Afghanistan - 20 years on

FoxEye said:
Do you think, all things considered, that they will be better off under Taliban rule?
Click to expand...

Well for a start off, war will be greatly diminished across the whole country. No more drone strikes, blind bombing runs etc. Taliban know there people better then Ghani and co, so I expect security to be better for the average Afghan.

Remains to be seen, how well they will govern. Would be wise of them to have some members from the old government on board to help with the economy, diplomatic dealings and all that nasty paperwork.

Big challenge ahead, liberal vanities on the surface are the least of there problems.
 
B&W said:
Well for a start off, war will be greatly diminished across the whole country. No more drone strikes, blind bombing runs etc. Taliban know there people better then Ghani and co, so I expect security to be better for the average Afghan.

Remains to be seen, how well they will govern. Would be wise of them to have some members from the old government on board to help with the economy, diplomatic dealings and all that nasty paperwork.

Big challenge ahead, liberal vanities on the surface are the least of there problems.
Click to expand...

Blind bombing runs and drone strikes? Yes there were some miss targeted attacks ( that the west tried to avoid but such is the fig of war) but you forgot to mention indiscriminate suicide bombings by the Taliban that specifically went out to kill civilians and cause terror.....so yes security will be better, because they know they won't have to deal with that crap anymore.



Why? because they were the ones dealing it out.

Most idiotic post of the year by you, I doff my cap to you.

Western liberal values, I swear this forum is awash with China/Rus bots.
 
Criticising our own failures is not 'China-Russia love', it's fundamental to a finding genuine solutions.

To simplify one of the issues with 'providing security', I gif thee...

ANA calls in airstrike as they know Taliban are located in a particular area.
Taliban knows because they've infiltrated the ANA for years, also no real loyalty means bribery and coercion unseals many lips.
Taliban leave the area.
US bombs nothing or worse.
Taliban return.

Now how would a hypothetical rural Afghani think about that? This would be on top of years of watching their supposed government fill their own boots whilst doing very little for the people whose lives were meant to be improved by this 'nation-building' facade.

After so long, I would assume most were just tired of the pretense.
 
Last edited:
alchal said:
Blind bombing runs and drone strikes? Yes there were some miss targeted attacks ( that the west tried to avoid but such is the fig of war) but you forgot to mention indiscriminate suicide bombings by the Taliban that specifically went out to kill civilians and cause terror.....so yes security will be better, because they know they won't have to deal with that crap anymore.

Why? because they were the ones dealing it out.

Most idiotic post of the year by you, I doff my cap to you.

Western liberal values, I swear this forum is awash with China/Rus bots.
Click to expand...

B&W is the local Islamist, you'll notice he hasn't mentioned the fact girls being banned from school, imagine trying to run a country by disregarding half the population.
 
Johno please? said:
B&W is the local Islamist, you'll notice he hasn't mentioned the fact girls being banned from school, imagine trying to run a country by disregarding half the population.
Click to expand...

And that's why they never left the bronze age. You can't have half the population un-educated and out of work and have an economy.

Most of their population is also under 25 and never really known Taliban rule. It's not going to go as smoothly for them as it did in the past. They have been living free and will want that back.
 
B&W said:
Well for a start off, war will be greatly diminished across the whole country. No more drone strikes, blind bombing runs etc. Taliban know there people better then Ghani and co, so I expect security to be better for the average Afghan.

Remains to be seen, how well they will govern. Would be wise of them to have some members from the old government on board to help with the economy, diplomatic dealings and all that nasty paperwork.

Big challenge ahead, liberal vanities on the surface are the least of there problems.
Click to expand...
A follow-on question: do you think there has been any meaningful benefit to the last 20 years of non-Taliban rule? Meaningful to you and to Afghans.

And do the positives (if you see any) out-weight the negatives or vice versa?
 
StriderX said:
It wasn't so long ago that we disregarded them as mere house pets as well.
Click to expand...


Can't believe you are comparing us to the Taliban or Islam in general and the treatment of woman.


I'd like to see all the similarities.

Like no school?
Face coverings?
Strict obedience to the man?
Punished for adultery ?
Not allowed to drive?
Not allowed to go outside without a man?
Etc etc

Anyway do pray tell how we are the same.
 
Hagar said:
Surely you mean 'regarded them as...'? Except they weren't, we have had royal queens, many powerful women in their own right, politicians, prime ministers etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I am explicitly talking about pre-suffrage which was only a century ago, not really a criticism though, just contextualizing why some countries might not be 'there yet'.
 
A century ago is quite some time in this context, plus time doesn't really seem to be the issue as women in Afghanistan had far more privileges in the 50's, 60's and 70's. They were already nearly there before the Taliban took over.
 
B&W said:
Four year old girls being auctioned?

Utter horse ****, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

For the last 20 years thousands of Afghans have died for some stupid liberal utopia that they never wanted or believed in.

Who gives a **** about women's football team when half the country can barely afford to feed themselves or are vulnerable to highway robbers and gangsters.

Faux morality makes me sick.

Your post itself is a prime example of everything that is wrong with western liberal thinking on Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing a docu about dating in some asian country, probably japan or china where people wanting to get married basically went to a market and stood their holding their life CV or a relative trying to marry them off would be holding a picture of them.
I think both sexes did it
probably considered an auction by western media standards

some of the poorer European countries do the same thing to
 
Ayahuasca said:
A century ago is quite some time in this context, plus time doesn't really seem to be the issue as women in Afghanistan had far more privileges in the 50's, 60's and 70's. They were already nearly there before the Taliban took over.
Click to expand...

Similar story to Iran. When religious nuts take over things stop progessing.
 
StriderX said:
It wasn't so long ago that we disregarded them as mere house pets as well.
Click to expand...

Dates and evidence, please. Also, the "we" bit is obviously nonsense as you're going back long before anyone alive today was born. More accurately, you're going to a fictional misrepresentation of a past that didn't really exist.

A random example that comes to mind. One of many, but this one is what pops up from my memory at the moment.

In the late 13th century, a woman called Christina who lived in the village of Coddicote brought a civil law case against a man regarding a dispute over inheritance. Very importantly for the time, he was a noble and she was a commoner. She wasn't even a burgess. She was a peasant. I'm not sure if she was a freeman or not, but at most she was a common freeman peasant. So there was a massive difference in social class, which really mattered in 13th century England. On top of the point most relevant to your claim - she was a woman and he was a man. She brought the case. She represented herself in court. The court ruled in her favour, forcibly taking the shop in question from the nobleman and giving it to her.

There was no question of whether or not a woman could own a business, property, etc. That was a given. There's never been any point in time in recorded history in England (or, before England existed, the part of Britain that later became England) in which that wasn't true. Surviving medieval English records make it clear that it wasn't at all unusual for property and businesses to be owned by women. The authorities in medieval England took great care to record who owned what so they knew who to tax. The extant records are quite extensive. The legal question in that particular court case was one of inheritance and death tax. Her husband died. The shop was taken as death tax. She argued that the shop legally passed immediately to her on her husband's death because the shop was owned by the marriage and on her husband's death she became the sole representative of the marriage. The court agreed. Which was indeed what English law of the time stated - a marriage was a legal entity in those days, much like a business today.

So...dates and evidence for your assertion, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom