Protests Erupt In Syria Over Christmas...
News0 min ago
Can this behaviour be tolerated?
60 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/6kx4rwv
To all those that who criticise our troops for killing the Taliban, I say take a look what they have done to this young and beautiful girl, to them life is nothing, especially the lives of women.
If it was at all possible each and everyone of them should be exterminated just like one would do with mad dogs.
To all those that who criticise our troops for killing the Taliban, I say take a look what they have done to this young and beautiful girl, to them life is nothing, especially the lives of women.
If it was at all possible each and everyone of them should be exterminated just like one would do with mad dogs.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
<<A typical case of double standards on this site. >>
Not really.
They are clearly very different contexts.
The context in sp's is a behaviour (spraying air freshener) some people might consider appropriate, understandable, tolerable in the circumstances. Hence a discussion arises for or (largely) against.
It is obvious to any civilised person that mutilating a young girl is neither appropriate, understandable or tolerable in ANY circumstances.
To expect a similar criticism of that behaviour presupposes anyone might consider it not despicable.
.
Not really.
They are clearly very different contexts.
The context in sp's is a behaviour (spraying air freshener) some people might consider appropriate, understandable, tolerable in the circumstances. Hence a discussion arises for or (largely) against.
It is obvious to any civilised person that mutilating a young girl is neither appropriate, understandable or tolerable in ANY circumstances.
To expect a similar criticism of that behaviour presupposes anyone might consider it not despicable.
.
-- answer removed --
Zeuhl
/// you try to argue a case by repeatedly moving the goal posts ///
It is not me that is repeatedly moving the goal posts but you, first you say it is an invasion and then a civil war.
Your remark regarding the current American-arranged Afghan gangster government, Mmmmmmm strong words, but are you speaking with any inside knowledge, have you been out there? even if you haven't (which I suspect) there seems to only one other alternative to the present Government out there, and that is the Taliban.
So taking that as read, perhaps it would be best to pin your colours to my goal-posts for all to see.
/// you try to argue a case by repeatedly moving the goal posts ///
It is not me that is repeatedly moving the goal posts but you, first you say it is an invasion and then a civil war.
Your remark regarding the current American-arranged Afghan gangster government, Mmmmmmm strong words, but are you speaking with any inside knowledge, have you been out there? even if you haven't (which I suspect) there seems to only one other alternative to the present Government out there, and that is the Taliban.
So taking that as read, perhaps it would be best to pin your colours to my goal-posts for all to see.
<<So taking that as read, perhaps it would be best to pin your colours to my goal-posts for all to see.>>
Delighted to. By the way - just because there is a civil war underway doesn't mean that another country can't invade in support of one side or the other. The soviets claimed exactly the same when they invaded to bolster their puppet/gangster government.
Our politicos should admit what our military already know - that the conflict is pointless and unwinnable by anyone.
Our presence there is part of US global strategy not to protect our country. Terrorists can easily train there, or the tribal lands or yemen or a dozen other places. The sacrifices in afghanistan make no appreciable difference in our defence against terrorism which is actually being fought (as it always is) by intelligence, infiltration and home defence - not by soldiers patrolling Helmand.
We should wish the Afghan people best wishes and let them deal with their affairs as we expect to be left to deal with ours.
.
Delighted to. By the way - just because there is a civil war underway doesn't mean that another country can't invade in support of one side or the other. The soviets claimed exactly the same when they invaded to bolster their puppet/gangster government.
Our politicos should admit what our military already know - that the conflict is pointless and unwinnable by anyone.
Our presence there is part of US global strategy not to protect our country. Terrorists can easily train there, or the tribal lands or yemen or a dozen other places. The sacrifices in afghanistan make no appreciable difference in our defence against terrorism which is actually being fought (as it always is) by intelligence, infiltration and home defence - not by soldiers patrolling Helmand.
We should wish the Afghan people best wishes and let them deal with their affairs as we expect to be left to deal with ours.
.
Absolutely Zeuhl.
When the Riussians left Afghanistan in chaos, the people longed for someone to arrive and sort out some sort of order, and a system they could live with.
Some did arrive - The Taliban.
Just because Bush decides that the way other nations live does not conform with his way, and must therefore be wrong, is the worst kind of pigheaded jingoistic provocation that causes retaliation - i.e. terrorist attrocities.
We must must MUST get a dialogue going with the Taliban to find a way out of this horrible mess - simply piling more military and civilian bodies into the heaps already there is really not helping - have you thought about that Mr Bush?
........
Mr Bush?
......
It seems he's not there any more .........
When the Riussians left Afghanistan in chaos, the people longed for someone to arrive and sort out some sort of order, and a system they could live with.
Some did arrive - The Taliban.
Just because Bush decides that the way other nations live does not conform with his way, and must therefore be wrong, is the worst kind of pigheaded jingoistic provocation that causes retaliation - i.e. terrorist attrocities.
We must must MUST get a dialogue going with the Taliban to find a way out of this horrible mess - simply piling more military and civilian bodies into the heaps already there is really not helping - have you thought about that Mr Bush?
........
Mr Bush?
......
It seems he's not there any more .........
Mr Bush is working for the Bush and Co Global Petro Chemical Conglomerate that he and Bush senior always worked for; except when being President meant they had to limit their hours
except of course for little jobs like entertaining Osama Bin Laden's brother just before 9-11.
Still, Tony Bliar has done nicely out of his alliance with them - apart from damage to his 'immortal soul' and ageing about 20 years since he was driven out of office.
..
except of course for little jobs like entertaining Osama Bin Laden's brother just before 9-11.
Still, Tony Bliar has done nicely out of his alliance with them - apart from damage to his 'immortal soul' and ageing about 20 years since he was driven out of office.
..
andy-hughes
/// We must must MUST get a dialogue going with the Taliban to find a way out of this horrible mess -///
Very simple to say sitting in front of a computer, but don't you think this as been tried, only for the Taliban to back out of talks.
They only know one kind of dialogue and that is extreme violence, so we now have no alternative but to use violence against them.
The other alternative is to withdraw, which incidentally I have supported from almost the beginning, in fact we shouldn't have been there in the first place. (and I have my own personal reasons for taking this stance).
But then if we did withdraw and there was an almighty civil war, with a loss of thousands upon thousands of innocent women and children (and of course men, they seem never to get mentioned).
What then? this site would be top heavy with hand-wringing liberals, blaming only the West for all the ills of the World.
So we are wrong to stay, and also wrong to withdraw.
/// We must must MUST get a dialogue going with the Taliban to find a way out of this horrible mess -///
Very simple to say sitting in front of a computer, but don't you think this as been tried, only for the Taliban to back out of talks.
They only know one kind of dialogue and that is extreme violence, so we now have no alternative but to use violence against them.
The other alternative is to withdraw, which incidentally I have supported from almost the beginning, in fact we shouldn't have been there in the first place. (and I have my own personal reasons for taking this stance).
But then if we did withdraw and there was an almighty civil war, with a loss of thousands upon thousands of innocent women and children (and of course men, they seem never to get mentioned).
What then? this site would be top heavy with hand-wringing liberals, blaming only the West for all the ills of the World.
So we are wrong to stay, and also wrong to withdraw.
AOG - it is simple to say - and in comparison with a futile horrendously expensive (in terms of finanace and life) conflict, it IS simple!
Just because the Taliban have backed out of talks once does not mean they are not willing to talk now.
The alternative is that they simply wait us out - as they did the Russians - it's not as if - unlike the Allied troops - they have to go home - they are home.
Just because the Taliban have backed out of talks once does not mean they are not willing to talk now.
The alternative is that they simply wait us out - as they did the Russians - it's not as if - unlike the Allied troops - they have to go home - they are home.
<<So we are wrong to stay, and also wrong to withdraw. >>
I agree with you But
I think the question is: For what purpose
To stay - there isn't really any purpose - and if it's to help the afghans we are probably doing as much harm as good
To withdraw - it will save lives all round. Do the taliban suit me? No. But they have more right to run Afghanistan than we do.
It seems there is a lesser evil - withdrawl and respect other country's rights to self determination.
I agree with you But
I think the question is: For what purpose
To stay - there isn't really any purpose - and if it's to help the afghans we are probably doing as much harm as good
To withdraw - it will save lives all round. Do the taliban suit me? No. But they have more right to run Afghanistan than we do.
It seems there is a lesser evil - withdrawl and respect other country's rights to self determination.
No - but they cut the hair off women they accused (rightly or not) of seeing soldiers, and then they tarred and feathered them. And they shot the kneecaps of anyone they thought might be a collaborator - crippling them for life.
In war situations - real or magined - men will do horrible things to each other, and to civilians - I draw your attention again to the massacre I highlighted in my original response.
Not in any way to lessen the horror it this action - i repeat - it is not the action of The Talbiban, it is the action of a religious biggot who happens to be a member of The Taliban.
Wholesale slaughter of an enemy can never be right - it is as meaningful and producitve as the currrent actions in Afghanistan by the miliatry - i.e. - not at all.
In war situations - real or magined - men will do horrible things to each other, and to civilians - I draw your attention again to the massacre I highlighted in my original response.
Not in any way to lessen the horror it this action - i repeat - it is not the action of The Talbiban, it is the action of a religious biggot who happens to be a member of The Taliban.
Wholesale slaughter of an enemy can never be right - it is as meaningful and producitve as the currrent actions in Afghanistan by the miliatry - i.e. - not at all.
To an outsider it seems that these Taliban scum are just cowards.
They treat the women the way they do because they are unable to defend themselves.
They lay IEDs and hide behind the civilian population because the haven't the guts to indulge in hand to hand fighting.
Allah should be very pleased with their efforts!
They treat the women the way they do because they are unable to defend themselves.
They lay IEDs and hide behind the civilian population because the haven't the guts to indulge in hand to hand fighting.
Allah should be very pleased with their efforts!
<<the haven't the guts to indulge in hand to hand fighting. >>
But they do. Our forces are engaging in fire fights with them on a daily basis. Then they melt away..
They haven't the equipment or resources for a prolonged stand up fight so they do what any smart guerilla force does - eat away at the invader until they go away.
.
But they do. Our forces are engaging in fire fights with them on a daily basis. Then they melt away..
They haven't the equipment or resources for a prolonged stand up fight so they do what any smart guerilla force does - eat away at the invader until they go away.
.
Why highlight this and attribute it to someone just because he's allegedly in the Taliban?
We have enough monsters in this country doing horrendous things to their spouses without needing to go abroad to find a story.
Besides, asking "Can this behaviour be tolerated?" has flummoxed me beccause I thought: Tolerated? By whom? The Afghanistan government? Or whom???
We have enough monsters in this country doing horrendous things to their spouses without needing to go abroad to find a story.
Besides, asking "Can this behaviour be tolerated?" has flummoxed me beccause I thought: Tolerated? By whom? The Afghanistan government? Or whom???
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Shopping & Style4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
