NationStates

Suriyanakhon wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:Invade afghanistan and make it a colony. Take over the governance. Teach them how to be a civilized nation. Take over their schools, their television, their newspapers. Control their culture. Occupy the place for a generation or two and keep cracking down on independence movements until they take on the character and quality of liberal democratic ones.

I dunno it seems to have worked well with Germany, now they're only destroying Europe economically instead of physically like they did throughout the rest of history

Insaanistan wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
A couple of trillion dollars by this point. Sure is expensive teaching people not to kill civilians. Civilian... civilized... hmm... "Danger to civilians"... "Unfit for civilized"... Hmmm... I'm sure it's all a coincidence.

Young love! If you do not fall in the battle of Maiwand,
By Allah, someone is saving you as a symbol of shame!
With a drop of my sweetheart's blood,
Shed in defense of the Motherland,
Will I put a beauty spot on my forehead,
Such as would put to shame the rose in the garden!

-Malalai Joya at the Battle of Maiwand before being shot by the British.

Don’t think for a second you can force anything on Afghans. Ariana’s people aren’t gonna submit to your second wave of colonization. Hindu Kush’s culture shall always thrive.

Afghans are not any more a dangerous people than any other people. They are not barbarian savages for you to civilize.

You don't seem to understand that you are suggesting the alternative is a struggle to the death and a fundamental inability for the afghan people to co-exist with the rest of the human species.

I have been very explicit. We should leave. If the Aghani's attack again, then there is a clear dynamic here.

The desire by one side to impose Islamism on the world.
The desire by the other side to be left alone, and failing that, to impose Westernism on afghanistan.

if those goals be unachievable, then the next step is obvious.

Leave eachoher alone, like I suggested. If the Afghan's can't do that, the next step should be "We need to impose westernism, but more forcefully".

If your suggestion is that this is impossible and will never work, we are in a bind. Because while you suggest that the Afghani spirit will cause them to resist, the Western spirit is just as strong, and beyond that; we also have our *material interests* to consider.

At that point we are faced with a situation of incompatibility, and one of us shall have to go. You are arguing that our choices are for the west to become Islamic, to face continual violence against ourselves for refusing, or for us to commit genocide.

You will not like the answer we give on that question.

Personally, I place less faith in the Afghani spirit than you do. I think they can be changed into westerners if necessary. I do not consider it necessary unless they attack us again. The notion that they would attack us again, and that they are *unable* to be dissuaded from this path of conflict from the west, is one that places us in a death struggle.

Do you understand that?

The west is *under no obligation to tolerate attacks against itself merely because the alternative is violence against its attackers*.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
-Malalai Joya at the Battle of Maiwand before being shot by the British.

Don’t think for a second you can force anything on Afghans. Ariana’s people aren’t gonna submit to your second wave of colonization. Hindu Kush’s culture shall always thrive.

Afghans are not any more a dangerous people than any other people. They are not barbarian savages for you to civilize.

You don't seem to understand that you are suggesting the alternative is a struggle to the death and a fundamental inability for the afghan people to co-exist with the rest of the human species.

I have been very explicit. We should leave. If the Aghani's attack again, then there is a clear dynamic here.

The desire by one side to impose Islamism on the world.
The desire by the other side to be left alone, and failing that, to impose Westernism on afghanistan.

if those goals be unachievable, then the next step is obvious.

Leave eachoher alone, like I suggested. If the Afghan's can't do that, the next step should be "We need to impose westernism, but more forcefully".

If your suggestion is that this is impossible and will never work, we are in a bind. Because while you suggest that the Afghani spirit will cause them to resist, the Western spirit is just as strong, and beyond that; we also have our *material interests* to consider.

At that point we are faced with a situation of incompatibility, and one of us shall have to go. You are arguing that our choices are for the west to become Islamic, to face continual violence against ourselves for refusing, or for us to commit genocide.

You will not like the answer we give on that question.

Personally, I place less faith in the Afghani spirit than you do. I think they can be changed into westerners if necessary. I do not consider it necessary unless they attack us again. The notion that they would attack us again, and that they are *unable* to be dissuaded from this path of conflict from the west, is one that places us in a death struggle.

Do you understand that?

Oh, grow up, will you?
First off, Afghans as a whole are not responsible for 9/11 any more than you are responsible for the deaths of innocent Afghans during the war.
Afghanistan is not the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Heck, the Taliban vehemently hates half of the groups of the country.
The children in Kabul, the mothers in Mazar, the fathers in Kandahar, they didn’t order anyone to attack the Twin Towers.

The Western World is under no threat of being under terrorist rule. It’s not even under threat of being under Muslim rule.

You are promising breaching international law just to force your culture on another people simply because comparatively few of them belong to a terrorist organization, and that is disgusting.

Insaanistan wrote:Oh, grow up, will you?
First off, Afghans as a whole are not responsible for 9/11 any more than you are responsible for the deaths of innocent Afghans during the war.
Afghanistan is not the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Heck, the Taliban vehemently hates half of the groups of the country.
The children in Kabul, the mothers in Mazar, the fathers in Kandahar, they didn’t order anyone to attack the Twin Towers.

The Western World is under no threat of being under terrorist rule. It’s not even under threat of being under Muslim rule.

You are promising breaching international law just to force your culture on another people simply because comparatively few of them belong to a terrorist organization, and that is disgusting.

This is a very "Liberal" take. The taliban is a product of the culture of afghanistan and its institutions.

The Klan does not arise ex niliho, entirely unrelated to the opinions and prejudices of the rest of the populace. It arises out of the swamp of white supremacy. Which swamp did the Taliban arise from, and what is necessary to drain it?

five pages before people started advocating for imperialism lol

well, took far longer than I expected it to at least so that's cool

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:Oh, grow up, will you?
First off, Afghans as a whole are not responsible for 9/11 any more than you are responsible for the deaths of innocent Afghans during the war.
Afghanistan is not the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Heck, the Taliban vehemently hates half of the groups of the country.
The children in Kabul, the mothers in Mazar, the fathers in Kandahar, they didn’t order anyone to attack the Twin Towers.

The Western World is under no threat of being under terrorist rule. It’s not even under threat of being under Muslim rule.

You are promising breaching international law just to force your culture on another people simply because comparatively few of them belong to a terrorist organization, and that is disgusting.

This is a very "Liberal" take. The taliban is a product of the culture of afghanistan and its institutions.

The Klan does not arise ex niliho, entirely unrelated to the opinions and prejudices of the rest of the populace. It arises out of the swamp of white supremacy. Which swamp did the Taliban arise from, and what is necessary to drain it?

The original Taliban were orphans and war children taken in and taught by extreme mosques and imams in Pakistan. The majority of Afghanis never even heard of 9/11. It’s not the Afghans that are problematic, it’s the fact the Taliban are recruiting from local populations and teaching their interpretation of Islam (taught to them by Pakistanis BTW), and they recruit by using the US occupation and its negative results to coax Afghanis in.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:Oh, grow up, will you?
First off, Afghans as a whole are not responsible for 9/11 any more than you are responsible for the deaths of innocent Afghans during the war.
Afghanistan is not the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Heck, the Taliban vehemently hates half of the groups of the country.
The children in Kabul, the mothers in Mazar, the fathers in Kandahar, they didn’t order anyone to attack the Twin Towers.

The Western World is under no threat of being under terrorist rule. It’s not even under threat of being under Muslim rule.

You are promising breaching international law just to force your culture on another people simply because comparatively few of them belong to a terrorist organization, and that is disgusting.

This is a very "Liberal" take. The taliban is a product of the culture of afghanistan and its institutions.

The Klan does not arise ex niliho, entirely unrelated to the opinions and prejudices of the rest of the populace. It arises out of the swamp of white supremacy. Which swamp did the Taliban arise from, and what is necessary to drain it?

The Taliban are a product of a chaotic situation, Pashtun nationalism and anti-Communism.
“Afghan” culture isn’t a thing because Afghans aren’t one people: Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Aimaqs, Turkmen, Balochis, Pashai, Nuristanis, Gujjar, Arabs, Brahui, Qizilbash, Pamiris, Kyrgyz and Sadat. Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. Sunnis, Shiās, and Sufis. All speaking Pashto, Tajiki, Uzbek, Turkmen, Balochi, Dari, Farsi, Kyrgyz, Arabic and more!

Khoda, you seem to know virtually nothing about Afghanistan except the Taliban live there.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is a very "Liberal" take. The taliban is a product of the culture of afghanistan and its institutions.

The Klan does not arise ex niliho, entirely unrelated to the opinions and prejudices of the rest of the populace. It arises out of the swamp of white supremacy. Which swamp did the Taliban arise from, and what is necessary to drain it?

The original Taliban were orphans and war children taken in and taught by extreme mosques and imams in Pakistan. The majority of Afghanis never even heard of 9/11. It’s not the Afghans that are problematic, it’s the fact the Taliban are recruiting from local populations and teaching their interpretation of Islam (taught to them by Pakistanis BTW), and they recruit by using the US occupation and its negative results to coax Afghanis in.

This merely kicks the can down the road. Where do those extreme mosques and imams arise from?

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is a very "Liberal" take. The taliban is a product of the culture of afghanistan and its institutions.

The Klan does not arise ex niliho, entirely unrelated to the opinions and prejudices of the rest of the populace. It arises out of the swamp of white supremacy. Which swamp did the Taliban arise from, and what is necessary to drain it?

The original Taliban were orphans and war children taken in and taught by extreme mosques and imams in Pakistan. The majority of Afghanis never even heard of 9/11. It’s not the Afghans that are problematic, it’s the fact the Taliban are recruiting from local populations and teaching their interpretation of Islam (taught to them by Pakistanis BTW), and they recruit by using the US occupation and its negative results to coax Afghanis in.

^This
US troops literally went around showing Afghan villagers pictures of 9/11 and they genuinely thought they were pictures of a Taliban attack on Kabul, Afghanistan.

Insaanistan wrote:You are promising breaching international law just to force your culture on another people simply because comparatively few of them belong to a terrorist organization, and that is disgusting.

And you force your culture and religion upon aryan clay in Iran and Khorasan.

Go figure.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
The original Taliban were orphans and war children taken in and taught by extreme mosques and imams in Pakistan. The majority of Afghanis never even heard of 9/11. It’s not the Afghans that are problematic, it’s the fact the Taliban are recruiting from local populations and teaching their interpretation of Islam (taught to them by Pakistanis BTW), and they recruit by using the US occupation and its negative results to coax Afghanis in.

This merely kicks the can down the road. Where do those extreme mosques and imams arise from?

Pakistani and US interference and the US making it easy to look like the bad guy by fricking up the entire region.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:I used to be for this withdrawl but these attacks are opening me up to do a 180.

Alright, so we're gonna be having the grandchildren of soldiers deployed in 2001 fighting in Afghanistan then?

Nakena wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:You are promising breaching international law just to force your culture on another people simply because comparatively few of them belong to a terrorist organization, and that is disgusting.

And you force your culture and religion upon aryan clay in Iran and Khorasan.

Go figure.

(This could be a joke but...)
Not only did my people not force anything on the region, you can blame Shah Ismail for forcing Islam on the region.

Nakena wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:You are promising breaching international law just to force your culture on another people simply because comparatively few of them belong to a terrorist organization, and that is disgusting.

And you force your culture and religion upon aryan clay in Iran and Khorasan.

Go figure.

Does he specifically?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
The original Taliban were orphans and war children taken in and taught by extreme mosques and imams in Pakistan. The majority of Afghanis never even heard of 9/11. It’s not the Afghans that are problematic, it’s the fact the Taliban are recruiting from local populations and teaching their interpretation of Islam (taught to them by Pakistanis BTW), and they recruit by using the US occupation and its negative results to coax Afghanis in.

This merely kicks the can down the road. Where do those extreme mosques and imams arise from?

Pakistan’s inability to curb extreme Islamic interpretations. That’s an issue Pakistan must deal with, under international pressure and support. The Afghan government requires support to delegitimise the Taliban, rather than continuing to give the Taliban justification to continue their war upon civilised society. I’m personally uncertain about the US withdrawing, but the thing that is clear is that it isn’t the Afghanis who’re at all at fault in this situation, only the Taliban and the ongoing US occupation.

Insaanistan wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This merely kicks the can down the road. Where do those extreme mosques and imams arise from?

Pakistani and US interference and the US making it easy to look like the bad guy by fricking up the entire region.

Where does it arise from in Pakistan?
Which US interference specifically?

'm reminded of Hitchens pointing out that the Taliban considers the US condemning a genocide by muslims of non-muslims in Timor to be a crime by the US against Muslims showing the US is "Imperialist".

I'm not convinced that "US interference" is a good metric here unless you can be specific about the grievances.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This merely kicks the can down the road. Where do those extreme mosques and imams arise from?

Pakistan’s inability to curb extreme Islamic interpretations. That’s an issue Pakistan must deal with, under international pressure and support. The Afghan government requires support to delegitimise the Taliban, rather than continuing to give the Taliban justification to continue their war upon civilised society. I’m personally uncertain about the US withdrawing, but the thing that is clear is that it isn’t the Afghanis who’re at all at fault in this situation, only the Taliban and the ongoing US occupation.

It's not inability. Pakistan certainly has the capability. The ISI benefits from extremism.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
Pakistan’s inability to curb extreme Islamic interpretations. That’s an issue Pakistan must deal with, under international pressure and support. The Afghan government requires support to delegitimise the Taliban, rather than continuing to give the Taliban justification to continue their war upon civilised society. I’m personally uncertain about the US withdrawing, but the thing that is clear is that it isn’t the Afghanis who’re at all at fault in this situation, only the Taliban and the ongoing US occupation.

It's not inability. Pakistan certainly has the capability. The ISI benefits from extremism.

I’m not talking just material inability, but moral inability as well.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This merely kicks the can down the road. Where do those extreme mosques and imams arise from?

Pakistan’s inability to curb extreme Islamic interpretations. That’s an issue Pakistan must deal with, under international pressure and support. The Afghan government requires support to delegitimise the Taliban, rather than continuing to give the Taliban justification to continue their war upon civilised society. I’m personally uncertain about the US withdrawing, but the thing that is clear is that it isn’t the Afghanis who’re at all at fault in this situation, only the Taliban and the ongoing US occupation.

Can you tell me of an Islamic country that does manage to curb extreme Islamic interpretations?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
Pakistani and US interference and the US making it easy to look like the bad guy by fricking up the entire region.

Where does it arise from in Pakistan?
Which US interference specifically?

'm reminded of Hitchens pointing out that the Taliban considers the US condemning a genocide by muslims of non-muslims in Timor to be a crime by the US against Muslims showing the US is "Imperialist".

I'm not convinced that "US interference" is a good metric here unless you can be specific about the grievances.

There is a cycle here. We all know how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda started, even if some people are uncomfortable bringing it up- both were direct creations of the CIA. Taliban turns around and takes over Afghanistan. AQ declares a jihad on the West. After 9/11 and the invasion, the U.S carries out atrocities that serve to radicalize people on the ground, creating a further extremist threat (think drone strikes, Abu Ghraib, massacres of civilians, continued support for Israeli and covering for Israeli atrocities in the occupied Palestinian territories, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, etc. etc.).

Ostroeuropa wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
Pakistan’s inability to curb extreme Islamic interpretations. That’s an issue Pakistan must deal with, under international pressure and support. The Afghan government requires support to delegitimise the Taliban, rather than continuing to give the Taliban justification to continue their war upon civilised society. I’m personally uncertain about the US withdrawing, but the thing that is clear is that it isn’t the Afghanis who’re at all at fault in this situation, only the Taliban and the ongoing US occupation.

Can you tell me of an Islamic country that does manage to curb extreme Islamic interpretations?

Côte d’Ivoire.

Now, name me a Western country that curbs its extremism.

Insaanistan wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Can you tell me of an Islamic country that does manage to curb extreme Islamic interpretations?

Côte d’Ivoire.

Now, name me a Western country that curbs its extremism.

Not a majority muslim country.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Canada...

I'm bored already.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
Pakistan’s inability to curb extreme Islamic interpretations. That’s an issue Pakistan must deal with, under international pressure and support. The Afghan government requires support to delegitimise the Taliban, rather than continuing to give the Taliban justification to continue their war upon civilised society. I’m personally uncertain about the US withdrawing, but the thing that is clear is that it isn’t the Afghanis who’re at all at fault in this situation, only the Taliban and the ongoing US occupation.

Can you tell me of an Islamic country that does manage to curb extreme Islamic interpretations?

Except for in Aceh, Indonesia. Indonesia is extremely lax about it Islam (Islam Nusantara). Heck, a woman can walk around without a hijab in most of Indonesia without being threatened. They have other issue, like ethnic violence against Chinese Indonesian, but Islam is generally pretty tame in Indonesia.

Ostroeuropa wrote:Can you tell me of an Islamic country that does manage to curb extreme Islamic interpretations?

Turkey and Iran did quite well until the late 1970s in this regard.

Honestly I think it's best for the Afghan people to start moving to other countries before the Taliban take over the entire country. I say moving to either Europe or Asia will be a lot better than being under Taliban rule.