Can the war on terror be won?

by Charlatan Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

If we look at the war on terror, which has spread between afghanistan, iraq, libya and pakistan, we will find many renewable sources of conflict. If the west was to leave the areas, and the state was to leave them alone, there would be peace. The whole fact that they are there is the cause of the war, and the involvement of the countries in these fights would see them fight because they are being sought.

So what would happen if the near east was to leave the militants alone? I think pakistan already has sharia law, so they could just leave them alone and watch the peace flow. The exceptions are areas where they have christians and muslims living close together.

If we were to give them sharia law in africa, the christians wouldn;t mind that much. It is just stricter morality, with laws keeping the stricter morality in place.

What should be done to end the war on terror?

by Stox 16 Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:30 am

Shirina wrote:Hello, Stox:

Most of the soldiers who fought in Vietnam were conscripts - just average kids yanked right out of their sneakers and put into combat boots. They were not particularly well-trained nor were they particularly well-screened. America had as many as 550,000 soldiers in Vietnam in 1968 alone. In any city with a population of 550,000, you're going to see murder - and that's just a standard city. Add to that military-grade weaponry, enemies trying to kill you, and the horrors of warfare, it's a small wonder that there weren't hundreds, perhaps thousands of Lt. Calleys.

Now, I'm not trying to justify what Calley did, but I often hear non-Americans bringing up the Mai Lai incident as somehow being the quintessential representation of how the US Military conducts its wars. But I have to ask - when was the last time Britain fielded an army of 550,000 in one single theater of operations? Even in WWII, the UK and all of its colonies never mustered an army of that size and put them all in one place. Nor has any other European nation with the exception of Nazi Germany during Operation Barbarossa. With half a million soldiers running around in asymmetrical combat for nearly a decade, a Mai Lai type incident was inevitable. In fact, I'm surprised there wasn't more.

The US military learned numerous valuable lessons from the Vietnam War; it was practically redesigned from the ground up. But the most important lesson learned was that the most effective army is a volunteer army which spends a year or more in training before being sent into combat. This helps minimize incidents like Mai Lai.

Again, I'm not excusing Lt. Calley, but rather I'm merely offering up a different perspective on how Mai Lai is viewed in relation to America and its military.

Hello Shirina
I cannot disagree with what you have said. I cannot think of the last UK army to field 550,000 in one go...but your quite right in pointing out the whole question of training. as its one of the most important areas within any Army. I would also full agree with you on the question of learn't lessons in Vietnam. I can only speak as I find...but US Army training when i was working with them was very high overall...yes something are not 100%, but the overall standard I myself found in the US Army very good. This will not go down well with most people..but I come away with a great deal of respect for US forces...I would far much rather have your boys with me. than not have them at all...all Armies think they are better than other Armies..it was like this in both WW1 and WW2. but the fact is different Armies bring different skills... its just how it is...

by ROB Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:24 am

Stox,

US soldiers in Vietnam were of two distinct types.

Special Forces, Rangers, Navy SEALs, and the like were mostly volunteers at the point of induction and all volunteers at the point of selection into these units. Their training was extensive.

On the other hand, the vast majority of regular soldiers were conscripts, draftees, including Marines. By the first anniversaries of their inductions, they were in or on their way to Vietnam, hastily trained and hastily deployed. As Shirina pointed out, more than half a million at a time were in Vietnam. That peak number was consistent for perhaps five years.

by Shirina Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:40 am

Hello, Bobby:

Even you in your posting referred to it as an Incident thereby lower grading it from a Massacre.

I'm not intentionally trying to downplay what occurred, but when it comes to discussing history, I do my best to avoid using emotionally charged words as they tend to distract from the real point. The word "massacre" is, beyond a doubt, emotionally charged. You, of course, are quite free to call it a "massacre" if you wish to.

But I feel there must be something wrong, when people not only try to excuse the deed, But the Government actually tried to cover it up.

Here, Bobby, I will agree with you. It should NOT have been covered up, and those responsible should have been locked up and the key thrown away. There is no question of that, and the actions of the military in regards to Mai Lai were inexcusable.

However, in order to truly understand history, knowing the "whats" means little if you also don't know the "whys." Did the military cover it up because it thought Mai Lai was perfectly fine? Of course not. The "why" in this case centers on the political atmosphere back in the USA. Keep in mind that mass protests were taking place, recruitment offices and ROTC centers were being burned, and just two years later, these protests would reach a point where National Guardsmen would open fire on a group of students, resulting in the Kent State deaths.

An incident like Mai Lai would seriously jeopardize America's war effort in Vietnam if it was put out into the open like a standard high-profile murder. This incident would have been fodder for the anti-war protesters and no doubt would have caused a firestorm of civil unrest even greater than before. In addition, it would have hampered the ability for American troops to conduct legitimate missions during the conduct of that war. Even as it was, the military had its hands tied by bureaucrats in Washington that couldn't quite decide if they wanted to win over there.

What happened in Mai Lai was wrong. It was an atrocity. Yes, it was even a massacre. I do not condone it nor do I feel the military's handling of it to be anything less than deplorable. At the same time, however, I understand it from more than just the perspective of someone who finds incidents like Mai Lai to be appalling. I try to see it not just as an atrocity but also as an historical event, and that means trying to understand (not condone) all of the forces at work which caused it to transpire as it did.

I hope this helps to clarify my perspective on Mai Lai.

by Shirina Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:53 am

Greetings, Stox:

.yes something are not 100%, but the overall standard I myself found in the US Army very good.

The training American soldiers receive today is among the best in the world, and it is designed to weed out the psychotic and emotionally unstable. When I was in boot camp for the USN, I saw several people who snapped and had to be carried out of the barracks in straitjackets. This may seem cruel, but when it comes to putting people into combat, you need to know they aren't going to turn that M60 on his fellow soldiers or the civilian population. I suppose this is why the M1 Carbines we drilled with never had a clip loaded!

During the Iraq war, however, our standards began to slip. There was such a shortfall of soldiers that the Army, especially, was accepting anyone with a pulse, and this allowed undesirables into the ranks. This resulted in a few "incidents" in Iraq including the Al Gharib prison scandal. However, considering we've been at this for almost 10 years, most of it fighting insurgents in asymmetrical warfare, the number of these incidents is remarkably low. This, I feel, gives a solid testimony for our training and for the mental stability of our fighting men and women. We tend to focus on the negative, though, so all eyes are on Al Gharib or Mai Lai. Sometimes we need to spend more time focusing on the small acts of kindness shown by individual soldiers as a counterpoint. Otherwise it becomes easy to believe that the US Army and Marine Corp. are a bunch of blood-thirsty savages out raping, looting, and shooting the civilian population.

by bobby Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:40 pm

Sharina. Many thanks for that posting. That is all I wanted to hear. Believe me when I say, I do not want to fall out with you in any way, I have far too much respect for your knowledge and outlook on most things. I just feel right is right, and when wrong is done it should be seen for exactly what it is.

Also I think Patriotism has a part to play in the way we percieve stuff, and it can be harder to admit that yours are out of order, but again thank you, as you have shown honesty, a quality on short supply these days. Bob .

by bobby Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:46 pm

Sharina said : Sometimes we need to spend more time focusing on the small acts of kindness shown by individual soldiers as a counterpoint.

That is precicely why I mentioned the Sergeant Helocopter pilot, I think his name is Johnson? This man risked his life in order to evacuate some survivors of the Killings, and I believe he wasn't on his own, and i'm sure there are more like this Segeant in the US Army , than those of C company.

by Stox 16 Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:58 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox,

US soldiers in Vietnam were of two distinct types.

Special Forces, Rangers, Navy SEALs, and the like were mostly volunteers at the point of induction and all volunteers at the point of selection into these units. Their training was extensive.

On the other hand, the vast majority of regular soldiers were conscripts, draftees, including Marines. By the first anniversaries of their inductions, they were in or on their way to Vietnam, hastily trained and hastily deployed. As Shirina pointed out, more than half a million at a time were in Vietnam. That peak number was consistent for perhaps five years.

Hello Rock
I fully understand this Rock...Vietnam was a very big ask even for the US Army...bobby sums it up best with his last post....

by Stox 16 Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:00 am

bobby wrote: Sharina said : Sometimes we need to spend more time focusing on the small acts of kindness shown by individual soldiers as a counterpoint.

That is precicely why I mentioned the Sergeant Helocopter pilot, I think his name is Johnson? This man risked his life in order to evacuate some survivors of the Killings, and I believe he wasn't on his own, and i'm sure there are more like this Segeant in the US Army , than those of C company.

a Top reply Bobby I must say...hats off to you my good mate

by Stox 16 Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:06 am

Shirina wrote:Greetings, Stox:
.yes something are not 100%, but the overall standard I myself found in the US Army very good.
The training American soldiers receive today is among the best in the world, and it is designed to weed out the psychotic and emotionally unstable. When I was in boot camp for the USN, I saw several people who snapped and had to be carried out of the barracks in straitjackets. This may seem cruel, but when it comes to putting people into combat, you need to know they aren't going to turn that M60 on his fellow soldiers or the civilian population. I suppose this is why the M1 Carbines we drilled with never had a clip loaded!

During the Iraq war, however, our standards began to slip. There was such a shortfall of soldiers that the Army, especially, was accepting anyone with a pulse, and this allowed undesirables into the ranks. This resulted in a few "incidents" in Iraq including the Al Gharib prison scandal. However, considering we've been at this for almost 10 years, most of it fighting insurgents in asymmetrical warfare, the number of these incidents is remarkably low. This, I feel, gives a solid testimony for our training and for the mental stability of our fighting men and women. We tend to focus on the negative, though, so all eyes are on Al Gharib or Mai Lai. Sometimes we need to spend more time focusing on the small acts of kindness shown by individual soldiers as a counterpoint. Otherwise it becomes easy to believe that the US Army and Marine Corp. are a bunch of blood-thirsty savages out raping, looting, and shooting the civilian population.

a most fair point I must say...you know all Armies have there dark scandals and I guess will go on having them...I can only comment on what I have seen and say the US Army has a good standard of training overall...

by witchfinder Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:04 am

With two public relations catastrophes by the Americans its now time to exit

In the past couple of weeks there has been two monumental disasters in Afghanistan, one of which may be excusable bearing in mind that mental strain and illness of a psychiatric / psychological nature could be the cause.
The other disaster, that of burning holy books is not excusable, it may have been done in error, but some errors are just plain incompetence.

One of these public relations catastrophes has come right after the other, like starting a fire and then pouring petrol on it, and together it has been a propoganda gift for the Taliban and their terrorist associates.

By my reckoning the damage is not repairable, allied forces are now on highest alert for retaliation, and the job of attempting to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Afghans is now virtualy impossible, its time to exit Afghanistan and leave security to Afghans.

We have not failed in our mission because Afghanistan is not the same lawless country it was, there is some form of credible government and democracy, there are Afghan security forces capable of keeping the terrorists at least under control, and the Taliban & Co no longer have free reign to go where they like.

To say that the mission has failed would make the hundreds of allied fatalities seem worthless, and I personaly think that those dead soldiers did not die for nothing, Afghanistan in 2001 was the worlds number 1 centre for trainning terrorists, today it is not, the world is safer.

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:19 am

The Media consistently refer to Afghanistan as though it were a single Nation, which is not only inaccurate but lazy. Actually it's quite hard to think of any Country in the world which consists of just one ethnic type.
Even saying "The Taliban" is a catch-all description of various like-minded tribal groups in the South of the country, who are united mainly by their common language, and a natural desire to expel the foreign warrior.

Main ethnic groups: Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkmen, Aimaq, Baluch, Nuristani, Kizilbash.
Religions: Sunni Muslim 80%, Shi'a Muslim 19%, other 1%.
Main languages: Dari (Afghan Farsi), Pashto.

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:09 pm

witchfinder wrote:With two public relations catastrophes by the Americans its now time to exit

In the past couple of weeks there has been two monumental disasters in Afghanistan, one of which may be excusable bearing in mind that mental strain and illness of a psychiatric / psychological nature could be the cause.
The other disaster, that of burning holy books is not excusable, it may have been done in error, but some errors are just plain incompetence.

One of these public relations catastrophes has come right after the other, like starting a fire and then pouring petrol on it, and together it has been a propoganda gift for the Taliban and their terrorist associates.

By my reckoning the damage is not repairable, allied forces are now on highest alert for retaliation, and the job of attempting to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Afghans is now virtualy impossible, its time to exit Afghanistan and leave security to Afghans.

We have not failed in our mission because Afghanistan is not the same lawless country it was, there is some form of credible government and democracy, there are Afghan security forces capable of keeping the terrorists at least under control, and the Taliban & Co no longer have free reign to go where they like.

To say that the mission has failed would make the hundreds of allied fatalities seem worthless, and I personaly think that those dead soldiers did not die for nothing, Afghanistan in 2001 was the worlds number 1 centre for trainning terrorists, today it is not, the world is safer.

I wish I had your optimism with regard to the future of Afghanistan. I agree that the west should get out, but what happens next is, to my mind, unknown.

Currently they have a Government which is 'governing' a country whose 'stability' has been maintained by Western troops, supported by Afghans. For the moment, because of events, the Afghans. are united in their effort to get the troops out. Once they are gone, tribal differences will again become important. Whatever we, in the West, think, tribalism isn't easily eradicated. Look at Africa.

My belief is that the Taliban will again rear its head. It has made little effort in the approaches made to it to even discuss meetings etc. (At least it seems that way in public - i n private, who knows) How many Taliban men have infiltrated the police and Afghan army. Already these forces are under attack. The loss of men has been unacceptable and cannot but deter further recruitment.

I don't believe the mission has failed. What I do believe is that the Afghans have failed to make the most of their freedom out of selfish and religious reasons.

Terrorist training still happens, but is vastly reduced. Most has simply moved elsewhere.

When will we in the West realise we have different values than the Arabs? When will the Arabs learn to deal with their own problems? If they can't 'upset' other Arab nations by taking their own actions, why should we?

But then, what do I know.

by astra Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:42 pm

If they can't 'upset' other Arab nations by taking their own actions, why should we?

OIL

When RoB has sorted out how to replace the internal combustion engine and Petrol, then, we can leave those countries to fester!

Onlythat, then, our borders will have to be tighter than a Duck's backside

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:50 pm

astra Today at 8:42 pm

If they can't 'upset' other Arab nations by taking their own actions, why should we?

OIL

When RoB has sorted out how to replace the internal combustion engine and Petrol, then, we can leave those countries to fester!

Onlythat, then, our borders will have to be tighter than a Duck's backside

Yes. I realise that, but don't accept that needed to have been the case. The Arab nations have to sell their oil. All countries need oil but we seem to be the nation, with the USA, who have to keep it flowing. Why the USA. The only reason that the USA needs to be involved is to support Saudi Arabia as far as I can see. Its oil imports from Iraq are very small, and could be replaced from other sources, including new finds in the US. Saudi Arabia is the only major Mid.E.supplier to the USA.
India, China have the right idea. Just keep their noses out of internal Arab affairs and buy the oil.
The problem is that we have not done the same, and we are now paying the price in lives and antagonism from the Arabs. Not only that the antagonism has been brought to our own shores.

But then, what do I know.

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:52 pm

"India, China have the right idea. Just keep their noses out of internal Arab affairs and buy the oil."

Just buy the Oil. No questions asked, eh? We get it from a bloke down the Pub who says it fell off a lorry.

by trevorw2539 Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:15 pm

by oftenwrong Yesterday at 10:52 pm

"India, China have the right idea. Just keep their noses out of internal Arab affairs and buy the oil."

Just buy the Oil. No questions asked, eh? We get it from a bloke down the Pub who says it fell off a lorry.

Not sure of the point you're making.
My argument is this. These nations have their own land and rights to the oil. They are at liberty to sell to those they choose to deal with.
If a nation wished to buy from us an item we possess, but put the condition that we must first get rid of the Tory government, we would tell them to mind their own business (on second thoughts - we might agree).
We know where the oil comes from, who it belongs to and we really have no 'God given' right to tell them what to do with their affairs.
India and China have a rapidly growing need for oil. Their needs are far in excess of their own resources at the moment. Who is going to be favoured if oil becomes short in supply. Those who interfere or those who simply trade.
My point is that only in exceptional cases should we interfere. Kuwait was one were I feel we were right to oust the Iraqi's who broke their agreement to recognise Kuwait as independent. Oh. Of course, just a small point, Smile

we needed the oil. But not necessarily to invade Iraq. Plus the important fact that it was a close 'ally' of the US with US bases etc. Drat the US. Always come in somewhere ooops. Smile

We, the US and other nations, do now have a defence arrangement with Kuwait. Hopefully never to use it.

WE ARE NOT ARABS. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND/AGREE WITH THEIR WAYS. RELIGION DOMINATES THEIR LIVES - DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. WE ARE PAST THAT STAGE. THEIR 'DEMOCRACY' IS NOT OUR TYPE OF DEMOCRACY. Apart from a few Bishops in the Lords we are not 'religion driven'. Don't fool yourselves. Religion is always there, sometimes in the background, for the Arab.
Maybe in a few decades/centuries they will change, or we will change. Who knows. Until then we must accept each other for what we are, fellow human beings.
Or course violent men on both sides must be condemned.

Remember Rudyard Kipling. First and last verse.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face,
tho' they come from the ends of the earth!

Meeting of the minds.

Dear Lord fill my mind with worthwhile stuff, and nudge me hard when I've said enough. Nudge, Nudge, Thump. Sleep

OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:33 pm

Incidentally, the Afghans are not Arabs either.

by Shirina Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:30 pm

Who is going to be favoured if oil becomes short in supply. Those who interfere or those who simply trade.

Those who are willing to pay the most.

"India, China have the right idea. Just keep their noses out of internal Arab affairs and buy the oil."

India and China are riding on the coattails of the Western powers. They can afford to keep their noses out of Arab affairs because the West is doing all the work for them. Rest assured that if the West pulled out of the Middle East, the Russians and the Chinese would move in to fill the vacuum.

Perhaps you remember back in 1986 when Iran was launching air assaults on Kuwaiti-flagged ships in the Persian Gulf in retaliation for Kuwait's support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. The Kuwaiti government appealed to both the United States and the Soviet Union for help. When the USA balked at interfering, the Soviets rushed right in and began reflagging Kuwaiti tankers under the Russian banner. It wasn't until this happened when the USA decided to get involved, and we've been there ever since.

Three years later, the USSR collapsed and its once mighty navy sat rusting away in port. The Chinese barely had a navy to speak of at that time save for some extremely noisy nuclear submarines of the Han class. These things were so noisy that you didn't even need sonar to detect them. You just had to put your ear to the deck of your ship.

At any rate, after 1991, there wasn't a naval power on the planet capable of keeping the Persian Gulf open - except for the US and the UK. Today, the Soviets are rebuilding their fleet and the Chinese are becoming a formidable regional power, but neither nation yet has the ability to truly project their power into the Persian Gulf. However, should the US pull out of the region, you can bet that the Russians or the Chinese - or both - would just LOVE controlling that vital region of the world. They can't do it right now as neither can challenge the USN, but without the USN or the RN present, they'd rush right in - just as the Soviets did in 1986.

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:14 pm

http://odb.org/2011/01/21/nature-abhors-a-vacuum/

by trevorw2539 Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:22 pm

by oftenwrong Today at 5:33 pm

Incidentally, the Afghans are not Arabs either.

What is an Arab? The Jews are Arabs if you talk genetics. Not if you talk language/religion. Pashtuns etc are all part of the old Mesopotamia which has always been 'Arabic'. First mention on stone around 600 BC (Aribi). Where these others nations come from is often unclear, but having been in the area for centuries they have become 'Arabs'.

The Assyrian and Babylonians didn't help matters by moving conquered people from their homeland far away. Hence 'Samaritans' in the NT were originally from Arabia and not descendant Hebrews.

I accept that the people who make up Afghanistan are different tribes.
I accept that they are 'tribal'. But to most people they would be classed as 'Arabs' by their religion etc. which well over 95% Afghanis. adhere to.
Considering the violent History of the ME from Sumerian/Egyptian empire times there must be quite a mixture of peoples.

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:36 pm

"But to most people they would be classed as 'Arabs' by their religion "

Most people are going to be slightly confused at the number of "Arabs" they would encounter in Pakhistan, East Bengal, Malaysia and The Phillipines where the population is Muslim as in Afghanistan.

by trevorw2539 Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:00 pm

oftenwrong wrote: "But to most people they would be classed as 'Arabs' by their religion "

Most people are going to be slightly confused at the number of "Arabs" they would encounter in Pakhistan, East Bengal, Malaysia and The Phillipines where the population is Muslim as in Afghanistan.

We were talking about Afghanistan. If you were to ask who the people were in that area most people would tell you 'Arabs' Shocked

.

by astra Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:00 pm

Trevor,

I once had a friend from Chad - a trainee pilot when I was playing with printing machines, and I'll never forget him. This of political correctness was coming in, and this fellow got REALLY cross if anyone called him "coloured" "I BLACK" he would scream at the person who was not listening to him

I think if you walk into the local corner shop and call the person behind the counter an ARAB he will take offence - Asian I would guesstimate at being in order.

It is like a Chines person in a carry out saying all us Scots and English look the same! :affraid:

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:01 pm

"If you were to ask who the people were in that area most people would tell you 'Arabs' ."

You might be right, trevorw2539, and many people might tell you that the inhabitants of Wales are English.

by oftenwrong Thu May 10, 2012 7:57 pm

Human error, technical failure or weather conditions behind SuperJet-100 crash - experts

Not Al Quaida? They usually get blamed for such incidents.

http://rt.com/news/superjet-human-error-experts-933/

by oftenwrong Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:33 pm

"The "War on Terror" can never be won as long as an established regime of any Country describes all who oppose it as "Terrorists".

One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

by Shirina Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:34 pm

Freedom Fighter.

If you mean they fight freedom, then I would agree.

However, you should ask that poor young woman who was taken out into the desert by a mob of slavering Taliban and shot repeatedly with an automatic weapon simply for committing adultery (executed without a trial, I might add) ... ask her how free she thinks she was? Oh wait, you can't ... she's dead.

by ROB Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:45 am

Shirina wrote:
Re: Can the war on terror be won?
by Shirina on Fri 27 Jul 2012 - 22:34
Freedom Fighter.
If you mean they fight freedom, then I would agree.

However, you should ask that poor young woman who was taken out into the desert by a mob of slavering Taliban and shot repeatedly with an automatic weapon simply for committing adultery (executed without a trial, I might add) ... ask her how free she thinks she was? Oh wait, you can't ... she's dead.

Shirina’s post, quoted above, is in response to oftenwrong’s post, quoted below.

oftenwrong wrote:
Re: Can the war on terror be won?
by oftenwrong on Fri 27 Jul 2012 - 19:33

One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

And “another man's Freedom Fighter” (your “Freedom Fighter”, apparently) is, to a decent, moral woman (Shirina) and a decent, moral man (RockOnBrother), a murderer who, at close (near point blank) range, callously and casually pumps nine bullets into the skull of an innocent Muslim woman whose “crime” was being raped (and thus committing “adultery”) by one or more taliban officials (lowercase intentional).

Shirina wrote:
… ask her how free she thinks she was? Oh wait, you can't ... she's dead.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by RockOnBrother on Mon 9 Jul 2012 - 18:49

Full Reuters story: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/07/us-afghanistan-taliban-woman-idUKBRE8660C320120707

Video: Taliban publicly execute woman near Kabul
https://www.youtube.com/v/vCV61MYdRj8

Please click the video link above to see the woman die.

by Shirina Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:00 am

There are two things that separate a "freedom fighter" from a terrorist:

1.) Freedom fighters do not fight for the right to oppress and kill others.

2.) Freedom fighters do not brutalize their own people.

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:51 am

Truth is always the first victim of conflict.

by stuart torr Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:37 pm

After reading all of the posts in this thread, the ones that make most sense are Shirina's, and the very last one posted by OW, which is so true i'm afraid, "truth is always the first victim of conflict".
How many of today's wars/conflicts does that apply to?
How many of them are we or the US interfering in?

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:34 pm

Last weekend, Oscar Quine interviewed Shami Chakrabati in The Independent Magazine. Two of her statements leap off the page;

"If you don't stand up for other people's rights, you're going to lose your own."

".... with younger people, there's a generation who aren't complicit in the Iraq War and the War on Terror so can see that there is abuse of power .... I just wish some of our politicians would see that too."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/shami-chakrabarti-the-civil-liberties-campaigner-talks-planet-of-the-apes-optimism-and-supporting-jon-gaunt-9810930.html

by boatlady Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:55 pm

Some very sensible remarks in that interview - thanks for posting the link -but did you read the comments?
After about 20 I gave up - all slavering fear mongers expressing thinly-veiled racial hatred

by stuart torr Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:16 pm

You got that far boatlady? the racial hatred was not that thinly veiled.

by boatlady Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:50 pm

Stuff like this gives me acute fear for the future - it seems the humane, liberal attitudes and beliefs that were current in my youth are being replaced by various rabid forms of tribalism and hatred, combined with an environment where it seems everyone is adopting the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude which will lead in time to the wholesale destitution and even death of vulnerable individuals - it's like history moving backwards to the dark ages

by stuart torr Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:22 pm

So very true i'm afraid boatlady, it appears that to most things if we ever met we would be nodding our heads to each other quite a lot, ahah, but the vulnerable individuals would be suffering badly wouldn't they? Sad

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:26 pm

misogyny

[ mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)ni ]

noun: misogyny

dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women:

"she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny"

synonyms: jingoism · excessive patriotism · blind patriotism ·

Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

by boatlady Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:46 pm

Not sure where that comes in OW - but thank you for the definition.

Or do you think part of what we are seeing is some sort of backlash against feminism?

There's certainly evidence of a closing of ranks against anything that challenges the dominant white middle class male hegemony

by stuart torr Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:03 pm

Send them this way boatlady, myself and my neighbour will explain female rights to them as we are strong believers of it.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:39 pm

QUOTE: ".... a closing of ranks against anything that challenges the dominant white middle class male hegemony."

Prior to 2010 the proportion of female MPs in Parliament was 29% but has now fallen to 22%.

by boatlady Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:08 pm

Us poor and women are becoming invisible

by Sponsored content