Twilight of the Psychopaths

Nick_oliveri · 22-11-2008 3:29pm

Diogenes wrote: »

bangs head against wall.....

We're not talking about sexism Nick, the issue is whether the Taliban are a bunch of patriotic freedom fighters, or fanatical religious fundamentalists, it got dragged off tangent by people saying "well the bushes are just as bad" and other inane tangents.

Fair enough, thats the subject it got dragged to. With the help of myself of course. Not need to bang your head bud, i just go with the flow.

I think that there may be individuals within the organisation who think or really believe that they are freedom fighters. Obviously they chose the wrong group/medium.

King Mob · 22-11-2008 7:12pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

why not, they are fighting an invading force for the right to be free to run their country the way they want, we might not agree with how they do it, but what gives us the right?

You mean they're fighting for the right to take away other peoples rights?

Also probably the third time I've said it: but I don't agree they that America should have invaded.
Rather I'm stating that the Taliban are a very oppressive regime, much worse in fact, than what many people on this forum believe the NWO of trying to do.

And maybe the one good thing about the war in Afghanistan is some people might have a chance at basic human rights.

Mahatma coat · 23-11-2008 4:38am

well yeah, and we want to take away their right to take away other peoples rights, I concede that its not a simple black and white area, but we 'Westerners' believe in freedom of religion, or is that only the freedom to be good god Fearin Christians, women are still opressed by cults in the US, yet their freedom to do so is enshrined in their constitution.

Diogenes · 23-11-2008 2:02pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well yeah, and we want to take away their right to take away other peoples rights, I concede that its not a simple black and white area, but we 'Westerners' believe in freedom of religion, or is that only the freedom to be good god Fearin Christians, women are still opressed by cults in the US, yet their freedom to do so is enshrined in their constitution.

The cognitive dissoance displayed above. Yes the West allows for Freedom of Religion but Freedom of Religion does not trump other rights. Religious Cults in the US are often arrested for breaking the law The Waco Siege (Not that I'm condoning the tactics used in the Waco Siege, merely citing it as an example of the federal authorities acting against a Christian religious cult) and the perhaps Mahatma should do some reading on the subject matter, before he proclaims that the USA will allow Christians to do whatever they want in the USA.

King Mob · 23-11-2008 5:04pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well yeah, and we want to take away their right to take away other peoples rights, I concede that its not a simple black and white area, but we 'Westerners' believe in freedom of religion, or is that only the freedom to be good god Fearin Christians, women are still opressed by cults in the US, yet their freedom to do so is enshrined in their constitution.

Many of these cults are prosecuted for abuses of human rights.

There is a huge difference between a very small community in a country and an entire country.

The US didn't go into Afghanistan because the Taliban were abusing human rights, no one said they did.

bonkey · 23-11-2008 7:15pm

Diogenes wrote: »

the issue is whether the Taliban are a bunch of patriotic freedom fighters, or fanatical religious fundamentalists,

The way you phrase that seems to suggest you don't believe they can be both.

Imagine that you have someone fighting to restore a fundamentalist state. They can be fanatical and patriotic. Just because you or I may find the state they are fighting for distasteful doens't preclude it being patriotic.

Getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam, are the two sorry wins we can take out of the last 7 years.

Except they're not wins. In both cases, we have situations which are - by many benchmarks - worse than before we interfered. Now sure...one can argue that we have the possibility to make it better, but we'd have had that possibility had we not gone in there either.

In a sense, its like saying that we've got a win because someone's snakebite infection has been "cured" because we've lopped their arm off. They're bleeding all over the floor, there's still traces of venom in their stump, and they've picked up no end of other infections through the amputation...but hey...they're not suffering as badly from the snakebite, so thats a plus, right?

bonkey · 23-11-2008 7:15pm

<mod_hat_on>

Mahatma I know this is a troubling and difficult concept for you to grasp but here goes.

For someone arguing on another thread that you don't call people idiots...you're not doing yourself any favours here.

</mod_hat_on>

Diogenes · 23-11-2008 7:25pm

bonkey wrote: »

The way you phrase that seems to suggest you don't believe they can be both.

Imagine that you have someone fighting to restore a fundamentalist state. They can be fanatical and patriotic. Just because you or I may find the state they are fighting for distasteful doens't preclude it being patriotic.

I see your point, a better choice of words would be noble and heroic freedom fighters versus religious fundamentalists. The Taliban haven't been noble heroic freedom fighters since around the era of Rambo 3.

Except they're not wins. In both cases, we have situations which are - by many benchmarks - worse than before we interfered. Now sure...one can argue that we have the possibility to make it better, but we'd have had that possibility had we not gone in there either.

In a sense, its like saying that we've got a win because someone's snakebite infection has been "cured" because we've lopped their arm off. They're bleeding all over the floor, there's still traces of venom in their stump, and they've picked up no end of other infections through the amputation...but hey...they're not suffering as badly from the snakebite, so thats a plus, right?

Again I'll concede that, but the potential for change is now there.

King Mob · 23-11-2008 7:27pm

bonkey wrote: »

The way you phrase that seems to suggest you don't believe they can be both.

Imagine that you have someone fighting to restore a fundamentalist state. They can be fanatical and patriotic. Just because you or I may find the state they are fighting for distasteful doens't preclude it being patriotic.

That's the thing I can grasp how can someone love their then inflict such horrible abuses on it's people and history?
I'm sure the Taliban consider themselves patriots, but I really don't see their behavior in anyway patriotic.

bonkey wrote: »

Except they're not wins. In both cases, we have situations which are - by many benchmarks - worse than before we interfered. Now sure...one can argue that we have the possibility to make it better, but we'd have had that possibility had we not gone in there either.

In a sense, its like saying that we've got a win because someone's snakebite infection has been "cured" because we've lopped their arm off. They're bleeding all over the floor, there's still traces of venom in their stump, and they've picked up no end of other infections through the amputation...but hey...they're not suffering as badly from the snakebite, so thats a plus, right?

But the thing is while the region was more stable before the invasion people were denied their rights. Now not so much.
At least now people are able to get an education and fly kites again.
A small compensation but at least it's something.

bonkey · 23-11-2008 7:43pm

King Mob wrote: »

But the thing is while the region was more stable before the invasion people were denied their rights. Now not so much.
...
At least now people are able to get an education and fly kites again.

If you say so. Its more a discussion for the politics forum than here, to be honest.

I was only trying to point out that the issues are far from the simple black-and-white mutually-opposed positions that seem all too often to crop up.

WakeUp · 23-11-2008 7:46pm

Hello all, couple of quotes regarding the US/British invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan

Speaking to Nancy Perry Graham,AARP, July 2006 Colin Powell said the following about the lies he told the UN/World prior to the invasion.

"And im dissapointed.Im sorry it happened and wish those who knew better had spoken up at the time. But there isnt anything else I can say about it. When people ask me,"Is this a blot on your record?" Yeah, okay, fine, its a blot on my record. But do you want me to walk around saying I have a blot on my record every day? I have a blot on my record. There it is. Its there for everybody to see forever.

http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/colin_powell.html

Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson (US Army (retired), chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"My participation at that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."
"I was intimately involved in the preparation of Secreary Powell for his five February 2003 presentation at the UN Security council".

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Lawrence-Wilkerson

Nobody agrees with the way taliban law is enforced be they rebel fighters or religious fanatics and you might not like the way they live but the cold truth of the matter is its their country/land you cant invade and butcher them because you dont agree with their way of life.
And you certainly cant make up lies and bull**** , invade an entire region and start a potential wolrd wide race war all in the name of "freedom" its so two faced its sickening.

As Mahatma metioned a few posts back it seems to be going a bit off topic. Could we please keep to the topic Kevin Barret makes some very valid points imo especially with the large military build up taking palce all over the world.

King Mob · 23-11-2008 10:41pm

WakeUp wrote: »

Nobody agrees with the way taliban law is enforced be they rebel fighters or religious fanatics and you might not like the way they live but the cold truth of the matter is its their country/land you cant invade and butcher them because you dont agree with their way of life.

Again no one is claiming that the US invaded because the taliban was abusing human rights. The war had nothing to do with anyone's way of life.

WakeUp wrote: »

And you certainly cant make up lies and bull**** , invade an entire region and start a potential wolrd wide race war all in the name of "freedom" its so two faced its sickening.

Race war? Seriously?

WakeUp wrote: »

As Mahatma metioned a few posts back it seems to be going a bit off topic. Could we please keep to the topic Kevin Barret makes some very valid points imo especially with the large military build up taking palce all over the world.

Well some of us were pointing out that he had a very simplistic view of a very complicated issue.

Mahatma coat · 23-11-2008 11:21pm

OK then King Mob, briefly outline in your own words WHY the US invaded.

King Mob · 23-11-2008 11:30pm

The Taliban were supporting terrorists and to establish a presence in the area.
But even that is a very simplistic explanation. I lack the expertise to give a better one.

Mahatma coat · 24-11-2008 12:08am

Who supported the Talliban, where did most of the terrorists come from?

King Mob · 24-11-2008 12:23am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Who supported the Talliban, where did most of the terrorists come from?

Well I think America had a hand in getting the Taliban into power but I'm not too familiar on the Taliban history.
And I believe that many of the terrorists where from different extermist organizations.
Again this probably is oversimplifying it.

Mahatma coat · 24-11-2008 2:19am

America and one other big nasty abuser of Human Rights in the Area.

The 'Terrorists' were from many organisations, on that springs to mind is David Hicks, who started off his 'Terrorism' with the KLA

King Mob · 24-11-2008 2:40am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

America and one other big nasty abuser of Human Rights in the Area.

The 'Terrorists' were from many organisations, on that springs to mind is David Hicks, who started off his 'Terrorism' with the KLA

Israel? Iran? Pakistan?

But what exactly has this to do with whether or not the Taliban are patriotic?

Mahatma coat · 24-11-2008 4:43am

Define Patriotism in your own words please.

Mahatma coat · 24-11-2008 6:46am

bonkey wrote: »

The way you phrase that seems to suggest you don't believe they can be both.

Imagine that you have someone fighting to restore a fundamentalist state. They can be fanatical and patriotic. Just because you or I may find the state they are fighting for distasteful doens't preclude it being patriotic.

Except they're not wins. In both cases, we have situations which are - by many benchmarks - worse than before we interfered. Now sure...one can argue that we have the possibility to make it better, but we'd have had that possibility had we not gone in there either.

In a sense, its like saying that we've got a win because someone's snakebite infection has been "cured" because we've lopped their arm off. They're bleeding all over the floor, there's still traces of venom in their stump, and they've picked up no end of other infections through the amputation...but hey...they're not suffering as badly from the snakebite, so thats a plus, right?

See, see, this is why Bonkey has been nominated as s deity

he can sum up in one post what has taken some of us 4 pages

<Dofs mod Hat in deference>

Diogenes · 24-11-2008 11:32am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Who supported the Talliban, where did most of the terrorists come from?

The majority support for the Taliban came from wealthy Saudis, consider it similar to the situation that existed between Irish Americans and the IRA in the 70s/80s. The earliest reports of Bin Laden come from Afghanistan/Pakistan in the 80s handing out money in training camps in the region. Fighters came from Afghanistan but also from the greater Muslim diaspora, there are links between the Taliban and Chechen rebels for example.

King Mob · 24-11-2008 5:54pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Define Patriotism in your own words please.

Love for ones country, it's people and culture?

Mahatma coat · 25-11-2008 4:37am

so that would make he Talliban Noble and Heroic Freedom Fighters then?

King Mob · 25-11-2008 5:35am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so that would make he Talliban Noble and Heroic Freedom Fighters then?

No.
They're weren't exactly showing much love for Afghanistan's people or culture.

Edit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7747621.stm Not exactly what I'd call patriotic.

WakeUp · 23-05-2009 5:32am

I came across this story the other day and after reading it , it reminded me of the comments John Lennon made a couple of weeks before he was shot.

To cut a long story short some chap in England had been sending Jaquie Smith< Home Secretary, written letters calling her a communist and saying how evil she was for continuing to put in place systems to turn the UK into a massive police state.

Some weeks later the man who sent these letters received a phone call from his local GP asking him to come see him. So he went to see him. When he got there his GP informed him he had received a letter from the Fixated Threat Assesment Centre (FTAC) following instructions form the home secretary herself.
The GP was told to interview the man and determine his “state of mind”. If this was indeed what happened its something new in that if you criticize the government and they don’t like what you are saying you may receive a visit from a FTAC psychiatrist, be regarded as mentally ill and locked up forever with no trial or jury. Scary stuff indeed.
http://elementalsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/fixated-threat-assessment-centre-ftac.html
http://www.ukcolumn.org/2009/05/05/hot-off-the-press-3/

humanji · 23-05-2009 2:07pm

That's fairly shocking, but then again, if true, we don't know the content of the letters. They could of been death threats, so at least it's not as bad as in the states where you get an automatic prison sentence.

WakeUp · 24-05-2009 9:47pm

humanji wrote: »

That's fairly shocking, but then again, if true, we don't know the content of the letters. They could of been death threats, so at least it's not as bad as in the states where you get an automatic prison sentence.

If true it is fairly shocking I agree. Im thinking if he did send her death threats then he deserves a visit from someone because you cant do that, but if he did do that Id imagine he wouldnt have left his contact details on the letter and in turn his GP would not have been able to contact him. Maybe one these letters will surface at some stage and we can see for sure what was actually said.

6th · 24-05-2009 11:29pm

WakeUp wrote: »

if he did do that Id imagine he wouldnt have left his contact details on the letter and in turn his GP would not have been able to contact him.

A sane person wouldnt put their details on but thats the question, isn't it?

WakeUp · 25-05-2009 1:15am

6th wrote: »

A sane person wouldnt put their details on but thats the question, isn't it?

Its one of many questions alright would really need to see the letters this man sent to see for sure what was said. I will keep my eyes out for it online If I come across it I ll make sure to post it.

6th · 25-05-2009 9:25am

But you are willing to pass judgement on the people who did see the letters and took action against the man?

Twilight of the Psychopaths

Comments