Afghanistan

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-26-2021, 06:31 PM)Dill Wrote: I'll agree with you that Biden has made his own mistakes here. He has diverted from some details of Trump's plan in important respects--e.g., the May 1st pullout. Would have been a BIGGER disaster had he adhered to that. He could have chosen NOT to make a full withdrawal. But did embrace the decision to withdraw, with apparent priority on US military personnel before Afghan supporters. 

To the bold.

Before I respond to the rest of your post, I want to say I personally have no interest in pursuing an argument on this aspect of the conversation. I'd much rather focus on what happened and how we got here without the hypotheticals of what "would" have happened.

[BFritz21]

(08-26-2021, 06:50 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: To the bold.

Before I respond to the rest of your post, I want to say I personally have no interest in pursuing an argument on this aspect of the conversation. I'd much rather focus on what happened and how we got here without the hypotheticals of what "would" have happened.

That's their only argument: arguing "what ifs" and things that could have happened instead of what actually is happening.

As I've pointed out, circumstances change, so plans must change, as well.

[BmorePat87]

(08-26-2021, 06:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With respect, you're not really addressing his central point.  He's saying that a withdrawal under Trump may have gone much smoother than the current shit show.  It may have gone worse.  His point is we don't know.  I personally think, as stated earlier in the thread, that a withdrawal under Trump would not have precipitated the current disaster, if for no other reason that Trump is mercurial and prone to overreaction.  I think it's likely the Taliban would have waited for US forces, and citizens, to leave entirely before rapidly taking over the country.  They may not fear Trump, although I doubt that's the case, but they sure as hell don't fear Biden.  

But, again, we don't know and that's Matt's entire point.  What we do know is that Biden completely screwed the pooch on this, no two ways about it.  It's honestly hard to imagine a realistic scenario in which things went worse.

Yea, I responded to that a number of posts ago by detailing Trump's actions that run counter to his belief and then Trump's words during the last few months that also run counter to his belief. Trump did not hold the Taliban to the agreement as he rushed to remove as many troops as possible over his last 10 months. There's no reason to believe he would suddenly begin to. Trump publicly called for his timeline to be followed despite conditions not being met and bragged and took ownership of the exit occurring under Biden. There's nothing in his words or actions to suggestion that he would have done anything differently. 


I had to repeat that half a dozen times. I've pointed it out to a few people before that too. Him repeating the baseless belief is either trolling or extreme ignorance. I am done treating it as a legitimate post. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2021, 07:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, I responded to that a number of posts ago by detailing Trump's actions that run counter to his belief and then Trump's words during the last few months that also run counter to his belief. Trump did not hold the Taliban to the agreement as he rushed to remove as many troops as possible over his last 10 months. There's no reason to believe he would suddenly begin to. Trump publicly called for his timeline to be followed despite conditions not being met and bragged and took ownership of the exit occurring under Biden. There's nothing in his words or actions to suggestion that he would have done anything differently. 


I had to repeat that half a dozen times. I've pointed it out to a few people before that too. Him repeating the baseless belief is either trolling or extreme ignorance. I am done treating it as a legitimate post. 

But there's a huge difference between not making the Taliban adhere to agreements and allowing the rapid disintegration that actually occurred.  You're making some logical inferences, to be sure, but I also think you're ignoring the major differences in temperament between Trump and Biden.  I don't think many, if any, would argue that Trump is far more likely to act in an unexpected fashion, to over respond, or take things personally, than Biden.  I think the Taliban correctly assessed Biden's position and willingness to act and I do not think that Trump would have reacted in the same way, nor would the Taliban if Trump was POTUS.  But, again, we'll never know definitively.  

I do think it's disingenuous to state "x" would have happened if Trump was POTUS, and mind you I'm not saying you're doing that but others in this thread certainly are.  At the end of the day we're really only left with what actually happened and who is actually POTUS, and I don't think it's even a remote stretch to say Biden shit the bed on this one, big time.

[BmorePat87]

(08-26-2021, 07:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But there's a huge difference between not making the Taliban adhere to agreements and allowing the rapid disintegration that actually occurred.  You're making some logical inferences, to be sure, but I also think you're ignoring the major differences in temperament between Trump and Biden.  I don't think many, if any, would argue that Trump is far more likely to act in an unexpected fashion, to over respond, or take things personally, than Biden.  I think the Taliban correctly assessed Biden's position and willingness to act and I do not think that Trump would have reacted in the same way, nor would the Taliban if Trump was POTUS.  But, again, we'll never know definitively.  

I do think it's disingenuous to state "x" would have happened if Trump was POTUS, and mind you I'm not saying you're doing that but others in this thread certainly are.  At the end of the day we're really only left with what actually happened and who is actually POTUS, and I don't think it's even a remote stretch to say Biden shit the bed on this one, big time.

I would argue that Trump was far less hawkish than Biden, so he was always less likely to recommit to Afghanistan. I would point to his history of being pretty negative with regards to the war, his actions with ISIS and the Kurds, and his stated desire to be the president who ended the war. The last point in particular drives his desire for a complete cut and run, hence him negotiating with the Taliban to hand Afghanistan over them and leave, and then him going about it without waiting for them to hold up their end. 

As I noted before, Trump showed with the Kurds that he wasn't interested in reengaging in a conflict if a terrorist group rebounded and was killing our allies. There's no reason to believe that the Taliban would see him as a bigger threat than the guy who was VP when drones were raining hellfire on them. 

The only people who ever saw Trump as a tough guy were American conservatives.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2021, 07:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would argue that Trump was far less hawkish than Biden, so he was always less likely to recommit to Afghanistan. I would point to his history of being pretty negative with regards to the war, his actions with ISIS and the Kurds, and his stated desire to be the president who ended the war. The last point in particular drives his desire for a complete cut and run, hence him negotiating with the Taliban to hand Afghanistan over them and leave, and then him going about it without waiting for them to hold up their end. 

As I noted before, Trump showed with the Kurds that he wasn't interested in reengaging in a conflict if a terrorist group rebounded and was killing our allies. There's no reason to believe that the Taliban would see him as a bigger threat than the guy who was VP when drones were raining hellfire on them. 

The only people who ever saw Trump as a tough guy were American conservatives.

If you're talking about redeploying ground troops, I absolutely agree.  I'm talking about his bombing the ever loving shit out of them, which I think would have been a dead certainty.  As for your last sentence, the assassination of Soleimani doesn't exactly jive with that position.  

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-26-2021, 07:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The only people who ever saw Trump as a tough guy were American conservatives.

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. 




(Note: I'm not saying Trump is actually tough himself, like he's some badass, but this clearly sent a strong message. And it's not one I'm so sure someone like Biden would have made either.)

[Stewy]

Well I came here to see if any real conversations were going on as they pertain to todays events, and after 12 soldiers lost their lives this is still the same partisan shit show it always is. Lovely.

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 06:50 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: To the bold.

Before I respond to the rest of your post, I want to say I personally have no interest in pursuing an argument on this aspect of the conversation. I'd much rather focus on what happened and how we got here without the hypotheticals of what "would" have happened.

No problem Matt. Sounds reasonable. 

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Afghanistan?pid=1051315#pid1051315][/url]LOL so it’s the people who call other humans “scum” just “because they are,” who are “adult enough" to partake in this discussion?  Why don't we hear more of that in responsible political commentary and scholarship then?  Are the demogogues the real adults?

Yeah, I'm quite comfortable calling people who engage in wanton acts of murder, torture and rapine human scum.  You, for some reason, are not.  But you're quite comfortable comparing Americans to Nazis and the Taliban.  An rather illogical position, but that's you.

Not for "some reason." I have explained this carefully, and twice. Now for the 3rd time, re-quoting post #237:

1. "Those engaged [in scholarly research] do not call the objects of their study "human scum"--be they individuals, parties, or states.... [because] such terms offer no descriptive or analytical precision. Demogogues use such language to express and arouse negative emotions, often to demonize minority ethnic groups, and they have no place in social scientific/historical description, where they simply mark the writer's own distortive bias."  

I subscribe to this ethos of modern scholarship, as do some others on this board. You do NOT, and so are "comfortable" with the bolded. 

2. I am indeed "comfortable" making social-scientific comparisons between authoritarian regimes and current US politics; that is one way in which political science scholarship serves democracy. And you are NOT, at a time when our politics have taken an authoritarian turn. 

Such comparisons are not made to "call" people Nazis or Taliban (remember 1 above?), but to forestall authoritarian, anti-democratic politics which might expand under new names, but a similar logic to past authoritarian politics. You are not "comfortable" with that either. 

If you think it contradictory to refuse to call people 'scum' while engaging in scholarly comparison of authoritarian politics, that just means you conflate the latter with name calling. 

Why did you choose to simply repeat the conflaction, rather than actually addressing my defense of scholarly/social-scientific  ethos, methods, and purposes? The latter is what you are really at odds with here, not some personal dill quirk.

(08-26-2021, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Can you identify one statement in of my posts which purports to “refute the excesses of Islam”?  The points I "proved" for you don't seem to actually be in my posts. 

Oh, that's not possible, because you never address it at all.  Well, except to object to Isis scum being called scum.

Wait, am I "refuting the excesses of Islam" or "never addressing [them] at all"?

At least quote the claims you attribute to me, or stop asserting that I make them. The rest is just dodgery.

My refusal to call ISIS "scum" is neither premise nor conclusion to some "refutation of excesses.of Islam." 
Rather that addresses your rhetorical excesses.

[BFritz21]

To everyone blaming Trump for this and saying he started it:

Biden has reversed so many of Trump's policies and things like the pipeline, so why couldn't he reverse this one?

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 07:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would argue that Trump was far less hawkish than Biden, so he was always less likely to recommit to Afghanistan. I would point to his history of being pretty negative with regards to the war, his actions with ISIS and the Kurds, and his stated desire to be the president who ended the war. The last point in particular drives his desire for a complete cut and run, hence him negotiating with the Taliban to hand Afghanistan over them and leave, and then him going about it without waiting for them to hold up their end. 

As I noted before, Trump showed with the Kurds that he wasn't interested in reengaging in a conflict if a terrorist group rebounded and was killing our allies. There's no reason to believe that the Taliban would see him as a bigger threat than the guy who was VP when drones were raining hellfire on them. 

The only people who ever saw Trump as a tough guy were American conservatives.

I agree with the bolded, if we are talking about commitment to war.

On the other hand, he was big on SYMBOLIC violence, like MOAB which was supposed to intimidate the Taliban, the assisination of Suleiman, and shooting down drones in the Gulf--the latter two actions walking us close to the edge of war. 

The Kurds helped the US find and kill Al Baghdadi; Leaving them then to fend for themselves is probably the best predictor of how Trump would have handled the Afghan pull out. Would he "own" bringing 20,000 Muslim collaborators to the US? 

Perhaps he would authorize some random bombing if the Taliban failed to meet some demand, killing more civilians, friend and foe, in a final masculinist gesture. But it's doubtful the Taliban would worry enough about that to alter their behavior. Trump was not going to restart the war, and that was his only possible leverage, not another MOAB. The big win for them was the Doha Agreement with its deadlines. One way or another, big boom or quiet whimper, the US was leaving.  

I don't think Trump was only tough on conservatives. Think of the whistleblowers he fired. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-26-2021, 06:31 PM)Dill Wrote: I'll agree with you that Biden has made his own mistakes here. He has diverted from some details of Trump's plan in important respects--e.g., the May 1st pullout. Would have been a BIGGER disaster had he adhered to that. He could have chosen NOT to make a full withdrawal. But did embrace the decision to withdraw, with apparent priority on US military personnel before Afghan supporters.

And I believe that's where Biden made his mistake. My gripes are not with the withdrawal in itself, because I believe withdrawing from Afghanistan was the right decision. But putting out military ahead of those who helped us was very distasteful and made us look worse than we needed to be perceived as.

Quote:1. Separate out the negatives which had to result from any total withdrawal, whether by Trump or Biden. Everyday on the news I hear people clamoring about how we have "betrayed our NATO/Afghan/regional allies" with the unilateral withdrawal, and how our international "credibility" has been diminished, and how women are going to be oppressed and murdered, and how families of interpreters are going to be left behind and killed, and how the US will now have no bases in the region in case it needs to return, and Al Qaeda may be able to reconstitute itself, etc. That's not on Biden or Trump so much as our "sovereign" (and fickle) American people who respond to politicians promising full withdrawal. NEVER FORGET--for at least 20 years!!

I partly agree and disagree.

I do agree that women being oppressed and murdered by the Taliban isn't on Biden or Trump. However, I don't agree that it's not on Biden for abandoning our allies and damaging our credibility.

Biden has said that Afghans didn't want to leave Afghanistan. While it's true that there are Afghans who did not want to leave, using such generalized language is dishonest and appears to be a deliberate attempt by the Biden administration to deflect responsibility. This lie that "Afghans didn't want to leave" has been perpetuated and spread amongst the public and further formed as justification for leaving our allies that actually did want to leave. What Biden and his administration fail to mention however, is the issues that came with trying to actually leave Afghanistan such as VISA processing issues, financial issues, limited flights etc...

The truth is, there are many who wanted to leave, but they did not all have the same opportunity or ability to do so.

Quote:2. Take a closer look at the Doha Agreement and its effects on the Islamic State of A-stan. It will probably take a year to get the full story on this, but that agreement, more than anything else, created the frame of reference in which Biden had to operate. It reduced military before civilian/contractor components with its accelerated military withdrawals, and most importantly, motivated provincial governors and former warlords in the north to begin their own negotiations with the Taliban, paralyzing central control of both governnment and military earlier this month when they, acting independently of one another, ordered their forces to stand down. It is not clear whether our intel forsaw this adequately or not. It is clear that those actions, more than any other, dictated the rapid fall of the government and disbandment of the military, which accelerated the withdrawal to its present chaos.

I do believe that the withdrawal of troops did allow for the enemy to make strategic decisions that would give them better footing to take/attack Afghanistan. But I don't think the Afghan army keeping control was ever going to be a for sure thing. I also don't believe that should have been our concern to be honest. I don't think "stability" is something that can be promised without a continued US presence. 

I think the central question regarding all of this, is what amount of force was needed for either Trump or Biden to make a successful withdrawal. That I think is the big "if" in all of this. One narrative is that the military presence Biden was left with basically set Biden up to fail. Others say Biden was left with enough force to have withdrawn those who wanted to leave before getting our troops out and it would have been a much smoother withdrawal. I think it's something that could be looked at on a deeper level, but I have leaned more towards we left our allies to die when we should have stayed, until we successfully got our allies out. I don't even believe we should have gotten "everyone" out. I believe we should have gotten our citizens and allies out, and then our troops. Anyone beyond that should have been beyond our concern.

Quote:3. Review Biden's decisions from mid-July to the present separately from 1 and 2. That's where we'll locate the critical accountability, if you are one of those who agrees "20 years is long enough."*  The decision to return Baghram to the ISA, for example, was justified as a consequence of reduced troop numbers. The big political metric we keep hearing in the news is number of troops left. Did that skew Biden from his duty to protect civilians and pull out translators and others who supported us? We left signifcant military equipment to the ISA--no plan for removing it as the gov. fell? As far as keeping Trump's "conditions" for leaving--that was already not possible by the time Biden took office, not without re-igniting the war. 


This is not a full list of suggestions. My point is just the we ought to be assessing Biden and Trump in this fashion, which is more likely to produce an accurate account of what went wrong at what stage of the process.

*I am not one of those, so I think the whole mess falls back on the decision to totally withdraw. All who support that are "accountable."

Ahhh see. And here we are.

"Was Biden given enough" is basically your point here. At least that's how I take it.

That again I believe is the central question that will surround all of this and ultimately will sway people to one side or the other. Or people will go with the "We shouldn't have been there anyway" argument and feel that's justification enough in us leaving. I don't.

It's a complex topic to be sure, however, I wholeheartedly believe that Biden's execution of withdrawal was the wrong way to go about it and has damaged our credibility while simultaneously invigorating our opposition. As I stated before, we should have left, but we should have never left like this.

And the lack of consistency from Biden and his administration isn't helping. Biden claimed he couldn't change the deal because doing so would mean sending more troops, which in turn could cause the Taliban to turn on the deal. Now we've sent more troops in anyway because of what has unfolded.

And beside the fact that the Taliban weren't honoring the deal anyway, I fail to see how abandoning our allies looks better than sending more troops in to ensure getting our allies out before our military. I believe the desire to protect our allies and citizens rather than abandon them would have been received on a domestic and international level much better than abandoning them and then trying to rush back to correct what we did. And then Biden's administration later goes on to say that we had to get out as soon as possible because the Taliban said they wanted to control the airport as soon as possible.

So, now it seems like we're not only admitting that leaving our allies is better than making sure they get out. It seems like we're also admitting that what the Taliban wanted mattered more than what we wanted and we were willing to fold to their demands.

You make the point that, " As far as keeping Trump's "conditions" for leaving--that was already not possible by the time Biden took office, not without re-igniting the war. "

I'd argue, that the reignition of war should have been less of a concern than protecting our allies and citizens. I understand that such a thing would possibly risk more American lives if the Taliban saw our "re-invasion" as provocation, but I feel that scenario would have been perceived in a better light than outright abandonment and from a moralistic standpoint would have just been the "right" thing to do.

[samhain]

I heard an ex-military official on an generic news brief last week saying that there was a 5 percent chance that American troops would die during the evacuations. He wasn't discussing it lightly, and it was apparent that he thought that 5 percent was way too high of a number in terms of the risk being taken. He felt that such an act would effectively destroy Biden's presidency. I feel similarly, but you never know given the nature of American attention spans and news cycles.

One thing I do not get: if you're part of the Taliban or even ISIS, what the hell are you thinking killing American troops (or allowing them to be killed) as they are trying to leave you're country? You finally have control after 20 years and there's almost no chance that Biden is changing his mind about withdrawal barring some kind of incident exactly like this one.

The American public on both the right and left had lost it's taste for war with no end in sight. That brand of terrorism dropped down the list of American priorities a good bit with us being too busy hating each other to bother anymore. We're more interested in accusing each other of being terrorists than we are in worrying about terrorism abroad.

Now, I'd say that's about to change. if anything would re-ignite the public's taste for occupation and bloodshed in Afghanistan it's the killing of Americans as they are trying to leave.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-26-2021, 07:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, I responded to that a number of posts ago by detailing Trump's actions that run counter to his belief and then Trump's words during the last few months that also run counter to his belief. Trump did not hold the Taliban to the agreement as he rushed to remove as many troops as possible over his last 10 months. There's no reason to believe he would suddenly begin to. Trump publicly called for his timeline to be followed despite conditions not being met and bragged and took ownership of the exit occurring under Biden. There's nothing in his words or actions to suggestion that he would have done anything differently. 


I had to repeat that half a dozen times. I've pointed it out to a few people before that too. Him repeating the baseless belief is either trolling or extreme ignorance. I am done treating it as a legitimate post. 

It's okay. I understand you take beliefs as absolute facts. You've made that quite clear.

People acting like they know everything tends to lead to this type of dismissive behavior.

Perhaps if you read the argument within its proper context and stopped going back to your obsession of 80% withdrawal you'd understand the argument.

It's no wonder you're so confused when you continually mischaracterize arguments.

[BFritz21]

I said circumstances change and Biden should have adapted, but I just saw on TV that Trump's date for withdrawal had stipulations about what had to happen in order for the withdrawal to go through, which they didn't happen, and Biden withdrew anyways.

Not only did he withdrawal, he did it in a sloppy, shitty way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2021, 08:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Not for "some reason." I have explained this carefully, and twice. Now for the 3rd time, re-quoting post #237:

1. "Those engaged [in scholarly research] do not call the objects of their study "human scum"--be they individuals, parties, or states.... [because] such terms offer no descriptive or analytical precision. Demogogues use such language to express and arouse negative emotions, often to demonize minority ethnic groups, and they have no place in social scientific/historical description, where they simply mark the writer's own distortive bias."  

I subscribe to this ethos of modern scholarship, as do some others on this board. You do NOT, and so are "comfortable" with the bolded.

Quote:2. I am indeed "comfortable" making social-scientific comparisons between authoritarian regimes and current US politics; that is one way in which political science scholarship serves democracy. And you are NOT, at a time when our politics have taken an authoritarian turn. 

Such comparisons are not made to "call" people Nazis or Taliban (remember 1 above?), but to forestall authoritarian, anti-democratic politics which might expand under new names, but a similar logic to past authoritarian politics. You are not "comfortable" with that either. 

Such comparisons "call" or equate the groups compared whether you like it or not.  This has been explained to you and you choose to ignore it.  Such comparisons are inflammatory, whether intentional or not, and serve no constructive purpose.  They literally only serve to equate the group being compared to some of the worst human beings who have ever lived.

Quote:If you think it contradictory to refuse to call people 'scum' while engaging in scholarly comparison of authoritarian politics, that just means you conflate the latter with name calling. 

I don't think calling scum scum is name calling, it's accurate labeling.

Quote:Why did you choose to simply repeat the conflaction, rather than actually addressing my defense of scholarly/social-scientific  ethos, methods, and purposes? The latter is what you are really at odds with here, not some personal dill quirk.

Because it's inane and as usual, ignores the actual point of discussion.

Quote:Wait, am I "refuting the excesses of Islam" or "never addressing [them] at all"?

Both!  Reread the sentence above a few hundred times and maybe it will sink in.

Quote:At least quote the claims you attribute to me, or stop asserting that I make them. The rest is just dodgery.

How can I quote something you refuse to address?

Quote:My refusal to call ISIS "scum" is neither premise nor conclusion to some "refutation of excesses.of Islam." 
Rather that addresses your rhetorical excesses.

No, it's your refusal to even acknowledge the excesses and abuses routinely conducted in the name of Islam that does that.  There's a reason you refrained from addressing a very large and significant portion of my post.  I'll let anyone who cares go back and see what you omitted so they can connect the dots.  As I said, you're fooling no one, probably not even yourself.

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I most certainly can, just as I mention the excesses of Christianity during the slave trade and how it couldn't have existed if more Christians acted, well, like Christians, and demanded it stop.  When your religion is being used to justify horrific acts then it is the responsibility of the adherents of that religion to stand up and say, no!  There are certainly Muslims that do this, but clearly in nothing close to the numbers needed to effect actual change.  Or, you know, things would actually change.

I would think that's rather self evident.  You take issue with my criticism of Islam and claim I am incorrect in my characterizations of how the religion is currently used, en masse, to denigrate and oppress women and homosexuals, to name only two categories.  I then asked you to prove me wrong by listing the majority Muslim countries in which that is not the case.  You provided two examples, both in Europe.  I then asked you to provide a list of Muslim majority countries in which women and homosexuals are oppressed and denigrated as a matter of routine.  You balked at this, and we all know why.  It's this type of intellectual cowardice that makes all your refutations on this subject patently absurd and imminently laughable.  You know you've been painted into a corner, hence your desperate attempts to consistently mischaracterize my position as bigoted towards all Muslims.  It's not working, it's not going to work, and your flailing attempts to deny it have passed the point of embarrassing.  

Perhaps better to say, "if early modern Christians acted more like liberals, honoring the newly developing liberal ethics premised on universal human rights."

Their Bible offered all the support the slavers needed for their practice. Still does, and yet most Christians are against the practice--as are most Muslims.

You are tying both Christianity and Islam to texts whose "eternal meanings" change with material, economic, and social developments. 

And that is why I have not been disputing, let alone "refuting," claims that oppression occurs in Muslim countries; I just question the degree to which Islam can be assigned primary responsibility for this. 

I still do take issue with your continued explanation of "oppression" in terms of religion and personal moral defects, rather than other material and social determinants which appear to count more. 

So no, I have never disputed (or attempted to refute) claims that women and "homosexuals" are not treated liberally in non-liberal countries, not just "Muslim-majority."  Still, you keep claiming to have demonstrated I am "wrong" about what I have not disputed, a statement you cannot seem to cite, but something you could disprove with a list of Muslim-majority countries longer than two. Mentions of Albania and Bosnia were not attempts to prove that women etc. were not oppressed in other places. Though note--both countries are in a liberalized Europe. Perhaps there is more to this "oppression" issue than religion? 

And yes, I fault your impressions of Islam, and of Muslim-majority nations. You speak of them as if "oppression" were some kind of constant, distributed invariably, unrelated to material/social factors, and the "fault" of those who stand by and allow the bad oppressors to do their thing. 

You've mellowed somewhat from your post #179 on the "Merkels foes in disarray" thread, where you said: "As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable."

That wasn't solely addressed to "radical Islam." And now you grant that some Muslims may fight "oppression." Perhaps I have contributed to your growth.  

The personal attacks remain, though; not the best way to work off anxiety back then, nor now.

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 09:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Such comparisons "call" or equate the groups compared whether you like it or not.  This has been explained to you and you choose to ignore it.  Such comparisons are inflammatory, whether intentional or not, and serve no constructive purpose.  They literally only serve to equate the group being compared to some of the worst human beings who have ever lived.

I don't think calling scum scum is name calling, it's accurate labeling.

No, you haven't "explained"--you've merely asserted that "such comparisons equate groups." Likely to you they do, given your stance outside the ethos and methods of modern research.

I'm the one who has explained--for example how such comparisons are a staple of social-scientifice scholarship on authoritarian regimes, how they are only "inflammatory" to people who don't understand scholarship or feel threatened by it, and how, in the hands of social scientists, such comparisons serve the constructive purpose of illuminating present anti-democratic trends in democratic states.

And such illumination is much needed now in a nation where more and more people have difficulty recognizing authoritarian politics. Do you dispute that that is the case? If you don't, is it your view that the problem is best dealt with without reference to "some of the worst human beings that have ever lived"?

The entire international insitution of social science and humanities scholarship "ignores" the logic of your claim, and the censorship it implies, whether you like it or not.

Continued repetition of your assertion such comparisons are "inflammatory" etc. won't address any of my points of explanation. 

You need to explain why using past authoritarian regimes to examine present tendencies is wrong IN PRINCIPLE, i.e.,having no "constructive purpose." If you think it not wrong in principle, then how could it be done without COMPARISON? 

Rejection of social scientific researech practice and goals in this area is leaning pretty far to the Right.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Sincerely, this is way past boring. You'll continue to ignore points made and retort with long winded, overly complex, "academic" explanations. You continue ignoring a major problem and I'll stop rubbing your face in it. Deal?

Now back to the actual topic of the thread, which is Islamic extremists taking over a country and reinstituting barbaric, bronze age type governance.