will be on the periphery of public opinion. Add in the more recent trend of getting seemingly normal individuals calling in regarding a special interest only to find out later that the "concerned parent" is in fact a representative of a party. In America the whole astroturfing thing is crazy. and I see a similar trend happening here. The radio phone in now is very rarely the voice of the populous but a very narrow political or ethical point being made by people trained to do so.

[Ric]

12 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

..or the Moors doing the same in Iberia.

I would have difficulty in comparing those two, to be honest.

Interestingly under the moors, its been recorded they were very open to other religions being practised. So Christians and Jews were allowed to continue their faith. When English and French sponsored knights rode into Jerusalem, it was not under the guise of religious harmony.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

11 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

Just that some do insist in being bigger c***s than others. One in particular!

As I said - opportunity.

[Ric]

17 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I don't know why he's bothering - they'll just get knicked by a bunch of Romanians with a white van. They're safer in Afghanistan. 

BEAWARE

With the supply of Afghan dogs now so low, it's understandable that crooks will get involved.

If only people stopped wearing Afghan jackets, then the cruel trade could be stopped..

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

The biggest threat to world peace is by far and beyond, the US.

Interestingly, if you had asked that same question 200 years ago, you could exchange "the US" for "the UK".

Not that I disagree, although after a series of failed military interventions (and we have to see the Afghan situation as 'failed; no matter what Biden claims) and very high profile CIA covert nonsense perhaps their post WW2 bluster is being replaced by something a bit more realistic, in the sense that the reason for the US being powerful is that WW2 was not fought on it's soil, and with it's large resources and the "(ex-nazi) technical age" was just about to kick off it was well positioned to make huge strides, rather than the nonsense suggestion that America is in some way special or different to any other nation.

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

It wasn't fought on our soil either and we ended up skint thanks to the US. Special relationship. Who needs friends?!!!

The US isn't special, just greedy and matters not the collateral damage in pursuit of that greed.

I would count the endless bombings and the occupation of the Channel Islands, to be "on our soil".

The worst the Americans had to deal with domestically was some lanterns...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/130527-map-video-balloon-bomb-wwii-japanese-air-current-jet-stream

 

[Left Back]

4 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

It wasn't fought on our soil either and we ended up skint thanks to the US. Special relationship. Who needs friends?!!!

The US isn't special, just greedy and matters not the collateral damage in pursuit of that greed.

Excuse me?

[Ric]

Just now, TheBruce said:

Behave ffs. Not good for the Channel Islanders, but there wasn't exactly genocide enacted with 44 killed, nor was it razed. There was minimal resistance with minor acts of sabotage. There was a German civil administration in. A minimal part of our war effort to say the least that lies of the shore of France.

The point I was making was the distance of the US from it's incursions, protected by two oceans the b*****ds made us pay for their support.

Yeah, not sure how you can claim a bombing campaign that lasted 8 months, as not being "on our soil". I agree with the final sentence but it's essentially the point I made a few posts earlier.

The Americans 'benefited' geopolitically from WW2 and have been leveraging that advantage for decades. The Cold War helped extend it, but it's clear now, if it wasn't after the Cold War "finished", that the US is not the dominant power it either wants to be or thinks it is. Sure, it has a massive navy, air force and land forces, but that comes at a cost, and at some point they are going to have to stop throwing cash at something that more often than not, simply ends up with the Americans looking stupid.

Spoiler

 

 

[Silvio Tattiescone]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

That's not really representing the position properly imo.

For a start the 6 day war, in 1967, was at the same time as Israel was developing it's nuclear weapons. At that time they were not "battefield ready" for the lack of a better term, what's more after the initial strike by the Arab forces, Israel soon took a strong position and was easily "winning the war". It would make no military sense to use them then. By the time the Yom Kippur war rolled around in 1973, Israel were defending occupied territories that they had won in 67. Again it would not make sense to use nuclear weapons on their border.

So if you are asking "why would they, because they haven't before" those are the two main reasons domestically, internationally there was considerable influence being put upon them by both sides of the Cold War.

The Israel of 1967 or 1973 is not the Israel of now which is guided by a choice between far right politics and extreme far right politics, Netanyahu was no Golda Meir.

As for whether they are relevant in this situation, yes, I would say that considering they are already at war with Iran (either directly or via proxy).

 

Bringing Israel into a discussion about Afghanistan smacks of tinfoil hat material tbh. 

[Ric]

5 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

Bringing Israel into a discussion about Afghanistan smacks of tinfoil hat material tbh.

It would be if it was without context. The context was people discussing the US using nuclear weapons, my point is the nuclear armed state most likely to get involved in such an exchange would be Israel.

There is nothing tin foil hat about that.

 

[Aladdin]

I dont really think the Israelis give a flying f**k about Afghanistan.  I would be far more worried about the Indians and Pakistanis duking it out via proxies with Iran interfering too.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, Aladdin said:

I dont really think the Israelis give a flying f**k about Afghanistan.  I would be far more worried about the Indians and Pakistanis duking it out via proxies with Iran interfering too.

The Israelis do however give an 'extremely high flying f**k' about Iran's dominance in the region, though.

That said, I would be very disappointed if this was somehow turned around into "Ric thinks Israel will nuke Kabul" because that's not at all the point I'm making.

 

[Guest TheJTS98]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

I would have difficulty in comparing those two, to be honest.

Interestingly under the moors, its been recorded they were very open to other religions being practised. So Christians and Jews were allowed to continue their faith. When English and French sponsored knights rode into Jerusalem, it was not under the guise of religious harmony.

Oh dear.

Do you know why the Moors were happy for Christianity and Judaism to carry on as normal?

Clue: Think money.

[tamthebam]

2 hours ago, Ric said:

What I want to know is whether Afghan hounds were being airlifted out.

What-A-Mess

 

One for lovers of 70s kids books there..

[Ric]

1 minute ago, TheJTS98 said:

Oh dear.

Do you know why the Moors were happy for Christianity and Judaism to carry on as normal?

Clue: Think money.

Jinkies, that's coming very close to anti-Semitic rhetoric!

As for the whys or wherefores, it's pretty irrelevant, the point is that the moors invading their neighbours in Southern Spain is not the equivalent of sending troops from England to "recapture" Jerusalem.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

....The Israel of 1967 or 1973 is not the Israel of now which is guided by a choice between far right politics and extreme far right politics, Netanyahu was no Golda Meir....

Do left and right really mean anything in the context of perceived existential threats to national security? The Israeli Labour party were central to the Zionist project and discretely pushed for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arab populations that happened in 1948. Unfortunately the Israeli electorate subsequently favoured them over other parties of the left that wanted co-existance and a return of the expelled Arab population (intransigence on issues like that didn't start with Likud), and ethnic cleansing was reciprocated in the Arab world where Mizrahi Jewish populations were concerned. 

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

Jinkies, that's coming very close to anti-Semitic rhetoric!

As for the whys or wherefores, it's pretty irrelevant, the point is that the moors invading their neighbours in Southern Spain is not the equivalent of sending troops from England to "recapture" Jerusalem.

Only if you don't know anything about the topic.

The Moors collected the Jizya from the non-Muslims in the region. A handy source of income and much more economically sensible than beheading them. This still happens in the Islamic world today.

Also, it wouldn't have made any sense to disrupt the trade routes in the region. Much better to collect the Jizya and tax the arse out the trade on top.

It had absolutely nothing to do with religious tolerance as we understand it. It was an economic decision.

I'm afraid you can't make reference to the crusades and then dismiss the Islamic invasion of Iberia just by saying 'That's different'. It's not different. If you had half an idea about history or Islam, you'd know that. The fact that the Jizya never crossed your mind and you jumped to anti-semitism shows where your limits are on this topic.