There's a discussion on Radio 4 this evening with that title.
To quote a small detail,ICM asked a random sample of 1,013 adults whether or not Britain should withdraw its armed forces from Afghanistan within the next 12 months.
More than two-thirds (68%) of those questioned said the UK should pull its soldiers out during the next year. Less than a quarter (24%) said they believed the troops should remain.Afghanistan was guaranteed to turn fundamentalist the moment the US armed the Mujahedeen against the Soviets through the 1980s. Nothing that anyone has done, will do or can do is going to change that final reality.
The only consequence of Western troops remaining in Afghanistan now is more needless Afghan deaths. They should all pull out immediately and allow Afghanistan to mend itself over the next fifty years - and yes, that means reverting to Taliban control for at least a generation in reaction to the Western outrage that's been committed on it.
The one immediate advantage to the West would be an end to the heroin exports.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
I fear that indeed the war against the Taleban in Afganistan is unwinnable with the current lack of anything like enough political or public will in the West for what is going to be a very difficult and expensive conflict.
Where I disagree is that the probablility of a NATO withdrawal would be a good outcome for the Afganistani people, or the West itself, it will be a diaster for the region and also for the West, but no doubt the siren calls for "peace with honour" will be heeded and we will retreat further back in the face of the civilizational challenges being posed.
Eventually, that whole region will become destabilized, Islamicized and brutalized, spreading ever westwards and northwards. Blustering Western politicans who in reality have neither the ability or the courage to face up to the spread of the new religious facism, which they have embolded with their failed occupation of Iraq will now equivocate, bargain and plead for civilizational "peace and understanding", the Islamicists will make suitably soothing noises while continuing to wipe out all secular and moderate opposition in the Islamic world.
The appeasement crowd will see secular Turkey drawn as the "new" line in the sand, but after its Islamicization over the next couple of decades, it will fall as well, then secular Christian Europe will itself come under increasing demands to accomodate its ever increasing and emboldened muslim minority, until it too is unrecognizable from what it is today.
Where I disagree is that the probablility of a NATO withdrawal would be a good outcome for the Afganistani people, or the West itself, it will be a diaster for the region and also for the West, but no doubt the siren calls for "peace with honour" will be heeded and we will retreat further back in the face of the civilizational challenges being posed.
Eventually, that whole region will become destabilized, Islamicized and brutalized, spreading ever westwards and northwards. Blustering Western politicans who in reality have neither the ability or the courage to face up to the spread of the new religious facism, which they have embolded with their failed occupation of Iraq will now equivocate, bargain and plead for civilizational "peace and understanding", the Islamicists will make suitably soothing noises while continuing to wipe out all secular and moderate opposition in the Islamic world.
The appeasement crowd will see secular Turkey drawn as the "new" line in the sand, but after its Islamicization over the next couple of decades, it will fall as well, then secular Christian Europe will itself come under increasing demands to accomodate its ever increasing and emboldened muslim minority, until it too is unrecognizable from what it is today.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Galbally;1056273 wrote: Where I disagree is that the probablility of a NATO withdrawal would be a good outcome for the Afganistani peoplePerhaps you'd like to start by justifying that. Far more Afghans are dying, year after year after year, at the hands of Western armies since the invasion - irrespective of the massive casualty numbers resulting from the invasion itself - than ever died at the hands of any Taliban administration. Would you dispute that?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1056277 wrote: Perhaps you'd like to start by justifying that. Far more Afghans are dying, year after year after year, at the hands of Western armies since the invasion - irrespective of the massive casualty numbers resulting from the invasion itself - than ever died at the hands of any Taliban administration. Would you dispute that?
I will justify it easily, because the regime they were subjected to under the Taleban was despicable as far as I am concerned. They would be better off without having to endure another vengeful Taleban government in Kabul, and people getting killed is on occasion worth getting rid of people like the Taleban; one can only shudder at the probable consequences for Afganistanis should that regime regain power happen, and the retaliation they will take upon the population, partiulcarly the educated, the moderates, and the women. I don't know whether the figures that were used during the taleban's reign of terror over the afganistani people are of much use in any comparison of the causualites.
I will justify it easily, because the regime they were subjected to under the Taleban was despicable as far as I am concerned. They would be better off without having to endure another vengeful Taleban government in Kabul, and people getting killed is on occasion worth getting rid of people like the Taleban; one can only shudder at the probable consequences for Afganistanis should that regime regain power happen, and the retaliation they will take upon the population, partiulcarly the educated, the moderates, and the women. I don't know whether the figures that were used during the taleban's reign of terror over the afganistani people are of much use in any comparison of the causualites.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
There you go then, we differ entirely on whether or not we regard the Taliban as a law-abiding government acting on behalf of their citizens within their own philosophy. You find both their philosophy and their rule despicable, I find despicable the sight of a practically invulnerable Western fighter surrounded by ten million dollars worth of armour routinely killing unarmed defenceless civilians on the grounds that "collateral damage" has been unilaterally written out of the Geneva Conventions by the US government. Each of us has a measure of reason, no doubt. It comes down to priorities. We differ on what matters most.
Are you at least agreed that Afghanistan turned fundamentalist when the US armed the Mujahedeen against the Soviets through the 1980s? Is that a starting point to find whatever agreement we might have? Do you think it had already happened by then? Do you think the arming was irrelevant to any fundamentalist swing?
Are you at least agreed that Afghanistan turned fundamentalist when the US armed the Mujahedeen against the Soviets through the 1980s? Is that a starting point to find whatever agreement we might have? Do you think it had already happened by then? Do you think the arming was irrelevant to any fundamentalist swing?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1056378 wrote: There you go then, we differ entirely on whether or not we regard the Taliban as a law-abiding government acting on behalf of their citizens within their own philosophy. You find both their philosophy and their rule despicable, I find despicable the sight of a practically invulnerable Western fighter surrounded by ten million dollars worth of armour routinely killing unarmed defenceless civilians on the grounds that "collateral damage" has been unilaterally written out of the Geneva Conventions by the US government. Each of us has a measure of reason, no doubt. It comes down to priorities. We differ on what matters most.
Are you at least agreed that Afghanistan turned fundamentalist when the US armed the Mujahedeen against the Soviets through the 1980s? Is that a starting point to find whatever agreement we might have? Do you think it had already happened by then? Do you think the arming was irrelevant to any fundamentalist swing?
Yes, we have sharply differing opinions on this matter fundamentally. I also agree that arming the mujahadeen can now be seen as a strategic error that is having massive consequences and should have been recognized given the nature of the Revolution in Iran in 1979, and the latent power of the philosophy of Islamicizm that emerged in Egypt and other areas of the middle east in the late 1950s and Early 1960s.
In short, the West has completely underestimated these people, failed to recognize that movements and philosophies have been emerging in the middle east over the past 50 years that are of as much historic significance as the Reformation or the Enlightenment were in Western Europe; and our leaders have spectacularly failed to deal on any level with it.
In fact the recent policies of agressive confrontation and concurrent appeasment of the wrong people, at the wrong place, in the wrong time (mutually exclusive policies conducted at the same time) have made the problem signifcantly worse.
I suppose the people can be forgiven in that its hard to see things of such magnitude as they actually occur, and its only with some level of hindsight that the implications become clear.
Its my opinion, that the emergence of this religious philosophy in the Middle East is the greatest threat to Western Europe (particularly) since the Ottomans were seen off at Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna. Whether Europe and its civilization will survive this latest in a long series of threats emerging from the world of Islam, only time will tell. Given the current complacency and general inability to recognize and confront these issues effectively, then its not looking great at the moment, but then Europe has faced challenges in the past, not least from within, we shall see what time brings.
Are you at least agreed that Afghanistan turned fundamentalist when the US armed the Mujahedeen against the Soviets through the 1980s? Is that a starting point to find whatever agreement we might have? Do you think it had already happened by then? Do you think the arming was irrelevant to any fundamentalist swing?
Yes, we have sharply differing opinions on this matter fundamentally. I also agree that arming the mujahadeen can now be seen as a strategic error that is having massive consequences and should have been recognized given the nature of the Revolution in Iran in 1979, and the latent power of the philosophy of Islamicizm that emerged in Egypt and other areas of the middle east in the late 1950s and Early 1960s.
In short, the West has completely underestimated these people, failed to recognize that movements and philosophies have been emerging in the middle east over the past 50 years that are of as much historic significance as the Reformation or the Enlightenment were in Western Europe; and our leaders have spectacularly failed to deal on any level with it.
In fact the recent policies of agressive confrontation and concurrent appeasment of the wrong people, at the wrong place, in the wrong time (mutually exclusive policies conducted at the same time) have made the problem signifcantly worse.
I suppose the people can be forgiven in that its hard to see things of such magnitude as they actually occur, and its only with some level of hindsight that the implications become clear.
Its my opinion, that the emergence of this religious philosophy in the Middle East is the greatest threat to Western Europe (particularly) since the Ottomans were seen off at Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna. Whether Europe and its civilization will survive this latest in a long series of threats emerging from the world of Islam, only time will tell. Given the current complacency and general inability to recognize and confront these issues effectively, then its not looking great at the moment, but then Europe has faced challenges in the past, not least from within, we shall see what time brings.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Then I have a solution. Every person in the West who converts to Islam is an antidote to Islamic fundamentalism. If enough Westerners, with a moderate approach to life and commitments to equality for women for example (which is equally depreciated by fundamentalist Christians as much as by fundamentalist Muslims) enter Islam and insist on re-evaluating from the inside, Islam will necessarily change in its attitudes to modern-day concerns while remaining a haven of rather more meaningful worship than the West currently offers to whatever omnipotent devil is out there running our ultimate salvation, may he rot.
I suggest we both press for mass conversions to Islam within Western society.
I suggest we both press for mass conversions to Islam within Western society.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1056427 wrote: Then I have a solution. Every person in the West who converts to Islam is an antidote to Islamic fundamentalism. If enough Westerners, with a moderate approach to life and commitments to equality for women for example (which is equally depreciated by fundamentalist Christians as much as by fundamentalist Muslims) enter Islam and insist on re-evaluating from the inside, Islam will necessarily change in its attitudes to modern-day concerns while remaining a haven of rather more meaningful worship than the West currently offers to whatever omnipotent devil is out there running our ultimate salvation, may he rot.
I suggest we both press for mass conversions to Islam within Western society.
Your being facetious now, you naughty spot. :rolleyes:
I suggest we both press for mass conversions to Islam within Western society.
Your being facetious now, you naughty spot. :rolleyes:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
posted by galbally
Yes, we have sharply differing opinions on this matter fundamentally. I also agree that arming the mujahadeen can now be seen as a strategic error that is having massive consequences and should have been recognized given the nature of the Revolution in Iran in 1979, and the latent power of the philosophy of Islamicizm that emerged in Egypt and other areas of the middle east in the late 1950s and Early 1960s.
Actually the error was seen at the time but not by those in power-in the UK as well as the US who confused moral certainty with being right.
Yes, we have sharply differing opinions on this matter fundamentally. I also agree that arming the mujahadeen can now be seen as a strategic error that is having massive consequences and should have been recognized given the nature of the Revolution in Iran in 1979, and the latent power of the philosophy of Islamicizm that emerged in Egypt and other areas of the middle east in the late 1950s and Early 1960s.
Actually the error was seen at the time but not by those in power-in the UK as well as the US who confused moral certainty with being right.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should troops leave Afghanistan
I'm beiginning to See Afghanistan more and more as a 'Vietnam' or 'Korea'.
I think even our government faces the fact that this a very difficult war to win and the longer it goes on, the more blood is shed either side and waste of our Troops.
If we pull out, ultimately, the Taliban will have their own battle with the Muhajadeen but Herion cultivation and production will change dramatically once the Taliban re-gain control.
I think we could possibly keep troops in there but by far scaled down, as a peace keeping mission while the two rebel forces battle it out in the South. There would have to be talks with the Taliban and agreements drawn up that British forces were no longer the enemy but a kind of over-seer.
I see more and more innocent people killed in Afghanistan nearly every day, yes, i know that's war for you but at the moment, it's all a little pointless.
I think even our government faces the fact that this a very difficult war to win and the longer it goes on, the more blood is shed either side and waste of our Troops.
If we pull out, ultimately, the Taliban will have their own battle with the Muhajadeen but Herion cultivation and production will change dramatically once the Taliban re-gain control.
I think we could possibly keep troops in there but by far scaled down, as a peace keeping mission while the two rebel forces battle it out in the South. There would have to be talks with the Taliban and agreements drawn up that British forces were no longer the enemy but a kind of over-seer.
I see more and more innocent people killed in Afghanistan nearly every day, yes, i know that's war for you but at the moment, it's all a little pointless.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Iraq maybe, Afghanistan, no way. This is the heart of the issues and the home of the Taliban, this is the legal war that the UN sanctioned and we have a commitment to the people of that country.
Easy to count the deaths now, but who was counting when the Taliban was in power? This is a place that needs the west, to leave there now is to condemn the whole region.
Easy to count the deaths now, but who was counting when the Taliban was in power? This is a place that needs the west, to leave there now is to condemn the whole region.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should troops leave Afghanistan
mikeinie;1056895 wrote: Iraq maybe, Afghanistan, no way. This is the heart of the issues and the home of the Taliban, this is the legal war that the UN sanctioned and we have a commitment to the people of that country.
Easy to count the deaths now, but who was counting when the Taliban was in power? This is a place that needs the west, to leave there now is to condemn the whole region.
It's a difficult one for sure with arguement on both sides. I suggested a peace keeping presence there after we pull out.
Easy to count the deaths now, but who was counting when the Taliban was in power? This is a place that needs the west, to leave there now is to condemn the whole region.
It's a difficult one for sure with arguement on both sides. I suggested a peace keeping presence there after we pull out.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should troops leave Afghanistan
mikeinie;1056895 wrote: This is a place that needs the west, to leave there now is to condemn the whole region.The only people who want the Western armies there are the fat cats of the Northern Alliance who rode in on the shirt-tails of the mass bombing in November 2001. The villagers don't, the residents of the cities south and east of Kabul don't. That's the majority of Afghans.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Bigger worry is if Pakistan turns fundamentalist. The Americans launching attacks against them is hardly likely to help strengthen the position of the government there.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Yes i think the troops should be pulled out, sooner the better. My nephew's done two tours now & i dont want him doing a third.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Of course they should Spot.This is a no win war situation>have we not learned our lesson in Ireland. The Taliban are relentless,we need to talk to them and come to some kind of agreement to end this bloodshed. My son is there with the marines,he is actualy a P.O. in the navy but is attached to the marines,so where they go he goes.We are losing our sons and husbands and for what? another no win situation created by Bush and Blaire.]
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Mia;1057058 wrote: Of course they should Spot.This is a no win war situation>have we not learned our lesson in Ireland. The Taliban are relentless,we need to talk to them and come to some kind of agreement to end this bloodshed. My son is there with the marines,he is actualy a P.O. in the navy but is attached to the marines,so where they go he goes.We are losing our sons and husbands and for what? another no win situation created by Bush and Blaire.]
One reason for leaving:
British death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan reaches 300 after two Royal Marines are killed in explosion | Mail Online
One reason for leaving:
British death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan reaches 300 after two Royal Marines are killed in explosion | Mail Online
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should troops leave Afghanistan
The biggest problem seems to be the american attitude that everything can be sorted by using military force. It's not what you say it's what you do that matters.
same story different spin.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=146655
According to the jirga members, the government officials promised them to maintain order in the region, which they said had been deteriorated with US attacks and killing of innocent people.
The government officials also explained their helplessness to the jirga members and told them in plain words that despite their appeals, they could not persuade US to stop firing Hellfire missiles on the border areas.
It was decided that the Ahmadzai Wazir Jirga would soon travel to Peshawar to meet Governor Owais Ahmad Ghani and apprise him of their apprehensions about the US attacks on their villages.
The Ahmadzai Wazirs have always complained of government’s silence over repeated missile attacks by the CIA-operated pilotless spy planes on their villages and towns often killing people.
Enraged by such drone attacks, the Ahmadzai Wazir tribal militants led by Maulvi Nazeer on one occasion had even threatened to scrap their peace accord with the government if the latter did not stop the US spy aircraft from killing innocent people.
The Modesto Bee | TRUDY RUBIN: Promising prospects for better relations with Pakistan
The results are already apparent in the more successful targeting of Predator missiles. Gen. David Petraeus said last week that recent attacks killed three top extremist leaders. Pakistani officials say an Oct. 16 strike in South Waziristan got Khalid Habib, who ranked fourth in the al-Qaeda hierarchy and recruited operatives for future attacks on the United States.
The bottom line: Despite their public critique of Predator air strikes, Pakistani officials are providing intelligence that helps U.S. missiles find their targets and limit collateral damage.
Nevertheless, such strikes infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty and carry big political risks.
Pakistan's elected leaders are caught in a bind. President Asif Ali Zardari recognizes the threat the militants pose to Pakistan's stability. And the Pakistani military is making new efforts to fight jihadis in tribal regions. But the Pakistani public is strongly opposed to the strikes.
There's a very real danger imo that the US will push pakistan in to the hand of the fundamentalists if they keep this up. Democracy in pakistan won a victory when they finally ousted musharif and yet again US policy looks set to de-stabilise a democratic country all in the name of peace and freedom just because they elect a government that doesn't give the US a free hand to do what it likes in their borders. What the people think actually matters a great deal which point the US policy makers don't seem to get. It's almost as if they are trying to provoke a fundamentalist take over.
same story different spin.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=146655
According to the jirga members, the government officials promised them to maintain order in the region, which they said had been deteriorated with US attacks and killing of innocent people.
The government officials also explained their helplessness to the jirga members and told them in plain words that despite their appeals, they could not persuade US to stop firing Hellfire missiles on the border areas.
It was decided that the Ahmadzai Wazir Jirga would soon travel to Peshawar to meet Governor Owais Ahmad Ghani and apprise him of their apprehensions about the US attacks on their villages.
The Ahmadzai Wazirs have always complained of government’s silence over repeated missile attacks by the CIA-operated pilotless spy planes on their villages and towns often killing people.
Enraged by such drone attacks, the Ahmadzai Wazir tribal militants led by Maulvi Nazeer on one occasion had even threatened to scrap their peace accord with the government if the latter did not stop the US spy aircraft from killing innocent people.
The Modesto Bee | TRUDY RUBIN: Promising prospects for better relations with Pakistan
The results are already apparent in the more successful targeting of Predator missiles. Gen. David Petraeus said last week that recent attacks killed three top extremist leaders. Pakistani officials say an Oct. 16 strike in South Waziristan got Khalid Habib, who ranked fourth in the al-Qaeda hierarchy and recruited operatives for future attacks on the United States.
The bottom line: Despite their public critique of Predator air strikes, Pakistani officials are providing intelligence that helps U.S. missiles find their targets and limit collateral damage.
Nevertheless, such strikes infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty and carry big political risks.
Pakistan's elected leaders are caught in a bind. President Asif Ali Zardari recognizes the threat the militants pose to Pakistan's stability. And the Pakistani military is making new efforts to fight jihadis in tribal regions. But the Pakistani public is strongly opposed to the strikes.
There's a very real danger imo that the US will push pakistan in to the hand of the fundamentalists if they keep this up. Democracy in pakistan won a victory when they finally ousted musharif and yet again US policy looks set to de-stabilise a democratic country all in the name of peace and freedom just because they elect a government that doesn't give the US a free hand to do what it likes in their borders. What the people think actually matters a great deal which point the US policy makers don't seem to get. It's almost as if they are trying to provoke a fundamentalist take over.
-
Touchstone
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:53 pm
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Whilst those who support a pull-out of troops from Afghanistan are fully entitled to their opinion, perhaps those of you who do not support this view , might be interested in what some other people had to say.
Farid Popal, first secretary for political affairs and public diplomacy at the Embassy of Afghanistan in London:
The Afghans do not want your troops to stay there forever. We just need your presence until our security forces are capable of securing their own territories, and other major development projects such as the Kajaki dam have been accomplished. While your poll suggests that troops should come home, think about the devastation that it will bring to the local Afghans and think about the consequences of security for the rest of the international community.
Pakistani writer and journalist Ahmed Rashid one of the most respected commentators on the region:
I certainly don't think Britain should pull its troops out of Afghanistan. I think it will be hugely detrimental to Britain, to Nato, to the Western alliance, a betrayal of the Afghan people. And it would lead to possibly a collapse of the government and a Taleban takeover in Kabul, which would spell much more terrorism, drugs and all the other evils that the Western alliance has been trying to stamp out in Afghanistan.
Former diplomat Rory Stewart who now runs the Turquoise Mountain Foundation in Kabul:
We need to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan. I think we have too many there. We're trying to do more than we can possibly do, but I don't believe we should leave entirely. The secret is to get the balance right. We need a light presence, which should be there for 20 or 30 years.
Chris Alexander, UN special envoy in Kabul:
We've achieved a lot, Afghans have achieved at lot over six years. That needs to be protected and built upon. It's actually not going as badly as many people would have us believe. The conflict isn't anywhere close to as intense as other insurgencies the community of nations has faced in the world. It's certainly not in the league of Iraq at its worst, and the military and political solutions are at hand. We can conduct effective counter-insurgency actually led by the Afghans, with our international troops more and more in supporting roles.
Michael Semple who has worked in Afghanistan and Pakistan in a variety of humanitarian and political roles for more than 20 years:
Ultimately the security of Afghanistan has got to be in the hands of the Afghans.
The only rationale for the presence of British troops is if they are contributing to as rapid as possible development of the political and security conditions whereby the Afghans can be in charge of their own security and the British troops can be on their own way home. It means that the build up of the Afghan security forces has got to be pursued within a credible timetable, It requires the Afghan government to build up the civil administration so it can deliver many conditions of security. That's something that's got to be done within a credible timetable.
Zarghona Rassa, the founder and chair of the British Afghan Women's Society:
As a British Afghan, my heart goes to people from both sides that are killed in this war - British troops or Afghans. But people need to become more aware of international politics. Imagine if the British troops came out of Afghanistan tomorrow. Would it solve the problem of British society or would it solve the problem of international terrorism? If we want to destroy a building, it can happen in one minute. But if we want to put things right that have been going wrong for 30 years, we cannot build the same Afghanistan with even 10 or 50 years.
Touchstone (who was not polled):
Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's Network of Terror, has a simple message for the infidel ¦ “You have only two choices, convert to Islam or die!
So here's a message for Al-Quaeda and Osam bin Laden: "Americans ain't gonna convert to Islam.
These colors don't run!!
Farid Popal, first secretary for political affairs and public diplomacy at the Embassy of Afghanistan in London:
The Afghans do not want your troops to stay there forever. We just need your presence until our security forces are capable of securing their own territories, and other major development projects such as the Kajaki dam have been accomplished. While your poll suggests that troops should come home, think about the devastation that it will bring to the local Afghans and think about the consequences of security for the rest of the international community.
Pakistani writer and journalist Ahmed Rashid one of the most respected commentators on the region:
I certainly don't think Britain should pull its troops out of Afghanistan. I think it will be hugely detrimental to Britain, to Nato, to the Western alliance, a betrayal of the Afghan people. And it would lead to possibly a collapse of the government and a Taleban takeover in Kabul, which would spell much more terrorism, drugs and all the other evils that the Western alliance has been trying to stamp out in Afghanistan.
Former diplomat Rory Stewart who now runs the Turquoise Mountain Foundation in Kabul:
We need to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan. I think we have too many there. We're trying to do more than we can possibly do, but I don't believe we should leave entirely. The secret is to get the balance right. We need a light presence, which should be there for 20 or 30 years.
Chris Alexander, UN special envoy in Kabul:
We've achieved a lot, Afghans have achieved at lot over six years. That needs to be protected and built upon. It's actually not going as badly as many people would have us believe. The conflict isn't anywhere close to as intense as other insurgencies the community of nations has faced in the world. It's certainly not in the league of Iraq at its worst, and the military and political solutions are at hand. We can conduct effective counter-insurgency actually led by the Afghans, with our international troops more and more in supporting roles.
Michael Semple who has worked in Afghanistan and Pakistan in a variety of humanitarian and political roles for more than 20 years:
Ultimately the security of Afghanistan has got to be in the hands of the Afghans.
The only rationale for the presence of British troops is if they are contributing to as rapid as possible development of the political and security conditions whereby the Afghans can be in charge of their own security and the British troops can be on their own way home. It means that the build up of the Afghan security forces has got to be pursued within a credible timetable, It requires the Afghan government to build up the civil administration so it can deliver many conditions of security. That's something that's got to be done within a credible timetable.
Zarghona Rassa, the founder and chair of the British Afghan Women's Society:
As a British Afghan, my heart goes to people from both sides that are killed in this war - British troops or Afghans. But people need to become more aware of international politics. Imagine if the British troops came out of Afghanistan tomorrow. Would it solve the problem of British society or would it solve the problem of international terrorism? If we want to destroy a building, it can happen in one minute. But if we want to put things right that have been going wrong for 30 years, we cannot build the same Afghanistan with even 10 or 50 years.
Touchstone (who was not polled):
Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's Network of Terror, has a simple message for the infidel ¦ “You have only two choices, convert to Islam or die!
So here's a message for Al-Quaeda and Osam bin Laden: "Americans ain't gonna convert to Islam.
These colors don't run!!
I don't want to press "1" for English. This is America!
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Touchstone;1058453 wrote: Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's Network of Terror, has a simple message for the infidel ¦ “You have only two choices, convert to Islam or die!Where does the quote come from? I can't find a source for it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Touchstone
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:53 pm
Should troops leave Afghanistan
! beg your pardon Spot.
I should have mentioned that it is a quote by Touchstone based entirely on my own experience of this terror network.
I should have mentioned that it is a quote by Touchstone based entirely on my own experience of this terror network.
I don't want to press "1" for English. This is America!
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Ah. The quotation marks had me fooled.
The Case for US Withdrawal From Afghanistan | CommonDreams.org seems reasoned and moderate. It appeared in the Turkish Daily News on November 12, 2008.
The Case for US Withdrawal From Afghanistan | CommonDreams.org seems reasoned and moderate. It appeared in the Turkish Daily News on November 12, 2008.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
The anti-Western power in Afghanistan is the Taliban, the fundamentalist element of the Mujahideen armed by the US in the eighties to fight a proxy war against the USSR and who ended up running the country for about seven years through the end of the nineties. Al-Qaeda spent a while running training camps in Afghanistan after they were moved out of the Sudan, they also had been a part of the Mujahideen during the eighties.
The people shooting at Western forces in Afghanistan are Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. If we can perhaps set a linguistic ground rule, no person fighting in his own country against a foreign occupier is a terrorist, he's a patriot defending hearth and home, he's a member of a resistance. He'd be a terrorist if he were fighting in someone else's country without the commission of a sovereign power just as he'd be a pirate if he were doing it on the high seas. You needn't like the fact that they exist but you can at least use rational language when discussing them.
The Taliban are currently negotiating in Saudi Arabia with the US and the current Afghan administration and from the look of it they're not unreasonably abandoning Al-Qaeda to its fate in the process. That's all to the good. The fighting will stop when all the elements of Afghan society are represented in the Afghan government. The thing holding back that desirable end is the potential long-term presence of Western forces. The negotiations in Saudi Arabia will succeed or fail depending on whether the Afghan parties can arrange their departure, that's the acid test. Too many people at the moment think the US wants a long-term massive presence in that part of the world. Certainly the Bush administration wanted it and lied until they got it. One can only hope that the new administration has a better understanding of US interests.
The people shooting at Western forces in Afghanistan are Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. If we can perhaps set a linguistic ground rule, no person fighting in his own country against a foreign occupier is a terrorist, he's a patriot defending hearth and home, he's a member of a resistance. He'd be a terrorist if he were fighting in someone else's country without the commission of a sovereign power just as he'd be a pirate if he were doing it on the high seas. You needn't like the fact that they exist but you can at least use rational language when discussing them.
The Taliban are currently negotiating in Saudi Arabia with the US and the current Afghan administration and from the look of it they're not unreasonably abandoning Al-Qaeda to its fate in the process. That's all to the good. The fighting will stop when all the elements of Afghan society are represented in the Afghan government. The thing holding back that desirable end is the potential long-term presence of Western forces. The negotiations in Saudi Arabia will succeed or fail depending on whether the Afghan parties can arrange their departure, that's the acid test. Too many people at the moment think the US wants a long-term massive presence in that part of the world. Certainly the Bush administration wanted it and lied until they got it. One can only hope that the new administration has a better understanding of US interests.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1059455 wrote: The anti-Western power in Afghanistan is the Taliban, the fundamentalist element of the Mujahideen armed by the US in the eighties to fight a proxy war against the USSR and who ended up running the country for about seven years through the end of the nineties. Al-Qaeda spent a while running training camps in Afghanistan after they were moved out of the Sudan, they also had been a part of the Mujahideen during the eighties.
The people shooting at Western forces in Afghanistan are Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. If we can perhaps set a linguistic ground rule, no person fighting in his own country against a foreign occupier is a terrorist, he's a patriot defending hearth and home, he's a member of a resistance. He'd be a terrorist if he were fighting in someone else's country without the commission of a sovereign power just as he'd be a pirate if he were doing it on the high seas. You needn't like the fact that they exist but you can at least use rational language when discussing them.
The Taliban are currently negotiating in Saudi Arabia with the US and the current Afghan administration and from the look of it they're not unreasonably abandoning Al-Qaeda to its fate in the process. That's all to the good. The fighting will stop when all the elements of Afghan society are represented in the Afghan government. The thing holding back that desirable end is the potential long-term presence of Western forces. The negotiations in Saudi Arabia will succeed or fail depending on whether the Afghan parties can arrange their departure, that's the acid test. Too many people at the moment think the US wants a long-term massive presence in that part of the world. Certainly the Bush administration wanted it and lied until they got it. One can only hope that the new administration has a better understanding of US interests.
The Taliban or Mujahideen???
£900m heroin bust biggest haul ever | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys
The people shooting at Western forces in Afghanistan are Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. If we can perhaps set a linguistic ground rule, no person fighting in his own country against a foreign occupier is a terrorist, he's a patriot defending hearth and home, he's a member of a resistance. He'd be a terrorist if he were fighting in someone else's country without the commission of a sovereign power just as he'd be a pirate if he were doing it on the high seas. You needn't like the fact that they exist but you can at least use rational language when discussing them.
The Taliban are currently negotiating in Saudi Arabia with the US and the current Afghan administration and from the look of it they're not unreasonably abandoning Al-Qaeda to its fate in the process. That's all to the good. The fighting will stop when all the elements of Afghan society are represented in the Afghan government. The thing holding back that desirable end is the potential long-term presence of Western forces. The negotiations in Saudi Arabia will succeed or fail depending on whether the Afghan parties can arrange their departure, that's the acid test. Too many people at the moment think the US wants a long-term massive presence in that part of the world. Certainly the Bush administration wanted it and lied until they got it. One can only hope that the new administration has a better understanding of US interests.
The Taliban or Mujahideen???
£900m heroin bust biggest haul ever | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1056251 wrote:
The only consequence of Western troops remaining in Afghanistan now is more needless Afghan deaths. They should all pull out immediately and allow Afghanistan to mend itself over the next fifty years - and yes, that means reverting to Taliban control for at least a generation in reaction to the Western outrage that's been committed on it.
The one immediate advantage to the West would be an end to the heroin exports.
I don't think it's right to compare the deaths of innocent civilians without having accounted for the number of peoples having suffered beyond acceptance when determining whether or not a war is worth fighting.
Far worse be it a person suffer than having died by the sword.
The fact of the matter is is that people should only act upon 100% certainty on any given matter, and I do mean any!
I judge a man to be a man by not that which he sees but what he does about what next he sees. Flawed policies are at the hands of "men" feeling the need to be called a man. The difference being that a real man achieves first and plans second!
The only consequence of Western troops remaining in Afghanistan now is more needless Afghan deaths. They should all pull out immediately and allow Afghanistan to mend itself over the next fifty years - and yes, that means reverting to Taliban control for at least a generation in reaction to the Western outrage that's been committed on it.
The one immediate advantage to the West would be an end to the heroin exports.
I don't think it's right to compare the deaths of innocent civilians without having accounted for the number of peoples having suffered beyond acceptance when determining whether or not a war is worth fighting.
Far worse be it a person suffer than having died by the sword.
The fact of the matter is is that people should only act upon 100% certainty on any given matter, and I do mean any!
I judge a man to be a man by not that which he sees but what he does about what next he sees. Flawed policies are at the hands of "men" feeling the need to be called a man. The difference being that a real man achieves first and plans second!
Should troops leave Afghanistan
K.Snyder;1060224 wrote: I don't think it's right to compare the deaths of innocent civilians without having accounted for the number of peoples having suffered beyond acceptance when determining whether or not a war is worth fighting.
Far worse be it a person suffer than having died by the sword. If you're claiming "suffering beyond acceptance" for the people of Afghanistan while living under the Taliban I think you need to produce evidence that the people of Afghanistan were actually suffering to that degree in those numbers. In my opinion, they weren't. In my opinion, the majority of Afghans at the time didn't want to be invaded. In my opinion, the majority of Afghans today want the Western armies to leave so that they can please have their Taliban government back in control of their own country - they are Afghan leaders after all, these Taliban we're talking about.
At the moment, even ignoring the tens of thousands of Afghans who "died by the sword" - why which you mean carpet bombing by perfectly safe US pilots - even ignoring those deaths during the invasion you now have a country where the Western armies are the only controlling force and five thousand people a year are dying violent deaths, and MOST OF THOSE KILLED ARE UNARMED CIVILIANS!
I rarely shout but really, you don't seem to have grasped that fundamental concept.
The Taliban are Afghans. They have a natural right to rule their country if a majority of their countrymen want them to do it. It's called Democracy. The Western armies are in Afghanistan to interfere with the democratic process there and to prevent local rule by local rulers, simply because those local rulers don't want what the American President of the day wanted them to want. An oil pipeline, among other matters.
Far worse be it a person suffer than having died by the sword. If you're claiming "suffering beyond acceptance" for the people of Afghanistan while living under the Taliban I think you need to produce evidence that the people of Afghanistan were actually suffering to that degree in those numbers. In my opinion, they weren't. In my opinion, the majority of Afghans at the time didn't want to be invaded. In my opinion, the majority of Afghans today want the Western armies to leave so that they can please have their Taliban government back in control of their own country - they are Afghan leaders after all, these Taliban we're talking about.
At the moment, even ignoring the tens of thousands of Afghans who "died by the sword" - why which you mean carpet bombing by perfectly safe US pilots - even ignoring those deaths during the invasion you now have a country where the Western armies are the only controlling force and five thousand people a year are dying violent deaths, and MOST OF THOSE KILLED ARE UNARMED CIVILIANS!
I rarely shout but really, you don't seem to have grasped that fundamental concept.
The Taliban are Afghans. They have a natural right to rule their country if a majority of their countrymen want them to do it. It's called Democracy. The Western armies are in Afghanistan to interfere with the democratic process there and to prevent local rule by local rulers, simply because those local rulers don't want what the American President of the day wanted them to want. An oil pipeline, among other matters.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
oscar;1060212 wrote: The Taliban or Mujahideen???Why do people post cryptic things like that with no verbs, no sentence structure and no meaning that I can extract? I have no idea what the question is.
"Mujahideen" is a reasonable term to use of the fighting forces armed by the US in the 1980s to expel the Soviets. It contained what became the Northern Alliance (the drug warlords), what became Al-Qaeda (the Arab International fundamentalist Muslims) and what became the "Taliban" (the local Afghan fundamentalist Muslims). Does that define the two words adequately? There is, today, no Mujahideen, it was a historical group. Or would you like to use the word about some of today's participants? If so, which group?
"Mujahideen" is a reasonable term to use of the fighting forces armed by the US in the 1980s to expel the Soviets. It contained what became the Northern Alliance (the drug warlords), what became Al-Qaeda (the Arab International fundamentalist Muslims) and what became the "Taliban" (the local Afghan fundamentalist Muslims). Does that define the two words adequately? There is, today, no Mujahideen, it was a historical group. Or would you like to use the word about some of today's participants? If so, which group?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1060239 wrote: If you're claiming "suffering beyond acceptance" for the people of Afghanistan while living under the Taliban I think you need to produce evidence that the people of Afghanistan were actually suffering to that degree in those numbers. In my opinion, they weren't. In my opinion, the majority of Afghans at the time didn't want to be invaded. In my opinion, the majority of Afghans today want the Western armies to leave so that they can please have their Taliban government back in control of their own country - they are Afghan leaders after all, these Taliban we're talking about.
At the moment, even ignoring the tens of thousands of Afghans who "died by the sword" - why which you mean carpet bombing by perfectly safe US pilots - even ignoring those deaths during the invasion you now have a country where the Western armies are the only controlling force and five thousand people a year are dying violent deaths, and MOST OF THOSE KILLED ARE UNARMED CIVILIANS!
I rarely shout but really, you don't seem to have grasped that fundamental concept.
The Taliban are Afghans. They have a natural right to rule their country if a majority of their countrymen want them to do it. It's called Democracy. The Western armies are in Afghanistan to interfere with the democratic process there and to prevent local rule by local rulers, simply because those local rulers don't want what the American President of the day wanted them to want. An oil pipeline, among other matters.
Too bad the Taliban don't believe in democracy and aren't actually fighting to restore free elections in Afghanistan. The west helped islamic fundamentalists get a grip on power in afghanistan the Taliban are th group that won out after the soviets left. These are the kind of nutters that think spraying acid in the face of girls who want to go to school is acceptable behaviour -call it what you will but democracy is not exactly correct is it.
We should never have got involved in Afghanistan-even at the height of colonial power with thousands of troops at our disposal and no one to worry about about how many fuzzy wuzzies we killed we couldn't control the place. That British troops now face guerilla fighters trained by american special forces and the SAS is an irony carefully forgotten about by the media. Politicians are very adept at persuading us to forget the stupidities of the past even as we face the consequences. A guerilla army does not have to win a war all it has to do is not lose.
If any of the political parties said they would pull our troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan if elected personally i would be voting for them. Some of the points you make are quite good but when you claim the Taliban are gallant freedom fighters for democracy and freedom you kind of cross the line in to delusion and blow any claim you might have had for having a sensible point to make. The taliban want back in power but they are hardly democrats.
At the moment, even ignoring the tens of thousands of Afghans who "died by the sword" - why which you mean carpet bombing by perfectly safe US pilots - even ignoring those deaths during the invasion you now have a country where the Western armies are the only controlling force and five thousand people a year are dying violent deaths, and MOST OF THOSE KILLED ARE UNARMED CIVILIANS!
I rarely shout but really, you don't seem to have grasped that fundamental concept.
The Taliban are Afghans. They have a natural right to rule their country if a majority of their countrymen want them to do it. It's called Democracy. The Western armies are in Afghanistan to interfere with the democratic process there and to prevent local rule by local rulers, simply because those local rulers don't want what the American President of the day wanted them to want. An oil pipeline, among other matters.
Too bad the Taliban don't believe in democracy and aren't actually fighting to restore free elections in Afghanistan. The west helped islamic fundamentalists get a grip on power in afghanistan the Taliban are th group that won out after the soviets left. These are the kind of nutters that think spraying acid in the face of girls who want to go to school is acceptable behaviour -call it what you will but democracy is not exactly correct is it.
We should never have got involved in Afghanistan-even at the height of colonial power with thousands of troops at our disposal and no one to worry about about how many fuzzy wuzzies we killed we couldn't control the place. That British troops now face guerilla fighters trained by american special forces and the SAS is an irony carefully forgotten about by the media. Politicians are very adept at persuading us to forget the stupidities of the past even as we face the consequences. A guerilla army does not have to win a war all it has to do is not lose.
If any of the political parties said they would pull our troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan if elected personally i would be voting for them. Some of the points you make are quite good but when you claim the Taliban are gallant freedom fighters for democracy and freedom you kind of cross the line in to delusion and blow any claim you might have had for having a sensible point to make. The taliban want back in power but they are hardly democrats.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1060240 wrote: Why do people post cryptic things like that with no verbs, no sentence structure and no meaning that I can extract? I have no idea what the question is.
"Mujahideen" is a reasonable term to use of the fighting forces armed by the US in the 1980s to expel the Soviets. It contained what became the Northern Alliance (the drug warlords), what became Al-Qaeda (the Arab International fundamentalist Muslims) and what became the "Taliban" (the local Afghan fundamentalist Muslims). Does that define the two words adequately? There is, today, no Mujahideen, it was a historical group. Or would you like to use the word about some of today's participants? If so, which group?
Sorry Spot. I just wondered if the press had blamed the right party.
"Mujahideen" is a reasonable term to use of the fighting forces armed by the US in the 1980s to expel the Soviets. It contained what became the Northern Alliance (the drug warlords), what became Al-Qaeda (the Arab International fundamentalist Muslims) and what became the "Taliban" (the local Afghan fundamentalist Muslims). Does that define the two words adequately? There is, today, no Mujahideen, it was a historical group. Or would you like to use the word about some of today's participants? If so, which group?
Sorry Spot. I just wondered if the press had blamed the right party.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1060239 wrote: If you're claiming "suffering beyond acceptance" for the people of Afghanistan while living under the Taliban I think you need to produce evidence that the people of Afghanistan were actually suffering to that degree in those numbers. In my opinion, they weren't. In my opinion, the majority of Afghans at the time didn't want to be invaded. In my opinion, the majority of Afghans today want the Western armies to leave so that they can please have their Taliban government back in control of their own country - they are Afghan leaders after all, these Taliban we're talking about.
At the moment, even ignoring the tens of thousands of Afghans who "died by the sword" - why which you mean carpet bombing by perfectly safe US pilots - even ignoring those deaths during the invasion you now have a country where the Western armies are the only controlling force and five thousand people a year are dying violent deaths, and MOST OF THOSE KILLED ARE UNARMED CIVILIANS!
I rarely shout but really, you don't seem to have grasped that fundamental concept.
The Taliban are Afghans. They have a natural right to rule their country if a majority of their countrymen want them to do it. It's called Democracy. The Western armies are in Afghanistan to interfere with the democratic process there and to prevent local rule by local rulers, simply because those local rulers don't want what the American President of the day wanted them to want. An oil pipeline, among other matters.
I was just making a statement that illustrates my moral logic pertaining to invasion.
I hadn't stated I personally thought the Afghans were "suffering beyond acceptance"
, from which I should have stated that more clearly and I'll do so now.
"suffering beyond acceptance" I think implies that any suffering can be accepted which is not even remotely close to what I'd meant. I should have said "The larger number of peoples suffering as opposed to the event of invading the government presently responsible". Hypothetically speaking of course...
n any case there's no need to shout on my behalf because quite frankly I have not justified any actions my government has taken during the course of the entire conflict in question.
At the moment, even ignoring the tens of thousands of Afghans who "died by the sword" - why which you mean carpet bombing by perfectly safe US pilots - even ignoring those deaths during the invasion you now have a country where the Western armies are the only controlling force and five thousand people a year are dying violent deaths, and MOST OF THOSE KILLED ARE UNARMED CIVILIANS!
I rarely shout but really, you don't seem to have grasped that fundamental concept.
The Taliban are Afghans. They have a natural right to rule their country if a majority of their countrymen want them to do it. It's called Democracy. The Western armies are in Afghanistan to interfere with the democratic process there and to prevent local rule by local rulers, simply because those local rulers don't want what the American President of the day wanted them to want. An oil pipeline, among other matters.
I was just making a statement that illustrates my moral logic pertaining to invasion.
I hadn't stated I personally thought the Afghans were "suffering beyond acceptance"
, from which I should have stated that more clearly and I'll do so now."suffering beyond acceptance" I think implies that any suffering can be accepted which is not even remotely close to what I'd meant. I should have said "The larger number of peoples suffering as opposed to the event of invading the government presently responsible". Hypothetically speaking of course...
n any case there's no need to shout on my behalf because quite frankly I have not justified any actions my government has taken during the course of the entire conflict in question.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
gmc;1056578 wrote: posted by galbally
Actually the error was seen at the time but not by those in power-in the UK as well as the US who confused moral certainty with being right.
Did we not discover the stupidity of trying to invade Afghanistan in the 1830s and again in the 1870s - after the Russians had shown it still could not be done in the 1980s why the hell did we think we could manage it?
Actually the error was seen at the time but not by those in power-in the UK as well as the US who confused moral certainty with being right.
Did we not discover the stupidity of trying to invade Afghanistan in the 1830s and again in the 1870s - after the Russians had shown it still could not be done in the 1980s why the hell did we think we could manage it?
Should troops leave Afghanistan
mikeinie;1056895 wrote: Iraq maybe, Afghanistan, no way. This is the heart of the issues and the home of the Taliban, this is the legal war that the UN sanctioned and we have a commitment to the people of that country.
Easy to count the deaths now, but who was counting when the Taliban was in power? This is a place that needs the west, to leave there now is to condemn the whole region.
Would you care to enumerate the reasons we used to justify invading a sovereign nation that was not a real and present danger to ourselves?
The Taliban were not threatening us and were the legal and duly recognised government - why was it legal to invade them?
PS a UN sanction is not a justification - I'll just ask you to justify the legal basis of that sanction (if it truly existed).
Easy to count the deaths now, but who was counting when the Taliban was in power? This is a place that needs the west, to leave there now is to condemn the whole region.
Would you care to enumerate the reasons we used to justify invading a sovereign nation that was not a real and present danger to ourselves?
The Taliban were not threatening us and were the legal and duly recognised government - why was it legal to invade them?
PS a UN sanction is not a justification - I'll just ask you to justify the legal basis of that sanction (if it truly existed).
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Bryn Mawr;1063516 wrote: Did we not discover the stupidity of trying to invade Afghanistan in the 1830s and again in the 1870s - after the Russians had shown it still could not be done in the 1980s why the hell did we think we could manage it?
Moral certainty + military superiority= stupidity nine times out of ten.
Moral certainty + military superiority= stupidity nine times out of ten.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Bryn Mawr;1063525 wrote: Would you care to enumerate the reasons we used to justify invading a sovereign nation that was not a real and present danger to ourselves?
The Taliban were not threatening us and were the legal and duly recognised government - why was it legal to invade them?
PS a UN sanction is not a justification - I'll just ask you to justify the legal basis of that sanction (if it truly existed).
Would you not give justification to an invasion that works to achieve not only less but a much higher than 75% negation of any given group of peoples having suffered(Obviously dictated by your trust that such an event is adequately possible)?
The Taliban were not threatening us and were the legal and duly recognised government - why was it legal to invade them?
PS a UN sanction is not a justification - I'll just ask you to justify the legal basis of that sanction (if it truly existed).
Would you not give justification to an invasion that works to achieve not only less but a much higher than 75% negation of any given group of peoples having suffered(Obviously dictated by your trust that such an event is adequately possible)?
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Speaking for myself, I'd stick to the rules. Intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation have to fall either under the prevention of genocide exception or self-defence against an immediate threat of attack against the Homeland by the country you're attacking. Western troops aren't in Afghanistan for any such reason. The reason they went into both Afghanistan and Iraq was to force a regime change, a reason which has been outlawed by the United Nations for the last sixty years.
Given that the total withdrawal of Western troops within the next twelve months is the desire of the majority of the population in Afghanistan (and, I might add, in the UK too) it's about time it was announced. All I hear, instead, is that it'll take decades and more troops are being moved in. Vietnam II: The Unlearned Lesson, showing indefinitely at your local recruiting office.
Given that the total withdrawal of Western troops within the next twelve months is the desire of the majority of the population in Afghanistan (and, I might add, in the UK too) it's about time it was announced. All I hear, instead, is that it'll take decades and more troops are being moved in. Vietnam II: The Unlearned Lesson, showing indefinitely at your local recruiting office.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
K.Snyder;1064860 wrote: Would you not give justification to an invasion that works to achieve not only less but a much higher than 75% negation of any given group of peoples having suffered(Obviously dictated by your trust that such an event is adequately possible)?
I see no reduction in the suffering of the people of Afghanistan - if anything the suffering has increased.
I certainly see no justification for the invasion.
I see no reduction in the suffering of the people of Afghanistan - if anything the suffering has increased.
I certainly see no justification for the invasion.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1064939 wrote: Speaking for myself, I'd stick to the rules. Intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation have to fall either under the prevention of genocide exception or self-defence against an immediate threat of attack against the Homeland by the country you're attacking. Western troops aren't in Afghanistan for any such reason. The reason they went into both Afghanistan and Iraq was to force a regime change, a reason which has been outlawed by the United Nations for the last sixty years.
Given that the total withdrawal of Western troops within the next twelve months is the desire of the majority of the population in Afghanistan (and, I might add, in the UK too) it's about time it was announced. All I hear, instead, is that it'll take decades and more troops are being moved in. Vietnam II: The Unlearned Lesson, showing indefinitely at your local recruiting office.
So you agree that the peoples of Afghanistan were not suffering to the extent you'd support an invasion in hopes to change the country's policies towards it's people? Regardless of the current state of "attrition" of course.
Hypothetically speaking, you wouldn't support an invasion of Afghanistan, under the exact same circumstances, divinely knowing the outcome would be the succession of the intent the Western forces claim today with less than 50% of the ethical having not suffered as they would otherwise?...
Given that the total withdrawal of Western troops within the next twelve months is the desire of the majority of the population in Afghanistan (and, I might add, in the UK too) it's about time it was announced. All I hear, instead, is that it'll take decades and more troops are being moved in. Vietnam II: The Unlearned Lesson, showing indefinitely at your local recruiting office.
So you agree that the peoples of Afghanistan were not suffering to the extent you'd support an invasion in hopes to change the country's policies towards it's people? Regardless of the current state of "attrition" of course.
Hypothetically speaking, you wouldn't support an invasion of Afghanistan, under the exact same circumstances, divinely knowing the outcome would be the succession of the intent the Western forces claim today with less than 50% of the ethical having not suffered as they would otherwise?...
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Bryn Mawr;1065550 wrote: I see no reduction in the suffering of the people of Afghanistan - if anything the suffering has increased.
I certainly see no justification for the invasion.
I'm not necessarily speaking of instances. I'm speaking in reference to ones logic pertaining to the matter...
K.Snyder;1064860 wrote: Would you not give justification to an invasion that works to achieve not only less but a much higher than 75% negation of any given group of peoples having suffered(Obviously dictated by your trust that such an event is adequately possible)?
I certainly see no justification for the invasion.
I'm not necessarily speaking of instances. I'm speaking in reference to ones logic pertaining to the matter...
K.Snyder;1064860 wrote: Would you not give justification to an invasion that works to achieve not only less but a much higher than 75% negation of any given group of peoples having suffered(Obviously dictated by your trust that such an event is adequately possible)?
Should troops leave Afghanistan
K.Snyder;1066844 wrote: So you agree that the peoples of Afghanistan were not suffering to the extent you'd support an invasion in hopes to change the country's policies towards it's people? Regardless of the current state of "attrition" of course. I absolutely agree. The only degree of suffering which should allow external intervention by force is full-blown genocide. That's the current state of United Nations international treaty obligation.
K.Snyder wrote: Hypothetically speaking, you wouldn't support an invasion of Afghanistan, under the exact same circumstances, divinely knowing the outcome would be the succession of the intent the Western forces claim today with less than 50% of the ethical having not suffered as they would otherwise?...Absolutely not, regardless of the outcome. A country needs to achieve change from within. External change is disabling. External change removes the possibility of liberation by the people themselves. It isn't the change which matters, it's the liberation by the people themselves which matters. That's enablement. External change is slavery and a loss of opportunity.
It's absolutely necessary that the Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan should fail to achieve the objectives they were deployed to achieve. I quite passionately believe that to be true. If the people of the occupied countries fail to humiliate the Western forces it will only encourage the West to attempt further interventions in other lands.
K.Snyder wrote: Hypothetically speaking, you wouldn't support an invasion of Afghanistan, under the exact same circumstances, divinely knowing the outcome would be the succession of the intent the Western forces claim today with less than 50% of the ethical having not suffered as they would otherwise?...Absolutely not, regardless of the outcome. A country needs to achieve change from within. External change is disabling. External change removes the possibility of liberation by the people themselves. It isn't the change which matters, it's the liberation by the people themselves which matters. That's enablement. External change is slavery and a loss of opportunity.
It's absolutely necessary that the Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan should fail to achieve the objectives they were deployed to achieve. I quite passionately believe that to be true. If the people of the occupied countries fail to humiliate the Western forces it will only encourage the West to attempt further interventions in other lands.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
K.Snyder;1066850 wrote: I'm not necessarily speaking of instances. I'm speaking in reference to ones logic pertaining to the matter...
There is no logic to the matter - we invaded on the back of impossible demands with the sole intention of forcing a regime change to one more acceptable to our taste - this can never be morally or legally justifiable.
There is no logic to the matter - we invaded on the back of impossible demands with the sole intention of forcing a regime change to one more acceptable to our taste - this can never be morally or legally justifiable.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
spot;1066938 wrote: I absolutely agree. The only degree of suffering which should allow external intervention by force is full-blown genocide. That's the current state of United Nations international treaty obligation.
Absolutely not, regardless of the outcome. A country needs to achieve change from within. So, you consider my ideology of "peace" to be purely delusional circumstantial in essence of elongation. Fine. Thank you.
spot;1066938 wrote:
External change is disabling. External change removes the possibility of liberation by the people themselves. It isn't the change which matters, it's the liberation by the people themselves which matters. That's enablement. External change is slavery and a loss of opportunity. I don't need this. :yh_wink...
spot;1066938 wrote:
It's absolutely necessary that the Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan should fail to achieve the objectives they were deployed to achieve. I quite passionately believe that to be true. If the people of the occupied countries fail to humiliate the Western forces it will only encourage the West to attempt further interventions in other lands. We'll get to that later.
...
Oh, btw, I'm a high school drop out from Ohio...:wah:...:yh_rotfl....
Now we're playing ball!...:yh_giggles...
Absolutely not, regardless of the outcome. A country needs to achieve change from within. So, you consider my ideology of "peace" to be purely delusional circumstantial in essence of elongation. Fine. Thank you.
spot;1066938 wrote:
External change is disabling. External change removes the possibility of liberation by the people themselves. It isn't the change which matters, it's the liberation by the people themselves which matters. That's enablement. External change is slavery and a loss of opportunity. I don't need this. :yh_wink...
spot;1066938 wrote:
It's absolutely necessary that the Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan should fail to achieve the objectives they were deployed to achieve. I quite passionately believe that to be true. If the people of the occupied countries fail to humiliate the Western forces it will only encourage the West to attempt further interventions in other lands. We'll get to that later.
...
Oh, btw, I'm a high school drop out from Ohio...:wah:...:yh_rotfl....
Now we're playing ball!...:yh_giggles...
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Bryn Mawr;1067636 wrote: There is no logic to the matter - we invaded on the back of impossible demands with the sole intention of forcing a regime change to one more acceptable to our taste - this can never be morally or legally justifiable.
Yes, but we're after intent not conclusion.
The justification preceding any given action is based solely on ones intent not the end result. Otherwise, you have ignorance depleted of rectification as opposed to one or the other.
Yes, but we're after intent not conclusion.
The justification preceding any given action is based solely on ones intent not the end result. Otherwise, you have ignorance depleted of rectification as opposed to one or the other.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
We're back at that money thing again...
Intent meets justification by the precursor of ones will to refuse payment.
...
The intent of a nation defined by the logic of the public.
"Does a majority define the precursor of ones will to embellish in luxury?"
I have a hard time believing the majority of the world is immoral which seems to be the only argument I see from a couple.
While I'd agree that the majority of people are unethical I can never bring myself to the conclusion that the majority of homo sapiens are immoral.
I just can't do it.
There is a difference in my own mind.
You're either after ignorance or greed which is it?
Don't worry you can never offend me because I refrain the right to label myself as a human being before any genome waving a colored flag.
Integrity being the only defining point of any reprehensible explanation!
Intent meets justification by the precursor of ones will to refuse payment.
...
The intent of a nation defined by the logic of the public.
"Does a majority define the precursor of ones will to embellish in luxury?"
I have a hard time believing the majority of the world is immoral which seems to be the only argument I see from a couple.
While I'd agree that the majority of people are unethical I can never bring myself to the conclusion that the majority of homo sapiens are immoral.
I just can't do it.
There is a difference in my own mind.
You're either after ignorance or greed which is it?
Don't worry you can never offend me because I refrain the right to label myself as a human being before any genome waving a colored flag.
Integrity being the only defining point of any reprehensible explanation!
Should troops leave Afghanistan
K.Snyder;1067823 wrote: Yes, but we're after intent not conclusion.
The justification preceding any given action is based solely on ones intent not the end result. Otherwise, you have ignorance depleted of rectification as opposed to one or the other.
The intent is wrong - to force another people to accept the regime of your choice in place of their own is wrong.
The justification preceding any given action is based solely on ones intent not the end result. Otherwise, you have ignorance depleted of rectification as opposed to one or the other.
The intent is wrong - to force another people to accept the regime of your choice in place of their own is wrong.
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Bryn Mawr;1068076 wrote: The intent is wrong - to force another people to accept the regime of your choice in place of their own is wrong.
Ok...
...
But,..
what I'm really after is,..is can there truly be a doctrine of truly righteous beliefs accepted among the majority and does the majority accept such an epitome as being the overall exception of conformed ideology?
I mean, come on!
Without a majority you have preliminary mediocrity!
Wtf, is the defining point and where is the righteous judiciary infidelity?
Ok...
...But,..
what I'm really after is,..is can there truly be a doctrine of truly righteous beliefs accepted among the majority and does the majority accept such an epitome as being the overall exception of conformed ideology?
I mean, come on!
Without a majority you have preliminary mediocrity!
Wtf, is the defining point and where is the righteous judiciary infidelity?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should troops leave Afghanistan
K.Snyder;1067883 wrote: We're back at that money thing again...
Intent meets justification by the precursor of ones will to refuse payment.
...
The intent of a nation defined by the logic of the public.
"Does a majority define the precursor of ones will to embellish in luxury?"
I have a hard time believing the majority of the world is immoral which seems to be the only argument I see from a couple.
While I'd agree that the majority of people are unethical I can never bring myself to the conclusion that the majority of homo sapiens are immoral.
I just can't do it.
There is a difference in my own mind.
You're either after ignorance or greed which is it?
Don't worry you can never offend me because I refrain the right to label myself as a human being before any genome waving a colored flag.
Integrity being the only defining point of any reprehensible explanation!
To withdraw from Afghanistan would not be accept 'defeat' to the Taliban.
Weather one agree's with the regime of the Taliban, it was the oppointed rule of that country.
They had not decalred war on the Western world, we simply did not agree with their politics.
I do believe that the Taliban is far behind in rights for women and animal rights. What i would like to see is Afghanistan as an ally and in-roads made into the Taliban maybe accepting that some of their regime is out-dated in a modern world.
May-be agreements could be reached with them to find some common ground especially in women's rights.
It just needs one brave leader to bring this about.
Intent meets justification by the precursor of ones will to refuse payment.
...
The intent of a nation defined by the logic of the public.
"Does a majority define the precursor of ones will to embellish in luxury?"
I have a hard time believing the majority of the world is immoral which seems to be the only argument I see from a couple.
While I'd agree that the majority of people are unethical I can never bring myself to the conclusion that the majority of homo sapiens are immoral.
I just can't do it.
There is a difference in my own mind.
You're either after ignorance or greed which is it?
Don't worry you can never offend me because I refrain the right to label myself as a human being before any genome waving a colored flag.
Integrity being the only defining point of any reprehensible explanation!
To withdraw from Afghanistan would not be accept 'defeat' to the Taliban.
Weather one agree's with the regime of the Taliban, it was the oppointed rule of that country.
They had not decalred war on the Western world, we simply did not agree with their politics.
I do believe that the Taliban is far behind in rights for women and animal rights. What i would like to see is Afghanistan as an ally and in-roads made into the Taliban maybe accepting that some of their regime is out-dated in a modern world.
May-be agreements could be reached with them to find some common ground especially in women's rights.
It just needs one brave leader to bring this about.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should troops leave Afghanistan
oscar;1068140 wrote: To withdraw from Afghanistan would not be accept 'defeat' to the Taliban.Of course it wouldn't.
I'm not after the doctrine of victory. I'm after justification without prejudice concerning entity.
What you have is the preservation of righteous fortitude ridiculed by the procurement of either 1) A virtue pertaining to greed(?) or 2) Lust for the procurement of stature.
2 wrongs does not make a right and 1 right does not negate a wrong therefor my question lies in that of incentive being sacrificial to jurisprudence.
What drives decisions? Purely?
I'm not after the doctrine of victory. I'm after justification without prejudice concerning entity.
What you have is the preservation of righteous fortitude ridiculed by the procurement of either 1) A virtue pertaining to greed(?) or 2) Lust for the procurement of stature.
2 wrongs does not make a right and 1 right does not negate a wrong therefor my question lies in that of incentive being sacrificial to jurisprudence.
What drives decisions? Purely?
Should troops leave Afghanistan
K.Snyder;1068132 wrote: Ok......
But,..
what I'm really after is,..is can there truly be a doctrine of truly righteous beliefs accepted among the majority and does the majority accept such an epitome as being the overall exception of conformed ideology?
I mean, come on!
Without a majority you have preliminary mediocrity!
Wtf, is the defining point and where is the righteous judiciary infidelity?
The majority within which domain? If you mean worldwide then not for many a long year. If you mean within one country then yes - as long as you don't insist on defining "righteous belief" and leave it to the people of the country concerned. If you mean within a community then you can find such communities now - again as long as you let the community define their righteous beliefs.
Your last paragraph I do not understand - could you expand?
...But,..
what I'm really after is,..is can there truly be a doctrine of truly righteous beliefs accepted among the majority and does the majority accept such an epitome as being the overall exception of conformed ideology?
I mean, come on!
Without a majority you have preliminary mediocrity!
Wtf, is the defining point and where is the righteous judiciary infidelity?
The majority within which domain? If you mean worldwide then not for many a long year. If you mean within one country then yes - as long as you don't insist on defining "righteous belief" and leave it to the people of the country concerned. If you mean within a community then you can find such communities now - again as long as you let the community define their righteous beliefs.
Your last paragraph I do not understand - could you expand?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Bryn Mawr;1068241 wrote: The majority within which domain? If you mean worldwide then not for many a long year. If you mean within one country then yes - as long as you don't insist on defining "righteous belief" and leave it to the people of the country concerned. If you mean within a community then you can find such communities now - again as long as you let the community define their righteous beliefs.
Your last paragraph I do not understand - could you expand?
I'm so glad you asked that Bryn as i didn't like to
Your last paragraph I do not understand - could you expand?
I'm so glad you asked that Bryn as i didn't like to
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should troops leave Afghanistan
Bryn Mawr;1068241 wrote: The majority within which domain? If you mean worldwide then not for many a long year. If you mean within one country then yes - as long as you don't insist on defining "righteous belief" and leave it to the people of the country concerned. If you mean within a community then you can find such communities now - again as long as you let the community define their righteous beliefs.
Your last paragraph I do not understand - could you expand?
So you wholeheartedly agree that no majority should retain the right to define morality.? Ok. Thanks. If, in fact, that's exactly what you're saying of course. :yh_wink...
Sorry, I think "infidelity" was the wrong word to use in that particular set of circumstance.
What I mean, is how can a minority define "morality" if the majority does not precede it?...
Your last paragraph I do not understand - could you expand?
So you wholeheartedly agree that no majority should retain the right to define morality.? Ok. Thanks. If, in fact, that's exactly what you're saying of course. :yh_wink...
Sorry, I think "infidelity" was the wrong word to use in that particular set of circumstance.
What I mean, is how can a minority define "morality" if the majority does not precede it?...