Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

the happy hacker wrote:This thread is getting a bit like...........



Marco i apologize for my aphorism in advance.........

i Spit on Every Wall in this world! DOWN WIT THE WALLS! But one the Great WAll Must stay!
Mexican WALL DOWN
Euro WALL DOWN
Isreal WALL first to COME DOWN
and us all the Bricks to build The great Canadian WALL
or maybe Mexico and Canada should WALL in the Americans and then GAS them all ake a big American BAR_B_Q

[/quote]
i Spit on Every Wall in this world! DOWN WIT THE WALLS! But one the Great WAll Must stay!
Mexican WALL DOWN
Euro WALL DOWN
Isreal WALL first to COME DOWN
and us all the Bricks to build The great Canadian WALL
or maybe Mexico and Canada should WALL in the Americans and then GAS them all ake a big American BAR_B_Q [/quote]

Me no likey either.....just for you....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80w5dpJCSFY

smoking some purple edelweiss right now..i just looked out side..looks great...couple crows fuckin with a squirell,that has a peice of bread...oh wait...a car just went by.....so far none of this thread affected the weather or the squirell....just knowin the squirells smarter then adamster is making me smile...

That wouldn't make me smart is that what your trying to say?
im shocked coming from you But wait your mother is your sister and is you grand mother? and brother is your father son :S is that what your realy tryin to say? cuase iv got Prouf of this!

Stanky Danky wrote:I'm done debating someone who mis-quotes me and twists my words and uses them out of context. I never said it's all bullshit geo-politics. I said you keep bringing in all this geo-political BS. I never asked for the history of the taliban and America's involvement in Afghanistan. Again I posed a hypothetical question about a group like the Taliban, not the Taliban. Your lengthy rants might have been relevant to a debate about Americas involvement in Afghanistan, but they have nothing to with the hypothetical group that I was asking about.

Would i welcome American force to rid the UK of a Extremeist movement?

If that was the UK, i would not want American assistence. Firstly, you bring up points like Human Sheilds, would there be a need for sheilds if they werent fighting an invading force?

Secondly, regime change is illegal by international law. So i would not want America to interfene, as they have no right to so by international law.

Thirdly, if a group such as the Taliban were to be in control given by the majority of the population. Then No again. Because this is demorcacy, it is a downside to demorcacy, but the alternatives are worse.

Fourth, fair rule is something that can be only bulit from the bottham up. I wouldn't want America to come in as by imposing their will from the top down, there would not be change in the long term. I would want America to leave my country so that the people can develop and make change for themselves.

Fifth, if we take the real world example of America in Afghanistan of America putting in a leader who is equally corrupt as the Taliban i would not want them to come in to make the country just as bad as it was but with a war to get there.

Third time of posting? The first line may give an answer if you want to read it this time.



Edit : As i posted before, and you ignored, a force LIKE the Taliban, who have values LIKE the Taliban? Which would be anti-democratic.

Adamster wrote:That wouldn't make me smart is that what your trying to say?
im shocked coming from you But wait your mother is your sister and is you grand mother? and brother is your father son :S is that what your realy tryin to say? cuase iv got Prouf of this!

so thats yer twin brother..i was just thinkin that the squirell could run canada too..while hes fighting the crows...just flush the toilet once a day..all it takes i recon

...it's you and who knows.?!!..im suprized you didnt kill it yet or maybe that what you doin right now cooking squirell ?i hear its good?you having Skunk also?crows most tast like chicken? how you cook this stuff?since i aint a hillbilly like you tells more about your people ...
i hear you living in a snowbank now?

Adamster wrote:...it's you and who knows.?!!..im suprized you didnt kill it yet or maybe that what you doin right now cooking squirell ?i hear its good?you having Skunk also?crows most tast like chicken? how you cook this stuff?since i aint a hillbilly like you tells more about your people ...
i hear you living in a snowbank now?

'

hahahaha CLASSIC

But squirrel is really not bad.

are you guys drunk?
come down with a joint

Marco wrote:

Adamster wrote:...it's you and who knows.?!!..im suprized you didnt kill it yet or maybe that what you doin right now cooking squirell ?i hear its good?you having Skunk also?crows most tast like chicken? how you cook this stuff?since i aint a hillbilly like you tells more about your people ...
i hear you living in a snowbank now?

'

hahahaha CLASSIC

But squirrel is really not bad.

2 pods of peas

Thank you Adamster and USBONGLORD for lifting this tedious debate to a level more in keeping with the HIGH vibes of the ACD stoner heaven.

I'm not belittling such an important subject, and of course I don't have to read the threads but this is a public conversation so I do.

All of us, realist's and idealist's, please take the time to listen to Arvo Parts Sanctus with poetry by Wilfred Owen who formed his poetry in the mud and madness of the first world war Somme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMOrx-B86S4

For our sisters and brothers at war.

F#(k sorry but i'm gonna join the tedium.
Sir Niall, you said

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.

I'm no historian man but I dont know if the many different people in Afganistan have had much of a chance to even consider the benefits of secularism, certainly not in recent times anyway. I think we are maybe using the wrong words in this discussion. For instance Democracy, a very badly used word in many contexts, pluralism is what best works for me, the freedom to be and to think and the space to articulate openly what you are thinking if you want and of course their are many types of repressive regimes that wont allow this. I think also, if you dont mind me saying that these discussions often reduce the human component to an amorphos mass, and I know you dont think that, but I cant help thinking that given the opportunity loads of people in Afganistan and lots of other screwed up places, just want a nice little house, a nice little car, a couple of kids, a good school to send them to and a job to pay for it. OK a bit simple I know, but most peoples aspirations are in my experience. The kids man, some of them just wanna watch a bit of the X Factor or something and get on down on a saturday night with MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX just like us. Shouldn't we give them some help and encouragement to do that? Maybe they would like the chance to join the ACD and big it up in the Dam, I dont know I'm stoned. Take care Prof. Keep reading them books man you've got a good heart if you don't mind me saying .

Peace Spider

spidergawd wrote: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.

I'm no historian man but I dont know if the many different people in Afganistan have had much of a chance to even consider the benefits of secularism, certainly not in recent times anyway. I think we are maybe using the wrong words in this discussion. For instance Democracy, a very badly used word in many contexts, pluralism is what best works for me, the freedom to be and to think and the space to articulate openly what you are thinking if you want and of course their are many types of repressive regimes that wont allow this. I think also, if you dont mind me saying that these discussions often reduce the human component to an amorphos mass, and I know you dont think that, but I cant help thinking that given the opportunity loads of people in Afganistan and lots of other screwed up places, just want a nice little house, a nice little car, a couple of kids, a good school to send them to and a job to pay for it. OK a bit simple I know, but most peoples aspirations are in my experience. The kids man, some of them just wanna watch a bit of the X Factor or something and get on down on a saturday night with MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX just like us. Shouldn't we give them some help and encouragement to do that? Maybe they would like the chance to join the ACD and big it up in the Dam, I dont know I'm stoned. Take care Prof. Keep reading them books man you've got a good heart if you don't mind me saying .

Peace Spider[/quote]

Yo SG. I think you are maybe right, many people don't really consider Secularized society because of the reward punishment concept assiociated mainly with Judo-Christian theology. Often this theology evoles a fear within an individual, fear of hell for example. But i was just taking that from the website which Kermit linked,

Swat is a luxuriant and scenic valley within 160 kms from three of Pakistan's most important cities: Peshawar, Rawalpindi and Islamabad, the capital. Approximately 1.5 million people live in this culturally rich area, which is approximately 5,000 square km in size ( roughly the size of Delaware )
Once an independent, relatively secular region, dotted with brooks, waterfalls, ski resorts and known for its glaciers, fruit orchards and pure honey,

Secular, the true meaning imo refers to a society which is not ruled by religion. A Secular society can exist with Religious groups within it, infact i believe it to be the case that the only society in which Religions can flourish is a Secular one. That's what i meant when i used the term Secular.

For me, i've only understood Pluralism in a religious context i.e that all religions are equal. However i see your interpretation and i think it's apporiate for this context. But my main point with Pluralism in this context is that complete freedom to think,say and be Governed may result in Islamic/Religious Extremists. That is the downside of this type of Pluralism. For a power to claim to support this type of ideology but put perimeters on it for others i can't see as justifiable. I think it goes without saying that there are Universal morals, where they come from is a different argument, so there is indeed sometimes reason for intervention. However, in the context of the Afghan war i dont think it constitutes the war, mainly because the Taliban were given acceptance to rule some areas. Also, it is important to note the portrayal of the Taliban controlling all of Afghanistan is extremely misleading, their are some Tribal areas which are under Tribe control, this is not the Taliban. They may sympathize with them but they are a separate force.

I agree with you again man, it is easy to fall into a Ultalitarian critique of situations. Ultalitarian being the political/moral Phillosophy that the right action is that which produces the best consequences for the majority. Put simply it is ' the greatest good for the greatest number.' However there are much more conditions put on that than just described. Whether this is a good way to govern society is another matter, an old lecturer of mine put it well when he said this approach is often ' neatly wrong while others messily correct.' In this context, the approach gives clear answers, just not the right ones.

I also think your right with people wanting the things you described. I just think for that to happen you need a tolerant liberal Democracy somethign which can only be built from the ground up. Not the other way around.

I'm not anti-intervention. I just not sure if the Afghanistan war can be justified, truth be told im sure its illegal. If we were that obessed with helping the world and its oppressed people, why not North Korea?