View Poll Results: Should US apologize for financing radicalization of Afghan children in 1970s-80s?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, financing radicalization of children is always immoral

    2 66.67%
  • No, it was the right thing to do at the time

    0 0%
  • Other/confused

    1 33.33%
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Should US apologize for financing radicalization of Afghan children in 1970s-80s?

  1. #1

    Default Should US apologize for financing radicalization of Afghan children in 1970s-80s?

    Should US apologize for financing radicalization of Afghan children in 1970s-80s?

    Or that was the right thing to do at the time to fight Russians in a proxy war without risking lives of our own men in a direct war with Russia to contain spread of communism?





    Afghanistan of 2017

    Shabana Basij-Rasikh, a 2014 National Geographic Explorer, wants to bring an end to the “bacha posh” tradition in Afghanistan.

    The Hidden Girls of Afghanistan In Afghanistan, a mother explains why she dresses her 9-year old daughter as a boy.


    By Casey Smith
    PUBLISHED June 19, 2017

    As a child, Basij-Rasikh dressed as a boy to walk to school in Taliban-held Afghanistan where no schools existed for girls. The practice is known as “bacha posh”—the literal translation from Dari is used to describe a girl “dressed like a boy” in Afghanistan. (Read “Afghan Woman Who Once Went to School in Disguise opens Boarding School for Girls”)

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...-basij-rasikh/






    1980s, Reagan's MAGA era


    USA prints extremist textbooks to radicalize Afghan children



    http://supportdanielboyd.wordpress.c...-and-pakistan/





    Afghanistan in 1970s, before US radicalization intervention
















    Related

    Poll: Reckless Putin: "US nurtured Al-Qaeda & Bin Laden, supported terrorists in Chechnya"










  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Radicalization problem was not tackled well by DGP, and no clear policy vision/financial commitments from Trump so far to fight violent extremism:

    Why Women Are Crucial to Fighting Radicalization in Afghanistan

    Mariam Safi is one of just a handful of researchers focusing on the role of women in post-conflict peace building in Afghanistan. As part of our “Women and Jihad” series, she tells us about the pivotal role women can play in combating the Taliban.



    Afghan women attend a lecture titled “Necessities of Permanent Peace,” organized by the Afghanistan Women’s Council in Kabul in 2008. As the main decision-makers in Afghan families, women can be a powerful force in the fight against radicalization. AP/Musadeq Sadeq After the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Afghan public hoped that decades of conflict and tragedy were coming to an end. But change was slow to materialize, and many saw their situation get worse, not better. When the Taliban started fighting back, many civilians felt so disillusioned with the peace process that their support for the insurgency grew.
    Mariam Safi is one of the few female researchers and experts from Afghanistan focusing on the role of women in post-conflict peace building and countering violent extremism. As deputy director of the Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies in Kabul, she has produced research highlighting the crucial role women have played with regard to the Taliban, including convincing family members not to sign up to fight. She says the fact that women are key figures in community and family settings in Afghanistan means they are also crucial to counter-extremism work.
    Women & Girls spoke to Safi about how efforts to tackle extremism should start in the home.
    Women & Girls: What are we talking about when we say “violent extremism” in the Afghan context?

    Mariam Safi: There are lots of active [extremist] groups, and we’re just in the process of trying to identify them and the different variations and the fine lines between them. It’s not entirely clear right now, because the research is very limited.

    https://www.newsdeeply.com/womenandg...on-afghanistan

  4. #3

  5. #4

    Default

    Other - Yes, the US should apologize, no radicalization of children is not always immoral

    There are circumstances in which the policy the US pursued would have been justified. In the actual circumstances, it wasn't, IMO.

    The bolshevik state was already in decline, no need to set the Mid East on fire to bring them down.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Other - Yes, the US should apologize, no radicalization of children is not always immoral

    There are circumstances in which the policy the US pursued would have been justified. In the actual circumstances, it wasn't, IMO.
    That is interesting take.
    A follow up question. Given such circumstances, radicalization of just foreign children can be morally done or US government could radicalize American children too?
    If you can cite a real or hypothetical circumstance where it would be moral for US government to do so, would help understand your view.

  7. #6

    Default

    Mandatory video in this context:

    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    A follow up question. Given such circumstances, radicalization of just foreign children can be morally done or US government could radicalize American children too?
    People are people, so yes, doesn't matter whether foreign or American.

    It's a moral cost-benefit analysis. Suppose Ancapia is being invaded by Genocideville. Ancapia can end the war easily in 1 day at the cost of 1 innocent life (someone who will be caught in the crossfire). Alternatively, Genocideville will conquer Ancapia and exterminate the entire population. What should be done? ..the answer is obvious, no?

    In most real situation, of course, the answer is much less obvious, much there still has to be an answer; trade-offs must be made.

    If you can cite a real or hypothetical circumstance where it would be moral for US government to do so, would help understand your view.
    Suppose some children in some country are being indoctrinated in violent revolutionary communism.

    And the US is in position to indoctrinate them instead in moderate democratic socialism, and only that doctrine.

    Which is less bad?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Mandatory video in this context:

    True. It would also be mandadtory part of any curriculum on Neoconism 101.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    People are people, so yes, doesn't matter whether foreign or American.

    It's a moral cost-benefit analysis. Suppose Ancapia is being invaded by Genocideville. Ancapia can end the war easily in 1 day at the cost of 1 innocent life (someone who will be caught in the crossfire). Alternatively, Genocideville will conquer Ancapia and exterminate the entire population. What should be done? ..the answer is obvious, no?

    In most real situation, of course, the answer is much less obvious, much there still has to be an answer; trade-offs must be made.



    Suppose some children in some country are being indoctrinated in violent revolutionary communism.

    And the US is in position to indoctrinate them instead in moderate democratic socialism, and only that doctrine.

    Which is less bad?
    Ok, if I'm reading it right, in your first hypothetical example indigenous people of a land can morally radicalize their children to fight "mother of all violence" type or WMD armed invaders.

    Second example does not to fit in current context as we are not talking about moderate indoctrination but violent extremist radicalization of this type:


    ABC of Violent Jihad
    USA prints extremist textbooks to radicalize Afghan children




    If you can cite a realistic circumstance when financing violent extremist Jihad is morally okay for US, that would be informative.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    Ok, if I'm reading it right, in your first hypothetical example indigenous people of a land can morally radicalize their children to fight "mother of all violence" type or WMD armed invaders.
    That example didn't involve indoctrination at all, just a trade off between 1 innocent death and many more - to illustrate the logic of pragmatism.

    Second example does not to fit in current context as we are not talking about moderate indoctrination but violent extremist radicalization of this type
    It was an example of how indoctrination in general could be justified.

    If you can cite a realistic circumstance when financing violent extremist Jihad is morally okay for US, that would be informative.
    Sure, in a minor variation of the last example:

    Suppose some children in some country are being indoctrinated in violent revolutionary communism.

    And the US is in a position to indoctrinate them instead in moderate democratic socialism radical Islam, and only that doctrine.

    Which is less bad?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.






Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-12-2016, 03:08 PM
  2. Afghan lawmaker and her three children kidnapped by Taliban
    By enhanced_deficit in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-15-2013, 12:49 PM
  3. Petraeus Apologizes for Afghan Children Deaths
    By tsai3904 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-02-2011, 04:39 PM
  4. Report: Afghan war kills two children daily
    By teacherone in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-13-2011, 02:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •