How can I make a false accusation if the guy (and some of his mates) that did this, have been trailed and convicted of killing a whole family including a 5 year old girl and gang raped a litlle girl and shot her in the face after after she was gang raped by some distorted person?

As I said the abuse of women happens all around the world, not only in Afghanistan.

Why does the Times not focus on women abuse around the world, including Thailand?

Alex:

You're in the wrong forum with this last question.

You need to be asking Time Magazine, not OTB. I seriously doubt if any of our members have much input into the editorial content of Time Magazine.

Yo chuck,

I am trying to show that a lot of the "News" we get is in fact propaganda from whatever side.

Women are abused all over the world, not only in Afghanistan.

This thread is about the abuse of a women in Afghanistan and shows an example.

Can we therefore say that all Afghan's do the same to any women?

With my example of the US soldier, raping a child and killing a whole family can we then assume that all US soldiers do this?

I am only saying that the article in the Times might have been/ or is a propaganda trick to influence people perception about the war in Afghanistan.

I don't doubt that abhorrence for this disgusting act is genuine from all sides of the political divide.

The story was the cover of Time. It was a high impact cover photo designed to shock and draw the reader into the story.

There is no doubt that it is a true story.

I watched an interview with an American woman, in America, who represented an organisation for women's rights (specifically Afghan women's rights, I think).

I found her point to be interesting and poignant. She was actually slightly condemnatory of the article; Although she applauded the exposure of the plight of women in Afghanistan, she resented that that plight was being used to garner support for the invasion and continued occupation.

The reason she felt that it was exploitation of the situation was because it is not only Taleban elements that commit these atrocious acts, but even triblal groups that are "employed" or allied by/with the US and are ostensibly allies. The point being that these acts are committed across the Afghan political spectrum, but the article does not want to mention that, rather to focus on the enemy.

From a women's welfare point of view, I can see why she (the American woman) took exception to it.

If the fact that a Talebani cut off the nose of a woman is a reason to step up pressure militarily, then it is also a reason to take simmilar decisive military/political action against the tribe groups that are Afghan government/US military supporters that also commit these atrocities. But that would be politically inexpedient, wouldn't it?

I can see that the article had the desired effect on some forum members. Perhaps they could spread their anger and outrage to all mysogynists instead of using it as justification for more aggression against just one particular group.

Very nice and succinct response, Harcourt. There's not much more I could add to this topic that hasn't already been eloquently expressed by you and AlexLah.

I don't doubt that abhorrence for this disgusting act is genuine from all sides of the political divide.

The story was the cover of Time. It was a high impact cover photo designed to shock and draw the reader into the story.

There is no doubt that it is a true story.

I watched an interview with an American woman, in America, who represented an organisation for women's rights (specifically Afghan women's rights, I think).

I found her point to be interesting and poignant. She was actually slightly condemnatory of the article; Although she applauded the exposure of the plight of women in Afghanistan, she resented that that plight was being used to garner support for the invasion and continued occupation.

The reason she felt that it was exploitation of the situation was because it is not only Taleban elements that commit these atrocious acts, but even triblal groups that are "employed" or allied by/with the US and are ostensibly allies. The point being that these acts are committed across the Afghan political spectrum, but the article does not want to mention that, rather to focus on the enemy.

From a women's welfare point of view, I can see why she (the American woman) took exception to it.

If the fact that a Talebani cut off the nose of a woman is a reason to step up pressure militarily, then it is also a reason to take simmilar decisive military/political action against the tribe groups that are Afghan government/US military supporters that also commit these atrocities. But that would be politically inexpedient, wouldn't it?

I can see that the article had the desired effect on some forum members. Perhaps they could spread their anger and outrage to all mysogynists instead of using it as justification for more aggression against just one particular group.

Very nice and succinct response, Harcourt. There's not much more I could add to this topic that hasn't already been eloquently expressed by you and AlexLah.

What a crock. Both of them avoid the issue and deflect and you think that's great? Oh, yeah, right. You're the great "peacenik", you approve of running and deflecting if it means no confrontation. Sorry, getting a bit overheated here but with Alex's getting caught in a lie and you applauding him for it is nuts.

To Alex, hacking off the nose and ears is a different level of "abuse of women" for chrissakes. :rolleyes:

Didn't mean to wind you up, koheesti.

http://blogs.alterne...on-afghanistan/

http://www.adeparadi...a-news&Itemid=3

2 minutes search.

Didn't think anyone would actually follow one of your links, eh? Neither of them mentions pro-NATO Afghan forces doing the same. The first blog talks about how lucky the girl is to go to America for free plastic surgery and the second whines that this is being used by the pro-invasion side to support their position just like they use wikileaks and others sources of bad news out of Afghanistan to promote their own anti-invasion views.

Those are just two links out of many and if you read them properly and without a biased interpretation you would not have needed to reply except to make a concession.

http://blogs.alterne...on-afghanistan/

http://www.adeparadi...a-news&Itemid=3

2 minutes search.

Didn't think anyone would actually follow one of your links, eh? Neither of them mentions pro-NATO Afghan forces doing the same. The first blog talks about how lucky the girl is to go to America for free plastic surgery and the second whines that this is being used by the pro-invasion side to support their position just like they use wikileaks and others sources of bad news out of Afghanistan to promote their own anti-invasion views.

Those are just two links out of many and if you read them properly and without a biased interpretation you would not have needed to reply except to make a concession.

http://blogs.alterne...on-afghanistan/

http://www.adeparadi...a-news&Itemid=3

2 minutes search.

Didn't think anyone would actually follow one of your links, eh? Neither of them mentions pro-NATO Afghan forces doing the same. The first blog talks about how lucky the girl is to go to America for free plastic surgery and the second whines that this is being used by the pro-invasion side to support their position just like they use wikileaks and others sources of bad news out of Afghanistan to promote their own anti-invasion views.

Those are just two links out of many and if you read them properly and without a biased interpretation you would not have needed to reply except to make a concession.

http://blogs.alterne...on-afghanistan/

http://www.adeparadi...a-news&Itemid=3

2 minutes search.

Didn't think anyone would actually follow one of your links, eh? Neither of them mentions pro-NATO Afghan forces doing the same. The first blog talks about how lucky the girl is to go to America for free plastic surgery and the second whines that this is being used by the pro-invasion side to support their position just like they use wikileaks and others sources of bad news out of Afghanistan to promote their own anti-invasion views.

Those are just two links out of many and if you read them properly and without a biased interpretation you would not have needed to reply except to make a concession.

Harcourt, I just had a few beers and you're not helping.

Harcourt, I just had a few beers and you're not helping.

http://blogs.alterne...on-afghanistan/

http://www.adeparadi...a-news&Itemid=3

2 minutes search.

Didn't think anyone would actually follow one of your links, eh? Neither of them mentions pro-NATO Afghan forces doing the same. The first blog talks about how lucky the girl is to go to America for free plastic surgery and the second whines that this is being used by the pro-invasion side to support their position just like they use wikileaks and others sources of bad news out of Afghanistan to promote their own anti-invasion views.

Stupid allegation and typical of your snideness. However, I'm used to it from you and it is water off a ducks back..... if you had read properly, and responded without selecting just the bits that make it sound irrelevant, and had read without your normal bias, your only honest response would have been to make a concession that indeed this abuse occurs not just by the Taliban.

There are a multitude of reports, despite the Western mainstreasm media's reticence to tread on pro-US toes (and that reticence is largely due to Hasbara's influence). If you are so blind and foolish not to realise that Western media provide you with bias, then no matter what this forum presents to you, you will reject it. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Crikey!!! Sorry about that. Each time I clicked "add reply" the screen froze, and eventually I had to close down completely.....that's why I've just come back to post my response AGAIN!!!!

Sorry folks.

Crikey!!! Sorry about that. Each time I clicked "add reply" the screen froze, and eventually I had to close down completely.....that's why I've just come back to post my response AGAIN!!!!

Sorry folks.

Not to worry, Harcourt. Most of us have gotten used to your ham-handed ways.

Harcourt, I read the links but there was nothing in there about Pro-NATO Afghan forces chopping up women's faces. If I missed it, would you be so kind to copy/paste the passage here?

I'd prefer not to delete and/or edit posts, so at this time just a reminder to discuss civilly please. Thanks.

Harcourt, I read the links but there was nothing in there about Pro-NATO Afghan forces chopping up women's faces. If I missed it, would you be so kind to copy/paste the passage here?

Koheesti:

Go here: http://blogs.alternet.org/staff/

You will find out all you need to know about this link....and these liberals claim Fox News is biased! All the news directly to you from Fisherman's Wharf.

Harcourt, I read the links but there was nothing in there about Pro-NATO Afghan forces chopping up women's faces. If I missed it, would you be so kind to copy/paste the passage here?

Koheesti:

Go here: http://blogs.alternet.org/staff/

You will find out all you need to know about this link....and these liberals claim Fox News is biased! All the news directly to you from Fisherman's Wharf.

I had noticed that the links were to obscure sites & blogs. I would have thought that with the MSM being anti-war and all that they would have at least one article about the atrocities. No worries, I'm sure Harcourt, being as honest as he is, will post the passage(s) here anytime now.

Harcourt, I read the links but there was nothing in there about Pro-NATO Afghan forces chopping up women's faces. If I missed it, would you be so kind to copy/paste the passage here?

Koheesti:

Go here: http://blogs.alternet.org/staff/

You will find out all you need to know about this link....and these liberals claim Fox News is biased! All the news directly to you from Fisherman's Wharf.

I had noticed that the links were to obscure sites & blogs. I would have thought that with the MSM being anti-war and all that they would have at least one article about the atrocities. No worries, I'm sure Harcourt, being as honest as he is, will post the passage(s) here anytime now.

I'm sure you are not convinced that the Talibani are the only men to commit the kind of atrocity that we are discussing.

If I was to bother showing you reports that I think you already believe but suspect are hard to find (and thus take your stance of "prove it"), because few (mainstream) media outlets have reported these things recently, I doubt that I would get any recant from you, just more obfuscation and pedanticness and a refusal to admit the truth.....or, as has been the case at other times when you're wrong, silence and move on to something else.

Even then, if you did, it would be insincere.

So why should I bother to prove something that you already (probably) know (or at least suspect)?

Koheesti:

Go here: http://blogs.alternet.org/staff/

You will find out all you need to know about this link....and these liberals claim Fox News is biased! All the news directly to you from Fisherman's Wharf.

I had noticed that the links were to obscure sites & blogs. I would have thought that with the MSM being anti-war and all that they would have at least one article about the atrocities. No worries, I'm sure Harcourt, being as honest as he is, will post the passage(s) here anytime now.

I'm sure you are not convinced that the Talibani are the only men to commit the kind of atrocity that we are discussing.

If I was to bother showing you reports that I think you already believe but suspect are hard to find (and thus take your stance of "prove it"), because few (mainstream) media outlets have reported these things recently, I doubt that I would get any recant from you, just more obfuscation and pedanticness and a refusal to admit the truth.....or, as has been the case at other times when you're wrong, silence and move on to something else.

Even then, if you did, it would be insincere.

So why should I bother to prove something that you already (probably) know (or at least suspect)?

This thread is about the Taliban and mutilating a woman's face by chopping off her nose and ears.

You and Alex said the pro-NATO Afghans do the same.

I asked you to provide some proof. NOT of abuse. NOT of rape. Proof of mutliating women in such a horrible way like chopping up the face.

If you can, I will gladly admit that you are right, that they do do the same, and that the Time article is biased and being used for propoganda.

All you have to do is back up what you claimed.

If that is so hard to do, then you should check first before making crazy allegations.

Koheesti:

Go here: http://blogs.alternet.org/staff/

You will find out all you need to know about this link....and these liberals claim Fox News is biased! All the news directly to you from Fisherman's Wharf.

I had noticed that the links were to obscure sites & blogs. I would have thought that with the MSM being anti-war and all that they would have at least one article about the atrocities. No worries, I'm sure Harcourt, being as honest as he is, will post the passage(s) here anytime now.

I'm sure you are not convinced that the Talibani are the only men to commit the kind of atrocity that we are discussing.

If I was to bother showing you reports that I think you already believe but suspect are hard to find (and thus take your stance of "prove it"), because few (mainstream) media outlets have reported these things recently, I doubt that I would get any recant from you, just more obfuscation and pedanticness and a refusal to admit the truth.....or, as has been the case at other times when you're wrong, silence and move on to something else.

Even then, if you did, it would be insincere.

So why should I bother to prove something that you already (probably) know (or at least suspect)?

This thread is about the Taliban and mutilating a woman's face by chopping off her nose and ears.

You and Alex said the pro-NATO Afghans do the same.

I asked you to provide some proof. NOT of abuse. NOT of rape. Proof of mutliating women in such a horrible way like chopping up the face.

If you can, I will gladly admit that you are right, that they do do the same, and that the Time article is biased and being used for propoganda.

All you have to do is back up what you claimed.

If that is so hard to do, then you should check first before making crazy allegations.

Would setting the girl on fire suffice, or are you going to insist on that specific horrible abuse of cutting of the nose and ears?

How about stoning to death? Or is that not horrible enough for you?

Next you will say, "prove the perpetrator was pro US" knowing full well that even though he was in the police or current government official, it will be difficult to "prove" and I just KNOW you will not accept a balance of probability or circumstantial evidence. That's the disingenous way of you that I am used to....but lets see.

I'm sure you are not convinced that the Talibani are the only men to commit the kind of atrocity that we are discussing.

If I was to bother showing you reports that I think you already believe but suspect are hard to find (and thus take your stance of "prove it"), because few (mainstream) media outlets have reported these things recently, I doubt that I would get any recant from you, just more obfuscation and pedanticness and a refusal to admit the truth.....or, as has been the case at other times when you're wrong, silence and move on to something else.

Even then, if you did, it would be insincere.

So why should I bother to prove something that you already (probably) know (or at least suspect)?

This thread is about the Taliban and mutilating a woman's face by chopping off her nose and ears.

You and Alex said the pro-NATO Afghans do the same.

I asked you to provide some proof. NOT of abuse. NOT of rape. Proof of mutliating women in such a horrible way like chopping up the face.

If you can, I will gladly admit that you are right, that they do do the same, and that the Time article is biased and being used for propoganda.

All you have to do is back up what you claimed.

If that is so hard to do, then you should check first before making crazy allegations.

Would setting the girl on fire suffice, or are you going to insist on that specific horrible abuse of cutting of the nose and ears?

How about stoning to death? Or is that not horrible enough for you?

Show me where they have Internet connection and access to your posts and I'll consider that torture enough. Although, I will point out that it doesn't really count since you side more with the Taliban just like the face chopping SOB.

But to answer your question, most people would perfer to be killed than have to go through life with a face that's been hacked off.

Bottomline, I gave you an opportunity to back up your claims and you can't. Now, just like you like to call someone the VIT, I'll call you the very fitting VIL. I'll let you figure out what the "L" stands for.

I'm sure you are not convinced that the Talibani are the only men to commit the kind of atrocity that we are discussing.

If I was to bother showing you reports that I think you already believe but suspect are hard to find (and thus take your stance of "prove it"), because few (mainstream) media outlets have reported these things recently, I doubt that I would get any recant from you, just more obfuscation and pedanticness and a refusal to admit the truth.....or, as has been the case at other times when you're wrong, silence and move on to something else.

Even then, if you did, it would be insincere.

So why should I bother to prove something that you already (probably) know (or at least suspect)?

This thread is about the Taliban and mutilating a woman's face by chopping off her nose and ears.

You and Alex said the pro-NATO Afghans do the same.

I asked you to provide some proof. NOT of abuse. NOT of rape. Proof of mutliating women in such a horrible way like chopping up the face.

If you can, I will gladly admit that you are right, that they do do the same, and that the Time article is biased and being used for propoganda.

All you have to do is back up what you claimed.

If that is so hard to do, then you should check first before making crazy allegations.

Would setting the girl on fire suffice, or are you going to insist on that specific horrible abuse of cutting of the nose and ears?

How about stoning to death? Or is that not horrible enough for you?

Show me where they have Internet connection and access to your posts and I'll consider that torture enough. Although, I will point out that it doesn't really count since you side more with the Taliban just like the face chopping SOB.

But to answer your question, most people would perfer to be killed than have to go through life with a face that's been hacked off.

Bottomline, I gave you an opportunity to back up your claims and you can't. Now, just like you like to call someone the VIT, I'll call you the very fitting VIL. I'll let you figure out what the "L" stands for.

It's not a matter of "I can't", I'm just waiting for you to commit to a point where you can't back out, as is your wont.....even now, you won't actually commit to allowing "burning a girl" as proof....even though the "spirit" of the Time article and what we are discussing is "horrible mutilation", you are now afraid of being wrong and insist on a very specific type of mutilation....and as we shall probably see, you will insist on a photocopy of the perps ID card.

I would suggest that stoning is a worse atrocity...but you KNOW I can produce reports of that.

Another thread ruined then!

Harcourt, I read the links but there was nothing in there about Pro-NATO Afghan forces chopping up women's faces. If I missed it, would you be so kind to copy/paste the passage here?

I don't know why you bother, it's pretty clear these guys are far more interested in criticizing the U.S. and it's military, rather than any real concern for Aghan civilians. This article simply did not expand into other examples of atrocities, that was not the point, and there is already a lot of coverage of those types of abuses from a womens rights stand point. I suppose articles like these listed below are also to be considered propaganda according to some.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34847651/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b7aa9e6c.html

The difference is, the U.S. has taken steps to reduce civilian casualties, and is punishing those that they find guilty. I don't see it happening with the Taliban, all though they have issued orders to try not kill civilians if they aren't cooperating with the U.S. or the Afghan governemnt.

Posted without comment.

Violence Against Women Is No Rationale for Military Violence

Posted without comment.

Violence Against Women Is No Rationale for Military Violence

Bit of a contradiction, yes? Is there any rationale behind what passes for military violence? Military activities, by their very nature, are violent and brutal. Legal and perfectly accepted mass murder, enacted by {largely} mercenaries blessed by the state.

Posted without comment.

Violence Against Women Is No Rationale for Military Violence

Bit of a contradiction, yes?

I thought the contradiction would take longer to spot.

Nope....looks like koheesti does not want to commit to something that he knows will have to result in an admission of error.