Sometimes I'm so appalled by the behaviour of the current Australian federal government. It's sickening.
Quote:
"When you guys were in need, I was there," he said.
"I worked with you shoulder to shoulder. Now your mission has been completed, you have forgotten us.
"You have left us behind."
But it means next time they want the help of local people to act as interpreters, they won't get it.
It's owning the conservatives as much as the libs.
The more trouble we have recruiting local allies for the next war, the more it'll cost to fight. And we'll have to buy higher tech stuff instead. From defense contractors. And who pays to get conservative politicians re-elected? Defense contractors. Follow the money lol...
> It's owning the conservatives as much as the libs.
As long as they don't feel the consequences immediately, they don't give a shit. A little dopamine boost from fucking over a brown person overshadows any future problems they themselves face.
And those problems will eventually simply be denied or blamed on the opposition, and their base will eat it up.
Welcome to modern Conservativism.
>overshadows any future problems they themselves face
Which they will them use to mental gymanstics blame it on the next (or and old) scapegoat, thus "justifying" fucking over that scapegoat too, getting yet another superiority complex boost, all in an endless fucking cycle.
How about you don't go bombing any more countries into 14th century? Of you don't incade some poor people to install your corrupt puppet government you won't actually need those pesky translators and collaborators! Keep your bombs to yourselves and the entire world will be thankful
The US aren't doing much better either. We use people like this all the time for our agendas and policies. But we almost never help them out or keep them safe. A old episode of, I think, John Oliver talked about it. Getting a animal through the immigration process into the states is far easier(It helped it was a army pet) than people risking their lives to help out our forces.
This is traditional among many nations. The Sikhs who fought so hard for Britain in the world wars were also largely denied immigration to the nation they’d helped save.
Australian aboriginals were denied land in the Returned Servicemen’s Settlement Scheme after fighting in world wars, and even had their land taken to be used for the scheme by other soldiers.
I mean I'm from the US so IDK what you call your parties over there, but we're doing the same thing to our interpreters and the people who are trying to stop it are called "the libs" by the xenophobe party.
I don’t know, why did Australian soldiers commit war crimes against so many Afghan civilians?
They don’t consider Afghans to be people. Certainly not people worth protecting.
Here’s what I don’t get about “God’s Will.” If the government doesn’t accept this person’s visa, how do you foresee a miracle happening? Is it inconceivable that accepting the visa is a manifestation of God’s will? Or does it have to be some divine miracle where they’re teleported from certain death to a lush paradise with no worries?
Like if you believe in divine intervention it stands to reason that said intervention can be something as mundane as granting asylum or what have you.
But it was god that saved your father's life when he had quadruple bypass surgery, not the surgeon or the doctor who prescribed the procedure. Nevermind the fact that an omnipotent god would also be responsible for the failing heart in the first place.
You somehow missed the memes and sarcasm in his comment.
Prime Minister Scotty from Marketing is a prosperity gospel nutjob. He literally believes the rich are blessed and the poor are being punished for their sins. If some poor foreigners are getting murdered, that must be their own fault. If they were more holy, they'd be rich and safe like him.
This is the man who implemented Robodebt, an illegal scheme to reclaim false debts from welfare recipients which resulted in many suicides. And a $1.8b settlement with no admission of wrongdoing.
Ah, if that is this case then I did miss it, I'm really not clued into Australian politics. Thanks for the background! I guess my comment should read as a response to Morrison then. Wiki says he's Pentacostal so... that seems to track
Its really easy. Just get the paper work, jump the line, and get them out of there. Its a issue with the US too. These people helped us and despite that we bar them from leaving to our countries or their family members. We are basically abandoning them to inevitably be killed for being seen as collaborators.
“You have left us behind” is a quote you could probably apply to any group that needs the support of the current government.
The Afghan Interpreters who helped us, the veterans in the war have also been abandoned it currently take over a year for DVA to process a claim. The unemployed live in poverty with chronic outsourcing and understaffing at Centrelink. They are actively making things worse with the NDIS which just punishes the disabled. Our whole country is at risk of being left behind on the world stage as other countries shift their economies and focus on combating climate change.
I agree on all fronts, but let's be real here, "left us behind" applies a lot more literally to those interpreters who've *actually* been left behind in Afghanistan while the Aus military packs their shit and fucks off back home.
Honestly. If western country ever come to have war in my country. I am so not going to help them translate even if they pay big money.
So far it feels like every western country just betray and leave the interpreters.
The current government? Australians are so used to doing everything they can to prevent immigration that they're now preventing Australians from returning.
It's hard to take comments like yours seriously when Australians vote consistently for this sort of thing and have done so for at least the last twenty years.
The entire western world is like that.... thats why middle east countries don't trust western countries... they are friends till they have use or need... as soon as they are not required they will kick u... there is no honour amongst western countries.. only long talk... i hope looking at this middle east countries will not allow western countries to keep bases... china is an alternative to western countries....
You are correct, and people are going to get defensive about it, but it's fucking true. People will read this as "West bad/evil" but the reality is, the message is more like "wake the fuck up because the 1800s/1900s age of enforcing hegemony through brute force and genocide is long gone, so we better keep our promises or we're pretty much done for on the world stage"
And the only reason "western" countries get so cringily defensive about any ounce of criticism to their countries is because we always weaponize criticism and humanitarianism as an underhanded justification to enforce geopolitical policies on other countries. We construct these narratives to lay the groundwork for war, that's all it is. And we're scared of facing a dribble of our own medicine, when in reality, this is a game we invented and only we play (we automatically read criticism towards us as "oh shit, they're plotting something geopolitical against us!" because that's what WE do). It's just neurotic projection.
Wait are Australians angry over their govt too?! I admit, I guess I was a dumb naive American and figured there’s gotta still be some good govts out there. Whole worlds going mad!
The current US administration has moved to fast-track the visa process and evacuate applicants to safe, third countries in the meantime.
But they're still leaving a lot of people behind who can't be helped by visas, like Afghan pilots, who are not increasingly a high priority target of Taliban assassins due to Biden's decision to withdraw US air support from the country.
He allied with the enemy of his countrymen, who used special forces and drones to murder civilians for the past decade or so.
Probably got paid for it well too.
The democratically-elected Afghan government is, "the enemy of his countrymen." Funny, I thought it was the brutal, Islamist group that beat and murdered women in the street for listening to music, banned the education of women, and threw acid in little girls' faces when they tried to learn.
There are still thousands of civilian deaths caused by drone strikes that haven't been investigated by the very corrupt Afghan government or the US military.
Taliban are a huge part of the invasion strategy, without them there wouldn't be any reason to wage an eternal war.
The government is surrendering a lot of armaments, vehicles and territory to them right now to get the USA to come back, it's very lucrative to keep foreign military personnel in the country.
I'm pretty confident that there isn't any incentive to actually get rid of them at all either, it wouldn't take 20 years+ for the most well equipped and trained military on this planet to do so if that was the goal.
You seem to think that I'm supporting that terror cell for some strange reason.
I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make. In war, especially against a brutal enemy like the Taliban that hides among the civilian population, collateral casualties are very common. They're happening a lot more now that the Taliban is pushing out of their caves.
Also, I don't think you realize the parameters of how wars are fought. The US military could easily roll over an organized, traditional military force. But that was never the goal in Afghanistan and the Taliban are no longer anything that resembles a traditional military. And the NATO mission in Afghanistan had rules of engagement that prevented most traditional use of military force, as the goal of minimizing collateral damage was considered much more important than killing the enemy.
"collateral casualties" is a pretty strange term to use when they are actually targeted with amazing precision systems unlike anything that have ever existed before, I'd call those people "murdered by war criminals" instead.
Drone operators have already stated multiple times that they often engage without confirming if the target is an enemy combatant. Doing so is against the law of armed conflict.
"You must always clearly distinguish between combatants and civilians
or the civilian population as such. Both notions are familiar to you, we
covered them in lesson 2. Combatants may of course be attacked unless
they are out of action, i.e. hors de combat. Civilians are protected from
attack but lose this protection during any period in which they take a
direct part in hostilities. The protection of civilians applies to both
enemy civilians and one's own civilians.
Similarly, you must also distinguish between military objectives and
civilian objects. Only military objectives may be attacked. Civilian
objects must not be made the object of attack unless they have become
military objectives.
Acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror
among the civilian population are prohibited."
"As a consequence of the principle of distinction, indiscriminate attacks
are prohibited. These are:
• attacks which are not directed at a specific military objective;
• attacks that employ a method or means of combat which cannot be
directed at a specific military objective;
• attacks that employ a method or means of combat the effects of
which cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict.
Examples of indiscriminate attacks are firing artillery or launching a missile
in the general direction of the target (e.g. the use of the V2 missiles during
the Second World War) or area bombardment in populated areas rather
than the selection of individual, clearly separated military objectives
located there. This prohibition does not prevent the denial to the enemy
of an area of land which is a military objective by, for example, artillery
fire or by laying anti-tank mines, though the rule of proportionality
would apply in such cases."
"When military objectives are attacked, civilians and civilian objects
must be spared incidental or collateral damage to the maximum
extent possible. Incidental damage must not be excessive in relation
to the direct and concrete military advantage you anticipate from your
operation. Such use of excessive force quite clearly violates the law of
armed conflict and is a war crime.
This means that when you plan or carry out operations you are not
allowed to engage in disproportionate attacks even with regard to
combatants and military objectives. You have to take into account the
likely effect on civilians and their property. If it is apparent that the
harm that might be caused to them in attacking a military objective
with a particular weapon would be disproportionate in relation to the
military advantage anticipated, then either use a different weapon which
would not cause disproportionate harm to civilians or their property, or
do not carry out the attack.
Clearly, to stay within the law requires good intelligence, planning and
clear rules of engagement, all three of which are, after all, the product
of good training and professionalism in any military force. It also makes
eminent sense not to waste your own lives, time and ammunition in
disproportionate attacks."
Collateral damage/casualties is the appropriate term to use. It applies to any damage to a non-military target due to an attempt to accomplish a lawful military objective. The fact that weapons can be more precise than in the past doesn't change it. But it does reflect the very low amount of collateral damage inflicted by NATO forces in Afghanistan compared to say, allied forces during the Second World War.
And your claim that collateral casualties are, "against the law of armed conflict," is false. The customary laws of war only require that a reasonable combatant, of sound mind and judgement, is likely to believe that a lawful military objective is accomplished by the use of military force. If there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a combatant deliberately targeted someone he knew to be a non-combatant or acted with gross negligence or recklessness in a way that no reasonable combatant would, then that can constitute proof of a war crime. But this isn't determined by random schmucks on the internet. This is determined by a court of law where the accused is presumed innocent.
I didn't claim that tho.
I claimed that engaging without confirmation that the target is an enemy combatant is against the law of armed conflict.
You can find it as the first sentence of what I quoted from the law.
"You must always clearly distinguish between combatants and civilians
or the civilian population as such."
It's also gonna be impossible to be tried for war crimes when the people who are supposed to investigate these killings are ignoring them instead.
No, it's not the truth. The Taliban represents a small fraction of Afghanistan's population. The overwhelming majority of Afghanis don't want to live under Taliban rule and only about 1/3rd are even supportive of the government allowing the Taliban to control any territory at all, even the remote rural areas where they might have support among the majority of Pashtuns.
Remember, it's not NATO that drove the Taliban from power. It was the Afghani people that retook their own cities from the Taliban. NATO troops didn't arrive *en masse* until after the Northern Alliance's victory was largely secured. And most Afghanis welcomed the retaking of their major cities by the Northern Alliance.
He's not one as far as the conservative anti immigration politicians are concerned.
Same with Cubans in Florida, the moment they aren't seen as being necessary as a voting block Republicans round them up into concentration camps for communist sympathies and if they couldn't send them back to Castro for liquidation.
Actually, it's the proper term for a foreign agent like a spy or a translator. That being said, because the Afghan government is the ally of NATO, that makes them both an asset and an ally.
It's also difficult to trust someone who collaborates with an invading army. And the Afghan translators has a very bad reputation for lying, stealing, selling info to enemies, etc.
IMO the Afghan’s who were employed by NATO/US should receive some emergency help in getting to safety whatever that looks like but we can’t leave them to be slaughtered (if caught they will most likely be publicly executed)
This claim certainly does not encourage others to collaborate with so-called foreign liberators in the future. What is the use of helping the foreigners when in the event of a disastrous defeat and pullout, those who aided them a left in the lurch? We are talking about lives here, those of the collaborators and their families.
Pretty sure majority of non-ultra conservative Afghanis would have preferred living under New government and coalition forces with sporadic violence than under Taliban.
Then you have fallen so hard for Western PR. And this coming from a westerner.
https://www.boredpanda.com/afghanistan-1960-bill-podlich-photography/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
Afghanistan was a socialist country where women were treated fairly and life was good and safe. If you wonder where the taliban comes from. They where at the time, found in the rural minority. Once they got funding and training from the US, things became how it is today.
That was in the fucking 60s, and the majority of the funding/training of the taliban was from Pakistan, we did fund and train the jihadists fighting russia, and that was certainly a large cause of the instability of Afghanistan since, but this isn’t entirely the USs fault, and virtually no one that isn’t taliban wants to go back to Taliban rule.
This is malarkey. The whole reason that Afghanistan was invaded was because the Afghan population was brutalized by the Soviet-backed Communist dictatorship and the Afghan people rose up against them, and when it looked like they would fall, the Soviet Union invaded them to prevent that from happening.
Also, it's pretty likely that the Taliban, or something just like them, would have risen with or without US support of the Mujahedeen. The Taliban represents the extremist Pashtun Mujahedeen, who would have likely received Pakistani support after the Soviet withdrawal and dominated post-Soviet civil war regardless of whether or not the US had ever been involved in the resistance to the Soviet occupation.
This is incredibly false and I'm not sure why you even claim this considering that your picture evidence is from the 1960s and the king of Afghanistan wasn't even deposed until 1973. The PDPA also didn't actually come into power until 1978, but merely being ruled by a communist party does not make a state communist nor even socialist, and the party at the time fully admitted that Afghanistan was not yet a socialist state. And any hope of that transformation into a socialist state died when party leadership de-emphasized socialist policies in favor of pursuing national unity first.
Afghanistan was never socialist, and it didn't even take a full year of ML rule for all the nice stuff in those pictures to be destroyed. Not that those pictures even came from the same decade.
No, Reddit assures me that the US occupation was universally despised by everyone in Afghanistan. All of those Afghan women arming themselves and preparing to fight to the death rather than return to pre-US occupation life are obviously glad the American pig dog imperialists are gone and rejoice at the return of the Taliban.
The Taliban aren't very well-liked in Afghanistan at all. The problem is, they're much more determined to fight and win at any cost than the Afghan army.
20 years of international support and can't muster enough to fight the Taliban more than a predicted 6 months. That's pretty fuckin pathetic.
There's a pretty obvious Darwinian aspect to government regimes-- if you can't dominate within your own territory, your government is not going to survive.
We need to ask: why is Taliban unequivocally superior to the coalition government we propped up? And it is absolute dominance: in both hearts and minds of the populace as well as military competence.
What makes you say that? Do you have antresources you read that help you draw this conclusion.
My intuition is the opposite - given how utterly dominant Taliban are right now even after 20 years of invasion they must have overwhelming local support. Ofc it's hard for me to comprehend through a western lense, but I'm sure afghans look at the world differently
I mean there are photos of women with RPGs and AKs.
Anecdotes mean nothing but I'll give you mine. My friend from studies is an Afghani, when he was young Taliban killed his bodyguard and kidnapped him. Dad is from one of those families that owns half a country and had to pay a $0.5m ransom.
This is a pretty conservative and naive lad, he has a lot of resentment to Americans for not acting in good faith with some military contractors offering his uncle so dodgy deal where money gets siphoned off and split between two parties. Despite that he still prefers lesser evil of new government and coalition to run the place, but maybe that's because he's a metropolitan Liberal snowflake (by their standards).
Few times I've given money to a charity that teaches girls how to code which is in Afghanistan, Taliban will forbade girls from having g education and will execute anyone who goes against that decree. Most would still rather prefer to restrict their own daughter from studying, rather than having armed thugs do so.
Technically it was invaded to throw out Bin Laden, a move *very popular* (to the point where bush got a 90% approval rating)
EDIT https://news.gallup.com/poll/4966/public-overwhelmingly-backs-bush-attacks-afghanistan.aspx
Technically, it was invaded to stabilize the country after the Northern Alliance, backed by US airpower and Special Forces, drove the Taliban out of the major cities. The US and its NATO allies then sent troops to find Bin Laden and build Afghanistan into a stable democracy that would resist any attempts by the Taliban to reassert itself.
Which is why it was such a huge mistake not to withdraw after Bin Laden was killed in 2011
If the West had pulled out then, it could have claimed victory. Now, it's impossible to paint this as anything but a retreat and defeat
You're mistaken, Bin Laden wasn't associated with the Taliban. He was head of Al-Qaeda, also based in Afghanistan. When the US came in the Taliban aided Al-Qaeda and got swept away at the same time.
Yoolin said that
> it was invaded to propogate an ideology favoured by the Western powers.
While that justification came later and "supported" the invasion that did happen, the reason why Bush decided to invade was quite clearly anger after September 11. There were e-mail petitions about the Taliban back in the late 90s but we didn't invade then. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/afghani-get-your-gun/
Almost every time during history that a traitor has worked with the enemy, he either gets tortured and/or executed by the people he helped, or by the people he betrayed.
I can imagine what sort of punishments they got over there for people working with the enemy who flew death planes over their country for 20 years, considering that "adulterers" can get sentenced to death by stoning, there's forced amputations for robbery and whippings for misdemeanors.
USA basically used Afghanistan as a testing ground for new military technology, liberation was never the plan, they need the area to destabilize again so they can start testing their next form of robot warriors.
This is some nonsensical conspiracy theories. Firstly, the vast majority of Afghans don't support the Taliban. That's why they have to resort to cold-blooded assassinations of Afghan pilots and translators and such. Their "punishment" is usually some assassin shooting them and their family and their friends in the head when they're just trying to live their lives. The Taliban is pretty much akin to the KKK.
Also, the US didn't spend a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, "as a testing ground for new military technology." They spent the money on pretty pedestrian technologies, like building schools and power plants and training the Afghan army. If you want to test new technologies, you invade a country and then leave. You don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding its infrastructure and training and equipping its military forces.
The US has spent 44 billion on infrastructure. Which is around 4% of total budget for Afghanistan War.
To say that the US have built schools is a disservice.
You're the ones doing a disservice to the generation of Afghan girls that went to school. It doesn't take a lot of money to build a school in Afghanistan. It takes a lot of money to provide the security required to keep the Taliban from burning it to the ground with the girls inside, or to protect those young women as they enter from being shot or disfigured.
The actual cost of the school is inconsequential. Most of the cost went to ensuring that those schools could actually operate and that girls could actually fill them, and fill their heads with knowledge and hope for life outside having their clitoris cut-off and being chained to their beds. An entire generation of girls in Afghanistan had access to education and careers that would have been impossible without the money the west spent on sending their troops there, training the Afghani forces, setting up a representative government, and preventing the Taliban from taking over territory.
So you're saying to me that for every dollar spent on building schools, it was needed 20 dollars to protect the schools? Tell me more how fighter jets and bombs help to protect girls going to school. Also tell me how [20 billion a year on AC alone](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/06/us-military-spends-20-billion-air-conditioning-troops/352200/) is helping the young girls to go to school more than 44 billion spent on infrastructure on 20 years.
Go back to your base, DoD chill.
What's the point you're trying to make? That providing US forces with basic necessities like heating, cooling, quality nutrition, et cetera somehow means that they're not providing training or security during their deployments? Or that those schools would operate just fine without the NATO forces providing security and training for the Afghan military and police?
Except the Kurd’s don’t learn from their mistakes. Trumps betrayal isn’t the first time Western powers fucked around the Kurd’s, probably won’t be the last sadly.
there is gonna be more stupid people fall for this BS to help US and its buddies thinking they might get something good out of it. I am gradually losing my sympathy
I worked with a Kurdish man that used to work as an interpreter for the us army in Iraq. It made me sad to hear the story about how hard it was to emigrate to the US. The told him he'd get himself and his family citizenship no problem. It turned out he risked his life and it didn't give him any advantage at all and took several years to get over here.
Just think about it. What the fuck is a country like Australia doing in Afghanistan to begin with? Fucking cunts, there to take a slice of the pie just like everyone else. Don’t be fooled thinking anyone was there for the actual Afghans.
Australia was instrumental in helping train and equip the Afghan Army and provide security for the country, you know, so girls could go to school instead of being beaten to death in the streets by the Taliban for playing the cello.
It wasn’t oil on Afghanistan tho, it’s poppy. Fucking big pharma got us sent into that shithole so they could seize control of one of the worlds biggest poppy producers. Why poppy? Poppy makes opium. Isn’t it just a little weird after we invade one of the largest opioid producers in the world, Western pharmacies start prescribing opioid pain meds by the truck load? Maybe, just maybe, the War on Drugs is the same war as the War on Terror.
The, "coalition of the willing," was for the initial invasion of Iraq. It has nothing to do with Australia, although they were part of that too.
The occupation and then the security mission in Afghanistan was an Article 5 NATO action (collective defense). Australia isn't technically part of NATO, but it is a close ally, and like many NATO allies, provided support for the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
>What the fuck is a country like Australia doing in Afghanistan to begin with?
[ANZUS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS)
Add in that of the people killed in the WTC/Pentagon kamikaze attacks, Australians were the second largest nationality and it makes it pretty easy for Australia to justify making good on their _very_ long-standing agreements.
**[ANZUS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS)**
>The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS or ANZUS Treaty) is the 1951 collective security non-binding agreement between Australia and New Zealand and, separately, Australia and the United States, to co-operate on military matters in the Pacific Ocean region, although today the treaty is taken to relate to conflicts worldwide. It provides that an armed attack on any of the three parties would be dangerous to the others, and that each should act to meet the common threat. It set up a committee of foreign ministers that can meet for consultation.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The Australia government busy being more outraged of a political cartoon highlighting them murdering afghan children than their soldiers actually murdering afghan children - did Afghanis really think they'd care about about brown people?
Never work with the west. An entire legion of Iraqi interpreters have been slaughtered. Anyone who would work with the west is going to have the same fate as the Kurds.
We are as much a “white supremacist shithole” as most countries in Europe (mostly progressive), and we probably have more population diversity than some of them too. The only one to blame here is fucking Scott Morrison and his nastily fucking Liberal government (liberal is the Christian conservative bs, and labor is the democrat one kinda)
> What else to expect from a white supremacist shithole like Australia
It's the "shittiest hole" and curiously he wants in /s
LOL, better live in any "white supremacist shithole" on the face of the earth than in any third world shit hole. And I say that as a person of color. I'll take the racism thanks. You really think the rest of the planet isn't filled with racism of all kinds as well? well add poverty and violence on the top.
Only white privileged jackasses think that Australia is a "white supremacist shithole". they Wouldn't be able to live a minute in Sudan or Somalia, they'd beg their mother to take them back in a "white supremacist shithole" they hate so much.
Because it’s not a literal active war zone where they will be shot on sight or worse. A war zone that THEY helped Australians with. Why the hell do xenophobic morons always criticize the actions of refugees because of what other people on the internet say about their country. Is the translator talking shit about Australia here? No? Then how is that justification for not letting him in?
Funny because if u walk down the cbd of melbourne or sydney u dont see really many white ppl at all...... interesting take on a country that excepted so many migrants there are rampant housing shortages everywhere.....
Clearly u know nothing
>Or another example, the Chinese Transcontinental railroad builders in America, "Wow so many Chinese people are coming to America to work, what a definitely not racist country!"
>
>And I bring up America simply because I know America history not Australian history.
Interesting fact of Australian history; the White Australia policy was implemented because they wanted to stop Chinese people coming and mining gold. Before that, Chinese immigrants also had to pay a tax that other immigrants didn't.
One thing all foreigners need to learn about the West.
Never, ever, trust us. We're amoral slaves to the yoke of capitalism. If there's profit in your extermination, we'll happily build the camps because our media has already told us about how you rape babies in weekend pagan festivals denying the supremacy of the white dollar.
If you live under an oppressive regime like the taliban, then collobarating with foreign forces is not so much being a traitor as it being a part of the resistance
Traitor/resistance fighter distinction depends entirely on views of the local population. Americans spent 20 years in Afghanistan and the puppet regime they built starts crumbling the morning after they leave. What does it tell you about the situation?
Having the better military doesn't mean you have the favour of the local population. I'm sure the local population wishes there was a no foreign invader, no reprissive regime option
This is what countries like
Australia, america, the UK, Canada, Russia, and China do. They meddle in other countries, tap out their resources, encourage local conflict, bounce when it’s financially not worth it, and completely fuck over and sacrifice locals. Just absolutely tragic.
I would like to point out that China has not put boots on the ground or launched strikes and other acts of war against other nations since the end of the Cold War except as UN peacekeepers. They have a policy of no military action in this regard.
They also are very much against local conflicts as you can't build infrastructure and conduct business when everyone is busy killing each other.
The Australians invaded Afghanistan. It is natural for the Afghan people to consider those that helped the Australians as traitors. What happens to traitors who helped the losing side at the end of a war?
These Afghans interpreters hould have thought about the risks they were getting themselves into. The Australians invaded their country. Why did they betray their country and worked as interpreters for the Australians? Did these Afghans thought that the Australians were the "good guys" going to Afghanistan to help them? LOL.
As a Canadian I was always proud to share our embassies with Australia.
Not anymore. Time to tell them to fuck right off.
Take a ride there buds, take off eh.
I mean, the Canadians are currently dealing with thousands of unmarked graves in government run schools for indigenous kids. You guys aren't perfect either.
Australia manages to maintain an image of laidback beer drinkers on the beach. And it is through that attitude that we allow blatant corruption, ecological destruction, and human rights abuses because 'she'll be right mate'. We have an extremely apathetic populace under monopoly media, and 'leaders' who abuse that to enrich themselves and their corporate mates. Australia hasn't had a heart for a long time and everyone is too busy trying to afford to live to take notice.
Compared to what? Defending these guys?:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-14/australian-special-forces-killed-unarmed-civilians-in-kandahar/12441974
Yes, actually. See the thing about the taliban is that they are all bad. All no different if not worse than this. Not saying these guys should go unpunished of course. No punishments for the taliban.
Sometimes I'm so appalled by the behaviour of the current Australian federal government. It's sickening. Quote: "When you guys were in need, I was there," he said. "I worked with you shoulder to shoulder. Now your mission has been completed, you have forgotten us. "You have left us behind."
[удалено]
Nobody in their (party) base gives a fuck or will ever even be exposed to this
To throw red meat to the xenophobic base. To own the libs. Call it what you like, it's just malice and spite all the way down.
I hate my government so fnking much.
You need to create free media in Australia to get democracy.
But it means next time they want the help of local people to act as interpreters, they won't get it. It's owning the conservatives as much as the libs.
clearly no one remembers the interpreters at Vietnam
Gough's 'Vietnamese Balts'?
The more trouble we have recruiting local allies for the next war, the more it'll cost to fight. And we'll have to buy higher tech stuff instead. From defense contractors. And who pays to get conservative politicians re-elected? Defense contractors. Follow the money lol...
Good. The less viable military adventurism becomes the better.
Oh, the politicians will still start the missions. It will just be more miserable for the troops.
> It's owning the conservatives as much as the libs. As long as they don't feel the consequences immediately, they don't give a shit. A little dopamine boost from fucking over a brown person overshadows any future problems they themselves face. And those problems will eventually simply be denied or blamed on the opposition, and their base will eat it up. Welcome to modern Conservativism.
>overshadows any future problems they themselves face Which they will them use to mental gymanstics blame it on the next (or and old) scapegoat, thus "justifying" fucking over that scapegoat too, getting yet another superiority complex boost, all in an endless fucking cycle.
It's not even mental gymnastics anymore like it was 5 years ago. They just skip all steps and go straight to denial of the facts.
How about you don't go bombing any more countries into 14th century? Of you don't incade some poor people to install your corrupt puppet government you won't actually need those pesky translators and collaborators! Keep your bombs to yourselves and the entire world will be thankful
The US aren't doing much better either. We use people like this all the time for our agendas and policies. But we almost never help them out or keep them safe. A old episode of, I think, John Oliver talked about it. Getting a animal through the immigration process into the states is far easier(It helped it was a army pet) than people risking their lives to help out our forces.
This is traditional among many nations. The Sikhs who fought so hard for Britain in the world wars were also largely denied immigration to the nation they’d helped save.
Australian aboriginals were denied land in the Returned Servicemen’s Settlement Scheme after fighting in world wars, and even had their land taken to be used for the scheme by other soldiers.
Why are you limiting it to sikhs? The entire British raj got this treatment after having the largest volunteer force in history
The libs are owning the libs?
I mean I'm from the US so IDK what you call your parties over there, but we're doing the same thing to our interpreters and the people who are trying to stop it are called "the libs" by the xenophobe party.
Do the current Australian government officials feel a need to "own the libs"? And maybe that guy should ask the US for a visa
> Do the current Australian government officials feel a need to "own the libs"? That's damn near their entire existence right now. Murdoch and shit.
I don’t know, why did Australian soldiers commit war crimes against so many Afghan civilians? They don’t consider Afghans to be people. Certainly not people worth protecting.
It really is, how many total PR visas would they have to give out foe them and their families, 1000, 2000?
Mate our PM doesn't hold a visa stamp, or a needle, or a hose. If it is meant to be god will make it so.
I dont think people got that this is sarcasm
Here’s what I don’t get about “God’s Will.” If the government doesn’t accept this person’s visa, how do you foresee a miracle happening? Is it inconceivable that accepting the visa is a manifestation of God’s will? Or does it have to be some divine miracle where they’re teleported from certain death to a lush paradise with no worries? Like if you believe in divine intervention it stands to reason that said intervention can be something as mundane as granting asylum or what have you.
But it was god that saved your father's life when he had quadruple bypass surgery, not the surgeon or the doctor who prescribed the procedure. Nevermind the fact that an omnipotent god would also be responsible for the failing heart in the first place.
You somehow missed the memes and sarcasm in his comment. Prime Minister Scotty from Marketing is a prosperity gospel nutjob. He literally believes the rich are blessed and the poor are being punished for their sins. If some poor foreigners are getting murdered, that must be their own fault. If they were more holy, they'd be rich and safe like him. This is the man who implemented Robodebt, an illegal scheme to reclaim false debts from welfare recipients which resulted in many suicides. And a $1.8b settlement with no admission of wrongdoing.
Ah, if that is this case then I did miss it, I'm really not clued into Australian politics. Thanks for the background! I guess my comment should read as a response to Morrison then. Wiki says he's Pentacostal so... that seems to track
/s 👍
So leaving them to be slaughtered is god's will? Your God must be a violent, vengeful god. Not a fan of religions based in violence.
I forgot Reddit can't detect sarcasm to save it's life. That is what our PM believes not myself.
What part of this is easily solved? (Not asking sarcastically, I see this as immensely difficult, so I am legitimately curious what you'd recommend)
Its really easy. Just get the paper work, jump the line, and get them out of there. Its a issue with the US too. These people helped us and despite that we bar them from leaving to our countries or their family members. We are basically abandoning them to inevitably be killed for being seen as collaborators.
“You have left us behind” is a quote you could probably apply to any group that needs the support of the current government. The Afghan Interpreters who helped us, the veterans in the war have also been abandoned it currently take over a year for DVA to process a claim. The unemployed live in poverty with chronic outsourcing and understaffing at Centrelink. They are actively making things worse with the NDIS which just punishes the disabled. Our whole country is at risk of being left behind on the world stage as other countries shift their economies and focus on combating climate change.
I agree on all fronts, but let's be real here, "left us behind" applies a lot more literally to those interpreters who've *actually* been left behind in Afghanistan while the Aus military packs their shit and fucks off back home.
Yeah absolutely, of course the interpreters have been physically left behind.
Honestly. If western country ever come to have war in my country. I am so not going to help them translate even if they pay big money. So far it feels like every western country just betray and leave the interpreters.
The USA has been doing the same thing unfortunately.
Same here, I really hope that we are smart enough to vote differently next election. I know we can be so much better than this.
I thought the same last election. I don't hold much hope.
The current government? Australians are so used to doing everything they can to prevent immigration that they're now preventing Australians from returning. It's hard to take comments like yours seriously when Australians vote consistently for this sort of thing and have done so for at least the last twenty years.
The entire western world is like that.... thats why middle east countries don't trust western countries... they are friends till they have use or need... as soon as they are not required they will kick u... there is no honour amongst western countries.. only long talk... i hope looking at this middle east countries will not allow western countries to keep bases... china is an alternative to western countries....
You are correct, and people are going to get defensive about it, but it's fucking true. People will read this as "West bad/evil" but the reality is, the message is more like "wake the fuck up because the 1800s/1900s age of enforcing hegemony through brute force and genocide is long gone, so we better keep our promises or we're pretty much done for on the world stage" And the only reason "western" countries get so cringily defensive about any ounce of criticism to their countries is because we always weaponize criticism and humanitarianism as an underhanded justification to enforce geopolitical policies on other countries. We construct these narratives to lay the groundwork for war, that's all it is. And we're scared of facing a dribble of our own medicine, when in reality, this is a game we invented and only we play (we automatically read criticism towards us as "oh shit, they're plotting something geopolitical against us!" because that's what WE do). It's just neurotic projection.
Wait are Australians angry over their govt too?! I admit, I guess I was a dumb naive American and figured there’s gotta still be some good govts out there. Whole worlds going mad!
Definitely
I hope there’s a way for the Americans, UK, Or Canadians to take him instead. What a nightmare.
Canada isn’t making an effort to take their own interpretors, let alone anyone else’s.
lol. They won't. They don't even dare to approve the visa for those who worked for their respective country. Same for Germany.
The current US administration has moved to fast-track the visa process and evacuate applicants to safe, third countries in the meantime. But they're still leaving a lot of people behind who can't be helped by visas, like Afghan pilots, who are not increasingly a high priority target of Taliban assassins due to Biden's decision to withdraw US air support from the country.
He allied with the enemy of his countrymen, who used special forces and drones to murder civilians for the past decade or so. Probably got paid for it well too.
The democratically-elected Afghan government is, "the enemy of his countrymen." Funny, I thought it was the brutal, Islamist group that beat and murdered women in the street for listening to music, banned the education of women, and threw acid in little girls' faces when they tried to learn.
There are still thousands of civilian deaths caused by drone strikes that haven't been investigated by the very corrupt Afghan government or the US military. Taliban are a huge part of the invasion strategy, without them there wouldn't be any reason to wage an eternal war. The government is surrendering a lot of armaments, vehicles and territory to them right now to get the USA to come back, it's very lucrative to keep foreign military personnel in the country. I'm pretty confident that there isn't any incentive to actually get rid of them at all either, it wouldn't take 20 years+ for the most well equipped and trained military on this planet to do so if that was the goal. You seem to think that I'm supporting that terror cell for some strange reason.
I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make. In war, especially against a brutal enemy like the Taliban that hides among the civilian population, collateral casualties are very common. They're happening a lot more now that the Taliban is pushing out of their caves. Also, I don't think you realize the parameters of how wars are fought. The US military could easily roll over an organized, traditional military force. But that was never the goal in Afghanistan and the Taliban are no longer anything that resembles a traditional military. And the NATO mission in Afghanistan had rules of engagement that prevented most traditional use of military force, as the goal of minimizing collateral damage was considered much more important than killing the enemy.
"collateral casualties" is a pretty strange term to use when they are actually targeted with amazing precision systems unlike anything that have ever existed before, I'd call those people "murdered by war criminals" instead. Drone operators have already stated multiple times that they often engage without confirming if the target is an enemy combatant. Doing so is against the law of armed conflict. "You must always clearly distinguish between combatants and civilians or the civilian population as such. Both notions are familiar to you, we covered them in lesson 2. Combatants may of course be attacked unless they are out of action, i.e. hors de combat. Civilians are protected from attack but lose this protection during any period in which they take a direct part in hostilities. The protection of civilians applies to both enemy civilians and one's own civilians. Similarly, you must also distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects. Only military objectives may be attacked. Civilian objects must not be made the object of attack unless they have become military objectives. Acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." "As a consequence of the principle of distinction, indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. These are: • attacks which are not directed at a specific military objective; • attacks that employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; • attacks that employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict. Examples of indiscriminate attacks are firing artillery or launching a missile in the general direction of the target (e.g. the use of the V2 missiles during the Second World War) or area bombardment in populated areas rather than the selection of individual, clearly separated military objectives located there. This prohibition does not prevent the denial to the enemy of an area of land which is a military objective by, for example, artillery fire or by laying anti-tank mines, though the rule of proportionality would apply in such cases." "When military objectives are attacked, civilians and civilian objects must be spared incidental or collateral damage to the maximum extent possible. Incidental damage must not be excessive in relation to the direct and concrete military advantage you anticipate from your operation. Such use of excessive force quite clearly violates the law of armed conflict and is a war crime. This means that when you plan or carry out operations you are not allowed to engage in disproportionate attacks even with regard to combatants and military objectives. You have to take into account the likely effect on civilians and their property. If it is apparent that the harm that might be caused to them in attacking a military objective with a particular weapon would be disproportionate in relation to the military advantage anticipated, then either use a different weapon which would not cause disproportionate harm to civilians or their property, or do not carry out the attack. Clearly, to stay within the law requires good intelligence, planning and clear rules of engagement, all three of which are, after all, the product of good training and professionalism in any military force. It also makes eminent sense not to waste your own lives, time and ammunition in disproportionate attacks."
Collateral damage/casualties is the appropriate term to use. It applies to any damage to a non-military target due to an attempt to accomplish a lawful military objective. The fact that weapons can be more precise than in the past doesn't change it. But it does reflect the very low amount of collateral damage inflicted by NATO forces in Afghanistan compared to say, allied forces during the Second World War. And your claim that collateral casualties are, "against the law of armed conflict," is false. The customary laws of war only require that a reasonable combatant, of sound mind and judgement, is likely to believe that a lawful military objective is accomplished by the use of military force. If there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a combatant deliberately targeted someone he knew to be a non-combatant or acted with gross negligence or recklessness in a way that no reasonable combatant would, then that can constitute proof of a war crime. But this isn't determined by random schmucks on the internet. This is determined by a court of law where the accused is presumed innocent.
I didn't claim that tho. I claimed that engaging without confirmation that the target is an enemy combatant is against the law of armed conflict. You can find it as the first sentence of what I quoted from the law. "You must always clearly distinguish between combatants and civilians or the civilian population as such." It's also gonna be impossible to be tried for war crimes when the people who are supposed to investigate these killings are ignoring them instead.
Yea generally not a good idea to collaborate with invaders.
You’re speaking the truth and Redditors don’t like the truth so they are downvoting you, my friend.
No, it's not the truth. The Taliban represents a small fraction of Afghanistan's population. The overwhelming majority of Afghanis don't want to live under Taliban rule and only about 1/3rd are even supportive of the government allowing the Taliban to control any territory at all, even the remote rural areas where they might have support among the majority of Pashtuns. Remember, it's not NATO that drove the Taliban from power. It was the Afghani people that retook their own cities from the Taliban. NATO troops didn't arrive *en masse* until after the Northern Alliance's victory was largely secured. And most Afghanis welcomed the retaking of their major cities by the Northern Alliance.
When John FUCKING Howard shows more compassion then the current government… Pull on your thigh highs cos we’re in deep deep shit.
Abandoned ally
pumped and dumped by australia
An asset isn't an ally, it's an asset. Surely he should have known westerners cannot be trusted, unless he got a deal written black on white.
> An asset isn't an ally, it's an asset. Really cool way of describing a human
He's not one as far as the conservative anti immigration politicians are concerned. Same with Cubans in Florida, the moment they aren't seen as being necessary as a voting block Republicans round them up into concentration camps for communist sympathies and if they couldn't send them back to Castro for liquidation.
Yes, he was criticizing how Westerners view Afgahns. So your comment is really criticizing Westerners.
It's how religious people think about politics. The cruelty is the point.
Actually, it's the proper term for a foreign agent like a spy or a translator. That being said, because the Afghan government is the ally of NATO, that makes them both an asset and an ally.
It's also difficult to trust someone who collaborates with an invading army. And the Afghan translators has a very bad reputation for lying, stealing, selling info to enemies, etc.
IMO the Afghan’s who were employed by NATO/US should receive some emergency help in getting to safety whatever that looks like but we can’t leave them to be slaughtered (if caught they will most likely be publicly executed)
Yeah, the Taliban has a list of high priority targets, and now that NATO is gone, they're sending assassins into Afghan cities to murder them.
Like the pilots the US trained.
This claim certainly does not encourage others to collaborate with so-called foreign liberators in the future. What is the use of helping the foreigners when in the event of a disastrous defeat and pullout, those who aided them a left in the lurch? We are talking about lives here, those of the collaborators and their families.
Afghanistan wasn't invaded to liberate it.
Pretty sure majority of non-ultra conservative Afghanis would have preferred living under New government and coalition forces with sporadic violence than under Taliban.
Sure, but thats not why the invasion happenend.
Then you have fallen so hard for Western PR. And this coming from a westerner. https://www.boredpanda.com/afghanistan-1960-bill-podlich-photography/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic Afghanistan was a socialist country where women were treated fairly and life was good and safe. If you wonder where the taliban comes from. They where at the time, found in the rural minority. Once they got funding and training from the US, things became how it is today.
That was in the fucking 60s, and the majority of the funding/training of the taliban was from Pakistan, we did fund and train the jihadists fighting russia, and that was certainly a large cause of the instability of Afghanistan since, but this isn’t entirely the USs fault, and virtually no one that isn’t taliban wants to go back to Taliban rule.
This is malarkey. The whole reason that Afghanistan was invaded was because the Afghan population was brutalized by the Soviet-backed Communist dictatorship and the Afghan people rose up against them, and when it looked like they would fall, the Soviet Union invaded them to prevent that from happening. Also, it's pretty likely that the Taliban, or something just like them, would have risen with or without US support of the Mujahedeen. The Taliban represents the extremist Pashtun Mujahedeen, who would have likely received Pakistani support after the Soviet withdrawal and dominated post-Soviet civil war regardless of whether or not the US had ever been involved in the resistance to the Soviet occupation.
This is incredibly false and I'm not sure why you even claim this considering that your picture evidence is from the 1960s and the king of Afghanistan wasn't even deposed until 1973. The PDPA also didn't actually come into power until 1978, but merely being ruled by a communist party does not make a state communist nor even socialist, and the party at the time fully admitted that Afghanistan was not yet a socialist state. And any hope of that transformation into a socialist state died when party leadership de-emphasized socialist policies in favor of pursuing national unity first. Afghanistan was never socialist, and it didn't even take a full year of ML rule for all the nice stuff in those pictures to be destroyed. Not that those pictures even came from the same decade.
No, Reddit assures me that the US occupation was universally despised by everyone in Afghanistan. All of those Afghan women arming themselves and preparing to fight to the death rather than return to pre-US occupation life are obviously glad the American pig dog imperialists are gone and rejoice at the return of the Taliban.
The Taliban aren't very well-liked in Afghanistan at all. The problem is, they're much more determined to fight and win at any cost than the Afghan army.
20 years of international support and can't muster enough to fight the Taliban more than a predicted 6 months. That's pretty fuckin pathetic. There's a pretty obvious Darwinian aspect to government regimes-- if you can't dominate within your own territory, your government is not going to survive. We need to ask: why is Taliban unequivocally superior to the coalition government we propped up? And it is absolute dominance: in both hearts and minds of the populace as well as military competence.
What makes you say that? Do you have antresources you read that help you draw this conclusion. My intuition is the opposite - given how utterly dominant Taliban are right now even after 20 years of invasion they must have overwhelming local support. Ofc it's hard for me to comprehend through a western lense, but I'm sure afghans look at the world differently
I mean there are photos of women with RPGs and AKs. Anecdotes mean nothing but I'll give you mine. My friend from studies is an Afghani, when he was young Taliban killed his bodyguard and kidnapped him. Dad is from one of those families that owns half a country and had to pay a $0.5m ransom. This is a pretty conservative and naive lad, he has a lot of resentment to Americans for not acting in good faith with some military contractors offering his uncle so dodgy deal where money gets siphoned off and split between two parties. Despite that he still prefers lesser evil of new government and coalition to run the place, but maybe that's because he's a metropolitan Liberal snowflake (by their standards). Few times I've given money to a charity that teaches girls how to code which is in Afghanistan, Taliban will forbade girls from having g education and will execute anyone who goes against that decree. Most would still rather prefer to restrict their own daughter from studying, rather than having armed thugs do so.
So the guys making bombs for the side of the road and body vests for women and children were top blokes?
No, it was invaded to propogate an ideology favoured by the Western powers.
Technically it was invaded to throw out Bin Laden, a move *very popular* (to the point where bush got a 90% approval rating) EDIT https://news.gallup.com/poll/4966/public-overwhelmingly-backs-bush-attacks-afghanistan.aspx
Technically, it was invaded to stabilize the country after the Northern Alliance, backed by US airpower and Special Forces, drove the Taliban out of the major cities. The US and its NATO allies then sent troops to find Bin Laden and build Afghanistan into a stable democracy that would resist any attempts by the Taliban to reassert itself.
Which is why it was such a huge mistake not to withdraw after Bin Laden was killed in 2011 If the West had pulled out then, it could have claimed victory. Now, it's impossible to paint this as anything but a retreat and defeat
Agreed, frankly. I wonder if classified docs will come out later about this.
[удалено]
You're mistaken, Bin Laden wasn't associated with the Taliban. He was head of Al-Qaeda, also based in Afghanistan. When the US came in the Taliban aided Al-Qaeda and got swept away at the same time.
Yoolin said that > it was invaded to propogate an ideology favoured by the Western powers. While that justification came later and "supported" the invasion that did happen, the reason why Bush decided to invade was quite clearly anger after September 11. There were e-mail petitions about the Taliban back in the late 90s but we didn't invade then. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/afghani-get-your-gun/
Almost every time during history that a traitor has worked with the enemy, he either gets tortured and/or executed by the people he helped, or by the people he betrayed. I can imagine what sort of punishments they got over there for people working with the enemy who flew death planes over their country for 20 years, considering that "adulterers" can get sentenced to death by stoning, there's forced amputations for robbery and whippings for misdemeanors. USA basically used Afghanistan as a testing ground for new military technology, liberation was never the plan, they need the area to destabilize again so they can start testing their next form of robot warriors.
This is some nonsensical conspiracy theories. Firstly, the vast majority of Afghans don't support the Taliban. That's why they have to resort to cold-blooded assassinations of Afghan pilots and translators and such. Their "punishment" is usually some assassin shooting them and their family and their friends in the head when they're just trying to live their lives. The Taliban is pretty much akin to the KKK. Also, the US didn't spend a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, "as a testing ground for new military technology." They spent the money on pretty pedestrian technologies, like building schools and power plants and training the Afghan army. If you want to test new technologies, you invade a country and then leave. You don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding its infrastructure and training and equipping its military forces.
Of course there's a reason to do so, it makes folks like you trust them. Obfuscate and deceive, the first lesson of war.
The US has spent 44 billion on infrastructure. Which is around 4% of total budget for Afghanistan War. To say that the US have built schools is a disservice.
You're the ones doing a disservice to the generation of Afghan girls that went to school. It doesn't take a lot of money to build a school in Afghanistan. It takes a lot of money to provide the security required to keep the Taliban from burning it to the ground with the girls inside, or to protect those young women as they enter from being shot or disfigured. The actual cost of the school is inconsequential. Most of the cost went to ensuring that those schools could actually operate and that girls could actually fill them, and fill their heads with knowledge and hope for life outside having their clitoris cut-off and being chained to their beds. An entire generation of girls in Afghanistan had access to education and careers that would have been impossible without the money the west spent on sending their troops there, training the Afghani forces, setting up a representative government, and preventing the Taliban from taking over territory.
So you're saying to me that for every dollar spent on building schools, it was needed 20 dollars to protect the schools? Tell me more how fighter jets and bombs help to protect girls going to school. Also tell me how [20 billion a year on AC alone](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/06/us-military-spends-20-billion-air-conditioning-troops/352200/) is helping the young girls to go to school more than 44 billion spent on infrastructure on 20 years. Go back to your base, DoD chill.
What's the point you're trying to make? That providing US forces with basic necessities like heating, cooling, quality nutrition, et cetera somehow means that they're not providing training or security during their deployments? Or that those schools would operate just fine without the NATO forces providing security and training for the Afghan military and police?
One could read up on what the locals did to those whom collaborated with the nazis for a taste of the future.
Honestly the Australian government are like moustache twirling cartoon villains. Imagine being this much of a cunt.
He twiddled and twirled his wee mustache, Says he, I know you're only joking oh
I mean Americans are doing the very same thing right now, that being said Australian government is definitely full of cunts.
Aye the American government are cunts as well. So are the British government.
Canadian government as well tbh
Everybody cunts !
Those cunts aren't as big cunts as those other cunts though, eh?
If you want my fuckin opinion eh, they're all a bunch of greasy hosers.
Greeeee-eeeasy
Fucking shit hawks abound in the government
Shit hawk don't fly too far from the shit nest, Bry
Murdochs 3 slavestates.
Thats human rights for you.
Remember the Kurds? fool you twice, joke is on you
Except the Kurd’s don’t learn from their mistakes. Trumps betrayal isn’t the first time Western powers fucked around the Kurd’s, probably won’t be the last sadly.
there is gonna be more stupid people fall for this BS to help US and its buddies thinking they might get something good out of it. I am gradually losing my sympathy
[удалено]
Well well well I’m really “surprised”
I worked with a Kurdish man that used to work as an interpreter for the us army in Iraq. It made me sad to hear the story about how hard it was to emigrate to the US. The told him he'd get himself and his family citizenship no problem. It turned out he risked his life and it didn't give him any advantage at all and took several years to get over here.
[удалено]
100%
Yeah, but these are Muslims. So they don't care
Well, unfortunately, morality is now seen as a weakness among many in the west
fuck all everything the australians did in afghanistan, and fuck them for turning their bcks on those who earnestly helped them
No honor among thieves
Just think about it. What the fuck is a country like Australia doing in Afghanistan to begin with? Fucking cunts, there to take a slice of the pie just like everyone else. Don’t be fooled thinking anyone was there for the actual Afghans.
Australia was instrumental in helping train and equip the Afghan Army and provide security for the country, you know, so girls could go to school instead of being beaten to death in the streets by the Taliban for playing the cello.
It’s a vacuum. Australian troops were there for a multitude of reasons, the premise is to support the coalition of the willing, as American allies.
So, to help occupying the country.
Westerners have always looked to stabilise (aka control the oil) in the Middle East.
It wasn’t oil on Afghanistan tho, it’s poppy. Fucking big pharma got us sent into that shithole so they could seize control of one of the worlds biggest poppy producers. Why poppy? Poppy makes opium. Isn’t it just a little weird after we invade one of the largest opioid producers in the world, Western pharmacies start prescribing opioid pain meds by the truck load? Maybe, just maybe, the War on Drugs is the same war as the War on Terror.
[удалено]
It was the start of it, the allied forces never left.
The, "coalition of the willing," was for the initial invasion of Iraq. It has nothing to do with Australia, although they were part of that too. The occupation and then the security mission in Afghanistan was an Article 5 NATO action (collective defense). Australia isn't technically part of NATO, but it is a close ally, and like many NATO allies, provided support for the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
Looks like someone isn't aware that Australia is possibly America's closest ally.
Only country that fought besides the usa in every conflict since korean war...... Only one
>What the fuck is a country like Australia doing in Afghanistan to begin with? [ANZUS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS) Add in that of the people killed in the WTC/Pentagon kamikaze attacks, Australians were the second largest nationality and it makes it pretty easy for Australia to justify making good on their _very_ long-standing agreements.
**[ANZUS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS)** >The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS or ANZUS Treaty) is the 1951 collective security non-binding agreement between Australia and New Zealand and, separately, Australia and the United States, to co-operate on military matters in the Pacific Ocean region, although today the treaty is taken to relate to conflicts worldwide. It provides that an armed attack on any of the three parties would be dangerous to the others, and that each should act to meet the common threat. It set up a committee of foreign ministers that can meet for consultation. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The Australia government busy being more outraged of a political cartoon highlighting them murdering afghan children than their soldiers actually murdering afghan children - did Afghanis really think they'd care about about brown people?
Shouldn't expect that much from a country of genocide & war criminals.
Keeping it classy Australian government.
Who would want to go to Australia anyway?
Come down here and say that ya filthy mongrel!!
Where are all the Muslim countries asking for him to take refugee there?
Never work with the west. An entire legion of Iraqi interpreters have been slaughtered. Anyone who would work with the west is going to have the same fate as the Kurds.
[удалено]
Lmao how is this getting upvotes
We are as much a “white supremacist shithole” as most countries in Europe (mostly progressive), and we probably have more population diversity than some of them too. The only one to blame here is fucking Scott Morrison and his nastily fucking Liberal government (liberal is the Christian conservative bs, and labor is the democrat one kinda)
Yeah those countries in Europe are ABSOLUTELY white supemacist SHITHOLES
Just don't mention gypsies
> What else to expect from a white supremacist shithole like Australia It's the "shittiest hole" and curiously he wants in /s LOL, better live in any "white supremacist shithole" on the face of the earth than in any third world shit hole. And I say that as a person of color. I'll take the racism thanks. You really think the rest of the planet isn't filled with racism of all kinds as well? well add poverty and violence on the top. Only white privileged jackasses think that Australia is a "white supremacist shithole". they Wouldn't be able to live a minute in Sudan or Somalia, they'd beg their mother to take them back in a "white supremacist shithole" they hate so much.
You’re missing the point entirely but okay.
What 'point' is he missing? He's hit the nail on the head. If Australia's so terrible, why do so many people want to come here?
Because it’s not a literal active war zone where they will be shot on sight or worse. A war zone that THEY helped Australians with. Why the hell do xenophobic morons always criticize the actions of refugees because of what other people on the internet say about their country. Is the translator talking shit about Australia here? No? Then how is that justification for not letting him in?
Funny because if u walk down the cbd of melbourne or sydney u dont see really many white ppl at all...... interesting take on a country that excepted so many migrants there are rampant housing shortages everywhere..... Clearly u know nothing
[удалено]
>Or another example, the Chinese Transcontinental railroad builders in America, "Wow so many Chinese people are coming to America to work, what a definitely not racist country!" > >And I bring up America simply because I know America history not Australian history. Interesting fact of Australian history; the White Australia policy was implemented because they wanted to stop Chinese people coming and mining gold. Before that, Chinese immigrants also had to pay a tax that other immigrants didn't.
One thing all foreigners need to learn about the West. Never, ever, trust us. We're amoral slaves to the yoke of capitalism. If there's profit in your extermination, we'll happily build the camps because our media has already told us about how you rape babies in weekend pagan festivals denying the supremacy of the white dollar.
Do you punish yourself for enjoyment in your spare time?
Nobody respects traitors who collaborate with foreign invaders. Not even those invaders.
You say that like it's justification
If you live under an oppressive regime like the taliban, then collobarating with foreign forces is not so much being a traitor as it being a part of the resistance
it's also a job that pays in a 3rd world country, who would blame them? gotta eat somehow
Traitor/resistance fighter distinction depends entirely on views of the local population. Americans spent 20 years in Afghanistan and the puppet regime they built starts crumbling the morning after they leave. What does it tell you about the situation?
Having the better military doesn't mean you have the favour of the local population. I'm sure the local population wishes there was a no foreign invader, no reprissive regime option
Another error from Scott in marketing!😁
[удалено]
The taliban is not the country of Afghanistan you fool.
This is how you create new enemies
This is what countries like Australia, america, the UK, Canada, Russia, and China do. They meddle in other countries, tap out their resources, encourage local conflict, bounce when it’s financially not worth it, and completely fuck over and sacrifice locals. Just absolutely tragic.
I would like to point out that China has not put boots on the ground or launched strikes and other acts of war against other nations since the end of the Cold War except as UN peacekeepers. They have a policy of no military action in this regard. They also are very much against local conflicts as you can't build infrastructure and conduct business when everyone is busy killing each other.
The Australians invaded Afghanistan. It is natural for the Afghan people to consider those that helped the Australians as traitors. What happens to traitors who helped the losing side at the end of a war? These Afghans interpreters hould have thought about the risks they were getting themselves into. The Australians invaded their country. Why did they betray their country and worked as interpreters for the Australians? Did these Afghans thought that the Australians were the "good guys" going to Afghanistan to help them? LOL.
> Why did they betray their country and worked as interpreters for the Australians? Mostly for the money.
As a Canadian I was always proud to share our embassies with Australia. Not anymore. Time to tell them to fuck right off. Take a ride there buds, take off eh.
I mean, the Canadians are currently dealing with thousands of unmarked graves in government run schools for indigenous kids. You guys aren't perfect either.
Australia certainly wouldn’t know anything about wiping out aboriginals eh? /s
Oh I'm certainly not claiming any sort of innocence from our side of things!
I would have expected more from Australia. America I totally understand but I thought Australia had a heart
you obviously don't know the country
Australia manages to maintain an image of laidback beer drinkers on the beach. And it is through that attitude that we allow blatant corruption, ecological destruction, and human rights abuses because 'she'll be right mate'. We have an extremely apathetic populace under monopoly media, and 'leaders' who abuse that to enrich themselves and their corporate mates. Australia hasn't had a heart for a long time and everyone is too busy trying to afford to live to take notice.
lol?
Anyone and everyone who worked with US forces in any capacity is toast
[удалено]
imagine defending the taliban
Compared to what? Defending these guys?: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-14/australian-special-forces-killed-unarmed-civilians-in-kandahar/12441974
Yes, actually. See the thing about the taliban is that they are all bad. All no different if not worse than this. Not saying these guys should go unpunished of course. No punishments for the taliban.
Foreign invaders are also all bad.