-1

My answer, which basically said that China is interested in welcoming Afghanistan, which is now governed by the Taliban, into the community of nations after the debacle of twenty year long US instigated war on terror in that country. I also noted that the US has said that it would open diplomatic channels so long as the Taliban respected human rights.

This answer was deleted by the mods on the allegation that I was reflexively engaging in "US bashing". This is not the case, I used circumspect language apart from, if I recall correctly, "the USA left Afghanistan with it's tail between it's legs". This, whilst strong language, is a common opinion in leftwing circles as well as other circles. Also, if I recall correctly, I may have made a comparison between the US exit from Afghanistan with their exit from Vietnam. This again, is common opinion in leftwing circles as well as others. Thus, I'm not engaging in US bashing, but merely pointing out what has been said. Of course, I'm agreeing with this opinion, that's why I wrote it.

The full text of the answer:

20 years of the war on terror in Afganistan and Iraq have been, in the end fruitless. The former has ended in a debacle with the US and its allies leaving Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. Whilst the latter has disrupted the fabric of society not only in Iraq but also Syria and the wider middle east. Moreover, the smoking gun, the WMDs were never found, further shredding the reputation of the US led Western crusade under the rubric of feminism.

Geopolitically, it seems that global actors are attempting diplomacy where coercion has failed. Thus China's overtures to welcome Afghanistan into the community of nations. Even the US has said that it would work with Afghanistan so long as it respects human rights. These are all moves in the right direction.

4
  • Can you please copy and paste the exact text of your answer, as well as post a link to it? Sep 30, 2021 at 14:47
  • @Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica: I don't know how to view a deleted post. Do you know how? Sep 30, 2021 at 14:53
  • 2
    @MoziburUllah : I think if you just search for "deleted:1" you'll be able to see all of your deleted questions and answers. I've also just added a link to your answer and the text of it for users who don't have enough rep to view it.
    – Giter
    Sep 30, 2021 at 17:50
  • Worth noting the method @Giter mentioned requires 10k rep (2k on beta sites such as this one). Oct 1, 2021 at 18:40

1 Answer 1

11

I responded to your answer after it received a rude or abusive flag. I don't think it is rude per se, but I found other issues. At the time there was one comment by Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica which stated:

The first paragraph is just a rant against America. The last sentence is all opinion. The last two sentences are irrelevant. Also, your first sentence of the second paragraph mentions “Global Actors” while the question asks about China, not all the global actors. Also, not all the global actors are trying diplomacy with the Taliban, see this. Your second sentence of the second paragraph explains what China is doing but not why China is doing it.

These may all seem like individual issues, but seeing that your answer is only two paragraphs long, there's nothing in there that actually answers the question.

That's not why I deleted it, that's probably not why it got flagged as rude or abusive. The sentence that stood out to me was the following:

Moreover, the smoking gun, the WMDs were never found, further shredding the reputation of the US led Western crusade under the rubric of feminism.

It's just a rant against US operations in the Middle East, which you somehow attribute to feminism. I'm not sure if you put that in to start a discussion or just to get your message out there, but it's not appropriate for the site. That's why I left the following comment under your answer:

Please note that this is not a website to bash political views you don't agree with. For more information on what kinds of posts fit here, check out the article Help! I am being oppressed! Why do people keep downvoting my opinions? on Meta.

Please take a moment to read the content of that meta post as well.

As for the second paragraph which supposedly answers the question, I think Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica was right in their analysis, it doesn't rise to the standard of answers on this site. The paragraph consists of the following four sentences (I've numbered the sentences for our convenience):

(1) Geopolitically, it seems that global actors are attempting diplomacy where coercion has failed. (2) Thus China's overtures to welcome Afghanistan into the community of nations. (3) Even the US has said that it would work with Afghanistan so long as it respects human rights. (4) These are all moves in the right direction.

(1) and (2) repeat the premise of the question. Indeed, the quote in the question talks about Chinese willingness to develop... friendly and cooperative relations with Afghanistan. That's all very well, but as the question asks:

But ...why? What is there to gain for China by association with a militant coup?

Well, let's look at the second half of the paragraph to find out. Okay, sentence (3), right, even the US wants to get friendly. That's great, it's going to be one big party. Now, sentence (4), but that's just what I said just now about it everything moving in the right direction.

So, the asker might retort:

But ...why? What is there to gain for China by association with a militant coup?

Unfortunately, your answer never addresses that question. That's why I deleted it.

2
  • First, (2) is not repeating the premise. A premise, understood correctly begins an argument. Whereas (2) is actually introduced by 'thus', hence it is a conclusion. I am placing the question in context. (1) also is not repeating the premise, it expands it to include other 'global actors' besides China and this links with (3). Moreover (1) answers the question you staye I fail to address: 'diplomacy is being used where coercion failed'. Moreover, the 'rant' that you say I indulged in simply the evidence of the 'coercion'. That this has been led by the US is well-known ... Oct 7, 2021 at 8:51
  • Thus my so-called 'rant against US operations' is no such thing but merely me marshalling the facts for the case of 'coercion'. It is well-known that the US did not discover WMDs in Iraq. Hence I'm entitled to label their case for doing so as a 'smoking gun'. That you suggest otherwise, simply betrays your own political opinions - which is not appropriate to objective moderation. Your analysis of my answer, I would put it to you, is deficient in structure and substance. Whereas mine is not - even if you personally disagree with it. You are entitled to down-vote it but not delete it. Oct 7, 2021 at 8:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .