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
How about this analogy?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What if the US had backed and armed a group of right-wing Christian Fundamentalists in Britain to the tune of $3bn?
And eventually after years of destruction and civil war they took power in the UK.
Would the US be justified in taking such action as its planning against Afghanistan against us?
And eventually after years of destruction and civil war they took power in the UK.
Would the US be justified in taking such action as its planning against Afghanistan against us?
0
Comments
It certainly wouldnt be a Britain I would like to live in. It would be completely different to the Britain of today. Britain would just be another fascist theocracy.
Of course it probably wouldnt ever happen here because there are so few Christians whereas almost 1005 of Afghans are religious.
Its unfair to ask if it would be ok to take the same action against us because it wouldnt be the same as the us we have now. If a Christian fascist theocracy refused to hand over a terrorist and trained said terrorist on British land then yes the US would be justified in taking action.
Of course we dont yet know what action the US is going to take against Afghanistan so its a hard question.
I still cant understand the point of these questions. What are you trying to say? That the US wouldnt take action against a Christian country in the same way? That they wouldnt take action against a predominantly white country? After the inevitable civil war Britain would be in just as bad a state as Afghanistan is today.
Or can you guarantee that the US is always right?
Its a stupid question to ask. I doubt I would even be here to fight off the Americans. If a group set up a fascist theocracy here then there would have had to have been a very big civil war. Even without civil war I would have left the country.
If I were a citizen of this fantasy version of the UK and I were a Christian fanatic myself then yes I would fight the Americans.
Sorry but its another bad analogy. The very fact that we were in such a situation as you describe would mean that we would not have the same feelings as we do now.
i just cant justitfy that
To protect my country no problem yes I will kill.
YOU can't justify that .......so someone else will have to protect you.
IMO if you will not fight for your country, leave.
We should be letting these people into our 'free' countries - no?
Is a contradiction in terms. Sorry.
And if there happens to be no country anywhere in the world that you like enough to want to fight for, what then?
I see where you're coming from: Become a citizen, accept a citizen's responsibilities. If you don't want to have those responsibilities, don't become a citizen in this state. Trouble is, what if no state is right for you? Become a stateless person? That's a pretty shitty deal.
Killing for faith is precisely what happened on September 11, in case you weren't watching the news, people! Perhaps the enemy is Islam, but only bevause Islam is a faith; perhaps the enemy is the Taleban, but only because they defend faith and obstruct free thought.
[This message has been edited by MacKenZie (edited 25-09-2001).]
Erm no its not.
Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Theocracy
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
What if America demands we hand over Ken Clarke, saying they have prrof that he's an international smuggler, but refusing to show us any of the proof. Should we hand him over? If we refuse should they be allowed to bomb us?
These analogies(sp?) are all pointless because in order for them to apply to Britain, the country would be completely different and so we cant comment on our views.
Going on just what you said, war criminal and israel then no they dont have a right to bomb us. Your scenario is completely different to the one we are in now so irrelevant.
Youre being silly now. First of all its a big step up from smuggling to international terrorism. Secondly how do you know the US wont show the Taleban their evidence before anything happens?
Remember guys, NOTHING has happened yet.
I interpret the Taleban request to have been an attempt to get a way to deport OBL, while saving face. The Americans snubbed this, and the UN. A lot has been said, a lot is being set up.
It was a horrible crime, but that is no reason to suspend the normal rules of justice.
I'll cut up and return my ID card when it arrives. I'd rather be imprisoned for refusingan ID card, than carry one. At least I'll have had my freedom taken, and I'd be able to dream of it being returned.
Fine, if the cost of using the evidence is too high then you don't use it. BUT if you don't give evidence you have to take those consequences. We allowed thousands of seamen to be killed by U-boats rather than risk letting Germany know we had cracked enigma. I don't doubt that for a moment.
Israel and Britain are allies for a start. The British govt is a legitimate one for another thing. Britain dont provide official training for the terrorists etc etc. I think you know full well that the political issues here make a massive difference.
Irrelevant, tobacco is completely legal. I happen to agree with you but its not relevent to this thread.
If they do then things will be all fine and dandy. The US will have no reason to go into Afghanistan and we can all live happily ever after.
Yes but nothing has been done. Its all very well complaining about how Bush is doing evil things to the poor Taleban but hes done NOTHING. We dont know if hes gonna give them the evidence, we have no definate idea of what the hells gonna happen so its not fair to condemn him for something that hasnt happened.
Again, the rules of justice are intact because absolutely nothing has happened.
Looks like we have something in common after all.
You have been invaded by your former coloneys...after extending citizenship to them as the 'empire' disintegrated...WW-2 didn't give you much of a win did it?
Anyway, your invaders are already there and they are outbreeding you...fancy that...same thing is happening in palestine between the arabs and jews...you would think that the israelis would be smart enough to see to it that every palestinian family had a TV and cable...stop a lot of mischief and the battle of the whomb just might be equalized a bit.
Diesel
88888888
And what are a lot of these states now recommending?-more foreign intervention!-no lessons learned-the cycle continues.
It seems absolutely incredible to me that some people on these boards are one minute whloeheartedly backing miliatary action in Afghanistan and then moan about refugees!
Dont you see the connection?!
Come on guys wake up and smell the grass!
There are very few problems in this world that arent caused by other countries.
Maybe im missing something but I cant see anyone complaining about refugees.
You keep posting against people suggestions and yet you NEVER put an idea forward yourself. Come on tell us, just what should the US and her allies do RE Afghanistan, the Taleban and Bin Laden. You rubbish everyone elses ideas so please enlighten us.
That definition of fascism wouldn't be from a dictionary, would it?
Due to its latecomer status as a political ideology, fascism is very much defined by its negations. Among them is religon.
Moreover, since many religons stress 'community' and 'oneness' of all people, this doesn't square with nationalism / anti-internationalism.
One might have an extreme right-wing, even autocratic, religous state, I agree. It would not be fascist, though.
(Of course, most people simply use the word as an insult against anyone or anything they find disagreeable in a right-wing way. Much as Rev. Jerry Falwell uses 'liberal,' actually.)
[This message has been edited by MacKenZie (edited 26-09-2001).]
You make sense though. So what would an authoritarian regime led by a religious dictator according to strict religious laws be called?
I never gave anyone millions of $,the latest weaponry or trained anyone in guerilla warfare.
But from what ive read ive a pretty good idea of what is not going to work-US military intervention.
After the US has reaped their "revenge",Afghanistan will be in a very similar position if not a hell of a lot worse.Tens of thousands of ordinary Afghans will have died of starvation or been the victims of "collateral damage".
Well be back to square one -"what the fuck to do about Afganistan".
I think you are misunderstanding here..The point of troops going into Afghanistan is not to provide any kind of solution for the Afghan people. Its to route out the terrorists and remove them. If the Taleban support those terrorists then they will likewise be removed.
Oh im sorry youre obviously psychic and can see into the future....You can say with full certainty that the Afghan people will be worse off under the Northern Alliance rather than the Taleban? You can assure me that aid wont be poured into Afghanistan as a result of a deal with the Northern Alliance can you?
The military action that may be taken is not directed at Afghanistan the country but at two groups within Afghanistan. The Taleban, an illegal govt which terrorises its citizens and Bin Ladens group 'the base'.
They certainly do. We're bigger than they are, and if they don't do what we say they'll regret it. X(
But smuggling isn't. Another case in which we would feel justified in denying extradition. quite a lot has happened. On the plus side Israel has been given a bit of a jolt, Bush/Blair need islamic support to retain the illusion of legitimacy, so they've been pushing them to get their act together, and not taking their line on Palestine (How dare you mention Palestine in print? yeah, so what if we did?)
Both America and Britain are using the opportunity to reduce freedoms I can see thm holding back from taking direct action for as long as possible, while spreading ridiculous panic stories.
I think that was my point. I have to admit I dont know much about extradition. Maybe im wrong but I would assume that extradition between allies goes more smoothly than otherwise.
Off the point..you said that smuggled ciggies kill..This isnt a thread on the immorality of tobacco.
I do think that weve gotten a little off topic here. Its impossible to accuracely compare the Taleban situation to any other country because their situation is so different.
Who do you think allowed Osama bin Laden to operate in Afghanistan before the Taliban arrived in 1996?-the Mujahadin.
There are only minimal differences in political outlook and religion between the 2 sides ,their differences are mainly ethnic and inflamed through the influence of their rival backers.Pakistan backed the Taliban (with tacit US support) and Russia,Iran and India the Northern Alliance.
Incidentally "the base" merely refers to Peshawar where all foreign volunteers in the USSR-Afghan war registered their names and home Countries before proceeding into Afghanistan-this practice was provided with lavish support by the Americans.
This makes me think that perhaps bin Laden is not some sort of Arabic Dr No -most of the WTC hijackers would have been to young to have fought in that war and probably had no contact with him.
Another thing! has anyone read about Mohammed Atta ,one of the hi-jackers, boozing it up in the days before the 11th Sep?This seems very odd behaviour -to break one of the central restrictions of Islam a few days before "giving your life" for it.
The Taleban are Mujahadin..Mujahadin is a blanket name for Islamic warriors. Both the Taleban and the Northern Alliance are Mujahadin.
It doesnt matter if the NA let Bin Laden ply his trade in the past. They wont do it if they get back into power via US action.
I was under the impression that Bin Ladens group was called 'Al Queda'(the base). Thats what all the news agencies have been calling it anyway.
I hadnt actually seen any of the reports on his drinking but I read another post saying he was. Do you have a link to the story? It does seem very strange if that was the case.
More foreign intervention,war,civil war,murder and starvation.
Come on then YOU tell us the answer.