|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 19 2021 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 04:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 18 2021 03:58 Purressure wrote:On August 18 2021 03:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 22:00 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 21:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something?
You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed "Blabla blabla blabla", you are being very erudite aren't you sonny? Just roll with it that you've been caught out that you know nothing of the battlefield environment of Afghanistan because you thought that 20 fighters hiding in a cave is a thing. And that somehow flamethrowers are the appropriate response to such a fantasy when the US Army have to reintroduce small arms and tactics (designated marksman and their rifles) to deal with the ranges they actually engage the Taliban on. The politics that caused more American casualties than there should had been was the invasion of Afghanistan. The 20 years of occupation when the Taliban gave all indication they were open to negotiation and power sharing with the American backed government. If you don't want American casualties, then the political solution is to not invade countries and occupy them. Which by the way since USA seemingly is happy to cause massive civilian casualties your notion that politics is preventing effective tactics at killing doesn't bear scrutiny. Your fantasy politics of the prohibition of flamethrowers (which doesn't exist btw) on fantasy targets doesn't cause American casualties. And again you ignore the point being made, thank you, you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion if all you can do is missing the point. Maybe you should read what you quoted again instead of repeating the same thing all over again which is plainly wrong and inaccurate and definitely missing the point. You keep hammering on an exaggerated example that veterans have made throughout the years about Afghanistan. You go and sit behind your desk big guy, seems to work just fine for you, but don't go and miss the point (elaborately) that has been made by actual veterans throughout the years. Telling me I know nothing is actually hilarious and you should know why that is, but you even managed to miss that. Should try and lecture yourself first, because even in your last line, you were inaccurate. The ONLY thing you're accurate about is (one of) the reasons small arms were reintroduced, however, if I wanted to be a pain in the ass I'd ask how you would solve DA's without them (which requires tic at close quarters in the way they just happen to be carried out) Have fun behind your desk, we won't agree and that's fine. I don't know why you keep refering to a desk job, and insinuating that you somehow have some sort of military experience in Afghanistan when it is clear that you do not, when from the only example you gave of political interference that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lets just say I had the opportunity in a past job, of talking with British soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Their concerns are in no particular order: We carry too much. It's too hot during the day. It's too cold at night. I don't like sand. It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere. The Afghans don't put milk in tea. What don't they say: non-existent politics given us a non-existent prohibition on using flamethrowers on non-existent combatants in non-existant caves so we can't walk into a cave with a flamethrower. Nobody liked the weight, nobody liked the heat nor the cold, nobody at any remote fob liked to sleep with their boots on, chest rigs and plate carriers weren't right for the specific job,.. the list of generic complaints goes on, but those who had to deal with politics trickling down into what could and couldn't be done, that's an entirely different story. Something you clearly keep ignoring. As said before, the example I used isn't new (at all), you want to call it bullshit, fine, I don't need to prove anything to you, doing some research would already prove the opposite if you'd look into the experiences of those who had to do DA's on a regular basis. You wanna question my legitimacy, go ahead, I know where I went and where I stood, you on the other hand do not. And since you keep saying FT's were not prohibited.. protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. Another for example prohibits the use of plastic mines.. the list goes on, you'd be surprised to what can and cannot be used. Even the use of pepper spray could get you in serious trouble as it's an aerosol chemical weapon. I wouldn't even need to lay down personal experiences to prove you wrong but okay, if that's what you want to believe then have at it. Facts state otherwise and that's about it, don't really need to give more of a reply than that. If you don't wanna believe me then that's your problem, not mine, so you can stop bothering me, thank you. I am talking facts. You say protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. This is false. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/CCW-Protocol-IIIArticle I: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2A921D989053D623C12563CD0051EEF9Article 2: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=14FEADAF9AF35FA9C12563CD0051EF1EArticle 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. It clearly refers to civilian population, individual civilians and concentration of civilians. Not only is your situation of 20 fighters in a cave a fantasy, and the use of flamethrowers on a cave a dubious tactic that would increase American casualties, there is no political prohibition banning the use of flamerthrowers, which you keep beleiving that it exists. Except onto civilian targets. Can we agree that not using flamethrowers on civilians is actually a good thing? I think the point that military folks bring up is "how do I know who is a civilian when they use kids as bombs and old women as information sources?", which is fair, but it doesn't mean you should use a flame thrower on everyone lol
This covered in article II.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Not that it matters much. USA has proven with it's 90% civilian casualties from their drone campaign (note that this counts as air-delivered but GP bombs aren't counted as air-delivered incendiary weapons under the definitions in article I anyways) that they don't care much for civilian casualties anyways, their main concern is to hide it from the American public.
Point remains. In purpressures fantasy cave situation, there is no prohibition on using flamethrowers. So why does he continue to insist that that the US Army are politically prevented from doing so?
|
On August 19 2021 05:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 18 2021 03:58 Purressure wrote:On August 18 2021 03:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 22:00 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 21:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:
[quote]
Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine.
One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows.
Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment.
Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed "Blabla blabla blabla", you are being very erudite aren't you sonny? Just roll with it that you've been caught out that you know nothing of the battlefield environment of Afghanistan because you thought that 20 fighters hiding in a cave is a thing. And that somehow flamethrowers are the appropriate response to such a fantasy when the US Army have to reintroduce small arms and tactics (designated marksman and their rifles) to deal with the ranges they actually engage the Taliban on. The politics that caused more American casualties than there should had been was the invasion of Afghanistan. The 20 years of occupation when the Taliban gave all indication they were open to negotiation and power sharing with the American backed government. If you don't want American casualties, then the political solution is to not invade countries and occupy them. Which by the way since USA seemingly is happy to cause massive civilian casualties your notion that politics is preventing effective tactics at killing doesn't bear scrutiny. Your fantasy politics of the prohibition of flamethrowers (which doesn't exist btw) on fantasy targets doesn't cause American casualties. And again you ignore the point being made, thank you, you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion if all you can do is missing the point. Maybe you should read what you quoted again instead of repeating the same thing all over again which is plainly wrong and inaccurate and definitely missing the point. You keep hammering on an exaggerated example that veterans have made throughout the years about Afghanistan. You go and sit behind your desk big guy, seems to work just fine for you, but don't go and miss the point (elaborately) that has been made by actual veterans throughout the years. Telling me I know nothing is actually hilarious and you should know why that is, but you even managed to miss that. Should try and lecture yourself first, because even in your last line, you were inaccurate. The ONLY thing you're accurate about is (one of) the reasons small arms were reintroduced, however, if I wanted to be a pain in the ass I'd ask how you would solve DA's without them (which requires tic at close quarters in the way they just happen to be carried out) Have fun behind your desk, we won't agree and that's fine. I don't know why you keep refering to a desk job, and insinuating that you somehow have some sort of military experience in Afghanistan when it is clear that you do not, when from the only example you gave of political interference that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lets just say I had the opportunity in a past job, of talking with British soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Their concerns are in no particular order: We carry too much. It's too hot during the day. It's too cold at night. I don't like sand. It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere. The Afghans don't put milk in tea. What don't they say: non-existent politics given us a non-existent prohibition on using flamethrowers on non-existent combatants in non-existant caves so we can't walk into a cave with a flamethrower. Nobody liked the weight, nobody liked the heat nor the cold, nobody at any remote fob liked to sleep with their boots on, chest rigs and plate carriers weren't right for the specific job,.. the list of generic complaints goes on, but those who had to deal with politics trickling down into what could and couldn't be done, that's an entirely different story. Something you clearly keep ignoring. As said before, the example I used isn't new (at all), you want to call it bullshit, fine, I don't need to prove anything to you, doing some research would already prove the opposite if you'd look into the experiences of those who had to do DA's on a regular basis. You wanna question my legitimacy, go ahead, I know where I went and where I stood, you on the other hand do not. And since you keep saying FT's were not prohibited.. protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. Another for example prohibits the use of plastic mines.. the list goes on, you'd be surprised to what can and cannot be used. Even the use of pepper spray could get you in serious trouble as it's an aerosol chemical weapon. I wouldn't even need to lay down personal experiences to prove you wrong but okay, if that's what you want to believe then have at it. Facts state otherwise and that's about it, don't really need to give more of a reply than that. If you don't wanna believe me then that's your problem, not mine, so you can stop bothering me, thank you. I am talking facts. You say protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. This is false. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/CCW-Protocol-IIIArticle I: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2A921D989053D623C12563CD0051EEF9Article 2: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=14FEADAF9AF35FA9C12563CD0051EF1EArticle 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. It clearly refers to civilian population, individual civilians and concentration of civilians. Not only is your situation of 20 fighters in a cave a fantasy, and the use of flamethrowers on a cave a dubious tactic that would increase American casualties, there is no political prohibition banning the use of flamerthrowers, which you keep beleiving that it exists. Except onto civilian targets. Can we agree that not using flamethrowers on civilians is actually a good thing? I think the point that military folks bring up is "how do I know who is a civilian when they use kids as bombs and old women as information sources?", which is fair, but it doesn't mean you should use a flame thrower on everyone lol This covered in article II. Show nested quote +3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. Not that it matters much. USA has proven with it's 90% civilian casualties from their drone campaign (note that this counts as air-delivered but GP bombs aren't counted as air-delivered incendiary weapons under the definitions in article I anyways) that they don't care much for civilian casualties anyways, their main concern is to hide it from the American public. Point remains. In purpressures fantasy cave situation, there is no prohibition on using flamethrowers. So why does he continue to insist that that the US Army are politically prevented from doing so?
Thanks for the explanation, makes sense to me.
|
This was posted over on NPR earlier today. Surprised to see it not on here yet. It's an interview with the Taliban spokesperson in Qatar. You'll have to read it for yourselves to see if you believe a word he says, but on the surface, it seems too good to be true. Which means as soon as the world's eye is gone, shit will deteriorate.
This leads to another question, then, in the country where the Taliban have just taken power, numerous women are in elected positions in the government serving in various roles in the government. Will they be allowed to remain there?
Yes, the women, they have a right to education and to work so they can hold different positions and jobs right now. The doctors who have started serving. The teachers have started teaching. And also in other fields, the women are working. The journalist women, they have started working, by observing hijab. So, yes, women can do their job — only they should observe hijab.
By observing hijab, you're saying that unlike the last time the Taliban were in power, women can move about without male escorts, but they must cover themselves completely?
Of course, when a woman goes to the site for her job, she can go and then return to her home. Yes, that's clear.
Will women have any ability to dress as they want? What if a woman wasn't doesn't want to wear hijab or your idea of what is proper hijab?
The main thing is hijab. So every hijab, if it is hijab, it is a proper hijab. So if it is not a hijab, so you can't call it a hijab, but of course, it is one not only limited to one type, maybe different types.
Source
|
On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism.
|
On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism.
Can you please elaborate on what this means? What do you mean by a religion-shaped part of the human psyche? And secularists can be religious or non-religious, theists or non-theists, so I don't understand your references to abandonment, enthusiasm, and paganism.
|
On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism.
I think this will depend on climate change and if our major economies collapse around the globe. Religious extremism takes root among the poor and the suffering. I think it is less a fundamental part of the human psyche and more a reaction to material conditions. Although the US is strange in that religious extremism has considerable power in the government via the Republican party, despite material prosperity and widespread education . Although those things are perhaps meaningless considering how few possess the majority of the wealth, and how poor our education apparently is.
|
On August 19 2021 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 04:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 18 2021 03:58 Purressure wrote:On August 18 2021 03:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 22:00 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 21:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something?
You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed "Blabla blabla blabla", you are being very erudite aren't you sonny? Just roll with it that you've been caught out that you know nothing of the battlefield environment of Afghanistan because you thought that 20 fighters hiding in a cave is a thing. And that somehow flamethrowers are the appropriate response to such a fantasy when the US Army have to reintroduce small arms and tactics (designated marksman and their rifles) to deal with the ranges they actually engage the Taliban on. The politics that caused more American casualties than there should had been was the invasion of Afghanistan. The 20 years of occupation when the Taliban gave all indication they were open to negotiation and power sharing with the American backed government. If you don't want American casualties, then the political solution is to not invade countries and occupy them. Which by the way since USA seemingly is happy to cause massive civilian casualties your notion that politics is preventing effective tactics at killing doesn't bear scrutiny. Your fantasy politics of the prohibition of flamethrowers (which doesn't exist btw) on fantasy targets doesn't cause American casualties. And again you ignore the point being made, thank you, you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion if all you can do is missing the point. Maybe you should read what you quoted again instead of repeating the same thing all over again which is plainly wrong and inaccurate and definitely missing the point. You keep hammering on an exaggerated example that veterans have made throughout the years about Afghanistan. You go and sit behind your desk big guy, seems to work just fine for you, but don't go and miss the point (elaborately) that has been made by actual veterans throughout the years. Telling me I know nothing is actually hilarious and you should know why that is, but you even managed to miss that. Should try and lecture yourself first, because even in your last line, you were inaccurate. The ONLY thing you're accurate about is (one of) the reasons small arms were reintroduced, however, if I wanted to be a pain in the ass I'd ask how you would solve DA's without them (which requires tic at close quarters in the way they just happen to be carried out) Have fun behind your desk, we won't agree and that's fine. I don't know why you keep refering to a desk job, and insinuating that you somehow have some sort of military experience in Afghanistan when it is clear that you do not, when from the only example you gave of political interference that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lets just say I had the opportunity in a past job, of talking with British soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Their concerns are in no particular order: We carry too much. It's too hot during the day. It's too cold at night. I don't like sand. It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere. The Afghans don't put milk in tea. What don't they say: non-existent politics given us a non-existent prohibition on using flamethrowers on non-existent combatants in non-existant caves so we can't walk into a cave with a flamethrower. Nobody liked the weight, nobody liked the heat nor the cold, nobody at any remote fob liked to sleep with their boots on, chest rigs and plate carriers weren't right for the specific job,.. the list of generic complaints goes on, but those who had to deal with politics trickling down into what could and couldn't be done, that's an entirely different story. Something you clearly keep ignoring. As said before, the example I used isn't new (at all), you want to call it bullshit, fine, I don't need to prove anything to you, doing some research would already prove the opposite if you'd look into the experiences of those who had to do DA's on a regular basis. You wanna question my legitimacy, go ahead, I know where I went and where I stood, you on the other hand do not. And since you keep saying FT's were not prohibited.. protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. Another for example prohibits the use of plastic mines.. the list goes on, you'd be surprised to what can and cannot be used. Even the use of pepper spray could get you in serious trouble as it's an aerosol chemical weapon. I wouldn't even need to lay down personal experiences to prove you wrong but okay, if that's what you want to believe then have at it. Facts state otherwise and that's about it, don't really need to give more of a reply than that. If you don't wanna believe me then that's your problem, not mine, so you can stop bothering me, thank you. I am talking facts. You say protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. This is false. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/CCW-Protocol-IIIArticle I: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2A921D989053D623C12563CD0051EEF9Article 2: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=14FEADAF9AF35FA9C12563CD0051EF1EArticle 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. It clearly refers to civilian population, individual civilians and concentration of civilians. Not only is your situation of 20 fighters in a cave a fantasy, and the use of flamethrowers on a cave a dubious tactic that would increase American casualties, there is no political prohibition banning the use of flamerthrowers, which you keep beleiving that it exists. Except onto civilian targets. Can we agree that not using flamethrowers on civilians is actually a good thing? I think the point that military folks bring up is "how do I know who is a civilian when they use kids as bombs and old women as information sources?", which is fair, but it doesn't mean you should use a flame thrower on everyone lol
Which would/could be the reason they weren't allowed to use them at all
Just reading the "conversation" between the two of them, I'd say one is too hung up on the example that was used while it's clear the point that was being made is larger than just the (inaccurate) example. The other one.. not sure, some valid points spread in walls of text about something I would argue isn't relevant to what is happening right now.
I'm just hoping they both can leave it as it is. On the record I did hear similar stuff on various podcasts where they did complain about politics becoming a problem on the battlefield, but yeah, that's really all I know about it. Not really worth arguing back and forth while the war is long past that I'd say.
|
On August 19 2021 13:50 wdoubleN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 18 2021 03:58 Purressure wrote:On August 18 2021 03:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 22:00 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 21:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:
[quote]
Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine.
One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows.
Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment.
Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed "Blabla blabla blabla", you are being very erudite aren't you sonny? Just roll with it that you've been caught out that you know nothing of the battlefield environment of Afghanistan because you thought that 20 fighters hiding in a cave is a thing. And that somehow flamethrowers are the appropriate response to such a fantasy when the US Army have to reintroduce small arms and tactics (designated marksman and their rifles) to deal with the ranges they actually engage the Taliban on. The politics that caused more American casualties than there should had been was the invasion of Afghanistan. The 20 years of occupation when the Taliban gave all indication they were open to negotiation and power sharing with the American backed government. If you don't want American casualties, then the political solution is to not invade countries and occupy them. Which by the way since USA seemingly is happy to cause massive civilian casualties your notion that politics is preventing effective tactics at killing doesn't bear scrutiny. Your fantasy politics of the prohibition of flamethrowers (which doesn't exist btw) on fantasy targets doesn't cause American casualties. And again you ignore the point being made, thank you, you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion if all you can do is missing the point. Maybe you should read what you quoted again instead of repeating the same thing all over again which is plainly wrong and inaccurate and definitely missing the point. You keep hammering on an exaggerated example that veterans have made throughout the years about Afghanistan. You go and sit behind your desk big guy, seems to work just fine for you, but don't go and miss the point (elaborately) that has been made by actual veterans throughout the years. Telling me I know nothing is actually hilarious and you should know why that is, but you even managed to miss that. Should try and lecture yourself first, because even in your last line, you were inaccurate. The ONLY thing you're accurate about is (one of) the reasons small arms were reintroduced, however, if I wanted to be a pain in the ass I'd ask how you would solve DA's without them (which requires tic at close quarters in the way they just happen to be carried out) Have fun behind your desk, we won't agree and that's fine. I don't know why you keep refering to a desk job, and insinuating that you somehow have some sort of military experience in Afghanistan when it is clear that you do not, when from the only example you gave of political interference that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lets just say I had the opportunity in a past job, of talking with British soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Their concerns are in no particular order: We carry too much. It's too hot during the day. It's too cold at night. I don't like sand. It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere. The Afghans don't put milk in tea. What don't they say: non-existent politics given us a non-existent prohibition on using flamethrowers on non-existent combatants in non-existant caves so we can't walk into a cave with a flamethrower. Nobody liked the weight, nobody liked the heat nor the cold, nobody at any remote fob liked to sleep with their boots on, chest rigs and plate carriers weren't right for the specific job,.. the list of generic complaints goes on, but those who had to deal with politics trickling down into what could and couldn't be done, that's an entirely different story. Something you clearly keep ignoring. As said before, the example I used isn't new (at all), you want to call it bullshit, fine, I don't need to prove anything to you, doing some research would already prove the opposite if you'd look into the experiences of those who had to do DA's on a regular basis. You wanna question my legitimacy, go ahead, I know where I went and where I stood, you on the other hand do not. And since you keep saying FT's were not prohibited.. protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. Another for example prohibits the use of plastic mines.. the list goes on, you'd be surprised to what can and cannot be used. Even the use of pepper spray could get you in serious trouble as it's an aerosol chemical weapon. I wouldn't even need to lay down personal experiences to prove you wrong but okay, if that's what you want to believe then have at it. Facts state otherwise and that's about it, don't really need to give more of a reply than that. If you don't wanna believe me then that's your problem, not mine, so you can stop bothering me, thank you. I am talking facts. You say protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. This is false. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/CCW-Protocol-IIIArticle I: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2A921D989053D623C12563CD0051EEF9Article 2: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=14FEADAF9AF35FA9C12563CD0051EF1EArticle 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. It clearly refers to civilian population, individual civilians and concentration of civilians. Not only is your situation of 20 fighters in a cave a fantasy, and the use of flamethrowers on a cave a dubious tactic that would increase American casualties, there is no political prohibition banning the use of flamerthrowers, which you keep beleiving that it exists. Except onto civilian targets. Can we agree that not using flamethrowers on civilians is actually a good thing? I think the point that military folks bring up is "how do I know who is a civilian when they use kids as bombs and old women as information sources?", which is fair, but it doesn't mean you should use a flame thrower on everyone lol Which would/could be the reason they weren't allowed to use them at allJust reading the "conversation" between the two of them, I'd say one is too hung up on the example that was used while it's clear the point that was being made is larger than just the (inaccurate) example. The other one.. not sure, some valid points spread in walls of text about something I would argue isn't relevant to what is happening right now. I'm just hoping they both can leave it as it is. On the record I did hear similar stuff on various podcasts where they did complain about politics becoming a problem on the battlefield, but yeah, that's really all I know about it. Not really worth arguing back and forth while the war is long past that I'd say.
It's just completely mind-boggling to me when anyone complains about politics 'causing problems on the battlefield', when the US lost a dozen soldiers per YEAR during the war; like, those guys would probably be just as likely to die in a traffic accident back home or something, all the while tens of thousands of civilians are written off as 'collateral damage' without as much as an afterthought by the same folks.
|
On August 19 2021 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. Can you please elaborate on what this means? What do you mean by a religion-shaped part of the human psyche? And secularists can be religious or non-religious, theists or non-theists, so I don't understand your references to abandonment, enthusiasm, and paganism.
For example, I think a lot of people who were very into atheism in the early 2000s (what happened to the atheists after all?) were just another sort of religion. I am going to pick some other examples that are generalities, and don't apply to 100% of people who hold these views, instead, I am saying that either a majority or plurality believe these things in a religion-like way. Along with atheism, I've seen various other "secular religions" ebb and flow over the last 20 years:
Environmentalism
Social Justice
Socialism
Democracy-ism (aka thinking we must spread it everywhere AND that it is a terminal good)
The Wise Invisible Hand Theory
MAGA
And some others I am probably forgetting.
Not that these cant be actual real worthwhile ideas, but they aren't held logically even by the majority that subscribe to them. Most environmentalists don't know the science, can't even describe what science is, but they appeal to "the science" which is as much science to them as if they read the Bible and called that science.
What all these things have in common though, is they are crappy religions in the end, which is why we churn through them so quickly. The Atheist movement dominated online discourse for 5 years, it died, Invisible hand was a strong meme, now its a shitty weak meme (and I mean cultural rather than internet), social justice is currently a strong meme, but will probably die soon as well because, I believe, for most adherents its just a shitty replacement for religion. They know nothing of what it means, its roots, its implications, its just a set of words to chant. But in the end I think these secular religions lose to an actual supernatural religion that manifests because I think that will spark more fervor and more dedication. That's historical, it happened to Rome, it happened to Byzantium, it happens all over.
On August 19 2021 12:53 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. I think this will depend on climate change and if our major economies collapse around the globe. Religious extremism takes root among the poor and the suffering. I think it is less a fundamental part of the human psyche and more a reaction to material conditions. Although the US is strange in that religious extremism has considerable power in the government via the Republican party, despite material prosperity and widespread education . Although those things are perhaps meaningless considering how few possess the majority of the wealth, and how poor our education apparently is.
Religion is actually strong when it is espoused by the strong and elite. That is why there is not very much religious extremism in the US federal government, the Republican elites don't believe what their supporters do. If you want to see something akin to what I am talking about in a more recent context look at The Great Awakening. Preceding that, the elites of that era claimed religion was the respite of the poor and suffering, and espoused rationalism and logic as the solution to man's needs. This was found wanting by the human spirit. Plus, the poor=religious thing never really holds up. The American South is more religious than Germany, and richer, and that is true whether you use median or mean or COL adjusted data.
|
On August 19 2021 14:25 cLutZ wrote:Religion is actually strong when it is espoused by the strong and elite. That is why there is not very much religious extremism in the US federal government, the Republican elites don't believe what their supporters do. If you want to see something akin to what I am talking about in a more recent context look at The Great Awakening. Preceding that, the elites of that era claimed religion was the respite of the poor and suffering, and espoused rationalism and logic as the solution to man's needs. This was found wanting by the human spirit. Plus, the poor=religious thing never really holds up. The American South is more religious than Germany, and richer, and that is true whether you use median or mean or COL adjusted data.
I don't know what the Republican elites believe privately, but they are very willing to espouse extreme religious causes like banning abortion and persecuting homosexuals and transgenders. I'm not sure why you use the American South as counterpoint to what I said, when they are both quite poor and very religious compared to the rest of the country? They are not comparing themselves to Germans when they gauge their relative wealth.
|
On August 19 2021 14:25 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. Can you please elaborate on what this means? What do you mean by a religion-shaped part of the human psyche? And secularists can be religious or non-religious, theists or non-theists, so I don't understand your references to abandonment, enthusiasm, and paganism. For example, I think a lot of people who were very into atheism in the early 2000s ( what happened to the atheists after all?) were just another sort of religion. I am going to pick some other examples that are generalities, and don't apply to 100% of people who hold these views, instead, I am saying that either a majority or plurality believe these things in a religion-like way. Along with atheism, I've seen various other "secular religions" ebb and flow over the last 20 years: Environmentalism Social Justice Socialism Democracy-ism (aka thinking we must spread it everywhere AND that it is a terminal good) The Wise Invisible Hand Theory MAGA And some others I am probably forgetting. Not that these cant be actual real worthwhile ideas, but they aren't held logically even by the majority that subscribe to them. Most environmentalists don't know the science, can't even describe what science is, but they appeal to "the science" which is as much science to them as if they read the Bible and called that science. What all these things have in common though, is they are crappy religions in the end, which is why we churn through them so quickly. The Atheist movement dominated online discourse for 5 years, it died, Invisible hand was a strong meme, now its a shitty weak meme (and I mean cultural rather than internet), social justice is currently a strong meme, but will probably die soon as well because, I believe, for most adherents its just a shitty replacement for religion. They know nothing of what it means, its roots, its implications, its just a set of words to chant. But in the end I think these secular religions lose to an actual supernatural religion that manifests because I think that will spark more fervor and more dedication. That's historical, it happened to Rome, it happened to Byzantium, it happens all over. Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 12:53 Starlightsun wrote:On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. I think this will depend on climate change and if our major economies collapse around the globe. Religious extremism takes root among the poor and the suffering. I think it is less a fundamental part of the human psyche and more a reaction to material conditions. Although the US is strange in that religious extremism has considerable power in the government via the Republican party, despite material prosperity and widespread education . Although those things are perhaps meaningless considering how few possess the majority of the wealth, and how poor our education apparently is. Religion is actually strong when it is espoused by the strong and elite. That is why there is not very much religious extremism in the US federal government, the Republican elites don't believe what their supporters do. If you want to see something akin to what I am talking about in a more recent context look at The Great Awakening. Preceding that, the elites of that era claimed religion was the respite of the poor and suffering, and espoused rationalism and logic as the solution to man's needs. This was found wanting by the human spirit. Plus, the poor=religious thing never really holds up. The American South is more religious than Germany, and richer, and that is true whether you use median or mean or COL adjusted data.
Do you have any actual evidence support your pseudo-sociological hypothesis? Or are you just thinking out loud for no real reason?
I liked the article about new Atheism you link to, but don't see how it supports your further argument at all.
|
Just reading some statements from Belgian vets who served in Afghanistan.. the work of interpreters seems to be so undervalued by bystanders (ie public) it's insane. Reading how (and they added a picture with the interpret's face blacked out) a specific interpreter could instantly tell who was supporting the Taliban and warning them (the troops) and just sticking to their side in the middle of firefights etc.. some very brave souls that definitely deserve to get pulled out and start anew.
Not sure if the link is going to work (and no translation was added, I could however translate it for those who wish for it).
https://www.facebook.com/246810655463132/posts/2488444224633086/?sfnsn=mo
|
On August 19 2021 14:25 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. Can you please elaborate on what this means? What do you mean by a religion-shaped part of the human psyche? And secularists can be religious or non-religious, theists or non-theists, so I don't understand your references to abandonment, enthusiasm, and paganism. For example, I think a lot of people who were very into atheism in the early 2000s ( what happened to the atheists after all?) were just another sort of religion. I am going to pick some other examples that are generalities, and don't apply to 100% of people who hold these views, instead, I am saying that either a majority or plurality believe these things in a religion-like way. Along with atheism, I've seen various other "secular religions" ebb and flow over the last 20 years: Environmentalism Social Justice Socialism Democracy-ism (aka thinking we must spread it everywhere AND that it is a terminal good) The Wise Invisible Hand Theory MAGA And some others I am probably forgetting. Not that these cant be actual real worthwhile ideas, but they aren't held logically even by the majority that subscribe to them. Most environmentalists don't know the science, can't even describe what science is, but they appeal to "the science" which is as much science to them as if they read the Bible and called that science. What all these things have in common though, is they are crappy religions in the end, which is why we churn through them so quickly. The Atheist movement dominated online discourse for 5 years, it died, Invisible hand was a strong meme, now its a shitty weak meme (and I mean cultural rather than internet), social justice is currently a strong meme, but will probably die soon as well because, I believe, for most adherents its just a shitty replacement for religion. They know nothing of what it means, its roots, its implications, its just a set of words to chant. But in the end I think these secular religions lose to an actual supernatural religion that manifests because I think that will spark more fervor and more dedication. That's historical, it happened to Rome, it happened to Byzantium, it happens all over.
Thanks for the elaboration! It seems you're using "religion" in a much broader, more inclusive sense of the term than the conventional definition would suggest. You seem to be categorizing any following or trend or meme or idea that gains traction as potentially religious, which I think dilutes the term to the point where just about anything can be religious. I think I'd personally have a hard time getting over the semantics issues of calling things like atheism or social justice or socialism different "religions", so I'll just hang back for now and read any follow-up discussions that emerge.
|
The atheists have gone nowhere, if anything its growing, just most of their figures that made new atheists "online popular" were giant pricks and most people got fed up with it once they left their teenage years.
|
On August 19 2021 14:25 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. Can you please elaborate on what this means? What do you mean by a religion-shaped part of the human psyche? And secularists can be religious or non-religious, theists or non-theists, so I don't understand your references to abandonment, enthusiasm, and paganism. For example, I think a lot of people who were very into atheism in the early 2000s ( what happened to the atheists after all?) were just another sort of religion. I am going to pick some other examples that are generalities, and don't apply to 100% of people who hold these views, instead, I am saying that either a majority or plurality believe these things in a religion-like way. Along with atheism, I've seen various other "secular religions" ebb and flow over the last 20 years: Environmentalism Social Justice Socialism Democracy-ism (aka thinking we must spread it everywhere AND that it is a terminal good) The Wise Invisible Hand Theory MAGA And some others I am probably forgetting. Not that these cant be actual real worthwhile ideas, but they aren't held logically even by the majority that subscribe to them. Most environmentalists don't know the science, can't even describe what science is, but they appeal to "the science" which is as much science to them as if they read the Bible and called that science. What all these things have in common though, is they are crappy religions in the end, which is why we churn through them so quickly. The Atheist movement dominated online discourse for 5 years, it died, Invisible hand was a strong meme, now its a shitty weak meme (and I mean cultural rather than internet), social justice is currently a strong meme, but will probably die soon as well because, I believe, for most adherents its just a shitty replacement for religion. They know nothing of what it means, its roots, its implications, its just a set of words to chant. But in the end I think these secular religions lose to an actual supernatural religion that manifests because I think that will spark more fervor and more dedication. That's historical, it happened to Rome, it happened to Byzantium, it happens all over. Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 12:53 Starlightsun wrote:On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. I think this will depend on climate change and if our major economies collapse around the globe. Religious extremism takes root among the poor and the suffering. I think it is less a fundamental part of the human psyche and more a reaction to material conditions. Although the US is strange in that religious extremism has considerable power in the government via the Republican party, despite material prosperity and widespread education . Although those things are perhaps meaningless considering how few possess the majority of the wealth, and how poor our education apparently is. Religion is actually strong when it is espoused by the strong and elite. That is why there is not very much religious extremism in the US federal government, the Republican elites don't believe what their supporters do. If you want to see something akin to what I am talking about in a more recent context look at The Great Awakening. Preceding that, the elites of that era claimed religion was the respite of the poor and suffering, and espoused rationalism and logic as the solution to man's needs. This was found wanting by the human spirit. Plus, the poor=religious thing never really holds up. The American South is more religious than Germany, and richer, and that is true whether you use median or mean or COL adjusted data.
First, i will state that religion serves no purpose in our modern society that cannot be simply created by a non-religious organisation offering the same. You may chose to believe in whatever religion you want, and that may give you personally something positive in your life, but the same positive thing can be achieved by denying the existance of all religions to someone else.
Second, you are conflating religion with the blind belief in something, which would be defined as faith. If you want to argue that people will always have blind faith into things they personally do not understand, then yeah, of course. Humanity is stupid and the world gets more complicated every day. But just because some people have blind and ignorant faith in concepts like Environtalism, it doesn't mean the concept of environmentalism is a religion. It is a movement based on science and knowledge and you can prove it's theories. How you can think that atheism is a religion is beyond me.
If what you are saying is true and there is force in us that needs us to have faith in something and you use that to argue that religion will come back, then don't in the next post list all the things that could fill the same role in society. The reason people lose interest in religion is that with raising levels on education, it is more and more easy to see the construct behind the religion and therefore it's harder to believe in it. At the same time, other areas in life become more complicated and therefore more easy to put faith in them. Religions are dead. They literally die out with further generations.
And the American South may be generating more wealth than Germany, but it also has a much higher percentage of poor people and an even bigger percentage of people that identify as poor compared to what the advertisement american way of living is. Doesn't matter though, faith is not tied to poor people, faith is tied to education and how deeply ingrained it is in the community.
|
There’s a man in a truck on the sidewalk near the Library of Congress claiming he has a bomb.
|
|
|
On August 20 2021 00:24 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 14:25 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2021 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. Can you please elaborate on what this means? What do you mean by a religion-shaped part of the human psyche? And secularists can be religious or non-religious, theists or non-theists, so I don't understand your references to abandonment, enthusiasm, and paganism. For example, I think a lot of people who were very into atheism in the early 2000s ( what happened to the atheists after all?) were just another sort of religion. I am going to pick some other examples that are generalities, and don't apply to 100% of people who hold these views, instead, I am saying that either a majority or plurality believe these things in a religion-like way. Along with atheism, I've seen various other "secular religions" ebb and flow over the last 20 years: Environmentalism Social Justice Socialism Democracy-ism (aka thinking we must spread it everywhere AND that it is a terminal good) The Wise Invisible Hand Theory MAGA And some others I am probably forgetting. Not that these cant be actual real worthwhile ideas, but they aren't held logically even by the majority that subscribe to them. Most environmentalists don't know the science, can't even describe what science is, but they appeal to "the science" which is as much science to them as if they read the Bible and called that science. What all these things have in common though, is they are crappy religions in the end, which is why we churn through them so quickly. The Atheist movement dominated online discourse for 5 years, it died, Invisible hand was a strong meme, now its a shitty weak meme (and I mean cultural rather than internet), social justice is currently a strong meme, but will probably die soon as well because, I believe, for most adherents its just a shitty replacement for religion. They know nothing of what it means, its roots, its implications, its just a set of words to chant. But in the end I think these secular religions lose to an actual supernatural religion that manifests because I think that will spark more fervor and more dedication. That's historical, it happened to Rome, it happened to Byzantium, it happens all over. On August 19 2021 12:53 Starlightsun wrote:On August 19 2021 08:00 cLutZ wrote:On August 18 2021 14:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
I wouldn't bet on that. There will be a religious revival and jihad eventually that will make a large impact on the globe (or more, like in Dune). There is that huge religion-shaped part of the human psyche that doesn't go away. Even modern "secularists" don't really abandon religion, they just have less enthusiasm, less conformity, and more resemble forms of paganism. I think this will depend on climate change and if our major economies collapse around the globe. Religious extremism takes root among the poor and the suffering. I think it is less a fundamental part of the human psyche and more a reaction to material conditions. Although the US is strange in that religious extremism has considerable power in the government via the Republican party, despite material prosperity and widespread education . Although those things are perhaps meaningless considering how few possess the majority of the wealth, and how poor our education apparently is. Religion is actually strong when it is espoused by the strong and elite. That is why there is not very much religious extremism in the US federal government, the Republican elites don't believe what their supporters do. If you want to see something akin to what I am talking about in a more recent context look at The Great Awakening. Preceding that, the elites of that era claimed religion was the respite of the poor and suffering, and espoused rationalism and logic as the solution to man's needs. This was found wanting by the human spirit. Plus, the poor=religious thing never really holds up. The American South is more religious than Germany, and richer, and that is true whether you use median or mean or COL adjusted data. First, i will state that religion serves no purpose in our modern society that cannot be simply created by a non-religious organisation offering the same. You may chose to believe in whatever religion you want, and that may give you personally something positive in your life, but the same positive thing can be achieved by denying the existance of all religions to someone else. Second, you are conflating religion with the blind belief in something, which would be defined as faith. If you want to argue that people will always have blind faith into things they personally do not understand, then yeah, of course. Humanity is stupid and the world gets more complicated every day. But just because some people have blind and ignorant faith in concepts like Environtalism, it doesn't mean the concept of environmentalism is a religion. It is a movement based on science and knowledge and you can prove it's theories. How you can think that atheism is a religion is beyond me. If what you are saying is true and there is force in us that needs us to have faith in something and you use that to argue that religion will come back, then don't in the next post list all the things that could fill the same role in society. The reason people lose interest in religion is that with raising levels on education, it is more and more easy to see the construct behind the religion and therefore it's harder to believe in it. At the same time, other areas in life become more complicated and therefore more easy to put faith in them. Religions are dead. They literally die out with further generations. And the American South may be generating more wealth than Germany, but it also has a much higher percentage of poor people and an even bigger percentage of people that identify as poor compared to what the advertisement american way of living is. Doesn't matter though, faith is not tied to poor people, faith is tied to education and how deeply ingrained it is in the community.
Which is why I refuse to follow any religious institution. You can believe in god without following the Catholic system or the Protestant way or whatever (which, imo, is purely human made and therefore not worth following it as if it's something special which it isn't). Whenever someone asks me what I believe in I just reply "myself". If they manage to drag it out of me I'll say I have my own things that I believe in but also things where I can comfortably say I don't know, like the existence of a deity. Does he exist? Okay, prove it. He doesn't exist? How can you prove that?
I'm a man with his own personal beliefs, but not a man of religion. Religion itself is losing its ground rather rapidly for the last.. 20-30y I'd say. Depends on the country and culture too though, being from and living in Belgium, I can safely say it's more a pagan/atheist country than a Christian one, while when we let officials do the talking they'll still call it a Christian country, most of the population disagrees and it makes sense, because it has no part in modern society. People not willing to remove their religious items from their body at work are often frowned upon, admit this happens way more with muslims than christians. They get frowned upon for openly displaying their religion, even more so when they do it in an official/professional setting. In fact people might not get hired if they refuse to remove their religious items from their body while on the job.
I can wholeheartedly agree with what I've put in bold from what you said.
However.. with the middle east.. I'd say it's a different level of being religious, as it's such a huge part of their culture as well. Can't imagine any of those countries not having their morning prayers en mass through those "speakers" nor having mosques only being half full let alone having no mosques at all.
Sometimes I can genuinely admire the level of commitment that those people have towards their culture and religion and I genuinely believe it'd be a mistake to expect them to "evolve" the same way as western countries/non-islamic countries. It's too big a part of their identity I feel. One that they are very good at passing it down to the next generation time and time again, even in Western countries it's hard to find examples where one of the children steps away from it.
|
On August 20 2021 02:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2021 02:26 farvacola wrote:
There’s a man in a truck on the sidewalk near the Library of Congress claiming he has a bomb. Yikes, I sure hope it is just a claim. Stay safe! edit: at least that he announced it will give people time to get safe.
Just shoot him
Why waste time in courts with Appeals
|
The alleged truck bomb guy was in a livestream and said:
-He has thousands of coins around his explosive device that he claims is for shrapnel
-Claims the bomb will be triggered by a certain decibel and it was built by retired military bomb builders.
-Said this is a "southern invasion".
-Says the bomb is set off by sound decibel. He claims there are four more in DC. “If this goes off the other four go off. And they might be parked in the middle of a million people”.
-Demands Biden step down or else he goes boom.
Source
What a maniac terrorist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
