←back to thread

115 points perihelions | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.525s | source | bottom
Show context
atoav ◴[] No.44452285[source]
Which explains why the administration has acted the way it did.

What has the US become? I am not surprised by the fact that Trump is a fascist, this is a thing I knew in 2016. What surprised me is how little popular resistance he has gotten and with which ease the US population gave away its rights.

I remember a time where americans scolded me online for my countries laws preventing certain types of speech (related to nazi insignia and Hitler), you guys do realize that if your government can just make up bullshit about you and send you to a torture camp abroad without due process, that free speech is no longer free?

Back then you people were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech. But my suspicion back then was that this was mostly a thing guys who grew up in the comfort of a first world civilization would say to come across as tough and manly. And guess what.

replies(9): >>44452586 #>>44452604 #>>44452632 #>>44452683 #>>44452684 #>>44452696 #>>44452699 #>>44453683 #>>44460135 #
rgblambda ◴[] No.44452684[source]
>were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech

I've gotten into arguments with people (usually non Americans who tend to have an American tinge to their accents from consuming so much U.S. media) who are very pro 2nd amendment and wish their country had similar.

I always ask "How do you destroy an M1 Abrams or F-35 with a licenced hunting rifle?". They usually say "Well at least they have that" then quickly move the discussion on to something else.

Anyone who's seen an episode of Cops knows how much protection a firearm provides you against law enforcement. Zero.

replies(4): >>44452738 #>>44452800 #>>44452898 #>>44453719 #
1. shiroiuma ◴[] No.44452800[source]
>I always ask "How do you destroy an M1 Abrams or F-35 with a licenced hunting rifle?"

The same way the Taliban forced the US military out of Afghanistan, despite not having an air force or any tanks of their own.

replies(1): >>44452905 #
2. rgblambda ◴[] No.44452905[source]
As I've said in another reply, the U.S public growing weary of the war would not result in a U.S military withdrawal from the United States, but instead would likely result in a surrender of the insurgency.

And the Taliban had Soviet era military weaponry, not legally purchasable under the 2nd amendment firearms.

replies(1): >>44453388 #
3. spwa4 ◴[] No.44453388[source]
I would argue that the taliban's scorecard in Afghanistan is pretty good.

Taliban insurgency vs USSR (technically vs "People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan", who, one might add, killed more people in peacetime than the Taliban did in wartime). They had the support of the entire population, because, frankly, the Taliban are an improvement over these communists. Communists left to make the terror attacks stop, and because the USSR collapsed.

Taliban insurgency vs US/International Coalition. They certainly did not have widespread support, with constant claims that it's much less than 50% (in an election, not that 50% of the population was prepared to fight). Essentially the coalition left and the Afghan government surrendered to make the terror attacks stop.

There's 2 lessons here. First, what matters is who's willing to fight (and equipment, to a lesser extent). Afghans are willing to vote against Taliban, but that's just not enough. The Taliban are some 10-20% of the population, and have since betrayed part of their own groups, so it's less now. Part of the problem is that nobody sees a future in Afghanistan under a decent government (or under the Taliban, but that doesn't matter, it's mostly people who can't leave). Two: terror and destroying everything and everyone until you're the only option left ... at least that can work. Communists demonstrated it doesn't work if you keep killing everyone but the Taliban don't do that. Life is terrible under the Taliban, but they don't kill large amounts of people, or at least not quickly. And the UN doesn't mind working with the Taliban, they're even prepared to exclude women from UN departments that work with the Taliban, so I guess that means they're "accepted".

I believe it's fundamentally an economic problem. Either there is some way to give Afghanistan a decent economy that depends on it's people, at which point the Taliban will have to make big concessions, or everyone basically "exchanges terror" with Afghanistan (not the Taliban, the entire population, the same problem as in Gaza if you will) to maintain some kind of balance. They kill/attack/kidnap/... people around the world, effectively in schemes to get money. The rest of the world attacks Afghans and Afghanistan to keep their terror below a reasonable level.

replies(1): >>44453532 #
4. rgblambda ◴[] No.44453532{3}[source]
I don't want to reply to your entire comment except to note that the USSR dissolved in 1991 and the Taliban formed in 1994.
replies(1): >>44453771 #
5. throw0101b ◴[] No.44453771{4}[source]
Mujahideen of the 1970s/80s -> Taliban of 1990s.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Afghan–Soviet_...

replies(1): >>44454281 #
6. rgblambda ◴[] No.44454281{5}[source]
The Wikipedia article you linked does not back up your claim. Osama Bin Laden was not a member of the Taliban.

Some of the Taliban's founders had previously fought as Mujahideen in the war against the Soviets, but the government that the Taliban overthrew in 1996 was founded by the Mujahideen.