The unacceptable face of Scotland

[26th of foot 6,082]

There's a wider responsibility. Now i'm not saying this is anywhere near the same thing, but Adolf Hitler never set foot in Britain for example, we had a duty to fight him though.

 

There's an old adage of military life, 'hurry up and wait'.

 

Reading was a big part of my professional life, I carried a battered copy of Neil Munro's 'Para Handy Tales' and anything else lying around. Thirty-odd years past, Beryl Bainbridge was popular and her then latest tome was, 'Young Adolf'. Apparently, Hitler's brother, Alois married an Irish lass, Bridget and they settled in Liverpool. The marriage produced a son, William Hitler. Adolf visited his nephew in 1912 in Toxteth and resided until early 1913. I always thought Adolf had a touch of scouse, 'Al Reich, all reich, calm down, calm down'.

 

The question as to why we invaded Afghanistan is remarkably similar as to why we put the army into Sierra Leone, Macedonia, Iraq, ....... etc. A career politician called Tony Blair decided to look tough and pronounce on the military option. Shirt sleeves rolled up, hands on hips, and determined look on visog is a hugely seductive calling to politicians of all hues. Tony was addicted, he put the army into six separate countries in 10 short years. He failed to extract the army from any of those countries by the end of his tenure at Downing Street.

 

Reference William(Billy) Hitler, he was the Beatles first drummer, eventually losing out to Ringo Star.

[Zappa 0]

Indeed, although I find that Zappa and Juan have done a great job of illuminating it.

 

It wisnae me. Gribz started it!

 

the invasion of afghan is all about lithium, opium and transporting energy.

[Zappa 0]

Tony was addicted, he put the army into six separate countries in 10 short years.

 

Was that six separate countries officially?

[calscot 0]

Indeed, although I find that Zappa and Juan have done a great job of illuminating it.

 

Following your posts, the tone of this comment comes across as very strange, and pretty much supports my thinking that your original question was totally disingenuous. I take it some agree with the answer you already had in mind? What is it you really want here and why the underhandedness?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Following your posts, the tone of this comment comes across as very strange, and pretty much supports my thinking that your original question was totally disingenuous. I take it some agree with the answer you already had in mind? What is it you really want here and why the underhandedness?

 

"underhandedness"? Hmm, an interesting, if rather insulting, take on things.

 

My questions were intended to be more rhetorical. You see, when people simply regurgitate received wisdom such as 'we're fighting the taliban because they're terrorists' or 'we're bringing democracy' , we can do one of two things; we can either ignore it or we can challenge it. If we decide to challenge it, we can do so by throwing abuse around and name-calling, or we can ask the person making the statement some pertinant questions which will hopefully lead them to start questioning the statements they are making.

 

In your case you made three statements of received wisdom, all of which I would contest;

1) You said that the Taliban are terrorists. The Taliban, evil, disgusting and barbaric as they most certainly are, cannot be described as terrorists, when it is we who are occupying their country. Hence the question, what criteria would they have to meet before you would consider them a resistance movement?

2) You said that most Afghanis want democracy - what evidence do you have for this? Western style democracy takes time to develop and is not something you can impose on a culture which has had no exposure to it.

3) You said that our being in Afghanistan would reduce the number of attacks on our country. There were no attacks on our country before we invaded them - how could we reduce the figure of zero attacks on us?

 

It would be interesting to hear your answers to those questions.

[amms 0]

I think that is the point though AMMS - rather than print the truth of why they didnt hold the silence. they have fabricated a story suggesting it was an oversight due to staff changes - rather than admit its due to the moronic behaviour of a minority.

 

I think that makes it a double whammy - not only are they acquiescing to unruly behaviour but in addition they are fabricating statements to excuse it.

 

To be fair we don't know that is why. As I said before I can't see why Ross County would acquiesce to Celtic, their owner could buy and sell Celtic if he felt like it, as a club they certainly aren't beholden to anyone else for survival. He was also one of the chairman who voted against the ridiculous reconstruction being forced through last season, despite the three-line-whip from Lawell and Regan.

If it had been Dundee Utd or Aberdeen, who are clearly in Celtic's pocket, I'd have little doubt, but Ross County are quite different.

[D'Artagnan 173]

To be fair we don't know that is why. As I said before I can't see why Ross County would acquiesce to Celtic, their owner could buy and sell Celtic if he felt like it, as a club they certainly aren't beholden to anyone else for survival. He was also one of the chairman who voted against the ridiculous reconstruction being forced through last season, despite the three-line-whip from Lawell and Regan.

If it had been Dundee Utd or Aberdeen, who are clearly in Celtic's pocket, I'd have little doubt, but Ross County are quite different.[/quote

 

Well its got to be one or the other - either an oversight or a deliberate acquiescing - you cant have both !

[calscot 0]

"underhandedness"? Hmm, an interesting, if rather insulting, take on things.

 

Insulting? Look, I don’t want to get into some kind of flame war and I can’t see how I insulted you – especially over a post to where I was trying to imply in a polite way that your own post comes across as a veiled insult after me playing along to your fishing, even though I’d already outed you on that. To me that was underhand. (I’ll let you work the veiled insult out. It’s a lot easier than the subject matter.)

Like I was asking straight, just what are you trying to achieve? If it's to persuade me of anything other than you think you are right, then it’s not the way to go about it.

Your whole argument comes across as, "you're so stupid if you believe the government" - and I haven't even said I fully do.

 

My questions were intended to be more rhetorical.

 

You mean they weren't genuine, just like I said? So why do you feel insulted by me pointing that out? Your repetition meant you pretended you didn’t know the answers.

 

You see, when people simply regurgitate received wisdom such as 'we're fighting the taliban because they're terrorists' or 'we're bringing democracy' , we can do one of two things; we can either ignore it or we can challenge it.

 

Like I implied in my "insult", I knew it was a leading question. To me, it's an underhand way of making a point.

 

You didn't even get that I didn’t fall into your trap as I worded it thus:

 

"Like I said, you might disagree with it and have conjecture that there are deeper and less noble motives (and I probably agree there, to an extent),"

 

However, as you repeatedly demanded the simple answers like you just didn't know, I played along and qualified it with:

"It's a very complex issue."

 

If you're into challenging, why are you so biased to one side of the story? Just because a certain reason to justify something isn't the only reason, doesn't completely invalidate it. Why aren’t you challenging your own side which isn’t exactly cast iron so far?

 

In your case you made three statements of received wisdom, all of which I would contest;

1) You said that the Taliban are terrorists.

 

I said no such thing. My words are in the thread so please quote them. The "received wisdom" for me is that they were a safe haven for, and supportive of Al Qaeda and also responsible for radicalising young men into the mind-set of joining the terrorist group. There was also the proximity of these terrorists to Pakistan who own nuclear missiles. However, it seems that part has definitely backfired.

 

The Taliban, evil, disgusting and barbaric as they most certainly are, cannot be described as terrorists, when it is we who are occupying their country.

 

That's the same line of argument as the IRA... But then we are not occupying their country as an invading force who are attempting to annex it like the IRA believe we are. The received wisdom is that were trying to give the Afghanistan to its people. It seems the IRA have a far better case there, and “occupying” takes on a more concrete and sinister meaning.

 

Hence the question, what criteria would they have to meet before you would consider them a resistance movement?

 

That is a complex and subjective area which is very difficult to answer. But if they have nothing to do with terrorism, believe in the freedom of their people, and are the most popular choice for leadership, why don't they just denounce terrorism, embrace democracy and become the elected leaders?

You're arguing like this is the case and we're just repressing them to put in our own martial law, when it obviously isn't.

It would certainly make us look like the baddies if we subverted it. Why don’t they just play it clever? Or is the answer that they want totalitarian rule and are despised by most of their own people which doesn’t fit?

 

2) You said that most Afghanis want democracy - what evidence do you have for this? Western style democracy takes time to develop and is not

something you can impose on a culture which has had no exposure to it.

 

Democracy is not perfect by any means and comes in many flavours, but surely it's obviously better than tyranny - what's your choice for the UK, the current democracy or Taliban type rule?

 

 

 

What evidence do you have that they don’t want it? Maybe I’m indoctrinated by Scotland’s history about freedom and the enlightenment that brought democracy, but I can’t imagine people not choosing freedom and choice over some sort of autocracy (or some equivalent strict theocracy).

 

Your argument could apply to the southern states in America about abolishing slavery. The north imposed a culture which they had no exposure of, not that generation anyway. The majority certainly didn't want it.

 

 

 

Once they have democracy they can customise it to their own tastes and culture - if your culture is equality of women, what chance do you have of adjusting the Taliban rule to your culture? If a culture is forced upon you, I think it's actually patronising to say you wouldn't be able to even conceptualise the freedom to form a “better” culture for yourself. Democracy is about freedom and choice, what could be more fundamental to transcend forced cultures? The main trouble is implementing a reasonably fair democracy that lives up to its ideals.

 

 

 

3) You said that our being in Afghanistan would reduce the number of attacks on our country. There were no attacks on our country before we invaded them - how could we reduce the figure of zero attacks on us?

 

 

 

I don't actually know the time line or number of deaths and admit that. But you are saying no Brits had previously been killed by Islamic terrorists at all? Despite all the Al Quieda propaganda we hear, you don't think any would have happened if we hadn't gone to Afghanistan? You don't think there are other factors?

 

 

 

It would be interesting to hear your answers to those questions.

 

 

 

I'm sure you have the rhetoric waiting for them. Like I said it’s a complex subject and I think I’ve shown your questions are not without answers – and further questions.

 

What you don’t seem to get is that I’m open to both sides of the story and realise there is some plausibility in each and I’m surprised you didn’t see any of that. What I don’t need is games made up to pigeon hole myself and others as non-free thinkers because we ironically don’t blindly agree with everything you say. It’s not a very compelling way to put across your view.

 

As usual I’ve put care into this to try and explain things clearly. I hope it’s read in the way it was intended and not subverted into some perceived insult…

[andy steel 0]

Democracy is not perfect by any means and comes in many flavours, but surely it's obviously better than tyranny - what's your choice for the UK, the current democracy or Taliban type rule?

 

What evidence do you have that they don’t want it? Maybe I’m indoctrinated by Scotland’s history about freedom and the enlightenment that brought democracy, but I can’t imagine people not choosing freedom and choice over some sort of autocracy (or some equivalent strict theocracy).

 

On this point, the evidence is there that the Afghan people are highly resistant to ANY doctrine if it introduced by non-Afghans, from us trying to put Dost Mohammad on the throne right down to the Russians and communism. The history of British intervention in their country would probably see them resist a bar of gold and a house for every citizen if it came from someone British. It may not be that they object to democracy per se, but they will certainly object to anything brought by us.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Quote Originally Posted by Gribz View Post

the invasion of afghan is all about lithium, opium and transporting energy.

 

That ties the Easdales in then.