Afghanistan Crisis

[Tony Ferrino]

7 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I see the similarities between the Taliban and Boko Haram. Obviously what happens in Nigeria is done on a much smaller scale than we're seeing in Kabul. Rampaging through villages, treating women like shit and taking them as wifes etc. I wonder if we only hear so much of Afghanistan because we've never involved ourself in Nigeria...

Haven’t we?

[Thereisalight..]

1 minute ago, Tony Ferrino said:

Haven’t we?

 Certainly not on the scale of our involvement in Afghanistan and not this century, no

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Interesting times ahead, as the Tories try desperately to find a way to make it look that the UK is fulfilling its moral reponsibilities by taking in Afghan refugees, while at the same time finding ways of appeasing their racist voters and the right wing press by actually taking none in at all.

This is going to exercise some of the finest twisted minds in the Tory government. I look forward to seeing ministers jumping through the eye of a needle in interviews in coming days.

 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

7 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Interesting times ahead, as the Tories try desperately to find a way to make it look that the UK is fulfilling its moral reponsibilities by taking in Afghan refugees, while at the same time finding ways of appeasing their racist voters and the right wing press by actually taking none in at all.

This is going to exercise some of the finest twisted minds in the Tory government. I look forward to seeing ministers jumping through the eye of a needle in interviews in coming days.

 

Apparently there's a 95-year old woman rattling around a property in central London with 200 bedrooms, someone should maybe give her a call.

[Jinky67]

31 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Sorry, but you absolutely must be fucking joking.

Does this jog your memory at all?

I'll give you a clue - it was very much the USA's business. As a result it was all of NATO's business.

I’ve found myself dragged into a few Facebook “debates” over this very point against my better judgement. A lot of people forget the fact or just aren’t aware that 9/11 meant NATO invoked article 5 meaning that an attack on any NATO member is essentially an attack on them all and as such they are obliged to assist the US in their response. That response was to go after AQ in Afghanistan which couldn’t be done without going to war with the Taliban. 
 

 

 

[Jinky67]

39 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I see the similarities between the Taliban and Boko Haram. Obviously what happens in Nigeria is done on a much smaller scale than we're seeing in Kabul. Rampaging through villages, treating women like shit and taking them as wifes etc. I wonder if we only hear so much of Afghanistan because we've never involved ourself in Nigeria...

We deployed to Nigeria some years back as part of Op Turus and I believe those operations still continue today 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Jinky67

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I wonder if we only hear so much of Afghanistan because we've never involved ourself in Nigeria...

You have to be fucking kidding..

Edited August 17, 2021 by welshbairn

[Thereisalight..]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

You have to be be fucking kidding..

Should have said not involved ourself on a grand scale this century. Obviously the UK have a lot of history in Nigeria (before my time)

[welshbairn]

Just now, Thereisalight.. said:

Should have said not involved ourself on a grand scale this century. Obviously the UK have a lot of history in Nigeria (before my time)

Fair enough.

[Left Back]

15 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

We deployed to Nigeria some years back as part of Op Turus and I believe those operations still continue today 

We deploy to many countries round the world.  Lots of them the public never hear about.  Nothing like the involvement in Afghanistan though so not really comparable.

[Left Back]

22 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

I’ve found myself dragged into a few Facebook “debates” over this very point against my better judgement. A lot of people forget the fact or just aren’t aware that 9/11 meant NATO invoked article 5 meaning that an attack on any NATO member is essentially an attack on them all and as such they are obliged to assist the US in their response. That response was to go after AQ in Afghanistan which couldn’t be done without going to war with the Taliban. 
 

 

 

Agree with this.  Every word of it.  The problem is there was no real exit plan.  Regime change somewhere as unstable as Afghanistan where we tried to enforce Western democracy was hopeful at best and realistically naive.

Nato can’t impose it’s values on people that are at odds with them.  Nato trying to police and secure Afghanistan was never going to work long term.  It was a failure of foreign policy to attempt it which has led us to this.  

We can’t seem to accept that in general the way Muslims wish to create their society is different to how we wish ours to look.  This has been going on for centuries and will likely never change.  

I don’t particularly like it and wouldn’t want my wife to have to live like that but putting it bluntly it’s none of my business how different cultures want to live.  the exception being the example you stated.  Where we are attacked because of this we are obliged to respond.  That response should be limited to the current threat and not be an attempt to change an entire culture.

[Ad Lib]

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Agree with this.  Every word of it.  The problem is there was no real exit plan.  Regime change somewhere as unstable as Afghanistan where we tried to enforce Western democracy was hopeful at best and realistically naive.

The exit plan should have been “we don’t exit until we can say with Well founded confidence that the Taliban will not displace the Government”.

We weren’t trying to impose “Western democracy”. We were imposing “actually have elections” and “stop theocratically state sanctioning the raping, flogging and stoning to death/beheading of women and girls”. Thats several orders of magnitude short of Western democracy and is the absolute bare minimum necessary to drag a society out of the dark ages.

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Nato can’t impose it’s values on people that are at odds with them.  Nato trying to police and secure Afghanistan was never going to work long term.  It was a failure of foreign policy to attempt it which has led us to this.

It can, and for twenty years did, impose a clear societal expectation in Kabul and other provincial capitals that women are human beings. Something the Taliban do not do.

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

We can’t seem to accept that in general the way Muslims wish to create their society is different to how we wish ours to look.  This has been going on for centuries and will likely never change.

Horseshit. There are plenty of Muslim majority countries and peoples that manage to afford women basic human rights. The Taliban do not speak for the Muslim world and it’s frankly disgusting that you are willing to equivocate in this way and basically engage in a racism of low expectations. You are in effect suggesting that Muslims by dint of their religion and political history are in some fundamental sense more predisposed towards barbarity towards women.

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

I don’t particularly like it and wouldn’t want my wife to have to live like that but putting it bluntly it’s none of my business how different cultures want to live.

It is when they beat, rape, forcibly marry and stone women, you mealy mouthed coward.

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

 the exception being the example you stated.  Where we are attacked because of this we are obliged to respond.  That response should be limited to the current threat and not be an attempt to change an entire culture.

You’re an excuse.

[Left Back]

7 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The exit plan should have been “we don’t exit until we can say with Well founded confidence that the Taliban will not displace the Government”.

We weren’t trying to impose “Western democracy”. We were imposing “actually have elections” and “stop theocratically state sanctioning the raping, flogging and stoning to death/beheading of women and girls”. Thats several orders of magnitude short of Western democracy and is the absolute bare minimum necessary to drag a society out of the dark ages.

It can, and for twenty years did, impose a clear societal expectation in Kabul and other provincial capitals that women are human beings. Something the Taliban do not do.

Horseshit. There are plenty of Muslim majority countries and peoples that manage to afford women basic human rights. The Taliban do not speak for the Muslim world and it’s frankly disgusting that you are willing to equivocate in this way and basically engage in a racism of low expectations. You are in effect suggesting that Muslims by dint of their religion and political history are in some fundamental sense more predisposed towards barbarity towards women.

It is when they beat, rape, forcibly marry and stone women, you mealy mouthed coward.

You’re an excuse.

Whatever mate.  Calm down to a frenzy.  Might make you seem slightly rational.

[welshbairn]

54 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

I’ve found myself dragged into a few Facebook “debates” over this very point against my better judgement. A lot of people forget the fact or just aren’t aware that 9/11 meant NATO invoked article 5 meaning that an attack on any NATO member is essentially an attack on them all and as such they are obliged to assist the US in their response. That response was to go after AQ in Afghanistan which couldn’t be done without going to war with the Taliban. 
 

 

 

I don't disagree, but what they did was give massive air support to the Northern Alliance who fought their way to Kabul with the Taliban realising that disappearing back to their villages for another day was a better idea than suicide, and let them take over the country with a token Pashtun President, while the US carried on hammering and chasing Al Qaeda into the caves and Pakistan. Then the Americans got bored and wanted a meatier opponent, never mind they had zero to do with 9/11, and invaded Iraq, leaving Afghanistan behind. Amazingly enough the Taliban quickly remerged to take over most of the country with unpopular leaders in Kabul. A few years later NATO noticed and British troops were sent into Helmand, no doubt fought valiantly but were forced to skedaddle and ask the Americans to take their place, who got the same treatment. The mistake was treating the Taliban the same as Al Qaeda, and the Iraqis come to that. 

[Tight minge]

36 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Whatever mate.  Calm down to a frenzy.  Might make you seem slightly rational.

Although I wouldn’t necessarily agree with all Ad Lib is saying, his point regarding how Muslims wish to create their societies is quite valid. There are only something like 15 countries worldwide that incorporate some part of Sharia law and somethimg like only 4 that apply it ‘in full’. Most Muslims don’t care for Sharia law. 
 

It’s trying to simplify a huge complex problem and religion/faith is just a small part of it. Education and poverty are arguably bigger issues (which Sharia Law does not help) and Jinky (I think) put it best, like everywhere in the world, people are just trying to get on with their lives, which in some places means survival.

I doubt most of us could comprehend the survival needs your average Afghan has to go through right now for himself and their family. 

I think there have been only two posts on this thread @Jinky67and @TheJTS98 that has touched on the issue from an individual, human perspective.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Tight minge

[Left Back]

2 minutes ago, Tight John McVeigh is a tit said:

Although I wouldn’t necessarily agree with all Ad Lib is saying, his point regarding how Muslims wish to create their societies is quite valid. There are only something like 15 countries worldwide that incorporate some part of Sharia law and somethimg like only 4 that apply it ‘in full’. Most Muslims don’t care for Sharia law. 
 

It’s trying to simplify a huge complex problem and religion/faith is just a small part of it. Education and poverty are arguably bigger issues (which Sharia Law does not help) and Jinky (I think) put it best, like everywhere in the world, people are just trying to get on with their lives, which in some places means survival.

I doubt most of us could comprehend the survival needs your average Afghan has to go through right now for himself and their family. 

I think there have been only two posts on this thread @Jinky67and @TheJTS98 that has touched in the issue from an individual, human perspective.

I don’t disagree with you.  Education and poverty are issues all around the world and we won’t solve them by invasions either.  We aren’t invading countries that have what we would deem more progressive interpretations of Islam but we also aren’t invading countries that have stricter interpretations of Sharia law.  Why not?  They aren’t a significant threat to us.  Regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan should never have been part of any objective.  It was mission creep of the worst kind.

I’ve served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Bosnia before that.  I’m well aware of the issues from an individual human perspective and the atrocities that occurred.  I don’t limit those issues to the people we were supposed to be helping either.  I’m obviously just a mealy mouthed coward with no clue though.

[welshbairn]

10 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

We weren’t trying to impose “Western democracy”. We were imposing “actually have elections” and “stop theocratically state sanctioning the raping, flogging and stoning to death/beheading of women and girls”. Thats several orders of magnitude short of Western democracy and is the absolute bare minimum necessary to drag a society out of the dark ages.

That's just not true though, all we were trying to do was punish them for harbouring people who played a role in 9/11. The rest was indecision about when to quietly leave without a bad press back home. There was no serious attempt to form a government that would be accepted outside Kabul, that would mean compromising with the people we had labelled terrorists, and locked up in Guantanamo, and there was no way anyone in Washington or London would have been prepared to do that. Until now of course, after 20 years of dithering and handing multiple billions over to people with next to no domestic support but huge swiss bank accounts. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by welshbairn

[Tight minge]

3 minutes ago, Left Back said:

I don’t disagree with you.  Education and poverty are issues all around the world and we won’t solve them by invasions either.  We aren’t invading countries that have what we would deem more progressive interpretations of Islam but we also aren’t invading countries that have stricter interpretations of Sharia law.  Why not?  They aren’t a significant threat to us.  Regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan should never have been part of any objective.  It was mission creep of the worst kind.

I’ve served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Bosnia before that.  I’m well aware of the issues from an individual human perspective and the atrocities that occurred.  I don’t limit those issues to the people we were supposed to be helping either.  I’m obviously just a mealy mouthed coward with no clue though.

I am only referencing the comments regarding what Muslims expect from their society. It is very easy to draw an ‘us and them’ distinction.

I have no idea if your a mealy mouthed coward or not, I don’t believe I suggested you were or the relevance of that statement.

 

[Left Back]

5 minutes ago, Tight John McVeigh is a tit said:

I am only referencing the comments regarding what Muslims expect from their society. It is very easy to draw an ‘us and them’ distinction.

I have no idea if your a mealy mouthed coward or not, I don’t believe I suggested you were or the relevance of that statement.

 

You didn’t suggest anything of the kind.  Ad Lib stated I was because I’m not in favour of endless occupation of Afghanistan

[Tight minge]

32 minutes ago, Left Back said:

You didn’t suggest anything of the kind.  Ad Lib stated I was because I’m not in favour of endless occupation of Afghanistan

Well I would disagree. I think I was quite clear that I do not necessarily agree with Ad Lib but the comment on Muslim society had validity. You had made a suggestion that Muslims wanted some kind of differing society. 

If it helps you, I am also not in favour of an endless occupation of Afghanistan and I think Ad Lib is way off the mark in this logic. Maybe I should have also questioned some of his points to be balanced, but I didn’t as a) I do not have a solution and b) it is far more complex than most are making out hence referencing the human point. So in that, I may agree more with you than Ad Lib.

The west shouldn’t be involved long term for sure and right now the Taliban is the government and the west cannot do much right now but push them to allow those who want to leave to leave and then, until clear international laws are broken and proven their is little can be done (legally).

The west have to be very careful here, even if Sharia Law is instigated. As an example, their is a small, semi autonomous region on Sumatra called Banda Aceh. It is the only part of Indonesia that practices Sharia Law. People chose to live there and do not leave and most Indonesians wouldn’t set foot in the place as they think its mental. Otherwise some people are happy for this type of society and we cannot demand they shouldn’t as much as they demand everyone should.

The issue isn’t so much whether the Taliban bring in Sharia Law or not it is if they will not let people chose and leave and if any international laws are broken.

Anyway, there are absolutely many if, buts, questions and counter questions in this going right back to whether Afghanistan really was a legitimate target. As Saudi was not a realistic option, someone had to be beaten up.

Even my thoughts above will be flawed.