@dakotaviper From what I can tell, it's only really been a war zone since 1978. They're not exactly mindless savages; they're just very resistant to being tamed by outsiders.
@BlueVeins What do you mean they don't have to live in a war zone forever? The extremists are taking over, it's still a war zone lmao. The extremists are not going to grant everyone rights and it will be like frolicking in the fields with daisies lol.
@BlueVeins For the Gay Muslims and other people who aren't part of the extremist's philosophy, it IS war because they are perpetually the extremist's enemies. I don't know why you think there's rules to war.
@OogieBoogie IDK why you're acting like this is new information. Yes, that's how totalitarian hellholes work all around the world. It's disgusting, it's horrendous, but it's not America's job to force everyone to be as secular and liberal as we are.
@BlueVeins I'm Saying, that they have, and will be living in a type of warzone for a long time to come. When you fear your own government, your freedoms are taken... It make not 'look' like war on the outside, but it is still a type of war...
And America did no good stepping in.
It was never something they could have achieved on their own.
@BlueVeins [quote]BlueVeins · 18-21, M @CULTure Awfully dishonest of you to conflate authoritarianism with war.[/quote]
Oh yeah I didn't understand what you said on purpose, I'm so dishonest. Like what the fvck? Do all political people just get together and think that whenever someone doesn't understand what their getting at because it just sounds illogical when they could just clarify instead of accuse, it's some purposeful conspiracy?
To think that all the time must be physically exhausting, you must stop lest it uses up most of your brain power.
But since you can't clear that up for me without making an accusation, no fret! At least the American army isn't there anymore but now they'll just have to deal with women being stoned for showing wrist skin.
But nah, that's not going to be a war zone, the extremists will give a puppy to every child's family they murder. That will make this def. not a war zone.
@BlueVeins [quote]but it's not America's job to force everyone to be as secular and liberal as we are.[/quote]
Yeah because ALL Muslims want what the extremists want for sure! You can't force criminals to not be criminals. So I guess we shouldn't arrest them oh wells not everyone wants to be secular, so screw their victims.
@OogieBoogie Oh but it's not a war zone, how dare you conflate a war zone with authoritarianism. You're so dishonest on purpose, how dare you! *kidding* lol no I agree with you though.
@SatanBurger [quote]The definition of war means a state of conflict, the extremists won't make a state of conflict in that region? Hmmm okay.[/quote]
look at you, cropping out half the definition to fit your needs
[quote]Yeah because ALL Muslims want what the extremists want for sure! And back in the 60s the Middle East looked completely different. When the extremists were driven out, liberated cities of women literally lifted off their hijab and celebrated so yes, everyone actually does want rights and they do want to be liberalized with those rights. It's just you have extremists who don't want them to, that's the difference. Saying that you can't force people to give others rights and freedoms, well you can't force criminals to not be criminals. So I guess we shouldn't arrest them.[/quote]
Not sure why you're broadening this to all Muslims, but if the Afghani people want rights, they've been given every opportunity to stand up and take them. We gave them trillions of dollars in support for their government. We armed them, trained them, built roads and other infrastructure. But when time came for them to actually face down the Taliban, they cried and surrendered immediately. This is not what it looks like when a people wants freedom.
In any case, the Middle East was [i]never[/i] free of Islamic fundamentalists in modern history. What time period are you even referring to? The only two I can think of are the Ottomans under the Young Turks & Iran under the US puppet government, but neither of those were liberalism in any serious sense of the word. Muslims were brutally oppressed and in the latter case, the fundamentalists eventually struck back.
@OogieBoogie [quote]I'm Saying, that they have, and will be living in a type of warzone for a long time to come. When you fear your own government, your freedoms are taken... It make not 'look' like war on the outside, but it is still a type of war...[/quote]
It's not a war; war is, by definition, a 2-way armed conflict between peoples or factions. Oppression might feel like a war, but they're fundamentally two separate phenomenon. Sorry to hear about your friend; sounds like they had it pretty damn rough. 💗
@BlueVeins It was actually the second definition and the picture you gave, the definition was split up into three parts with three different definitions. The first definition was talking about structure, the second said a state of conflict which the extremists will do to their enemies.
These are people who according to a Muslim boxing club owner, shun women's sports and riding close to a woman because they think (quite literally) that even sitting with a woman will get them to develop t!ts and a vag. Like literally.. part of the reason why they don't mix with women is because they think it will femininize them. They're THAT dumb.. yes they are. The only thing they have is fire power and lots of money so that's equally as dangerous.
You think that they won't keep the area into a continual state of conflict? These are people who literally think that staring at men's legs will cause women to go into a lustful homicidal rage (yes they actually made that rule once because they were concerned starting at men's legs will turn women into lustful harpies.)
You really think they're for technology or science lmfao? They'll keep the middle east in the dark ages hence war!
[quote]We armed them, trained them, built roads and other infrastructure. But when time came for them to actually face down the Taliban, they cried and surrendered immediately. This is not what it looks like when a people wants freedom.[/quote]
That's kind of blaming the victim don't you think? If an abuse victim were given resources to fight back but doesn't take it and ends up being with the abuser instead, does this mean they want it or does it mean they are trauma bonded?
There is such thing as trauma bonding, there is such thing as PTSD. They been like this for centuries so that's a lot of trauma that is with an entire population of people. I don't support victim blaming because there's too many things that I don't know about that. How many did they train? What are the people like?
No I know what trauma does to people, they don't ask for this, nobody does.
@SatanBurger [quote]It was actually the second definition and the picture you gave, the definition was split up into three parts with three different definitions. The first definition was talking about structure, the second said a state of conflict which the extremists will do to their enemies.[/quote]
In that case, you're using the fallacy of equivocation; I was clearly talking about the reciprocal armed conflict definition from the get-go.
[quote]You think that they won't keep the area into a continual state of conflict? These are people who literally think that staring at men's legs will cause women to go into a lustful homicidal rage (yes they actually made that rule once because they were concerned starting at men's legs will turn women into lustful harpies.)[/quote]
Maybe conflict, but not on the same scale. I mean usually you don't end up with protracted warfare when one political organization has a monopoly or near-monopoly on power.
[quote]You really think they're for technology or science lmfao? They'll keep the middle east in the dark ages hence war![/quote]
That's a non-sequitur. The Taliban oppose technology; therefore, they'll go to war? No, they probably just won't invent a whole lot of shit.
[quote]That's kind of blaming the victim don't you think? If a rape victim were given resources to fight back but doesn't take it and ends up being with the abuser instead, does this mean they want it or does it mean they are trauma bonded?[/quote]
We're talking about a government that was established by an outside power for that outside power's ends. The Afghan people didn't ask for the Afghan government to exist; the US government set it up and they kinda just had to accept it because the US is militarily powerful. And look, if you talk about a rape victim, that's just some random person abruptly shoved into a harsh situation. We're talking about three hundred thousand soldiers who'd been specifically trained for this one task for 20 odd years.
And look, when you talk about one person, there's sufficient variation in personality traits such that some people just aren't cut out for war (myself included). I don't blame any individual for not fighting because warfare is extremely brutal. But what I'm saying is that if these people actually cared about secular, democratic, liberal values, there would've been enough of them fighting the good fight to keep the relatively small and ill-equipped Taliban at bay.
@SatanBurger If our mission was a humanitarian mission, we coulda gotten a billion times the results by investing in infrastructure & social support in stable states like Columbia and India, where our capitol inputs would actually benefit the population after the tap stops. I've been working with an organization that raises money for women's hygiene facilities in rural India, effectively giving women there access to education & work opportunities.
While this work isn't as flashy as killing Islamofascists, the few thousand dollars that my organization put towards one of these facilities will benefit women's freedom for decades to come, whereas all the trillions of dollars dumped into Afghanistan was effectively lost, turned to ashes, the moment we decided we didn't want to fight their battles for them. This was always going to happen somewhere down the line. I really think that if we want freedom for people around the world, we should do it through more modest development projects that can cause a sort of snowball effect for human rights.
@BlueVeins we are all choosing the definitions online that suit our arguments.
Here is the legal definition of war:
It is about force. Trade wars are fought without weapons. There is industrial war Ecconminc war Civil war.... The list goes on.
And I'm sorry... Fear IS a weapon. In fact, it's one of the most powerful ones. Demoralise a people enough, and they won't fight back even if they have weapons.
And sadly... It's going to be used on those still there 😔
And yes... I will never forget his story as long as I live... It reminds me how lucky I am
@OogieBoogie By that definition though, the situation you're describing isn't a war. The definition in question states that war is either civil or national; civil wars take place between two parties in a nation & national wars take place between two nations. Oppression isn't a civil war because it isn't being waged between parties; it's being waged by one party (i.e. the government) against another & not the other way around. National war takes place between two nations, so that obviously doesn't fit.
@BlueVeins Agreed and see what you're saying. I just disagree on the reasoning, to you it seems like the people don't want it but to me given what I know of trauma, these people are acting exactly in that psychological realm. The term trauma bonding doesn't come from "one person." It's a well known term and why abuse victims keep going back despite some having the resources to do so. If that happens to abuse victims, I think that term could apply to civilians being held hostage by authoritarianism. Trauma bonding doesn't happen because of a specific personality trait, it happens because of the brain's way of perceiving trauma subconsciously so it's not a conscious decision.
If they feel like something is unreachable and unattainable, they won't do it because they don't believe they can. Fear is a powerful motivator, you can train people to fight but doesn't take into account things like trauma bonding, controlling fight or flight responses when it happens, training for super high stress situations.. did they do all that with them?
I mean I don't know what the training entailed but I just looked it up and it said that there was lack of any real leadership. Which tells me that they trained them rather poorly because they failed to organize them in the first place. And if they failed to organize them (actually a basic thing that even a civilian would know how to do) then I wonder how exactly they trained them.
I also wonder if when the extremists came by surprised, they may have been underprepared in the first place.
