Chaos As Kabul Falls

Larff

Cos "apart from " Germany kicking off then the 1900 century has been largely peaceful
Have you considered becoming a politician ?

 

Greece, Northern Ireland , Czhecks, Cyprus on and on ad finitum
Which part of history do you not disregard ?

 

Not politically correct but this did make me laugh:

 

But didn’t the founder of Christianity espouse loving thy neighbour, forgiveness, and advise people to follow Gods original 10 guidelines to harmonious living ?

You call this madness?

In my experience Christians do not go to ‘their clubhouse’ to “feel superior” as you claim.
In fact, the opposite is true.
And according to my Moslem friends Islam is also a religion of peace.

It is ‘people’ who use religion as a power play and have misinterpreted its tenets from their inception for their own ends - from 2000 years ago, the Middle Ages, and occasional modern day nutters.

The original concepts were not madness, but today most just follow the herd and criticise and reject ‘religion’ out of hand without any personal investigation of what Christianity (or Islam) is really all about.

Martin Luther in the 1500’s highlighted many of the manipulative power play aspects of the Catholic Church which did not follow the original concept. The ‘Church’ was at that time all about power and control and was corrupted.

His namesake, Dr Martin Luther King, said
“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or servant of the state.
It must be the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and critic of the state, and never its tool.”

That concept is certainly not what radical fundamental Islam is about.

 

For once, like others, I entirely agree.

I think the USA has a history of helping ‘Freedom Fighters’ who then ‘turn bad’ once original objectives are achieved and they suddenly morph into ‘Rebel Revolutionaries’ who must be resisted.

‘My enemies enemy is my friend - but only until my enemy is defeated.
Then I might not be quite so friendly with my friend any more.’

And innocent civilians in the country of old friends are left to look after themselves, often exposed and holding the baby.

 

That post is hilarious, and I am amazed that it attracted so many likes from sensible people.

You claim that the west's intervention was "imperialist" yet you ignore the fact that the communist Russian occupation was, in itself, an "imperialist" occupation. Had the Russians not invaded with the intention to spread communism, then the US wouldn't have helped their opposition.

Bonkers.

 

From Jane Ferguson (correspondent for PBS).

 

Both Christians and Muslims can be inspired by their faiths to do great and selfless things. There is no monopoly that either they have over each other or that they or atheists have.

However, within the conditions of conflict or without democracy any religion can be used to justify the persecution of the other or of its own. Anyone hoping to leave Christianity’s faults in the past only has to look as far back as the Bosnian genocide and the atrocities committed against Muslims.

 

Can I strongly recommend that anybody interested in events in Afghanistan watches 'Bitter Lake' - a really superb BBC documentary on iPlayer. Got some great archive footage and fascinating content. It goes on for about 2 and a half hours though - but every minute is excellent

 

I can second that. I watched it some time ago - a really in depth look at how things developed.

 

‘In the name of .... ‘ etc
It’s an excuse, not a reason.
It is ‘man’s freewill’ that twists and manipulates.
The great religions are not movements of hatred or genocide. The opposite is true.

You can ignore what the religions actually stand for and quote past wrongs all day long.

Where you are mistaken is using the term ‘Christanity’s faults’.
It is not a fault in Christianity that caused the disaster in Bosnia. It was the evil bastewards in power.

 

There you go with your whataboutism again, but your attempts at deflection are ludricrous.

There is no expansionism mantra driven by Christianity in the same way that there is in certain branches of Islam. Even the perpetrators of the killings in Bosnia didn't carry out executions because of a pretence that Christian teachings prescribe killing "non-believers". The killings were carried out by power hungry Bosnian generals, like the communist Mladic, to seize power over Bosnia, not as a statement of Christian intentions. Indeed, he referred to the victims of the genocide as Turkish, rather than Muslims, and he was seen as a racist bigot, rather than anti Muslim, as he would even criticise the use of non-white soldiers in the UN peace keeping force.

NATO fought against the Bosnian Serbs (the perps of the massacres), they didn't join in and help! The Western courts in Germany, and in the Hague saw that the main perps were imprisoned for their crimes of genocide. The US Congress declared Mladic's crimes as genocide. It was dealt with "in house" using the rules of justice, which is a clear declaration that we do not approve of such crimes and the criminals must be dealt with.

Compare this with what is happening in the Middle East where Islamic nations stand by, or even add fuel to the fire, whilst the genocide carries on in the name of Islam against non-believers, women and children.

 

‘Imperialism’ has many faces from many sources.


We just have to look at the British Lion, the Russian bear, the American eagle, the Chinese dragon to see Imperialists at work.

I liked Clive’s post because he is correct in his assertion that ‘the West’ aided the underarmed Afghans against Russian Imperialism. And then created a monster.
America has ‘previous’ on this type of intervention and result.

We were no better, in fact, in the days of Empire, probably worse.

Having lived in SA, one tiny example was the invasion of Zululand by the Brits.
Zululand was recognised at the time (by Britain) as a sovereign territory yet ‘we’ deliberately caused conditions to invade. King Cetshwayo did not want a war.
They outthought and outmanoeuvred Chelmsford and there was a massacre at the battle of Islandlwana.
The zulu generals then immediately crossed the border, invaded sovereign territory Natal and attacked a field hospital at Rourkes Drift, against the direct instruction of King Cetshwayo.

We know the result, a ‘heroic’ repulse of the zulus armed with a cowhide shield and stabbing spear against modern rifles, many politically motivated VC’s, stories of heroism to teach British children and a damn good Michael Caine movie.

Today, the Russian communists annexing Crimea and threatening the Ukraine etc; Chinese power and expansive world influence by increasing financial control on world affairs are just 2 nasty examples of power that if unchecked can lead to a bleak future imo.

With apologies to George Orwell, All forms of Imperialism are equal , but some are more equal than others.

 

I'll refer you to my previous point regarding Islam being 500 years younger than Christianity.

Over the last 500+ years Christian nations have developed into something much more secular. Yep, it's taken at least that long. Therefore pointing out what was happening here and in the rest of the Christian world 500 and more years ago is entirely relevant.

Expecting Islam to suddenly 'see the light' and almost instantly recognise that modern, western, liberal, secularism is superior to their fundamentalist beliefs ( which I of course believe they are) and then adopt them immediately without going through any sort of 'development process' at all, is probably over optimistic.

 

It's taken "that long" because it would take years on a donkey to get from one side of the continent or world, and back again. Communication had to be face to face, or it was inexorably slow.

Communication is now instant, is virtual with no barriers, and far more efficient, and travel can happen same day to most parts of the world, we do not have to wait another 500 to 1,000 years.

That said, I agree, to expect Islamic fundamentalists to accept the Christian/western way of things is highly unlikely, and pressure we put on them to change is likely to have the opposite effect and be self-defeating. That is why I have been consistent when I say that change to the more reasonable face of Islam as practiced across most of the Muslim world, needs to be led by those non extremist Muslims. They have been saying for years that fundamentalism, leading to bombs, genocide and other atrocities are not the true Islam - so it is about time they actually demonstrated that with actions rather than just stand by letting it happen in the name of Islam. No, of course it won't be an immediate seeing of the light, but as it is a minority problem, it could be achieved in a generation or two, if not before.

 

Many people of a religious persuasion do good works as well of course. It's very noble. They cite their religion as being the 'moral compass' that guides them in this altruism. But it's entirely possible to have that same moral compass without any religion whatsoever. Dawkins is very strong on this. That recognising the advantages of being 'collectively generous' is part of our common humanity and has simply been commandeered by religions (who then claim to have invented it for their own ends and to show themselves in a good light).

As to atheism, it's as much a faith position as any other religion. There's no real evidence either way as to whether or not there is some sort 'supreme being' who was perhaps interventionist pre big-bang although there's no sign at all of any interference whatsoever since. So, by definition, the jury's out.

The only true way (for me at least) is agnosticism. Not a wishy-washy position at all. I have no way of telling one way or another (so recognise and pay attention to that) but I'll be damned if I'll cede any sort of i.t k., inside track to anyone. And I'm content with that. I'd love to know the answer but, seeing as the chances of the necessary evidence being provided one way or the other in my lifetime are close to zero, it ceased to bother me some time ago. All the known wonders of this planet, its biodiversity and the universe beyond (most of which have only recently become 'known') are quite enough to be going along with in the meantime ta very much.

I have no idea why Dawkins isn't an agnostic rather than an atheist. Maybe simply to p.ss the Bible Belt off. He's had a few run-ins with them. I once quizzed him about this at a lecture in Edinburgh. He didn't have a good answer but it was fairly clear that he'd been asked the question before. Started babbling on about faeries at the bottom of the garden.

 

I'm not denying any of that, I agree with it all.

But Clive's post was obviously referring to the west's imperialist involvement as it gave him the opportunity to have a dig, whilst he ignored that it was Russia's imperialist occupation that started it all in the first place.

 

A minor point - but why isn't more being asked of why Qatar are happily harbouring up to 20 high-ranking Taliban officials?

 

It isn't a minor point, Pakistan also.

It is a major point. Islamic states protest that the extremists do not represent Islam, yet they support them in several ways.

 

Exactly. So equally so for Islam.

 

Your moral superiority is nauseating. It was a Christian USA that dropped the atom bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. It was a Christian US that scorched Vietnam and killed 100s of thousands in Iraq. When they won, their Commander in Chief gave thanks to a Christian God on board an aircraft carrier. They then subjugated a Country, killing at random, torturing those in prison.

If you want to say that the actions of Governments and leaders reflect on their religions, then do that. Don’t pretend, just because a culture is at one remove from its religion that it doesn’t retain the cultural superiority that allows it to debase and kill others. Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Ring any bells? I bet the Taliban would admit they have some ‘bad apples’ too if that’s your defence.

The Taliban have some vile views and behaviours, but they are not Islam per se.

 

I've just given you the facts. If you find the truth nauseating, then maybe you should change sides.

Seriously, your line of argument is utterly ludicrous?

Thanking a God, is not the same as carrying out a war in God's name! Totally bizarre.

The killing of non-believers, the atrocities that have been carried out against women and children in Afghanistan and Iraq have been carried out in the name of Islam. Proudly, openly and without shame. Islamic fundamentalists have also proudly and openly announced their intention to create an Islamic state that stretches at least as far as western Europe.

When was the last time a country with a Christian majority have carried out any war, battle, genocide or atrocity or announced expansionist ambition in the name of Christianity? Does our government, or the American, or any "Christian" state order that non-Christians should be hunted down and murdered? Do you honestly think that any western soldier takes aim in a fire-fight at a Taliban or ISIS soldier because he is fighting someone that worships Allah?

 

Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic who wasn't sure if he believed in a dog?

 

Black Fred Perrys I learn have been hijacked by right wing groups

Same with religion I’d say

A force for good hijacked by evil ****s down the centuries

 

I’m very happy to report that I agree with you.

And I agree with Clive’s original post. He was having a dig, but for good reason, as I referred in my post.

No one is blameless and these horrible little proxy wars nearly always end badly - mainly for the innocent civilians in small, often 3rd world countries who are just the pawns in the endless game of political and military Risk played by the big powers.

 

I assume that as the self appointed guardians of the nation's morals, Gareth Southgate and the England football team will boycott next year's World Cup

 

The ‘whataboutism’ is all yours. The mess we have left, the bombing, the torture, the killings and you are look at those savages and their beliefs.

 

Any views about Pen Farthing? He's the increasingly desperate Royal Marine-turned-animal rescuer out in Kabul.

https://news.sky.com/story/afghanis...unway-after-uk-abandoned-his-charity-12389344

Defence Secretary accused him of speaking 'b0llocks' when interviewed on LBC earlier.

Seems to me he's had ample chance and warning to get out of town and still can, but is opting to stay with his staff and rescue animals in the hope that somehow he can force through their joint departure. Seems unwise to me. Plus how does he think his convoy of staff and animals is supposed to get through the crowds at Kabul airport other than with a military escort?

 

If the job of the military isn’t to protect UK citizens, and those who we have a responsibility to, then what is its purpose, and why do we spend >£50B a year on it?

Yes the US has thrown everyone under a bus, but if the UK, France and Germany can’t rustle up sufficient force (1500 each would do it) to protect an airport for as long as it takes to get everyone out then the leaders of those 3 countries want shooting.

Move the QE carrier closer, sort some a2a tankers from the Middle East and hey presto you have air control over any part of Afghanistan you like should the Taliban not play ball. The Astute class sub with her carries Tomahawks. If the French CDG carrier can join all the better. It’s not a question of can’t it’s a question of won’t. Our MPs are pathetic.

 

Depends what animals he and his team have rescued really. I'd have thought a few lions and tigers could 'plough the road' all the way to the runway.

 

Whimps.

 

I’m not condoning imperialism. But we must apply military force when it’s necessary and always to protect UK citizens. They really are pathetic.

 

To me Ben Wallace has the air of a man edging ever closer to a complete nervous breakdown

 

Boris was great for getting brexit across the line but he is way out of his depth with running a country. Needs to go.