If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
First of all, as i quoted MacK- giving them a fishing rod, is possible and more useful. A fishing rod will not have that much of a significance when talking about corruption and so. This would more likely make it harder for corruption to continiue.
I will take last thing first now. If we don't want suicide bombers on our back, then YES, we are responsible of which kind of history material is given out (if any is given in the first place). I don't want to dictate what is happening in afghan schools, but I would like to see history books being checked before they are published. They can learn of whichever period of time they want, any culture, any place, but the least is to give them the most correct info that can be found about the subject.
It is no assumption when I say that agents are being sent to terrorist points. Its a fact!
And I would say that anyone who believes that the US army only uses tecnology and no human resources is purely ignorant!
As I said, could be that they didn't invest enough in that area, but don't go and say that there isn't any funds there.
How is that at all relevent to the part of my post you quoted? Try explaining something for once.
Jacqueline: As Kentish pointed out, from where do we derive the right to dictate what may and may not be taught in Afghanistani schools? It sounds very much to me like you want to adopt a Soviet-style system of mass indoctrination of a population through only allowing certain versions of history to be presented. I think you'll find that even Thanatos has repeatedly opposed this, in his own way.
By "most correct info" I assume you mean information that satisfies your own goals? What is the truth is likely to incite hatred of the West still further? Are you still going to let them learn it?
Get a grip.
No, it wouldn't. In our "civilised" societies, execution may be considered acceptable in some quarters, but execution without trial is barbaric as you agreed earlier. I fail to see how you can execute someone simply because you have a bit of evidence and call it just. Surely mistakes will be made? Surely innocents will die? Innocents sometimes die even when there are trials. Surely executing without trial is going to see a massive increase?
I cannot understand how you can claim to be civilised but advocate this. It is grotesque, in exactly the same way as the terrorists killing innocent people is grotesque.
On the point of intelligence agents infiltrating these organisations, did you completely ignore MacKenZie's post? Allow me to refresh your memory...
The CIA admitted themselves that they do not have enough human intelligence agents. Yet you continue to perpetuate the fantasy that they do have plenty.
And if you refer to my original post, you will find that I did not say they do not have any at all, simply that they do not have enough. You seemed to interpret that as me saying they have abandoned human intelligence completely in favour of technology.
Luckily that isn't what I believe, and isn't what I said. You said I insulted you by correcting your spelling, and became suitably offended, but now imply that I am "purely ignorant"?
Don't worry though. I'm not offended. I find it rather humourous to be called purely ignorant by you actually.
You are assuming here that:
1. Justice as the west sees it is a universal concept.
2. The police aren't corrupt (at least not more than slightly).
3. That the rest of the world follows the same set of responses that you think are normal.
In all three cases, you are wrong for most of the world, as you would know if you had spent much time in most third-world countries.
Your assumptions are invalid. What does that say about your conclusions?
The metaphor wasn't describing a murder being committed in a less economically developed country. Could somebody sane please tell me if what I said genuinely doesn't make sense, or if Greenhat, Jacq et al are misinterpreting it?
And look at the overwhelming evidence in support of the argument; if you were right then military action would stop terrorism, and so far it hasn't been working. Look at Afghanistan - the US and its allies have killed thousands, yet the terror networks haven't given up; terrorist attacks are still being carried out.
If Jacq will permit me to use the example, exactly the same thing is happening in Israel. When Israeli forces kill Palestinians, the rest of the terrorists don't throw their weapons down in surrender, they re-double their attacks and their numbers swell.
It is becoming more and more evident that some people simply are incapable of understanding this concept. An injured human will seek vengeance. The only way to stop terrorism through your methods is to kill everyone, and we did that scenario a few pages ago.
And if you refer to my original post you will find that I did not do anything to perpetuate any fantasy about the CIA having more HUMINT assets than it knows what to do with. I said that they had publically admitted their shortcomings and have promised to make moves to fix them. You will also see that noted that good HUMINT assets take time to acquire -- you can't just put a man into al-Qaeda's inner circle overnight!
Before accusing me or anyone else of twisting your words, please run a self-check. It avoids embarrassing "pot/kettle" situations.
I wasn't directing my comment at you, Mac, rather at Jacqueline. I quoted you as saying that because she had argued that they did have plenty of human intel, and you had pointed out that they themselves had admitted they hadn't. Reading back, I realise how it might have looked like I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't, I was using your point of fact to support my argument with Jacq.
Sorry.
(If you look at where I quoted you, it is immediately proceeded by "On the point of intelligence agents infiltrating these organisations, did you completely ignore MacKenZie's post? Allow me to refresh your memory...", directed at Jacq).
History is one of the most important classes to be taught. Shame when those classes get fucked up by incorrect teaching. So wouldn't it be a good start for a country which is getting rebuilt to get new history books, with checked contents? I do believe that some organisations would be more than happy to support this.
This is actually a way to prevent terrorism... Giving them facts and reasoning, of why things are as they are at the moment. No, I am not saying that my point of view of stuff should be published in their books (though that would be nice). Simply saying that the made up stuff which they seem to be teaching, should get cut out.
Well, I just say that if the killing of one responsible person, can save just 1 innocent life, then it is necessary. Just that in these cases, it is much more than one single life.
I agreed that they had a lack, but said that now that is an area which is probably high-profiled and gets more attention.
You didn't insult me, I appericiate when people want to help me out. But that wasn't the case. You did it, to try to show your own intelligence. You didn't mention that you did it for me, but for the sake of mentioning that it was one of your pet hates. Afterwards you tried making it seem, like you were only trying to be nice...
If you don't have anything to add, then I suggest that we stop this spelling discussion, as it's clearly irellevant to the whole thread.
Well, thats good. Cause you shouldn't get offended. After all, you just stated yourself, that you do know that agents do exist within the military. So it wasn't aimed at you.
And by the way, I am glad that this "little naive danish girl", could crack a smile on your lips
Well, you can post what you like to post. Who am I to stop you? You should just expect me commenting it.
So here is my comment:
Just thought you should know that the number of (suicide) attacks fell rapidly after the "defence-wall operation". I don't know the number. But I can tell you that when I was in Israel you would hear about some kind of attack, shooting, bombing and attempts every single day (plus a lot of it never got published, as the population was already under a lot of strain).
And today luckily, we don't hear about attacks there every day. So the fact that they ruined some terrorist bases has helped. Wouldn't you say?
The fact that the eyes are open, and that the hands act out as well, is the only way of prevention. Thats my stand in the case.
You're using a metaphor to describe the reactions of people. It is a flawed metaphor because the people we are discussing don't react in the manner you have described.
They don't? How do you know?
Perhaps you could exemplify some situations in which they haven't, just as I have exemplified some in which they have.
Stop reading your books, and go live in the culture. You might actually learn something.
Point made, once again... :rolleyes:
Time after time after time, ad nauseam...
They prefer to speculate from ignorance ~ MENTAL MASTURBATION ~ than to speak from experience. Because it comes from them, it MUST by definition trump reality.
While you have been pulling your little pud, yanking yourself off to your delusions of your own wonderfulness, some of us have lived within other cultures, for extended periods of time, and interacted with them. Worked with them.
They do not think as you do. They do not act/react as you do. They do not value what you do. They do not "negotiate" as you do.
It ain't just their language that is different. :rolleyes:
You call Americans arrogant? Your presumption that they think as you is DEFINITIVE arrogance...
Come on, you cannot seriously be treating every single economically less-developed as the same culture, surely?
You are insulting our intelligence.
Thanatos, how long has it been since you've seen any action? You cannot still be an expert after all those years. Get real.
If an Afghan child has just seen his/her parents blown up by a US/UK bomb, what on earth makes you think that they will read and believe what is written in your textbook?
By forcing your propaganda (yes, that's what it is) on them, you are alienating them further, and creating more potential for extremists to counter your version of history. You would attempt to go against hundreds of years of Afghan history (as they know it), and somehow all the troubles will disappear? If you are talking about published facts, please quote your source. Otherwise it is speculation.
I've been in 42 countries. I've lived in 18. Of those 18, 15 qualify as third world countries. I speak some of the language of each of them. I speak 4 of the languages of them fairly fluently.
In particular, I have lived and worked in the Middle-east, South-west Asia, and South-east Asia. In each case, I had reason to become extremely familiar with what motivates the people, what demotivates them, what scares them and what they hold dear.
The metaphor above does not apply to any of them in any significant measure.
And I suppose claiming that the metaphor had any bearing in any non-western culture wasn't insulting to your intelligence? Interesting logic, or lack of it.
±×µéÀÌ ÁöÀûÀÌ ¿ì·®ÇÏ °Í À» °£´ÜÇÏ°Ô °¡ÀåÀ¸·Î¼ ³ª¸ÓÁö¿¡ ±× µéÀÇ Àü¸ÁÀ» °Á¦ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù °Í À» Æ÷½ºÅÍÀÇ È®½ÇÇÑ ÀÛÀº ±×·ì ÀÌ ´À³¤´Ù °í ¿Ö ±×°ÍÀº Àΰ¡?
Hmmmm....seems the forum won't support non-Roman script. Too bad, would have given you an exercise to illustrate the point.
Well giving them materials, instead of money into bankaccounts limits the usage of the stuff. Means that if I give them building materials, then it would more likely go to building up what they request for on paper, and not into a leaders bankaccount for him to spend on something else. I would rather see that the funds which my country gives to build a new school/hospital/library/etc. goes to that same purpose.
NO, I don't, PERIOD!
I am saying that messages of hatred, should be cut out of history books.
What happened in Afghanistan should indeed be taught. They need their history. But the hateful additions, should be cut out. The history books, which I have had so far, have for example never said. "The Nazis were godless bastards, with no grain of humanity". Nope, it would tell about the ideology, the founder, the rise etc. But the rest was for the pupil to figure out (can't believe that it's only like that in a Denmark :rolleyes: ).
So when we within the EU are giving funds to support a book, then it is not a crime to get it checked before it gets published for small children to learn from. I would go as far as saying, that maybe it could help prevent some crimes (like terror attacks) being comitted against the people who actually supported the press of this book.
It is not published, nor is it a speculation. It is a fact!
Something probably is published somewhere about military agents, settled within some kind of suspected community. Can't imagine otherwise.
But as said, it is indeed a fact... That's all I have to say to you.
Again you are stating the obvious. But it's not always this simple. What is a message of hatred to you and I is fact to these people. The deeply ingrained hatred of all things Western will not be defeated so easily. What are you on about? Whether you accept it or not, even history books are written with bias. In the case of the Nazis, no book is going to present fact after fact without comment. Your idea is fine in principle, but I wonder whether it will actually work in practice. You are suggesting that history as they know it should be re-written. We are the enemy to these people. Why would they believe what we say? Well I'm having dinner with Elvis tonight.
FACT.
That's all I have to say to you.
Take the point?
Your experience is appreciated.
Comments yes, but not the subjective comments.
No! I am not saying that a historican from Europe or so, should write their history books. People down there should, after all if the subject is Afghani history...
So it wouldn't be what we say!
A whole other thing, the new government is brought to life with help from the west. The former king has been around making speeches of how his people would appericiate our help. I think that a great deal of them, do know that we are not the spawn of satan.
My friends ex was originally from Afghanistan, he said that his mom used to wear jeans and so, down there. Have seen videos from there, and they were not all covered with scarfs before the Taliban came to rule. So I really do hope, that the Talibans laws has scared them of, and not made those people haters of the west. I hope that the new government will make the people there aware of the help we contribute with.
Well, my source is not published. You can choose to believe my words or not. Still it is a fact!
But lets say, I had brought these words from an article, then you would believe, wouldn't you? Even though you had never heard of the person in question to say this before.
So here you go:
I mean it makes no difference. It is with or without a quote, a fact.
True, those are the hardest to get a hang on. But I was more talking about the prevention of getting more of them. Preventing others who will find themselves in trouble and join such a society, to get out their agressions and anger wich they have.
Theres a slim chance that we will be able to influence them in another direction. But bigger chances are that we can stop them.
My source is someone educated within this field. And no, it's not someone of the internet, who could have made me believe that he was the president... Just in case you were wondering.
You mean...? your "New World Order" has eliminated cultural differences, and all the peoples of the world are as one, now?
When did THAT happen? :rolleyes:
Admittedly, it has been 15 years since I have been out of the United States, and I have little interest in resuming roaming the world. That does NOT mean, however, that cultural differences have ceased to exist. And it REALLY does not require an "expert" to comprehend that... just someone who is not delusional AND arrogant.
I was always taught that you will only ever get biased views and that you need to weight them up - after all there are people who will deny that the holocaust even happened. Sure a balanced history book would give these views a voice, or it would just be another biased account of an event.
Look at any major event in history and you will get different view points....
And we know that in the kind of communities we are talking about, the subjectivity is extreme.
Also, most times even though a book is very biased, you will hear the reasonings of the "other" part. Not really sure that that's the case here...
Christians (well some) believe that the Bible is the ultimate truth, Muslims the Koran - who is right?
We, in the West, have a view of what happened in the past, but it would be from our perspective. If a Nazi Organisation (an extreme I'll grant you) produced a book suggesting that tales of the holocaust are a fallacy how can you be sure - beyond anydoubt - that they are wrong. You only have the accused conspiritors word that it actually happened...
If we in the west produced books, why should the Afghani believe what we write?
Probably cause i have clearly read and heard opinions from both sides. Taken my stand and agree with that stand. When I discuss in favour for my stand, I believe that I have enough backing facts and knowledge about it.
How I can be sure. Simple... My grandparents!
Again, I never said we should produce them, but merely that we should check wich kind of message they send out.
They can have anti west books (though I don't think that it should be as history books in schools), but at least let them argument for the stand, without the hateful messages.
Why should we not kill potential terrotists? I can't think of the medical term off hand, but it goes something like "Prevention is better than a cure", ie it's better to stop potential terrorists, than lock up terrorists who have already commited an attrocity.
In WWII the Japanese were using Kamakazee pilots to destory the naval fleets. It seemed there was no stopping them...well, until the US nuked Japan, in two large cities, full of innocent people. They were killed. There wasn't so much of an outcry, as "Well done, you brought the war to an end".
Also, it's been leaked that Japan were in talks to surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima, and were very close to doing so, yet the US still used a second bomb on Nagasaki. Still, people see it as an effective way of how the war was brought to an end...but hey, it worked.
Also if you want to use propaganda to influence the Afgani's, we should issue the propaganda from an Afghani source, disguised as if it was issued by them, and not by us. I don't know how we would do this exactly, but if done properly, it could work.
Not strictly true - you hear/read all the time (well, you have heard of) how UFO's exist, and how people are being abducted etc., but do you actually believe that? No. Ok that was a pretty extreme example, but still...
But it is still a belief and a stand. Like I said all religions believe that their 'good book' is 100% correct..but we cannot prove which is right and in fact each may be based on fact, but from different perspectives.
And you believe them because you trust them.
Now convince my son. Why should he believe them and not the alternative view, what is it that makes them [as an individual source] any more credible?
Before I give the wrong impression, I believe that the holocaust happened, based on probability and available evidence. That doesn't mean that it did happen and I will not close my mind to the possibility that it didn't...
and if we disagree with what was said? Who decides what is hateful? If anything, the PC brigade have proved that this is subjective in itself, that only the person reading it can make that judgement, what is offensive to you may be fine with me...
The thing that makes a living survivor of the holocaust more credible, is their scars. I mean, without knowing what they had gone through, you would still see that their reactions, way of dealing and handling with stuff wasn't "normal". You could see that something had triggered them to be as they were. It's nothing to have appeared just from the clear blue sky. It is experiences beyond the "normal" hard life.
I don't know how old your son is, but assuming that he is a couple of years old, I would say that when he will be big enough to fully understand what is being talked about, then most survivors will be dead and gone. And that is when I guess there will be a major rise of people ignoring the holocaust and spreading the word that it never existed. That is when awareness needs to be spread in return. As I have heard since I was small: "never again".
No one, except from the ones who actually lived under this period, will ever understand what a person goes through in such a situation. We can only imagine. But a strong impression (after the meeting of a survivor) is pictures and documentaries. You see a picture of a living skeleton, and you will never forget it. You see a picture of many of them in groups, and from different places, and you will realise that it's not only one case.
If I was to show and explain a child unfamiliar with it all what happened (numbers and statistics) I would take the picture of that little boy, being surrounded by soldiers, and pointed at with guns. The people here who have seen it, will know how strong and powerful it is. A little child will understand how serious the war was, when seeing that picture.
True, it is discussible. But I think that messages a long the lines of "USA is the creation of the evil", "Jihad against the western world" etc., is clearly what we would call a hateful message. Or does anyone disagree?