Current Affairs Afghanistan

[gonetomorrow]

There's a growing thread in the media that the Taliban have turned over a new leaf and come back all reasonable and respectful of human rights. Whether this is being put about by government wonks hoping that they can wash their hands of Afghanistan and salve their consciences or not is impossible to say but at any rate it appears to be wishful thinking on a grand scale.
The guys in the armed pickups look like the same flinty-eyed cut throats as before. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[tsubaki]

There's a growing thread in the media that the Taliban have turned over a new leaf and come back all reasonable and respectful of human rights. Whether this is being put about by government wonks hoping that they can wash their hands of Afghanistan and salve their consciences or not is impossible to say but at any rate it appears to be wishful thinking on a grand scale.
The guys in the armed pickups look like the same flinty-eyed cut throats as before. I hope I'm wrong.

There is some of that, but there are also some (that General earlier in the week for example) that recognize that this evacuation would not be possible without them not opposing it (if not co-operating).

 

[PhilM]

There's a growing thread in the media that the Taliban have turned over a new leaf and come back all reasonable and respectful of human rights. Whether this is being put about by government wonks hoping that they can wash their hands of Afghanistan and salve their consciences or not is impossible to say but at any rate it appears to be wishful thinking on a grand scale.
The guys in the armed pickups look like the same flinty-eyed cut throats as before. I hope I'm wrong.

Sadly, you won't be. There's already many examples of Taliban fighters or those aligned to them taking retribution and enforcing draconian laws.

In reality, the Taliban still haven't cemented their rule across Afghanistan as even they will be surprised how quickly the government forces collapsed.

There are still Western forces and observes in the country, which they are keen to not agitate. When the media furore dies down and all forces have left...

... the Taliban will really show their ways. It may not happen overnight, but rather a gradual showing of their true ways will occur once they've got power.

The Taliban are happy to not oppose NATO forces and will be curbing their overall behaviour as it accelerates our withdraw.

 

[dholliday]

I have watched it - have you? I ask because again it’s really hard to see how someone can rave about it (and presumably agree with what it says about how totalitarianism functions) whilst also continuing to praise / defend Trump and cite with approval the Washington Examiner.

Again, i note with interest you ignoring that the Washington Times posted the same thing.

Does that not...compute?

 

[Shevin Keedy]

There's a growing thread in the media that the Taliban have turned over a new leaf and come back all reasonable and respectful of human rights. Whether this is being put about by government wonks hoping that they can wash their hands of Afghanistan and salve their consciences or not is impossible to say but at any rate it appears to be wishful thinking on a grand scale.
The guys in the armed pickups look like the same flinty-eyed cut throats as before. I hope I'm wrong.

As has been said, you will not be wrong.

You can trust us - say the insurgents who have just taken control of a country by force and overthrown the government.

Besides which there are videos of (what I suppose must be) Taliban fighters beating the crap out of women at the airport in tne crowds. They do it directly in front of western soldiers who I assume are under strict orders not to get involved. It is harrowing.

 

[tsubaki]

Again, i note with interest you ignoring that the Washington Times posted the same thing.

Does that not...compute?

Apparently not, I mean it’s not like I’ve told you at least twice now that the reason I cited the WE as dubious was not because of that article.

How do you oppose elite media promoting totalitarianism by reading a paper funded by a right-wing billionaire, by the way?

 

[ste d' indica]

Apparently not, I mean it’s not like I’ve told you at least twice now that the reason I cited the WE as dubious was not because of that article.

How do you oppose elite media promoting totalitarianism by reading a paper funded by a right-wing billionaire, by the way?

Because consistency is for 'other people'.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

There is some of that, but there are also some (that General earlier in the week for example) that recognize that this evacuation would not be possible without them not opposing it (if not co-operating).

Same will will happen with ISIS/Daesh, eventually!

 

[dholliday]

Apparently not, I mean it’s not like I’ve told you at least twice now that the reason I cited the WE as dubious was not because of that article.

How do you oppose elite media promoting totalitarianism by reading a paper funded by a right-wing billionaire, by the way?

eh? Who cares about the Washington Examiner? What makes you assume I'm a reader of it?

I didn't even link it, i linked a Yahoo News link which cited it. It could just as well have cited the Times piece.

You're deflecting, as you know you've been caught. You've not actually discussed the content of that story.


It does folk a lot of good to admit where they've stumbled in a debate. It makes them clearer thinkers, for next time they are better prepared.


And further, GOT's Current Affairs is an extreme example of groupthinkian ad-hominem principles...almost every time a story or opinion gets brought up which your groupthink does not like, the focus of your attack goes to the messenger, not the message.

Yous never get out of second gear:

Boris's Tories win elections because they're able to debate above 2nd-gear, and their voters appreciate it.

Because consistency is for 'other people'.

Another second-gearist, tho' barely even that.

 

[ste d' indica]

eh? Who cares about the Washington Examiner? What makes you assume I'm a reader of it?

I didn't even link it, i linked a Yahoo News link which cited it. It could just as well have cited the Times piece.

You're deflecting, as you know you've been caught. You've not actually discussed the content of that story.


It does folk a lot of good to admit where they've stumbled in a debate. It makes them clearer thinkers, for next time they are better prepared.


And further, GOT's Current Affairs is an extreme example of groupthinkian ad-hominem principles...almost every time a story or opinion gets brought up which your groupthink does not like, the focus of your attack goes to the messenger, not the message.

Yous never get out of second gear:

Boris's Tories win elections because they're able to debate above 2nd-gear, and their voters appreciate it.





Another second-gearist, tho' barely even that.

lol...seriously, get over yourself.

 

[tsubaki]

Same will will happen with ISIS/Daesh, eventually!

doubt it - that lot rely on the conflict with the West

eh? Who cares about the Washington Examiner? What makes you assume I'm a reader of it?

I didn't even link it, i linked a Yahoo News link which cited it. It could just as well have cited the Times piece.

You're deflecting, as you know you've been caught. You've not actually discussed the content of that story.


It does folk a lot of good to admit where they've stumbled in a debate. It makes them clearer thinkers, for next time they are better prepared.


And further, GOT's Current Affairs is an extreme example of groupthinkian ad-hominem principles...almost every time a story or opinion gets brought up which your groupthink does not like, the focus of your attack goes to the messenger, not the message.

Yous never get out of second gear:

Boris's Tories win elections because they're able to debate above 2nd-gear, and their voters appreciate it.





Another second-gearist, tho' barely even that.

lol

"how dare you assume I read a pro-Trump rag, my pro-Trump thoughts are all my own work, here look at all the evidence I've assembled from various pro-Trump rags"

 

[dholliday]

lol...seriously, get over yourself.

look at your reply, seriously...have a think about it:

Because consistency is for 'other people'.

You're assuming the deflection @tsubaki is attempting is true: that I'm a reader of the Washington Examiner, and that this makes me inconsistent in some way. Hence, my opinion can safely be disregarded.

That is barely ad-hominem.

 

[ste d' indica]

look at your reply, seriously...have a think about it:

Because consistency is for 'other people'.

You're assuming the deflection @tsubaki is attempting is true: that I'm a reader of the Washington Examiner, and that this makes me inconsistent in some way. Hence, my opinion can safely be disregarded.

That is barely ad-hominem.

Sure, you have a nice Sunday.

 

[dholliday]

"how dare you assume I read a pro-Trump rag, my pro-Trump thoughts are all my own work, here look at all the evidence I've assembled from various pro-Trump rags"

I hope you're wumming, because if not then that is a stunningly stupid comment.

Are you uni-educated?


You replied to my below comment only last night. That's where you started this weird deflection about Washington Examiner:

spot-check of all the sources & links i've made in this thread:

The Guardian
MSNBC

 

[dholliday]

Sure, you have a nice Sunday.

thanks, you too