Taliban hang child

[RedLaw]

Sick Taliban extremists have reportedly hanged a seven year old boy on the
allegation he was spying for Afghani President Karzai's US puppet government.
The execution (murder) took place in Afghanistan's volatile Helmand province.
If the report of this hanging is true,and by all accounts appears to be,it is one
of the most disgusting and sickening criminal acts I have heard of and shows,
beyond all doubt, what the Taliban and Islamic extremism are about.
This news is so appalling and fills me with hate. It is a monstrous,heinous act
against a child, a seven year old child,and must be condemned without any
regard of political ideologies or persuation as this crime transcends any and all
notions of left-center-right and cuts to the core of decency and humanity.

[StoneFrog]

any sources on this?

[Communist]

any sources on this?

I found a story here (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/10/2010-06-10_taliban_hang_7yearold_boy_accused_of_being_a_sp y_suicide_bomber_kills_40_at_afgh.html).


.

[Sir Comradical]

Truly disgusting.

[AK]

What do you expect? High-ranking members of the Taliban formed part of the ruling class pre-invasion. The Taliban were just driven underground to become a resistance movement - albeit, not one that we should support by any means. The barbarity of this incident does not surprise me.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

OMG! I feel like I want to go vom! That is fucking terrible!

[Proletarian Ultra]

If we had headlines like this every time the Northern Alliance rapes a boy, we'd have a lot of headlines.

[this is an invasion]

But guys, don't forget that this is clearly an act of anti-imperialism against the evils of the West.

[tbasherizer]

But guys, don't forget that this is clearly an act of anti-imperialism against the evils of the West.

This post itself is clearly an act of black-white judgement! Just because we oppose NATO's imperialistic motivations in Afghanistan does not mean we support the Taliban's hanging of children! This is a despicable act, and just goes to show what chaos Reagon let loose when he funded the Taliban's ilk back when the Soviets were there.

[Sir Comradical]

This post itself is clearly an act of black-white judgement! Just because we oppose NATO's imperialistic motivations in Afghanistan does not mean we support the Taliban's hanging of children! This is a despicable act, and just goes to show what chaos Reagon let loose when he funded the Taliban's ilk back when the Soviets were there.

I think perhaps he/she was being sarcastic.

[vampire squid]

do children have social agency?

[Abbas]

Sickening. These Taliban fools have plagued Afghanistan, and my country Pakistan, for too long. This... this is just pathetic.

[danyboy27]

If we had headlines like this every time the Northern Alliance rapes a boy, we'd have a lot of headlines.

its not beccause that the media are biaised that we shouldnt stay aware of such horrible crime.

[Barry Lyndon]

The poor children of Afghanistan. They can either get incinerated by US drone bombers, or they can get hanged by the Taliban. What a great set of choices.

That Brzezinski, the man who as National Security advisor to Jimmy Carter fed these jihadist monsters as an attack dog against the Soviets, is now one of Obama's foreign policy advisors is sickening.

[Saorsa]

While it wouldn't surprise me if it was... everyone does realise this may not be true?

[Warboy99]

The Taliban are monsters.

[McCroskey]

The US made sure that leftist movements of liberation in the Middle East got crushed before they could pose a threat to their interests. The opportunity was then seized by fundamentalist islamism to appeal to the population as their saviour, giving them the promise of welfare and a sedative, religion. People supported them because, due to the lack of credible and viable left wing alternatives, they were the only ones actually fighting for them. But their fight against the US is not anti-imperialist, it is disguised, and sometimes not even so, as anti-imperialist when in fact it is a chauvinistic and religious fanatic agenda what they are aiming for. Every time the left has sided with this fascists in the middle east it was because they were against imperialist powers, but then they always become something irreconciliable with social justice. The left supported the zionists because of their pseudo-socialists experiments, their pledge as a people without a nation, the recent memory of the holocaust, and the fact that they opposed british imperialism, and look what we´ve got, the left also sided with Khomeini revolutionary uprising in Persia, against the Shah, and look what we´ve got, the left are tempted to side now with the taliban, as an anti-US ally, and look what they did when they were in power. It´s about time that leftists stop following the "rulebok of the good leftist" and start thinking for themselves. Not everyone that opposes the US is our ally. The fact that they are fundamentalist muslims does not means that for the majority of the muslim population religion is the most important thing for a state. Given the evidence, the taliban will fight a socialist revolution in Afghanistan as fiercely as they fight US occupation. Any leftist that supports a goverment, like Iran´s that stones women for being raped, that hangs boys for homosexuality, that crushes any opposition violently, just because they hate the US, really needs to ask themselves if they really are for social justice or they just follow the rules of the "modern radical boy", without even thinking for themselves what they are standing for.

The Taliban are bloodthirsty fascists. I don´t give a damm if they are against the US or not. I´d rather live in a capitalist country than in one with a taliban rule, that´s for sure. And if you really support anyone who´s against capitalism and the US, you should start supporting Franco and Hitler, as those were their common features.

[Saorsa]

The Taliban are bloodthirsty fascists

They are reactionary theocrats... But they're hardly fascists. Fascist is not just a word you throw around when you want to say something is "like, really, really bad!!1!!11!!!"


I don´t give a damm if they are against the US or not. I´d rather live in a capitalist country than in one with a taliban rule, that´s for sure.

You think the US is delivering modern, industrial capitalism to the people of Afghanistan? You think this is the choice the people of Afghanistan have?


And if you really support anyone who´s against capitalism and the US, you should start supporting Franco and Hitler, as those were their common features.

Franco and Hitler were not against capitalism. And until WW2 started in earnest, they were hardly against the US either.

[McCroskey]

Sorry, but my parents were duly educated in school against the evils of capitalism, even sometimes more vehemently that against marxism. You can ask any spanish person over 50 years old. And Hitler`s constant rantings againts international capitalism were everywhere. The nazis were a product of the petty-burguoisie.


Franco loathed the US and even stuck two fingers up the US nose and traded with Cuba (the EBRO lorries were the most famous product). Franco ignored for 40 years the pledges of the US to open up Spain to the international market and stop regulation and protection. And he was a Fascist.

And a centralised, totalitarian, antidemocratic goverment, based on military repression, assasination of dissidents, glorification of war and martyrdom, moral imposition and focused around the supremacy of a race/religion (with repression of non-adherents), is, by definition, FASCISM, wheter it be taliban or nazi.

[Charles Xavier]

Neither the Taliban nor the Occupier and their Northern Alliance Puppet are to be supported. However the Taliban is fighting the occupier. The democratic and progressive forces in Afganistan are also fighting.

First they need to liberate their nation from the occupation powers.

[Nolan]

Sorry, but my parents were duly educated in school against the evils of capitalism, even sometimes more vehemently that against marxism. You can ask any spanish person over 50 years old. And Hitler`s constant rantings againts international capitalism were everywhere. The nazis were a product of the petty-burguoisie.

Well too bad neither the nazis or the Spanish fascists ever eliminated capitalism. They simply ranted against the evil, anti-nationalist free market liberalism. But against private property and profits they were not. That's why both the nazis and the Italian fascists went on a privatization spree after gaining power. I'm not sure about Spain.


Franco loathed the US and even stuck two fingers up the US nose and traded with Cuba (the EBRO lorries were the most famous product). Franco ignored for 40 years the pledges of the US to open up Spain to the international market and stop regulation and protection. And he was a Fascist.

You do realize they were allies in the Cold War, right? You're overplaying Franco's anti-americanism. They only developed bad relations when fascism became obsolete in the eyes of the international bourgeoisie.


And a centralised, totalitarian, antidemocratic goverment, based on military repression, assasination of dissidents, glorification of war and martyrdom, moral imposition and focused around the supremacy of a race/religion (with repression of non-adherents), is, by definition, FASCISM, wheter it be taliban or nazi.

No it isn't.

I hate it when idiots just call anything totalitarian or racist "fascist." It really shows how little they know about the subject.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I think that its important for everyone to remember who funded the Taliban in the first instance. They are a product of America's imperialism and America should answer for all of their disgusting acts as much as the Taliban should.

It is the job of a any leftist to stress the fact that the Taliban would be nowhere near as strong today if America hadn't directly funded them. Most people I speak to with regards to the war in Afghanistan aren't aware of any relation between America and the Taliban; according to them, the allied forces are the heroes in this war. We need to explain the imperialistic double-standards.

All that aside, this act was disgusting and it makes me sick to my stomach to hear of such a thing.

[GreenCommunism]

along with many of the stupid things taliban did headlines. this seriously sound like it was invented. also, not that i am for spanking, but wouldn't someone reasonable within this country's moral tell the parent of the kid to give him a spanking? why is there no indignation for the west using children as spies and putting them in danger?

this sounds like that other news that taliban said no one should have pictures taken of him because it steals people's soul. it sounds like too stupid to be true stories. though the taliban are very good at being too stupid to be true.

i also agree with captain cuba. i hate it when people peopel say something is fascist when it isn't. just it pisses me when something is called communist when it isn't. for instance the tea party or nazis who claim gun controls is communist.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't know guys. To me the Taliban and any Islamic fundamentalist group is like a Neo-Nazi, proto-fascist group. The United States and it's allied totally crushed many leftist movements in the Middle East that Islamic radicals picked up the mantle and began to infuse religion with politics. Their class analysis is basically no different than what you would hear NWO and anti-semite Right Wing conspiracy kooks talk about. This type of stuff happens all the time, like the gangs in NY called the Latin Kings taking up a political mantle in the ghettos.

For us it would be like joining the Ron Paul Libertarians, Christian Fascist movements here in the States who see an elite dominating public policy and fighting against it, but are totally looking at the situation from a different light than us.

I mean just the fact that the Taliban and the Muhjadeen are a CIA creation makes me look at them as Contras or Noreiga or even Baathists that the US turned on after they've served their purpose.

I really, really hate these groups. Coupled with the right wing NWO, libertarian movements in the US and right wing proto-fascist groups in Europe, it's really, really hard to promote anti-establishment politics without being conflated with either of these groups.

[BeerShaman]

Yes, this may, well may! not be true! And then, think of the case that this life's loss saved other people from dying, like these ones living in the taliban villages. Maybe if the child lived on, it would betray something and then the village would be possibly erased! Classical american army methods! But well, they could restrain it in an area, like imprisonning it or something. Anyway, a shame!:( Reminded of that film with the german nazis where the boy from Russia betrays its people for some chocolate and when he also betrays the nazis, they hang it.

[GreenCommunism]

still no one care that the usa uses children for information or so?

[it_ain't_me]

UN: 346 Afghan children killed in 2009, more than half by NATO -rawa dot org
NEW YORK (dpa) – More than 1,000 children were killed or injured in the war in Afghanistan in 2009, including 131 killed by airstrikes and bombings by international forces, a United Nations report on children in armed conflict said Friday. -mb dot com dot ph
When the record 2009 civilian death toll began to emerge, NATO was quick to brag that they had actually killed fewer civilians than the Taliban. This appears to be the case still, though UN reports suggested the difference wasn’t nearly as dramatic as NATO initially claimed. There is one thing the Taliban can’t compete with NATO on, however, and that’s the killing of children. . According to a report released today by the United Nations, some 346 Afghan children were killed in the fighting in 2009, around 15 percent of the overall civilian toll. A significant majority of these children were killed by NATO. . The report broke down 131 children killed in NATO air strikes alone, 22 others killed in nighttime raids, and several others killed in other incidents. The Taliban were responsible for 128 total childrens’ deaths, seven of them as suicide bombers. -antiwar dot com . (I can't post links yet, sorry.)

[incogweedo]

well, some sources would be nice

[vampire squid]

Taliban bad

[vampire squid]

stuff fundamentalist jidahist islamofascists have done to combat american militarism: plenty

stuff (mostly western) leftists have done to combat american militarism: ?

[GreenCommunism]

they complain! loudly! with evil protest sign! that will show them.

[Chambered Word]

stuff fundamentalist jidahist islamofascists have done to combat american militarism: plenty

stuff (mostly western) leftists have done to combat american militarism: ?


they complain! loudly! with evil protest sign! that will show them.

I think we're forgetting that an important aim of demonstrations is to propagandize and gain attention from the public and (sometimes) the media to build a larger movement which is actually capable of putting significant pressure on capitalist governments.

[The Red Next Door]

Find these motherfuckers and give them some taste of revolutionary justice, by hanging them by their balls. the light their asses up with an AK. I can't find the words to describe these fucks.

[RedLaw]

According to the Telegraph in the UK, it has been now revealed that the seven
year old boy murdered by the Taliban was named Del Awar.
They took him away at sunset and he was found the next day hanging in an
orchard. Scrapes and bruises that were on his neck only further heighten how
brutal his execution must have been and that his death probably wasn't quick
either. I can't imagine how frightened that little boy must have been.
It's another barbaric atrocity committed by the Taliban against their own
people but,in this instance,an especially cruel,sad and disgusting one.

[it_ain't_me]

Wow, for so-called leftists, whom I would expect to be a bit more savvy about such things, a lot of the people here really gobble up the pro-imperialist framing of the capitalist media. It's pretty obvious that many of you aren't even aware you are being led around by the nose. For those of you who aren't, you really ought to read some books on media criticism by Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, or Robert W. McChesney. Obsessing about this one little boy--out of the many children who died unnecessary and violent deaths this month, many of them directly due to imperialism and the system of neocolonial exploitation--is eating right out of the hand of the media. I don't support the Taliban. Fuck the Taliban. But I do support a U.S. withdrawal from everywhere it has its imperialist troops stationed, and I do support the efforts of the natives of those countries to push the U.S. troops out (no matter what organization they choose to do it under the banner of), and I have to say I'm disgusted by such objectively pro-imperialist language as this on a so-called leftist board:
Find these motherfuckers and give them some taste of revolutionary justice, by hanging them by their balls. the light their asses up with an AK. I can't find the words to describe these fucks. Does anyone here think this is not objectively pro-imperialist language? Because it is, and I'll tell you why. In the abstract, sure, this poster may be talking about ''leftists'' going and finding the Taliban and ''hanging them by their balls'', but objectively, we all know that no leftists are going to do that or are in a position to do it. The *only* people who realistically might undertake to do this is NATO troops. So by calling for anyone to do it, you are obviously contributing to the call for continued ''humanitarian'' intervention by murderous, reactionary, imperialist NATO troops. Just keep letting the capitalist media frame the debate, though, rather than challenging it and openly exposing its self-serving hypocrisy. Nice going. Maybe someday soon they'll let you go on MSNBC to provide talking points on Iran from a ''leftist'' persepective. Or--speaking of ''balls''--maybe we could grow a pair, and challenge the blatant hypocrisy of the whole pro-war media machine, not granting one single inch, and especially not granting them the right to frame the debate, as Lenin would have done (and did do). And as any decent radical thinker (Marxist, Anarchist or otherwise) would have done as well. None of them would have been as easily fooled as so many leftists on this board seem to be, by the media's blatant attempts to refocus our attention from the daily grinding oppression and poverty of 9/10s of the world onto one unfortunate little boy. Close to a million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a direct result of the U.S. war on that country. Half a million children--yes, not all people, but just the children (look it up if you don't believe me)--died as a direct result of the previous decade worth of U.S.-led sanctions and bombings, as the UN estimated and Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright herself conceded in an interview with Lesley Stahl. Hundreds upon hundreds, probably thousands, of Afghan children have been killed by NATO forces in airstrikes and in raids on Afghan homes since 2001. And you are going to sit here screaming about how bad the *Taliban* are? The Taliban are a bunch of harmless little kittens next to the United States. As an Afghani leftist, would I take up arms to fight the Taliban? Absolutely, after the U.S. was ejected from my country I would do so. But ''leftists'' in the U.S. and U.K. have no right to support or to not support the Taliban. Not your fucking country, not your fucking decision. Get the hell out of Afghanistan and let them deal with their own problems, the Taliban included. They don't want or need your help, in fact, you're only making things harder, as the very fact that this 7-year-old boy was killed for ''spying'' makes abundantly clear.

[Barry Lyndon]

Wow, for so-called leftists, whom I would expect to be a bit more savvy about such things, a lot of the people here really gobble up the pro-imperialist framing of the capitalist media. It's pretty obvious that many of you aren't even aware you are being led around by the nose. For those of you who aren't, you really ought to read some books on media criticism by Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, or Robert W. McChesney. Obsessing about this one little boy--out of the many children who died unnecessary and violent deaths this month, many of them directly due to imperialism and the system of neocolonial exploitation--is eating right out of the hand of the media. I don't support the Taliban. Fuck the Taliban. But I do support a U.S. withdrawal from everywhere it has its imperialist troops stationed, and I do support the efforts of the natives of those countries to push the U.S. troops out (no matter what organization they choose to do it under the banner of), and I have to say I'm disgusted by such objectively pro-imperialist language as this on a so-called leftist board: Does anyone here think this is not objectively pro-imperialist language? Because it is, and I'll tell you why. In the abstract, sure, this poster may be talking about ''leftists'' going and finding the Taliban and ''hanging them by their balls'', but objectively, we all know that no leftists are going to do that or are in a position to do it. The *only* people who realistically might undertake to do this is NATO troops. So by calling for anyone to do it, you are obviously contributing to the call for continued ''humanitarian'' intervention by murderous, reactionary, imperialist NATO troops. Just keep letting the capitalist media frame the debate, though, rather than challenging it and openly exposing its self-serving hypocrisy. Nice going. Maybe someday soon they'll let you go on MSNBC to provide talking points on Iran from a ''leftist'' persepective. Or--speaking of ''balls''--maybe we could grow a pair, and challenge the blatant hypocrisy of the whole pro-war media machine, not granting one single inch, and especially not granting them the right to frame the debate, as Lenin would have done (and did do). And as any decent radical thinker (Marxist, Anarchist or otherwise) would have done as well. None of them would have been as easily fooled as so many leftists on this board seem to be, by the media's blatant attempts to refocus our attention from the daily grinding oppression and poverty of 9/10s of the world onto one unfortunate little boy. Close to a million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a direct result of the U.S. war on that country. Half a million children--yes, not all people, but just the children (look it up if you don't believe me)--died as a direct result of the previous decade worth of U.S.-led sanctions and bombings, as the UN estimated and Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright herself conceded in an interview with Lesley Stahl. Hundreds upon hundreds, probably thousands, of Afghan children have been killed by NATO forces in airstrikes and in raids on Afghan homes since 2001. And you are going to sit here screaming about how bad the *Taliban* are? The Taliban are a bunch of harmless little kittens next to the United States. As an Afghani leftist, would I take up arms to fight the Taliban? Absolutely, after the U.S. was ejected from my country I would do so. But ''leftists'' in the U.S. and U.K. have no right to support or to not support the Taliban. Not your fucking country, not your fucking decision. Get the hell out of Afghanistan and let them deal with their own problems, the Taliban included. They don't want or need your help, in fact, you're only making things harder, as the very fact that this 7-year-old boy was killed for ''spying'' makes abundantly clear.

So, because the US and NATO is occupying Afghanistan, we have no right to criticize the Taliban? What is wrong with you. FYI, I don't hate the Taliban because the capitalist media tells me too, and I don't believe this story because of the capitalist media, I find this story believable because of what I have read about the Taliban from Afghan leftists like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, who are resolutely opposed to both the American imperialist occupation and the Taliban. Of course US forces should leave Afghanistan, but we shouldn;t idealize the Taliban or dismiss everything reported about them as 'propaganda'.
And it's not obsessing-sometimes the only way you can grasp the magnitude of a huge human tragedy is to focus on one death, and see the meaning of the destruction of one human life.

[vampire squid]

no. it's because many of the taliban's critics haven't lifted a finger against american/nato militarism but still act like their opposition to the occupation is as meaningful or better than whatever the taliban are doing. it's just kind of lazy, you see.

[it_ain't_me]

So, because the US and NATO is occupying Afghanistan, we have no right to criticize the Taliban? criticize them? i actually said that i would *fight* them...that is, if i was afghani and had any right to do so, and if the u.s. has already been ejected from the country. although if i was afghani i would of course reserve to fight them while the u.s. was still in my country, but from where i am sitting now it doesn't look like something that would be a wise decision. as a citizen of a NATO country, on the other hand, i have absolutely no right to 'fight the taliban' by occupying afghanistan. silly me, respecting the sovereignty of other nations and not wanting to be the left hand of the American 'world cop'. because make no mistake, that is what it all comes down to: respecting afghan sovereignty. do you or don't you? if you do, then the taliban are afghanistan's problem. if you don't, then you are probably likely to make constant comments like ''grrrr get the taliban and string them up by their balls!'' when it's clear that afghanistan is no spanish civil war, there is no volunteer army of leftist internationalists on their way to afghanistan, there is only NATO, the taliban, and the children that they both are killing.
What is wrong with you. nothing that i'm aware of.
FYI, I don't hate the Taliban because the capitalist media tells me too, and I don't believe this story because of the capitalist media er, i never said or implied that you did either of those things. i believe the story...it sounds like something that the taliban would probably do, knowing a bit about their history and beliefs. that was not my point at all; my point was letting the capitalist media focus your attention on one little boy when others have died of preventable disease and starvation in the time it has taken me to write this post. while many, many other children will die violent deaths this month at the hands of NATO forces and/or u.s. client governments. and while 131 afghan children died from NATO last year alone, by the cause of aerial strikes alone. that was my point. not that you believe the capitalist media, but that you let it shape your perspective, decide what is important for you to think about, and basically do your thinking for you. (and by 'you' i mean the general 'you', i.e. anyone who thinks its a great idea to focus more on one 7 hear old boy hung by the taliban than on 131 children killed by NATO airstrikes, plus all the other deaths that can be chalked up to u.s. imperialism).
I find this story believable already dealt with this above, but me too.
And it's not obsessing-sometimes the only way you can grasp the magnitude of a huge human tragedy is to focus on one death, and see the meaning of the destruction of one human life. why don't you make 131 threads to dwell on the meaning of the destruction of each human life cut short by NATO bombs in 2009 if that's how you feel? you can dress it up as abstract concern for humanity at large, but one's choice of victims to focus on is always telling in any conflict. the reason why choice of victims is important is because it is not possible to give consideration to every single victim of a large armed conflict, even if you wanted to. this is one of the things that people would get out of reading one of the books on media criticism that i recommended earlier--the media do not pick their victims out of a hat. they carefully filter all the potential stories that they could cover and choose just the ones that will reflect well on the u.s. and its military forces, and badly on the u.s.' enemies. and when it comes to civilians, well, the media generally does not give a shit about them--they are 'collateral damage'--unless somehow the story of their death can be exploited to bolster support for america's imperial adventures.

[it_ain't_me]

no. it's because many of the taliban's critics haven't lifted a finger against american/nato militarism but still act like their opposition to the occupation is as meaningful or better than whatever the taliban are doing. it's just kind of lazy, you see.

yes, it does seem like laziness, doesn't it? it's easier to sit around decrying the taliban on message boards than to agitate for a removal of NATO troops in real life (organize protests, volunteer for organizations that offer protection to military deserters, etc). and again, the main question is of course one of whether the afghan people are or are not sovereign. some 'leftists' in the west would rather decry a foreign government, nay, call for its overthrow, and in ambiguous terms too (not clearly stating whether they want this overthrow to be done by afghans themselves or by outsiders coming in, although kind of implying that they are referring to outsiders coming in). they would rather do this than to try and influence the government which they *should* be worrying about, namely their own. the hypocrisy becomes unbearable when one dwells on the fact that their own government is, in addition to being their own, also in objective terms quite the bigger criminal against the civilians of afghanistan than the taliban is or ever will be. it's truly stunning. these leftists obviously consider themselves not so much anti-imperialists as the left wing of imperialism--they want to decry NATO's 'excesses' in afghanistan, but at bottom they don't seem to care much if at all about the *principle* of afghan sovereignty.

[McCroskey]

So, if NATO troops weren´t there, the taliban would be the enemies of freedom and equality, and they should be opposed. As NATO troops are there, the taliban are our friends and we should not oppose them.

A goverment who bans girls from education and decides that men who do not have a full beard should be tortured is, obviously, what we socialists are aiming for, for sure! The only things fascist goverments should do to get support from the "left" is to get NATO and US troops in their country, the new recipe for success, then.

Afghanis have a long fight ahead of them, and I don´t think NATO troops should be there, but supporting a racist, sexist, religious fanatic, torture-addict, freedom surpressor resistance? I´m sorry, my decent socialist background makes me be on the side of the ordinary afghan people, not on the side of burguois as-long-as-it´s-fighting-the-US-it´s-ok western idealists. It´s real people we are talking about, people who would get jailed by these fascists if they dare educating their daughter.

I´ve had the pleasure to talk to many afghan people in the last decade. Any afghan people on the forum who would like to contribute, please? At least to educate people who don´t know what it´s like to live in a religious fundamentalist state?

[GreenCommunism]

A goverment who bans girls from education and decides that men who do not have a full beard should be tortured is,

i'm not sure the beard thing is true. but i have heard that the reason woman are banned from education is that they need them seperated(according to their religion) and couldn't get education for both because of sanctions. this does sound like bullshit, but woman and man are supposed to be equal in many aspect and education is supposed to be one. the aspect where woman are not equal are dressing code, inheritance, witness i don't know if there are any other. of course life was hell during the taliban. but for me this sounds like another case of fundamentalist not following their religion.

[danyboy27]

As NATO troops are there, the taliban are our friends and we should not oppose them.


no.

[Dr Strangelove]

no.

Fairly sure McCroskey was being sarcastic