Afghanistan Crisis

[Ad Lib]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I was just trying to understand where you draw the line in taking part in things you don't agree with. For me I wouldn't join up, so when folk like you feel so abhorred over UK foreign policy but still say they'd join the army and fight for that policy I'm intrigued to know why. 

I draw the line in the context of conscription and military operations at war crimes.

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

If it's not fucking hard then just explain it without being a condescending p***k. 

No, because I am a condescending p***k.

[welshbairn]

15 minutes ago, 101 said:

Seems to be all kicking off again at the airport, potential upsetting scenes depending on your disposition.

  Hide contents

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Are they Turkish soldiers? Read somewhere that they'd offered to secure the airport, don't look like ar boys.

[101]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Are they Turkish soldiers? Read somewhere that they'd offered to secure the airport, don't look like ar boys.

Hard to tell, some saying it's Afghan army other Taliban Special forces (really?!?) So all a bit of a mess.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

4 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Yes, but no commanding officer would ever tell you to "get out and murder some locals" would they? (1)

And when you are in the armed forces, you are trained to identify military from civilian targets.(2)

And in our armed forces, the culture is one in which everything is directed towards the minimisation of civilian casualties.

No one is suggesting that civilians are not sometimes killed, for example in cross-fire or in error.(3)

But that is a fundamentally different proposition from the deliberate killing of civilians, whether or not under direct instruction. Which has fundamentally different moral implications.

1. No, of course they wouldn't. That would never happen. The very idea. 

2. Have you met any of our armed forces? How long do you think they normally get to decide between combatant and innocent?

3. Or, for example, in Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Baghdad, or Beirut, or Gaza, or even Afghanistan.

[101]

11 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Are they Turkish soldiers? Read somewhere that they'd offered to secure the airport, don't look like ar boys.

Should add the first video is are boys firing over the heads of folk to disperse the crowd, you can hear them shout with British accents

 

[Tight minge]

27 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I don't oppose polygamy where all the parties involved genuinely consent to it.

The vast majority of countries where Muslims are in the majority have legal bars on forced marriages.

I readily accept that the enforcement of this is much more mixed.

We should probably not let the Taliban take over Kabul and enforce it then, should we?

But when those beliefs deny the civic agency of more than half the population, they aren't legitimate beliefs, and aren't ones we should tolerate where we are in a position to deny them legal force.

Absolutely I do want to force some of my values on people. Not all of them. Just the bare minimum ones necessary to grant women and girls (and other oppressed groups) agency and physical safety.

 

Polygamy in Islam generally doesn't work like that, so you would be against it. It is only an example point though. As @Left Backasked where would you draw the line? For Islam I think you would disagree with many, many practices.

Enforcement, Yup

Not letting the Taliban take over. No matter how much people don't want this. At this point until there is legal precedence (which is probably not that far away to be honest), we shouldn't/can't do anything, or again we are forcing our 'values'. As soon as there is legal precedence and this time a plan, and with all due respect, not your plan, by all means back in to remove them. 

It doesn't matter what you believe is a legitimate belief. It is what that person believes. Not all Muslim woman wear the Burka, Hijab or follow Islam because they are forced to. There are people in this world that are not Taliban but chose to live under Sharia Law. If you are going to change someone's mind by force, you have lost. 

Progression takes time, a lot of time and effort. 

I didn't touch on the LGBQ, good luck trying to change a mindset on that oppressed group in many parts of the world.

 

 

 

 

[Ad Lib]

7 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

1. No, of course they wouldn't. That would never happen. The very idea. 

It's literally a direct instruction to commit a war crime. It would not be followed.

7 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

2. Have you met any of our armed forces? How long do you think they normally get to decide between combatant and innocent?

Yes. As I explained earlier in the thread, one of my university friends arrived back from a six month or so stint in Afghanistan back in May of this year.

A really good clue about whether someone is a combatant is if they have a gun, or they are shooting at you.

7 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

3. Or, for example, in Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Baghdad, or Beirut, or Gaza, or even Afghanistan.

Congratulations you can name places where civilians died in conflict. Do you want a medal?

[Ad Lib]

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

Polygamy in Islam generally doesn't work like that, so you would be against it. It is only an example point though. As @Left Backasked where would you draw the line? For Islam I think you would disagree with many, many practices.

I've already explained where I draw the line.

If you would force anyone into a marriage, you fall the side of the line where I say we don't tolerate your culture's values.

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

Not letting the Taliban take over. No matter how much people don't want this. At this point until there is legal precedence (which is probably not that far away to be honest), we shouldn't/can't do anything, or again we are forcing our 'values'. As soon as there is legal precedence and this time a plan, and with all due respect, not your plan, by all means back in to remove them. 

I freely accept that it may now not be viable to retake Kabul. But my point is we (NATO) should never have left in the first place.

If we (NATO) hadn't left, the Taliban would not now be in control of it. That is just a fact.

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

It doesn't matter what you believe is a legitimate belief. It is what that person believes. Not all Muslim woman wear the Burka, Hijab or follow Islam because they are forced to.

But most of them who wear burqas or hijabs under the Taliban do it because if they don't they will be physically beaten or even killed.

No one is saying no one should wear the burqa in Kabul. One of the things we were protecting was the choice not to wear it.

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

There are people in this world that are not Taliban but chose to live under Sharia Law. If you are going to change someone's mind by force, you have lost. 

The objective is not to change their minds. It is to stop them doing certain things to other people.

We don't make rape illegal to "change rapists' minds". It isn't a lovebombing campaign of persuasion. We make rape illegal so that if someone does it, the victim can (we hope) report it, and the power of the state can then be used to apprehend, convict and punish the rapist. And we know a world in which rapists get caught and punished is one where less rape happens and where women feel more safe.

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

Progression takes time, a lot of time and effort. 

I didn't touch on the LGBQ, good luck trying to change a mindset on that oppressed group in many parts of the world.

See above.

[Tight minge]

13 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I've already explained where I draw the line.

If you would force anyone into a marriage, you fall the side of the line where I say we don't tolerate your culture's values.

I freely accept that it may now not be viable to retake Kabul. But my point is we (NATO) should never have left in the first place.

If we (NATO) hadn't left, the Taliban would not now be in control of it. That is just a fact.

But most of them who wear burqas or hijabs under the Taliban do it because if they don't they will be physically beaten or even killed.

No one is saying no one should wear the burqa in Kabul. One of the things we were protecting was the choice not to wear it.

The objective is not to change their minds. It is to stop them doing certain things to other people.

We don't make rape illegal to "change rapists' minds". It isn't a lovebombing campaign of persuasion. We make rape illegal so that if someone does it, the victim can (we hope) report it, and the power of the state can then be used to apprehend, convict and punish the rapist. And we know a world in which rapists get caught and punished is one where less rape happens and where women feel more safe.

See above.

Your only protecting the values that you want to protect and demonise any you don’t.

Your whole solution is flawed, would never work and would have no benefit to the Afghans or any country sending occupying forces.

I am afraid we are a ling way away from having a global utopia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, Left Back said:

Where do you draw the line?  which other western cultural norms should be enforced round the world because we deem it will give people a better life?  Who decides what is morally good and what isn't?  Public executions are acceptable in some countries.  Most people in the west would deem them barbaric.  Capital punishment as a whole actually is repugnant to most western societies and has been outlawed.  Should we be saddling up and enforcing those values in countries where it is acceptable (where we can win of course)?

On the flip side if something from another culture is deemed "better" than our norm does that get enforced on us?

 

Tsk. tsk, how could that possibly be?

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

So, successful for less than 50% of the occupation period, and in one specific area. By Saturday, I've no doubt you'll have the name of the one Afghan whose life has, and continues to be, improved by Uncle sam and his wee poodles. 

As for "selling" the idea of caring for people - that's not something you can sell domestically. It's certainly not something you can sell at that distance. And while you'll no doubt get loads of well-deserved plaudits for your principles*, I'm firmly of the opinion that while vast swathes of our own society are being oppressed socially in the pursuit of profit, none of us are in any way entitled to the moral high ground here, unless we've at least agitated to radically change the system. 

*Which I'm beginning to think are a bit like Groucho's.

This back and forth is never going to end, then.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

29 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

It's literally a direct instruction to commit a war crime. It would not be followed.

Yes. As I explained earlier in the thread, one of my university friends arrived back from a six month or so stint in Afghanistan back in May of this year.

A really good clue about whether someone is a combatant is if they have a gun, or they are shooting at you.

Congratulations you can name places where civilians died in conflict. Do you want a medal?

So, a direct instruction to commit a war crime would not be followed. Who decides what's a war crime? Even if we accept your definition of "locals"as non-combatants, which is by no means a given. We're talking about decision making in a high-stress situation, not a sterile debating chamber. Actions such as this have happened over many, many years. Your faith in Are Brave Boys' integrity is touching but, i would suggest, naive. 

Someone with a gun, pointing at a soldier, could be a farmer defending his family from armed men encroaching on his land, possibly including a daughter who was raped. Possibly by occupying forces. Is he a combatant?

Your moralising crap about what does and does not include a war crime happily ignores occasions where many, many, civilians were killed with the express intention of their deaths persuading the surrender of the enemy (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) or having a catastrophic effect on enemy morale (Dresden). Not accidental, not collateral. Actually killing civilians as a means to an end. 

[Mr Waldo]

[WhiteRoseKillie]

35 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I've already explained where I draw the line.

If you would force anyone into a marriage, you fall the side of the line where I say we don't tolerate your culture's values. (1)

I freely accept that it may now not be viable to retake Kabul. But my point is we (NATO) should never have left in the first place.(2)

If we (NATO) hadn't left, the Taliban would not now be in control of it. That is just a fact. (3)

But most of them who wear burqas or hijabs under the Taliban do it because if they don't they will be physically beaten or even killed.(4)

No one is saying no one should wear the burqa in Kabul. One of the things we were protecting was the choice not to wear it.

The objective is not to change their minds. It is to stop them doing certain things to other people.

We don't make rape illegal to "change rapists' minds". It isn't a lovebombing campaign of persuasion. We make rape illegal so that if someone does it, the victim can (we hope) report it, and the power of the state can then be used to apprehend, convict and punish the rapist. And we know a world in which rapists get caught and punished is one where less rape happens and where women feel more safe.

See above.

1. You mean like the UK and Ireland up until very recently, and indeed still in some sections of society? 

2. No. NATO should never have been there in the first place. Or, to be honest, the US, their british poodles, and the bare minimumrequirement rom other NATO countries. 

3. See (2), you're drawing a conclusion based on a situation where the Taliban can point at the occupying forces and their *relaxed* attitude towards "collateral" damage in their war on terror and easily paint them as the bad guys. Especially as the ex-urban inhabitants of Afghanistan probably don't have access to 24hr news channels. 

4. You're making an awful lot of bold statements extrapolated from the Taliban's obviously antiquated value system, but you're getting damn near incoherent here. Burqas or hijabs? You mean they get a choice? Doesn't sound like the Taliban attitude towards women to me. Or are there different social situations where each is appropriate? I mean, I don't know, do you? 

[Ad Lib]

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

Your only protecting the values that you want to protect and demonise any you don’t.

No shit.

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

Your whole solution is flawed, would never work and would have no benefit to the Afghans or any country sending occupying forces.

Except it was already benefiting millions of Afghans.

I don’t care if it doesn’t benefit NATO that women and girls in Afghanistan lived for a significant period free from the threat of forced marriage, rape and murder. Though it absolutely does benefit us.

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

I am afraid we are a ling way away from having a global utopia.

It’s shooting for something a chasm short of a “utopia” to set the baseline at “forced marriage, rape, torture and beheading are unacceptable”

[Ad Lib]

21 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

So, a direct instruction to commit a war crime would not be followed. Who decides what's a war crime?

This is literally why we have the Geneva Convention.

21 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Even if we accept your definition of "locals"as non-combatants, which is by no means a given. We're talking about decision making in a high-stress situation, not a sterile debating chamber. Actions such as this have happened over many, many years. Your faith in Are Brave Boys' integrity is touching but, i would suggest, naive. 

Except, as I have explained already, I don’t deny that civilians are often casualties in war.

Where I draw the line is at the deliberate targeting of civilians.

If you are shooting someone because you genuinely believe them to be a combatant, you are not “deliberately targeting civilians”.

21 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Someone with a gun, pointing at a soldier, could be a farmer defending his family from armed men encroaching on his land, possibly including a daughter who was raped. Possibly by occupying forces. Is he a combatant?

Potentially, yes.

21 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Your moralising crap about what does and does not include a war crime happily ignores occasions where many, many, civilians were killed with the express intention of their deaths persuading the surrender of the enemy (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) or having a catastrophic effect on enemy morale (Dresden). Not accidental, not collateral. Actually killing civilians as a means to an end. 

And that’s why I wouldn’t drop a nuclear bomb on a city if instructed to. Because that would be a war crime.

[dirty dingus]

f**k going to war for Bozo's mob. No wild eyed bearded Islamist ever printed an article calling us a verminous race which also advocated comprehensive extermination of Scottish people.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

8 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

This is literally why we have the Geneva Convention. (1)

Except, as I have explained already, I don’t deny that civilians are often casualties in war.

Where I draw the line is at the deliberate targeting of civilians. (2)

If you are shooting someone because you genuinely believe them to be a combatant, you are not “deliberately targeting civilians”.

Potentially, yes.(3)

And that’s why I wouldn’t drop a nuclear bomb on a city if instructed to. Because that would be a war crime.

1. Do all squaddies carry a copy with them then, just to make sure they're doing it right?

2. You probably believe that a cruise missile can drop down a chimney and take out an al Qua'eda  high heidyin on the ground floor flat while the family on the second floor carry on watching Central Asia Today.

3. So, he's not a concerned father protecting his family and property against armed men, then? He has to bear the label applied to him by them?

[Ad Lib]

6 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

1. You mean like the UK and Ireland up until very recently, and indeed still in some sections of society? 

The UK and Ireland don’t just not allow forced marriage against the wishes of women or girls; they both have specific laws to criminalise those complicit in bringing it about.

6 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

2. No. NATO should never have been there in the first place. Or, to be honest, the US, their british poodles, and the bare minimumrequirement rom other NATO countries. 

The following two things can simultaneously be true:

(1) The US and UK should not have gone into Afganistan in 2001

(2) Having gone into Afghanistan in 2001, the US and UK should not have left it in 2021 given the prevailing military and political situation.

For what it’s worth, (1) is wrong, but it doesn’t have to be wrong for (2) to be right. 

6 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

3. See (2), you're drawing a conclusion based on a situation where the Taliban can point at the occupying forces and their *relaxed* attitude towards "collateral" damage in their war on terror and easily paint them as the bad guys. Especially as the ex-urban inhabitants of Afghanistan probably don't have access to 24hr news channels. 

But, and this is the crucial bit, NATO forces in Kabul would have prevented Taliban forces from taking control of the city. That is all that matters in the context of whether or not women and girls are subject to their barbaric Sharia law.

6 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

4. You're making an awful lot of bold statements extrapolated from the Taliban's obviously antiquated value system, but you're getting damn near incoherent here. Burqas or hijabs? You mean they get a choice? Doesn't sound like the Taliban attitude towards women to me. Or are there different social situations where each is appropriate? I mean, I don't know, do you? 

Literally read the full context you cretinous simpleton. The previous poster referred, separately, to the burqa, the hijab and Islam as three distinct things that might be treated as either “optional” or “mandatory” in a society.

In Afghanistan, in places where the Taliban are in control, many women and teenage girls are forced to wear the burqa or niqab: i.e. an outfit which, among other things, covers the entire face save for a small slot that enables them to see. In other areas, the Taliban are not as strict, but still demand, on threat of violence, that women wear the hijab, covering their head, hair and neck.

Under Western occupation, no women or girls in Kabul were required to wear any of these in public as a matter of law, and those who tried to force them to do so, on the contrary, would face state sanction.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

5 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

f**k going to war for Bozo's mob. No wild eyed bearded Islamist ever printed an article calling us a verminous race which also advocated comprehensive extermination of Scottish people.

Quite. I've been wondering how to work Muhammed Ali's Vietnam quote into the conversation. You've done a nice job of bringing it into our sphere of experience.