As the days go by the Afghan crisis continues to dominate the front pages – politicalbetting.com

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

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.

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

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!

It depends how many of the nine candidates are credible too though. The 2003 results are certainly amusing to look at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_gubernatorial_recall_election#Results

Lol at the number of write-ins with one vote…

Andy_JS said:

FPT

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Canadian polling average, 10 most recent surveys:

Lib 33.1%
Con 32.2%
NDP 19.1%
BQ 5.8%
People's 4.5%
Greens 4.3%
Others 0.9%

Changes since 2019 general election:

Lib nc
Con -2.1%
NDP +3.1%
BQ -1.8%
People's +2.9%
Greens -2.2%
Others nc

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.

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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.

edmundintokyo said:

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?

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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.

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

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

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

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

?

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

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

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

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.

YES

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

One for you Richard. V amusing.

https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY

Have you tried it? It sounds weird!

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!

Richard_Nabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

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.

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

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

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

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

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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.

kle4 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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.

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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 boundary juggle, as I believe it’s called, is at least a decade old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHJ9YjqPAe8

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

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

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

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?

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

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.

Benpointer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

Andy_JS said:

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?

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/west-fall-of-kabul-sudan-iraq-afghanistan-us-uk-policies

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

The 2001 invasion didn't prevent:

Bali, 2002
Madrid, 2004
7/7 (London), 2005
Mumbai, 2008

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

Andy_JS said:

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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 boundary juggle, as I believe it’s called, is at least a decade old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHJ9YjqPAe8

It's much older than that. I remember seeing one on TV in about 1995, involving perhaps South Africa, I can't remember precisely.

Richard_Nabavi said:

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.

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

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?

Yokes said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

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.

IshmaelZ said:

Yokes said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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

TimT said:

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.

Andy_JS said:

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

And by a lady, no less

https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

No.

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 boundary juggle, as I believe it’s called, is at least a decade old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHJ9YjqPAe8

It's much older than that. I remember seeing one on TV in about 1995, involving perhaps South Africa, I can't remember precisely.

Nigelb said:

The West is going to have some hard decisions to make over the next few months.
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

Pagan2 said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

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

Nigelb said:

The West is going to have some hard decisions to make over the next few months.
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

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

NickPalmer said:

TOPPING said:

NickPalmer said:

TOPPING said:

.

NickPalmer said:

TOPPING said:

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.

Isn’t that closer to murder?

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

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.

Andy_JS said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

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

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

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.

OldKingCole said:

paulyork64 said:

Pagan2 said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

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.

DavidL said:

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.

Charles said:

Benpointer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

Andy_JS said:

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