“The Taliban just want to be left alone.” ~ RON PAUL
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
burntman: “The Taliban just want to be left alone.”
That's probably true.
I doubt it. Consider what they were doing to Afghanistan when they were left alone!
That's probably true.
I doubt it. Consider what they were doing to Afghanistan when they were left alone!
intentionally left blank: I doubt it. Consider what they were doing to Afghanistan when they were left alone!
"Left alone to do what?" is another question altogether, but that they'd like to be left alone to do it, I'm sure they'd like that :P
oh well, it's not like they're gonna blow up the buddhas of Bamiyan again.
"Left alone to do what?" is another question altogether, but that they'd like to be left alone to do it, I'm sure they'd like that :P
oh well, it's not like they're gonna blow up the buddhas of Bamiyan again.
burntman: "Left alone to do what?" is another question altogether, but that they'd like to be left alone to do it, I'm sure they'd like that :P
oh well, it's not like they're gonna blow up the buddhas of Bamiyan again.
They'll just find other priceless artifacts to destroy, and harbor other planners of mass-terrorism acts.
oh well, it's not like they're gonna blow up the buddhas of Bamiyan again.
They'll just find other priceless artifacts to destroy, and harbor other planners of mass-terrorism acts.
intentionally left blank: They'll just find other priceless artifacts to destroy, and harbor other planners of mass-terrorism acts.
They do that anyway.
They do that anyway.
Everyone responsible for 9/11 has been dead for 5 years.
Yeah, I'm not too upset when somebody in the Taliban is killed by whatever method or whoever does it.
Now we're just murdering people for the temerity of being brown, Muslim, and willing to defend their homes from ferangi rapists and terrorists
czarangelus: Everyone responsible for 9/11 has been dead for 5 years.
Bin Laden only died last year, bro.
Bin Laden only died last year, bro.
as for Fallujah - what if they threw a Guernica in the twenty first century and nobody noticed?
abt12monk: Bin Laden only died last year, bro.
Good try, but you remember he's one of those conspiracy types.
\I rather wish he'd change his schtick, personally
Good try, but you remember he's one of those conspiracy types.
\I rather wish he'd change his schtick, personally
One problem with our foreign policy is that we either exploit the people o Afghanistan for our own purposes or abandon them completely when we lose interest. They've learned to be very skeptical of our so-called interest in their welfare.
burntman: They do that anyway.
Isn't it worth putting some effort into stopping them from doing that? (As well as their abuse of the population in general and women in particular?)
Isn't it worth putting some effort into stopping them from doing that? (As well as their abuse of the population in general and women in particular?)
untrustworthy: One problem with our foreign policy is that we either exploit the people o Afghanistan for our own purposes or abandon them completely when we lose interest. They've learned to be very skeptical of our so-called interest in their welfare.
Couldn't think of why. Unless you know what this image is from
Hint
Couldn't think of why. Unless you know what this image is from
Hint
intentionally left blank: Isn't it worth putting some effort into stopping them from doing that? (As well as their abuse of the population in general and women in particular?)
You mean like our close personal ally Saudi Arabia right? I hear women are even allowed to drive cars! Oh wait, they're not.
You mean like our close personal ally Saudi Arabia right? I hear women are even allowed to drive cars! Oh wait, they're not.
czarangelus: as for Fallujah - what if they threw a Guernica in the twenty first century and nobody noticed?
Sirte?
Sirte?
czarangelus: You mean like our close personal ally Saudi Arabia right? I hear women are even allowed to drive cars! Oh wait, they're not.
Do they have to wear burkhas?
Do they get executed in soccer stadiums for entertainment, just because they're women?
Do they have to wear burkhas?
Do they get executed in soccer stadiums for entertainment, just because they're women?
Here's our second-favorite middle eastern ally beheading a woman for witchcraft in 2011! Wow! We really care about the human rights of human people!~
Go on and give him a blowjob, you ugly fuck
Go on and give him a blowjob, you ugly fuck
don't forget the 100% USA approved Saudi invasion of Bahrain. Thanks to the Sauds, the Bahrain dictatorship can now lock up doctors for treating injured protestors
intentionally left blank: Do they have to wear burkhas?
Do they get executed in soccer stadiums for entertainment, just because they're women?
Saudi Arabia has an epic bad history of women's rights.
Do they get executed in soccer stadiums for entertainment, just because they're women?
Saudi Arabia has an epic bad history of women's rights.
czarangelus: Now we're just murdering people for the temerity of being brown, Muslim, and willing to defend their homes from ferangi rapists and terrorists
Your ability to care about every soul in the world, except for American political leaders, is really a beautiful thing to behold. I wouldn't be surprised should you be called by the Nobel people sometime during your lifetime. Inspiring.
Your ability to care about every soul in the world, except for American political leaders, is really a beautiful thing to behold. I wouldn't be surprised should you be called by the Nobel people sometime during your lifetime. Inspiring.
czarangelus: Everyone responsible for 9/11 has been dead for 5 years.
Bush and Rumsfeld are dead? When did that happen?
Bush and Rumsfeld are dead? When did that happen?
someone who may or may not be hiding
2012-02-28 07:46:35.0
login to vote
score 2
czarangelus: Everyone responsible for 9/11 has been dead for 5 years.
Huh? Bush & Cheney are alive and well.
Huh? Bush & Cheney are alive and well.
intentionally left blank: Isn't it worth putting some effort into stopping them from doing that? (As well as their abuse of the population in general and women in particular?)
The only tangible I can see from the Afghanistan fiasco is that heroin is cheaper. Other than that, I don't see to many reports of efforts going to protect women, nor the priceless relics.
The only tangible I can see from the Afghanistan fiasco is that heroin is cheaper. Other than that, I don't see to many reports of efforts going to protect women, nor the priceless relics.
untrustworthy: Saudi Arabia has an epic bad history of women's rights.
Yes. But they use at least some pretense for their abuse. The taliban didn't even bother.
And there is a woman in their version of parliment, IIRC, and women drive as a protest to their second-class status.
It's bad in Saudi Arabia, but there are glimmers of hope. Under the Taliban, you have no hope at all.
Yes. But they use at least some pretense for their abuse. The taliban didn't even bother.
And there is a woman in their version of parliment, IIRC, and women drive as a protest to their second-class status.
It's bad in Saudi Arabia, but there are glimmers of hope. Under the Taliban, you have no hope at all.
little hands of concrete: Your ability to care about every soul in the world, except for American political leaders, is really a beautiful thing to behold. I wouldn't be surprised should you be called by the Nobel people sometime during your lifetime. Inspiring.
Ah fuck off. You got your nuts handed to you on a platter; you could at least have the decency to eat them.
Ah fuck off. You got your nuts handed to you on a platter; you could at least have the decency to eat them.
burntman: “The Taliban just want to be left alone.”
That's probably true.
Al Jazeerah interview with leading researcher on Asian culture from Manipal Uni said: (What everyone fails to comprehend is) Pashtun are a proud people, an ethnic group - not all of them are associated with Al Qaeda - however in the event of a invasion, may fight allied with Al Qaeda but foremost autonomously against foreign occupation or a perceived threat.
That's probably true.
Al Jazeerah interview with leading researcher on Asian culture from Manipal Uni said: (What everyone fails to comprehend is) Pashtun are a proud people, an ethnic group - not all of them are associated with Al Qaeda - however in the event of a invasion, may fight allied with Al Qaeda but foremost autonomously against foreign occupation or a perceived threat.
intentionally left blank: Yes. But they use at least some pretense for their abuse. The taliban didn't even bother.And there is a woman in their version of parliment, IIRC, and women drive as a protest to their second-class status.It's bad in Saudi Arabia, but there are glimmers of hope. Under the Taliban, you have no hope at all.
Really? That's your apology of America's massacres throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, et al? Pathetic
Really? That's your apology of America's massacres throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, et al? Pathetic
burntman: The only tangible I can see from the Afghanistan fiasco is that heroin is cheaper. Other than that, I don't see to many reports of efforts going to protect women, nor the priceless relics.
Well, let's face it. The US blew it when Bush went after Iraq. If we had done our job right, Afghanistan wouldn't've been a fiasco.
Now that we have the shit sandwich, what do we do? The people of the US want out, because 11 years is too long.
OBTW, women's schools and clinics have opened up, outside of Kabul, even.
Well, let's face it. The US blew it when Bush went after Iraq. If we had done our job right, Afghanistan wouldn't've been a fiasco.
Now that we have the shit sandwich, what do we do? The people of the US want out, because 11 years is too long.
OBTW, women's schools and clinics have opened up, outside of Kabul, even.
intentionally left blank: Well, let's face it. The US blew it when Bush went after Iraq. If we had done our job right, Afghanistan wouldn't've been a fiasco.Now that we have the shit sandwich, what do we do? The people of the US want out, because 11 years is too long.OBTW, women's schools and clinics have opened up, outside of Kabul, even.
Before the Soviet invasion, this is what Afghanistan looked like.
Funny, WAR fucks up cultures. Who could have guessed?
Before the Soviet invasion, this is what Afghanistan looked like.
Funny, WAR fucks up cultures. Who could have guessed?
czarangelus: Before the Soviet invasion, this is what Afghanistan looked like.
Funny, WAR fucks up cultures. Who could have guessed?
30 years before the Soviet invasion. Try to be at least a little accurate.
Funny, WAR fucks up cultures. Who could have guessed?
30 years before the Soviet invasion. Try to be at least a little accurate.
czarangelus: Ah fuck off. You got your nuts handed to you on a platter; you could at least have the decency to eat them.
Really? I did? By who? I'm living pretty large and don't see enemies and people trying to keep down every where I look.
Really? I did? By who? I'm living pretty large and don't see enemies and people trying to keep down every where I look.
intentionally left blank: Yes. But they use at least some pretense for their abuse. The taliban didn't even bother.
And there is a woman in their version of parliment, IIRC, and women drive as a protest to their second-class status.
It's bad in Saudi Arabia, but there are glimmers of hope. Under the Taliban, you have no hope at all.
We have very good relations with Saudi Arabia and have for some time. Our relations with Afghanistan has been very haphazard. The chief difference in our policy hasn't been about which one is slightly kinder to women. It's about resources and exploitation. I don believe for a second that our leaders really give a shit about how women are treated in Afghanistan and I don't think it is an issue that registers with them on our choice of policies. It only comes up when selling a policy to the American public. It's a bait and switch because we have no integrity on that front.
Hence why Afghanistan doesn't trust us. It's our fault as much if not more than theirs.
And there is a woman in their version of parliment, IIRC, and women drive as a protest to their second-class status.
It's bad in Saudi Arabia, but there are glimmers of hope. Under the Taliban, you have no hope at all.
We have very good relations with Saudi Arabia and have for some time. Our relations with Afghanistan has been very haphazard. The chief difference in our policy hasn't been about which one is slightly kinder to women. It's about resources and exploitation. I don believe for a second that our leaders really give a shit about how women are treated in Afghanistan and I don't think it is an issue that registers with them on our choice of policies. It only comes up when selling a policy to the American public. It's a bait and switch because we have no integrity on that front.
Hence why Afghanistan doesn't trust us. It's our fault as much if not more than theirs.
little hands of concrete: Really? I did? By who? I'm living pretty large and don't see enemies and people trying to keep down every where I look.
Useful idiots rarely do, right until the day they're worth more dead than alive...
Useful idiots rarely do, right until the day they're worth more dead than alive...
Don't fucking forget: this is what the international banker guilds do to their useful tools on the day they've bled them dry
untrustworthy: We have very good relations with Saudi Arabia and have for some time. Our relations with Afghanistan has been very haphazard. The chief difference in our policy hasn't been about which one is slightly kinder to women. It's about resources and exploitation. I don believe for a second that our leaders really give a shit about how women are treated in Afghanistan and I don't think it is an issue that registers with them on our choice of policies. It only comes up when selling a policy to the American public. It's a bait and switch because we have no integrity on that front.
Hence why Afghanistan doesn't trust us. It's our fault as much if not more than theirs.
Afghanistan doesn't trust any foreign power, no matter who they are.
And of course Saudi Arabia has the resources that we want. But soft diplomacy is valuable, too, which is why USAID exists.
Likewise, Afghanistan is in a very useful strategic place, where it would be good to have an ally. (I think the odds of that happening now are 0, but a neutral player rather than a sworn enemy makes a decent second-best at this time.)
Hence why Afghanistan doesn't trust us. It's our fault as much if not more than theirs.
Afghanistan doesn't trust any foreign power, no matter who they are.
And of course Saudi Arabia has the resources that we want. But soft diplomacy is valuable, too, which is why USAID exists.
Likewise, Afghanistan is in a very useful strategic place, where it would be good to have an ally. (I think the odds of that happening now are 0, but a neutral player rather than a sworn enemy makes a decent second-best at this time.)
intentionally left blank: Do they have to wear burkhas?
Do they get executed in soccer stadiums for entertainment, just because they're women?
well yes, they do have to wear burkhas in Saudi Arabia. And there is a religious police to enforce those dress codes. The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
As for executions "just for being a woman" where does that happen? But the religious police in Saudi Arabia certainly has done it's fair share of floggings and the like. And there was the 2002 incident where they prevented girls from being rescued, with 15 dead as the result:
a BBC article at the time:
Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.
It's not too difficult to find other reports of them enforcing dress code and the like. Search for "mutaween"
Do they get executed in soccer stadiums for entertainment, just because they're women?
well yes, they do have to wear burkhas in Saudi Arabia. And there is a religious police to enforce those dress codes. The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
As for executions "just for being a woman" where does that happen? But the religious police in Saudi Arabia certainly has done it's fair share of floggings and the like. And there was the 2002 incident where they prevented girls from being rescued, with 15 dead as the result:
a BBC article at the time:
Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.
It's not too difficult to find other reports of them enforcing dress code and the like. Search for "mutaween"
czarangelus: Useful idiots rarely do, right until the day they're worth more dead than alive...
Right. I keep forgetting that I need to feel the pain of the world before I can be happy and smart.
Right. I keep forgetting that I need to feel the pain of the world before I can be happy and smart.
little hands of concrete: Right. I keep forgetting that I need to feel the pain of the world before I can be happy and smart.
Just because they're not your enemy doesn't mean you're not theirs.
Just because they're not your enemy doesn't mean you're not theirs.
burntman: well yes, they do have to wear burkhas in Saudi Arabia.
Burkha.
Saudi Women.
Some Saudi women choose to wear the burkha (or their husbands demand they do) but the state does not.
And I know about the Saudi religious police. My dad worked in Saudi Arabia for several years, back in the stone age (late 70s, early 80s)
Also, last I checked, the House of Saud placated the extremists by allowing the religious police to wander freely, and now find that they have created a monster they can't control.
Burkha.
Saudi Women.
Some Saudi women choose to wear the burkha (or their husbands demand they do) but the state does not.
And I know about the Saudi religious police. My dad worked in Saudi Arabia for several years, back in the stone age (late 70s, early 80s)
Also, last I checked, the House of Saud placated the extremists by allowing the religious police to wander freely, and now find that they have created a monster they can't control.
burntman: “The Taliban just want to be left alone.”
That's probably true.
intentionally left blank: I doubt it. Consider what they were doing to Afghanistan when they were left alone!
Pardon me if I start a longwinded rant. I'll preface it by saying this however. Afghanistan as a land mass before definable borders existed, and has been overrun constantly from the BC era. War and repelling foreign interests is built almost within Afghani DNA it seems. Quick rundown on a timeline of events regarding war conducted within the current confines on that dirt hole.
First it was Alexander the Great during the BC era, when he tried to secure routes to the Old Silk road within his time and those of subsequent successors. The next big wave of conflicts arose from the Persian Incursions of tribal turkic people that happened well within the AD ceturies. Flood after flood came, and Khanate dynasties to establish Islamic roots, but they came and went for several hundred years. Then the 1200-1300's happened, and Mongols over rode the region on horseback, and left their genetic mark today found within the Hazari people. Eventually, the Mongols were driven out. People of pushtun heritage and beliefs as we know it know settled the region (particularly in the Southern and Western mountains), and spread their own beliefs and culture.
Fast forward to the beginning of the 19th century, the Brits rolled into India and set up shop, but their influence also spreaded westward, and into the region now known as Pakistan, and even further into what we currently call Afghanistan. Now look again to more recent times.
That's probably true.
intentionally left blank: I doubt it. Consider what they were doing to Afghanistan when they were left alone!
Pardon me if I start a longwinded rant. I'll preface it by saying this however. Afghanistan as a land mass before definable borders existed, and has been overrun constantly from the BC era. War and repelling foreign interests is built almost within Afghani DNA it seems. Quick rundown on a timeline of events regarding war conducted within the current confines on that dirt hole.
First it was Alexander the Great during the BC era, when he tried to secure routes to the Old Silk road within his time and those of subsequent successors. The next big wave of conflicts arose from the Persian Incursions of tribal turkic people that happened well within the AD ceturies. Flood after flood came, and Khanate dynasties to establish Islamic roots, but they came and went for several hundred years. Then the 1200-1300's happened, and Mongols over rode the region on horseback, and left their genetic mark today found within the Hazari people. Eventually, the Mongols were driven out. People of pushtun heritage and beliefs as we know it know settled the region (particularly in the Southern and Western mountains), and spread their own beliefs and culture.
Fast forward to the beginning of the 19th century, the Brits rolled into India and set up shop, but their influence also spreaded westward, and into the region now known as Pakistan, and even further into what we currently call Afghanistan. Now look again to more recent times.
The Afghans fought off the British in a series of small conflicts at the turn of the last century. 50 years later, the Russian's were playing monopoly game with central Asian real estate in order to expand their empire and the reach of the then USSR in the 70's. The Russians then tried a failed and very lengthy and caustic campaign in order to subjugate the local Afghan populace.
Some of the events of Charlie Wilson's war happened. We trained the muja's soviet tactics and then armed them with stinger missles to counteract what ever Russia was throwing down. Eventually after the funding and training, the Russians left and went home. The local muja's we made promises to with foreign aid, armament, and foreign aid never materialized. That left a lot of holy warriors who felt the US abandoned them. The promises that the US made to get the Russians out of the homeland never materialized, so they disbursed. Many went back to Pakistan. The ones left behind felt betrayed, used, and forgotten about.
Some of the events of Charlie Wilson's war happened. We trained the muja's soviet tactics and then armed them with stinger missles to counteract what ever Russia was throwing down. Eventually after the funding and training, the Russians left and went home. The local muja's we made promises to with foreign aid, armament, and foreign aid never materialized. That left a lot of holy warriors who felt the US abandoned them. The promises that the US made to get the Russians out of the homeland never materialized, so they disbursed. Many went back to Pakistan. The ones left behind felt betrayed, used, and forgotten about.
That leads me to my last point, and after a long winded post like this, I will try to keep it short. The US went in the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy. A myriad of groups that were originally Mujahadeen freedom fighters resented the fact that after the Russians left, that we didnt give them some kind of foreign aid, or the fact we didn't live up to the honey we poured in their ears.
Now as a tribal member of a country that got training and assistance, where your spoken word is your bond regarding local customs, the honey poured into your ear turned out to be a beehive of lies when you wre merely left to your own devices. I don't sympathize with these people one bit, save their kids and the overall youth growing up in the shadow of war. But if war and strife is all you know, how are you going to stop it when you have 2k years of dealing with it on a generational basis. The memories between blood feuds and righting the wrongs within the afghan culture are not easily forgotten. They live for their tribe, and live for their code of pashtunwali, something of which I will get more in depth with at another point in time.
Now as a tribal member of a country that got training and assistance, where your spoken word is your bond regarding local customs, the honey poured into your ear turned out to be a beehive of lies when you wre merely left to your own devices. I don't sympathize with these people one bit, save their kids and the overall youth growing up in the shadow of war. But if war and strife is all you know, how are you going to stop it when you have 2k years of dealing with it on a generational basis. The memories between blood feuds and righting the wrongs within the afghan culture are not easily forgotten. They live for their tribe, and live for their code of pashtunwali, something of which I will get more in depth with at another point in time.
And why is that such a bad thing, sockpoppuet? Must we turn the whole world into a Disneyfied replica of Cleveland, Ohio, with Arabic script on all the logos for Mickey D's and the Colonel? Al Queda, insofar as they are not a US sponsored agency, is a group of criminals. The idea that terrorism must be treated as a military threat instead of a criminal one has gotten us into no end of trouble, and will continue to haunt us until we give up on our entire misaimed strategy.
intentionally left blank: [image removed]
Burkha.
[image removed]
Saudi Women.
Some Saudi women choose to wear the burkha (or their husbands demand they do) but the state does not.
Fair enough, so it's only the hijab that is mandated?
intentionally left blank: Also, last I checked, the House of Saud placated the extremists by allowing the religious police to wander freely, and now find that they have created a monster they can't control.
And how is that different from the Taliban wrt womans rights?
Burkha.
[image removed]
Saudi Women.
Some Saudi women choose to wear the burkha (or their husbands demand they do) but the state does not.
Fair enough, so it's only the hijab that is mandated?
intentionally left blank: Also, last I checked, the House of Saud placated the extremists by allowing the religious police to wander freely, and now find that they have created a monster they can't control.
And how is that different from the Taliban wrt womans rights?
burntman: Fair enough, so it's only the hijab that is mandated?
And how is that different from the Taliban wrt womans rights?
The hijab is what is mandated, yes.
The Saudis don't execute them en masse in the middle of a soccer stadium for entertainment.
And how is that different from the Taliban wrt womans rights?
The hijab is what is mandated, yes.
The Saudis don't execute them en masse in the middle of a soccer stadium for entertainment.
intentionally left blank: The Saudis don't execute them en masse in the middle of a soccer stadium for entertainment.
Do you have a source for that?
Do you have a source for that?
intentionally left blank: The hijab is what is mandated, yes.The Saudis don't execute them en masse in the middle of a soccer stadium for entertainment.
and Iraqi soldiers threw Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and onto the floor, if you believe anything.
and Iraqi soldiers threw Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and onto the floor, if you believe anything.
czarangelus: And why is that such a bad thing, sockpoppuet? Must we turn the whole world into a Disneyfied replica of Cleveland, Ohio, with Arabic script on all the logos for Mickey D's and the Colonel? Al Queda, insofar as they are not a US sponsored agency, is a group of criminals. The idea that terrorism must be treated as a military threat instead of a criminal one has gotten us into no end of trouble, and will continue to haunt us until we give up on our entire misaimed strategy.
Czar, pardon me for stating it this way, but really? What are you trying to make a point? I am honestly not following right now. What can I clrify in order to answer you in the best fashion?
If it in regards to treating AQ as a military matter, then yes, AQ needs to be engaged in tnat manner, and without possible quarter or refuge. Regarding treating potential terrOrism charges on both US citizens and foreign nationals, hell, I'd rather it be judged in a military court when charges are pressed against an individual.
Potential terr0rism in my book needs to be adjudicated on a military front, and not a civil one. This is my reasoning. The state declares enemy groups, and then makes the case for prosecution for whatever the charges may happen to be.
Military courts can facilitate this a bit faster, with a higher access of evidence in order to charge someone charged with certain crimes. the 'jury of peers' may require a certain level of access that can't be help to the normal public adjudication standard.
The fact of such decisions for trying people under military tribunals is because there are many gray areas regarding foreign national rights. Notice, I'm not trying to make a justification here or defend it.
I think it borders on the fact on what right's are for a person is apprehended overseas. I do not know legalese of the UCMJ, I only work for a shred of it. There very well could be a "Bill of Rights" for detained foreign nationals, but at this point in time, I am unfamiliar with them in order to provide you a straight or informed answer regarding it or US policies.
Czar, pardon me for stating it this way, but really? What are you trying to make a point? I am honestly not following right now. What can I clrify in order to answer you in the best fashion?
If it in regards to treating AQ as a military matter, then yes, AQ needs to be engaged in tnat manner, and without possible quarter or refuge. Regarding treating potential terrOrism charges on both US citizens and foreign nationals, hell, I'd rather it be judged in a military court when charges are pressed against an individual.
Potential terr0rism in my book needs to be adjudicated on a military front, and not a civil one. This is my reasoning. The state declares enemy groups, and then makes the case for prosecution for whatever the charges may happen to be.
Military courts can facilitate this a bit faster, with a higher access of evidence in order to charge someone charged with certain crimes. the 'jury of peers' may require a certain level of access that can't be help to the normal public adjudication standard.
The fact of such decisions for trying people under military tribunals is because there are many gray areas regarding foreign national rights. Notice, I'm not trying to make a justification here or defend it.
I think it borders on the fact on what right's are for a person is apprehended overseas. I do not know legalese of the UCMJ, I only work for a shred of it. There very well could be a "Bill of Rights" for detained foreign nationals, but at this point in time, I am unfamiliar with them in order to provide you a straight or informed answer regarding it or US policies.
We've attacked "Al Queda" in a military manner for more than a decade and there are more of them than ever. It's become a generic brand name for resistence against US policy in the region; see: Al Queda in Somalia, Al Queda in Yemen. It's obviously a failure for the same reason that going after the Mafia in New Jersey with predator drones would be a failure; people love their children and families, and get hella pissed when aliens launch missiles from the sky and kill whole extended families.
czarangelus: going after the Mafia in New Jersey with predator drones would be a failure
time to get your czary on.
Congress says FAA must let drones fly in domestic airspace
time to get your czary on.
Congress says FAA must let drones fly in domestic airspace
burntman: Do you have a source for that?
Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
Taliban Oppression of women: To PHR's knowledge, no other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment.[155]
—Physicians for Human Rights, 1998
(Emphasis mine)
Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
Taliban Oppression of women: To PHR's knowledge, no other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment.[155]
—Physicians for Human Rights, 1998
(Emphasis mine)
czarangelus: Before the Soviet invasion, this is what Afghanistan looked like.
Afghanistan was a record store?
Afghanistan was a record store?
intentionally left blank: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
Taliban Oppression of women: To PHR's knowledge, no other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment.[155]
—Physicians for Human Rights, 1998
(Emphasis mine)
I was asking about the massacre for entertainment in the stadium. You mentioned that twice, but it's a news story I have not heard.
As for comparing woman rights under the taliban and in Saudi Arabia.
Well lets look at them:
In Saudi Arabia:
All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Women cannot vote or be elected to high political positions
I know the wiki says the king has promised to change that by 2015, but Abdullah is not exactly known for keeping his promises on that front.
Driving.
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving.
Economic rights
For me to go to any government agency or to the court to buy or sell property, as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses to testify to my identity, and four male witnesses to testify that the first two are credible witnesses, and actually know me. Where is any woman going to find six men to go with her to the court?! It’s hard for me to get my legal rights...the solution is to use one’s connections, pay a bribe or be sharp-tongued. --Loulwa al-Saidan,
Mobility
Women’s freedom of movement is very limited in Saudi Arabia. They are not supposed to leave their houses or their local neighbourhood without the permission of their male guardian, and company of a mahram (close male relative).
etc etc.
So what are we comparing? Two horribly oppressive regimes wrt womans rights in order to say one is somehow better?
They are both regimes that oppress woman in a manner that should not have any place in the 21 century.
Saudia Arabia is no better than the Taliban when it comes to womans rights. and indeed given it's current status as a "friend to the west" It should be held up to even more scrutiny.
Taliban Oppression of women: To PHR's knowledge, no other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment.[155]
—Physicians for Human Rights, 1998
(Emphasis mine)
I was asking about the massacre for entertainment in the stadium. You mentioned that twice, but it's a news story I have not heard.
As for comparing woman rights under the taliban and in Saudi Arabia.
Well lets look at them:
In Saudi Arabia:
All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Women cannot vote or be elected to high political positions
I know the wiki says the king has promised to change that by 2015, but Abdullah is not exactly known for keeping his promises on that front.
Driving.
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving.
Economic rights
For me to go to any government agency or to the court to buy or sell property, as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses to testify to my identity, and four male witnesses to testify that the first two are credible witnesses, and actually know me. Where is any woman going to find six men to go with her to the court?! It’s hard for me to get my legal rights...the solution is to use one’s connections, pay a bribe or be sharp-tongued. --Loulwa al-Saidan,
Mobility
Women’s freedom of movement is very limited in Saudi Arabia. They are not supposed to leave their houses or their local neighbourhood without the permission of their male guardian, and company of a mahram (close male relative).
etc etc.
So what are we comparing? Two horribly oppressive regimes wrt womans rights in order to say one is somehow better?
They are both regimes that oppress woman in a manner that should not have any place in the 21 century.
Saudia Arabia is no better than the Taliban when it comes to womans rights. and indeed given it's current status as a "friend to the west" It should be held up to even more scrutiny.
czarangelus: Before the Soviet invasion, this is what Afghanistan looked like.
Funny, WAR fucks up cultures. Who could have guessed?
Funny, it doesn't look like their culture at all.
It looks like ours.
Funny, WAR fucks up cultures. Who could have guessed?
Funny, it doesn't look like their culture at all.
It looks like ours.
burntman:
End note 162.
I think you are being absurd. Did you not pay attention to any of the world news out of Afghanistan in the 90s and 2000s?
End note 162.
I think you are being absurd. Did you not pay attention to any of the world news out of Afghanistan in the 90s and 2000s?
czarangelus: Before the Soviet invasion, this is what Afghanistan looked like.
Funny, WAR fucks up cultures. Who could have guessed?
That is a snapshot in time my friend. Far gone, and even halcyon time, fitted within the place and frame it happened. That snapshot in time, was only found within the bigger cities, and not often seen in the agrarian countryside where most of the populace lives these days.
At one point in time, AGF was rather progressive in the cityscapes. But after decades of war, points in time immortalized through foreign interference in pictures in the 50's, and 60's, are just that. Memories brought upon by Western ideals. The degeneration in the last few decades without direct puppet governmental interference and Western actions reduced the female relevance to wearing burkas once the more pashtun driven elements and overall reinstatement of Sharia customs and law.
It sucks. Religious rule became married with law when the people who had the most guns can into power during the early 90's after Russia left. Hopefully, and sooner than later, a measure of equilibrium can be restored for the wives and just women in general. I won't hold my breath however.
Funny, WAR fucks up cultures. Who could have guessed?
That is a snapshot in time my friend. Far gone, and even halcyon time, fitted within the place and frame it happened. That snapshot in time, was only found within the bigger cities, and not often seen in the agrarian countryside where most of the populace lives these days.
At one point in time, AGF was rather progressive in the cityscapes. But after decades of war, points in time immortalized through foreign interference in pictures in the 50's, and 60's, are just that. Memories brought upon by Western ideals. The degeneration in the last few decades without direct puppet governmental interference and Western actions reduced the female relevance to wearing burkas once the more pashtun driven elements and overall reinstatement of Sharia customs and law.
It sucks. Religious rule became married with law when the people who had the most guns can into power during the early 90's after Russia left. Hopefully, and sooner than later, a measure of equilibrium can be restored for the wives and just women in general. I won't hold my breath however.
intentionally left blank: End note 162.
I think you are being absurd. Did you not pay attention to any of the world news out of Afghanistan in the 90s and 2000s?
I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think his point is that Afghanistan isn't bad, but that we ignore similar activities from Saudi Arabia due to the nature of our relationship with them.
I think you are being absurd. Did you not pay attention to any of the world news out of Afghanistan in the 90s and 2000s?
I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think his point is that Afghanistan isn't bad, but that we ignore similar activities from Saudi Arabia due to the nature of our relationship with them.
jimmythehutt: I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think his point is that Afghanistan isn't bad, but that we ignore similar activities from Saudi Arabia due to the nature of our relationship with them.
Honestly, I don't think they are in the same magnitude. Ghazi Stadium was a freakin' bloodbath.
If I were a woman, I'd choose e) none of the above, but if forced to make a choice, I'd choose Saudi Arabia in a heartbeat.
Honestly, I don't think they are in the same magnitude. Ghazi Stadium was a freakin' bloodbath.
If I were a woman, I'd choose e) none of the above, but if forced to make a choice, I'd choose Saudi Arabia in a heartbeat.
intentionally left blank: End note 162.
I think you are being absurd. Did you not pay attention to any of the world news out of Afghanistan in the 90s and 2000s?
Of what woman being massacred in a soccer stadium for entertainment? No I most certainly have not heard anything like that.
So no you don't get to make wild pronouncements and then call others absurd for pointing that out.
What did happen with regard to people being killed in soccer stadiums is the execution of criminals. Want to know which other country has public executions?
Saudi Arabia:
The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[2] including murder, rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[3] adultery,[4] witchcraft and sorcery[5] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[3] stoning or firing squad,[4] followed by crucifixion.[5]
The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading.[6] The last reported execution for sorcery took place in 2011, in which there were at least two executions for sorcery.[7] There were no reports of stoning between 2007 and 2010,[6] but between 1981 and 1992 there were four cases of execution by stoning reported.[8]
You don't get to excuse Saudi Arabia while vilifying the Taliban. When it comes to human rights, both have atrocious records. And yes it is hypocrisy to criticise the Taliban on those grounds and not extend the same criticism to Saudi Arabia.
I think you are being absurd. Did you not pay attention to any of the world news out of Afghanistan in the 90s and 2000s?
Of what woman being massacred in a soccer stadium for entertainment? No I most certainly have not heard anything like that.
So no you don't get to make wild pronouncements and then call others absurd for pointing that out.
What did happen with regard to people being killed in soccer stadiums is the execution of criminals. Want to know which other country has public executions?
Saudi Arabia:
The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[2] including murder, rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[3] adultery,[4] witchcraft and sorcery[5] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[3] stoning or firing squad,[4] followed by crucifixion.[5]
The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading.[6] The last reported execution for sorcery took place in 2011, in which there were at least two executions for sorcery.[7] There were no reports of stoning between 2007 and 2010,[6] but between 1981 and 1992 there were four cases of execution by stoning reported.[8]
You don't get to excuse Saudi Arabia while vilifying the Taliban. When it comes to human rights, both have atrocious records. And yes it is hypocrisy to criticise the Taliban on those grounds and not extend the same criticism to Saudi Arabia.
burntman: Of what woman being massacred in a soccer stadium for entertainment? No I most certainly have not heard anything like that.
So no you don't get to make wild pronouncements and then call others absurd for pointing that out.
What did happen with regard to people being killed in soccer stadiums is the execution of criminals. Want to know which other country has public executions?
Saudi Arabia:
The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[2] including murder, rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[3] adultery,[4] witchcraft and sorcery[5] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[3] stoning or firing squad,[4] followed by crucifixion.[5]
The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading.[6] The last reported execution for sorcery took place in 2011, in which there were at least two executions for sorcery.[7] There were no reports of stoning between 2007 and 2010,[6] but between 1981 and 1992 there were four cases of execution by stoning reported.[8]
You don't get to excuse Saudi Arabia while vilifying the Taliban. When it comes to human rights, both have atrocious records. And yes it is hypocrisy to criticise the Taliban on those grounds and not extend the same criticism to Saudi Arabia.
I'm not saying Saudi Arabia doesn't have human rights abuses and women's rights abuses. If that's what you're reading, that's NOT what I'm saying.
Both do have abysmal rights. But I think the Taliban are the worst of a very bad bunch. I do NOT consider them interchangeable in their abuse.
So no you don't get to make wild pronouncements and then call others absurd for pointing that out.
What did happen with regard to people being killed in soccer stadiums is the execution of criminals. Want to know which other country has public executions?
Saudi Arabia:
The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[2] including murder, rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[3] adultery,[4] witchcraft and sorcery[5] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[3] stoning or firing squad,[4] followed by crucifixion.[5]
The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading.[6] The last reported execution for sorcery took place in 2011, in which there were at least two executions for sorcery.[7] There were no reports of stoning between 2007 and 2010,[6] but between 1981 and 1992 there were four cases of execution by stoning reported.[8]
You don't get to excuse Saudi Arabia while vilifying the Taliban. When it comes to human rights, both have atrocious records. And yes it is hypocrisy to criticise the Taliban on those grounds and not extend the same criticism to Saudi Arabia.
I'm not saying Saudi Arabia doesn't have human rights abuses and women's rights abuses. If that's what you're reading, that's NOT what I'm saying.
Both do have abysmal rights. But I think the Taliban are the worst of a very bad bunch. I do NOT consider them interchangeable in their abuse.
intentionally left blank: I'm not saying Saudi Arabia doesn't have human rights abuses and women's rights abuses. If that's what you're reading, that's NOT what I'm saying.
Both do have abysmal rights. But I think the Taliban are the worst of a very bad bunch. I do NOT consider them interchangeable in their abuse.
See I don't think we get to say degrees of worse. How can you? Public executions: Check, No womans rights: Check. Dead is dead, there are no shades of gray.
If anything we should hold Saudi Arabia more accountable since they largely enjoy the Wests support.
That we all rightly vilify the Taliban is good and proper. That Saudi Arabia is somehow given a pass, most certainly is not. And where that makes a difference, is that for so long as the House of Saud enjoys the Wests support, it is hypocrisy to claim that the west is in Afghanistan promoting human rights. There may be many reasons for the current Nato adventures in Kabul, but "human rights" is one that rings very hollow.
Both do have abysmal rights. But I think the Taliban are the worst of a very bad bunch. I do NOT consider them interchangeable in their abuse.
See I don't think we get to say degrees of worse. How can you? Public executions: Check, No womans rights: Check. Dead is dead, there are no shades of gray.
If anything we should hold Saudi Arabia more accountable since they largely enjoy the Wests support.
That we all rightly vilify the Taliban is good and proper. That Saudi Arabia is somehow given a pass, most certainly is not. And where that makes a difference, is that for so long as the House of Saud enjoys the Wests support, it is hypocrisy to claim that the west is in Afghanistan promoting human rights. There may be many reasons for the current Nato adventures in Kabul, but "human rights" is one that rings very hollow.
burntman: That Saudi Arabia is somehow given a pass, most certainly is not.
But I'm not.
I think when the goal is just survival, you'd consider being allowed out in public to be an immense freedom.
Again, I'm not giving S.A. a pass.
Again, I'm not giving S.A. a pass.
Again, I'm not giving S.A. a pass.
But I'm not.
I think when the goal is just survival, you'd consider being allowed out in public to be an immense freedom.
Again, I'm not giving S.A. a pass.
Again, I'm not giving S.A. a pass.
Again, I'm not giving S.A. a pass.
intentionally left blank: I think when the goal is just survival, you'd consider being allowed out in public to be an immense freedom.
Being allowed out is an immense freedom regardless of the situation. And on that front, Saudia Arabia is also dismal.
The mutaween, particularly active in Riyadh, Buraydah and Tabuk, can detain Saudis who violate religious law. Women can be charged with prostitution for socializing with a man who is not a relative or husband
What this means is simply that using human rights as a reason for the military action in Afghanistan is simply not a valid observation. Because that is not what the troops are doing over there nor was it ever their intention to do so.
Being allowed out is an immense freedom regardless of the situation. And on that front, Saudia Arabia is also dismal.
The mutaween, particularly active in Riyadh, Buraydah and Tabuk, can detain Saudis who violate religious law. Women can be charged with prostitution for socializing with a man who is not a relative or husband
What this means is simply that using human rights as a reason for the military action in Afghanistan is simply not a valid observation. Because that is not what the troops are doing over there nor was it ever their intention to do so.
If you logged in, you could post here.