Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:
A Hypothetical situation for you. You live in a country, your of a religious belief. An organisation pledeging to rule by your religious belief, having previously protected you from groups of War Lords thugs attacking you. You give your agreement to be ruled by then, things are peaceful. A forgien invader comes in and causes chaos to your country. Would you be happy?

I actually am taking the piss with this a little, i'm showing how hypothetical situations can be manipulated to suit any goal. Also, showing how its extremely misguided to think that the values of your country are better than anothers.

First off your hypothetical situation is complete BS. It's a weak attempt to delude people into thinking that things were peaceful in Afghanistan when the Taliban was running around holding AK-47's to people's heads and demanding money. Second of all, who said anything about anyones countries values being better than anothers? I asked a hypothetical question to see if you think action against a group that is causing more than a little tyranny in your country could be justified. Your answer was you didn't want help from another country. Let's make the hypothetical situation fit the actual situation in Afghanistan a little better and say the UK does not have forces that are capable of confronting this threat. Would you want help from another country then?

Stanky Danky wrote: First off your hypothetical situation is complete BS.

Further proving my point hypothetical situations are not helpful?

It's a weak attempt to delude people into thinking that things were peaceful in Afghanistan when the Taliban was running around holding AK-47's to people's heads and demanding money.

Any proof of this or should i believe it because you say so/Western media says so?

Who mentioned the Taliban, remember Hypothetical situations are only fair. Or is that only when you say them?

Second of all, who said anything about anyones countries values being better than anothers?

If invading another country to change the regime and instill your own values is justified, as you suggest, then their has to be some belief that the values which are the basis of the regime to be put in place are superior. Why else would you bother. Unless....maybe...it was all using it as a platform to invade another country, again illegally, who just happens to have a fuck load of oil?

I asked a hypothetical question to see if you think action against a group that is causing more than a little tyranny in your country could be justified. Your answer was you didn't want help from another country.

Again, Hypothetical situations are not useful as they dont present the true picture!

Let's make the hypothetical situation fit the actual situation in Afghanistan a little better and say the UK does not have forces that are capable of confronting this threat. Would you want help from another country then?

:

Yes lets.

Hypothetically a country exists which has a fear of another large country and its political ideology. Hypothetically this country has gone through the years changing regimes as they see fit, responsible for thousands of deaths because of this regime change they installed while also in the process creating more vicious dictators. Hypothetically another country is under the threat of this hypothetical political ideal which the main country in question apposes. This country, which is somewhere in the hypothetical middle east of a hypothetical world, just to the left of hypothetical India and hypothetical Pakistan. The main country in question anit too pleased at this, so they decide to arm to the teeth and train a hypothetical group of armed men to fight them. This hypothetical group of men were indeed actually given the general consensus to rule, as they protected the native population from Mujihadeen War Lords, a protection the native people wanted to continue, so therefore agreed to give ruling power to. However uncomfortable that makes us in West. Hypothetically, this hypothetical armed force no rebel against the hypothetical power of the hypothetical country which armed them. Does the Hypothetical country which armed the group, has such a bad record of regime change and has such a bad record of building countries after hypothetical wars have the right to invade the country of those who they armed to change the regime?

Please take that how it is meant, tongue in cheek.

However, adressing your question. No, i would not want help. As regime change is illegal under international law. I would not want another country to tarnish its' reputation by following my countries bad example.

been watching my james bond boxset recently, last night i watched 'The Living Daylights'
isn't it amazing that when the resistance was against the USSR hollywood/british cinema (United Artists to be precise) made them out to be these mystical figures who were fighting against the evil invaders, but now that NATO is the invader, the mujahadeen are now the evil monsters which need to be 'civilized' by the west,
Rambo 3 is another film which springs to mind,
no matter what sky news, bbc, abc, cbs, fox e.t.c all say, the mujahadeen/taliban do have support amongst the civilian population, otherwise they couldn't exist, the afghans have been fighting against foreign invaders for many many years, the brits were trying to control it a 100years ago & failed, as will the forces now, the afghans are a proud people who will lay down there lives to be free of foreign invaders, just like the homeguard would have done in britain had the nazis invaded,
thats not to say the taliban are not nasty pieces of work, but guess what, so are our governments, camp x-ray??, maybe if we also chopped off the hands of thieves & beheaded heroin dealers then the streets of our so called civilized countries would be alot safer

I'm asking you a simple question to see if you think action could be justified against a group that is terrorizing your country. Quit trying to muddy the waters by bringing in all this other stuff that isn't even relevant to my question. Now please tell me how you would feel about confronting a theoretical group like the Taliban in the UK without bringing Afghanistan, and your feelings about the US into the picture.

Stanky Danky wrote:I'm asking you a simple question to see if you think action could be justified against a group that is terrorizing your country. Quit trying to muddy the waters by bringing in all this other stuff that isn't even relevant to my question. Now please tell me how you would feel about confronting a theoretical group like the Taliban in the UK without bringing Afghanistan, and your feelings about the US into the picture.

No of course, a history of the Taliban in Afghanistan has nothing to do with you asking me a question of how i would deal with the Taliban in a UK context. Or, in fact, does it just go against what you think and is therefore unacceptable? Obviously neither does pointing out the problems with Hypothetical situations when you present to justify your shakey viewpoint.

Dude, the whole point of what i'm saying is if i was combating a group like the Taliban with its history of how it got in control, which i explained or muddied the water. I would not welcome any foreign help, as i have said before, but you seem to lack the ability to read my previous answers as if you did you would be able to apply them to one of your many questions i have answered and repeated myself doing so. YOU CANNOT ENFORCE DEMOCRACY FROM THE TOP DOWN. So there would be no point, as it would not help. The way you do it, is lead by example. So the joys of a society that is not run by the Taliban and the ability of other countries leaders to act in a morally superior way. When this happens, people revolt against a corrupt machine. I have already said this.

Again you love calling me a Yankist and saying im against America. You can't seem to leave it alone.

Pauli Wallnuts wrote:been watching my james bond boxset recently, last night i watched 'The Living Daylights'
isn't it amazing that when the resistance was against the USSR hollywood/british cinema (United Artists to be precise) made them out to be these mystical figures who were fighting against the evil invaders, but now that NATO is the invader, the mujahadeen are now the evil monsters which need to be 'civilized' by the west,
Rambo 3 is another film which springs to mind,
no matter what sky news, bbc, abc, cbs, fox e.t.c all say, the mujahadeen/taliban do have support amongst the civilian population, otherwise they couldn't exist, the afghans have been fighting against foreign invaders for many many years, the brits were trying to control it a 100years ago & failed, as will the forces now, the afghans are a proud people who will lay down there lives to be free of foreign invaders, just like the homeguard would have done in britain had the nazis invaded,
thats not to say the taliban are not nasty pieces of work, but guess what, so are our governments, camp x-ray??, maybe if we also chopped off the hands of thieves & beheaded heroin dealers then the streets of our so called civilized countries would be alot safer

As much as some people would like to deny it, subliminal propaganda exists. Here is a good documentary on Hollywood's relentless vilification of Arabs.

Reel Bad Arabs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... rabs&hl=en#

Pauli Wallnuts wrote:been watching my james bond boxset recently, last night i watched 'The Living Daylights'
isn't it amazing that when the resistance was against the USSR hollywood/british cinema (United Artists to be precise) made them out to be these mystical figures who were fighting against the evil invaders, but now that NATO is the invader, the mujahadeen are now the evil monsters which need to be 'civilized' by the west,
Rambo 3 is another film which springs to mind,
no matter what sky news, bbc, abc, cbs, fox e.t.c all say, the mujahadeen/taliban do have support amongst the civilian population, otherwise they couldn't exist, the afghans have been fighting against foreign invaders for many many years, the brits were trying to control it a 100years ago & failed, as will the forces now, the afghans are a proud people who will lay down there lives to be free of foreign invaders, just like the homeguard would have done in britain had the nazis invaded,
thats not to say the taliban are not nasty pieces of work, but guess what, so are our governments, camp x-ray??, maybe if we also chopped off the hands of thieves & beheaded heroin dealers then the streets of our so called civilized countries would be alot safer

I disagree with the end of you say man. But the rest the middle part i agree with.

This is my fundamental point. How can invading forces who claim to be democratic ignore democratic consensus in other countries. This means that we allow some conditions to be put on democracy, but only if they are our conditions, if not. We go to war. Its a crazy philosophy.

Stanky Danky wrote:

Pauli Wallnuts wrote:been watching my james bond boxset recently, last night i watched 'The Living Daylights'
isn't it amazing that when the resistance was against the USSR hollywood/british cinema (United Artists to be precise) made them out to be these mystical figures who were fighting against the evil invaders, but now that NATO is the invader, the mujahadeen are now the evil monsters which need to be 'civilized' by the west,
Rambo 3 is another film which springs to mind,
no matter what sky news, bbc, abc, cbs, fox e.t.c all say, the mujahadeen/taliban do have support amongst the civilian population, otherwise they couldn't exist, the afghans have been fighting against foreign invaders for many many years, the brits were trying to control it a 100years ago & failed, as will the forces now, the afghans are a proud people who will lay down there lives to be free of foreign invaders, just like the homeguard would have done in britain had the nazis invaded,
thats not to say the taliban are not nasty pieces of work, but guess what, so are our governments, camp x-ray??, maybe if we also chopped off the hands of thieves & beheaded heroin dealers then the streets of our so called civilized countries would be alot safer

As much as some people would like to deny it, subliminal propaganda exists. Here is a good documentary on Hollywood's relentless vilification of Arabs.

Reel Bad Arabs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... rabs&hl=en#

Good call.

Pauli Wallnuts wrote:been watching my james bond boxset recently, last night i watched 'The Living Daylights'
isn't it amazing that when the resistance was against the USSR hollywood/british cinema (United Artists to be precise) made them out to be these mystical figures who were fighting against the evil invaders, but now that NATO is the invader, the mujahadeen are now the evil monsters which need to be 'civilized' by the west,
Rambo 3 is another film which springs to mind,
no matter what sky news, bbc, abc, cbs, fox e.t.c all say, the mujahadeen/taliban do have support amongst the civilian population, otherwise they couldn't exist, the afghans have been fighting against foreign invaders for many many years, the brits were trying to control it a 100years ago & failed, as will the forces now, the afghans are a proud people who will lay down there lives to be free of foreign invaders, just like the homeguard would have done in britain had the nazis invaded,
thats not to say the taliban are not nasty pieces of work, but guess what, so are our governments, camp x-ray??, maybe if we also chopped off the hands of thieves & beheaded heroin dealers then the streets of our so called civilized countries would be alot safer

Afgans are proud people but not under the taliban, simple as and if you beleive different then tell that to the Afghan immigrants comming to the UK to flee the Taliban
Look at the swat valley in pakistan, Taliban gone and the people are happy. Nothing to do with coalition forces the pakistan army got rid of them. So i suppose that was wrong to? Nothing to do with religion or skin colour or oil or even gas. Just to free the people from the Taliban.
http://swatvalley.org/
We just need to get with the facts they are all there and plain to see.

The Taliban are evil just as hitler was

I agree with the facts. But, there was a conseus on the Taliban rule, that's how they were allowed to exist and rose to power. However that Website is awesome. Any idea who produces it?

Edit : This outlines the problem of Religious Law on secular communities. However, i dont think the Secular Swat region is common of the Afghanistan community as a whole.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

Stanky Danky wrote:I'm asking you a simple question to see if you think action could be justified against a group that is terrorizing your country. Quit trying to muddy the waters by bringing in all this other stuff that isn't even relevant to my question. Now please tell me how you would feel about confronting a theoretical group like the Taliban in the UK without bringing Afghanistan, and your feelings about the US into the picture.

No of course, a history of the Taliban in Afghanistan has nothing to do with you asking me a question of how i would deal with the Taliban in a UK context. Or, in fact, does it just go against what you think and is therefore unacceptable? Obviously neither does pointing out the problems with Hypothetical situations when you present to justify your shakey viewpoint.

Dude, the whole point of what i'm saying is if i was combating a group like the Taliban with its history of how it got in control, which i explained or muddied the water. I would not welcome any foreign help, as i have said before, but you seem to lack the ability to read my previous answers as if you did you would be able to apply them to one of your many questions i have answered and repeated myself doing so. YOU CANNOT ENFORCE DEMOCRACY FROM THE TOP DOWN. So there would be no point, as it would not help. The way you do it, is lead by example. So the joys of a society that is not run by the Taliban and the ability of other countries leaders to act in a morally superior way. When this happens, people revolt against a corrupt machine. I have already said this.

Again you love calling me a Yankist and saying im against America. You can't seem to leave it alone.

I love calling you a Yankist? I haven't said one word about you being anti-American in this thread. All I really wanted to know was how you felt about a theoretical situation in the UK, you're the one bringing in all this geo-political BS. I never asked about enforcing democracy. I asked how you felt about taking action against a group that was terrorizing your country. Apparently you think the best solution to a problem like this is for everyone to hold hands so their collective joy can defeat the problem.

TALIBAN m8, the Taliban thats what these conflicts are about which is my point. Not the Afghan people just the Taliban who will enter any country or region to take control. They dont care about any1 and religion is there main tool against the muslim communitys. The Pakistan Army would not tolerate it so got rid, Pakistan army are powerfull but the Afghan army is weak which is where the coalition comes in.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:I disagree with the end of you say man. But the rest the middle part i agree with.

thats just the daily mail logic deep inside of me, jumping to the surface in all seriousness, im against the death penalty, (except in extreme cases like peados who kidnap rape & murder little kids) i would personally tighten the noose
@Stanky Danky, i dont have 50mins to watch all that tnite (im going to watch the next bond film in the set, now, 'License To Kill' , but have bookmarked & will watch tmorow, thanks
@kermit that website looks real interesting i've bookmarked it & will have a proper read tmorow, i see what your saying about the migrants, but just like any political idealogy the taliban must have their supporters aswell as their detractors

war is just wrong.

"when the rich wage war its the poor who die"

cantona7 wrote:war is just wrong.

"when the rich wage war its the poor who die"

That might be over simplifying it a bit. Don't get me wrong I hate to see people die needlessly in war, but there are times when something needs to be done. WWII is a perfect example of this. If countries wouldn't have stood up and fought who knows how far Hitler would have gone. In a perfect utopian society there would be no need for war, but I am a realist who knows evil exists and sometimes needs to be dealt with.