View previous topic | View next topic

Should the news care it's a coup attempt?

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

dr.bob
1373560.  Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:15 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
bobwilson wrote:

Sadly, this is a reflection of what the BBC has become - a state-sponsored,
ratings-chasing parody.

So the BBC forced other news websites to hide this story down the line?


To be fair to the BBC, I watched both the 1 o'clock and 10 o'clock news yesterday. Boht had pretty much the same running order:

1) Covid news
2) The utter dog's breakfast of border restrictions between UK & NI
3) Military coup in Myanmar

This was followed by some other stories, with some stuff about Captain Tom a way down the list.

Seems about right to me.

 
bobwilson
1374092.  Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:19 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Personally I think the story is of higher significance than yesterday's news of the unfortunate death of a laudable centenarian charity fundraiser and pandemic icon but judging from the progress of BBC Breakfast so far the Beeb does not agree.


Well put. Same could be said of pretty much any news story - despite the laudable aim of celebrating someone who has become a national icon THIS DOES NOT COUNT AS FUCKING NEWS!!!! If you want a special programme, make a special programme - but Captain Tom Accidental Hero dies does not count as news.

 
Brock
1374128.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:57 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Quote:
Personally I think the story is of higher significance than yesterday's news of the unfortunate death of a laudable centenarian charity fundraiser and pandemic icon but judging from the progress of BBC Breakfast so far the Beeb does not agree.


Well put. Same could be said of pretty much any news story - despite the laudable aim of celebrating someone who has become a national icon THIS DOES NOT COUNT AS FUCKING NEWS!!!!


It's certainly more worthy of the description "news" than some events that make the bulletins. For the last few days you'd have been forgiven for thinking that the most important thing happening in the country was a parish council meeting in Cheshire...

 
franticllama
1374140.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:36 am Reply with quote

Since this discussion is nominally about Myanmar.
Anyone know why their police still use the English form of the word police on their police cars? I'm guessing this is a hangover from colonial rule but I would have assumed something like that would have changed over the years?

 
Prof Wind Up Merchant
1388277.  Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:01 pm Reply with quote

The Taliban have successfully mounted a coup in Afghanistan. 20 years of conflict over 9/11 only for the Taliban to return. Why did the West pursue this failed war. I don't trust talk that the Taliban have moderated their position over women and girls. The withdrawal of US and UK troops makes us look like a joke.

 
Jenny
1388347.  Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:03 am Reply with quote

In my opinion we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Withdrawing was always going to be chaotic whoever was in charge.

What astonishes me is the reaction of Trump supporters as 'this is all Biden's fault' when it was Trump who set it in motion, released 5000 Taliban prisoners, negotiated a pathetically weak agreement in Doha and actually had an exit date set originally of the end of this May. However, I guess I don't really expect intelligence from Trump supporters.

 
CB27
1388364.  Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:41 pm Reply with quote

I think when you go back to 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan made sense when you compare the reasons for wars.

1. There was a large attack on US soil, killing thousands, including many people from other countries.

2. There were several other attacks for some time before that against US sites in different places, as well as other places.

3. Al Queda were identified as the culprits.

4. Their leaders were identified as being in Afghanistan, they had training camps in Afghanistan, and were receiving support from the regime in charge (Taliban).

5. The Taliban refused to hand them over.

Many wars have been fought for far less, and most people turn a blind eye to them.

For me personally, the real issue is that the UN seems to have become completely useless since the 1990s (having already been hindered beforehand).

If we could have had proper funding and management of a UN force made up of both military and civilian people from many of the neighbouring countries and others, I personally think we could have created safe zones to help improve the infrastructure and strengthen the the Afghan people's own ability to repel the regrowth of the Taliban and other groups.

Instead the US and their allies followed a centuries old route of using funds and arms given to local warlords to claim they control certain areas, which just contributed to corruption, resentment, and never gave the people themselves any real help or power.

 
Dix
1388366.  Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:30 pm Reply with quote

If I can go slightly off-topic, there is now a small handful of cases where Afghan people that used to live in an EU country but were convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant extradition after end of their sentence and banned from entering again have managed to get on to one of the evacuation planes and come back that way.

They were all picked up in the airport on arrival.

(unless, of course, there are some that managed to dodge the net completely)

It's not impossible that some of them were genuinely in danger due to whatever job they were doing in Afghanistan after they were extradited to there. Which raises the question: if that's the case, where can they go? Does the old ban trump (sorry!) the situation they're now in?

 
barbados
1388378.  Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:11 am Reply with quote

That’s an interesting question Dix. I’m not sure how many “economic migrant” Afghans would fall into the subset of committing a crime serious enough to make them unwelcome in another country would be in the subset of those in danger of persecution in their homeland because of the job that they had when they lived there under the current regime, but I would guess it would be small enough to be considered negligible

 
Dix
1388401.  Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:59 am Reply with quote

That subset is now at least one person.
He is being detained while they work out what to do with him.

I'll keep you posted.

It could well be that they are likely to have been hired as local helpers in Afghanistan because they speak at least one EU language other than English. And are probably smart enough to keep silent about the "little issue" they'd had back there. This guy certainly kept silent.

 
dr.bob
1388535.  Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:30 am Reply with quote

Dix wrote:
It's not impossible that some of them were genuinely in danger due to whatever job they were doing in Afghanistan after they were extradited to there. Which raises the question: if that's the case, where can they go? Does the old ban trump (sorry!) the situation they're now in?


I guess I would probably argue that, since most western countries do not recommend the death sentence for whatever crime they were convicted of, if their life is in danger if they stay in Afghanistan, then the situation they're now in should trump the old ban.

I think there's also an argument that, if our country's forces were happy enough to employ them in whatever capacity now puts their life in danger, it's up to our government to protect them from any harm that might result from work they've done to support us.

 
Dix
1388549.  Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:24 am Reply with quote

Bob, I haven't named the countries, I just said EU countries, i.e. not the UK. And it' unclear if the employment was by the military or by an embassy.

I don't think the actual country matters much, it's the principle of the thing. But you are probably correct. Extradition to somewhere where there is immediate danger of losing your life isn't usually done.

 
dr.bob
1388576.  Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:20 am Reply with quote

Dix wrote:
Bob, I haven't named the countries, I just said EU countries, i.e. not the UK. And it' unclear if the employment was by the military or by an embassy.


Yeah, I was trying to be suitably vague, but failed. Just replace the phrase "our country" with "the appropriate country" :)

Dix wrote:
I don't think the actual country matters much, it's the principle of the thing. But you are probably correct. Extradition to somewhere where there is immediate danger of losing your life isn't usually done.


And the death sentence is banned throughout the EU, IIRC.

 
Brock
1388580.  Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:50 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

And the death sentence is banned throughout the EU, IIRC.


More than that: the death penalty is banned under the European Convention of Human Rights, to which 47 states are signatories (including all 27 EU member states).

 
Alexander Howard
1388593.  Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:00 am Reply with quote

When the European Commission presented their draft free trade agreement to follow Brexit, they included a long section on human rights and specifically it highlighted banning the death penalty. I always suspected this was just to annoy the traditionalist Tory back-benches. It might have been intended too to hinder a trade treaty with the United States.

The only EU government which still imposes the death penalty is Malta, and that's unofficial and only for journalists.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group