OP
OP
So...what good are you doing the school girls in Afghanistan then as you've washed your hands of everything? How many lives have you saved by opting out?
Defending your country is not murder.
- Thread starter Tez3
- Start date
So...what good are you doing the school girls in Afghanistan then as you've washed your hands of everything? How many lives have you saved by opting out?
OP
OP
No one dies by my hands and soon no one will die because of the money that is forcefully taken through taxation. The school girls in Afghan will be better off with out NATOs intervention.
This is the typical propaganda line that gets trundled out when ever a clear moral line is drawn. Stop making excuses for evil behavior and stop serving institutions that engage in evil.
If you want to commit your life to something make sure you serve something that is worthy of such a sacrifice.
Troops do occasionally do wrong things. Let's not make a blanket statement that they can do no wrong.
So, this sort of rhetoric worries me.
Me too. It's the rhetoric of domination, of empire.
OP
OP
It's hardly rhetoric that Afghanistan isn't America or Europe now is it. Have you been there?
It doesn't matter. They don't need NATO and they don't need It's guns. In fact, it's ironic that the very guns NATO is facing down are the guns that were originally given to our "friends".
This would be funny if it didn't cost so many lives.
OP
OP
I think you are missing the point of my thread here, it's not about the rights and wrongs of Afghan, it's about the convenant that exists between our government and Her Majesty's Forces, in that the government as political leaders send our troops to fight for this country, the troops do their best, play by the rules and the country in return looks after the wounded and the dependants of the fallen. In this case the government has broken the covenant. The troops fired back at a declared enemy who shot at them first so why are they being penalised?
Your views on the war are irrelevant as the war itself isn't the issue, it isn't the 'bigger picture' we are looking at, it's the smaller one, the lives and reputations of good men putting it on the line for their country.
If you wish to start a thread on the rights and wrongs of the war in Afghanistan do so but don't try changing my intent on this thread of drawing attention to the fact that the politicians have yet again betrayed the troops.
Very few people in this country support the war and very few think we should have gone there but the support for the troops is strong, there's a huge amount of fun raising for the wounded, there's always soemthing about the war in the media every day, it's a big thing here. the fallen are mourned and the wounded are tended by charities which is something the government should actually be doing here. All but a very few think we should be there but the thoughts on the service people is that they are serving their country and should be honoured not arrested.
You need to separate what people think about the war, we are all against it and what people think about the military which is all good. You also need to separate our government from our military.
I think you might find that any weapons supplied to the Afghans by America in the 80s will now be either out of date or damaged, they don't need them they have been well supplied by Iran for a long time now who also trains the soldiers.
Whether it justifies invading Afghanistan or not, it is as well to remember who and what the Taliban are. Certainly we should remember why they were and still are considered a danger to the West, I don't actually think we should have invaded but the fact remains they do pose a danger. A danger that can't be ignored.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11451718
First of all, we can't trust what the media says. They've been caught lying for various governments so many times, it would be pathologically naive to believe a word they say or print about foriegn policy.
Secondly, my whole point is that sometimes, even when you are right, you are wrong. And in this case, it's evil no matter what happens or what rules may or may not have been followed.
In the end, I hope your friends get out of trouble. They are victims of lies and propaganda and are thrust into a terrible situation that was created by really horrible people. Hopefully, they can choose to do the right thing in the future.
Lastly, the intent doesn't matter. The "intent" of the war in Afghanistan is so far separated from the reality, that it's asanine to even attempt to dovetail them. Ultimately, all that really matters is men are responsible for their actions. The rules of engagement or even the intent behind the whole operation cannot absolve someone from this. If you attack someone in their home and they draw a weapon and you still kill them, you are responsible for that and subject to moral judgement. This moral judgement missing in our debate about war because we are taught from such an early age to "support our troops" and that any questions of this sort constitute non-support.
The bottom line is that the actions being performed by NATO are evil by any standard you could hold. Every person who pulled a trigger on a DU round, for example, maimed or killed the unborn for generations. That is evil. I have no problem saying that and no amount of justification by government is going to change that.
So, yes, we can talk about the trees and ignore the forest or we can swing through the branches and never touch the root, but the conversation will be missing an essential moral element. Certain questions that need to be asked will continue to be verboten.
Secondly, my whole point is that sometimes, even when you are right, you are wrong. And in this case, it's evil no matter what happens or what rules may or may not have been followed.
In the end, I hope your friends get out of trouble. They are victims of lies and propaganda and are thrust into a terrible situation that was created by really horrible people. Hopefully, they can choose to do the right thing in the future.
Lastly, the intent doesn't matter. The "intent" of the war in Afghanistan is so far separated from the reality, that it's asanine to even attempt to dovetail them. Ultimately, all that really matters is men are responsible for their actions. The rules of engagement or even the intent behind the whole operation cannot absolve someone from this. If you attack someone in their home and they draw a weapon and you still kill them, you are responsible for that and subject to moral judgement. This moral judgement missing in our debate about war because we are taught from such an early age to "support our troops" and that any questions of this sort constitute non-support.
The bottom line is that the actions being performed by NATO are evil by any standard you could hold. Every person who pulled a trigger on a DU round, for example, maimed or killed the unborn for generations. That is evil. I have no problem saying that and no amount of justification by government is going to change that.
So, yes, we can talk about the trees and ignore the forest or we can swing through the branches and never touch the root, but the conversation will be missing an essential moral element. Certain questions that need to be asked will continue to be verboten.
I work for the U.S. Air Force (as a civilian) and am not on your side of things either. But people are people everywhere, in my experience--even though it can be hard for them to overcome the culture in which they live.
Yes--yes, it is, in the dismissive, demonize-the-enemy, they're-not-civilized-like-us way you're using it.
What is "my side" of things?
I'm curious as to how you would summarize "my side" of things. That's why I asked. I know what my side would be. It the side that universalizes the non-aggression principle, including applying it to foreign policy.
I just want to make sure I have things straight here.
Several members of the British armed forces were engaged in some type of armed conflict, with the result being that one of the individuals on the opposing side died.
Beyond that, most of the details surrounding the individuals death are unknown, and not likely to become known anytime soon.
Meanwhile we've moved from trying to speculate about their guilt or innocence, into a debate on the rightness or wrongness of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, root causes, sources of blame, and whatnot while throwing out the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept that was at the root of the US and many other legal systems, as well as delving into mind reading and philosophical bull ****.
Hows this sound: I can't support nor can I condemn these individuals absent more facts on the matter. I will wish them well in their defense, and should they be innocent of the charges wish them speedy exoneration, yet should they be guilty of actual moral wrong, that they be found guilty and punished according to the laws of their nation.
If they executed a prisoner, that's a violation of international law and the rules of warfare.
If they purposefully let him die, that too may be a violation.
If however he died because they were unable to aid him because the situation made it unsafe, that's different.
Of course, that and more is all speculation as none of us here has the sit-rep, and if any of us did we couldn't post it because such is evidence in an ongoing investigation, and most likely top secret, and so forth.
ok, back to editing naked models for me.
Several members of the British armed forces were engaged in some type of armed conflict, with the result being that one of the individuals on the opposing side died.
Beyond that, most of the details surrounding the individuals death are unknown, and not likely to become known anytime soon.
Meanwhile we've moved from trying to speculate about their guilt or innocence, into a debate on the rightness or wrongness of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, root causes, sources of blame, and whatnot while throwing out the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept that was at the root of the US and many other legal systems, as well as delving into mind reading and philosophical bull ****.
Hows this sound: I can't support nor can I condemn these individuals absent more facts on the matter. I will wish them well in their defense, and should they be innocent of the charges wish them speedy exoneration, yet should they be guilty of actual moral wrong, that they be found guilty and punished according to the laws of their nation.
If they executed a prisoner, that's a violation of international law and the rules of warfare.
If they purposefully let him die, that too may be a violation.
If however he died because they were unable to aid him because the situation made it unsafe, that's different.
Of course, that and more is all speculation as none of us here has the sit-rep, and if any of us did we couldn't post it because such is evidence in an ongoing investigation, and most likely top secret, and so forth.
ok, back to editing naked models for me.
OP
OP
No I'm not 'demonising the enemy', do you know who the enemy is in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a very different country from America and the UK, these two countries are surprising different from each other. The culture you see in Afghanistan today isn't Afghan culture it's Taliban..the ultra extremist Muslimist movement's culture. Afghanistan before the Taliban was a very different place, when the Taliban forcefully ousted the government there they turned it into a dark place in the way that Pol Pot did in Cambodia. In the UK we have many refugees from Afghanistan, intellectuals and medical staff of both sexes, free thinkers who are devout Muslims but without the bigotry. In the Afghanistan before the taliban girls went to school, university, medical schools etc they became teachers, doctors, nurses and anything else they wanted to be. Men were free to be bearded or not, the arts were encouraged as well as the media. The USA is responsible for the Taliban I'm afraid, in it's normal course of disliking any country or government that seems to be socialist or communist Carter funded the Taliban, this was continued by Reagan. You reap what you sow. The Afghan culture was destroyed by the Taliban who were funded by American governments. What is going on there is the direct result of Jimmy Carter and his successors efforts to halt world socialism. Socialism which was actually chosen by the Afghans would have been preferable to what they have now. Decry socialism and communism as much as you like for Afghan women the time under them was the best.
By the late 1950's, women's participation in the economy was seen to be essential for Afghanistan's development. The royal family and government were seen with their wives and daughters unveiled in public. Once again, women could choose whether or not to wear the veil, and were encouraged to work outside the home. In the l960's, a socialist reform began, along with further dependency upon the Soviet Union. Many Afghan's studied in the Soviet Union, and a left-wing modernizing elite formed. In l964, women were given the right to vote and to enter government.
In the 1970's, many women began to attire themselves in Western clothing. Women were being educated in universities and working as representatives in government. In 1973, the monarchy was overthrown by Muhammad Daud who declared himself president. He was overthrown, in 1978, by leftist military officers. The new president was Noor Muhammad Taraki, and his lieutenant Hafizullah Amin became Prime Minister.
A revolutionary program that included land reform and the emancipation of women began. These reforms were intolerable for traditionalists and armed revolt was instigated by the mullahs and tribal leaders. In l979, Prime Minister Amin created a reign of terror by arresting and killing opponents and took over rule of Afghanistan while Tarik was off in Moscow, only to return to be executed by Amin. The rebels controlled most of rural Afghanistan by the summer of '79, and Amin refused to abide Soviet directives to moderate his policies. The Soviet Union invaded on December 25, 1979.
The next decade was fraught with violence and destruction, but it was during this time that women's rights reached their pinnacle in Afghanistan's history: 50% of teachers, government employees and students were women, and 40% of doctors were women. When the Soviet Union left in 1989, the nation fell into chaos, and women's rights quickly eroded. By 1992, the beginning of civil war, women were precluded from public service, and by 1994 women were only seen in public in the burqa.
Why do you think the people in Afghan keep following the Taliban? What is the motivation from your perspective?
Fear.
The Taliban have shown time and again that they will not hesitate to use violence against those who do not follow their ideology.
Similar threads
