You just ignore the reality that the difference is impossible to really tell.

Refugees are best sited in culturally similar countries.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Why are you asking me that? I’m literally only talking about the people having to flee Afghanistan now because the Taliban have taken over and we have a duty to look after those people after our role in it.

The Taliban will be keeping all the females aged from ten to 44.

Everybody else ? All those leftover men ? Europe's problem.

It was the same with ISIs and with Boko Haram.

The young women stayed in the hot country to push a pram, meanwhile their brothers are pushing a shampoo sponge at your local London hand carwash.

Eze Peasy at Anfield....

The Taliban were in power before we became involved. They were mainly people who fought against the Soviets in the Afghan-Soviet war. When they rose to power they were supported by pakistan, where most of the refugees from that initial regime went. (There and Iran). And there were an awful lot. But most displaced people remain within their region - hence Turkey has over 3 and a half million.

Your argument seems to be that we have a duty to take them, because we have now left and it’s our fault. But it’s not is it? Not really. We didn’t create the Taliban. They were there when we went in and they’re back now, despite our best efforts to give the Afghans the tools to deal with them. (If anyone created them it was perhaps a combination of pakistan and the Soviets).

Had the Taliban just given the US Osama Bin-Laden etc, for his part in 9/11 when requested, I doubt any western boot would have touched the soil there. So taking that further - had we not gone in, in the first place, and simply left the Taliban in charge - with their extreme version of Sharia Law, their destruction of agriculture/culture etc and their oppression of Afghan Women - what would your view be? I doubt it would have even been on your radar.

Mine is that we have and had (before we went in) a duty to take refugees. And we DO take refugees. Everyone has a right to live free from oppression and the rich countries of the world have a massive part to play and a responsibility in ensuring that. But to state that our duty to take them is because of our role (along with the US, Canada, Germany, Italy etc remember) is disingenuous and just another reason to belittle our country. We have a duty to consider refugees from all countries.

The Taliban existed before we went in and sadly the attempts to overthrow and set up an Afghan Govt/Army have failed. If we had stayed any longer, I suspect you would be screaming that we’ve effectively annexed another Country in our desire for this that and the other. If we had wiped the Taliban out you would probably be critical, crying that we’ve created a western democracy in a region that is not culturally understanding of one and committed genocide against the ‘peaceful’ Taliban.
In short, hindsight words are easy but what would your actions have been?

Edited by Helmet46 (15 Aug 2021 7.35am)

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

I think the "Taliban" is not a very helpful description as it suggest a political organisation when it is really a loose collection of war lords.

Afghanistan is a tribal country and people have allegiance to their local tribal leader. That is why there is far more support in the country for them than the western media would like to admit.

As long as each war lord sticks to his agreed area the Taliban holds together, however they are bound by their dislike of the western backed soon to be gone government.

As many countries who fought for independence have found out it is easy to agree on throwing out the western oppressors but what comes next is a lot harder to agree on.

One more point