(08-18-2021, 06:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Fair points. The concept of "Trump" is probably more akin to the concept of "The Confederacy" with a currently living cult-like leader. I'm really just saying that I could picture 100,000 MAGA's grabbing their guns and doing what they think fighting tyranny is more so than people who are simply high on Jesus.
Possibly, but you didn't see that on 01/06. The number of people engaged in riotous behavior on that day can be numbered in the hundreds. Hardly akin to the swarm of armed Taliban now enforcing harsh Sharia law in Afghanistan.
(08-18-2021, 06:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, if you went back several hundred years I'd have many of the same complaints about Christianity that I do about Islam. That's just no longer the case. There are multiple reasons for it, and certainly living in a country with a Constitution such as ours (written by Christians, btw), is one of them. But it's not close to the only factor. I think a secular government, one of the cornerstones of our system, is a far bigger factor.
Sorry, I added a bit after you started this reply. I'm not playing Christians vs Muslims, I'm just saying that it's hard to compare which group is more likely to start an uprising when they reside in very different parts of the world with very different qualities of life. You can tell a country is getting prosperous when people would rather be alive than rush into the afterlife ASAP.
(08-18-2021, 06:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Possibly, but you didn't see that on 01/06. The number of people engaged in riotous behavior on that day can be numbered in the hundreds. Hardly akin to the swarm of armed Taliban now enforcing harsh Sharia law in Afghanistan.
I'd say that's a product of people who might WANT to riot realizing that their day-to-day life is ok enough for them to "let someone else overthrow the tyrants." If/when the USA gets to the same point as Afghanistan you'll see people who believe all sorts of non-Muslim things going ape.
(08-18-2021, 06:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Sorry, I added a bit after you started this reply. I'm not playing Christians vs Muslims, I'm just saying that it's hard to compare which group is more likely to start an uprising when they reside in very different parts of the world with very different qualities of life. You can tell a country is getting prosperous when people would rather be alive than rush into the afterlife ASAP.
I'd say that's a product of people who might WANT to riot realizing that their day-to-day life is ok enough for them to "let someone else overthrow the tyrants." If/when the USA gets to the same point as Afghanistan you'll see people who believe all sorts of non-Muslim things going ape.
But that's the key point, isn't it? There are certainly people who would steal if there was no law against it, just as there are people who would engage in other criminal acts if not for fear of prosecution. The key difference between that and the Taliban, and other radical Islamists, is that a very specific ideology promotes, excuses and justifies the types of behavior we're seeing now in Afghanistan and pretty much every day in some parts of the Muslim world. To be sure, if society crumbles you'll see all sorts of hellish behavior excused by the actors for numerous reasons, but I think that's the same in any society. If the world structure you know is eroded to the point of dissolution the subsequent panic/stress/fear will promote awful behavior from even normally sane people. This is not what is happening in Afghanistan, or under Isis or in Iran. I could go on, but I trust you get the point.
(08-18-2021, 06:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But that's the key point, isn't it? There are certainly people who would steal if there was no law against it, just as there are people who would engage in other criminal acts if not for fear of prosecution. The key difference between that and the Taliban, and other radical Islamists, is that a very specific ideology promotes, excuses and justifies the types of behavior we're seeing now in Afghanistan and pretty much every day in some parts of the Muslim world. To be sure, if society crumbles you'll see all sorts of hellish behavior excused by the actors for numerous reasons, but I think that's the same in any society. If the world structure you know is eroded to the point of dissolution the subsequent panic/stress/fear will promote awful behavior from even normally sane people. This is not what is happening in Afghanistan, or under Isis or in Iran. I could go on, but I trust you get the point.
Yeah I get it, but it just goes back to my original point about how troubling it is that an extremely effective political strategy now, more than ever (I think?) involves convincing people in this country that they need to put rules aside and fight against what their side defines as evil. If I may go all un-PC I'll say that insurrection and violent upheaval in shithole countries is nothing new to my eyes (regardless of their chosen prophet of the magic sky man) but the romanticizing of such things within our own borders is what concerns me.
Maybe this stuff blows over in the USA, but people seem to be convinced rather easily that our country's structure has eroded and some people who have engaged in unlawful behavior as a result have shown legitimate confusion as to why they are being held accountable or punished under the law. People seem to be able to buy the idea that the USA is awesome, but at the same time it is in threat of being or becoming a shithole country any second now if they don't take some sort of action, though usually we just get hit in the wallet because 1st world solutions, and all.
So short version, Muslim leader says "kill/fight/die for my cause or life won't be worth living soon" and Trump says "donate for my cause or life won't be worth living soon." Maybe that's too cynical a view, even for me.
(08-18-2021, 07:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah I get it, but it just goes back to my original point about how troubling it is that an extremely effective political strategy now, more than ever (I think?) involves convincing people in this country that they need to put rules aside and fight against what their side defines as evil. If I may go all un-PC I'll say that insurrection and violent upheaval in shithole countries is nothing new to my eyes (regardless of their chosen prophet of the magic sky man) but the romanticizing of such things within our own borders is what concerns me.
Maybe this stuff blows over in the USA, but people seem to be convinced rather easily that our country's structure has eroded and some people who have engaged in unlawful behavior as a result have shown legitimate confusion as to why they are being held accountable or punished under the law. People seem to be able to buy the idea that the USA is awesome, but at the same time it is in threat of being or becoming a shithole country any second now if they don't take some sort of action, though usually we just get hit in the wallet because 1st world solutions, and all.
So short version, Muslim leader says "kill/fight/die for my cause or life won't be worth living soon" and Trump says "donate for my cause or life won't be worth living soon." Maybe that's too cynical a view, even for me.
I think a large percentage of what you're seeing today is driven by a perception, not exactly unjustified, that there is a large segment of our population who have little to no respect for the US or its founding principles. It is one thing to point out that many important people in our nation's history were involved in activities that would label them as awful people in the present day. It's quite another to state, as is often done, that the US is a nation founded on racism and is irredeemable in its current form. You can't constantly attack the nation many of us grew up admiring, if not loving, and expect zero pushback.
I have zero issue with confronting the sins of our past, and any nation should do so (and they all have things to atone for, believe me). I have a major issue with denigrating the country and those who believe in it, as well as engaging in the exact same behaviors, e.g. racism, that you purport to decry in others. There's far more of the latter, and it doesn't often get called out, than is healthy and it's absolutely fueling what you're describing in your post.
In any event, back to the thread topic. Good discussion though, and I'm not shutting you down btw.
(08-18-2021, 06:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don't try and equate modern Christianity and its adherents to radical Islam. I get defending Islam is your pet topic, but this type of comparison is silly to the point of absurdity. You'd be hard pressed to find 100,000 Christians in the US that come anywhere close to the level of the fundamentalist radical Islamists that exist in the multiple millions in Afghanistan alone.
I fullly own that defending ethnic and religious minorities from right wing scapegoating is my "pet topic," as attacking them,
or defending attacks on them, is yours. Thats why you went THERE instead of to the actual point.
So save this post for when I actually equate "modern Christianity" to "radical Islam" (which, by the way, is also "modern").
I took Mike's intent to be humorous (at least partly). And so
I thought I might balance it by emphasizing an aspect of the current "anti-tyranny" 2A defense that seems to get little notice--
namely that some such defenders might themselves be quite "tyranical" and anti-democratic, embracing constitutional fundamentalism on the model of religious fundamentalism (regardless of religion). And at a time when large numbers of the Republican party support a leader who has indeed sought to circumvent democracy.
I don't think that this has been mentioned, but has anyone seen all the Afghan girls at airports and things BEGGING the soldiers to stay because they know that death is most likely better than the lives they'll have under the rule of the Taliban?
(08-18-2021, 06:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Absolutely disagree with this take, and I think it's a really bad way to try to make an unrelated partisan point. It's a militia that's tens of thousands strong and supported by outside groups and possibly other nations. On the battlefield, they absolutely could not stand up to the might of the US, but that doesn't mean the US, as a foreign force, can stop them from remaining an entity, especially when they hide in sovereign nations, or prepare another government enough to handle them.
My point, and it was not meant to be partisan,it was somewhat tongue in cheek but somewhat not, is that it is extremely difficult to occupy a well-armed populace. Russia also failed. And nobody said they would meet them on the battlefield.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(08-18-2021, 06:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I laugh at their ability to identify and define tyranny more than their ability to fight it.
Who is they?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(08-18-2021, 03:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's unfair. 73k of the 81k forces killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan were nationals, not US or allied personnel. Tens of thousands died for their country. Tens of thousands of civilians died too.
This is a good break down of the inevitable collapse:
-Doha and the speedy exit demoralized them, leading them to believe the country was being handed to the Taliban
-The lost of contractors meant a lost of logistical support
-Lost of those supports led to failures to properly supply the army, especially in remote locations
-Cultural/language barriers in the US military when training
-US mostly trained in infantry tactics, not local security
-Failure to train the skills needed to run their military
-Poor education in Afghanistan
-Massive corruption in Afghanistan
-Officers inflated the size of their forces for more money/supplied and then underpaid the men serving under them and rerouted supplies for profit.
Well we had a soldier who was there say pretty much the same thing.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(08-18-2021, 06:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Sorry, I added a bit after you started this reply. I'm not playing Christians vs Muslims, I'm just saying that it's hard to compare which group is more likely to start an uprising when they reside in very different parts of the world with very different qualities of life. You can tell a country is getting prosperous when people would rather be alive than rush into the afterlife ASAP.
I'd say that's a product of people who might WANT to riot realizing that their day-to-day life is ok enough for them to "let someone else overthrow the tyrants." If/when the USA gets to the same point as Afghanistan you'll see people who believe all sorts of non-Muslim things going ape.
To the first bolded, well said. Material conditions have a great deal to do with differences in behavior/belief. By material conditions I also include cosmopolitianism. If one takes the long view, 800 years ago Islam was the "tolerant" monotheism and Christianity much less so. You cannot fully understand the differences between the various practices of each religion today by pointing to their Holy books and saying "See, THAT's what they believe. It says right THERE!"
I might add that people rarely start uprisings in any part of the world unless their way of life is perceived to be, or actually is, threatened; then they often find strength by interpreting their tribulations and resistance through a prism of fundamentalist religion. That's why we see places with originally mild and tolerant versions of Islam, like Southern Lebanon or Gaza, become hardened and intolerant fundamentalists after war and dispossesion.
As to the final bolded, Afghanistan was once a fairly peaceful country. In the '60s and early '70s, European hippies used to drive around the country in vans feeling safe and smoking lots of hashish. There was little in the way of central government; "war" was limited to feuding between tribes and regulable by tribal leaders. Shooting women and children was taboo, unmanly, and unIslamic.
By 1989, tribal warfare organized in response to the Soviets had changed the code, and after they were gone, A-stan was ruled by cruel warlords who thought nothing of killing women and children, and possessed a kind of organized power, complete with private prison systems, which had not existed before 1979.
The Taliban were a response to the warlords, an attempt to restore order and justice and "freedom" of commerce--which they did--but held together by newer, salafist variations of Islam developed in Northern Indian and Saudi Arabia. That meant "cleansing" the country of Western and non-Islalmic influences; straying from the "true" Islam is what had brought injustice and hard times upon them.
I have sometimes wondered what Texas would be like if a foreign army rolled over it in the style of Israel's '82 invasion of Lebanon, and then retreated leaving a vacuum of governing authority. (This assumes T. is disconnected from the rest of the U.S.) It's not out of the question that various miitias would arise to impose their own order, with the religious-themed ones carving out sections of territory and imposing their order on a shell-shocked, battered and starving population. Straying from Christianity brought the terrible times on Texas, returning to Biblical practice would appease God.
(08-18-2021, 08:16 PM)Dill Wrote: I fullly own that defending ethnic and religious minorities from right wing scapegoating is my "pet topic," as attacking them,
or defending attacks on them, is yours. Thats why you went THERE instead of to the actual point.
Very interesting attempt to flip the script. I don't think calling out a religion that routinely subjugates and tortures women, murders homosexuals and demonizes all other religious beliefs is an especially "right wing" position. I would hope all freedom loving people would do so. But if not tolerating the subjugation and torturing of women and murdering homosexuals makes me a bad person in your eyes then so be it, I guess.
Quote:So save this post for when I actually equate "modern Christianity" to "radical Islam" (which, by the way, is also "modern").
I am pleased that you finally acknowledge radical Islam as a prevalent "modern" form of the religion.
Quote:I took Mike's intent to be humorous (at least partly). And so
So you ignored his actual point? Also, your post does not come of as an attempt at humor. While I certainly allow for text not always accurately translating such intent if that was your objective it was an especially poor effort.
Quote:I thought I might balance it by emphasizing an aspect of the current "anti-tyranny" 2A defense that seems to get little notice--
namely that some such defenders might themselves be quite "tyranical" and anti-democratic, embracing constitutional fundamentalism on the model of religious fundamentalism (regardless of religion). And at a time when large numbers of the Republican party support a leader who has indeed sought to circumvent democracy.
Oh, to be sure. Owning a firearm does not magically imbue one with a sense of democratic or enlightened principles. But attempting to conflate Christians in this country, or pretty much any country for that matter, with the actions of millions of radical Islamists in Afghanistan and elsewhere should be called out as absurd whenever the attempt to do so is made.
(08-18-2021, 08:22 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I don't think that this has been mentioned, but has anyone seen all the Afghan girls at airports and things BEGGING the soldiers to stay because they know that death is most likely better than the lives they'll have under the rule of the Taliban?
(08-18-2021, 08:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: My point, and it was not meant to be partisan,it was somewhat tongue in cheek but somewhat not, is that it is extremely difficult to occupy a well-armed populace. Russia also failed. And nobody said they would meet them on the battlefield.
It never ceases to amaze me how the detractors of armed civilian resistance always equate conflict to a battlefield. That's not how this type of thing works. Also, tens of thousands strong? In the horrific event of armed resistance in the US you'd be talking about millions strong, even ignoring the large percentage of law enforcement and military members who would join. Since this place is what it is I'll add that I hope this day never comes, as it would be a horrific event. I'm just pointing out the utter absurdity of the Biden/Swallwell argument that the US populace stands zero chance in the case of a tyrannical government trying to impose its will.
(08-18-2021, 09:41 PM)Nately120 Wrote: People who tend to romanticize the concept of overthrowing the government.
I’m not talking about them. The fantasizers. I have no respect for them.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
I dont understand why people are arguing whether Trumps exit strategy would have been better. The fact of the matter is Bidens exit strategy is the one that actually happened, and it has been an absolute disaster.
(08-18-2021, 10:17 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I dont understand why people are arguing whether Trumps exit strategy would have been better. The fact of the matter is Bidens exit strategy is the one that actually happened, and it has been an absolute disaster.
Afghanistan, strategy, and disaster tend to ride together, sadly.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 7LNf.gif]](https://i.gifer.com/7LNf.gif)
