The point is, your way does not get good results. Not in Afghanistan, your neighborhood, or your family. — Athena

The only problem with "my way" is that it wasn't "my way." My way did not involve hanging around and trying to teach good parenting habits to an asshole, or coddling his kids, or nation building. My way, swift and violent, has worked wonders for centuries. It's unfortunate, but sometimes you have to light a back-fire to put out the flames. If your way worked when dealing with assholes then I guess we wouldn't have any assholes. Yet the world is full of them and yes, I am probably one of them. But if you'd get out there and get the job done with the neighbor then I'd be more than happy to stand down and go back the garden. In fact, if you promise to protect me from assholes, then I'll gladly turn over any reigns I might have. But maybe you should post a bond, first? Or submit some insurance coverage?

It is my understanding the stated purpose of communism and Islam in the physical, social, mental, and spiritual well-being of everyone in a civilized society and I am having a hard time understanding why the British and Americans are opposed to that? — Athena

Likely as just like with communism, it's the means how this "well-being of everyone" is achieved I guess.

I think the basic uneasiness with the Muslim Brotherhood is that it doesn't respect so much "Western" democratic values like minority rights etc.

so I am asking you to attempt to make all this information more comprehensive to me. Why all the different organizations? Do they have different justifications for existing? Do they have different stated purpose? — Athena

Well, I think a detailed account may be beyond the scope of this thread or forum.

However, as I was trying to explain to @ssu, it is essential to understand how empires operate.

Suppose you are one of the liberal imperialists running the British Empire. You are sitting in front of the fireplace in your large house in the English countryside, holding an imperial map in one hand, and a glass of Scottish whiskey in the other.

Your main concern is to keep your empire together. As you examine your map, you notice three critical spots (among many others): India, Afghanistan, Egypt.

India is one of the most important parts of your empire. To protect India, you must make sure that Napoleon, the Russians or anyone else don’t get their hands on Afghanistan and get access to the Indian Ocean. To control trade with India, you need the Suez Canal and for this you need to control Egypt.

At the same time, there is mounting Muslim resistance to British rule. You can’t afford to upset all the millions of Muslim natives from Northwest India to Egypt. So you must play one resistance group (and the occasional pro-British group) off against another. Once this has been understood, everything else happens against this background.

The main Muslim revivalist movements in 1800’s British India were the Aligarh and Deobandi movements.

Sayyed Ahmad Khan was a pro-British Indian Muslim from Delhi who worked for the East India Company. In 1875, he founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College of Aligarh which later became the Aligarh Muslim University, India’s first Muslim university.

The people associated with the Aligarh University started the Aligarh Movement that later spawned the All-India Muslim League, the Caliphate Movement, and the Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan.

At about the same time, the Deobandis formed their own movement whose founders were connected with the Anglo-Arabic College of Delhi, a.k.a. Delhi College, which was organized by the same British East India Company and was obviously another British operation. The Deobandis established Muslim religious schools in British India (which in 1947 was divided into India and Pakistan).

The Soviets aimed to expand their influence in Afghanistan by introducing communism there with a view to eventually taking over. In 1979, they invaded Afghanistan to protect the communist-led government there. Many Afghans fled across the border to Pakistan where they were radicalized in Deobandi schools funded by Pakistan, Saudi, America, and Britain, and organized by Jamaat. In addition, they were trained, funded, and armed by Pak (ISI), US (CIA), and UK (MI6, SAS), becoming the Mujahedin guerrillas fighting the Soviets.

After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the same Jamaat-Deobandi infrastructure that was used to radicalize the Mujahedin, was used to radicalize the Taliban. Taliban founder Mullah Omar graduated from a Deobandi school in Pakistan, joined the Mujahedin and founded the Taliban in 1994.

From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban held about two thirds of Afghanistan until they were beaten by a coalition of Mujahedin and Western forces, after which the Taliban withdrew over the border to Pakistan from where they have been launching attacks into Afghanistan until they seized power again in 2021.

In the meantime, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928) created Islamic Jihad that collaborated with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Remember that both India and Egypt were under British occupation. Egypt and India were connected through the Suez Canal which was controlled by the Suez Canal Company (which was co-owned by the British). The Muslim Brotherhood was created by employees of the Suez Canal Company.

British occupation means the British run the military and intelligence. If you add military and intelligence, you get Military Intelligence (Section) 6 = MI6 a.k.a. SIS (Secret Intelligence Service)!

How does MI6 operate? By funding and training local organizations that act in line with British interests. And the same goes for the CIA and others.

In this case, we can clearly see the British connections of the Aligarh, Deobandi, and Muslim Brotherhood projects. (There are many others in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere.)

Different groups may represent different Muslim denominations or factions within denominations purportedly fighting against the "corrupting" influence of western religion and culture. As various mass movements emerge, organizations are founded by foreign governments or local groups to manipulate those movements in line with their agendas. Just like with political parties, allegiances may change over time and this keeps the situation fluid. Organizations may also set up new outfits for reasons of deniability. A religious organization may found an educational or political offshoot, and a political organization may found a paramilitary group or terror organization, in order to divert attention from the original founders, etc.

But, regardless of who is behind these groups, the general effect is that they encourage a gradual shift in the direction of radical, anti-western Islam. To make matters worse, as America and Europe are opting out of political and military involvement, other powers like China, Russia, and Islamic states are ready to back these groups to secure a slice of the geopolitical cake (in the form of oil or other interests) for themselves, and this exacerbates the problems for the Western world and for freedom and democracy ....

Why do you think the Brits and Americans are opposed to Islam?

A good response , just some observations about it:

In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to protect the communist-led government there. — Apollodorus

Right. By first killing the Afghan president. I wouldn't use the term "protect" there.

In addition, they were trained, funded, and armed by Pak (ISI), US (CIA), and UK (MI6, SAS), becoming the Mujahedin guerrillas fighting the Soviets. — Apollodorus

I think it's more true to say that the CIA simply organized the money and arms procurement while the Pakistani ISI was basically in control of day to day operations and which rebel groups got the arms. No CIA agents entered Afghanistan, while some British agents did enter the country to train the rebels.

Pakistani ISI wasn't here a rogue actor or an agent of the CIA, the Pakistani involvement was lead directly from the top, from general Zia ul-Haq, the dictator of Pakistan who was a devote muslim. I think he is the main reason just why Pakistan got so entangled with islamist terrorists in the first place.

After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the same Jamaat-Deobandi infrastructure that was used to radicalize the Mujahedin, was used to radicalize the Taliban. Taliban founder Mullah Omar graduated from a Deobandi school in Pakistan, joined the Mujahedin and founded the Taliban in 1994. — Apollodorus

I would hold the ISI having here a bigger role than just islamic schools on the creation and backing of the Taliban movement.

From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban held about two thirds of Afghanistan until they were beaten by a coalition of Mujahedin and Western forces, after which the Taliban withdrew over the border to Pakistan from where they have been launching attacks into Afghanistan until they seized power again in 2021. — Apollodorus

Northern Alliance would be proper as both Pashtun fighters of the Taliban and members were mujaheddin opposing the Soviet invasion. That Pakistan could be both "being an ally in the War on Terror" and supporting the Taliban and harboring Al Qaeda leaders and then get away with it is at least to me quite incredible.

President Imran Khan meeting Trump...


...and then meeting the Taliban, those that have now "broken the shackles of slavery" according to him:


And Pakistanis are quite open about the role of the ISI in this. The former ISI director Hamid Gul went on to say in Pakistani TV the following:



And where did they find OBL?

Right. By first killing the Afghan president. I wouldn't use the term "protect" there. — ssu

Thanks. I’m not sure your observation is of much help to Athena though.

The truth of the matter is that the Marxist Kabul government aimed to extend communist rule to the rest of Afghanistan. This resulted in a Muslim insurgency that Kabul was unable to suppress. The Soviets intervened to reinforce communist rule.

They did kill Amin, who was the leader of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (not “president”), but replaced him with Karmal whom they regarded as more competent and reliable.

So, the Soviets intervened to protect the communist-led regime, not a particular individual.

At that point, Carter ordered US assistance to the anti-communist Mujahedin.

Milestones: 1977–1980 - Office of the Historian

Of course Pakistan had (and still has) an interest in extending its influence over Afghanistan. No one disputes this.

I have a big problem with that because it goes against the Koran. — Athena

Well, it’s a shame you weren’t there to tell them. They certainly thought it was in line with the Koran. After all, this is why they invaded all those countries, to bring Islam to them! And raping, enslaving, etc., was the reward and “lawful booty” they thought was due to them as per the Koran.

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" (Koran 33:50).

"But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" … "Allah gave you mastery over them." (Koran 8:69; 71).

Women and children were the first to suffer, being abused in all sorts of ways by the invaders who were not accountable to anyone.

Conquests had brought enormous wealth and large numbers of slaves to the Muslim elite. The majority of the slaves were women and children. In the wake of the conquests an elite man could potentially own a thousand slaves, and ordinary soldiers could have ten people serving them.
The marketing of human beings, particularly women, as objects for sexual use meant that elite men owned the vast majority of women they interacted with, and related to them as would masters to slaves.
As the size of the harem grew, men indulged to satiety .... Under these conditions satisfaction by perverse and unnatural means crept into society, particularly in its upper classes ...

- Abbasid Caliphate: Status of Women – Wikipedia

See also Nabia Abbott, Two Queens of Baghdad

The prospect of sex seems to be central to the Islamic project. Arabia at the time of Mohammad was inhabited by many Christians and Jews in whose tradition paradise was a place of happiness and enjoyment of a range of pleasures from food to sexual relations (Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anith 25a, Kethuboth 77b, Berakoth 57b).

Similarly, the Koran promises pure virgins for the right believers:

Verily, We have produced the women of Paradise in a new creation and made them virgins, devoted and matched in age, for the companions of the right.
(Al-Waq’iah 56:35-38)

And the Hadith tradition promises 72 virgins as a reward for waging war on non-Muslims:

There are six rewards with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood, he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, he secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head and its gems are better than the world and what is in it, he is married to seventy two wives among the pure maidens of Paradise (At-Tirmidhi 1663).

Obviously, enjoying female slaves captured by invading other countries was regarded as a foretaste of paradise and must have been part of the motivation behind the invasions.

And as Mohammad married Aisha at the age of six (and apparently consummated the marriage when she was nine) it is obvious that female slaves were regarded as ripe for sex at an age when they were virtually still children .....

I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings
— Mullah Omar

That is the same as Genghis Khan's reasoning and the lifestyles are similar. What is not understood is building trade and industry can result in the wealth to have schools, hospitals, and feed everyone. — Athena

Mullah Omar has a point though, no? People are willing to spend so much on statues but only paltry amounts on actual people (men, women, and children).

So, the Soviets intervened to protect the communist-led regime, not a particular individual. — Apollodorus

Yes. Just like they did in Hungary 1956 or in Czechoslovakia 1968.

It's interesting to note that to crush the "Prague Spring" the Soviet Union along with Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary, deployed half a million troops into the small country. The Soviet forces in Afghanistan were of the similar size of the Obama surge later (little over 100 000), which in both occasions wasn't enough to pacify the rather large mountainous country.

Of course Pakistan had (and still has) an interest in extending its influence over Afghanistan. No one disputes this. — Apollodorus

I think it's just an issue that we just should remember, because too many times we see everything from the prism of the West doing things in the World. Having the typical narrative that nearly all bad happens in the World because of the US (or something like that). The US is just one actor and in these regions the countries themselves have their own independent objectives and agendas. To think of them just as pawns or victims of the US or the West is just wrong.

Likely as just like with communism, it's the means how this "well-being of everyone" is achieved I guess.

I think the basic uneasiness with the Muslim Brotherhood is that it doesn't respect so much "Western" democratic values like minority rights etc. — ssu

Because I have been listening to an explanation of what science has to do with liberty and because in the past Islam was very successful and more advanced than Europe, I judge what is most important is liberalism and science. Islam was both liberal and scientific when it was the center of world trade.

Being conservative and antiscience leads to failure and here is an interesting point, in China, it is the communists who are conservative. The communists of the USSR were atheist and deterministic, firmly rejecting quantum physics and Einstein's relativity. And in the US we are experiencing the solution to overpopulation. Ignorance, and a pandemic, and we remain trapped in an economy dependent on oil, although since 1920 it has been known that is the path to economic disaster and war. :grin: I think we need to understand ourselves before we can understand those we disagree with? We share being human in common. :lol:

Mullah Omar has a point though, no? People are willing to spend so much on statues but only paltry amounts on actual people (men, women, and children). — TheMadFool

Personally, I am in favor of saving the statues for everyone. We have not had the ability to feed everyone and even if they did, they would multiply and the problem would get worse. However, we can feed everyone's spiritual well being and destroying cathedrals, mosques and Buddist statues is wrong. Those who destroyed the Buddist statues would know that if it were a mosque being destroyed.

Personally, I am in favor of saving the statues for everyone. We have not had the ability to feed everyone and even if they did, they would multiply and the problem would get worse. However, we can feed everyone's spiritual well being and destroying cathedrals, mosques and Buddist statues is wrong. Those who destroyed the Buddist statues would know that if it were a mosque being destroyed. — Athena

:100: :up: I'm no big fan of religion but I find the guy's excuse to be disingenuous.

I heard there was a time when slavery was an improvement over killing everyone. It is better than the Aztec custom of sacrificing a people to the gods. A person can justify just about everything with a quote from the Bible of the Koran. This link addresses the Koran and rules for war https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml Also I say the women in Afghanistan do not appear to be to afraid of the Taliban. They are being quite vocal about what they want and if they would only stay united, they might have a chance to get what they want. If the men in their families are supportive of them, the women have an even better chance.

I want to make a point of what history and age have to do with all this. Shall we begin with people did not have a long life expectancy? How do men think before 35 years of age? In a primitive situation, with a life expectancy of 35 years and no careers goals such as we have today, what should we expect? :lol: Yeah, heaven might look like a lot of women available for sex. By the time a man is 60 he might want fewer women and might dislike being called to war even more than the young farmers of Rome who probably thought raping and pillaging would be a great adventure.

The Taliban was using male children for war and this horde of males is mostly young. For sure they are not thinking about the children's college fund or their stock portfolio and retirement. They are thinking with their bodies and about how to satisfy their physical urges and how to impress their peers. Maybe the leaders are more sophisticated. In the right situation, humans improve with age.

Mullah Omar has a point though, no? People are willing to spend so much on statues but only paltry amounts on actual people (men, women, and children).
— TheMadFool

Personally, I am in favor of saving the statues for everyone. We have not had the ability to feed everyone and even if they did, they would multiply and the problem would get worse. However, we can feed everyone's spiritual well being and destroying cathedrals, mosques and Buddist statues is wrong. Those who destroyed the Buddist statues would know that if it were a mosque being destroyed. — Athena

I hear ya. Nevertheless, one of humanity's biggest problems is not getting our priorities right. For instance, save for a few enlightened countries, the defense budget outstrips the health budget which to me is taking the stand that we would rather die of disease than die from an enemy's bullet. It seems to make sense at some level but that's precisely the point - we, some of us at least, are facing so much pressure that we have to resort to this kinda warped logic.

Israeli geopolitics — Tzeentch

What's this?

The communists of the USSR were atheist and deterministic, firmly rejecting quantum physics and Einstein's relativity. — Athena

I knew only Lysenkoism and it's war against genetics, but naturally the "political correctness" went on to every field of science there is.

Well, likely the atomic bomb turned Stalin's opinion about it in an instant!

Islam was both liberal and scientific when it was the center of world trade. — Athena

When it was. It's an interesting history just why it then went into the backwardness and only was abruptly awakened by Napoleon invading Egypt. But then it was too late and the Ottoman Empire was "the sick man of Europe".

A person can justify just about everything with a quote from the Bible or the Koran. — Athena

Correct. However, this isn't about "a person". It is about the Muslim Arabs who invaded Egypt, Syria, Persia, and many other countries in the 7th century AD, i.e., immediately after the emergence of Islam. Without the Arab invasions, the enslaved non-Arabs would have not been enslaved.

This link addresses the Koran and rules for war — Athena

Sure. But we don’t know to what extent those rules were actually observed.

Plus I don't think the Arabs were under attack, so their invasions don't really qualify as "self-defense". I think the prospect of booty and of securing an easy life on the back of the conquered populations was the primary motivation.

It's an interesting history just why it then went into the backwardness and only was abruptly awakened by Napoleon invading Egypt. — ssu

The Arabs did not have an advanced culture. Persian literature, for example, describes them as "uncivilized":

In the Shahnameh (Book of Kings) the great Persian poet Ferdowsi wrote:

Damn this world, damn this time, damn this fate,
That uncivilized Arabs have come to
Make me a Muslim
Count Iran as a ruin, as the lair
Of lions and leopards.
Look now and despair

- A. Pagden, The 2,500 Year Struggle Between East and West, p. 178

The Persians had an established tradition of cultural syncretism based on urban centers like Ctesiphon and Gundeshapur where Christian, Sabian, Zoroastrian, Pagan, Buddhist, and other scholars were active in the promotion of learning.

With the exception of religion and culture, the Arabs adopted the more advanced cultures of the conquered populations.

But, over time, they realized that those cultures were a challenge to Islam. And that was when they started executing people especially those influenced by Greek philosophy like Mansur al-Hallaj (922 AD) and Suhrawardi (1191 AD):

Al-Hallaj - Wikipedia

Suhrawardi - Wikipedia

This was when Muslim rulers began to turn against “foreign sciences” i.e. the cultural elements that had provided the foundations of "Islamic civilization" and this eventually brought their downfall. The decline of Islamic culture began in the 1100’s, before the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258.

We also need to bear in mind that under Muslim rule non-Muslims including Christians and Jews were regarded as second-class people and were tolerated only if they accepted Muslim superiority and paid a religious tax called “jizya”. And of course they had restricted rights.

The Arabs did not have an advanced culture. — Apollodorus

Yeah, this is your punchline argument. Hmm.

What I was referring to was that for the Mamluks, the vassals of the Ottomans, and for the Ottomans themselves the French invasion force was a surprise. Only some 115 years earlier the Ottomans had been sieging Vienna, but now an equal size force of French nearly annihilated the Mamluk / Ottoman force without losing many troops in the Battle of the Pyramids.

But of course, Napoleon later fled back to France and the French force was later destroyed. But it showed what was to come, yet the Ottoman Empire couldn't pull off a Meiji Restoration like Japan did. Is this due to religion or because of the problems of the Ottoman Empire, I don't know. It's an interesting question. Hence when WW1 came around, the Ottomans were not ready and couldn't stay out of the war.

The citizens cannot hold the government accountable, the government is supposed to be self-regulating. In Australia, where I live, politicians are forced to resign because of mishandled travel expenses. One example:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/19/liberal-mps-shock-2am-resignation-while-facing-icac-charges-plunges-sa-into-minority-government

It can be quite comical to see what Australian MPs are charged with when juxtaposed with what the politicians of other nations are able to get away with. But it's what a healthy democracy looks like, and Afghanistan's corruption problem going unaddressed is the biggest problem here. Neither unifying people with Islam nor educating the populace is going to help much.

Do you disagree and why do you think either of these things would help?

I think it's just an issue that we just should remember, because too many times we see everything from the prism of the West doing things in the World. Having the typical narrative that nearly all bad happens in the World because of the US (or something like that). The US is just one actor and in these regions the countries themselves have their own independent objectives and agendas. To think of them just as pawns or victims of the US or the West is just wrong. — ssu

Sure, but at the same time we can't ignore the West. As I said, it is essential to understand the concept of empire.

The British always had a special interest in Northwest India and Afghanistan. After the 1947 partition when Northwest India became Pakistan, the British focused on Pakistan.

On partition in 1947, Pakistan ceased to be part of the British Empire but became part of the British Commonwealth which replaced the Empire, and Pakistan’s leadership retained close links to British military and intelligence.

In the same year, Pakistan went to war with India over Kashmir. After the war, in 1948, the British created Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs (PIIA) as a sister organization of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) through which they directed Pakistan's foreign policy.

India was run by Fabian Socialists like Nehru and was getting closer to Soviet Russia. So, it was in the interest of the British to encourage Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan to prevent Russian penetration of the region.

In fact, the British were highly active throughout the region. In 1953, British MI6 together with the CIA staged a coup in Iran to prevent a communist takeover (and to get their hands on Iranian oil).

The Iranian Revolution of 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took over, was used by Britain for the same purpose of preventing Iran from turning left and getting closer to Russia.

Britain and the Iranian Revolution – Middle East Eye

Obviously, Britain and America’s anti-Russian stance meant that there was an interest in backing anti-communist Muslim fundamentalism in the region. The Islamization of Iran was taking place at exactly the same time as the Islamization of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Gen Zia ul-Haq had been trained by the British and had served as an officer in the British Indian Army. He also had close links to the Deobandis, Jamaat, and the Islamic clergy assembly Jamiat Ulema-e Islam (JUI).

In 1977, as Muslim fundamentalism was on the rise, Zia seized power in a coup and started a comprehensive Islamization program in Pakistan. Under Zia hundreds of thousands of students were radicalized in religious schools run by Jamaat and JUI.

Following Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher heaped praise on Zia, announcing that Pakistan was now on the frontline in the war in Afghanistan and started arming Pakistan. Pakistan has had a leading hand in Afghanistan ever since.

Mark Curtis, Britain, Islamisation and state terror in Pakistan

So, when talking about Afghanistan, it is important to understand the role played by Britain and its close Pakistani ally.

This is why there are demos in Afghanistan against Pakistan:

Afghanistan: Taliban fire warning shots at protest in Kabul - BBC News

I hear ya. Nevertheless, one of humanity's biggest problems is not getting our priorities right. For instance, save for a few enlightened countries, the defense budget outstrips the health budget which to me is taking the stand that we would rather die of disease than die from an enemy's bullet. It seems to make sense at some level but that's precisely the point - we, some of us at least, are facing so much pressure that we have to resort to this kinda warped logic. — TheMadFool

Christians are very proud of how much charity they give. At one time the US government paired up with preachers to get people to accept low wages and lusting for wealth was frowned upon. I have old grade school textbooks that stress cooperation and say things like friendship is better than money. In general, most people did not expect to earn enough to pay income taxes before the second world war, and speaking of war, the US demobilized after every war until Eisenhower and the Korean war. The US military ability was ranked 17th, with very small countries ranking better prepared for war. Iran liked the US very much because we seemed to chase the British out of Iran, but then we attempted to become an occupying force and Eisenhower approved of the CIA instigating a coup. I think our troubles with Muslim nations are of our own making. The only thing most citizens know if they know anything at all, is we were saving the world from communism.

The wealth and poverty issue would be great in another thread. I have some very interesting books on the subject. I am now reading one written in 1865 that argues in favor of accumulating wealth and I want to understand that argument before starting a thread. A thread bringing Christians and Muslims together would be great, but I need to do a lot more studying to do that. Should I make the effort?

Good informative response.

It's no wonder that the ISI is praised for it's professionalism as it has obviously been set up by talented experts, the British, in the first place.

Yet the interesting thing here to note that when Great Britain indeed had influence on the institutions of these young countries, it didn't go the way France has gone with it's colonies especially in Africa. When you look at the French in Sub-Saharan Africa, they basically never left and intervene all the time still. France stayed in Africa. France never shread the idea of it being one of the Great Powers. The UK looked and found a place next to the US as it's trusted ally (which now looking things, wasn't such an outstanding move as the US doesn't care much if anything about it's allies, when they don't have a lobby group like the AIPAC). France sustained it's armed forces ability to operate independently and the French Foreign Legion has been quite active even after the wars of decolonization ended.

Neo-imperialism after decolonization? All the foreign militaries in Africa. Note the amount of bases that France has:


The UK was a different animal. It was humbled by the Suez Crisis and largely put aside that imperial touch that it had earlier. Especially faced with a catastrophic Palestine withdrawal, it didn't stay there as a major player. To sell arms to the oil rich countries was enough I guess. BP found other places (like the North Sea) to operate than Iran. Operation Ajax wouldn't have happened if it wouldn't have been for Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA. During the Cold War once the greatest Navy in the World assumed it's primary role to be anti-submarine warfare, not power projection, which likely was the reason for the Falklands/Malvinas war. (If the Royal Navy would have held to one flat top carrier with F-4 Phantoms, it would have likely deterred Argentina from trying to annex the Falklands.)

This means that when we make larger historical projections, we should note that the UK of today is quite different from the Empire it had in the past. It doesn't have the similar aspirations and not the similar will for imperialism as in the past. Hence today it's much more important what the followers of ZIa think to do now than what the UK foreign office thinks to do there.

It might well be in the future what the US thinks and what it's President says doesn't matter so much as earlier, if the withdrawal continues.

How Pakistan view the World, according to the Pakistani cartoonist Sabir Nazar:

The citizens cannot hold the government accountable, the government is supposed to be self-regulating. In Australia, where I live, politicians are forced to resign because of mishandled travel expenses. One example:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/19/liberal-mps-shock-2am-resignation-while-facing-icac-charges-plunges-sa-into-minority-government

It can be quite comical to see what Australian MPs are charged with when juxtaposed with what the politicians of other nations are able to get away with. But it's what a healthy democracy looks like, and Afghanistan's corruption problem going unaddressed is the biggest problem here. Neither unifying people with Islam nor educating the populace is going to help much.

Do you disagree and why do you think either of these things would help? — Judaka

In the Puritan US a politician can lie big time and do plenty of things I think are appalling but oh my god, if the politician is a man and touches a woman or comments on how she looks, today he will be tarred and feather and driven out of town. This is a complete flip from the 1970-1980 shows like Mash and Gomer Plie, and many more that got laughs because of inappropriate male behavior. We expected men to be sexual predators and we did create a rape culture. I don't think we should throw stones at Muslims for behaving as though men can not help themselves so women must become prisoners in their homes as we are not dealing with the same problem. Only recently we have dealt with the problem differently. My grandmother was horrified when my mother came home from summer camp with shorts and a bra. My mother became a WWII pin-up girl as we mobilized for WWII, and suddenly at the end of the war, women were to return to their homes, and stay there!

When my son and daughter came of age, Reagan was lying to us, and we slashed domestic budgets and poured everything into military spending. Those were hard years as my teenagers thought I was a fool for not lying and doing whatever it took to get ahead. And people still love Reagan. And was there ever a bigger liar than Trump and he is loved. Niccolo Machiavelli, said, it is much safer to be feared than loved. Especially Trump has done an excellent job of being feared and loved. What is up with that?

We can not keep our leaders accountable when we have no agreements on the principles we must defend.

Here is what the Koran has to say about leadership:

"It is out of God’s mercy that you have been lenient with them. Had you been rough, hard-hearted, they would surely have scattered away from you. So pardon them, and pray for their forgiveness, and take counsel from them in matters of importance. And when you are resolved on a course of action, place your trust in God; surely God loves those who put their trust (in Him). If God helps you none shall prevail over you; if He forsakes you then who can help you? It is in God that the believers should put their trust." (Quran 3:159-160)

Not so different from those who support Trump. I was blown away by how a good friend saw Trump and as the pandemic raged on, our friendship ended. What is a philosophical statement we can make about this? People will be thrilled to follow some really awful leaders, especially when they believe their leader has God on his side and their prayers give the man the power of God to be a good father or the nation. Really, how different are the Christians and Muslims? The only weakness I see in both religions is the divisions in the religions and how they bash each other. :roll:

Christians are very proud of how much charity they give. At one time the US government paired up with preachers to get people to accept low wages and lusting for wealth was frowned upon. I have old grade school textbooks that stress cooperation and say things like friendship is better than money. In general, most people did not expect to earn enough to pay income taxes before the second world war, and speaking of war, the US demobilized after every war until Eisenhower and the Korean war. The US military ability was ranked 17th, with very small countries ranking better prepared for war. Iran liked the US very much because we seemed to chase the British out of Iran, but then we attempted to become an occupying force and Eisenhower approved of the CIA instigating a coup. I think our troubles with Muslim nations are of our own making. The only thing most citizens know if they know anything at all, is we were saving the world from communism. — Athena

Christianity has been a force in the world of charity for as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, christian charity has been marred by much controversy - I believe the donations were a cover for a more insidious objective, proselytizing. I'm sure that there are huge benefits in being/becoming christian but I was under the impression they were of the spiritual and moral nature, not monetary.

The USA's military capabilities are there for all to see. Which country has been/is ever ready to project power? Anytime, the USA doesn't get what it wants, it engages in gunboat diplomacy and saber rattling - read the headlines of news media for the past 60 years, you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Nevertheless, the USA is the world's only hope for peace and stability but...it's not the best option, it's the least worst.

As for communism, it's become some kind of bogey man, capitalist countries use to scare people into submitting to their demands and creed. Communism is dead! We don't need to dig up the rotting corpse of an old enemy to bring people in line. What we need to do is, in the absence of the red menace, overhaul the system that we've tolerated to counter Marxism. You know, like a soldier, who after a battle, tends to the demons inside him.

I don't know why I said what I said. Suffice it to say that these are not my own views but that of others which I offer as ponderables.

You guys are absolutely awesome! I am overwhelmed as I see this thread taking a whole different direction. I have been way too focused on the US, and feel as ignorant as a jackass at this moment. That map showing who is where and the explanation of different styles of occupation is a whole different subject and I am thrilled. How about starting a thread focusing on this jockeying to control world resources and the different styles of occupation and PM me. How can this be a philosophical subject or do we even need to try to be philosophical? Can we be just absolutely fascinating?

:lol: I don't think many citizens are aware of how their tax dollars are being spent and the global level politics. Just pick a political party or one issue and vote accordingly as though voting is about our petty human desires.

the UK of today is quite different from the Empire it had in the past. It doesn't have the similar aspirations and not the similar will for imperialism as in the past. — ssu

Well, we know that.

But it is wrong to assume that the British have no influence. It's just that they prefer to operate in a more behind-the-scenes way than the French.

And Pakistan is still a member of the British Commonwealth which has exactly the same map as the British Empire:

Member Countries - The Commonwealth

In any case, Britain and Pakistan are the main culprits responsible for the mess. And America is not far behind. It was the Americans (as well as Britain and others) that encouraged Muslim radicals from all over the world to flock to Pakistan and join the Mujahedin in the jihad against the Soviets.

In addition to the Mujahedin, three important terror organizations emerged under Zia, (1) Harkat al-Jehad al-Islami (HUJI), founded in 1980 by JUI, and (2) Lashkar-e Taiba (LET), founded in 1987 by Muslim Brotherhood operatives with the assistance of ISI and bin Laden. HUJI focused on Afghanistan and LET on India.

The third (3) was Maktaba al-Khidmat founded in 1982 by Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Azzam's deputy was Osama bin Laden who was funding the Mujahedin. The CIA and ISI were encouraging and helping them along .....

From that point, things got more and more lethal. US Deputy State Secretary Richard Armitage did tell the Pakistanis after 9/11 in 2001 that the US would bomb them back to the Stone Age if they didn't sort out the terrorists. But the Pakistanis have carried on playing their usual double game, and the West got fooled one more time.

An interesting question is, why was ISI director general Mahmood Ahmed in Washington at the time?

How about starting a thread focusing on this jockeying to control world resources and the different styles of occupation and PM me. — Athena

Totally agree. It does look like the thread has veered slightly off course. :gasp:

But at least @ssu's pictures have brought some color to it ....

Christianity has been a force in the world of charity for as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, christian charity has been marred by much controversy - I believe the donations were a cover for a more insidious objective, proselytizing. I'm sure that there are huge benefits in being/becoming christian but I was under the impression they were of the spiritual and moral nature, not monetary.

The USA's military capabilities are there for all to see. Which country has been/is ever ready to project power? Anytime, the USA doesn't get what it wants, it engages in gunboat diplomacy and saber rattling - read the headlines of news media for the past 60 years, you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Nevertheless, the USA is the world's only hope for peace and stability but...it's not the best option, it's the least worst.

As for communism, it's become some kind of bogey man, capitalist countries use to scare people into submitting to their demands and creed. Communism is dead! We don't need to dig up the rotting corpse of an old enemy to bring people in line. What we need to do is, in the absence of the red menace, overhaul the system that we've tolerated to counter Marxism. You know, like a soldier, who after a battle, tends to the demons inside him.

I don't know why I said what I said. Suffice it to say that these are not my own views but that of others which I offer as ponderables. — TheMadFool

Oh, I so want to argue against what you said just for the fun of it and I love your ending statement that clarifies we are playing with all these ideas is just fun. :love:

What if we could bring Islam and Christianity together? I know that is an insane idea considering neither religion can avoid division and fighting against each other, so there is not one Christianity or one Islam. And some of us are strongly opposed to both religions, but how can we be philosophical about all this and work on reasoning for peace? Instead of attempting to have peace through power? Ah, is this thread about Afghanistan or patriarchy versus matriarchy, and do we want to bring an end to rape culture, as in raping the earth as we rape each other? :lol:

I think my comment about communism was the bait switch. The threatening enemy was communism until the USSR fell, so we had to have a new enemy to do exactly what the US stood against from its very beginning, that is maintain its WWII military might and fight for global control. The new enemy became terrorists but that is very hard to defend and use to justify our military presence around the world. Who are the terrorist? They are not a nation and wars are against nations, not a handful of nuts cases. Oh, the terrorists are Muslims. You know those people who do not know God and follow his commandments and who are jealous of the US because God blesses the US and not them. Right there, that is proof of who God favors and it is the will of God that we control the resources of the world. But everyone can have religious freedom so we should not attack people for how they understand and worship God. Obviously, religious freedom makes us superior to Muslims and their notion of Shia law is threatening to us. cockco, cuckoo Can we call that reasoning? What is really happening? Is there are a philosophy that explains this insanity?

Who are the terrorist? They are not a nation and wars are against nations, not a handful of nuts cases. Oh, the terrorists are Muslims. — Athena

They are not a nation, but many (especially the fundamentalists) see themselves as one world-wide Muslim community or ummah.

And they see Westerners exactly as we see them, i.e., as the "bad guys".

Additionally, though most Muslims are not terrorists, they do agree with Islamic Law. And the problem with Islamic Law is that it tends to become more and more oppressive in addition to encouraging extremism.

The terrorists' reasoning is that if 75% of Muslims want Sharia Law, then it is right for them to fight the 25% that do not. And this goes for non-Muslim countries too. If Muslims are a minority, this means that Islam is being "suppressed" and this situation needs to be redressed by creating a Muslim majority.

India is a good illustration. The Muslim minority in British India demanded their own state. In 1947, they got Pakistan and Bangladesh. But some Muslims chose to stay behind in India and now the fundamentalists among them (and those of Pakistan) demand that they be liberated from infidel "oppression".

As fundamentalism is popular with the uneducated masses (and even some of the educated classes), politicians tend to encourage it for their own agenda, and one wave of fundamentalism is followed by a more radical one, just as the Mujahedin were followed by the Taliban and the Taliban by al-Qaeda ....