British army Afghan interpreter tortured and murdered after being denied asylum by the UK

[Enros]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ered-fate.html

• The interpreter, known to UK soldiers as Popal, was tortured and murdered
• Captured in Iran after being refused help by UK investigators despite pleas
• Four others feared to have died the same way after trying to flee the group
• Sources say anyone found to have worked for Britain is tortured and killed

Do Western armies in Afghanistan do anything positive at all? It seems even if you help them they betray you. This reminds me of the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War when the coalition simply allowed Saddam Hussein to murder to resistance groups who had supported the invasion.

Apparently "UK investigators refused to help, claiming there was insufficient evidence that his life was at risk." This was despite them knowing his brother had been murdered just before he made the application. What were they thinking?

[tgoodenow]

No, western armies do nothing positive at all. When they leave Afghanistan it can return to the land of milk and honey it once was.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

No, western armies do nothing positive at all. When they leave Afghanistan it can return to the land of milk and honey it once was.

If you are interested to know more about how inefficient the asylum procedure is for translators this is a good sum-up, though it's mostly about the US, but I suppose it works in a similar fashion in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplQL5eAxlY

It's not a random rant video, it's from one of my favourite journalists on HBO.

[tgoodenow]

If you are interested to know more about how inefficient the asylum procedure is for translators this is a good sum-up, though it's mostly about the US, but I suppose it works in a similar fashion in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplQL5eAxlY

It's not a random rant video, it's from one of my favourite journalists on HBO.

I'm more interested in wether OP counts freeing a country from an Islamic extremist dictatorship counts as positive, and if not what the western countries should do for regimes that support terrorism. Should we just bomb all their government centers next time and call it a day?

[DownTheDrain]

I'm more interested in wether OP counts freeing a country from an Islamic extremist dictatorship counts as positive, and if not what the western countries should do for regimes that support terrorism. Should we just bomb all their government centers next time and call it a day?

Depends on your definition of "freeing a country" I suppose.
If the place is in an equally bad shape after you leave then it's rather hard to find positive aspects.

On a related note, I really wish OP was a bit more specific when it comes to western armies.

[Enros]

I'm more interested in wether OP counts freeing a country from an Islamic extremist dictatorship counts as positive, and if not what the western countries should do for regimes that support terrorism. Should we just bomb all their government centers next time and call it a day?

Iraq is now in a state of civil war. It would be amazing if the same didn't happen in Afghanistan.

Yes Saddam Hussein was evil. But if you go look at deaths-per-year, they were lower during Hussein's rule than since the war. In other words, the "democratic" government in Iraq is objectively worse than Saddam.

Do you know how many peaceful Sunni protestors the Iraqi government has murdered since 2011? Over 200.

[DownTheDrain]

In other words, the "democratic" government in Iraq is objectively worse than Saddam.

But at least now people are killed in the name of democracy.
Surely that's a huge step-up since the US has been doing that for decades and everyone (in the western world) seems to be perfectly fine with it.

[mongrel]

But at least now people are killed in the name of democracy.
Surely that's a huge step-up since the US has been doing that for decades and everyone (in the western world) seems to be perfectly fine with it.

I'm not, largely because it entailed such anti-democratic practices such as mass surveillance, state torture, kidnap and extra-judicial killing.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Some of the worst of the Daily Mail's yellow journalism, the translator who gets killed is a hero and a disgrace to Britain, the refugees at Calais are less than human.

DM isn't a source - there's no real information in the article on these individual circumstances and it devalues a genuine point of discussion covered excellently by John Oliver:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplQL5eAxlY

[DownTheDrain]

DM isn't a source - there's no real information in the article on these individual circumstances and it devalues a genuine point of discussion covered excellently by John Oliver:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplQL5eAxlY

That's rather amusing considering you repeatedly insisted that youtube is not a source in the "Immigrants are taking over Greek islands" thread.

Not that I have any intention of defending the DM's credibility but it appears you change your sourcing policy on the fly to whatever fits your current argument.

[tgoodenow]

Iraq is now in a state of civil war. It would be amazing if the same didn't happen in Afghanistan.

Yes Saddam Hussein was evil. But if you go look at deaths-per-year, they were lower during Hussein's rule than since the war. In other words, the "democratic" government in Iraq is objectively worse than Saddam.

Do you know how many peaceful Sunni protestors the Iraqi government has murdered since 2011? Over 200.

topic is Afghanistan I believe. So the next time a terrorist organization is granted a safe haven in a country and they use that country to train in than carry out an attack on the United States, the United States should _______ that country that gave them safe haven. Please fill in the blank.

[Enros]

topic is Afghanistan I believe. So the next time a terrorist organization is granted a safe haven in a country and they use that country to train in than carry out an attack on the United States, the United States should _______ that country that gave them safe haven. Please fill in the blank.

Special forces raids? Cruise missile strikes? Good old fashioned espionage and assasination? All have worked better in the past than full-scale invasion.

[DownTheDrain]

topic is Afghanistan I believe. So the next time a terrorist organization is granted a safe haven in a country and they use that country to train in than carry out an attack on the United States, the United States should _______ that country that gave them safe haven. Please fill in the blank.

Not messing with any further countries in the ME (or anywhere else for that matter) so they have no reason to be a safe haven for enemies of the US might be a decent starting point.
But maybe that's just me...

[removeduser_487563287433]

That's rather amusing considering you repeatedly insisted that youtube is not a source in the "Immigrants are taking over Greek islands" thread.

Not that I have any intention of defending the DM's credibility but it appears you change your sourcing policy on the fly to whatever fits your current argument.

YouTube is not a source, and the DM is not a source, and I am not using John Oliver as a source - so not sure what's amusing?

[DownTheDrain]

YouTube is not a source, and the DM is not a source, and I am not using John Oliver as a source - so not sure what's amusing?

So that wasn't a link to a source for that "genuine point of discussion" you mentioned then?
Good to know, no need to click it then.

[removeduser_487563287433]

So that wasn't a link to a source for that "genuine point of discussion" you mentioned then?
Good to know, no need to click it then.

Are you really saying - alt account - that I need to explain to you the difference between somebody saying that migrants did x, and posting a random video as a source, and saying "John Oliver covered this excellently" and then linking that actual coverage?

Let me know, and I'll crack out the finger puppets if you're confused.

[DownTheDrain]

Are you really saying - alt account - that I need to explain to you the difference between somebody saying that migrants did x, and posting a random video as a source, and saying "John Oliver covered this excellently" and then linking that actual coverage?

Let me know, and I'll crack out the finger puppets if you're confused.

That's more semantics than an actual argument, but feel free to enlighten me about the specific differences.

I'm not an alt either, just new to this forum, so implying that won't earn you any points.
I just happened to read through the other thread and during the whole course of that discussion you came across as almost intolerably pedantic and hostile, at least to me.
Maybe I'm just not used to the discussion culture in this part of the forum, in which case I apologize for my ignorance, but it seemed to me that several other posters also took offense at your particular style of arguing.

[alhoon]

Are you really saying - alt account - that I need to explain to you the difference between somebody saying that migrants did x, and posting a random video as a source, and saying "John Oliver covered this excellently" and then linking that actual coverage?

Let me know, and I'll crack out the finger puppets if you're confused.

I for one, would like to see you jumping through loops to explain it, cause for someone that screams against youtube to bring it up mentioning excellect coverage is hypocricy. You've gone to such lengths to fight against youtube links that even if you mention an opera video link in a discussion about music it would be a flip and we would call you hypocrite.

But don't worry. Most of us accept youtube as source even if you don't. I see nothing wrong with youtube videos. On the other hand, I don't believe the Daily Mail nor consider it a source. I also found that source (because yes, youtube is a source), quite interesting. Thanks for that.

[tgoodenow]

Not messing with any further countries in the ME (or anywhere else for that matter) so they have no reason to be a safe haven for enemies of the US might be a decent starting point.
But maybe that's just me...

examples of the U.S. Meddling in Afghanistan post assisting them against the Russians?
so we were wrong in helping the Kuwaitis?
are we wrong trying to destroy Isis?

Special forces raids? Cruise missile strikes? Good old fashioned espionage and assasination? All have worked better in the past than full-scale invasion.

worked quite well in Libya, doing wonders against ISIS

[DownTheDrain]

Thanks for the welcome and the ground rules alhoon, unfortunately you deleted that part of your post before I could reply.

examples of the U.S. Meddling in Afghanistan post assisting them against the Russians?
so we were wrong in helping the Kuwaitis?
are we wrong trying to destroy Isis?

I'd argue that there never would have been an Isis, or an Al-Quaeda, if it wasn't for excessive US interventions in the first place, but that's mostly a moot point by now and we could go back and fourth about that for hours.

The Kuwaitis are an interesting point and not only because nobody would have lifted a finger if there was no oil on their land.
But even if I cede to you the first war against Iraq there is no way to defend the second one, which ultimately caused so much suffering and gave Isis the perfect breeding ground.