When Prince Harry says he’s in favor of “taking a life to save a life” and when he compares killing Afghans to a fun video game experience, it’s acceptable because it’s “Foreign Policy!” but if an Afghan retaliates, it’s suddenly wrong and savage. That’s imperialist logic. Double standards galore.
Exclusive: UK spent millions on health and education centres that Karzai government can’t afford to keep open
No foreign army has ever successfully occupied Afghanistan, They just don’t like foreign armies in their country. Me personally, Greg, I think that is a rather admirable trait.I personally, if I had been alive, when Hitler was at the Channel ports, and thank God he didn’t, but if he had succeeded at crossing, there would have been lots of collaborators, yes, but I would not have been one of them. I would be the British equivalent of a Taliban. I would be trying to blow up the German soldiers that were occupying my country. No dignified person wants a foreign army, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, soldiers roaming around their country and the Afghans are very dignified people. So you ask who we are fighting, Greg. If it was so simple that we only had to fight people with a membership card of the Taliban in their pocket, this war would have been over long ago. We’re actually fighting the Afghan people as a whole. Every Afghan is a Taliban in the sense that every Afghan is fighting to get rid of the foreign occupation of their country.
[M]any nations of the third world are described as ‘underdeveloped’. These less wealthy nations are generally those that suffered under colonialism and neo-colonialism. The ‘developed’ nations are those that exploited their resources and wealth. Therefore, rather than referring to these countries as ‘underdeveloped’, a more appropriate and meaningful designation might be ‘over exploited’. Again, transpose this term next time you read about the ‘underdeveloped nations’ and note the different meaning that results.