Afghanistan

[bugsyblue]

Afghanistan was an unwinnable war. The people have no interest in Western-style government.

By Western-style government, what do you mean? If you mean they don't want "Western culture" I wouldn't say that was totally accurate, because before Taliban first took control of the country Afghanistan was a tolerant and to a certain degree liberal country. Same as Iran before the Islamic revolution.

That doesn't equate to Western culture per se, but they weren't subjecting women to covering every inch of their skin, refusing them jobs and treating them like slaves. If you're insinuating that's what the majority of Afghans want then you'd be wrong.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

 

[bluethrunthru]

Raab was on holiday - Johnson went on holiday on Saturday - shamefully blanking this...........

 

[KS55]

Depends which man you are.

Nope. Apples and oranges. They are not mutually exclusive. A terrorist is one who employs particular methods: a freedom fighter describes one who has a particular motivation. A freedom fighter may employ a wide variety of methods including terrorism. Thus his attempt to contrast a method with a motivation is just nonsensical.
Was no freedom fighter ever a terrorist?

 

[KS55]

Darrel trent

Was it really? You are well informed. A man of his experience should have known better.

 

[yeseye]

Raab was on holiday - Johnson went on holiday on Saturday - shamefully blanking this...........

I won’t watch this but that plane should never have taken off until the runway was cleared and secured.
Shocking carry on.

 

[Ja Salford Blue]

Afghanistan was an unwinnable war. The people have no interest in Western-style government.

Yet they are risking life and limb to get the fuck out of there now the Taliban have control???

 

[Vic]

Nope. Apples and oranges. They are not mutually exclusive. A terrorist is one who employs particular methods: a freedom fighter describes one who has a particular motivation. A freedom fighter may employ a wide variety of methods including terrorism. Thus his attempt to contrast a method with a motivation is just nonsensical.
Was no freedom fighter ever a terrorist?

That last question is just another way of expressing the quote you called stupid.

 

[Vic]

I won’t watch this but that plane should never have taken off until the runway was cleared and secured.
Shocking carry on.

Cleared by whom?

 

[KS55]

That last question is just another way of expressing the quote you called stupid.

The quote was about how third parties saw the two as mutually exclusive interpretations of the same action. For third parties he really meant himself. My last question was one I guessed he never asked.
Like most aphorisms, it looks prescient on first reading, but becomes meaningless when examined closely.
If your interpretation is correct, why did he not say so plainly?

 

[Vic]

No, the quote was about how third parties saw the two as mutually exclusive alternatives. For third parties he really meant himself.

I think you've misunderstood the quote. It's precisely that they are not mutually exclusive to third parties, or even to the terrorist / freedom fighter.

Is "One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter"?

Terrorists can, in certain theoretical cases, be considered freedom fighters through Just War Theory. However, it is doubtful this threshold is ever reached in practice.

www.e-ir.info

 

[KS55]

I think you've misunderstood the quote. It's precisely that they are not mutually exclusive to third parties, or even to the terrorist / freedom fighter.

Is "One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter"?

Terrorists can, in certain theoretical cases, be considered freedom fighters through Just War Theory. However, it is doubtful this threshold is ever reached in practice.

www.e-ir.info

I edited my last post after you quoted it. But you may be right. I'll look up the article you posted, but at first glance it seems to support mutual exclusivity.
When I gave money to the ANC in the eighties, I was clear I was supporting a quest for freedom, but I did not close my eyes to the political violence that sometimes occurred.
Mandella later apologised for the violence and said it was wrong.
Are some Palestinians not both?
PS Read the article. None the wiser!

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I edited my last post after you quoted it. But you may be right. I'll look up the article you posted, but at first glance it seems to support mutual exclusivity.
When I gave money to the ANC in the eighties, I was clear I was supporting a quest for freedom, but I did not close my eyes to the political violence that sometimes occurred.
Mandella later apologised for the violence and said it was wrong.
Are some Palestinians not both?
PS Read the article. None the wiser!

so you funded terrorism then...

 

[Vic]

so you funded terrorism then...

That's what our taxes do. Support for governments terrorising their own people, MI6 involvement in assassinations, arms to Saudi Arabia now and to apartheid South Africa then.

One man's terrorist is another man's export opportunity.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

Never said that did I? Pakistan has had a considerable role in the conflict, and it hasn't been one that helped resolve it. You're actively trying to gloss over this.

Well you can't expect countries to destroy themselves completely for US ambition and lust for war, each country has a right to look after it's own interest.

Pakistan provided ground support to Nato and US forces, was the main US ally in the region, lost 80 k of it's people in this war, billions to economy, became the main target of terrorist attacks as it was seen as US ally in the region, what more could it have done? Honestly, expecting anything more is just plain selfish but not surprising as loss of life here doesn't really count for west.

Pakistan at present also host nearly 4 million Afghan refugees as a result of soviet and us invasion, they would be a further influx now, but that's okay as long as US and Nato doesn't have to bear the brunt.

Further, it was Pakistan that got US and Taliban to negotiatiate a withdrawal/peace deal. US would never agree to such a deal if they were making gains on the ground. The war was already lost and this deal presented a way out to cut your losses and end this futile war in exchange for assurances of America's safe exit from Afghanistan.

This BBC documentary looks into British and Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, watch it and you would know why US failed

 

[East Level 2]

Why all the fuss about Johnson and Raab being on holiday? Neither were going to do anything constructive.

 

[Vic]

Well you can't expect countries to destroy themselves completely for US ambition and lust for war, each country has a right to look after it's own interest.

Pakistan provided ground support to Nato and US forces, was the main US ally in the region, lost 80 k of it's people in this war, billions to economy, became the main target of terrorist attacks as it was seen as US ally in the region, what more could it have done? Honestly, expecting anything more is just plain selfish but not surprising as loss of life here doesn't really count for west.

Pakistan at present also host nearly 4 million Afghan refugees as a result of soviet and us invasion, they would be a further influx now, but that's okay as long as US and Nato doesn't have to bear the brunt.

Further, it was Pakistan that got US and Taliban to negotiatiate a withdrawal/peace deal. US would never agree to such a deal if they were making gains on the ground. The war was already lost and this deal presented a way out to cut your losses and end this futile war in exchange for assurances of America's safe exit from Afghanistan.

This BBC documentary looks into British and Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, watch it and you would know why US failed

For those who don't click, it's Rory Stewart narrating (I nearly said Tory Rory but then he is an expert so not wanted by the modern Tory party).

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Cleared by whom?

Exactly. Nobody was coming to clear the airfield

The captain had a VERY difficult decision to make; delay his take off and risk getting overrun by the desperate people trying to escape, potentially damaging the aircraft in the process, or take off and at least get a single load of people out. ANY further delay in taking off and he risked not taking off at all.

Even by taking off as he did there was still a serious element of risk because any one of those people hanging on to the aircraft could easily have ended up jamming a flying control surface or damaging an engine. Having said that, it's likely the crew would have struggled to see what was going on behind them as this all unfolded.

 

[M18CTID]

Farage needs to be ignored by every right minded person

And left minded too

 

[Len Rum]

Jezz was right again (Iraq, Libya and now Afghanistan)!