The claim:


freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 1:05pm:

[during Taliban rule the practice of] shooting an 8 year old girl in the back of the head for the crime of learning to read?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:28am:

The Taliban presented every girl over 8 in the regions they controlled with the death penalty for learning to read, and girls under 8 with the death penalty for learning to read anything other than the Quran. It was not an isolated incident, it was an actively enforced policy.

At first I simply took FD's word for it. But my suspicions started when I could not find any mention of it on a google search. FD is being quite specific here - shooting to the back of the head, an "actively enforced policy" - strongly suggesting there were actual executions carried out, for which there are presumably records of? So in good faith I asked FD if he had evidence for such claims. He then furnished me with two wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Afghanistan#Education

Neither of which mention anything about 8 year old girls or under being executed for reading non-quranic material, much less this being an "actively enforced policy" and not isolated.

Please does anyone else have any information to shed more light on this specific claim?

My concern is that this is just yet another example of Islam critics being careless with the actual facts in order to demonize Islam. And why? Its not as if its very hard to find actual atrocities of the taliban - of which there are many - to rightfully attack them as barbaric and unfit to rule. Why make stuff up? With all respect to FD, if it turns out this is a fabricated claim, then this is just intellectually lazy.

Girls and boys, 8 years old and other ages. Taliban kill whoever they want dead


https://blog.amnestyusa.org/asia/taliban-send-8-year-old-girl-to-her-death/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5153056/Taliban-executes-14-year-old-girl-for-planning-to-elope.html

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2017/06/11/8-year-old-girl-gang-raped-brutally-killed-in-uruzgan-province-of-afghanistan.html

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/afghanistan-8-yr-old-girls-poisoned-for-going-to-school.672574/

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

http://www.newser.com/story/124178/taliban-hangs-8-year-old-afghan-boy.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/world/asia/teen-school-activist-malala-yousafzai-survives-hit-by-pakistani-taliban.html

Thanks bias, but I'm afraid none of those sources are relevant to FD's claim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 10:44am:

Thanks bias, but I'm afraid none of those sources are relevant to FD's claim.

How so ?

bias's links list acts by the Taliban, of murdering children,        because those children's 'qualities' / aspirations, didn't 'fit the mold', which the Taliban felt was appropriate for them.


bias's e.g.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/afghanistan-8-yr-old-girls-poisoned-for-going-to-school.672574/




freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 1:05pm:

[during Taliban rule the practice of] shooting an 8 year old girl in the back of the head for the crime of learning to read?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:28am:

The Taliban presented every girl over 8 in the regions they controlled with the death penalty for learning to read, and girls under 8 with the death penalty for learning to read anything other than the Quran. It was not an isolated incident, it was an actively enforced policy.

You left out these bits Gandalf, from wikipedia:


freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 12:12pm:

Quote: My 'absurd fantasies' shouldn't preclude you from having an opinion on whether or not invasion, regime change and decades of occupation was the best (only?) viable response to 9/11. I am yet to see a better one. [quote]Can you verify this claim FD? I'd be surprised if it turns out that capital punishment for girls under 8 was an "actively enforced policy" under the taliban.

Yep. Keep polishing that turd.

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

Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Afghanistan#Education

The Taliban are still opposed to education for Afghan boys and girls. They are burning down schools, killing students and teachers by all kinds of means, including chemical warfare.

Gandalf would you be so eager to defend the Taliban if the US had worked with them as you suggest, and as you criticise them for doing with the Saudis? Does your ability to criticise Muslims depend entirely on your ability to pass the blame onto the US at every opportunity?[/quote]

Do you still think Saudi Arabia's treatment of women is "on par" with the Taliban, or was this transparent spin in an effort to criticise the US no matter what policy they choose - they cooperate with the Saudis, which is wrong, but they were also wrong for not cooperating with the Taliban...

What makes someone hate women so much that they would demand the US actually prop up a regime like the Taliban? I blame Islam.

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 10:37am:

Girls and boys, 8 years old and other ages. Taliban kill whoever they want dead

Yes.

That's because the Taliban are evil scum.

I don't remember anyone ever saying anything to the contrary.

So, what's the point of this thread?

I'm curious.

Quote:

That's because the Taliban are evil scum. I don't remember anyone ever saying anything to the contrary.

Gandalf portrays them as natural allies we should have propped up, and whose treatment of women is no worse than other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia.


Quote:

So, what's the point of this thread?

I'm curious too. Normally Gandalf realises he is onto another looser much quicker.

FD lets look at your highlighted quotes:


Quote:

Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught.

Not even close to substantiating the claim that executing 8 year olds and under was "an actively enforced policy". Do you think the wikipedia article might have mentioned such cases had they actually occurred? I'm pretty sure the rabid anti-Islam networks out there would have published something, yet when I search for the usual suspects on google, zilch.


Quote:

The Taliban are still opposed to education for Afghan boys and girls. They are burning down schools, killing students and teachers by all kinds of means, including chemical warfare.

post the period that we were both referring to FD - 1996-2001. Remember you were moralising how outrageous it would be to deal with that regime in the wake of 9/11 and avoid the overthrow of the regime - apparently (in part) because they routinely shot 8 year old girls in the back of the head for what they read. 

You actually had me believing from the specific way you described it that there were actual cases of 8 year olds being shot in the back of the head for reading something other than the Quran. Not just that it happened, but that it was widespread and routine. The brazen disregard for actual facts here continues to astonish me.

Such a practice would be shocking even for ISIS. And had it actually happened at all, let alone been as widespread and routine as you imply, I think there would be a little bit more on it than the vaguest reference to women "facing execution" for pursuing education.


freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 11:59am:

What makes someone hate women so much that they would demand the US actually prop up a regime like the Taliban?

FD are you accusing me of hating women and thats the only possible explanation for why I might have opposed the invasion and (inevitable) horrors that followed? Do you think those US officials who described not negotiating with the taliban to capture bin Laden as a "missed opportunity" hated women too?

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 12:17pm:

Quote: That's because the Taliban are evil scum. I don't remember anyone ever saying anything to the contrary. Gandalf portrays them as natural allies we should have propped up, and whose treatment of women is no worse than other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. [quote]So, what's the point of this thread?

I'm curious too. Normally Gandalf realises he is onto another looser much quicker.[/quote]

Mujahadeen were the USA's Afghan rebel against the Russians.
Taliban were the Russian's Afghan rebel against the USA.

...two wrongs not making a right.  ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 12:17pm:

I'm curious too. Normally Gandalf realises he is onto another looser much quicker.

claiming that the taliban regime executed 8 year olds and under for reading non-Quranic material, and completely failing to provide any evidence = "onto a looser"  :)

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 12:17pm:

Gandalf portrays them as natural allies we should have propped up, and whose treatment of women is no worse than other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia.

apparently a regime who physically prevent school girls from escaping a burning building and let them suffocate to death are "natural allies we should prop up".

FD couldn't come up with a worse example of muslim's treatment of women than that, so he made one up.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 12:11pm:

So, what's the point of this thread? I'm curious.

Why, to justify FD's support for the Saudis, of course.

FD, you see, won't say why he supports MBS and his regime of jolly head-hackers. We assume it has something to do with the global oil market and Uncle's willingness to use the Saudis to get Iran, but ask FD any of this and you'll get the jellyfish.

Nor will FD explain why he's so keen for the US to avoid facing up to the real funders of Islamic terrorism and the global propagandists for militant Islam. FD shrugs all this off.

It doesn't matter that Sept 11 was carried out by Saudis. The logical thing to do was invade Afghanistan and Iraq and let members of the House of Saud quietly slip out of the US. It doesn't matter that Saudi Arabia is a "one-party" kingdom ruled under Sharia law, the logical thing to do is chase G around about Indonesia.

Of course you'd depose a secular Arab dictator like Saddam. He was nice in comparison to the Saudis, who use hard-core Islamism to justify their brutality. Nor does it matter that Islamists like ISIL formed in the vacuum. We gave the Iraqis their chance. They could have been the next South Korea.

The Saudis, you see, are really quite nice once you get to know them. Besides, Uncle likes them so that's that.

Don't ask FD to tell you any of this, he won't say. But as FD always says about the Muselman, they need to have their views expressed for them.

For FD, Freeeedom is not about the liberty to express your own beliefs, it's about your liberty to express the beliefs of others. Besides, FD only self-censors because of the Muselman.

Without them, FD would be free to speak his mind.

Karnal wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 1:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:11pm: So, what's the point of this thread? I'm curious. Why, to justify FD's support for the Saudis, of course. FD, you see, won't say why he supports MBS and his regime of jolly head-hackers. We assume it has something to do with the global oil market and Uncle's willingness to use the Saudis to get Iran, but ask FD any of this and you'll get the jellyfish. Nor will FD explain why he's so keen for the US to avoid facing up to the real funders of Islamic terrorism and the global propagandists for militant Islam. FD shrugs all this off. It doesn't matter that Sept 11 was carried out by Saudis. The logical thing to do was invade Afghanistan and Iraq and let members of the House of Saud quietly slip out of the US. It doesn't matter that Saudi Arabia is a "one-party" kingdom ruled under Sharia law, the logical thing to do is chase G around about Indonesia. Of course you'd depose a secular Arab dictator like Saddam. He was nice in comparison to the Saudis, who use hard-core Islamism to justify their brutality. Nor does it matter that Islamists like ISIL formed in the vacuum. We gave the Iraqis their chance. They could have been the next South Korea. The Saudis, you see, are really quite nice once you get to know them. Besides, Uncle likes them so that's that. Don't ask FD to tell you any of this, he won't say. But as FD always says about the Muselman, they need to have their views expressed for them. For FD, Freeeedom is not about the liberty to express your own beliefs, it's about your liberty to express the beliefs of others. Besides, FD only self-censors because of the Muselman. Without them, FD would be free to speak his mind.

Oh for Chris'sake. Waffle, waffle, waffle.

issuevoter wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 4:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 1:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:11pm: So, what's the point of this thread? I'm curious. Why, to justify FD's support for the Saudis, of course. FD, you see, won't say why he supports MBS and his regime of jolly head-hackers. We assume it has something to do with the global oil market and Uncle's willingness to use the Saudis to get Iran, but ask FD any of this and you'll get the jellyfish. Nor will FD explain why he's so keen for the US to avoid facing up to the real funders of Islamic terrorism and the global propagandists for militant Islam. FD shrugs all this off. It doesn't matter that Sept 11 was carried out by Saudis. The logical thing to do was invade Afghanistan and Iraq and let members of the House of Saud quietly slip out of the US. It doesn't matter that Saudi Arabia is a "one-party" kingdom ruled under Sharia law, the logical thing to do is chase G around about Indonesia. Of course you'd depose a secular Arab dictator like Saddam. He was nice in comparison to the Saudis, who use hard-core Islamism to justify their brutality. Nor does it matter that Islamists like ISIL formed in the vacuum. We gave the Iraqis their chance. They could have been the next South Korea. The Saudis, you see, are really quite nice once you get to know them. Besides, Uncle likes them so that's that. Don't ask FD to tell you any of this, he won't say. But as FD always says about the Muselman, they need to have their views expressed for them. For FD, Freeeedom is not about the liberty to express your own beliefs, it's about your liberty to express the beliefs of others. Besides, FD only self-censors because of the Muselman. Without them, FD would be free to speak his mind. Oh for Chris'sake. Waffle, waffle, waffle.

Actually, I've just saved months of waffle, dear.

What sound does a jellyfish make?

rationalizing the islamists subjugation and abuse of women and kids.

Or

glossing over  the islamists subjugation and abuse of women and kids.


Which one are we using here?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 12:58pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:17pm: Gandalf portrays them as natural allies we should have propped up, and whose treatment of women is no worse than other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. apparently a regime who physically prevent school girls from escaping a burning building and let them suffocate to death are "natural allies we should prop up". FD couldn't come up with a worse example of muslim's treatment of women than that, so he made one up.

so you are saying the Taliban would not be capable of doing such crimes... ::) ::)....

as thats how this comes across....how many women and children have the Taliban murdered gandy???...

you seem more concerned with the  how rather than the fact it does actually happen rather a lot.....

>:( >:( >:( >:(


why make a fuss about a comment that cannot be verified whilst on the other hand   saying not a word   

about all the atrocities   that have been listed.... :( :(

your a funny dude gandy....by the sound of you

you think fd is worse than any Taliban member..

moses wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 5:07pm:

rationalizing the islamists subjugation and abuse of women and kids. Or glossing over  the islamists subjugation and abuse of women and kids. Which one are we using here?

Or

pointing out a claim that has been made that has no basis in actual fact, and is therefore a big fat porky.

or perhaps you can shed light on this moses - do you know of this elusive evidence substantiating the claim that 8 year old girls and younger were executed by the taliban for reading non-Quranic material?

cods wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 5:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:58pm: freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:17pm: Gandalf portrays them as natural allies we should have propped up, and whose treatment of women is no worse than other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. apparently a regime who physically prevent school girls from escaping a burning building and let them suffocate to death are "natural allies we should prop up". FD couldn't come up with a worse example of muslim's treatment of women than that, so he made one up. so you are saying the Taliban would not be capable of doing such crimes... ::) ::).... as thats how this comes across....how many women and children have the Taliban murdered gandy???... you seem more concerned with the  how rather than the fact it does actually happen rather a lot..... >:( >:( >:( >:( why make a fuss about a comment that cannot be verified whilst on the other hand   saying not a word    about all the atrocities   that have been listed.... :( :( your a funny dude gandy....by the sound of you you think fd is worse than any Taliban member..

I saw an interview with a Taliban commander once, dear. He was asked how he could justify using children as suicide bombers.

He had a chuckle and said they have some very creative imams on staff.

In other words, the imams are in on the act, the act is not Islamic in itself.

cods wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 5:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:58pm: freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:17pm: Gandalf portrays them as natural allies we should have propped up, and whose treatment of women is no worse than other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. apparently a regime who physically prevent school girls from escaping a burning building and let them suffocate to death are "natural allies we should prop up". FD couldn't come up with a worse example of muslim's treatment of women than that, so he made one up. so you are saying the Taliban would not be capable of doing such crimes... ::) ::).... as thats how this comes across....how many women and children have the Taliban murdered gandy???... you seem more concerned with the  how rather than the fact it does actually happen rather a lot..... >:( >:( >:( >:( why make a fuss about a comment that cannot be verified whilst on the other hand   saying not a word    about all the atrocities   that have been listed.... :( :( your a funny dude gandy....by the sound of you you think fd is worse than any Taliban member..

Facts matter cods, no matter how much you dismiss it as apologising for evil.

I would have hoped that people who come to a discussion forum to debate in good faith actually understand this. The tired old line that holding people to account for disregarding the truth, when that truth is inconvenient, is somehow tantamount to apologising for evil - is the height of intellectual laziness, and frankly dangerous.

Gandi wrote:

Quote:

Or pointing out a claim that has been made that has no basis in actual fact, and is therefore a big fat porky. or perhaps you can shed light on this moses - do you know of this elusive evidence substantiating the claim that 8 year old girls and younger were executed by the taliban for reading non-Quranic material?

I know about Malala gandi.

15 year old Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani Muslim girl, was shot in the face by Taliban Islamic extremist terrorists for the “crime” of being a girl that wanted to go to school to learn to read and write.

Boko haram have done some exceedingly horrific things to hundreds of schoolgirls also.

I don't differentiate between 8 or 15, school girls are all still kids in my book.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 12:28pm:

FD lets look at your highlighted quotes: Quote: Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught. Not even close to substantiating the claim that executing 8 year olds and under was "an actively enforced policy". Do you think the wikipedia article might have mentioned such cases had they actually occurred? I'm pretty sure the rabid anti-Islam networks out there would have published something, yet when I search for the usual suspects on google, zilch. [quote]The Taliban are still opposed to education for Afghan boys and girls. They are burning down schools, killing students and teachers by all kinds of means, including chemical warfare.

post the period that we were both referring to FD - 1996-2001. Remember you were moralising how outrageous it would be to deal with that regime in the wake of 9/11 and avoid the overthrow of the regime - apparently (in part) because they routinely shot 8 year old girls in the back of the head for what they read. 

You actually had me believing from the specific way you described it that there were actual cases of 8 year olds being shot in the back of the head for reading something other than the Quran. Not just that it happened, but that it was widespread and routine. The brazen disregard for actual facts here continues to astonish me.

Such a practice would be shocking even for ISIS. And had it actually happened at all, let alone been as widespread and routine as you imply, I think there would be a little bit more on it than the vaguest reference to women "facing execution" for pursuing education.


freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 11:59am:

What makes someone hate women so much that they would demand the US actually prop up a regime like the Taliban?

FD are you accusing me of hating women and thats the only possible explanation for why I might have opposed the invasion and (inevitable) horrors that followed? Do you think those US officials who described not negotiating with the taliban to capture bin Laden as a "missed opportunity" hated women too? [/quote]

8 was the specific cutoff age set by the Taliban. Younger than 8, they may learn to read, but only the Quran. Older than 8 and they are not allowed any sort of education.Backed up with tough titties, off with their heads....

Why are you still trying to spin the treatment of women by the Taliban as being "on par" with the Saudis? Do you really think that finding a reason to criticise the US is more important than a generation lost to ignorance and fear?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 8:23am:

My concern is that this is just yet another example of Islam critics being careless with the actual facts in order to demonize Islam.

;D ;D ;D

Islam and Mohammedans demonise islam, pal, more effectively than anyone. Wake up!!!

The Taliban tried to murder Malala Yousafzai simply for speaking out for girls' education.  How's that for 'demonisation'??



You are in a centuries-long fug about your place in the world. You have outrageously large and baseless claims for Islam and are blind to all the evil that is done in its name (referencing your scriptures and prophet).

Discom-dam-bobulated doesn't even begin to describe the Islamic mind in the 21st century (and all the previous 14). You are completely unmoored from the reality of Islam's history, effect, reception in the world an among non-Muslims.

...and yet in the Southern Hemisphere, it is the 'reverse'.
The Jews are the dirty little mass-breeding 'orcish' race and the Moslems are the slow-breeding, highly educated, etc.

Don't expect Australian TV to show you this - its still stuck in the Northern 'USA' Hemisphere, even down here.

issuevoter wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 4:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 1:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:11pm: So, what's the point of this thread? I'm curious. Why, to justify FD's support for the Saudis, of course. FD, you see, won't say why he supports MBS and his regime of jolly head-hackers. We assume it has something to do with the global oil market and Uncle's willingness to use the Saudis to get Iran, but ask FD any of this and you'll get the jellyfish. Nor will FD explain why he's so keen for the US to avoid facing up to the real funders of Islamic terrorism and the global propagandists for militant Islam. FD shrugs all this off. It doesn't matter that Sept 11 was carried out by Saudis. The logical thing to do was invade Afghanistan and Iraq and let members of the House of Saud quietly slip out of the US. It doesn't matter that Saudi Arabia is a "one-party" kingdom ruled under Sharia law, the logical thing to do is chase G around about Indonesia. Of course you'd depose a secular Arab dictator like Saddam. He was nice in comparison to the Saudis, who use hard-core Islamism to justify their brutality. Nor does it matter that Islamists like ISIL formed in the vacuum. We gave the Iraqis their chance. They could have been the next South Korea. The Saudis, you see, are really quite nice once you get to know them. Besides, Uncle likes them so that's that. Don't ask FD to tell you any of this, he won't say. But as FD always says about the Muselman, they need to have their views expressed for them. For FD, Freeeedom is not about the liberty to express your own beliefs, it's about your liberty to express the beliefs of others. Besides, FD only self-censors because of the Muselman. Without them, FD would be free to speak his mind. Oh for Chris'sake.       Waffle, waffle, waffle.

Ask a moslem a 'pointed' Q. about his faith.

What you will often get in reply,        could be characterised as intentional moslem obfuscation.



Its a 'Clayton's' answer.

moses wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 5:07pm:

rationalizing the islamists subjugation and abuse of women and kids. Or glossing over  the islamists subjugation and abuse of women and kids. Which one are we using here?

We're looking into FD's porkies about the Taliban to justify his support for the Saudis.

What do you have to say about the Islamicist kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Moses?

Would you like to go on the record here as spinelessly apologising for them?

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 7:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:28pm: FD lets look at your highlighted quotes: Quote: Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught. Not even close to substantiating the claim that executing 8 year olds and under was "an actively enforced policy". Do you think the wikipedia article might have mentioned such cases had they actually occurred? I'm pretty sure the rabid anti-Islam networks out there would have published something, yet when I search for the usual suspects on google, zilch. [quote]The Taliban are still opposed to education for Afghan boys and girls. They are burning down schools, killing students and teachers by all kinds of means, including chemical warfare. post the period that we were both referring to FD - 1996-2001. Remember you were moralising how outrageous it would be to deal with that regime in the wake of 9/11 and avoid the overthrow of the regime - apparently (in part) because they routinely shot 8 year old girls in the back of the head for what they read.  You actually had me believing from the specific way you described it that there were actual cases of 8 year olds being shot in the back of the head for reading something other than the Quran. Not just that it happened, but that it was widespread and routine. The brazen disregard for actual facts here continues to astonish me. Such a practice would be shocking even for ISIS. And had it actually happened at all, let alone been as widespread and routine as you imply, I think there would be a little bit more on it than the vaguest reference to women "facing execution" for pursuing education. freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 11:59am: What makes someone hate women so much that they would demand the US actually prop up a regime like the Taliban? FD are you accusing me of hating women and thats the only possible explanation for why I might have opposed the invasion and (inevitable) horrors that followed? Do you think those US officials who described not negotiating with the taliban to capture bin Laden as a "missed opportunity" hated women too?

8 was the specific cutoff age set by the Taliban. Younger than 8, they may learn to read, but only the Quran. Older than 8 and they are not allowed any sort of education.Backed up with tough titties, off with their heads....

Why are you still trying to spin the treatment of women by the Taliban as being "on par" with the Saudis? Do you really think that finding a reason to criticise the US is more important than a generation lost to ignorance and fear? [/quote]

If anyone was in any doubt as to what sound an Amerikan jellyfish makes, ask no more.

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2019 at 7:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 12:28pm: FD lets look at your highlighted quotes: Quote: Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught. Not even close to substantiating the claim that executing 8 year olds and under was "an actively enforced policy". Do you think the wikipedia article might have mentioned such cases had they actually occurred? I'm pretty sure the rabid anti-Islam networks out there would have published something, yet when I search for the usual suspects on google, zilch. [quote]The Taliban are still opposed to education for Afghan boys and girls. They are burning down schools, killing students and teachers by all kinds of means, including chemical warfare. post the period that we were both referring to FD - 1996-2001. Remember you were moralising how outrageous it would be to deal with that regime in the wake of 9/11 and avoid the overthrow of the regime - apparently (in part) because they routinely shot 8 year old girls in the back of the head for what they read.  You actually had me believing from the specific way you described it that there were actual cases of 8 year olds being shot in the back of the head for reading something other than the Quran. Not just that it happened, but that it was widespread and routine. The brazen disregard for actual facts here continues to astonish me. Such a practice would be shocking even for ISIS. And had it actually happened at all, let alone been as widespread and routine as you imply, I think there would be a little bit more on it than the vaguest reference to women "facing execution" for pursuing education. freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2019 at 11:59am: What makes someone hate women so much that they would demand the US actually prop up a regime like the Taliban? FD are you accusing me of hating women and thats the only possible explanation for why I might have opposed the invasion and (inevitable) horrors that followed? Do you think those US officials who described not negotiating with the taliban to capture bin Laden as a "missed opportunity" hated women too?

8 was the specific cutoff age set by the Taliban. Younger than 8, they may learn to read, but only the Quran. Older than 8 and they are not allowed any sort of education.Backed up with tough titties, off with their heads....

Why are you still trying to spin the treatment of women by the Taliban as being "on par" with the Saudis? Do you really think that finding a reason to criticise the US is more important than a generation lost to ignorance and fear? [/quote]

There is no evidence 8 year old girls and younger were executed for breaking reading laws FD. We know there is none because your best and only attempt is pointing to a general ban on women's education and a most vague reference to the "risk" offending women faced with execution. You can try all the logical leaps you like to try and claim it happened, but it doesn't even come close to a complete lack of actual evidence. Whats shocking here though is not just the baseless claim, but the clear and specific detail you describe - girls under 8, systematically shot in the back of the head in an "actively enforced policy" no less. You literally had me assuming it must be true - only for it to turn out to be probably the most brazen and blatant porky we've heard from you yet. You have some gumption FD, I'll give you that!


Quote:

Why are you still trying to spin the treatment of women by the Taliban as being "on par" with the Saudis? Do you really think that finding a reason to criticise the US is more important than a generation lost to ignorance and fear?

Yes they are on par FD. I still haven't found anything worse than forcing a group of school girls to suffocate to death because they were immodestly dressed. Women who just want the most basic dignity in society are, today, being tortured in Saudi prisons for speaking out against the humiliation faced every day by women. MBS has hoodwinked the west into thinking he is a great reformer. And so while he chops up dissident journalists in embassies and routinely bombs schools and hospitals and masterminds possibly the greatest humanitarian catastrophe the world is witnessing at this moment, he pretends he is a progressive and is liberating women. But ask any actual Saudi women's rights activist (the ones he hasn't managed to throw in prison and torture), and they'll tell you its a great big con. Women are still virtual prisoners in their own home, they still are not allowed to do just about anything without express permission from their male guardian - who can potentially be her own son, and if ever they are allowed outside, of course they must dress as a tent. Yes they are allowed eductaion, but it doesn't count for much when they are practically locked out of most employment opportunities (imagine a working career women under the guardianship system) None of this is changing just because on paper women can now drive. Drive where? And obviously all that is required for them not being allowed to drive is the word of their male guardian - who would obviously have to accompany her when she does drive.

kar wrote:

Quote:

What do you have to say about the Islamicist kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Moses?

Typical backwards islamist muslim mind set, a vicious cruel kingdom who follow the qur'an to the very letter as far as I can determine.

I'm forever trying to push the point that islam in its' present form does not belong in a modern 21st century civilization.

The evil in the qur'an must be denounced by all muslims worldwide, in order to drag themselves into modernity.

moses wrote on Mar 7^th, 2019 at 3:03pm:

kar wrote: Quote: What do you have to say about the Islamicist kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Moses? Typical backwards islamist muslim mind set, a vicious cruel kingdom who follow the qur'an to the very letter as far as I can determine.

FD?

Quote:

There is no evidence 8 year old girls and younger were executed for breaking reading laws FD.

Are you suggesting the Taliban removed all girls under 8 from schools before using chemical weapons on them, just so you could polish that turd?


Quote:

We know there is none because your best and only attempt is pointing to a general ban on women's education and a most vague reference to the "risk" offending women faced with execution.

You still haven't gotten to the second quote, have you?


Quote:

Yes they are on par FD. I still haven't found anything worse than forcing a group of school girls to suffocate to death because they were immodestly dressed.

The Taliban were literally setting fire to schools and using chemical weapons on them. This was not a single incident Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2019 at 10:05am:

You still haven't gotten to the second quote, have you?

The second quote refers to the insurgency after the invasion and occupation FD.

We were talking about how the behaviour of the taliban *BEFORE* the invasion and occupation makes the moral case for that invasion and occupation.

You were very specific FD - the taliban during that period executed 8 year olds and under for the high crime of reading non-Quranic material in an "actively enforced policy" and *THEREFORE* we needed to invade and overthrow them. Pointing to how they (and this needs qualification, as the taliban insurgency was not the same beast as the taliban rulers between 1996-2001) behaved after this invasion and overthrow does not have much bearing to that case.

With respect, this is quintessential FD false logic and goalpost shifting. You made a false allegation and now you are proving yourself completely incapable of substantiating it. You call being called out on that "turd polishing" but facts matter FD, no matter how inconvenient they are to us. And I make no apologies for hammering this point.

Ask FD if he upholds the use of porkies in his campaign against the Muselman, G. I think it's a pertinent question.

Karnal wrote on Mar 8^th, 2019 at 12:29pm:

Ask FD if he upholds the use of porkies in his campaign against the Muselman, G. I think it's a pertinent question.

An example of why even inconvenient facts matter: remember the Kuwaiti babies in the incubators that the monstrous Iraqi army were ripping out porky? I still remember when that accusation came out, and the shockwaves that it caused. Of course it was not the reason for the Gulf War, but gee whiz it was helpful in bringing public opinion on board. One might at least ponder over whether or not the war would have been as agreeable as it was to the American public without it. Either way, someone high up decided this was a great propaganda piece.

Fast forward to 2003 - John Howard was having a terrible time justifying his commitment to the Iraq invasion. With the security threat justification in tatters thanks to Andrew Wilkie, Howard then turned to the humanitarian case. Enter the human shredder. Remember that? Pretty horrific eh? But of course you know the drill - never existed, made up, big fat porky to shock people into supporting the invasion.

Of course at the time it would be a brave soul who stood up and said "hang on, where's the evidence" - he/she would be howled down with charges of apologising for monsters, and would be hounded with rhetorical questions like "you seriously think Saddam *WOULDN"T* be that bad huh??"  Strangely, I'm reminded here of FD's own sage words, when he implores us to defend with all our might the right of *ALL* free speech - even, nay *ESPECIALLY* speech that you disagree with. Its not exactly the same, but to me refusing to stand up against porkies, when such porkies are inconvenient to a particular narrative we hold, is a form of self censorship. Free speech and truth-telling goes hand in hand IMO. And I would go so far as to say that anyone who believes in the sanctity of free speech, should see an absolute obligation for those who engage in it to do their utmost to stick to the truth. And that includes calling out porkies when they see them.

That's true, G, and do you know who used to say exactly the same thing?

Yes, FD once agreed with your stance completely. But rather than witnessing the futility and carnage of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq along with the rest of the world, FD has converted to support them. And in doing so, he is forced to tell porkies to defend his position, then tie himself in knots justifying the porkies, and ultimately, refuse to take questions, perfectly self-censored.

Here, FD has made up a fake Taliban policy to execute 8 year olds to justify the invasion of a sovereign country. When asked to substantiate it, FD says, well, weren't kids' homes bombed? Tell me that.

But FD is also telling these howlers to justify the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Imagine, a truly backward, brutal and fully Islamicist regime supported by a campaigner for freedom, democracy and women's rights. Why?

Is it oil? Uncle? Global energy security? FD self-censors these questions away. Rather than just providing a logical explanation of his stance, FD evades and tells porkies.

So when FD accuses you of spineless apologism, remember. He used to say exactly the same things himself. Whenever he accuses you of evasion and porkies, FD knows full-well he's evading and telling porkies himself. Whenever FD drills you with questions and quote bombs and new threads quoting you out of context, remember also that FD knows exactly what you mean. He did, after all, hold the same views you do now.

Cunning, no?