Afghanistan

[dudalb]

I think that many people (including myself) would agree that democratic societies are better for the people than totalitarian Islamic societies.

But one should not forget that the U.S. brutally invaded Afghanistan in 2001 (they came uninvited ...). Because of this, I don't think the Americans can claim to be morally superior to the Taliban.

Seems to me some people from an organization based in Afghansitan paid an uninvited visit to the US on 9/11........

 

[Arcade22]

What does renounce mean in this scenario?

renounce
(rɪnaʊns)
Word forms: 3rd person singular present tense renounces, present participle renouncing, past tense, past participle renounced
1. VERB
If you renounce a belief or a way of behaving, you decide and declare publicly that you no longer have that belief or will no longer behave in that way.
You must renounce your old ways of thinking. [VERB noun]
A substantial minority, unable to renounce Marxism, left to form a new party called Communist Refoundation. [VERB noun]

Even Pakistans Prime minister had the nerve to call Bin-laden a martyr so i doubt the Taliban will suddenly find it in their heart to renounce a terrorist mass-murderer.

 

[Arcade22]

But one should not forget that the U.S. brutally invaded Afghanistan in 2001 (they came uninvited ...). Because of this, I don't think the Americans can claim to be morally superior to the Taliban.

Actually the US was invited by Afghans to remove the tyrannical Taliban from power. It's telling that the vast majority of Afghan people did not rise up against the "invaders" but rather embraced them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Statistics please. What is the median age of marriage?

Accurate statistics are hard to come by, but the statistics that are available all point to it being extremely common. For example:

https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/.../afg-report-Child Marriage in Afghanistan.pdf

"42% of households across the 5 surveyed provinces indicated that at least one member of their household had been married before the age of 18."

By law (pre Taliban ie for most of the past 20 years persons had to be over 16 to marry.

Doesn't matter what the law is when it's not enforced.

I may come back to some of your other points, but this one was too much of a doozy to pass up.

4) The Taliban are not international terrorists, they are focussed purely on the internal issues of Afghanistan.

What the hell does that have to do with whether or not they are evil? It has NOTHING to do with that. It may be relevant to how they affect US national security, but even then, they've got a track record or permitting international terrorists to operate out of their territory. But again, whether or not they are evil isn't contingent upon where they want to focus that evil.

i do not dispute that atrocities happen, but it is not and never has been Taliban policy to rape and murder children.

No true scottsman fallacy.

I'm reminded of the joke about Brezhnev. After becoming chairman of the communist party, he's showing off to his mother that he has this brand new apartment, this brand new car, a country villa, and even a helicopter. And his mother says to him in a worried tone, "But what if the communists come back?"

"Official" policy is far less important than what actually goes on.

 

[theprestige]

Actually the US was invited by Afghans to remove the tyrannical Taliban from power. It's telling that the vast majority of Afghan people did not rise up against the "invaders" but rather embraced them.

I'd even go so far as to say the US was invited by the Taliban itself, on an "oh yeah? Make me!" basis.

 

[Planigale]

"Al-Tabari says she was nine at the time her marriage was consummated.[33] Sahih al-Bukhari's hadith says "that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old."[34]"

from Aisha^WP

There is no first hand source, there are differing opinions as to the exact age other sources would put consummation around 12, the truth is likely to be it would have been at menarche. Child marriages were globally common in that period, and certainly does not mean the Prophet was sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children as you claim. The very fact that even your source says three years passed between marriage and sex proves that. For instance the age of marriage in Rome was 12 for a woman and 14 for a boy. Rome was distinctly liberal with regards to women's rights for the period. In contemporaneous Byzantium, the age of betrothal was 7 with marriage (consummation) being 12 for girls and 14 for boys. The church regarded betrothal as marriage if betrothal happened after the legal age for marriage was reached. The Prophet's marriage to Aisha pretty much met the same cultural standard.

'Late' marriage - late teens early twenties - is a uniquely European cultural norm that emerged during the late mediaeval period. The reason for its emergence is disputed. But you are very much trying to impose modern European cultural norms on a different time and place, and negatively judging based on your preconceptions. Pretty much the definition of racism.

 

[Planigale]

I suppose we should define what a "child bride" is first. In the U.S., the youngest a child can be legally wed is 16, and that's in less than 2/3 of the states, the rest being 17 or 18.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/legal-age-consent-united-states-map/


What IS the age of consent in Afghanistan?

Actually the correct answer is the US has no lower limit on marriage age because it is a state and not federal issue. The minimum age of consent arises from English common-law and is 12; the age of marriage at the time the law was established in England. States have over the years legislated for higher minimums. Up until 2018 some states had a lower limit of 14.

 

[Planigale]

Accurate statistics are hard to come by, but the statistics that are available all point to it being extremely common. For example:

https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/.../afg-report-Child Marriage in Afghanistan.pdf

"42% of households across the 5 surveyed provinces indicated that at least one member of their household had been married before the age of 18."



Doesn't matter what the law is when it's not enforced.

I may come back to some of your other points, but this one was too much of a doozy to pass up.



What the hell does that have to do with whether or not they are evil? It has NOTHING to do with that. It may be relevant to how they affect US national security, but even then, they've got a track record or permitting international terrorists to operate out of their territory. But again, whether or not they are evil isn't contingent upon where they want to focus that evil.



No true scottsman fallacy.

I'm reminded of the joke about Brezhnev. After becoming chairman of the communist party, he's showing off to his mother that he has this brand new apartment, this brand new car, a country villa, and even a helicopter. And his mother says to him in a worried tone, "But what if the communists come back?"

"Official" policy is far less important than what actually goes on.

Thank you. Of course these will be multi-generational households, so the one person may be a grand parent. If only a minority of households report a minority of people within that household marrying under 18 it suggests most married over 18, putting the median age above 18. However, it is a cultural norm to marry daughters off early; the is nothing to do with the Taliban. It happened when the Taliban was not in power. it happens in ex patriot Pakistani communities in the UK. Early child marriage is not being driven by the Taliban. The Taliban are influenced by the community they are from. A major failing in islamic epistemology is failing to separate out what is Quranic from what is traditional. Median age of marriage for women in Pakistan is 18 and in some parts nearer 16. The legal minimum age of marriage for a woman in Pakistan is 16, but up until relatively recently (the 1960s I think) was 14.

 

[dudalb]

The Taliban had changed:yeah Right

.https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/04/asia/afghanistan-saturday-intl/index.html

 

[Michel H]

This is exactly the caliber of drivel to be expected from someone who wishes Nazi Germany had developed an atomic weapon.

What I said about the German atomic weapon project, about one year ago, was:

However, I believe that, if Nazi Germany had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon before the end of the war (admittedly a rather scary prospect), there could have been some positive aspects to this: they could have prevented an invasion of their territory, the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance might not have occurred, the rights of Palestinians might have been better defended (after WW2), and it is even possible that the Jews would have been less persecuted, to the extent that Nazi persecutions of the Jews reflected German anger and exasperation during the war.

So, I did not just say "I wish Germany had developed an atomic weapon", what I said was more nuanced.

Briefly, the final result of the war might have been more balanced (not just Nazi Germany completely crushed and humiliated), and the Allies might have had to give up their demand of unconditional surrender. And the myth of the British and the Americans being the great heroes of WWII, in which you have all been raised, might have been more difficult to impose.

Tony Blair might have been less eager and enthusiastic about invading Iraq for example if London had been destroyed in 1945 like Hiroshima was (Britain essentially started WWII in 1939).

Regarding Scott Ritter's article, I found it remarkable by the level of detail.

And you can't really understand 9/11 and anti-U.S. terrorism if you ignore Israel. Events of the past shape the present.

 

[Michel H]

The Taliban had changed:yeah Right

.https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/04/asia/afghanistan-saturday-intl/index.html

These women who protest against the Taliban are very courageous.

What they do is probably a better way to try to change a society than U.S. invasions and bombings.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

However, I believe that, if Nazi Germany had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon before the end of the war (admittedly a rather scary prospect), there could have been some positive aspects to this: they could have prevented an invasion of their territory, the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance might not have occurred, the rights of Palestinians might have been better defended (after WW2), and it is even possible that the Jews would have been less persecuted, to the extent that Nazi persecutions of the Jews reflected German anger and exasperation during the war.

Jesus, this is on par with "I'm sorry for beating you honey, I just get so frustrated sometimes!"

Those poor, misunderstood fascists. If only the Brits and Americans had spent more time trying to be understanding.

 

[trustbutverify]

The Taliban had changed:yeah Right

.https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/04/asia/afghanistan-saturday-intl/index.html

Imagine if the world wasn't staring at them right now. It would have been a slaughter.

Each of those females who showed have more courage than the entire population of Taliban apologists.

 

[trustbutverify]

What I said about the German atomic weapon project, about one year ago, was:

So, I did not just say "I wish Germany had developed an atomic weapon", what I said was more nuanced.

Briefly, the final result of the war might have been more balanced (not just Nazi Germany completely crushed and humiliated), and the Allies might have had to give up their demand of unconditional surrender. And the myth of the British and the Americans being the great heroes of WWII, in which you have all been raised, might have been more difficult to impose.

Tony Blair might have been less eager and enthusiastic about invading Iraq for example if London had been destroyed in 1945 like Hiroshima was (Britain essentially started WWII in 1939).

I stand by my characterization.

Regarding Scott Ritter's article, I found it remarkable by the level of detail.

Ritter told you what you wanted to hear. He's good at that.

And you can't really understand 9/11 and anti-U.S. terrorism if you ignore Israel. Events of the past shape the present.

Zionism didn't force the Taliban to murder Afghan men who's beards were too short.

 

[trustbutverify]

These women who protest against the Taliban are very courageous.

What they do is probably a better way to try to change a society than U.S. invasions and bombings.

As I said, if the world's cameras weren't laser focused right now on all things Taliban, those women would have been brutalized and then vaporized as an object lesson to any other civilians thinking of getting in their way. And that message would have been received loud and clear.

 

[The Atheist]

As I said, if the world's cameras weren't laser focused right now on all things Taliban, those women would have been brutalized and then vaporized as an object lesson to any other civilians thinking of getting in their way. And that message would have been received loud and clear.

Ah, you're finally agreeing they're capable of change, as long as the world is watching.

Do you think there's more or less chance of international pressure if they're shunned or accepted?

 

[trustbutverify]

Ah, you're finally agreeing they're capable of change, as long as the world is watching.

When have I ever claimed that the threat of dire consequence doesn't temporarily affect superficial behavior? Just because Ted Bundy could charm the gullible in public situations, doesn't mean anything meaningful had changed about who he really was.

Do you think there's more or less chance of international pressure if they're shunned or accepted?

Whatever approach gives those afghans who don't want to live in a brutal theocracy the greatest chance of getting the Taliban entirely out of their lives as quickly as possible, is the strategy I support. I'm not sure what that approach is.

 

[Arcade22]

Tony Blair might have been less eager and enthusiastic about invading Iraq for example if London had been destroyed in 1945 like Hiroshima was (Britain essentially started WWII in 1939).

I'm starting to see the reasoning behind the interesting opinions you have aired.

 

[Ziggurat]

Regarding Scott Ritter's article, I found it remarkable by the level of detail.

And you can't really understand 9/11 and anti-U.S. terrorism if you ignore Israel. Events of the past shape the present.

Ritter is an anti Semitic nut job.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

And no, actually, Israel has very little to do with most terrorism or conflict in the Middle East. I mean, for ***** sake, the idea doesn’t even make any sense. Their territory isn’t of any particular strategic importance, they don’t have much oil, the rest of the Arab world doesn’t even like the Palestinians. Other than hating Jews, what’s the point?

 

[Planigale]

renounce
(rɪnaʊns)
Word forms: 3rd person singular present tense renounces, present participle renouncing, past tense, past participle renounced
1. VERB
If you renounce a belief or a way of behaving, you decide and declare publicly that you no longer have that belief or will no longer behave in that way.
You must renounce your old ways of thinking. [VERB noun]
A substantial minority, unable to renounce Marxism, left to form a new party called Communist Refoundation. [VERB noun]

Even Pakistans Prime minister had the nerve to call Bin-laden a martyr so i doubt the Taliban will suddenly find it in their heart to renounce a terrorist mass-murderer.

So you ask the Taliban to renounce Bin-laden. But renounce by your definition applies to a belief or behaviour, Bin-laden is a person, a concrete object, so renounce does not make sense here.