Real Life Mandarins
- Thread starter Phillip Tanaka
- Start date
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Look, what it comes down to is that experts on WWII are very, very plentiful. It's one of the most studied periods of time ever. You couldn't swing a dead cat in a library without hitting a WWII book (let alone a Jalkehi
). Therefore, the fact that you know one of a million WWII scholars is not proof of anything. I don't think anybody here would discuss this subject unless they had read some books written by other WWII scholars - you're on even grounds knowledge-wise, so if you want to prove you're right, you'll have to tell us more than just who you're related to.The US actually did fund the Taliban directly, in the form of 43 million dollars earmarked for thier anti-opium efforts. In 2000 the Taliban banned the cultivation of poppies for opium production, saying that it was against the Koran. Of course we have no idea where $43 mil of our taxpayer dollars went once it got there, probably to stone to death some rape victim or something like that.
It's not as if we have a history of giving money to repressive regimes or anything like that.
It's not as if we have a history of giving money to repressive regimes or anything like that.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Haven't heard anything from here for a while. I know that there are concerns over things such as this proposed security force and actions to fight terrorism. There is something that I have been thinking about. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Yeah yeah, it's old, it's cliched, you'll probably hate me for making the quote, and it's something that Tolwyn says. (Actually, Rally Vincent said it first). However, do you agree with, or think that this statement applies to stopping further terror attacks?
First, It was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase.
Second, when he said it, he was refering to the people being vigilent against the government taking too much power at the expense of the rights of citizens. With the creation of the Homeland Security Administration, and other intrusive agencies, it is very topical in the fight against the worst kind of terrorism. Institutionalised.
Second, when he said it, he was refering to the people being vigilent against the government taking too much power at the expense of the rights of citizens. With the creation of the Homeland Security Administration, and other intrusive agencies, it is very topical in the fight against the worst kind of terrorism. Institutionalised.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Rally Vincent was the first person I heard of to use it, in 1995 I think. Anyway, when it was said is not important. It's interesting to note that Tolwyn says it when pushing for tighter reigns, as opposed to the way Jefferson puts it.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Uh, am I missing something?
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Something I picked up.
Commentary Concerning Aftermath of Afghanistan
Tamim, a writer and columnist in San Francisco is originally from Afghanistan.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am
from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. My hatred comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.
But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps."
It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.
Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan-a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already.
Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering.
Level their houses? Done.
Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done.
Eradicate their hospitals? Done.
Destroy their infrastructure?
Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs would not really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban-by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.
And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
In Peace,
Tamim Ansary
Commentary Concerning Aftermath of Afghanistan
Tamim, a writer and columnist in San Francisco is originally from Afghanistan.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am
from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. My hatred comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.
But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps."
It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.
Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan-a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already.
Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering.
Level their houses? Done.
Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done.
Eradicate their hospitals? Done.
Destroy their infrastructure?
Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs would not really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban-by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.
And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
In Peace,
Tamim Ansary
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
wierd. seems pakistan did let troops through.
also i donno about how well the guy knows his stuff since he's been gone so long. sure a lot has been destroyed, but a lot is there. wouldnt be any point in staying if it were all rubble. plus on tv you see rubble when they talk about how bad things are, and the next day flourishing cities when they talk about some positive changes. cant really tell whats going on without going there yourself. just too much pre-prespectived information about. oh well, at least hardcore religion took a hit over there. opens to door for peace and progress.
-scheherazade
also i donno about how well the guy knows his stuff since he's been gone so long. sure a lot has been destroyed, but a lot is there. wouldnt be any point in staying if it were all rubble. plus on tv you see rubble when they talk about how bad things are, and the next day flourishing cities when they talk about some positive changes. cant really tell whats going on without going there yourself. just too much pre-prespectived information about. oh well, at least hardcore religion took a hit over there. opens to door for peace and progress.
-scheherazade
Aries
Vice Admiral
and also, we didn't go bomb indiscriminatly. yeah, a few civilians died, but the majority of those who died were Taliban and Al-Queda. So I think going and bombing them worked.
on a lighter side-anyone notice the name of the colony the transports you have to save in Prophecy? It was the Taliban colony. wierd ain't it
on a lighter side-anyone notice the name of the colony the transports you have to save in Prophecy? It was the Taliban colony. wierd ain't it
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Unfortunetly, many would probably have no means of leaving. Or perhaps they love their land so much that they stay no matter what.
Yeah, well, every terrorist who dies means, say, a thousand innocent folk live. But I may have said that before.
[plays themes to X Files and Twilight Zone]
Sure thing. I want to ask before I do it, you mind if I bring up something relating Mandarins to those who protest war? Mainly on those ultra right wing fanantics who actually commit violent acts, but I thought I should ask before I go ahead and do it.
Ultra right wing ppl are not anti-war, they are very pro-war.
It goes like this:
Left-wing- Liberals, Green party, anti-globablization movement, anti-war. (and me)
Extreme left- Anarchists (Black Block and others), Communism (Not an altogether bad thing, just unworkable IMHO)
Center- Moderates, people on the fence, taking a bit from both sides, the majority of people in any decent democracy.
Rightists: Republicans, most Democrats, religious issues, pro-business, ('m really taking it easy here because I don't want to go off on a rant) in favor of this war.
Extreme Right: Brownshirts and other vermin.
(Beware generalisations in the above)
I'm somewhere between left and center.
No, no problem, you don't have to ask me. (Or anyone else for that matter.) Just please don't let your emotions run away with you and ruin the point. (Yeah I know, I've done that.)
I believe I know the groups you have in mind, and I'm not a fan either. I think it gives activism a bad name, brings down the wrath of the authorities on others who don't deserve it, and generally pisses off people who may have supported the cause.
I would prefer howeverm that you did some research and found out what some of these groups call themselves, and using those names. You'll learn more about their motivations, and avoid pushing the big red button of comparing activists with traitors who sold out humanity for personal gain.
It goes like this:
Left-wing- Liberals, Green party, anti-globablization movement, anti-war. (and me)
Extreme left- Anarchists (Black Block and others), Communism (Not an altogether bad thing, just unworkable IMHO)
Center- Moderates, people on the fence, taking a bit from both sides, the majority of people in any decent democracy.
Rightists: Republicans, most Democrats, religious issues, pro-business, ('m really taking it easy here because I don't want to go off on a rant) in favor of this war.
Extreme Right: Brownshirts and other vermin.
(Beware generalisations in the above)
I'm somewhere between left and center.
No, no problem, you don't have to ask me. (Or anyone else for that matter.) Just please don't let your emotions run away with you and ruin the point. (Yeah I know, I've done that.)
I believe I know the groups you have in mind, and I'm not a fan either. I think it gives activism a bad name, brings down the wrath of the authorities on others who don't deserve it, and generally pisses off people who may have supported the cause.
I would prefer howeverm that you did some research and found out what some of these groups call themselves, and using those names. You'll learn more about their motivations, and avoid pushing the big red button of comparing activists with traitors who sold out humanity for personal gain.