What is the point of this picture? do we know any background? may be she had been sentenced by a court of law ? how many women have been given capital punishment in USA? If we also start posting their pictures while being executed what will it prove?
The point is illustrated by your question alone, in my opinion. I am not a supporter of capital punishment, if you're asking, but even given that, regardless of where I stand, I'm certainly not a supporter of dragging a woman into a stadium filled with a crowd of cheering men, surrounding that woman with men armed with rifles, throwing her to the ground in a canvas shroud that robs her of fresh air, sunlight, and the same freedoms to enjoy the earth that you, I enjoy, and blowing her brains out like a discarded dog. "Context" tends to fall pretty short here, does it not, New? A good example of what I would call blindness. How about this? From what I understand, The first woman is being beaten by an asshole, on the street, apparently because she dared to walk alone on the sidewalk, without male relative escort. This is what I've read, anyway. It's my best guess as to the truth. As I've said on another thread, none of us can know precisely where the truth lies, unless we're there. Not sure what serious offense to humanity the second bloodthirsty woman committed, to warrant the just implementation of a wooden rod across her back by the just and manly moral police-guy, but I'm sure she had it coming, yes? What helps to validate the truth of this is that the Taliban itself declares what it's about. It is an organization devoted to the implementation of strict sharia law, and this is the result, as implemented by the Taliban. What justification would you like to search for? Would anything matter, or is it impossible to actually pierce what I sure see as accumulated dogma, that makes it impossible for you to even question your assumptions, regardless of what's been brought before you?
I know the background! The woman had a terrible Louse attack and her head for itching all over. So she asked the honorable gentleman to escort her to the football stadium where he can intimately scratch her head. Now, this gentleman is a nail biter, and unfortunately he has no fingernails. So, how nicely of him, he offered that he will scratch her head with his rifle. The only reason he carries a rifle is because last year he read on national geographic that there might be an allien attack soon, so he decided to use precaution. and... what is the point of this picture? do we know any background? I dont know the background. But let me guess again! A task force of the IDF come to a Palestinian house to arrest a terrorist, or maybe even to escort the child's sister to cancer-irradiation treatments in Israel (which over 3000 Palestinians undergo yearly for free). One thing I can say for sure: they didn't come to harm the kid, because in that case they wouldn't allow a photographer to stand 1m away and take a high quality shot, wouldn't they? the taliban picture was taken in secret, this one isn't. besides, the angle is misleading, even if the rifle is point 3m aside from the kid, from that angle it may look like it is pointing at the kid. This is also evident by looking at the kid's face, which is more in focus in comparison with the soldier's face. a propaganda picture. ---> The rifle of the taliban man IS pointing at the woman's head. new has broken already all records of racism and ignorance I could possibly think of, and with the above quoted two new records are broken: hypocracy and double standard.
well said. The Islamic world does not speak out against atrocities against its own people. They don't do it in forums, cr@p, they don't do it in the real world. That is why the atrocities continue. Maybe that is why the west is required to bomb the cr@p out of the extremists, and in those acts, civilians die. Maybe if non extremists took a stand the situation would change.
Probably not because the military doesn't have full control or authority. When we first invaded and dismantled their government it probably met the definition. I don't believe just being there meets the strict definition of occupation. But to be honest, I'm not sure.
So any man can just beat a woman on the street that is walking unescorted ? WTF ? No wonder their technology and living conditions are still 3rd world. (Gees is it just me or have ads all of a sudden started crowding every square inch of space on this forum?)
Yep, I'm a fan. Fan of this abomination upon women, fan of their destruction of ancient cultural monuments, part of our species' inheritance, fan of them generally. Great bunch. Yep, also noted that, Harold. Don't know what is up with the ad thing, but noticed it, esp. as of today.
They had, until US/NATO threw over their Govt no big difference at all , everyone knows and you too that what kind of govt is in place in Afghanistan or iraq They are just american puppets, they will do whatever they are commanded to do @LogicFlux You know it very well that who is in control just because taliban treat their woman badly (that too is debatable) does not mean that it is ok to run over their country and if you forgot Every country should be free to make its own laws and rules and hey do you know the Saudis also have similar punishments (what you call barbaric) but america does not have problem with that as sauids are in bed with them and also ever looked at the human right records of china ? why doesn't us also spend some of the energies correcting them ? If you guys think calmly for a moment (by keeping your 'patriotism' aside) then you will see that the foreign forces US/NATO are in fact occupying forces and are no different from the colonial forces which ruled over much of asia and africa in past the method of occupation has changed a bit but the essence is still the same further, many practices of taliban were not correct but if us/nato had not jumped in there and destroyed anything that was there, thing would have improved over the years and taliban too would have come in the mainstream
Also I find is really amusing that taliban who are the indigenous people of the land are 'insurgents' whereas those forces who have come to Afghanistan from thousands of mile away are not
Most grotesquely absurd "line of the year" award? As to issues of national sovereignty, tough one for me. I'm torn between a strong background in realpolitik, Morganthau-infused int'l relations theoretical premises (which bases foreign policy on national interest, and national interest alone - stripped of concepts of "moral rectitude" torn between this background, and a strong desire to rid the world of this cancer that is the Taliban, for the evil they have brought upon the earth. As to Saudi Arabia, totally agree - though I have a certain admiration for the genius and stones of Ibn Al-Saud, the medieval practices employed in Saudi civil law is something I condemn. Not sure if you believed those of us here who take issue with the Taliban's bloodthirsty misogny were somehow cool with law enforcement in Saudi Arabia? And as to China, yep, not a fan, either of its record - but it goes way further back than the Communist regime. Much like Soviet (and post-Soviet) Russia, we are talking about an entrenched cultural environment, millenia long, where the communist regimes (or post-communist, authoritarian regime) are really little more than a continuity, in many ways. At any rate, yep, it all stinks; I condemn it all. How does this help prove your point that somehow the Taliban are swell guys?
You are not cool with them but your govt sure is pretty happy with their performance The point is the America/Nato only attacked Afghanistan and iraq to fulfill their political (or should I say religious ..crusades ??) goals The goal is simple : World Dominance Those who tow your line become ok, those who don't have to bear the brunt so in short all you are trying to do it to find lame excuses to justify the occupation Admit that it is for political and dominance reason and I don't have a problem with that
New, you seem to have trouble understanding something, here. I'm not speaking for my government. I'm speaking for my conscience. It isn't surprising to me that you would find any reason possible other than what I've told you, but - as with the issue of child marriage and rape - crazy as this sounds, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN BEING HURT BY RELIGIOUS ASSHOLES. The crimes we're talking about are bad enough, but when they are justified by religion, anyone's religion, I have even more of an issue, because such crimes are actually given validation, for those pre-disposed to such facile justifications. Now, let's cut to the chase - rather than trying to find any possible reason for why I and others would hate the Taliban, any reason, so long as it doesn't include the "why" I've told you - how are you with the Taliban, and its treatment of women? While we're at it, how are you with 8 year old girls forced to marry 55 year old men? Cool with it? Condemn it? I'll ask a final time, then leave you to your mindset. Any reason you keep avoiding these questions?
You are going in the wrong direction This war is not being fought for love of innocent children or women , the goal is political talibans treatment of women is debatable (neither I condone it nor I condemn it) However whatever the way taliban treated women is NO excuse to attack a country, its their country and they have a right to live in the way they want should China attack US if it thinks that allowing gay marriages is really absurd ? Islam does not condone forced marriages However If you will try to drag Prophet (SAW) in the discussion than I will tell you that whatever HE did or said is acceptable to me WHOLELLY AND FULLY, this is what is faith. I might not like something but I will accept it without asking any questions We can save the religion discussions for other threads since this thread is not about them
new. come on. if you say that how can anybody take anything else you might say seriously? is it also debatable that the sun will shine tomorrow morning?
No, it isn't debatable, actually. That you would say it is "debatable" that beating a woman with a wooden rod like a piece of cattle, because she dared to walk on a street unattended by a male relative, is anything but horrible abuse of womanhood, is tragic. Then why do clerics justify them in the name of Islam? And therein lies the supreme tragedy, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion. A human being admits it - that no matter what a purported "holy man" did while on earth, it doesn't matter. A human being admits it - "I refuse to ask any questions." One more question, though. Is it not a principle of Islam that you are supposed to ask questions, that you are in fact duty-bound to inquire into matters of faith yourself, and not take the word of a cleric, for instance? Has that not been said, many times, on this forum alone? *********** New, and all Muslims: These questions are tough. I understand that. They are tough, because they ask some troubling things that strike likely at the very heart of your faith, I am sure, and that is never a gentle inquiry; but please understand: my intent is not to hurt you, in any way. It isn't out of some pre-conceived thing that drives me to unfairly attack you, or whatever gives you comfort in this one life we all have. It is what I've always said, respecting religion: so long as you harm no other, I've no issue with whatever faith you wish to practice. But I cannot in good conscience look on the forced marriages of young girls aged 7-9 to aged men; cannot view a film of a woman brutally slaughtered, before a thronging crowd of cheering men; cannot view an image of a woman abjectly beaten, while she shrinks in terror beneath a shroud imposed on her, a shroud that robs her of the very elemental, human right to breathe fresh air, feel clean sunlight on her face, that I and mine feel in daily life; cannot see entire generations of girls forced into illiteracy in order to smash their precious brains to nothingness, all in the name of religion - cannot witness any of these things, and remain silent to their egregious wrong. This is what has impelled me over the last stretch of time on this forum, and nothing else. I hope for a world at peace; I hope for universal recognition that this one piece of dirt is all we have, to sustain us and our children. I thank the mothers that gave us birth, the sisters who grow with us in love, the wives and mates who walk with us as partners in life, so that we may enrich our hours together, as friends. I fervently believe that women are life-givers, literally, and I believe that so long as they are oppressed, as they are in the subjects being discussed, there will never be peace for our species.
That's not why we attacked them. We attacked Afghanistan because they protected those who attacked us. We attacked Iraq because they invaded 2 or 3 of their neighbors and refused to prove for thirteen years or so that they weren't still a threat to the region. I don't know why I'm telling you again. You'll just keep ignoring the facts as usual.