Jailed Afghan rape victim has sentence reduced, remains in jail

[Zeitgeist]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/world/meast/afghan-rape-victim/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4

How gracious of them to reduce the sentence. <sarcasm />

Now, my first, intellectually dishonest knee-jerk reaction is to think: Wow, see how women are treated elsewhere in the world? Man, and some here complain about a difference in pay.

But of course, one has nothing to do with the other, and their culture is no barometer by which to measure ours.

Still. Wow. Her best option is to marry the rapist.

Keep in mind that this if Afghan law, not Taliban. We didn't go into WWII on the premise of saving the Jews from Hitler's ovens, nor did we go to Afghanistan to save women like this from being raped and subsequently jailed for the crime. Yet how can we possibly stand by and do nothing? In my opinion we need to either do something about it, or leave all together. If we are there to hopefully instill some kind of order to chaos, we cannot stand idly by and look the other way in some sort of convoluted sense of cultural tolerance. No, if we are going to do nothing about this sort of think then we should get out of there as our efforts are by extension enabling such horrific things.

I don't care what other people eat, how they dress or what they call their holidays, etc. I recall my father explaining to me that we Americans are foolish to thing we can fathom such ancient cultures and peoples, we young ignorant Americans. I think that is a simplistic notion that discards the fact people who founded this country themselves lived under ethnic and religious persecution, as did their fathers, grandfathers, and so on.

I don't really give a damn if your culture and laws are as old as dirt. If they stand for this kind of inhumane treatment, I want nothing to do with it, and I certainly don't want our servicemen and women over there enabling such things by extension.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Well, what did anyone expect?  That's these peoples' religion.  Women are breeding stock to them, nothing more. 

The bottom line is that, after 9/11, when we had bin Laden and his henchmen holed up in that cave-complex, we should have just dropped in a tactical nuke, fried Al-Quaeda, declared victory--and came home.

As for trying to "nation-build" and "civilize" these people, Mark Twain said it best: don't try and teach pigs to fly.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, what did anyone expect?  That's these peoples' religion.  Women are breeding stock to them, nothing more. 

The bottom line is that, after 9/11, when we had bin Laden and his henchmen holed up in that cave-complex, we should have just dropped in a tactical nuke, fried Al-Quaeda, declared victory--and came home.

As for trying to "nation-build" and "civilize" these people, Mark Twain said it best: don't try and teach pigs to fly.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Sorry but I disagree. We dropped the ball in rebuilding infrastructure nearly THIRTY years ago in that country. We gave them weapons, intel and support and told them to fight the country that invaded them. We made PROMISES. Which we didn't keep.

If we had rebuilt infrastructure, helped them form a government and been there for them after the Russians left. The Iranians wouldn't have gotten their money involved, we'd most likely never would have had such a militant taliban government in place (which is still threatening stability in the region) and perhaps Bin Laden wouldn't have been able to organize as well as he did (Odds are he'd have to had work out of Yemen)

Like the late Charlie Wilson pointed out, we failed the Afgan people and we're doing it again. In another 30 years, when the taliban or their successors get control of Pakistan and drop a nuke on Mumbai or Dehli, who are we going to blame then?

[OldSchoolGamer]

Sorry but I disagree. We dropped the ball in rebuilding infrastructure nearly THIRTY years ago in that country. We gave them weapons, intel and support and told them to fight the country that invaded them. We made PROMISES. Which we didn't keep.

Here's the problem with that: the Afghans didn't want America to rebuild their country.  They simply wanted to drive the Soviets out.  Nothing more.

If we had rebuilt infrastructure, helped them form a government and been there for them after the Russians left. The Iranians wouldn't have gotten their money involved, we'd most likely never would have had such a militant taliban government in place (which is still threatening stability in the region) and perhaps Bin Laden wouldn't have been able to organize as well as he did (Odds are he'd have to had work out of Yemen)

The Iranians are fellow Muslims.  We are infidels who were tolerated only because we helped drive the Soviets out without demanding Afghanistan leave the Middle Ages.

Like the late Charlie Wilson pointed out, we failed the Afgan people and we're doing it again. In another 30 years, when the taliban or their successors get control of Pakistan and drop a nuke on Mumbai or Dehli, who are we going to blame then?

Since when is it our responsibility to tell other people how to live?

If the people of Pakistan want to embrace Islam and turn their country into one big violent RenFaire, who are we to tell them no?  It's their country.

As for dropping a nuke on Mumbai or Delhi, that's not going to happen...and it's India's responsibility to defend itself.  Which it is.  The nuking of Mumbai would be closely followed by the nuking of Islamabad...and Pakistan knows this.

[Jude]

Well, what did anyone expect?  That's these peoples' religion.  Women are breeding stock to them, nothing more.

A bit extreme, over-exaggerated, but still mostly true.  Women have very few rights in Islamic societies.

The bottom line is that, after 9/11, when we had bin Laden and his henchmen holed up in that cave-complex, we should have just dropped in a tactical nuke, fried Al-Quaeda, declared victory--and came home.

That would've had some interesting repercussions, I'm guessing the entire Arab world would react by cutting us off from oil and watching our society deteriorate overnight.

As for trying to "nation-build" and "civilize" these people, Mark Twain said it best: don't try and teach pigs to fly.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're referring to the Taliban in particular when you say "pig" and not Arabs in general.

You're right in that case, nothing we can do will change the way the Taliban feels.  As far as whether or not our actions in the region have evolved Islamic culture in the right direction, I'd say the jury's still out on that one given that it's only been 10 years and Democratic Iraq is still in a fledgling state.  Some would say the Arabic Spring is proof that things are moving in the right direction though, and I think they're right.

You might counter with, "even nations which have revolted want Shariah-law based rule," and I think you're right factually.  Problem is, you're wrong on the path to "civilization."  The west didn't excise itself of terrible practices before becoming a Democratic Republic, it was the other way around (it hasn't even been 100 years since women gained the right to vote in the US, for instance).  Unfortunately, the Democratic part is overemphasized in our efforts and the Republic part is where respect for minorities and human rights come in.  A Democracy without the rule of law restraining the actions of the majority is still tyranny, it's just tyranny by popularity.

Heavy-handed approaches to dealing with Muslims around the world aren't helping the Muslim perception of a Democratic Republic either.  In France Muslims are being denied the right to practice their religion by wearing their traditional garb.  In the United States, they're having problems building mosques (the ground zero situation was just the tip of the iceberg) for worship and with general vandalism.  The actions of the west sends a terrible message to these fledgling countries:  being a Democracy is all about using your power to enshrine your beliefs in your society in order to insulate the power structure of your religion and traditions.

Expressing outrage over stuff like this is a good thing.  We need to hold Muslims responsible for the horrible human rights abuses that are going on in their country.  However, it rings a little hollow to be doing this while we're abusing the rights of Muslims on our nation's soil.  As long as we torture, hold people indefinitely without trial in Guantanamo, and prop up regimes which oppress the human rights of Muslims in their homeland (Saudi Arabia and arguably Israel if you're at all fair about how they're handling the Palestinian situation), we really don't have much room to evangelize about our beautiful ideals -- even if we are light years ahead of them when it comes to achieving the ever-coveted status of "civilized."

[Maiz]

It's frankly not a surprise that there is a rise of fundamentalism. When you invade someone's nation and say you are gonna liberate them, it's not going to really change anything. It'll make things worse. You can't give a country democracy and freedom through war, invasion, and death.  I don't blame people for hating the US and other Western nations. We have consistently fucked around with their countries , the latest being the US involvement after 9/11. When you're loved ones die, who aren't even labeled insurgents, because of Western powers, are you really going to be happy to accept Western help or ideas?

And it's naive to think that the US could 'save' Afghan women. That was a hijacking of feminist discourse to justify a war. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan to 'save' Afghan women. Then the mujahedin tried to protect women from the ideas of the Soviets. Then the Taliban talked about saving women from the cruelty of the mujahedin and now the US is saving Afghan women from the Taliban.

This strips Afghan women of their agency (did you know that there is a major secular group in Afghanistan that has been working for women since the Soviets came? I'm guessing no since RAWA isnt well known in the media) and gave the US a nice way to say how they should have war.

OldSchoolGamer you show your xenophobia and your lack of knowledge. Women in Afghanistan gained the right to vote in 1920, just like the US. You call these people pigs yet you are the one talking about dropping nukes on them. Yet the US allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib to happen. Yet the US imprisons so many Latino and African American men and boys for drug possession despite the fact that white men are more likely to use drugs. One in six American women will have been a victim of attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.

Afghanistan and Iraq had infrastructure, had nations before the present. You should try to read various books, blogs, articles written by Muslims in the Middle East.

[RubySlippers]

I wqas opposed to our operations there save to attack the Al Queda network, if the Taliban stayed out of our way I would have said leave them be and recognize them as the legitimate government openly.

The last proper war we fought was WWII and WE WERE ATTACKED FIRST, and then the president got a proper declaration of war and we formally declared the war a proper war.

Do I like this law, no. But its their law and I don't approve of dictating to a nation how they should establish courts of law and what the laws are. We then become a colonial power with the issues of being one. It failed in the Philippines the local resistance fought us to a standstill. And other nations always had major issues in some areas forcing their will on the locals. And if the women can vote then the women in that nation need to use it and their force of will to change the laws, if they put up with this its not our problem.

[TheGlyphstone]

I wqas opposed to our operations there save to attack the Al Queda network, if the Taliban stayed out of our way I would have said leave them be and recognize them as the legitimate government openly.

The last proper war we fought was WWII and WE WERE ATTACKED FIRST, and then the president got a proper declaration of war and we formally declared the war a proper war.

Do I like this law, no. But its their law and I don't approve of dictating to a nation how they should establish courts of law and what the laws are. We then become a colonial power with the issues of being one. It failed in the Philippines the local resistance fought us to a standstill. And other nations always had major issues in some areas forcing their will on the locals. And if the women can vote then the women in that nation need to use it and their force of will to change the laws, if they put up with this its not our problem.

The Korean War wasn't a proper war?

[Trieste]

Or that whole Gulf War thing in 1990... >.>

Regarding Shariah law and Islam and "It's their religion, women are breeding stock!", that's pretty much flat-out wrong. Fundamentalism in Islam is the same as fundamentalism in Christianity, and saying that "it's their religion" to treat their women like shit is buying into the excuses put forth by the very people that have put together such a ridiculous society. It would be like having Orthodox Judaism upheld by the laws of a random country and then saying that it's intrinsic to Judaism for women to wear long skirts and long sleeves. It's not the whole picture, and allowing the perpetrators of this sort of heinous thing to hide behind the cloak of religious legitimacy is to do their victims and the reasonable practitioners of Islam an incredible disservice.

[Zeitgeist]

I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination that these sort of things were going on long before our eye turned on Afghanistan, be it under the Taliban or not. I'm sure we don't need a history lesson that lists all the different groups of people that have laid a swath of war across that nation and region. In other words, Westerns are far from the first to come to that country.

What happened to this woman has nothing to do with Islam, or any other religion, and rather the uncivilized notion of women as property. Yes, religion has a troubled history in regards to that, I agree, but this incident at least seems to be steeped as much in civil Afghan law as much as any religious edicts. Granted, the two may be inseparable to many Afghans.

Bottom line for me, if we aren't going to do anything about this. We need to get out, or we risk being complicit.

[Callie Del Noire]

Here's the problem with that: the Afghans didn't want America to rebuild their country.  They simply wanted to drive the Soviets out.  Nothing more.

The Iranians are fellow Muslims.  We are infidels who were tolerated only because we helped drive the Soviets out without demanding Afghanistan leave the Middle Ages.

Since when is it our responsibility to tell other people how to live?

If the people of Pakistan want to embrace Islam and turn their country into one big violent RenFaire, who are we to tell them no?  It's their country.

As for dropping a nuke on Mumbai or Delhi, that's not going to happen...and it's India's responsibility to defend itself.  Which it is.  The nuking of Mumbai would be closely followed by the nuking of Islamabad...and Pakistan knows this.

The Iranians are Persians.. not all Afgans are favorably disposed to the Persians anymore than they are to us. The Iranians are very happy to fight western countries to the last Palestinan, Arab and Pashtun. The ethnic (and religous) make ups aren't as static as you'd think. I've been to a few gulf countries and talked with lots of locals there.

And if you think rational thought goes into the thought procresses of the Taliban (and their backers) you might be in for an ugly surprise. Consider their actions to their own countrymen BEFORE we went in. Add in that they will most likely be riddled with non-afgan/pakistani folks who wouldn't shed a tear at the death of Islamabad in retailiation to a nuking.

Things aren't static, cut and dried or linear as you think There are a LOT of factions using the Taliban to their own ends.

And when the US makes a promise we should keep it. President Carter AND Regan made promises.. and we let isolantionist fools set things up this way. We can do things right.. or not.. we didn't in the 80s. Look where that led us. Two decades plus in the gulf.

We pulll out before stability is acheived.. we'lll be back after the next twin towers event.

[Oniya]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're referring to the Taliban in particular when you say "pig" and not Arabs in general.

Jude, I think you're looking for offense here.  The saying (although I think Mr. Clemens used 'to sing' and not 'to fly') refers to trying to teach someone - anyone - who doesn't want to learn.  It's the flip side of arguing with Internet trolls - I've heard that described as 'mudwrestling with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.'

[Jude]

Jude, I think you're looking for offense here.  The saying (although I think Mr. Clemens used 'to sing' and not 'to fly') refers to trying to teach someone - anyone - who doesn't want to learn.  It's the flip side of arguing with Internet trolls - I've heard that described as 'mudwrestling with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.'

You could be right, I don't know how he meant it.  My quote might've come off as overly terse to, if so I apologize.  I was truly giving him the benefit of doubt.

For the record, I do think the Taliban are worthy of being called literal pigs.  They're horrible, regressive, and "evil" (in as much as that word has meaning).

[Zakharra]

 It's a pretty good insult too since the Muslim religion has a problem with pigs.

[Trieste]

I don't know what the pigs ever did to get compared to the Taliban. :(

[TheGlyphstone]

I don't know what the pigs ever did to get compared to the Taliban. :(

Well, they are known to institute brutal totalitarian regimes when placed in charge of a community... ;D

[Trieste]

D'oh, Orwell'd.

[Zakharra]

 Animal Farm.

[consortium11]

You could be right, I don't know how he meant it.  My quote might've come off as overly terse to, if so I apologize.  I was truly giving him the benefit of doubt.

For the record, I do think the Taliban are worthy of being called literal pigs.  They're horrible, regressive, and "evil" (in as much as that word has meaning).

"When pigs fly" and its variations are a pretty common terms (in the UK at least) to indicate something will never happen or the general impossibility of something, much along the lines of "it'll be a cold day in hell" or similar phrases.

[Oniya]

"When pigs fly" and its variations are a pretty common terms (in the UK at least) to indicate something will never happen or the general impossibility of something, much along the lines of "it'll be a cold day in hell" or similar phrases.

Over here, too.  Pigs get an awfully bad rap, though.  They actually prefer a clean pool to mud pits to cool off (they have very few functional sweat glands), and they're quite intelligent (smarter than dogs by some metrics).

/hijack

[Malefique]

A curious aside - my daughter was told off in her UK school for repeating an old phrase I am prone to use to express disbelief: 'In a pig's eye!'  She did not intend any insult to the muslim girl she was chatting to, but was treated as if she did.  As regards the idea that a homogenous islamic culture exists which enjoins certain behaviour on muslims; I think there are some who use that religion to impose their own barbaric and sadistic cruelty, and others who do not.  Some Islamic countries do punish the victims of rape in this way and even worse ones.  This link relates to what occurred to an Australian victim of rape in not Afghanistan but the United Arab Emirates - a country which is not criticised by western powers and indeed was one of our chief allies in the attack on Libya.  http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/queensland-woman-tells-of-her-jail-hell-in-united-arab-emirates/story-e6frfq80-1226028892697.  In Bangladesh a girl was flogged to death for being raped by four men.  In Pakistan a baby was stoned to death for being illegitimate.  I don't blame these crimes on Islam, I blame them on vicious evil bastards who would find an excuse for this kind of appalling savagery no matter what creed or cause they pretended to espouse.  I know many British muslims who find these ideas disgusting and shocking, and abhor the idea of introducing sharia law into this country.  Oh, and the veil?  It's not a universal muslim thing, it's optional depending on your version of islam and was copied (along with the harem) from the upperclass Byzantine Greeks, who were Christians but didn't want commoners ogling their women.  I do not think we should simply stand by and say 'hey, that's how they do things'.  Nor should we intervene militarily.   What we should do is open our doors to the women and children who suffer from this and slam them in the face of the men who do it.   Send no aid except to an international underground railroad to get the poor buggers out of there - and that includes the thousands of gays being executed in various countries for being gay.  Do not trade one damn thing with countries that practise these laws, expel them from the UN unless they abide by the Human Rights Charter, and do not allow any citizen of theirs to travel through our countries unless they are refugees and never want to go back.   There is a risk this will create a united islamist bloc, but I doubt it - they have too many internal differences for that to happen.

[TheGlyphstone]

What we need is energy independence. OPEC has the Western world by the short and curlies with its control of so many of the oil pipelines and wells, which puts political pressure on the tendency to leave them alone.  Freeing ourselves from oil dependency is a good thing on its own merits for a bunch of other reasons, and it's a two-way sword - we need their oil, they need our money - but it's still a limiting factor on what politicians and nations are willing to do.