this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024

432 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39340 readers

3159 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

432

A child bride won the right to divorce - now the Taliban say it doesn't count (www.bbc.com)

submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave to c/world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There is a young woman sheltering under a tree between two busy roads clutching a pile of documents to her chest.

These pieces of paper are more important to Bibi Nazdana than anything in the world: they are the divorce granted to her after a two-year court battle to free herself from life as a child bride.

They are the same papers a Taliban court has invalidated - a victim of the group's hardline interpretation on Sharia (religious law) which has seen women effectively silenced in Afghanistan's legal system.

Nazdana's divorce is one of tens of thousands of court rulings revoked since the Taliban took control of the country three years ago this month.

all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] foggy 111 points 2 months ago (2 children)

A GOP wet dream

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean, the last GOP president literally handed the country back to the Taliban - so less of a dream, and more of a conservative "success" story.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In their defense the previous government was a puppet government installed and propped up by the US. It wasn’t particularly popular and could never sustain itself without direct foreign military support.

[–] HerrBeter 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was a löst cause, in the end, no one wanted to pay for reconfiguring traditions and values that were made up a long time ago

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean when you put it that way, it’s still morally dubious. Not saying that the culture is great or anything, but who are we to say that it is so inferior that it must be eliminated and replaced with our superior ones? It’s cultural genocide.

[–] HerrBeter 3 points 2 months ago

It was never replaced, rather reformed. Is it just to have women as second class citizens? To exclude them from school and all other education?

I still feel it would've been justified to stay, these things tend to spread when they are allowed to exist

[–] SassyRamen 57 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Fuck religion, it has no right to play a part in government.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The state is its own religion - the most damaging religion (including OP).

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago

"Women aren't qualified or able to judge because in our Sharia principles the judiciary work requires people with high intelligence," says Abdulrahim Rashid, director of foreign relations and communications at Taliban's Supreme Court.

IDK why someone would actually say this even if you did believe it were true. This guy is director of communications? Just say "The big wigs say only dudes can be judges." At least you're not giving away a quote like that.

[–] dubious 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

destroy all abrahamic religions for the sake of humanity

[–] NinjaTeensy 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

destroy all ~~abrahamic~~ religions for the sake of humanity

[–] reka 1 points 2 months ago

Maybe we should, just to be safe, also destroy all expressions of philosophy, ideology or artistry, otherwise we'll just have religions existing that pretend they aren't religions.

[–] ZK686 -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Even Buddhism and Jainsim? Those are very peaceful religions...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Ehhh what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

[+] [email protected] -61 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Guess we shouldn't have bombed a random country to the point where they'd rather have the Taliban than anything approaching western values since they associate all western values with indiscriminate slaughter

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago

I think you're confusing America bombing Afghanistan into the ground with the Soviet Union bombing Afghanistan into the ground. Since the Soviets invaded, and the US propped up the proto-Taliban in response, Afghanistan's government has been fundamentally broken. The US bears a lot of responsibility for that but the invasion of Afghanistan arguably made things better for a brief window.

[–] AbidanYre 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Who do you think was in charge before the US started bombing them?

[+] [email protected] -9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The people the us spent millions making sure was in charge to fight those evil commies, who were clearly so much worse than the Taliban, with their equal rights for women and such.

[–] AbidanYre 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Care to try again?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

I think they were saying that the US funded the Taliban to fight the USSR (aka. "commies")

[–] Fondots 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you're misreading the comment of the person you're replying to here, it's worded a little wonky and I don't know if you picked up on a bit of a sarcastic tone there, I think you also may not be reading far enough into the history to really have a handle on the situation but frankly neither of you are doing a great job of explaining your positions so it's a little hard to say what point either of you are trying to make

Tl;dr of modern Afghan history:

Around the 80s, Russia invaded Afghanistan and installed a socialist government

The US backs Islamic militants, essentially the Taliban or the groups that eventually morph into them, to oust the Russian backed government,

The Taliban also likes to style themselves as the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan

Some power struggles ensue, by the 90s sometime the Taliban is in charge of the country

9/11 happens, US invades, tries to set up their own government, pulls out, Taliban quickly takes back over

[–] AbidanYre 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, but if you go back to the 80s it doesn't make sense to say we bombed them so much that the Taliban was a better option than Western values. Unless the USSR is being counted as part of the West.

I was just pointing out that the Taliban was already in charge when the US started wrecking up the place, so they aren't really a response to the US occupation. More a return to the status quo of the 90s.

Which is not to say that the US is blameless. I have a good enough handle on the situation to remember when the Taliban were the good guys in a Bond movie. But I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the region.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Reread and try again little buddy. The US is directly and solely responsible for the Taliban existence because the commies were somehow worse to the US. Try reading your own articles if you're going to be snippy while defending the indefensible US.

[–] capital 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Watch your back. You might hurt it contorting that much to make every world problem the US’s fault.

As if this religion (and many others, yes) didn’t always have this problem.

[–] Maggoty 26 points 2 months ago

There was a lot wrong in Afghanistan but it wasn't the use of force. The people there absolutely wanted a chance to get out from under the Taliban. Bush fucked it from the beginning though, trying to give them the world's most corrupt western style government, lying about reports of the Taliban resurging, and letting the DEA loose on their cash crops. You could easily see just how badly the country wanted the Taliban back with the massive waves of people fleeing them. We failed them badly, but not in the way you guys think.

[–] Fondots 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The impression I've always gotten (and I'm sure no political guru or social scientist or anything of the sort) isn't so much that the country overall prefers the Taliban as much as most of them just don't really give a rat's ass about the country as a whole or who's claiming to be in charge of it at any given time, they don't have a strong sense of national identity, they care for more about their tribe or village than anything going on outside of it. American, Russian, Taliban, doesn't really matter too much to them, when the guys with better guns roll into town, you pay them lip service until they go away then continue right on doing things more or less the same way you have for the last 2000 years.

It does happen that the Taliban probably aligns with their traditional values more closely than the other people who have tried ruling it as a unified country over the years, but day-to-day, they're still probably mostly only going to the Taliban when they need something from them and deferring to village elders or local warlords or whoever for everything else.

There's variation I'm sure, those in cities probably have a stronger sense of what a country is and what it has to offer in the modern world than those in rural areas, but it's a largely rural country, almost 75% of them are living in rural areas and some of them are super rural where some of them have probably never even seen a city.

[–] Maggoty 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If we had installed a tribal council with a few elected positions to counterbalance it; not let the DEA burn cash crops, (buy it and give it to the pharma companies); and installed basic corruption controls, (including among our own reporting lines); the Taliban would never have been allowed back into the country. They were the best alternative in 1991 and remain so in the people's eyes. They have been ripped apart by fighting since the late 1970's, they're tired and want the peace more than they want rights. They would have taken both if we had been even halfway competent and not hellbent on creating USA II: The Middle Eastening.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

I don't think the two are related. I'm pretty sure that the root of the current Islamic rule is from the US funding the mujahideen against the Soviet Union back in the 70s.

Afghanistan isn't really a cohesive country in the first place. There have been a lot of warring factions in the past few hundred years, both foreign and domestic, and none of them have brought all the people under one flag.

It's not that they'd rather have the Taliban, it's that they want to be left alone and they don't care who's in Kabul.

[–] InverseParallax 2 points 2 months ago

They didn't go back to the taliban because they wanted to.

Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China were supporting the taliban, and gave them what they needed to take the country back. We didn't focus on cleaning up Afghanistan because our moron in chief threw all our resources at Iraq because it had oil, so we lost twice over.

Nobody wanted the taliban back except Pakistan and China, Pakistan because they consider the taliban to be 'useful' allies against India, and China because the taliban made them lucrative resource deals: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Afghanistan-turmoil/Afghanistan-s-6.5bn-mine-deals-with-China-others-dig-up-questions