• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taliban Demands Unbiased Coverage of Its Attempted Murder of a 14-Year-Old Girl

Either they have a collective "right" to live as they choose, with their own laws, or they don't.
Which is it?

If they do, it doesn't matter.

If they don't, then we "as in a collective world we", need to be involved in a little more policing action. An not be restrained when doing it.


So which route do we take?

The mission in A-stan was to get the ones that did 9-11, not nation build. Anybody that thinks we are going to make a core or even seam state out of A-stan needs to re-think.
 
The mission in A-stan was to get the ones that did 9-11, not nation build. Anybody that thinks we are going to make a core or even seam state out of A-stan needs to re-think.
That's ok. But we shouldn't have had our hands tied like they were.
And then again maybe we should have been in there to nation build.
 
That's ok. But we shouldn't have had our hands tied like they were.
And then again maybe we should have been in there to nation build.

The thing is....you're talking about the power of a tribal chief or a muj warlord, the point is this. They aren't oriented to a central power structure and rule by law. It is early feudal. Some tribes or minor warlords may be subservient to a larger warlord, but it doesn't go beyond that. No central government will have the loyalty or obedience of all the afghans. Authority is maintained by force of arms. That makes nation building an exercise in futility.
 
Nobody understands why we shot that 14 yr old girl, and now they're saying mean things about us. :baby2

It amuses me is that those animals think being un-Islamic is a justifiable reason to shoot someone. I hope the Pakistanis tear them a new asshole and maybe curb stomp their heads into the ground for what they did to that girl. Animals like that only understand violence so you must use violence against them.
 
They aren't oriented to a central power structure and rule by law. It is early feudal. Some tribes or minor warlords may be subservient to a larger warlord, but it doesn't go beyond that.
And they also have an idea of what encapsulates defeat at the hands of their enemy.

That makes nation building an exercise in futility.
No it doesn't. It just means that the tactics must be suited to the environment.


As it is, our hands are tied because we will not do what is necessary.
 
It amuses me is that those animals think being un-Islamic is a justifiable reason to shoot someone.
Why?
I mean, they see it as something that damages their Country and belief system. If someone in the U.S. releases classified documents, do we not want that person who damaged us to be punished?

The though process is not really any different except in the specific of what it is thought to be damaging, and in punishment, but sometimes not even then.
 
Why?
I mean, they see it as something that damages their Country and belief system. If someone in the U.S. releases classified documents, do we not want that person who damaged us to be punished?


Not the same thing.
 
The thought process is.

One involves the security of the country the other involves a bunch of animals living in the stone age who are trying to impose their will on the rest of the country through fear. So the thought process is not the same.
 
And they also have an idea of what encapsulates defeat at the hands of their enemy.

No it doesn't. It just means that the tactics must be suited to the environment.


As it is, our hands are tied because we will not do what is necessary.

It's possible....but

A-stan has always had war lords. After the fall of the Soviet backed government, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan all backed rival warlords. The Taliban started in Kandahar, rescuing a couple of young girls who had been kidnapped by a local governor and raped repeatedly. They hung the governor from a tank barrel. Then a couple of militia commanders were fighting to see who got to **** some kid and they rescued the boy. This is 1994. They gained power from there.


As for nation building, please list our successes since Germany and Japan. And I don't think you could really count them since we didn't change the structure of their governments in a huge way aside from removing a dictatorship Hitler/Tojo.
 
Either they have a collective "right" to live as they choose, with their own laws, or they don't.
Which is it?

If they do, it doesn't matter.

If they don't, then we "as in a collective world we", need to be involved in a little more policing action. An not be restrained when doing it.


So which route do we take?
They take actions that fight against the progress of society, they need to be removed from society. I personally do not care if they form thier own little Islamic fundamentalist country and oppress each other, but if the want to try and push thier agenda on others then the only option for removal from modern society is by force.

I think killing is wrong, and very hard to justify but at a certain point people have to be killed to preserve the lives of others in greater numbers. Some consider that a justification for genocide, but with nuclear weapons and such a terror based ideology in the same region, it may be the only way to prevent a much larger loss of life.
 
Hmm, mainstream Pakistanis aren't understanding why the big, bad Taliban was justified in shooting a child in the face. Who knew? :lol:

The Pakistani MSM is biased.
 
One involves the security of the country the other involves a bunch of animals living in the stone age who are trying to impose their will on the rest of the country through fear. So the thought process is not the same.
Well, that is definitely one take on it.

The thought process is the same as already demonstrated.

Which goes directly to the point of whether or not they should be allowed to live as they choose or should there be interference.






It's possible....but

Yes it's possible....but we need to be willing to do that which is necessary. Not have our hands tied.


As for nation building, please list our successes since Germany and Japan. And I don't think you could really count them since we didn't change the structure of their governments in a huge way aside from removing a dictatorship Hitler/Tojo.
We did then what was necessary to get the job done.





They take actions that fight against the progress of society, they need to be removed from society. I personally do not care if they form thier own little Islamic fundamentalist country and oppress each other, but if the want to try and push thier agenda on others then the only option for removal from modern society is by force.

I think killing is wrong, and very hard to justify but at a certain point people have to be killed to preserve the lives of others in greater numbers. Some consider that a justification for genocide, but with nuclear weapons and such a terror based ideology in the same region, it may be the only way to prevent a much larger loss of life.
Progress?
Such an subjective term.

Would Islamist not see the whole world becoming Muslim, as progress? To treat every person the same as in this topic if guilty of such actions?
Of course they would, so let's save the meaningless terminology.

Other than that, I am not sure I understand your position.
Are you in the camp of - they have no right to live as they choose, even though you say - "I personally do not care if they form thier own little Islamic fundamentalist country and oppress each other, but if the want to try and push thier agenda on others then the only option for removal from modern society is by force."
Because they would be pushing an agenda within their own country, which you seem opposed.
 
How about a cruise missile, they're pretty unbiased.

Cruise missiles are so unbiased that they end up killing 200+ civilians for every one Taliban fighter (i. e. the one whose location was based on "suspected sites" ).

So much for negating the momentum the Western world now has (as a result of the brave teen's stand) :rolleyes:
 
Hopefully the people of Pakastan will be motivated to rid their country of Taliban. Beliefs or not, the Taliban have no place in todays world, (imo).

Unfortunately, due to the bungling incompetence of the US military and Pakistani government, they still do.
 
By progress I mean moving toward a more technological, secular, more productive society. Which would encompass anything from communism to capitalism, but not creating a theological state.

What I am getting at by my comments that they can oppress themselves is that if they were to form a state were the vast majority had no desire to march into the world of progress, then it wouldnt matter. The Amish don't fit my concept of progress either, but they don't attack thouse that do. They more or less willingly segregate themselves interacting only as much as they really need to.

That is fine, I wouldn't care at all if the Taliban did that. The problem is, the people of Pakistan are not united with that vision of the future, by and large they want an approach that could broadly fit my term of progress. The second someone imposes thier views with force like this on those that don't share them, and they are the minority, society has the right to get rid of those people.
 


Other than that, I am not sure I understand your position.
Are you in the camp of - they have no right to live as they choose, even though you say - "I personally do not care if they form thier own little Islamic fundamentalist country and oppress each other, but if the want to try and push thier agenda on others then the only option for removal from modern society is by force."
Because they would be pushing an agenda within their own country, which you seem opposed.

Ok.....my position

We need friendly acquaintances, we don't need piss-ant "allies",Excon that we need to prop up, help with security and the rest of the bull****, etc. Especially with Muslim countries, we shouldn't be in the business of nation building. Their culture is too foreign. Not that we can't understand it, its just that it is foreign to our way of doing things and unless you are willing to destroy that culture and rebuild it in our image, trying to graft on our way of doing things just hasn't been proven to work.

Make it clear to whoever is in charge that it is their country. You don't **** with us and we won't **** with you. **** policing the world and trying to make everyone toe the line regarding human rights. If they want to change it's up to them. Tell the dictator of the decade that we're happy to supply a little monetary assistance from time to time as long as he doesn't become too oppressive AND he keeps the anti-American militants in the dirt. But if he allows terrorists to operate from, train in, have safe haven in his country, then expect a ****load of bombs and no ****ing money. We'll offer the same deal to the survivors or whoever supplants your ass.

Fair enough?
 
Nobody understands why we shot that 14 yr old girl, and now they're saying mean things about us. :baby2

Great find......... thanks for posting.
 
Nobody understands why we shot that 14 yr old girl, and now they're saying mean things about us. :baby2

This line cracks me up:

"Clearly Pakistani reporters should be giving equal weight to the pros and cons of shooting children in the face."

What a ****ing joke.
 
Ok.....my position

We need friendly acquaintances, we don't need piss-ant "allies",Excon that we need to prop up, help with security and the rest of the bull****, etc. Especially with Muslim countries, we shouldn't be in the business of nation building. Their culture is too foreign. Not that we can't understand it, its just that it is foreign to our way of doing things and unless you are willing to destroy that culture and rebuild it in our image, trying to graft on our way of doing things just hasn't been proven to work.

Make it clear to whoever is in charge that it is their country. You don't **** with us and we won't **** with you. **** policing the world and trying to make everyone toe the line regarding human rights. If they want to change it's up to them. Tell the dictator of the decade that we're happy to supply a little monetary assistance from time to time as long as he doesn't become too oppressive AND he keeps the anti-American militants in the dirt. But if he allows terrorists to operate from, train in, have safe haven in his country, then expect a ****load of bombs and no ****ing money. We'll offer the same deal to the survivors or whoever supplants your ass.

Fair enough?
Fair enough!

Me. I am not opposed to either action.

As long as it is clear they do not act outside of their boarders, they can do as they wish. But we know that will eventually be disregarded.

And if we are to act in either a responsive or preemptive way, we do not need to *****foot around.
 
Back
Top Bottom