Aid workers killed in Afghanistan.

[A guy called Dave]

What's your point exactly?

The point perhaps is that quoting Zahir Shah as someone who was the "last" of love king of Afghanistan is ludicrous...

Afghans were the same... before, during and after Zahir Shah... The likes of him were the same as the likes of Karzai of today...

[quote:2phkkd81]Why would it have been silly?.. please expand... It was somewhat common place once upon a time..

It would be silly because its no longer once upon a time anymore... Talk in the here and now... Not 4 decades ago...

You seem to be saying that you can just discount the turbulent effects the last thirty years had on that country, forget it ever happened, and say all the violence going on there today is solely down to NATO... The Taleban, Warlords, Russians etc have nothing to do with it.. that decades of war and intermittent lawlessness hasn't had any effect on the population of a country, and Afghan society has held together seamlessly through such horrors...

If I gave that impression it was not intended... YOu are right... Afghanistan has suffered terribly... But I would like to point out to you that NATO is NOT helping in anyway... rather it is creating more problems not only for Afghanistan but also for neighbouring Pakistan... again talk about the here and now... NATO is one of the problem... not the solution

Who did you pay to get that "Dr" before your name...

You dont need to be silly... You can write sensibly and engage in intelligent discussion which anyone can see that you are quite capable of... If it helps you should know that politics is a hobby of mine and I m very good at my professional work too!!! [/quote:2phkkd81]
Surely killing an aid worker is simply killing an aid worker?
Unless you're implying that a slighted man can be given full license to commit revenge, in any act he sees fit, to anyone he feels is a target?

One of the uncomfortable aspects of this war, apart from the sheer futility of it, is how acts of violence ( that should be beyond the pale, to anyone no matter what their creed ) are being excused due to "the bigger picture". To paint this as an understandable response to the presence of NATO troops, does neither yourself nor the Taliban any favours.

[mountainyman]

While it is wrong to kill an Aid worker it is natural that an Afghan would kill anyone he could get his hands on.

[oceanclub]

So I guess you are claiming that life is equally as bad now as in 2001? Do you include women and girls in this?

Ocean... I m claiming that life is BAD

There's noone who would disagree that life is bad for the average Afghani.

But that wasn't the question I asked.

The question I asked was - is it as bad as during the Taliban?

if you dont know when you could be hit "by accident" by either NATO troops or the Taliban by being in the crossfire...

So what - should the Afghans surrender to the Taliban in order to avoid crossfire?

P.

[Simon.D]

I hope that it makes sense to you now... this is why its silly and infact dangerous to defy the social norm... and majority of Afghans are the same... does nt matter if they support the Taliban or not... The class of Afghanis that wanted to emulate the west in all respects is a thing of the past... HOwever the local population is now seeing that under the new government the west is trying to bring back that kind of cultural invasion... and guess what... its bound to fail... badly!!!

Indeed, and that was a point I was trying to make, this flight of the liberal class has meant that there are very few voices left keep the ultra conversvative, blood thirsty theologians in check, the type that Europe hasn't seen the like of since the Spanish inquistion, leaving the peasantry in the hands of self servicing tyrants, who have hi-jacked the faith of the people to fuel their own ego's...

Afghanis are more than capable of bringing peace to their war torn country... If you take that point alone the Taliban had pretty much destroyed all opposition and apart from the Northern Alliance in the North no one had the guts to challenge them...

I don't know if they're more than capable.. The Taleban has a lot of support at the moment (not necessarily in Afghanistan), though most of this is probably down to angry young muslims getting a chance to shoot at Americans.. However, if NATO were to up and leave, this support wouldn't necessarily dissolve as the powerful leaders/warlords who got involved with NATO in the first place would be hard pushed to shake the perception of being Americas puppet.. Meaning Taleban attacks might ensue regardless, though with a greater option to open dialogue than currently I suppose and maybe a few loya jirgas following NATO withdrawal would do the trick...

[Dr Qasim Afridi]

There's noone who would disagree that life is bad for the average Afghani.

But that wasn't the question I asked.

The question I asked was - is it as bad as during the Taliban?

Bad is Bad... and it will be better once all interference by the west stops in Afghanistan... which guess what... is a fat chance

[code twinkle]

[quote=A guy called Dave]

What's your point exactly?

The point perhaps is that quoting Zahir Shah as someone who was the "last" of love king of Afghanistan is ludicrous...

Afghans were the same... before, during and after Zahir Shah... The likes of him were the same as the likes of Karzai of today...

[quote:u2lwndsv]Why would it have been silly?.. please expand... It was somewhat common place once upon a time..

It would be silly because its no longer once upon a time anymore... Talk in the here and now... Not 4 decades ago...

You seem to be saying that you can just discount the turbulent effects the last thirty years had on that country, forget it ever happened, and say all the violence going on there today is solely down to NATO... The Taleban, Warlords, Russians etc have nothing to do with it.. that decades of war and intermittent lawlessness hasn't had any effect on the population of a country, and Afghan society has held together seamlessly through such horrors...

If I gave that impression it was not intended... YOu are right... Afghanistan has suffered terribly... But I would like to point out to you that NATO is NOT helping in anyway... rather it is creating more problems not only for Afghanistan but also for neighbouring Pakistan... again talk about the here and now... NATO is one of the problem... not the solution

Who did you pay to get that "Dr" before your name...

You dont need to be silly... You can write sensibly and engage in intelligent discussion which anyone can see that you are quite capable of... If it helps you should know that politics is a hobby of mine and I m very good at my professional work too!!! [/quote:u2lwndsv]
Surely killing an aid worker is simply killing an aid worker?
Unless you're implying that a slighted man can be given full license to commit revenge, in any act he sees fit, to anyone he feels is a target?

One of the uncomfortable aspects of this war, apart from the sheer futility of it, is how acts of violence ( that should be beyond the pale, to anyone no matter what their creed ) are being excused due to "the bigger picture". To paint this as an understandable response to the presence of NATO troops, does neither yourself nor the Taliban any favours.[/quote:u2lwndsv]

depends on what level your analysing things here.

on a personal level i think that any taking of human life except in immediate self defence is wrong.

however that doesn't mean i can't objectively take account of the fact that it is a given that in a situation where political power is in flux and up for grabs, and men have access to weaponary, they will use violence to achieve political aims.

Therefore coming up with suggestions for a political solution to curtail this violence is not wrong, even if it accepts that some of the men fighting will need to be negotiated with, nor does it make me agree with the moral decisions made by (all) the men who repeatedly practise politics through war.

[junketman]

It's almost pointless helping the Afghani's.

The entire populace seem to be hell bent on destroying their country.

Their national past-time is warfare and the better it seems you are at destroying things, the more admired you are, it really does seem to be a cultural norm.

The psychopath who is locked up in every other country is praised and saluted in Afghanisan and I am sure is matched off to the daughter of the local tribal elder.

Progress of any sort is seen as evil, and to live in ruins the path to greatness.

They own Kalishnikovs like we own mobile phones and when you fall out with your neighbour, in keeping with national tradition you destroy his village.

I suppose it may take another few centuries of this behaviour before it dawns on the Afghanis that (a) the outside world is there to help them and (b) a liking for warfare and the regular destruction of their property are linked.

[Sucker Punch]

junketman 4 hours ago
It's almost pointless helping the Afghani's.

The entire populace seem to be hell bent on destroying their country.

Ben Tre logic.

If the Afghans are so good at destroying their country, I 'm sure they appreciate the Americans helping them out with carpet bombing.

One of the most famous quotes of the Vietnam War was a statement attributed to U.S. Air Force Major Chester I. Brown by AP correspondent Peter Arnett. Writing about the provincial capital, Ben Tre, on February 7, 1968, Arnett said: "'it became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a U.S. major says." To this day, "Ben Tre logic" is a common saying for whenever a "logical" conclusion is to destroy something out of the perceived best interests of everyone involved.