Should be raining switchblade drones on their leadership until they learn to behave. Let them play 13th century games on a modern battlefield without the courtesy of putting ourselves in AK-47 or exploding vest range.
Because if it didn't work the last 20 years the US was doing it, it'll work the next.
Drones are effective at killing people, but they're dogshit at killing ideology.
Ideas have to have heads to live in.
So kill em all then?
Y E s
More than that, drones are bad at constructing infrastructure, but they're really good at destroying it. If you're tearing through a housing complex to kill a terrorist, you're going to make a lot more disillusioned people out of those who are now homeless. It's really epic how people don't understand this, and don't understand how people might not look kindly to a military occupation generally, especially one that isn't helping much to build out their infrastructure, or, maybe more importantly, position them in a way where they're actually well off in the global market, since that's something they have to worry about now in a neoliberal, globalized society. And then instead everyone's just like, yeah, well, they don't want our help, but they're still a threat, let's kill everyone, and then we can save the little girls that are never going into the classroom again after they're fucking dead.
I hate this place, bro.
If you kill enough of the right ones, it'll work. When their leader's first act in office is to hose what's left of the last guy (and it will have been a guy) off of the floor and walls, I think they'll gain some perspective and make better choices. Can't be as polite and delicate as we were over the past couple decades.
You're right, what I've described above is the same as what you're talking about. Good job not noticing the differences which were clearly meant to mislead.
The US has caused this shit, why don't you guys fuck off and stay out of conflict...just for like a week and see how it goes.
The US is merely the latest to try and control the region. And their attempt didn't end any better than any of the previous attempts.
The US caused radical Islam?
During the cold war, the US armed and supported radical islamist factions called mujihadeen because they were opposed to the communists. This didn't help, but ofc there were other factors. When the US began its wars in the middle east in earnest, they killed a lot of people including civilians. As a consequence, they were probably the most effective recruiters for radical islam (when a foreign government kills your friends or family, you'd feel positively incluned towards fundamentalist groups fighting them too). Throughout the iraq war and the related conflicts analysts warned that us intervention was fuelling islamic terror. I was under the impression that by now this was common knowledge.
I recommend the book "Charlie Wilson's War" for those who want some insight into the funding of the Mujahideen.
What an ignorant take. Radical Islam existed long before the US went there. Salafism and Wahhabism have been around for more then century at this point, to name two of several fundamentalist movements.
Muslims have been infighting with fundamentalists and more secular members of Islam for centuries.
The US surely didn't help, but they are so, so far from being the sole or main cause for the turmoil in Afghanistan and the middle east in general.
There is radical islam existing, and then there is radical islam being the dominant force it currently is.
For a big part, yes. Overthrowing democratic governments, funding radicals and bombing civillians tends to make people join the side that is seen as the enemies of the culprits of these crimes.
What? This country didn't allow education for women long before the US ever set foot there
That's some mental gymnastics. I dislike the US going abroad with their military as much as the next non-US person, but if I had to choose one instance where they weren't the biggest dicks on the battlefield, it would be Afghanistan.
It's too late. Americans have adopted the 'brown people need to solve their own problems' mantra for this generation.
Come back in 20 years when things are so shit we can no longer look away.
Yes, because achieving lasting positive change by killing people has worked SO well in Afghanistan of all places đ¤Ś
Should have spent 20 years establishing islamic-free zones. You can only enter if you curse the prophet. Build up fortresses of civilization.
Or just the dark mosque where young men pray and literally learn to box with blindfolds in the dark to take out their rage.
Now imagine the next big movie, the transporter but next level badass, with beards, tattoos, swords, guns and straight up ICI the killer levels blood and Michael bay camera works. All in some middle eastern version of Bruce Lee but where the main character winds up fighting terrorists, Rambo, some random corrupt guy, his friends asshole neighbor and a whole gang of dudes who are all rapists or something strange like that, then there's some GTA bad guys, some Russian mobster guy, the Wagner guys, then the final boss is like Bin Ladens paedophile friend/cousin whose secretly an o.g traitor, and also an MMA fighter, a kamikaze pilot and a bomb maker guy who has an entire harem of children and even a secret chapel hidden in the mountains where he prays to an evil alternate Allah for more children or something.
The lore combined with the action would be enough to make a whole trilogy of badass
That's funny because they think the same thing about the United States, as clearly indicated by bin Laden's letter to the US.
Bin Laden was Saudi. And the 9/11 attackers, well, they very much put themselves in range of an exploding vest, metaphorically.
I'm just saying that he speaks in the exact same tone as this commentor and we should take note of the danger of this rhetoric.
Why should you give a shit what they do? Iâll hunt down anyone who commits acts of terror against the US, but I donât give a fuck if these people want to repress their own people. Itâs their choice how to live, not mine. One manâs repression is anotherâs freedom since religion makes people do dumbass things. Theyâre not worth the cost of a switchblade nor any of the other expensive shit we lobbed at that country for 2 decades. Once we had the guy that coordinated 9/11 we should have pulled out. They donât want western style âcivilizationâ theyâre perfect happy (definitely not all of them) with their value and political system.
Guess I'm one of those weirdos who wants humans to have rights even if we don't share a flag or similar genitals.
Interesting thing about Afghanistan is that according to the UN, each government of a country is well within their rights to how they run their country within their own borders.
Yes, genocide and loss of freedom are frowned upon and sanctions are called - but as it is the religion and view of the country they are left to it. We can't push western values on another country.
Ah, yes, remember when the Taliban was democratically elected by the people of Afghanistan?
... oh. It wasn't?
Exactly - internal matter within own boarders.
No other government claims they are in Hargett.
Ah, it's just an "internal matter", like genocide.
I remember when the Afghanistan army folded in a week.
Is that what an election is?
No but when they spent 20 years helping the Taliban it pretty well reflected what the majority wanted
The idea that half of the people in a country are still people even if they had the audacity to be born without a penis shouldn't be a "western value". Read the article again and find a book or two about what goes on over there before suggesting that we follow the UN version of Starfleet's Prime Directive.
Interesting thing about Afghanistan is that according to the UN, each government of a country is well within their rights to how they run their country within their own borders.
The argument for other country to everstretch itself can be that other country's problems leak over their borders. What is the reasonable limit there? Instead of 'we want oil', there can be another case of a biological weapon, or that Afganistan is the source of a world illegal drugs trade etc, or whatever. Even plain cultural or religious antagonism can be faned into a fire, sold to a public as good and just. Now, after what happened to Afghanistan after 20 years is discouraging, but in twenty years? With corrupt guys like Trump, a military lobby and other conflicts in acive phase?
Youâre literally calling for raining bombs on a country of people who donât want that⌠youâre not asking for human rights. Youâre pushing your ideas of right on them. Have you learned nothing from what the middle eastern people have been telling western civilization over the last several years? They donât want our ideas. They have religious texts that they believe sets up how to live and act for them. Just leave them the fuck alone and focus on our own countries.
Is there really no middle ground between "I don't give a fuck about them" and "Bomb the country" ?
In logical thinking there is, but not in US foreign policy.
No. Clearly only two options
I'm calling for raining bombs on a select group of people who can't seem to navigate their way out of the dark ages. Advocating for the "sit back and watch" position puts a higher value on the lives of tyrants than the rights of the people they oppress. If we kill the ones in charge who turn out to be assholes, they'll either run out of assholes or get the message. Both outcomes are fine.
So if Russia wants to bomb your leaders because your country allows slaves in prison like a middle age shithole, you wouldnât mind do you? You should actually welcome it.
And then when your leaders keep ruling as tyrants by refusing to give universal healthcare to your people, the EU should execute your leaders immediately, you agree?
And when your police keep murdering black people, your leaders should once again get blasted, youâll get the message eventually, right?
You wouldnât disagree with these rightful bombings, would you? Itâs all for putting you out of your oppression and the dark ages.
I am fine with that. If all the politicians in the US were put on show trials and hung tomorrow I would go to work same as normal. You can do that for the Wall Street fuckers as well, plus the health insurance people, the lobbyists, anyone who sits on a think tank.
Pretty much anyone who claims they get to rule over me and not provide people with a service. Go do whatever you want.
Pretty much anyone who claims they get to rule over me and not provide people with a service.
The problem is that these two things aren't, you know, unrelated. You say, the health insurance people, right, and I would generally agree they can go fuck themselves, but I think if we kill a bunch of them, the power vacuum will probably just fill itself with the exact same shit, while people slowly get radicalized and possibly become nationalistic because everyone's getting killed by a foreign government, you know, especially as the government that's getting bombed to shit starts cutting propaganda about it. You need to actively be providing an alternative that people will flock to, when you go and kill these people, otherwise, you'll just be eliminating infrastructure in the form of people, and you'll be turning everything into a dark age political radicalization hellzone.
: shrugs
really omega level convincing stuff, there.
I am not trying to convince anyone. I have my opinion.
Doesnât fly very high.
You have made an accurate and fitting comparison, Vladimirovich. Definitely the same things going on in both cases.
Youâre a clown. The US has literally banned abortion and you want to take the high moral ground. Lmfao.
Whatabout some more please.
their own people
This might come as a shock to you, but those are people just like you.
They're still worth saving even if they aren't from your country.
You'll understand when you're older, maybe.
They don't want to be "saved"
Really? You speak for all of them?
Obviously not for all, but demonstrably for the majority
Oh? When was that vote taken?
It's obvious when you listen to anyone outside of Kabul
It's a well documented fact that only people who live outside of cities count as people.
I see you have heard of the E.C.
Just because you're more exposed to them doesn't mean that the people in Kabul are worth more.
What about the ones who you don't speak for?
What about them?
Are they worth saving?
That depends on what you mean by saving
Lol. It didn't "depend on what I mean by saving" when you said "they don't all want to be saved."
Whatever you meant by saving, it's obvious that most Afghans don't want that kind of intervention.
Do you even know what you meant yourself?
The linked article suggests otherwise.
The linked article, like the vast majority of articles about Afghanistan, exclusively covers Kabul.
So the people in Kabul are not Afghan?
Go troll somewhere else
How am I trolling when you're the one claiming the people in Kabul don't count as Afghan?
Your reading comprehension is lacking, I never claimed such a thing. I talked about the majority of Afghanis and the vast majority of them to not live in Kabul.
You said nothing about the majority of Afghans (Afghani is a currency). Here is our entire conversation, starting with the comment I replied to:
I'm not sure what the point of this attempt at gaslighting is.
True, I confused you with a different comment chain. Doesn't change the bad-faith nature of your comments though
How is my responding directly to what you said, on-topic, bad faith?
I love when you lemmings end your shit with âmaybe when youâre olderâ like as if youâre some all knowing creature because youâre old as shit (boomer).
Maybe when youâre older youâll learn to leave people the fuck alone that want to be left alone. Weâve tried world building enough. The Soviets, the British and the US. How many dead Middle Eastern people will it take before your colonial ass realizes itâs not what they want.
Theyâre only worth saving if they want to be saved. Keep worrying about your $1 food, Iâve got bigger things to be worried about that donât involve making kids terrified of clear blue skies.
Gods, I'm probably going to regret this, but...
I agree with your overall point, but the unempathetic way you're expressing it is really off-putting to me. For example...
Iâve got bigger things to be worried about
People say things like this all the time about problems that don't affect them and that they can't control (some other examples are homelessness, addiction, etc.). It always strikes me as being super uncaring and cold. No one's asking you to help them directly or to let it spoil your day or whatever -- but it takes absolutely zero effort to just briefly recognize systemic problems like these. In fact, I think it's important that we do so. Why? Because that shit could happen here as well. That 6th-grade girl could be me, or my nibling, or my neighbor, and there but for the grace of god go I. (It's an expression, I'm not being religious here.)
Yeah, yeah I know "thoughts and prayers" and all that noise, but I think it's more than that. There are oppressive religious entities here where I live in the US. Seeing what this leads to ... nothing we can do to stop it, right. And FFS the US sending our military to try to fix anything is absolutely ... "colonial" is a good term for it, as you said. Even non-military intervention, like when we send politicians to Latin American countries to lecture them on instability that we created. So wack.
But I can at least recognize the humanity here, and what it must feel like to get one of those girls. It doesn't really constitute "worry" to just care about another person and to express that.
While I disagree with your view on "happy" and "choice how to live", it is a very interesting discussion that a country never successfully developed democracy and equality without their own citizens fighting for it.
We can push our values all we want, but until people die for how they want to live it won't stick. Unfortunately America is declining for the same reason.
So I guess we should just take in the citizens who don't want to live in that environment.
There's plenty of room over here in the USA!
Iâm not saying Iâm happy, or that I think theyâre objectively happy. They just donât want anything else or canât conceptualize anything else. The people of Afghanistan have a way of living that theyâre comfortable with since they donât show much resistance to the status quo. We spent trillions on that country trying to make it âwesternâ and a âdemocracyâ like the US when the reality is that they donât want that. They also donât know anything different other than when we brought them âfreedomâ it meant the sky occasionally rained death and explosions. I donât have an answer for them, and as history has shown for that region no one has an answer. I just know I donât want to spend my tax dollars blowing up random people on the other side of the planet because I donât give a fuck about them and I donât want them to actively hate me in the future.
Dude wtf are you on about. This is literally a thread about 12-year girls crying because theyâre not "comfortable withâŚthe status quo". They clearly do "know anything different", because thatâs what theyâre upset about.
I am sorry for those girls that their parent's were god fearing and as a result they have to suffer
Ok, we can go back to bombing random civilians then. I guess if we guise it under âhuman rightsâ this time it makes all the bad stuff go away. Yâall realize youâre literally asking for people to go in and bomb a sovereign nation solely because you disagree with how theyâre living?
I feel for those girls and the future they want. I hope they can make it to a country that supports them and fosters the same ideals they hold. Sometimes the country or culture weâre born into doesnât align with us. However those girls arenât a majority. I can find Americans saying things the majority of us donât agree with, I can find Iranians saying things the majority of Americans agree with. These donât make those things true of each others cultures. Youâre wanting to change a culture because it doesnât align with your ideals rather than realizing that sometimes thatâs exactly what people want.
Iâll leave you with this: The monarchy in Britain has centuries of human rights abuses, and is something I think is completely antithetical to Democratic principles. Yet 62% of Briton's support the monarchy. Should I be able to drone strike them just because I disagree or think it goes against human rights? Where does that line get drawn except in all yâallâs Weird brains of assuming you know what Afghani people want and should get.
That's a lot of words which you could have summarized as "I don't know how to compare things, 10 equals 10,000,000 because they're both numbers".
Oh, and P.S., "Afghani" is a currency. Not a people.
Oh dang, thanks for the catch!
To repeat a comment you got 3 hours ago:
Is there really no middle ground between "I don't give a fuck about them" and "Bomb the country" ?
Not when theyâre content and approve of the way things are, and spare me the âbut hereâs a video of a person unhappy about itâ. I guess Iâll shift back then so the people of Lemmy can be happy to my true American roots and say we should bomb them again randomly. I mean, it worked for 20 years apparently so why did we stop.
The middle ground is to be friends with them. They donât want that either (canât blame them on that one), so leaving them alone is our best course of action. Bombing their leaders because of âhuman rights abusesâ is exactly what created Osama Bin Laden, ISIL, and every other terror group in the last 20+ years. Iâm sick of fighting and being at war. My country, the US, can build some of the greatest infrastructure on the planet. Iâd rather build that and spend money on humanitarian relief to help people after natural disasters.
Next go around at trying to colonize Afghanistan can be done by Australia if you want. Iâd hope you all would have opened a history book by then, but probably not considering the thirst for blood in this thread.
The people of Afghanistan have a way of living that theyâre comfortable with
Do those crying girls sound comfortable with their way of living to you?
People in America are ready to die for almost anything and that's unironically a bad thing
Should be raining switchblade drones on their leadership until they learn to behave. Let them play 13th century games on a modern battlefield without the courtesy of putting ourselves in AK-47 or exploding vest range.
Because if it didn't work the last 20 years the US was doing it, it'll work the next.
Drones are effective at killing people, but they're dogshit at killing ideology.
Ideas have to have heads to live in.
So kill em all then?
Y E s
More than that, drones are bad at constructing infrastructure, but they're really good at destroying it. If you're tearing through a housing complex to kill a terrorist, you're going to make a lot more disillusioned people out of those who are now homeless. It's really epic how people don't understand this, and don't understand how people might not look kindly to a military occupation generally, especially one that isn't helping much to build out their infrastructure, or, maybe more importantly, position them in a way where they're actually well off in the global market, since that's something they have to worry about now in a neoliberal, globalized society. And then instead everyone's just like, yeah, well, they don't want our help, but they're still a threat, let's kill everyone, and then we can save the little girls that are never going into the classroom again after they're fucking dead.
I hate this place, bro.
If you kill enough of the right ones, it'll work. When their leader's first act in office is to hose what's left of the last guy (and it will have been a guy) off of the floor and walls, I think they'll gain some perspective and make better choices. Can't be as polite and delicate as we were over the past couple decades.
You're right, what I've described above is the same as what you're talking about. Good job not noticing the differences which were clearly meant to mislead.
The US has caused this shit, why don't you guys fuck off and stay out of conflict...just for like a week and see how it goes.
The US is merely the latest to try and control the region. And their attempt didn't end any better than any of the previous attempts.
The US caused radical Islam?
During the cold war, the US armed and supported radical islamist factions called mujihadeen because they were opposed to the communists. This didn't help, but ofc there were other factors. When the US began its wars in the middle east in earnest, they killed a lot of people including civilians. As a consequence, they were probably the most effective recruiters for radical islam (when a foreign government kills your friends or family, you'd feel positively incluned towards fundamentalist groups fighting them too). Throughout the iraq war and the related conflicts analysts warned that us intervention was fuelling islamic terror. I was under the impression that by now this was common knowledge.
I recommend the book "Charlie Wilson's War" for those who want some insight into the funding of the Mujahideen.
What an ignorant take. Radical Islam existed long before the US went there. Salafism and Wahhabism have been around for more then century at this point, to name two of several fundamentalist movements.
Muslims have been infighting with fundamentalists and more secular members of Islam for centuries.
The US surely didn't help, but they are so, so far from being the sole or main cause for the turmoil in Afghanistan and the middle east in general.
There is radical islam existing, and then there is radical islam being the dominant force it currently is.
For a big part, yes. Overthrowing democratic governments, funding radicals and bombing civillians tends to make people join the side that is seen as the enemies of the culprits of these crimes.
What? This country didn't allow education for women long before the US ever set foot there
That's some mental gymnastics. I dislike the US going abroad with their military as much as the next non-US person, but if I had to choose one instance where they weren't the biggest dicks on the battlefield, it would be Afghanistan.
It's too late. Americans have adopted the 'brown people need to solve their own problems' mantra for this generation.
Come back in 20 years when things are so shit we can no longer look away.
Yes, because achieving lasting positive change by killing people has worked SO well in Afghanistan of all places đ¤Ś
Should have spent 20 years establishing islamic-free zones. You can only enter if you curse the prophet. Build up fortresses of civilization.
Or just the dark mosque where young men pray and literally learn to box with blindfolds in the dark to take out their rage.
Now imagine the next big movie, the transporter but next level badass, with beards, tattoos, swords, guns and straight up ICI the killer levels blood and Michael bay camera works. All in some middle eastern version of Bruce Lee but where the main character winds up fighting terrorists, Rambo, some random corrupt guy, his friends asshole neighbor and a whole gang of dudes who are all rapists or something strange like that, then there's some GTA bad guys, some Russian mobster guy, the Wagner guys, then the final boss is like Bin Ladens paedophile friend/cousin whose secretly an o.g traitor, and also an MMA fighter, a kamikaze pilot and a bomb maker guy who has an entire harem of children and even a secret chapel hidden in the mountains where he prays to an evil alternate Allah for more children or something.
The lore combined with the action would be enough to make a whole trilogy of badass
That's funny because they think the same thing about the United States, as clearly indicated by bin Laden's letter to the US.
Bin Laden was Saudi. And the 9/11 attackers, well, they very much put themselves in range of an exploding vest, metaphorically.
Bin Laden's letter
I'm just saying that he speaks in the exact same tone as this commentor and we should take note of the danger of this rhetoric.
Why should you give a shit what they do? Iâll hunt down anyone who commits acts of terror against the US, but I donât give a fuck if these people want to repress their own people. Itâs their choice how to live, not mine. One manâs repression is anotherâs freedom since religion makes people do dumbass things. Theyâre not worth the cost of a switchblade nor any of the other expensive shit we lobbed at that country for 2 decades. Once we had the guy that coordinated 9/11 we should have pulled out. They donât want western style âcivilizationâ theyâre perfect happy (definitely not all of them) with their value and political system.
Guess I'm one of those weirdos who wants humans to have rights even if we don't share a flag or similar genitals.
Interesting thing about Afghanistan is that according to the UN, each government of a country is well within their rights to how they run their country within their own borders.
Yes, genocide and loss of freedom are frowned upon and sanctions are called - but as it is the religion and view of the country they are left to it. We can't push western values on another country.
Ah, yes, remember when the Taliban was democratically elected by the people of Afghanistan?
... oh. It wasn't?
Exactly - internal matter within own boarders.
No other government claims they are in Hargett.
Ah, it's just an "internal matter", like genocide.
I remember when the Afghanistan army folded in a week.
Is that what an election is?
No but when they spent 20 years helping the Taliban it pretty well reflected what the majority wanted
The idea that half of the people in a country are still people even if they had the audacity to be born without a penis shouldn't be a "western value". Read the article again and find a book or two about what goes on over there before suggesting that we follow the UN version of Starfleet's Prime Directive.
The argument for other country to everstretch itself can be that other country's problems leak over their borders. What is the reasonable limit there? Instead of 'we want oil', there can be another case of a biological weapon, or that Afganistan is the source of a world illegal drugs trade etc, or whatever. Even plain cultural or religious antagonism can be faned into a fire, sold to a public as good and just. Now, after what happened to Afghanistan after 20 years is discouraging, but in twenty years? With corrupt guys like Trump, a military lobby and other conflicts in acive phase?
Youâre literally calling for raining bombs on a country of people who donât want that⌠youâre not asking for human rights. Youâre pushing your ideas of right on them. Have you learned nothing from what the middle eastern people have been telling western civilization over the last several years? They donât want our ideas. They have religious texts that they believe sets up how to live and act for them. Just leave them the fuck alone and focus on our own countries.
Is there really no middle ground between "I don't give a fuck about them" and "Bomb the country" ?
In logical thinking there is, but not in US foreign policy.
No. Clearly only two options
I'm calling for raining bombs on a select group of people who can't seem to navigate their way out of the dark ages. Advocating for the "sit back and watch" position puts a higher value on the lives of tyrants than the rights of the people they oppress. If we kill the ones in charge who turn out to be assholes, they'll either run out of assholes or get the message. Both outcomes are fine.
So if Russia wants to bomb your leaders because your country allows slaves in prison like a middle age shithole, you wouldnât mind do you? You should actually welcome it.
And then when your leaders keep ruling as tyrants by refusing to give universal healthcare to your people, the EU should execute your leaders immediately, you agree?
And when your police keep murdering black people, your leaders should once again get blasted, youâll get the message eventually, right?
You wouldnât disagree with these rightful bombings, would you? Itâs all for putting you out of your oppression and the dark ages.
I am fine with that. If all the politicians in the US were put on show trials and hung tomorrow I would go to work same as normal. You can do that for the Wall Street fuckers as well, plus the health insurance people, the lobbyists, anyone who sits on a think tank.
Pretty much anyone who claims they get to rule over me and not provide people with a service. Go do whatever you want.
The problem is that these two things aren't, you know, unrelated. You say, the health insurance people, right, and I would generally agree they can go fuck themselves, but I think if we kill a bunch of them, the power vacuum will probably just fill itself with the exact same shit, while people slowly get radicalized and possibly become nationalistic because everyone's getting killed by a foreign government, you know, especially as the government that's getting bombed to shit starts cutting propaganda about it. You need to actively be providing an alternative that people will flock to, when you go and kill these people, otherwise, you'll just be eliminating infrastructure in the form of people, and you'll be turning everything into a dark age political radicalization hellzone.
: shrugs
really omega level convincing stuff, there.
I am not trying to convince anyone. I have my opinion.
Doesnât fly very high.
You have made an accurate and fitting comparison, Vladimirovich. Definitely the same things going on in both cases.
Youâre a clown. The US has literally banned abortion and you want to take the high moral ground. Lmfao.
Whatabout some more please.
This might come as a shock to you, but those are people just like you.
They're still worth saving even if they aren't from your country.
You'll understand when you're older, maybe.
They don't want to be "saved"
Really? You speak for all of them?
Obviously not for all, but demonstrably for the majority
Oh? When was that vote taken?
It's obvious when you listen to anyone outside of Kabul
It's a well documented fact that only people who live outside of cities count as people.
I see you have heard of the E.C.
Just because you're more exposed to them doesn't mean that the people in Kabul are worth more.
What about the ones who you don't speak for?
What about them?
Are they worth saving?
That depends on what you mean by saving
Lol. It didn't "depend on what I mean by saving" when you said "they don't all want to be saved."
Whatever you meant by saving, it's obvious that most Afghans don't want that kind of intervention.
Do you even know what you meant yourself?
The linked article suggests otherwise.
The linked article, like the vast majority of articles about Afghanistan, exclusively covers Kabul.
So the people in Kabul are not Afghan?
Go troll somewhere else
How am I trolling when you're the one claiming the people in Kabul don't count as Afghan?
Your reading comprehension is lacking, I never claimed such a thing. I talked about the majority of Afghanis and the vast majority of them to not live in Kabul.
You said nothing about the majority of Afghans (Afghani is a currency). Here is our entire conversation, starting with the comment I replied to:
I'm not sure what the point of this attempt at gaslighting is.
True, I confused you with a different comment chain. Doesn't change the bad-faith nature of your comments though
How is my responding directly to what you said, on-topic, bad faith?
I love when you lemmings end your shit with âmaybe when youâre olderâ like as if youâre some all knowing creature because youâre old as shit (boomer).
Maybe when youâre older youâll learn to leave people the fuck alone that want to be left alone. Weâve tried world building enough. The Soviets, the British and the US. How many dead Middle Eastern people will it take before your colonial ass realizes itâs not what they want.
Theyâre only worth saving if they want to be saved. Keep worrying about your $1 food, Iâve got bigger things to be worried about that donât involve making kids terrified of clear blue skies.
Gods, I'm probably going to regret this, but...
I agree with your overall point, but the unempathetic way you're expressing it is really off-putting to me. For example...
People say things like this all the time about problems that don't affect them and that they can't control (some other examples are homelessness, addiction, etc.). It always strikes me as being super uncaring and cold. No one's asking you to help them directly or to let it spoil your day or whatever -- but it takes absolutely zero effort to just briefly recognize systemic problems like these. In fact, I think it's important that we do so. Why? Because that shit could happen here as well. That 6th-grade girl could be me, or my nibling, or my neighbor, and there but for the grace of god go I. (It's an expression, I'm not being religious here.)
Yeah, yeah I know "thoughts and prayers" and all that noise, but I think it's more than that. There are oppressive religious entities here where I live in the US. Seeing what this leads to ... nothing we can do to stop it, right. And FFS the US sending our military to try to fix anything is absolutely ... "colonial" is a good term for it, as you said. Even non-military intervention, like when we send politicians to Latin American countries to lecture them on instability that we created. So wack.
But I can at least recognize the humanity here, and what it must feel like to get one of those girls. It doesn't really constitute "worry" to just care about another person and to express that.
While I disagree with your view on "happy" and "choice how to live", it is a very interesting discussion that a country never successfully developed democracy and equality without their own citizens fighting for it.
We can push our values all we want, but until people die for how they want to live it won't stick. Unfortunately America is declining for the same reason.
So I guess we should just take in the citizens who don't want to live in that environment.
There's plenty of room over here in the USA!
Iâm not saying Iâm happy, or that I think theyâre objectively happy. They just donât want anything else or canât conceptualize anything else. The people of Afghanistan have a way of living that theyâre comfortable with since they donât show much resistance to the status quo. We spent trillions on that country trying to make it âwesternâ and a âdemocracyâ like the US when the reality is that they donât want that. They also donât know anything different other than when we brought them âfreedomâ it meant the sky occasionally rained death and explosions. I donât have an answer for them, and as history has shown for that region no one has an answer. I just know I donât want to spend my tax dollars blowing up random people on the other side of the planet because I donât give a fuck about them and I donât want them to actively hate me in the future.
Dude wtf are you on about. This is literally a thread about 12-year girls crying because theyâre not "comfortable withâŚthe status quo". They clearly do "know anything different", because thatâs what theyâre upset about.
I am sorry for those girls that their parent's were god fearing and as a result they have to suffer
Ok, we can go back to bombing random civilians then. I guess if we guise it under âhuman rightsâ this time it makes all the bad stuff go away. Yâall realize youâre literally asking for people to go in and bomb a sovereign nation solely because you disagree with how theyâre living?
I feel for those girls and the future they want. I hope they can make it to a country that supports them and fosters the same ideals they hold. Sometimes the country or culture weâre born into doesnât align with us. However those girls arenât a majority. I can find Americans saying things the majority of us donât agree with, I can find Iranians saying things the majority of Americans agree with. These donât make those things true of each others cultures. Youâre wanting to change a culture because it doesnât align with your ideals rather than realizing that sometimes thatâs exactly what people want.
Iâll leave you with this: The monarchy in Britain has centuries of human rights abuses, and is something I think is completely antithetical to Democratic principles. Yet 62% of Briton's support the monarchy. Should I be able to drone strike them just because I disagree or think it goes against human rights? Where does that line get drawn except in all yâallâs Weird brains of assuming you know what Afghani people want and should get.
That's a lot of words which you could have summarized as "I don't know how to compare things, 10 equals 10,000,000 because they're both numbers".
Oh, and P.S., "Afghani" is a currency. Not a people.
Oh dang, thanks for the catch!
To repeat a comment you got 3 hours ago:
Not when theyâre content and approve of the way things are, and spare me the âbut hereâs a video of a person unhappy about itâ. I guess Iâll shift back then so the people of Lemmy can be happy to my true American roots and say we should bomb them again randomly. I mean, it worked for 20 years apparently so why did we stop.
The middle ground is to be friends with them. They donât want that either (canât blame them on that one), so leaving them alone is our best course of action. Bombing their leaders because of âhuman rights abusesâ is exactly what created Osama Bin Laden, ISIL, and every other terror group in the last 20+ years. Iâm sick of fighting and being at war. My country, the US, can build some of the greatest infrastructure on the planet. Iâd rather build that and spend money on humanitarian relief to help people after natural disasters.
Next go around at trying to colonize Afghanistan can be done by Australia if you want. Iâd hope you all would have opened a history book by then, but probably not considering the thirst for blood in this thread.
Do those crying girls sound comfortable with their way of living to you?
People in America are ready to die for almost anything and that's unironically a bad thing