The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Why would anyone in any of those categories give a toss about the values of westerners from Western universities?
And why do you say
Well some will be left behind then and Biden by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
Instead of
Well some will be left behind then and Biden and Johnson by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then they have responsibility as much as the Taliban
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
The best example of this is when left-wingers simultaneously describe western countries as racist and bigoted, and at the same time say we should take in large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If western countries are so bad, why do they want migrants to come here? Doesn't make sense.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
Similar to Hitler's halt order, which gave some time for the evacuation.
Completely different.
There's extremely little evidence that the halt order was done in order to assist the evacuation. Instead the evidence is generally considered to be that it was to allow the German infantry to catch up, to preserve their Panzers and/or to allow the Luftwaffe to have the opportunity to destroy Dunkirk which is what Goring wanted.
What's happening now is more if the infantry etc had caught up after the halt order, then they resumed movement, got into Dunkirk and then they started assisting the British etc onto the ships instead of seeking to destroy them.
The Taliban aren't on the way to the airport, they're their and working side-by-side and even behind British lines to assist in security. Not something Hitler would have done. 😕
Yeah, I'm not arguing they are exactly the same. But the Taliban could have overrun the airport if they wanted to, much how Hitler could have overrun the port.
There's evidence that Hitler didn't realise he could overrun the port though, especially given faulty reporting due to the recent allied attack against the Panzers which had caught them by surprise so local commanders were asking for the halt. That's a very big difference to actually being at the port and not doing so.
Like I said, I'm not arguing they are the exactly same. But there is a similarity there.
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
Didn't work in 2003.
In 2003 the Democrats had only one (serious) candidate while the GOP had 2. But the Democrats only serious candidate got 31.5% of the vote and the Governator got 48.6% of it which is enough to win in the States in almost any election anyway due to the propensity for a couple of percentage points to go to third parties or write ins or other oddballs.
(almost) gauranteed to win, certainly against nine candidates!
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
Didn't work in 2003.
In 2003 the Democrats had only one (serious) candidate while the GOP had 2. But the Democrats only serious candidate got 31.5% of the vote and the Governator got 48.6% of it which is enough to win in the States in almost any election anyway due to the propensity for a couple of percentage points to go to third parties or write ins or other oddballs.
(almost) gauranteed to win, certainly against nine candidates!
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
I've watched it again, and I think she does, just about. Amazing athleticism
Looks like Trudeau's gamble to win a majority will fail to pay off but the Liberals should still win most seats.
Even if the Conservatives won a plurality again they would need about 36% of the vote to win most seats
It's interesting to see Maxine Berner's Canadian People's Party doing so well in the polls compared to the 1%-2% the party was on until recently. If the Conservatives could convince most of those voters to vote for them, they could get close to that 36% figure.
Albeit Trudeau would also likely win back some NDP voters then too
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
She does, you can freeze frame it on that Twitter link and see that she did.
And in a professional game nowadays the Third Umpire would have done the same thing.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
I've watched it again, and I think she does, just about. Amazing athleticism
“This is the greatest thing anyone has ever done.“
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
I've watched it again, and I think she does, just about. Amazing athleticism
If theres doubt about something even on a slow motion watch the benefit of the doubt goes to the more awesome outcome.
When do we reckon the British media is going to switch from demanding the government get refugees out to demanding they stop them coming in? Around November/December, I guess?
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
I've watched it again, and I think she does, just about. Amazing athleticism
If theres doubt about something even on a slow motion watch the benefit of the doubt goes to the more awesome outcome.
If there’s doubt, they go with the on-field umpire’s call.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
I've watched it again, and I think she does, just about. Amazing athleticism
“This is the greatest thing anyone has ever done.“
When do we reckon the British media is going to switch from demanding the government get refugees out to demanding they stop them coming in? Around November/December, I guess?
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
I've watched it again, and I think she does, just about. Amazing athleticism
If theres doubt about something even on a slow motion watch the benefit of the doubt goes to the more awesome outcome.
If there’s doubt, they go with the on-field umpire’s call.
You dont say. I was misinformed about the Laws of the Game including an awesomeness clause.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Nonsense. The vast majority of westerners believe profoundly in freedom, liberty, democracy, and are proud of our heritage, including lefties like me. And if such values were threatened by, for example, hostile invasion, they would be defended to the hilt. What we don't believe in is imposing our values on others through military adventurism. For many reasons, but particularly because it doesn't work and usually ends in disaster. As we are now seeing.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Why would anyone in any of those categories give a toss about the values of westerners from Western universities?
And why do you say
Well some will be left behind then and Biden by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
Instead of
Well some will be left behind then and Biden and Johnson by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then they have responsibility as much as the Taliban
?
As they are their woke products now constitute most of the establishment, from academia to the law and increasingly our politicians, even some of the conservative ones and even now it seems much of our military.
If we do not have an establishment that believes in western values and is willing to defend them then it is much easier for the enemies of the west to defeat it.
Boris of course has urged Biden to stay in beyond 31st August, it is Biden who led and pushed this withdrawal not Boris
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Eh? There's dozens of videos like that. Some of the best are when one person is past the rope in the air and throws it back to a different fielder to catch.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
I've watched it again, and I think she does, just about. Amazing athleticism
If theres doubt about something even on a slow motion watch the benefit of the doubt goes to the more awesome outcome.
Yes, it would be quite an unpopular umpire that, in a 50/50 situation, ruled out that catch
FWIW I don't think it is 50/50, freeze frame suggests her foot leaves the turf a few milliseconds before she does the 2nd catch, making it legit. Bravo!
No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
Talking of wine, we hosted a Gruaud Larose dinner Chez Nabavi a couple of weeks ago: 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1975, 1973, 1967, 1961. Quite an evening!
Eleven bottles of wine? Christ, how many of you were there?
Plus a magnum of Champagne and a very nice Rieussec 1999. Twelve of us. It was a long evening.
(Actually not quite as bad as it sounds.. We didn't finish all the bottles).
What's the form in such a vertical tasting - oldest to youngest?
Usually youngest to oldest, but it's not a hard and fast rule. In this case I decide to serve them in pairs which I thought would be of similar quality and not too different in age. We started with the 1967 and 1973, because those weren't very good years and I was expecting them to be well past it (as it happens they were surprisingly still drinkable).
We ended up, with the cheese course, comparing the 1982 and 1961, two very great vintages. Jolly good they were too!
Sounds like fun. I'm free any time for your next evening ;-)
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
The best example of this is when left-wingers simultaneously describe western countries as racist and bigoted, and at the same time say we should take in large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If western countries are so bad, why do they want migrants to come here? Doesn't make sense.
Indeed, the Taliban are anti divorce, anti homosexual and anti abortion. The same goes for much of the Muslim world.
The irony is migrants from there have social values more in common with Ann Widdecombe than the pro open borders social liberals
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
What utter tosh.
The taliban government needs sanctions lifted and funds unfreezed or there will be hundreds of thousands of starving Afghanis.
Well, whether or not they agree to a few days' extension, they're not going to get sanctions lifted and funds unfrozen, and they probably don't much care anyway about starving Afghanis anyway.
The last couple of years were disastrous for the Afghan economy, thanks to the rise of synthetic opiates. That economic hardship made the Taliban look a whole lot more attractive to a lot of poor Afghanis - well, if the American-Afghani government can't feed us, perhaps the Taliban can.
If the Taliban cannot, then a whole of Afganis will be pretty unhappy. And it will certainly strengthen the Tajik forces (particularly if the Americans are smart, and keep them well fed and well stocked with gasoline and diesel).
The best example of this is when left-wingers simultaneously describe western countries as racist and bigoted, and at the same time say we should take in large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If western countries are so bad, why do they want migrants to come here? Doesn't make sense.
Yes it does. If you're unlucky enough to be born in, say, Nigeria, your life expectancy is 55. Move to the UK as a small child and it becomes 80. Yes, you will run into some unpleasant attitudes sometimes, but 25 years of life is pretty motivating.
A common left-wing view is that (a) it's unfortunate that so much depends on the random factor of where you're born, so it's understandable if people want to move here (b) we can't take everyone, but it'd be good if we can take as many as possible, starting with the most desperate (c) once they're here, it would be good to reduce levels of racism and bigotry (which most of us would agree are a lot lower than they were) even further.
You might well disagree with any of these points, but they're not mutually inconsistent.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Why would anyone in any of those categories give a toss about the values of westerners from Western universities?
And why do you say
Well some will be left behind then and Biden by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
Instead of
Well some will be left behind then and Biden and Johnson by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then they have responsibility as much as the Taliban
?
As they are their woke products now constitute most of the establishment, from academia to the law and increasingly our politicians, even some of the conservative ones and even now it seems much of our military.
If we do not have an establishment that believes in western values and is willing to defend them then it is much easier for the enemies of the west to defeat it.
Boris of course has urged Biden to stay in beyond 31st August, it is Biden who led and pushed this withdrawal not Boris
Have you ever considered that much of what you class as 'woke' is simply the embodiment of western values?
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Nonsense. The vast majority of westerners believe profoundly in freedom, liberty, democracy, and are proud of our heritage, including lefties like me. And if such values were threatened by, for example, hostile invasion, they would be defended to the hilt. What we don't believe in is imposing our values on others through military adventurism. For many reasons, but particularly because it doesn't work and usually ends in disaster. As we are now seeing.
We invaded because we had 9/11 launched on us planned by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
If that was not a reason for military intervention then what was?
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
The best example of this is when left-wingers simultaneously describe western countries as racist and bigoted, and at the same time say we should take in large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If western countries are so bad, why do they want migrants to come here? Doesn't make sense.
Yes it does. If you're unlucky enough to be born in, say, Nigeria, your life expectancy is 55. Move to the UK as a small child and it becomes 80. Yes, you will run into some unpleasant attitudes sometimes, but 25 years of life is pretty motivating.
A common left-wing view is that (a) it's unfortunate that so much depends on the random factor of where you're born, so it's understandable if people want to move here (b) we can't take everyone, but it'd be good if we can take as many as possible, starting with the most desperate (c) once they're here, it would be good to reduce levels of racism and bigotry (which most of us would agree are a lot lower than they were) even further.
You might well disagree with any of these points, but they're not mutually inconsistent.
And yet, on (b) one of the first (I think) things Blair did was to abolish the Assisted Places Scheme
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Eh? There's dozens of videos like that. Some of the best are when one person is past the rope in the air and throws it back to a different fielder to catch.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Eh? There's dozens of videos like that. Some of the best are when one person is past the rope in the air and throws it back to a different fielder to catch.
Precisely.
Its absolutely incredible to see every time you see it, but to pretend its unprecedented is like pretending a bicycle kick goal is unprecedented in football.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Nonsense. The vast majority of westerners believe profoundly in freedom, liberty, democracy, and are proud of our heritage, including lefties like me. And if such values were threatened by, for example, hostile invasion, they would be defended to the hilt. What we don't believe in is imposing our values on others through military adventurism. For many reasons, but particularly because it doesn't work and usually ends in disaster. As we are now seeing.
We invaded because we had 9/11 launched on us planned by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
If that was not a reason for military intervention then what was?
Taking out those responsible for 9/11 was legitimate. Changing that into a 20-year occupation seeking to 'nation build' in Afghanistan by imposing western doctrines (badly) on a different culture was not.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
I've watched it again, and I think she does, just about. Amazing athleticism
If theres doubt about something even on a slow motion watch the benefit of the doubt goes to the more awesome outcome.
If there’s doubt, they go with the on-field umpire’s call.
You dont say. I was misinformed about the Laws of the Game including an awesomeness clause.
That’s unwritten. And some of the more curmudgeonly umpires ignore it, I’m told.
The best example of this is when left-wingers simultaneously describe western countries as racist and bigoted, and at the same time say we should take in large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If western countries are so bad, why do they want migrants to come here? Doesn't make sense.
Yes it does. If you're unlucky enough to be born in, say, Nigeria, your life expectancy is 55. Move to the UK as a small child and it becomes 80. Yes, you will run into some unpleasant attitudes sometimes, but 25 years of life is pretty motivating.
A common left-wing view is that (a) it's unfortunate that so much depends on the random factor of where you're born, so it's understandable if people want to move here (b) we can't take everyone, but it'd be good if we can take as many as possible, starting with the most desperate (c) once they're here, it would be good to reduce levels of racism and bigotry (which most of us would agree are a lot lower than they were) even further.
You might well disagree with any of these points, but they're not mutually inconsistent.
And yet, on (b) one of the first (I think) things Blair did was to abolish the Assisted Places Scheme
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
I thought you wanted to destroy the Taliban ?
I wanted to stay their permanently yes, Uncle Joe thought differently
Well, I presume you wanted someone else from UK/US to stay there permanently, rather than your good self?
We have a paid professional army for a reason.
The US has had troops in South Korea for 70 years for example, to keep out North Korea
And where is your poll showing support for our forces to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely
You deploy the military because of national security interests if you are an elected government not opinion polls, if voters are that concerned they can vote for the opposition at the next general election
Good job you are not making the decisions then
It's OK, HYUFD's tanks are busy putting down the Scots.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Why would anyone in any of those categories give a toss about the values of westerners from Western universities?
And why do you say
Well some will be left behind then and Biden by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
Instead of
Well some will be left behind then and Biden and Johnson by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then they have responsibility as much as the Taliban
?
As they are their woke products now constitute most of the establishment, from academia to the law and increasingly our politicians, even some of the conservative ones and even now it seems much of our military.
If we do not have an establishment that believes in western values and is willing to defend them then it is much easier for the enemies of the west to defeat it.
Boris of course has urged Biden to stay in beyond 31st August, it is Biden who led and pushed this withdrawal not Boris
Have you ever considered that much of what you class as 'woke' is simply the embodiment of western values?
No it is increasingly anti free speech and increasingly anti the idea that white males ever achieved anything of note ever.
It is indeed increasingly openly of the view than the only western heritage we have is heritage that must be apologised for.
If even the West is not willing to defend western values then its ultimate defeat then becomes inevitable
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
It doesn't work like that...
Pretty much anyone can file to be on the ballot. And pretty much anyone can choose to be a Republican or a Democratic candidate. You just need a few signatures.
Normally, you have the Primary process.
But with the recall election, it's all fucked up.
The reality is that 55% of voters in the recall will be Democrats, and 45% Republican, which means that it'll be very tight as to whether Newsom survives (I think he will).
If he's gone, then the highest scoring of the fifty wins. (Bear in mind this means that Newson will have the support of 48% of voters, while whoever replaces him will have the support of 12-13%.)
The highest scorer will either be Larry Elder (Republican, currently scoring about 22% of Republican voters) or a Democrat - probably a YouTube personality (no, not me) who seems to be on about 15% of Democrats... but there are horrendous numbers of Don't Knows among Democratic voters.
Final thing: the ballot paper is insane. But the top name, with Republican next to it, is Caitlyn Janner.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Nonsense. The vast majority of westerners believe profoundly in freedom, liberty, democracy, and are proud of our heritage, including lefties like me. And if such values were threatened by, for example, hostile invasion, they would be defended to the hilt. What we don't believe in is imposing our values on others through military adventurism. For many reasons, but particularly because it doesn't work and usually ends in disaster. As we are now seeing.
We invaded because we had 9/11 launched on us planned by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
If that was not a reason for military intervention then what was?
Yes, the aim was to go in and kill or capture Bin Laden. Bush and Rumsfeld botched it.
If they’d succeeded, they might not have invaded Iraq, either. (Though accounts differ on that.)
The best example of this is when left-wingers simultaneously describe western countries as racist and bigoted, and at the same time say we should take in large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If western countries are so bad, why do they want migrants to come here? Doesn't make sense.
Yes it does. If you're unlucky enough to be born in, say, Nigeria, your life expectancy is 55. Move to the UK as a small child and it becomes 80. Yes, you will run into some unpleasant attitudes sometimes, but 25 years of life is pretty motivating.
A common left-wing view is that (a) it's unfortunate that so much depends on the random factor of where you're born, so it's understandable if people want to move here (b) we can't take everyone, but it'd be good if we can take as many as possible, starting with the most desperate (c) once they're here, it would be good to reduce levels of racism and bigotry (which most of us would agree are a lot lower than they were) even further.
You might well disagree with any of these points, but they're not mutually inconsistent.
And yet, on (b) one of the first (I think) things Blair did was to abolish the Assisted Places Scheme
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
A weirdly edited video that, but one of those clips actually dates back to 2005.
And as someone said, fielding has gotten a lot better in recent years. I don't remember any of this style of catch happening that I saw in the 90s - but it wouldn't surprise me if its something professionals actually practice nowadays.
Certainly the commentators in the 2005 from that clip have said they have seen it before but are still speaking about it as if its an alien style of catch, which they're not in more recent clips.
For more than two decades, this has been the governing logic of the war on terror: US and British leaders make the “difficult and brave” moral decisions, and then someone else worries about the consequences. The chaos in Kabul is simply the latest instalment in a long-running drama whose protagonists never change. There is no closure and no responsibility.
This may be why public feelings are as raw as they were 20 years ago, and today’s arguments are even more furious and vexed, as we rehash the same positions – on the one hand invoking the moral responsibility to defend “western values”, and on the other pointing out the inevitable failures of intervention. Nothing has been resolved, no lessons have been learned, no meaningful assessment of the war on terror has been passed.
The war on terror is still ongoing and will likely continue for the rest of the century at least.
We are not near the end nor even the beginning of the end, at most we are at the end of the beginning to quote Churchill.
Jihadists want to put the whole world under a global Caliphate and Sharia Law, they were there before the Afghan invasion, hence 9/11 and will be there after we have withdrawn.
The Afghan invasion by removing Al Qaeda training camps from the country simply bought us more time
The “War on Terror” is and always has been meaningless. It’s like a war on tanks, or a war on hand grenades, it declares war on a method of fighting war. You can’t beat a method FFS.
You can, the method is terrorism and it has to be beaten or at least its impact reduced
None of which had even a quarter of the deathrate of 9/11.
We avoided a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 2 for 20 years
I am not sure it is possible to make a claim that invading Afghanistan made any difference to terrorism except in helping to remove one particularly successful terrorist. The main country which supported 9/11 and from which all but one of the terrorists came has been allowed to continue exactly as before with full support of the West. If they had chosen to repeat the attack - although probably in a different way given the changes to aircraft security after the Twin Towers - then our having invaded Afghanistan and Iraq would have done absolutely nothing to prevent it.
9/11's success relied upon catching the West unawares and being so audacious that our security services were completely sidestepped. And even then it was far more successful than the terrorists ever imagined possible. That we have not had a similar attack since is not due to whatever we have done in the countries we invaded but due to our security services completely recalibrating their threat profiles. That does not mean another attack of similar magnitude is not possible but it does make it more difficult. Hence the reason we have seen smaller but still very deadly attacks in Bali, Madrid, London, Mumbai and Paris amongst others.
Yes the improved and necessary ever improving intelligence of our security services is key to containing future terrorist attacks.
However Bin Laden launched his terrorist training camps in Sudan and then Afghanistan, that was where action was needed and when after he fled to Pakistan that is where special forces had to be sent to kill him.
But only till they get caught out for looking the wrong way, at the moment they are focussed on islamic terror groups. In the next ten years or so it will change significantly and they will once again be caught with their trousers round their ankles
Last night I posted that it it appeared the US plan was that they hope the undertanding that they think they have with the Taliban would mean that, even if they called it a day in terms of the military led operation, that those eligible would still be allowed out by other means e.g. charters etc would still continue. In effect the Taliban decide 100%.who gets out with absolutely no influence at all for anyone else (and yes right now the Western operations do have some influence) .
The comments from German pfficials this evening suggest that idea is being actively looked at. It is of course a total fucking farce but its fig leaf when everyone ups sticks.
We are however perhaps clearer on why the US troops, despite the kit at their disposal barely seem to want to go 100 yards outside KBLs perimeter. Biden on a conference call with officials stated he doesnt want a Black Hawk Down moment. Yet the environment is only going to get more problematic and the window to do more assertive extraction operations, though still there, may well be lost because of what is essentially weak leadership. There is still many reports that eligible Afghans who do get to the perimeter are still being turned away by the Americans.
The White House will manage this with stats, how many they get out, a non lethal version of reports of kill counts from Vietnam to suggest they are doing well. Barbara Starr from CNN, who has been reporting on plenty of US military expeditions over the years, said she has never seen a national effort struggle so much. Its not a Cronkite moment but its a clear indication that they've ballsed it.
As it is, if I was to bet, the odds are against this the actual miltary mission extending beyond end of month and the above figleaf will end up the case. Its fair to say staying it may have no practicality anyway because the Taliban have been given the whip hand to extract concessions (money) for any extension. The White House has little desire to use its strength to push back and Biden has no wish to go beyond 31st August.
One small note. I have heard that Western forces have started the processing now outside the gates to try to better manage the flow. So when there is talk of expanded security zone around the airport, we may find this is it..about 30 yards. Odd that the US publicised the apparent rescue of 160 odd people including Americans as if it was something big,. they sent choppers out a mile or less to pick them up in a holding area that another (unnamed) country's operators had secured and encouraged people to come to it.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
It's possible that this new Taliban regime might be nearer a hardline Iranian type thing, than the full-on Islamonazi dystopia of the late 90s. but - take note - that would still be very very grim for minorities, gays, artists, democrats, urban women, ie lots and lots of people that lefties like you are usually desperate to help, until it is a brown-skinned Muslim regime repressing them, then the silence descends (I'm not especially accusing you of this, just all your comrades)
But there are so many potential surprises, and nearly all are on the downside. eg the Taliban won with the help of 10,000 hardened jihadi fighters, Al Qaeda types, they will want full-on revenge, and some women to rape. They have also released many 1000s of prisoners, ISIS and the like, they will want similarly evil things to happen
The report that the Taliban in the provinces are capturing young women, putting them in COFFINS, and smuggling them over borders as sex slaves was not especially encouraging, TBH
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
Oh well done them. Youve been pedalling this bullshit for days with your fingers in your ears pretending reality isnt reality. It isnt optimism its a sign of a complete unwillingness to face hard reality because hard reality involves conflict sometimes with very unpleasant people.
The Taliban are theorcrats, their leadership are all strict Islamic scholars of the violent variety, they are not and never will be anything but because thats their movement.
Which part of this do you not get? If they were so good about it how come there are plenty of Al Qaeda linked types currently doing the grunt work for them? Haqqani, a man with a multi million dollar bounty on his noggin is head of security in Kabul.
Tell you what why dont we just put Heydrich in charge, he may have changed for the better since he was bumped off in 42.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Eh? There's dozens of videos like that. Some of the best are when one person is past the rope in the air and throws it back to a different fielder to catch.
Precisely.
Its absolutely incredible to see every time you see it, but to pretend its unprecedented is like pretending a bicycle kick goal is unprecedented in football.
What? Of that compilation of 10 only one is a diving catch the second time round (no 6) and it has about one trillionth of the elegance of the catch in question. Your understanding of the word "style" seems defective. Not what you do, the way you do it.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
Oh well done them. Youve been pedalling this bullshit for days with your fingers in your ears pretending reality isnt reality. It isnt optimism its a sign of a complete unwillingness to face hard reality because hard reality involves conflict sometimes with very unpleasant people.
The Taliban are theorcrats, their leadership are all strict Islamic scholars of the violent variety, they are not and never will be anything but because thats their movement.
Which part of this do you not get? If they were so good about it how come there are plenty of Al Qaeda linked types currently doing the grunt work for them? Haqqani, a man with a multi million dollar bounty on his noggin is head of security in Kabul.
Tell you what why dont we just put Heydrich in charge, he may have changed for the better since he was bumped off in 42.
It is mystifying, the PB "progressives" trotting out this crap. Theuniondivvie was doing the same the other day
"Oh they've changed". "Let's give them a chance!"
We don't have much choice, they have their chance, but under the surface, Islamic zealots are always Islamic zealots. That's it
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
Oh well done them. Youve been pedalling this bullshit for days with your fingers in your ears pretending reality isnt reality. It isnt optimism its a sign of a complete unwillingness to face hard reality because hard reality involves conflict sometimes with very unpleasant people.
The Taliban are theorcrats, their leadership are all strict Islamic scholars of the violent variety, they are not and never will be anything but because thats their movement.
Which part of this do you not get? If they were so good about it how come there are plenty of Al Qaeda linked types currently doing the grunt work for them? Haqqani, a man with a multi million dollar bounty on his noggin is head of security in Kabul.
Tell you what why dont we just put Heydrich in charge, he may have changed for the better since he was bumped off in 42.
Crude but funny Heydrich gag.
Nobody not on the ground has much of a clue how they have behaved in the last couple of weeks. Pure wishful thinking.
How have the Americans made such a mess of the situation in Kabul? I still don't understand it.
I mean, the whole enterprise was fucked from the get go?
What's the part where you're thinking, "it would have gone smoothly if they'd done x, why on earth didn't they do x?"
The obvious x is to clear the Afghan visa backlog in advance of the withdrawal by reducing the hurdles Afghans had to clear and Americans had to check they cleared. Many of these people would then have left on civilian flights as soon as they got their visas and they wouldn't have to fish them out of a crowd and ship them to Qatar. They didn't do that because outside the current news cycle the voters don't want refugees, and they won't reelect a president who relaxes security checks and accidentally lets in a terrorist.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
Oh well done them. Youve been pedalling this bullshit for days with your fingers in your ears pretending reality isnt reality. It isnt optimism its a sign of a complete unwillingness to face hard reality because hard reality involves conflict sometimes with very unpleasant people.
The Taliban are theorcrats, their leadership are all strict Islamic scholars of the violent variety, they are not and never will be anything but because thats their movement.
Which part of this do you not get? If they were so good about it how come there are plenty of Al Qaeda linked types currently doing the grunt work for them? Haqqani, a man with a multi million dollar bounty on his noggin is head of security in Kabul.
Tell you what why dont we just put Heydrich in charge, he may have changed for the better since he was bumped off in 42.
Crude but funny Heydrich gag.
Nobody not on the ground has much of a clue how they have behaved in the last couple of weeks. Pure wishful thinking.
Really? Why are so many people in hding right now? Maybe they just dont think they will get a fair trial..or any trial.
Prisoners gunned down and others taken from their homes and shot in Helmand province. Similar incidents in Faryab. Hazaras killed. The killing of mine clearance staff. the killing of civilian government staff in Kandahar. Hundreds taking into arbitary detention with no idea exactly where they are being held.
Amnesty and Human Rights Watch may be lying about it though. Perfectly possible.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
Oh well done them. Youve been pedalling this bullshit for days with your fingers in your ears pretending reality isnt reality. It isnt optimism its a sign of a complete unwillingness to face hard reality because hard reality involves conflict sometimes with very unpleasant people.
The Taliban are theorcrats, their leadership are all strict Islamic scholars of the violent variety, they are not and never will be anything but because thats their movement.
Which part of this do you not get? If they were so good about it how come there are plenty of Al Qaeda linked types currently doing the grunt work for them? Haqqani, a man with a multi million dollar bounty on his noggin is head of security in Kabul.
Tell you what why dont we just put Heydrich in charge, he may have changed for the better since he was bumped off in 42.
It is mystifying, the PB "progressives" trotting out this crap. Theuniondivvie was doing the same the other day
"Oh they've changed". "Let's give them a chance!"
We don't have much choice, they have their chance, but under the surface, Islamic zealots are always Islamic zealots. That's it
And on that sombre bombshell, goodnight
Let's put something in quotation marks, that means we can pretend that's what people said.
Perhaps if you could stop flashing your prolapse until the Taliban Year Zero actually takes place it might make it seem less like you're gagging for it to happen.
It appears that Uk troops and an unidentifed other nation have been out tonight again doing collections around Kabul. They are being brought in via the UK control gate at KBL.
I got an email just after midnight from a person i know in the US. They have hooked up with one of the veteran-led campaigns currently focussed on getting Afghans who worked for the US out of the country.
Their email was remarkably to the point.
'Our allies are being turned away by our troops. Think WH & SD are going to leave them without even trying. Once enough US citizens are out, its done and done. Need to make maximum noise'.
Sam Harris spoke with Peter Bergen (a guy who has written a large number of books on the region) today. He has recently been on the ground in Taliban held areas of Afghanistan, and lets just say he didn't exactly buy the Taliban had turned into the Teletubbies. Nor that Al-Qaeda had gone away. He said they are still there and active across many parts of the country.
Sam Harris spoke with Peter Bergen (a guy who has written a large number of books on the region) today. He has recently been on the ground in Taliban held areas of Afghanistan, and lets just say he didn't exactly buy the Taliban had turned into the Teletubbies. Nor that Al-Qaeda had gone away. He said they are still there and active across many parts of the country.
Only the most naive would think that the Taliban had changed their spots...
However, there is a window when they are not yet as strong as they will be, and where a firefight would likely only delay the departure of the Infidels. (As well as resulting in a long-term attritional war of drones vs whatever is still standing.)
It is therefore in the interests of the Taliban to get to allow the West to evacuate.
Of course, there will be plenty of AQ, ISIS, etc., who are spoiling for a fight, irrespective of the consequences. But in the short term, I think the Taliban will be circumspect. My gut therefore tells me that they will continue to avoid direct confrontation, and may even allow the deadline to be extended by a few days.
Sam Harris spoke with Peter Bergen (a guy who has written a large number of books on the region) today. He has recently been on the ground in Taliban held areas of Afghanistan, and lets just say he didn't exactly buy the Taliban had turned into the Teletubbies. Nor that Al-Qaeda had gone away. He said they are still there and active across many parts of the country.
Only the most naive would think that the Taliban had changed their spots...
However, there is a window when they are not yet as strong as they will be, and where a firefight would likely only delay the departure of the Infidels. (As well as resulting in a long-term attritional war of drones vs whatever is still standing.)
It is therefore in the interests of the Taliban to get to allow the West to evacuate.
Of course, there will be plenty of AQ, ISIS, etc., who are spoiling for a fight, irrespective of the consequences. But in the short term, I think the Taliban will be circumspect. My gut therefore tells me that they will continue to avoid direct confrontation, and may even allow the deadline to be extended by a few days.
The Taliban (in their myriad of guises) are unlikely to have changed much..after all their strategy looks like it has brought them to power (again). What has changed is urban populations in Afghanistan - educated women/girls, businesses that are linked to the outside world by internet and town/city dwelling young Afghans (under 25) who have virtually no memory of the 1990s Taliban. I genuinely think no-one knows what will happen by the end of the year but I struggle to see how the Taliban will rule in large urban areas without resorting to violence which in turn will generate some sort of opposition (probably backed by external forces (the usual suspects).
Sam Harris spoke with Peter Bergen (a guy who has written a large number of books on the region) today. He has recently been on the ground in Taliban held areas of Afghanistan, and lets just say he didn't exactly buy the Taliban had turned into the Teletubbies. Nor that Al-Qaeda had gone away. He said they are still there and active across many parts of the country.
Only the most naive would think that the Taliban had changed their spots...
However, there is a window when they are not yet as strong as they will be, and where a firefight would likely only delay the departure of the Infidels. (As well as resulting in a long-term attritional war of drones vs whatever is still standing.)
It is therefore in the interests of the Taliban to get to allow the West to evacuate.
Of course, there will be plenty of AQ, ISIS, etc., who are spoiling for a fight, irrespective of the consequences. But in the short term, I think the Taliban will be circumspect. My gut therefore tells me that they will continue to avoid direct confrontation, and may even allow the deadline to be extended by a few days.
They won’t extend the deadline but they may turn a blind eye to it
Sam Harris spoke with Peter Bergen (a guy who has written a large number of books on the region) today. He has recently been on the ground in Taliban held areas of Afghanistan, and lets just say he didn't exactly buy the Taliban had turned into the Teletubbies. Nor that Al-Qaeda had gone away. He said they are still there and active across many parts of the country.
Only the most naive would think that the Taliban had changed their spots...
However, there is a window when they are not yet as strong as they will be, and where a firefight would likely only delay the departure of the Infidels. (As well as resulting in a long-term attritional war of drones vs whatever is still standing.)
It is therefore in the interests of the Taliban to get to allow the West to evacuate.
Of course, there will be plenty of AQ, ISIS, etc., who are spoiling for a fight, irrespective of the consequences. But in the short term, I think the Taliban will be circumspect. My gut therefore tells me that they will continue to avoid direct confrontation, and may even allow the deadline to be extended by a few days.
They won’t extend the deadline but they may turn a blind eye to it
Apropos of nothing, Maryland is becoming one of the most diverse states according to census data. And nearby Gaithersburg is extraordinarily so: 31.5% white, 28.5% Hispanic, 19% Asian, and 16.1% black.
Apropos of nothing, Maryland is becoming one of the most diverse states according to census data. And nearby Gaithersburg is extraordinarily so: 31.5% white, 28.5% Hispanic, 19% Asian, and 16.1% black.
I very much like Maryland: I was there a few ago with the family, and it really ticks all the boxes: albeit, you probably need to go to Dulles to fly to the Uk.
Apropos of nothing, Maryland is becoming one of the most diverse states according to census data. And nearby Gaithersburg is extraordinarily so: 31.5% white, 28.5% Hispanic, 19% Asian, and 16.1% black.
I very much like Maryland: I was there a few ago with the family, and it really ticks all the boxes: albeit, you probably need to go to Dulles to fly to the Uk.
I spent a lovely few weeks holed up on Chesapeake Bay staying with an old family friend and his family.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
The tracker for that guy swimming around the island overnight isn’t showing any location now. So he’s either absolutely smashed the record, or something has happened to him or his tracker.
The UK has achieved suppression of hospitalizations by 75% and deaths by 90% in their Delta wave compared with Alpha. A whole different look in the US UK, by @PaulMainwood US, by @PeterJ_Walker Differences in mitigation measures, vaccination rates, and other factors.....
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Utter balls. Pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of me watching cricket? That's kind of boring. 😕
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577 One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
It's much older than that. I remember seeing one on TV in about 1995, involving perhaps South Africa, I can't remember precisely.
I once watched England play the Saffers at Old Trafford, my abiding memory of the match was Jonty Rhodes making utterly outrageous catches at point.
The joke at the time was that 3/5 of the planet is covered by ocean and the rest by Jonty Rhodes. Probably the best fielder in the history of the game.
There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
It depends how infectious and potentially lethal the disease is. The more of both it is, the more like manslaughter it is for you to go out and mix, assuming you know this and you know you have it.
So what is it if you have the flu and just kill one person? Manslaughter-lite?
So lite as to be not.
If you have the flu you know that it might kill someone very vulnerable. Or you do now.
Have you, kini, ever, ever had the flu and not gone out because you thought you might kill someone. All those years in the city suffering man flu. You always stayed at home. Or did you tough it out and go to work?
That's not really relevant. Forget about flu. I was explaining why it isn't a clear and binary matter of principle - as you were maintaining - but rather a matter of degree and dependent on the facts of the case. Might be manslaughter, might not be, might be hard to say, etc.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
The tracker for that guy swimming around the island overnight isn’t showing any location now. So he’s either absolutely smashed the record, or something has happened to him or his tracker.
Nothing anywhere on the media about it, which is a little wierd. Suggests he might have given up during the night, hopefully we’ll see an update soon.
No cash directly to the Taliban. If some Islamic NGOs are allowed in, they can help. But it's up to the Taliban whether or not the likes of the red crescent can do work there; not us.
There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
It depends how infectious and potentially lethal the disease is. The more of both it is, the more like manslaughter it is for you to go out and mix, assuming you know this and you know you have it.
But there must be a point it flips.
Let’s say that you knew that going out would definitely infect 1 person and that individual would die.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
The answer to both the last three questions is no
Both the last three?
Well, I make it three. And yes, to the first, sometimes, but not always to the second, and possibly to the third.
And more generally a fine morning here today, but cooler...... perhaps due to the lack of cloud cover. A very full moon in the wee small hours this morning. Forecast looks quite good today, but back to cloud tomorrow.
FWIW I think that people continue to both overestimate and underestimate the Taliban. They over estimate them because the reality is that they do not have enough military strength in the entire country to take on, let alone defeat 6000 marines, 600 paras and sundry other western forces. If they tried they would be annihilated in the same way that they have been in anything like a straight on clash since western forces went into Afghanistan. If the western forces stay longer than 31st August there will be some bluster and possibly some hostage taking (as if the entire country were not hostages already). Co operation in facilitating departures would no doubt end. But an outright attack is incredibly unlikely.
Underestimated because they do not see themselves as evil but as doing god's work with a deeply backward cultural spin. They find the idea that a woman can walk around visible to the eyes of other men away from their own men folk abhorrent and immoral. Their teachings are clear: apostates and homosexuals should not be allowed to live amongst them. They regard the west's teachings that women and gays are entitled to equality as corruption. Such mind sets do not change in a single generation, probably not in several. This will lead them to do many things that we find shocking. And they will not care.
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
And the winner can score a much lower % vote than the people who want the governor to not be recalled. "Democracy" in action...
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
The key idiocy that I have spotted is that some Dem groups are recommending to NOT VOTE on the candidate question, simply vote No to recall and leave the candidate blank. They are apparently trying to make it a defacto Newsom vs the crazy GOPer race and that is so dumb I want to claw my own eyes out in frustration.
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday the closure of the airport to commercial flights has held up key deliveries.
I noticed several commercial flights yesterday on Flight24 - among the many more military ones.
Until watching Flightradar during this evacuation I'd never heard of the SAC Heavy Airlift Wing.
They’re more usually seen doing disaster relief efforts, such as getting men, equipment and food supplies into the scene of earthquakes and hurricanes.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
The best example of this is when left-wingers simultaneously describe western countries as racist and bigoted, and at the same time say we should take in large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If western countries are so bad, why do they want migrants to come here? Doesn't make sense.
I'm not left wing any more but the rationale is simple. Better to be in the UK, likely housed in awful areas where people don't want to live, than to be dead.
There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
It depends how infectious and potentially lethal the disease is. The more of both it is, the more like manslaughter it is for you to go out and mix, assuming you know this and you know you have it.
So what is it if you have the flu and just kill one person? Manslaughter-lite?
So lite as to be not.
If you have the flu you know that it might kill someone very vulnerable. Or you do now.
Have you, kini, ever, ever had the flu and not gone out because you thought you might kill someone. All those years in the city suffering man flu. You always stayed at home. Or did you tough it out and go to work?
That's not really relevant. Forget about flu. I was explaining why it isn't a clear and binary matter of principle - as you were maintaining - but rather a matter of degree and dependent on the facts of the case. Might be manslaughter, might not be, might be hard to say, etc.
Did you ever though think I have the flu I had better not go out because I might infect someone vulnerable and they might die.
I'll go first. No.
Your turn. I appreciate not everyone will want to answer.
When do we reckon the British media is going to switch from demanding the government get refugees out to demanding they stop them coming in? Around November/December, I guess?
Week after next.
The comments section of the Hate Mail is already infested with comments along those lines. People don't want these Afghans to get killed or raped by the Taliban, but think they are Someone Else's Problem.
they didn't vote Brexit to get rid of the "Londonistan" effects of migration only to have their community swamped with terrorists. "They're all young men with beards!!" they shriek. And it will be the same for the 5.7m Hong Kong Chinese who are legally able to settle here.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
The answer to both the last three questions is no
Both the last three?
Well, I make it three. And yes, to the first, sometimes, but not always to the second, and possibly to the third.
And more generally a fine morning here today, but cooler...... perhaps due to the lack of cloud cover. A very full moon in the wee small hours this morning. Forecast looks quite good today, but back to cloud tomorrow.
Yes I counted three but i descended into PB pedantry by questioning the use of 'both' with three. Apologies.
Phone auto corrected to peasantry but not sure we have any PB peasantry.
FWIW I think that people continue to both overestimate and underestimate the Taliban. They over estimate them because the reality is that they do not have enough military strength in the entire country to take on, let alone defeat 6000 marines, 600 paras and sundry other western forces. If they tried they would be annihilated in the same way that they have been in anything like a straight on clash since western forces went into Afghanistan. If the western forces stay longer than 31st August there will be some bluster and possibly some hostage taking (as if the entire country were not hostages already). Co operation in facilitating departures would no doubt end. But an outright attack is incredibly unlikely.
Underestimated because they do not see themselves as evil but as doing god's work with a deeply backward cultural spin. They find the idea that a woman can walk around visible to the eyes of other men away from their own men folk abhorrent and immoral. Their teachings are clear: apostates and homosexuals should not be allowed to live amongst them. They regard the west's teachings that women and gays are entitled to equality as corruption. Such mind sets do not change in a single generation, probably not in several. This will lead them to do many things that we find shocking. And they will not care.
While I generally agree, I think your second paragraph a bit pessimistic. Men, even Talib elders do not live for ever, and some at least of the next generation may be a little less illiberal. I think we're just beginning to see some 'fraying round the edges' in Iran, too. Maybe I just feel a little more positive this morning than I have been for some weeks, though!
FWIW I think that people continue to both overestimate and underestimate the Taliban. They over estimate them because the reality is that they do not have enough military strength in the entire country to take on, let alone defeat 6000 marines, 600 paras and sundry other western forces. If they tried they would be annihilated in the same way that they have been in anything like a straight on clash since western forces went into Afghanistan. If the western forces stay longer than 31st August there will be some bluster and possibly some hostage taking (as if the entire country were not hostages already). Co operation in facilitating departures would no doubt end. But an outright attack is incredibly unlikely.
Underestimated because they do not see themselves as evil but as doing god's work with a deeply backward cultural spin. They find the idea that a woman can walk around visible to the eyes of other men away from their own men folk abhorrent and immoral. Their teachings are clear: apostates and homosexuals should not be allowed to live amongst them. They regard the west's teachings that women and gays are entitled to equality as corruption. Such mind sets do not change in a single generation, probably not in several. This will lead them to do many things that we find shocking. And they will not care.
Not an expert on Afghanistan or military things or anything but they're in the middle of a city full of heavily-armed religious lunatics. Expecting anyone shooting at them to be annihilated sounds optimistic since the Americans would presumably be reluctant to annihilate Kabul in the process, and predicting what the Taliban are going to do requires a knowledge of internal lunatic politics that I don't think any of us have.
FWIW I think that people continue to both overestimate and underestimate the Taliban. They over estimate them because the reality is that they do not have enough military strength in the entire country to take on, let alone defeat 6000 marines, 600 paras and sundry other western forces. If they tried they would be annihilated in the same way that they have been in anything like a straight on clash since western forces went into Afghanistan. If the western forces stay longer than 31st August there will be some bluster and possibly some hostage taking (as if the entire country were not hostages already). Co operation in facilitating departures would no doubt end. But an outright attack is incredibly unlikely.
Underestimated because they do not see themselves as evil but as doing god's work with a deeply backward cultural spin. They find the idea that a woman can walk around visible to the eyes of other men away from their own men folk abhorrent and immoral. Their teachings are clear: apostates and homosexuals should not be allowed to live amongst them. They regard the west's teachings that women and gays are entitled to equality as corruption. Such mind sets do not change in a single generation, probably not in several. This will lead them to do many things that we find shocking. And they will not care.
And, why should they change? We as The West may be trying to save the world and we may be right. But it is only our point of view. Why is it "right"? I mean you and I can give a hundred reasons but those are only our reasons. I can give a similar number for why there is no god but that won't change the mind of someone who believes in god who in turn thinks I am fundamentally mistaken.
Just ordered this. Which might be quite interesting.
Do Muslim Women Need Saving? is an indictment of a mindset that has justified all manner of foreign interference, including military invasion, in the name of rescuing women from Islam
The best example of this is when left-wingers simultaneously describe western countries as racist and bigoted, and at the same time say we should take in large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If western countries are so bad, why do they want migrants to come here? Doesn't make sense.
Yes it does. If you're unlucky enough to be born in, say, Nigeria, your life expectancy is 55. Move to the UK as a small child and it becomes 80. Yes, you will run into some unpleasant attitudes sometimes, but 25 years of life is pretty motivating.
A common left-wing view is that (a) it's unfortunate that so much depends on the random factor of where you're born, so it's understandable if people want to move here (b) we can't take everyone, but it'd be good if we can take as many as possible, starting with the most desperate (c) once they're here, it would be good to reduce levels of racism and bigotry (which most of us would agree are a lot lower than they were) even further.
You might well disagree with any of these points, but they're not mutually inconsistent.
And yet, on (b) one of the first (I think) things Blair did was to abolish the Assisted Places Scheme
What did that have to do with taking in refugees?
Helping some even though you can’t help everyone
How many refugees did the Assisted Places Scheme place into private schools?
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
I really hesitate to say it (because it could go horribly wrong very quickly), but barbaric and reactionary as they are, they haven't behaved too badly in the last couple of weeks - several nasty incidents, but nothing on the scale that one typically sees when an army conquers a capital city full of enemies. Against that, there are any number of atrocities reported in places they've captured previously.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
The answer to both the last three questions is no
Both the last three?
Well, I make it three. And yes, to the first, sometimes, but not always to the second, and possibly to the third.
And more generally a fine morning here today, but cooler...... perhaps due to the lack of cloud cover. A very full moon in the wee small hours this morning. Forecast looks quite good today, but back to cloud tomorrow.
Yes I counted three but i descended into PB pedantry by questioning the use of 'both' with three. Apologies.
Phone auto corrected to peasantry but not sure we have any PB peasantry.
'A bold peasantry, a country's pride' From 'The Deserted Village', by Oliver Goldsmith. Stayed with me nearly 67 years, since 'O' Level English!
Comments
And why do you say
Well some will be left behind then and Biden by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
Instead of
Well some will be left behind then and Biden and Johnson by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.
If they are killed then they have responsibility as much as the Taliban
?
And in a professional game nowadays the Third Umpire would have done the same thing.
https://twitter.com/trevorbmbagency/status/1429538746152669205?s=21
It is an incredibly precise example of bowls. I love seeing ANYTHING done that well
If we do not have an establishment that believes in western values and is willing to defend them then it is much easier for the enemies of the west to defeat it.
Boris of course has urged Biden to stay in beyond 31st August, it is Biden who led and pushed this withdrawal not Boris
FWIW I don't think it is 50/50, freeze frame suggests her foot leaves the turf a few milliseconds before she does the 2nd catch, making it legit. Bravo!
The irony is migrants from there have social values more in common with Ann Widdecombe than the pro open borders social liberals
If the Taliban cannot, then a whole of Afganis will be pretty unhappy. And it will certainly strengthen the Tajik forces (particularly if the Americans are smart, and keep them well fed and well stocked with gasoline and diesel).
A common left-wing view is that
(a) it's unfortunate that so much depends on the random factor of where you're born, so it's understandable if people want to move here
(b) we can't take everyone, but it'd be good if we can take as many as possible, starting with the most desperate
(c) once they're here, it would be good to reduce levels of racism and bigotry (which most of us would agree are a lot lower than they were) even further.
You might well disagree with any of these points, but they're not mutually inconsistent.
If that was not a reason for military intervention then what was?
You're clearly not an avid cricket fan if you don't realise those style of catches are much more common than you'd expect.
Here's a post I wrote on this site in July about one of those style catches while watching a match. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3496577#Comment_3496577
One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHJ9YjqPAe8
Its absolutely incredible to see every time you see it, but to pretend its unprecedented is like pretending a bicycle kick goal is unprecedented in football.
That said, the Indian lady's catch would be near the top of that top ten, maybe number 2
It is indeed increasingly openly of the view than the only western heritage we have is heritage that must be apologised for.
If even the West is not willing to defend western values then its ultimate defeat then becomes inevitable
Pretty much anyone can file to be on the ballot. And pretty much anyone can choose to be a Republican or a Democratic candidate. You just need a few signatures.
Normally, you have the Primary process.
But with the recall election, it's all fucked up.
The reality is that 55% of voters in the recall will be Democrats, and 45% Republican, which means that it'll be very tight as to whether Newsom survives (I think he will).
If he's gone, then the highest scoring of the fifty wins. (Bear in mind this means that Newson will have the support of 48% of voters, while whoever replaces him will have the support of 12-13%.)
The highest scorer will either be Larry Elder (Republican, currently scoring about 22% of Republican voters) or a Democrat - probably a YouTube personality (no, not me) who seems to be on about 15% of Democrats... but there are horrendous numbers of Don't Knows among Democratic voters.
Final thing: the ballot paper is insane. But the top name, with Republican next to it, is Caitlyn Janner.
Bush and Rumsfeld botched it.
If they’d succeeded, they might not have invaded Iraq, either.
(Though accounts differ on that.)
And as someone said, fielding has gotten a lot better in recent years. I don't remember any of this style of catch happening that I saw in the 90s - but it wouldn't surprise me if its something professionals actually practice nowadays.
Certainly the commentators in the 2005 from that clip have said they have seen it before but are still speaking about it as if its an alien style of catch, which they're not in more recent clips.
The comments from German pfficials this evening suggest that idea is being actively looked at. It is of course a total fucking farce but its fig leaf when everyone ups sticks.
We are however perhaps clearer on why the US troops, despite the kit at their disposal barely seem to want to go 100 yards outside KBLs perimeter. Biden on a conference call with officials stated he doesnt want a Black Hawk Down moment. Yet the environment is only going to get more problematic and the window to do more assertive extraction operations, though still there, may well be lost because of what is essentially weak leadership. There is still many reports that eligible Afghans who do get to the perimeter are still being turned away by the Americans.
The White House will manage this with stats, how many they get out, a non lethal version of reports of kill counts from Vietnam to suggest they are doing well. Barbara Starr from CNN, who has been reporting on plenty of US military expeditions over the years, said she has never seen a national effort struggle so much. Its not a Cronkite moment but its a clear indication that they've ballsed it.
As it is, if I was to bet, the odds are against this the actual miltary mission extending beyond end of month and the above figleaf will end up the case. Its fair to say staying it may have no practicality anyway because the Taliban have been given the whip hand to extract concessions (money) for any extension. The White House has little desire to use its strength to push back and Biden has no wish to go beyond 31st August.
One small note. I have heard that Western forces have started the processing now outside the gates to try to better manage the flow. So when there is talk of expanded security zone around the airport, we may find this is it..about 30 yards. Odd that the US publicised the apparent rescue of 160 odd people including Americans as if it was something big,. they sent choppers out a mile or less to pick them up in a holding area that another (unnamed) country's operators had secured and encouraged people to come to it.
Though if you want real offences against the English language, Pfizer wants to call its newly approved vaccine Comirnaty.
Is it possible that the leadership feels "we're going to have to run this place now, we'd better rein the lunatics in a bit"? And if so, do they have the authority to make that work? And will it last?
But there are so many potential surprises, and nearly all are on the downside. eg the Taliban won with the help of 10,000 hardened jihadi fighters, Al Qaeda types, they will want full-on revenge, and some women to rape. They have also released many 1000s of prisoners, ISIS and the like, they will want similarly evil things to happen
The report that the Taliban in the provinces are capturing young women, putting them in COFFINS, and smuggling them over borders as sex slaves was not especially encouraging, TBH
The Taliban are theorcrats, their leadership are all strict Islamic scholars of the violent variety, they are not and never will be anything but because thats their movement.
Which part of this do you not get? If they were so good about it how come there are plenty of Al Qaeda linked types currently doing the grunt work for them? Haqqani, a man with a multi million dollar bounty on his noggin is head of security in Kabul.
Tell you what why dont we just put Heydrich in charge, he may have changed for the better since he was bumped off in 42.
"Oh they've changed". "Let's give them a chance!"
We don't have much choice, they have their chance, but under the surface, Islamic zealots are always Islamic zealots. That's it
And on that sombre bombshell, goodnight
Nobody not on the ground has much of a clue how they have behaved in the last couple of weeks. Pure wishful thinking.
What's the part where you're thinking, "it would have gone smoothly if they'd done x, why on earth didn't they do x?"
The obvious x is to clear the Afghan visa backlog in advance of the withdrawal by reducing the hurdles Afghans had to clear and Americans had to check they cleared. Many of these people would then have left on civilian flights as soon as they got their visas and they wouldn't have to fish them out of a crowd and ship them to Qatar. They didn't do that because outside the current news cycle the voters don't want refugees, and they won't reelect a president who relaxes security checks and accidentally lets in a terrorist.
Prisoners gunned down and others taken from their homes and shot in Helmand province. Similar incidents in Faryab. Hazaras killed. The killing of mine clearance staff. the killing of civilian government staff in Kandahar. Hundreds taking into arbitary detention with no idea exactly where they are being held.
Amnesty and Human Rights Watch may be lying about it though. Perfectly possible.
Perhaps if you could stop flashing your prolapse until the Taliban Year Zero actually takes place it might make it seem less like you're gagging for it to happen.
I got an email just after midnight from a person i know in the US. They have hooked up with one of the veteran-led campaigns currently focussed on getting Afghans who worked for the US out of the country.
Their email was remarkably to the point.
'Our allies are being turned away by our troops. Think WH & SD are going to leave them without even trying. Once enough US citizens are out, its done and done. Need to make maximum noise'.
However, there is a window when they are not yet as strong as they will be, and where a firefight would likely only delay the departure of the Infidels. (As well as resulting in a long-term attritional war of drones vs whatever is still standing.)
It is therefore in the interests of the Taliban to get to allow the West to evacuate.
Of course, there will be plenty of AQ, ISIS, etc., who are spoiling for a fight, irrespective of the consequences. But in the short term, I think the Taliban will be circumspect. My gut therefore tells me that they will continue to avoid direct confrontation, and may even allow the deadline to be extended by a few days.
I genuinely think no-one knows what will happen by the end of the year but I struggle to see how the Taliban will rule in large urban areas without resorting to violence which in turn will generate some sort of opposition (probably backed by external forces (the usual suspects).
Helping fund what will be a vile regime - the only question of that is to what degree - will not be popular. The alternative is allowing a famine which might kill hundreds of thousands.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/aug/23/afghanistan-could-start-to-run-out-of-food-by-september-un-warns
A whole different look in the US
UK, by @PaulMainwood
US, by @PeterJ_Walker
Differences in mitigation measures, vaccination rates, and other factors.....
https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1429929341966684183?s=21
I noticed several commercial flights yesterday on Flight24 - among the many more military ones.
And more generally a fine morning here today, but cooler...... perhaps due to the lack of cloud cover. A very full moon in the wee small hours this morning.
Forecast looks quite good today, but back to cloud tomorrow.
https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1430049853569216514?s=20
Underestimated because they do not see themselves as evil but as doing god's work with a deeply backward cultural spin. They find the idea that a woman can walk around visible to the eyes of other men away from their own men folk abhorrent and immoral. Their teachings are clear: apostates and homosexuals should not be allowed to live amongst them. They regard the west's teachings that women and gays are entitled to equality as corruption. Such mind sets do not change in a single generation, probably not in several. This will lead them to do many things that we find shocking. And they will not care.
That make sense for you now?
I'll go first. No.
Your turn. I appreciate not everyone will want to answer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58306354
they didn't vote Brexit to get rid of the "Londonistan" effects of migration only to have their community swamped with terrorists. "They're all young men with beards!!" they shriek. And it will be the same for the 5.7m Hong Kong Chinese who are legally able to settle here.
Phone auto corrected to peasantry but not sure we have any PB peasantry.
Maybe I just feel a little more positive this morning than I have been for some weeks, though!
am fundamentally mistaken.
Just ordered this. Which might be quite interesting.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674725164
Do Muslim Women Need Saving? is an indictment of a mindset that has justified all manner of foreign interference, including military invasion, in the name of rescuing women from Islam
From 'The Deserted Village', by Oliver Goldsmith. Stayed with me nearly 67 years, since 'O' Level English!