This topic is locked from further discussion.
@LJS9502_basic: you're Probally right, I've noticed some ppl on here will ignore logic just so they can bash US.
I find it funny how some people on here whining are in a country that has active troops in Afghanistan.
OT can be a cess pool that way.....
Served in Iraq, 05. Standing order not to interfere in domestic situations and abuses directly lead to 2 separate deaths. My platoon was ordered to stand down, rather then protect civilian population. It should be our place. 1 instance an Iraqi boy who sold candy at the same stall all year pointed out a bomb placed on the road to us by waving us down. An old man grabbed the boy and brutally beat him. We stopped the man before he killed him but could neither detain the man or take the boy with us. Our interpreter assured us if we left the boy he would be dead as soon as we left. We where ordered to leave by HQ, without the boy. Our interpreter quite the next week.
@MlauTheDaft: nobody's fine with it. It's not our place to push in at. Should be the local governments.
Sorry, but that's how world turns. I wouldn't throw away a 10+ year mission just because I tried changing their culture. Slavery of all sorts is still alive in many places, should we go after them too?
As was said, that is completely depressing. What a cowardly ass of an old man. Nobody else tried to stop that cowardly ass of an old man either?
Yea that would be bad for business. So much for spreading democracy and emancipating the Afghan people.
But I don't see how that's surprising. The U.S supports dictators and regimes of the worst kind and turns a blind eye to atrocities when it serves its foreign and security policies. What vexes me the most is the persisting fantasy of the moral high-ground that the regime and a big chunk of the citizenry feel entitled to.
Welcome to the real world; that's how things get done here. What is fantasy is the belief that you never compromise your moral standards and still be a power player in the game of international politics.
Yea that would be bad for business. So much for spreading democracy and emancipating the Afghan people.
But I don't see how that's surprising. The U.S supports dictators and regimes of the worst kind and turns a blind eye to atrocities when it serves its foreign and security policies. What vexes me the most is the persisting fantasy of the moral high-ground that the regime and a big chunk of the citizenry feel entitled to.
Welcome to the real world; that's how things get done here. What is fantasy is the belief that you never compromise your moral standards and still be a power player in the game of international politics.
I'm entrenched in the real world enough to realize the farce that is the moral high-ground the U.S and its citizenry feel entitled to. It is you who need to wake up from such fantasy. Moral standards that are subject to compromise are no moral standards; they're just egocentric moral twaddle.
Yea that would be bad for business. So much for spreading democracy and emancipating the Afghan people.
But I don't see how that's surprising. The U.S supports dictators and regimes of the worst kind and turns a blind eye to atrocities when it serves its foreign and security policies. What vexes me the most is the persisting fantasy of the moral high-ground that the regime and a big chunk of the citizenry feel entitled to.
Welcome to the real world; that's how things get done here. What is fantasy is the belief that you never compromise your moral standards and still be a power player in the game of international politics.
I'm entrenched in the real world enough to realize the farce that is the moral high-ground the U.S and its citizenry feel entitled to. It is you who need to wake up from such fantasy. Moral standards that are subject to compromise are no moral standards; they're just egocentric moral twaddle.
The thing I find funny and highly ironic is that you're generalizing the U.S population about feelings of moral superiority when everything you post relating to the U.S. reeks of you feeling superior to us.
Yea that would be bad for business. So much for spreading democracy and emancipating the Afghan people.
But I don't see how that's surprising. The U.S supports dictators and regimes of the worst kind and turns a blind eye to atrocities when it serves its foreign and security policies. What vexes me the most is the persisting fantasy of the moral high-ground that the regime and a big chunk of the citizenry feel entitled to.
Welcome to the real world; that's how things get done here. What is fantasy is the belief that you never compromise your moral standards and still be a power player in the game of international politics.
I'm entrenched in the real world enough to realize the farce that is the moral high-ground the U.S and its citizenry feel entitled to. It is you who need to wake up from such fantasy. Moral standards that are subject to compromise are no moral standards; they're just egocentric moral twaddle.
You must have me confused with someone else. I never once indicated that US holds a moral high ground or that our population should be entitled to a sense of moral superiority.
I'm entrenched in the real world enough to realize the farce that is the moral high-ground the U.S and its citizenry feel entitled to. It is you who need to wake up from such fantasy. Moral standards that are subject to compromise are no moral standards; they're just egocentric moral twaddle.
The thing I find funny and highly ironic is that you're generalizing the U.S population about feelings of moral superiority when everything you post relating to the U.S. reeks of you feeling superior to us.
I won't respond in the negative. Moral superiority is a good to be desired and those who acquire it are to be coveted. But the question is whether one is rightfully entitled to it. Given the U.S' foreign and security policies and the organization of the American society, I don't believe the U.S to be entitled to it. You may also contend whether I'm entitled to it; that's a legitimate discourse.
But to go back to the American entitlement to the moral high-ground, do you deny that the regime and the preponderance of the citizenry claim entitlement to it?
Yea that would be bad for business. So much for spreading democracy and emancipating the Afghan people.
But I don't see how that's surprising. The U.S supports dictators and regimes of the worst kind and turns a blind eye to atrocities when it serves its foreign and security policies. What vexes me the most is the persisting fantasy of the moral high-ground that the regime and a big chunk of the citizenry feel entitled to.
Welcome to the real world; that's how things get done here. What is fantasy is the belief that you never compromise your moral standards and still be a power player in the game of international politics.
I'm entrenched in the real world enough to realize the farce that is the moral high-ground the U.S and its citizenry feel entitled to. It is you who need to wake up from such fantasy. Moral standards that are subject to compromise are no moral standards; they're just egocentric moral twaddle.
You must have me confused with someone else. I never once indicated that US holds a moral high ground or that our population should be entitled to a sense of moral superiority.
I wasn't addressing you personally with that.
Speaking of America, you guys should read Mason & Dixon by Thomas Pynchon. An absolute delight.
5/5 stars. Highly recommended.
I believe this has been very common in Afghan and I don't see how people are relating it to Religion, maybe that's the card to pull when someone finds it too hard to say something very clever.
They clearly said this is very common to see with higher officials because it's clearly abuse of power.
The mistake in this is giving power to the wrong people.
US needs that Afghanistan oil.
Yea that would be bad for business. So much for spreading democracy and emancipating the Afghan people.
But I don't see how that's surprising. The U.S supports dictators and regimes of the worst kind and turns a blind eye to atrocities when it serves its foreign and security policies. What vexes me the most is the persisting fantasy of the moral high-ground that the regime and a big chunk of the citizenry feel entitled to.
Welcome to the real world; that's how things get done here. What is fantasy is the belief that you never compromise your moral standards and still be a power player in the game of international politics.
I'm entrenched in the real world enough to realize the farce that is the moral high-ground the U.S and its citizenry feel entitled to. It is you who need to wake up from such fantasy. Moral standards that are subject to compromise are no moral standards; they're just egocentric moral twaddle.
You must have me confused with someone else. I never once indicated that US holds a moral high ground or that our population should be entitled to a sense of moral superiority.
I wasn't addressing you personally with that.
I was included in that generalization. Who else could you possible been addressing? You were quoting me.
US needs that Afghanistan oil.
Significant amount of Afghan natural resources are in gas and minerals not so much oil. Also the region is so chaotic and unstable, few company is willing to invest much to tap those resource. Save for the Chinese that is, those guys are willing to deal with anyone.
Welcome to the real world; that's how things get done here. What is fantasy is the belief that you never compromise your moral standards and still be a power player in the game of international politics.
I'm entrenched in the real world enough to realize the farce that is the moral high-ground the U.S and its citizenry feel entitled to. It is you who need to wake up from such fantasy. Moral standards that are subject to compromise are no moral standards; they're just egocentric moral twaddle.
You must have me confused with someone else. I never once indicated that US holds a moral high ground or that our population should be entitled to a sense of moral superiority.
I wasn't addressing you personally with that.
I was included in that generalization. Who else could you possible been addressing? You were quoting me.
It's clear that I was addressing the U.S and its citizenry in general. I was quoting you in response to your reply to me.
Pederasty seemed to work quite well for Ancient Greece.
So, you see, this is just another example of vicious, spiteful, self-righteous Americans trying to keep a people down ...
They want to deny Afghanistan the Golden Age that only unrestrained pederasty can bring. :-P
I believe this has been very common in Afghan and I don't see how people are relating it to Religion, maybe that's the card to pull when someone finds it too hard to say something very clever.
They clearly said this is very common to see with higher officials because it's clearly abuse of power.
Or maybe it's the card to pull when you consider the following facts:
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people living in Afghanistan face certain unique legal and social challenges. Homosexuality and cross-dressing are considered serious crimes in Afghanistan, possible punishment may include the death penalty.
- Afghanistan's population is over 99% Muslim, and the country's Constitution stipulates that Islam shall be the official religion. Homosexuality and cross-dressing are widely seen as taboo and indecent activities, owing to traditional Islamic mores concerning appropriate gender roles and sexual conduct.
- When publicly discussed, homosexuality is often linked with prostitution and pedophilia and the level of awareness about sexual orientation or gender identity is limited. In 2011, Afghan news reporters interviewed men who had LGBT-pride symbols on their vehicles, to find out that the men were unaware of the meaning of the rainbow flags and stickers, thinking that it was just another western fad, and began quickly removing the rainbows to avoid being seen as a LGBT person or as supporter of LGBT rights.
- Despite the negative social attitudes and legal prohibitions, there is an institutionalized form of bisexuality within Afghan culture. This occurs when boys are kidnapped to act as sexual slaves for adult men, typically in a militia, or when an adult man buys sexual favors from young boys with money or gifts. These activities are tolerated within Afghan culture because they are not perceived as being an expression of a LGBT-identity, but rather an expression of male power and dominance; as the boy in these situations is forced to assume the "female" role in the relationship.
- Militia members generally do not have access to women, and so boys are sometimes kidnapped to be humiliated and raped by adult men. Other boys become prostitutes for adult men, regardless of their sexual orientation.
- These men involved are sometimes called bacha baz in Persian and seem to flourish in the big cities of Afghanistan, possibly due to poverty and the strict social taboos surrounding interaction between men and women. A law has been enacted prohibiting Afghan soldiers from having their "ashna" live with them.
- In 2007, reports stated that the practice of "bacha bareesh" (beardless boys) is still prevalent in parts of northern Afghanistan. This practice involves teenage boys being dressed in women's clothing and made to participate in dance competitions and engage in sexual acts.
I do hope that that is clever enough for you.
I believe this has been very common in Afghan and I don't see how people are relating it to Religion, maybe that's the card to pull when someone finds it too hard to say something very clever.
They clearly said this is very common to see with higher officials because it's clearly abuse of power.
Or maybe it's the card to pull when you consider the following facts:
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people living in Afghanistan face certain unique legal and social challenges. Homosexuality and cross-dressing are considered serious crimes in Afghanistan, possible punishment may include the death penalty.
- Afghanistan's population is over 99% Muslim, and the country's Constitution stipulates that Islam shall be the official religion. Homosexuality and cross-dressing are widely seen as taboo and indecent activities, owing to traditional Islamic mores concerning appropriate gender roles and sexual conduct.
- When publicly discussed, homosexuality is often linked with prostitution and pedophilia and the level of awareness about sexual orientation or gender identity is limited. In 2011, Afghan news reporters interviewed men who had LGBT-pride symbols on their vehicles, to find out that the men were unaware of the meaning of the rainbow flags and stickers, thinking that it was just another western fad, and began quickly removing the rainbows to avoid being seen as a LGBT person or as supporter of LGBT rights.
- Despite the negative social attitudes and legal prohibitions, there is an institutionalized form of bisexuality within Afghan culture. This occurs when boys are kidnapped to act as sexual slaves for adult men, typically in a militia, or when an adult man buys sexual favors from young boys with money or gifts. These activities are tolerated within Afghan culture because they are not perceived as being an expression of a LGBT-identity, but rather an expression of male power and dominance; as the boy in these situations is forced to assume the "female" role in the relationship.
- Militia members generally do not have access to women, and so boys are sometimes kidnapped to be humiliated and raped by adult men. Other boys become prostitutes for adult men, regardless of their sexual orientation.
- These men involved are sometimes called bacha baz in Persian and seem to flourish in the big cities of Afghanistan, possibly due to poverty and the strict social taboos surrounding interaction between men and women. A law has been enacted prohibiting Afghan soldiers from having their "ashna" live with them.
- In 2007, reports stated that the practice of "bacha bareesh" (beardless boys) is still prevalent in parts of northern Afghanistan. This practice involves teenage boys being dressed in women's clothing and made to participate in dance competitions and engage in sexual acts.
I do hope that that is clever enough for you.
Much better, thank you Sir.
@GazaAli: Should you be throwing stones? Don't you live in the middle east?
I thought it was wrong for Western imperialists to interfere with the fascinating cultural traditions of other countries.
@Storm_Marine: It's a practice that was stopped by the Taliban and now because of American interference it is happening again. Forcing Western values on others has resulted in this practice happening again. The Taliban are horrible people no doubt for their treatment of others but at least they don't condone this.
@Storm_Marine: It's a practice that was stopped by the Taliban and now because of American interference it is happening again. Forcing Western values on others has resulted in this practice happening again. The Taliban are horrible people no doubt for their treatment of others but at least they don't condone this.
The west is extremely anti-pedophilia, I don't know where you're getting your info.
@servomaster: Never said west was pro-pedophilia.
@GazaAli: Should you be throwing stones? Don't you live in the middle east?
edgy
Should you be talking though? You live in a region with blatantly bad morals, yet you're bashing the U.S.
Should you be talking though? You live in a region with blatantly bad morals, yet you're bashing the U.S.
Shouldn't you be shutting up though? You yourself come from a backward European culture that sexualizes women in their movies and stuff. Warmongers who have ravaged entire countries, stole their resources and then claimed the moral high ground.
Should you be talking though? The source of all the agonies of the people of ME and Africa. Your colonialism and imperialism still is haunting us in the form of shitfucks like Saudi Arabia, their backward Bedouin culture and their Wahhabi cult that's been gaining momentum in the past couple of decades only thanks to your tax money. Afghanistan wasn't full of Jihadist before the war. Syria wasn't either. Iran wasn't IRI either but you just had to orchestrate the coup of '53 didn't you? Refugees first and foremost are Palestinians who were scattered to the four freaking winds because you wanted to establish a vassal in ME. Is their any nation that has suffered more at your hands than the very Palestinians you're shaming? Syria who had hosted many Palestinian refugees turned into Jihad town because you just had to support these "moderate" rebels who handed their resources to Al-Qaida. You had to fund ISIS to battle Hezbollah didn't you? You had to oust Gaddafi and create an unprecedented power vacuum in Africa and open the doors for Wahhabis there so much that Tunisia's strongest aspect which is its tourism was reduced to shit because of that?
Should you be talking though when Israel and Saudi Arabia bomb the shit out of the people? When people at weddings and kids on beaches are blown into pieces? Should you be taking though when your allies are the filth of humanity? When your own governments are the filth of humanity?
Should you be talking though when U.S is the very definition of hypocrisy?
@GazaAli: Should you be throwing stones? Don't you live in the middle east?
edgy
Should you be talking though? You live in a region with blatantly bad morals, yet you're bashing the U.S.
What a shit post. Personal attacks aren't cool and you completely discredit yourself when you bring up his location. It's totally irrelevant in this discussion.
I've seen people bringing up Gaza's location in threads before. It's really uncalled for.
@GazaAli: Should you be throwing stones? Don't you live in the middle east?
edgy
Should you be talking though? You live in a region with blatantly bad morals, yet you're bashing the U.S.
What a shit post. Personal attacks aren't cool and you completely discredit yourself when you bring up his location. It's totally irrelevant in this discussion.
I've seen people bringing up Gaza's location in threads before. It's really uncalled for.
wait. So let me get this straight. It's okay for him to shit on the U.S. and those of us that live here, but not the other way around? The only difference is that he tends to generalize more. Does him generalizing us instead of calling us out individually somehow make it better? Whether someone says "you're an idiot" or "Americans are idiots" I'm still being called an idiot. Why can he insult where people are from but no one can insult where he is from? Have you even read what he posts? Or are you just turning a blind eye because of where he is from and who it's against? Right, him insulting the US is all fine and dandy but others insulting where he's from? Totally uncalled for. Look, I hate the insults as much as anyone else. I haven't insulted gazaAli (except when I called him out for being a hypocrite on his whole morality thing) nor do I think others should. However, you can't call out one side's insults and not the other's.
@Toxic-Seahorse: I don't remember saying anything about it being okay to generalize and insult Americans. I simply responded to what the other poster said who brought up Gaza's place of residence when it had 0 relevance to the discussion. If it had been about an American I'd have said the same, so just relax.
@Toxic-Seahorse: I don't remember saying anything about it being okay to generalize and insult Americans. I simply responded to what the other poster said who brought up Gaza's place of residence when it had 0 relevance to the discussion. If it had been about an American I'd have said the same, so just relax.
Sorry. I may have seemed a bit more hostile than I intended. I just don't like that his insults always go uncalled and then the first time someone insults where he lives someone suddenly has a problem with it. This entire thread has pretty much just been GazaAli insulting the population of the US.
wait. So let me get this straight. It's okay for him to shit on the U.S. and those of us that live here, but not the other way around? The only difference is that he tends to generalize more. Does him generalizing us instead of calling us out individually somehow make it better? Whether someone says "you're an idiot" or "Americans are idiots" I'm still being called an idiot. Why can he insult where people are from but no one can insult where he is from? Have you even read what he posts? Or are you just turning a blind eye because of where he is from and who it's against? Right, him insulting the US is all fine and dandy but others insulting where he's from? Totally uncalled for. Look, I hate the insults as much as anyone else. I haven't insulted gazaAli (except when I called him out for being a hypocrite on his whole morality thing) nor do I think others should. However, you can't call out one side's insults and not the other's.
There's a disconcerting number of OTers who equate legitimate, objective criticism with insult and "shitting on the U.S". My friction with the U.S never devolves into "Americans are idiots"; it always deals with a certain aspect of the U.S on purely rational basis. On the other hand, the flak I get in return is mostly infantile ad hominem attacks that quickly devolve into plain obloquy. Your perception of my tendency to generalize is in reality my objectivity in discussion through depersonalization of the argument. Conversely, the irrelevant mentions of where I come from divest the discussion of substance and reduce it to slander.
It escapes many that this is an American forum, which means it's mainly populated by Americans discussing American things. If I'm to be an active poster, I'll disproportionately partake in such discussions. It just happens that I disagree with much of the country's foreign and security policies that have a grave impact on my life and the region at large, in addition to the arrangement of the American society.
You seem to take exception to what I posted in this topic. I'd like you to point out in what way my posts in this topic are offensive and tantamount to insult and libel.
wait. So let me get this straight. It's okay for him to shit on the U.S. and those of us that live here, but not the other way around? The only difference is that he tends to generalize more. Does him generalizing us instead of calling us out individually somehow make it better? Whether someone says "you're an idiot" or "Americans are idiots" I'm still being called an idiot. Why can he insult where people are from but no one can insult where he is from? Have you even read what he posts? Or are you just turning a blind eye because of where he is from and who it's against? Right, him insulting the US is all fine and dandy but others insulting where he's from? Totally uncalled for. Look, I hate the insults as much as anyone else. I haven't insulted gazaAli (except when I called him out for being a hypocrite on his whole morality thing) nor do I think others should. However, you can't call out one side's insults and not the other's.
There's a disconcerting number of OTers who equate legitimate, objective criticism with insult and "shitting on the U.S". My friction with the U.S never devolves into "Americans are idiots"; it always deals with a certain aspect of the U.S on purely rational basis. On the other hand, the flak I get in return is mostly infantile ad hominem attacks that quickly devolve into plain obloquy. Your perception of my tendency to generalize is in reality my objectivity in discussion through depersonalization of the argument. Conversely, the irrelevant mentions of where I come from divest the discussion of substance and reduce it to slander.
It escapes many that this is an American forum, which means it's mainly populated by Americans discussing American things. If I'm to be an active poster, I'll disproportionately partake in such discussions. It just happens that I disagree with much of the country's foreign and security policies that have a grave impact on my life and the region at large, in addition to the arrangement of the American society.
You seem to take exception to what I posted in this topic. I'd like you to point out in what way my posts in this topic are offensive and tantamount to insult and libel.
Objective criticism? It's hard to take you seriously saying stuff like that. Trying to pass off an opinion as something objective is the lowest form of arguing and you're doing it over and over again. Criticize US government actions all you want, but how can you objectively criticize a population you are not a part of nor have experienced? How can you be objective about anything relating to American people? You can't, yet you pretend like you're on some high pedestal above the US watching our every move. You're only fed what people want to feed you, just like everyone else in the world. Hell, I don't have a problem with your opinions, just that you're trying to pass them off as objective facts. As soon as you can admit that your ridiculous generalizations of a country with over 300 million people is the wrong way to go about an argument maybe someone can have a decent conversation with you. Until then, every topic will just end up the same.
Also, no, you never devolved into calling us idiots. That was simply an example of mine to prove how generalizations like you love to make are no better than personal attacks of one's country.
wait. So let me get this straight. It's okay for him to shit on the U.S. and those of us that live here, but not the other way around? The only difference is that he tends to generalize more. Does him generalizing us instead of calling us out individually somehow make it better? Whether someone says "you're an idiot" or "Americans are idiots" I'm still being called an idiot. Why can he insult where people are from but no one can insult where he is from? Have you even read what he posts? Or are you just turning a blind eye because of where he is from and who it's against? Right, him insulting the US is all fine and dandy but others insulting where he's from? Totally uncalled for. Look, I hate the insults as much as anyone else. I haven't insulted gazaAli (except when I called him out for being a hypocrite on his whole morality thing) nor do I think others should. However, you can't call out one side's insults and not the other's.
There's a disconcerting number of OTers who equate legitimate, objective criticism with insult and "shitting on the U.S". My friction with the U.S never devolves into "Americans are idiots"; it always deals with a certain aspect of the U.S on purely rational basis. On the other hand, the flak I get in return is mostly infantile ad hominem attacks that quickly devolve into plain obloquy. Your perception of my tendency to generalize is in reality my objectivity in discussion through depersonalization of the argument. Conversely, the irrelevant mentions of where I come from divest the discussion of substance and reduce it to slander.
It escapes many that this is an American forum, which means it's mainly populated by Americans discussing American things. If I'm to be an active poster, I'll disproportionately partake in such discussions. It just happens that I disagree with much of the country's foreign and security policies that have a grave impact on my life and the region at large, in addition to the arrangement of the American society.
You seem to take exception to what I posted in this topic. I'd like you to point out in what way my posts in this topic are offensive and tantamount to insult and libel.
Objective criticism? It's hard to take you seriously saying stuff like that. Trying to pass off an opinion as something objective is the lowest form of arguing and you're doing it over and over again. Criticize US government actions all you want, but how can you objectively criticize a population you are not a part of nor have experienced? How can you be objective about anything relating to American people? You can't, yet you pretend like you're on some high pedestal above the US watching our every move. You're only fed what people want to feed you, just like everyone else in the world. Hell, I don't have a problem with your opinions, just that you're trying to pass them off as objective facts. As soon as you can admit that your ridiculous generalizations of a country with over 300 million people is the wrong way to go about an argument maybe someone can have a decent conversation with you. Until then, every topic will just end up the same.
Also, no, you never devolved into calling us idiots. That was simply an example of mine to prove how generalizations like you love to make are no better than personal attacks of one's country.
I don't think you understand argumentation. Objective criticism indicates that an argument is being made on rational basis as opposed to the whimsy of opinion. Whether it's right or wrong is a separate matter. My arguments about the U.S are never based on opinions; they're always based on reasoning, hence why they're objective. That reasoning is subject to fault, but the fact remains I never adduce an argument I can't rationally defend; in other word, an opinion.
I don't subscribe to the twaddle that generalizations are inherently flawed. Take statistics for example. It's a scientific discipline based on the fact that we never have access to populations, and therefore, we rely on representative samples to construct our views of the world and its phenomena. So if you're sole argument is that I'm making generalizations, keep it to yourself. In addition, you have no idea of the extent of my firsthand experience with the U.S yet you fancy yourself an authority to make the assertion that I can't possibly make an assertion on the U.S.
You still haven't obliged the request I made in the previous post. Go over my posts in this topic and demonstrate to all of us how they're offensive and libelous. Point out how they're mere opinions as opposed to rational arguments. But here's a caveat for you: they're wrong or I don't like them isn't grounds to dismiss their objectivity.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment