Taliban legalise child marriage for girls as young as nine - Afghanistan law permits rape and suggests women cannot leave their husbands just because they are abusive
Posted by polymute@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 132 comments
notislant@reddit
I got banned from the socialism sub for asking why everyone there was saying the U.S. should unfreeze a terrorist organizations funds lol.
This shit is disgusting.
ukayukay69@reddit
Why should the US control another country’s money? What gives them the right?
Aggressive-Story3671@reddit
That’s not an answer
imnotcreative635@reddit
To be fair they went and backed them originally. They should live with their mistake and give them their money back. They caused all of this. The Afghan government at the time were fighting with these guys and what did the USA do?
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
The USA didn’t back the Taliban, they backed the Mujahideen against the Soviets almost fifty years ago.
The USA has never been friendly with the Taliban.
imnotcreative635@reddit
Who did the mujahideen turn into? (Primarily) they kinda split into 2 main factions
pants_mcgee@reddit
The Taliban was a separate faction that absorbed the parts of the Mujahideen it was friendly with. The U.S. was never particularly keen on supporting the more hardline Muslims in the Mujahideen to begin with.
The US owes nothing to the current Taliban regime, if they want aid they can play ball. They are not playing ball.
00x0xx@reddit
The US ordered Pakistan to radicalize Afghan refugees in Pakistan to fight against the Soviets.
The only organization willing to fight against the secular communist Afghan government and their soviet allies with radical islam, and the US paid Pakistan a fortune to help me built the schools and paid for the materials necessary.
Taliban never ask for US aid. They did ask for Afghan money frozen by US after the fall of the former US puppet, the Afghan government. Money that the US forced the Afghan government to put into US banks, so that if the government ever fell, the US can keep those assets.
The same tactic the US used for Iran. Fortunately we live in a the era were US no longer has hegemonic powers to force friendly governments to put their money in US banks. Except maybe for the EU.
And judging from how the war in the Middle East is progressing, it seems Iran has found a way to get it's money back.
Paradoxjjw@reddit
The US sure as hell didn't show it with its actions
pants_mcgee@reddit
Well the US is also going through a Thang right now and not in the fun quirky way.
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
Do you see how ‘a splinter faction of the Mujahideen became the Taliban,’ is an entirely different sentence to ‘the USA backed the Taliban?’
Besmirching_Badger@reddit
'they don't follow our rules, so we get to ignore our other rules and tell them what rules to follow, otherwise we will keep breaking rules to ensure they don't break our rules'
ruleoflaw
Sovereignty is an answer. It's the only answer. And you would agree with this in any context where it affected you.
Serena_Hellborn@reddit
The US has a very large stick, that is its right.
Czart@reddit
I'm going to make a very bold claim here and say: The right of "fuck the taliban".
pants_mcgee@reddit
Well when the Afghan Republican returns they can have the funds the US gave them and is keeping nice and safe for the time being.
ReallyAR@reddit
Why should you decide for other people who controls their government?
khole4tgirl@reddit
idk, i'd avoiding giving business to a corner store that's owned by a pedophile, even if they're slightly cheaper than the one down the street.
ReallyAR@reddit
You are already the pedophiles that's the main problem.
khole4tgirl@reddit
lmfao
Ok_Currency_617@reddit
If you think that's bad, imagine if you mentioned that Iran has no legal minimum.
Besmirching_Badger@reddit
The funds were frozen out of spite because the US was embarrassed on its withdrawal from afghanistan.
They were then held during a humanitarian crisis under the guise of 'helping afghans'. It's perverse
Presumably you'd be happy for the banking system to freeze your funds because they decided you were a questionable individual?
Sutraner@reddit
Yes?
Absolutely banks should freeze funds for people suspected of human rights abuses
ussrname1312@reddit
So what should we do about the 10% of U.S. states that have *no minimum age for marriage?*
northrupthebandgeek@reddit
We should freeze their funds, too.
ussrname1312@reddit
I agree. If only the U.S. actually cared about human rights
Sutraner@reddit
Whatabout...
ussrname1312@reddit
It’s not whataboutism when it’s pointing out hypocrisy. You’re using something to justify an action but refusing to apply your standards universally.
Sutraner@reddit
It's not pointing out hypocrisy, it's defending despicable atrocities because you don't give a fuck about human rights you just hate America.
ussrname1312@reddit
And then I can turn around and say, "You don’t want to keep Afghanistan‘s money frozen because you care about human rights, you just hate Afghanistan.“
8Bitsblu@reddit
And what, you expect that the freezing of funds by the US would affect religious fundamentalism in Afghanistan, or collapse the Taliban government? Hilarious. 20 years of war and all the US managed to do was snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but no the freezing of funds is what's really gonna make or break this regime! The fact of the matter is that the US is not freezing those funds out of the goodness of its heart, and it's not helping anyone in Afghanistan. It's a naked act of imperialism, and a retaliation after the US' puppet regime collapsed for lack of any real popular support in nearly the same way as the Assad regime.
If you don't give a shit about imperialism (of anyone, but in this case the US') that's your prerogative, but those of us who do are naturally going to be against the freezing of these funds.
beefprime@reddit
I think more to the point the west could start with its own political/capitalist class if it really cared about pedophilia, then they could follow that up with its religious institutions, from the Catholic Church to various evangelical denominations across the US, they are rife with pedophiles and institutions that protect them.
This article is just here, as you say, to excuse US imperialism, keeping anti-Muslim phobia at a fever pitch justifies anything in the minds of the American voting public.
northrupthebandgeek@reddit
“America bad therefore nobody is allowed to condemn the Taliban.”
ussrname1312@reddit
People really like to ignore that 5 U.S.
states have no minimum age for marriage. Meaning 10% of US states allow girls to marry even younger than the Taliban permits.
Socraman@reddit
Why? The same reason Israel needs to be sanctioned and boycotted. One thing is understanding it will not make the regime fall, which is true. But you also don't have to make it easier for them.
blown-transmission@reddit
Israel is a settler colony, Afghanistan is grassroots.
Socraman@reddit
Ask the Afghan women if it is grassroots for them.
blown-transmission@reddit
https://news.gallup.com/poll/406094/afghans-view-leadership-poorly-year-withdrawal.aspx
More favorable than USA puppet regime it seems.
Socraman@reddit
Now you're just changing the goalposts. I never talked about the American puppet regime. I said that is good that the Taliban are sanctioned, because even if it's not going to accomplish any change by itself, it's also not necessary to make it easier for the regime to exist.
blown-transmission@reddit
Taliban is not the one fetting sanctioned, Afghanistan is. People in the regime are rich regardless.
Socraman@reddit
They said the same about Russia. The only way to bring the regime down by a grassroots movement is if the regime is unable to be useful to its people.
jacksontwos@reddit
Depends which terrorist organisation. The determination of who is a terrorist and who isn't is often a political determination. If the terrorist organisation was the Taliban that's absolutely insane.
The label is a good way to shortcut any critical analysis of a situation. Label one side "terrorist" and people will default to thinking akin to ISIS or the Taliban. Other people will not defend that group for fear of "defending terrorists".
In reality depending on the government anything could be terrorist like in the UK where anti-war vandalism is now terrorism. Or the black panther party, or antifa. I don't know that sub tho or the group they wanted to free the funds of.
Danson_the_47th@reddit
Jack, if you’re not a bot/stoolie for Some country, open your eyes and read the title. Child. Marriage. For. 9. Year. Olds. The Taliban never has and never will be the “good” or right side of history.
jacksontwos@reddit
Welp. You're simply not understanding the conversation happening around you. You're having a completely tangential debate that is not interesting.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
I think a lot of people don't realise that the Taliban only really gives a shit about the stuff occurring within the areas they consider Afghanistan.
avroLancasterBPR1@reddit
So Pakistan?
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Parts of the border areas unfortunately yeah. Not much of a threat to anyone outside of that though.
arkaydee@reddit
Let me preface what I'm saying with making it very clear I'm no fan of Taliban.
However, I do have a hard time understanding why so many people claim that Taliban is a terrorist organization. It was the government of Afghanistan before the US invaded. It was the resistance during the occupation. It became the government of Afghanistan again after the US left.
I have zero sympathy for Taliban, and I believe them to be a brutal, religious, suppressive, dictatorial government. However, I fail to see how they can be labeled a terrorist organization.
Sutraner@reddit
There's no however, there's absolutely no defence of the Taliban
jacksontwos@reddit
This is an intellectual shortcut that doesn't stand up to analysis. This person is prefacing the designation and asking a valid question. There's no need to auto default to "the is no however", this is a valid and interesting question being posited. And an answer is way better than a "do not question."
Sutraner@reddit
No, they're not. They're trying to absolve human rights abuses because they think anyone against the West are the good guys.
Fuck the Taliban and fuck everyone in here defending them.
jacksontwos@reddit
There's no need for this to be a highly agitated conversation. If you are right, then a simple answer to their question would be proof enough for everyone to see the flaw in their thinking. If your claim is true it's not true yet, nobody is currently absolving any terrorist groups of any crimes, maybe they are going to slow walk to that later, let them try. There's no need to jump the gun and arrive at the conclusion ahead of time.
Currently they are asking if the designation is correct. And whether the designation is correct or not doesn't absolve anyone of anything. They could be terrorists with a way better human rights record or they could be a legitimate government with a way worse human rights record. They could be a government that funds terrorists or the term terrorist could be reductionist and faulty generally.
I understand your pov and I haven't checked that account maybe they are Taliban propagandists but if we jump ahead of them and immediately shutdown any discussion, we become vulnerable to the propaganda of the label terrorist which is currently being weaponized against anti war protestors.
avroLancasterBPR1@reddit
I’d imagine the terrorist attacks that they’ve committed involving young children as suicide bombers that might lead people to think they are terrorists
could also be the massacring of villages in order to wipe out certain minority groups
just a guess
Loose_Spray1678@reddit
because people don't want to recognize them as legitimate. the IDF gets called a terrorist organization constantly despite the fact that Israel has objectively been a sovereign state for many consecutive decades.
Baka-Onna@reddit
“Terrorism” is an easy term to wash away the fact that organised, government entities commit the most evil. This is how the Taliban exercised its brutality, through laws and governance.
keepthepace@reddit
This. In general the whole "terrorist" moniker has been used to label people with a variety of different backgrounds, causes, modus operandi and ideologies. It is very vague and too easy to apply to random political opponents.
Terrorism as "mass killing of civilians" is a police business. It should not inform international relations. A country partaking in terrorism should be considered like one that partakes in assassinations, drug smuggling, stealing, etc... It is covering criminal activities.
The reason to oppose Taleban is not terrorism. Here the headline is not about terrorism, it is about a law change that is abhorrent. I feel we should opppose it even if Taleban stop funding terrorism.
BertnErnie32@reddit
Yeah anti war vandalism, aka crippling a police office with a hammer to the spine very non terror /s
dsac@reddit
Still not terrorism
BertnErnie32@reddit
Actually violence as a means of political coercion is terrorism but nice try!
opotamus_zero@reddit
Seen the video. Absolutely not terrorism.
m0ngoos3@reddit
I think you're confusing assault with a deadly weapon with vandalism, i.e. spray-painted messages against Israeli committed genocides.
Both are equally illegal in the UK now.
OttoVonJizzfart@reddit
the people on those subs will genuinely just support anything that is anti America. they have no critical thinking skills and can’t understand nuance. it’s a shame, they really make left wing people look really bad
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Honestly, the money needs to fucking flow. I know a lot of it will be stolen, but the majority of Afghans are currently fucked. They're selling their kids because they have no food. Stopping the money means that nobody can actually distribute food in the country because how can they pay anyone to do it?
Butane9000@reddit
Worse, in the US there are places where they are beginning to start the process to getting to this point. Like the Muslim majority council in Hamtramck Michigan which banned Pride Flags in violation of the 1st amendment.
It's also why there's such an outcry against the grooming gangs in the UK. The problem is culturally Islam allows this, doubly so if the target isn't Muslim as well. Not all Muslims engage in this behavior but it's widespread enough to warrant concerns and limitations.
Remember, they did a poll for Muslim majority countries and when it came back with majority viewpoints antithetical to our society (censorship etc) they posted it but never bothered to do another one.
coukou76@reddit
Taxasistan is next
LipstickEquity@reddit
Men have shown time and time again that religion isn’t why.
Men is why.
Darkknight8381@reddit
Men also gave you rights
blown-transmission@reddit
Stopped witholding you mean?
Astryline@reddit
That sub is a controlled psyop the same way worldnews is.
Canadian_Border_Czar@reddit
ProgressiveHQ is worse than socialism.
Worldnews is hard to call a psyop when its just blatant propaganda. I guess its a psyop for the most gullible morons on the planet. Anyone who goes onto that sub and thinks it is legit is imo unqualified to be using the internet and should be given a helmet.
Montana_Gamer@reddit
Ah yes, the evil Jihadist anime_titties controlled by BIG MUHAMMED compared to the Israeli controlled worldnews.
clank201@reddit
Learn to read
Montana_Gamer@reddit
Haha u right
NotGalenNorAnsel@reddit
True, but to put this out there, martial rape wasn't illegal in all US states until 1993.
Unfortunately, because of religion and power imbalances, the Taliban is not the worst authoritative group in Afghanistan. The US backed warlords were even more despicable.
Tribalism sucks as much as religion and they got them both in spades.
OttoVonJizzfart@reddit
the current Chancellor of Germany is on record saying it shouldn’t be illegal
Paradoxjjw@reddit
For all the moral superiority people pretend the west has, they ignore how recently we did that. That and most of the time they don't even believe in the thing supposedly making us better than whatever group they're branding as barbaric savages this time, because they actively support political movements that want us to regress back to allowing the barbaric practices.
Lazy-Field-1116@reddit
Child marriage is still legal in many US states, which is effectively legal marital rape. It's dressed up under the title of "child marriage" because that is more palatable than saying "we're signing a legal document that excuses this adult for raping a child".
NotGalenNorAnsel@reddit
I was surprised to hear that the ACLU opposed total bans on child marriage, but they definitely are more in touch with the situation than my conjecture.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/in-fight-over-child-marriage-laws-states-resist-calls-for-a-total-ban/
Khurram_Ali88@reddit
Because its not their funds and the US is not a paragon of virtue either, those funds could help alleviate the extreme poverty in that country although I accept that most of it will be used by the corrupt government for their own purposes it will still be better than their current economic situation. Withholding those funds won't change the situation in Afghanistan for the better but only make it worse.
Also I understand your frustration but this has nothing to do with Islam. In Islam both domestic abuse and rape are illegal and so is forcing people into marriages, these people dont do these things because of Islam they do so because they are power hungry vile pieces of shit. If Islam didn't exist they would find some other excuse to justify their crimes.
guylovesleep@reddit
Yeah we should totally let US control another country money
And also have them control Taliban again
After all they totally weren't even more worse
Or that some states literally don't have an age limit for marriage
Or that US totally isn't run by people from a certain files
JustChillin3456@reddit
Reddit moment.
heckin_miraculous@reddit
And the CIA
Neco-Arc-Brunestud@reddit
It’d be a huge double standard, considering who’s president.
hannes3120@reddit
And Germany grants those fuckers official official negotiations just to deport people back to this "safe" country in an attempt to please the right-wing voters.
And now the right-wing party is stronger than ever even though the current government is also breaking European law to patrol the borders and deny refugees entry - almost as if appeasement is not working with populists as they just move the goalposts...
Loose_Spray1678@reddit
I just can't imagine seeing a headline this and having your reaction be that you want these people in your country.
hannes3120@reddit
But that's precisely my point: I want to prevent people from having to live under those people while our government is inviting the actual taliban into the country in representative roles
Loose_Spray1678@reddit
the issue is that there isn't really anything to suggest that the taliban is unpopular in Afghanistan. nobody fought against their takeover.
hannes3120@reddit
yeah - let's throw rocks at a well-armed militia that's know to even accept suicide if it helps their cause...
I can 100% understand everyone that kept their head low and organized for his family to flee the country.
Loose_Spray1678@reddit
America notoriously left behind a ton of weapons for the army, and they chose to surrender without fighting at all
hannes3120@reddit
America notoriously fled because they saw that they couldn't keep up with the re-strenghtened Taliban without massive bloodshed. Especially after the local army broke apart with people deserting in the face of an imminent Taliban-attack.
But sure - you'd have stormed a into an abandoned US-based looking for a weapon even with the Taliban being on the doorstep and executing everyone that's even in the vicinity of those bases.
Trying to flee the country seems like the much more sensible and safer choice than trying to fight with those odds. But it's always comfortable to pretend that you'd have played the hero in those situations...
Onphone_irl@reddit
Reprehensible but also highly embarrassing. Aren't there any fathers who are in these circles?
as someone who has a top level comment please let me say this is gross and bad and lame and shitty thank you
MaestroRozen@reddit
There are fathers, but unfortunately when it comes to women regarding these savages, "father" and "husband" are just another word for "owner".
Guaire1@reddit
Most pedophiles are people in the inmediate family of the victim. And yes, that often means fathers.
VladimiroPudding@reddit
In Islam usually dowry is paid to the wife's family (in opposition to, say, Hindu communities where it is normal for the dowry to be paid to the husband's family).
Which means that in societies with abject poverty like Afghanistan and Yemen, sanctioned prostitution is rampant. Poor families sell their daughters for dowry.
polymute@reddit (OP)
And then you have Enlightenment-descended societies where dowry is not paid generally.
Aggressive-Story3671@reddit
Who do you think is approving the marriages
polymute@reddit (OP)
Or rather: set them up. There is a part in the article about girls used to pay debts or favours. Read the article.
thepatriotclubhouse@reddit
Muhammad had a 6 year old wife. The marriage was consummated at age 9. The fathers approve these marriages themselves actually. Some cultures does approach this differently.
Visual_Discussion112@reddit
Not trying to be polemic but ive heard that recent find by a Dr which i dont remember the name at the moment, found that the girl was around 20-21 or something when they wed, altough in not well versed in the topic but i remember reading this in the askhistorian sub which is pretty well moderated against BS from what I know
Accurate_Reality_618@reddit
The problem is that when customs, religion, and even ignorance control the mind, people will accept it very easily and may even be proud of it, especially males, because these customs distinguish their masculinity and tribal pride.
Accurate_Reality_618@reddit
The problem is that when customs and religion control the mindset, people will accept it very easily.
combrade@reddit
The Soviets entered Afghanistan in the first place, to combat religious fundemntalists who were opposed to the progressive reforms of the communists. The Soviets should have taken every inch of Afghanistan and civilized it. Afghanistan is suffering because we didn’t let the Soviets finish the job ,
Afghanistan would have ended up like many of the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia like Tajikistan and Kazakhstan .
TheBigOof96@reddit
Fascinating how imperialism suddenly becomes fine once the "civilizing™️" is done by the side that I like.
blown-transmission@reddit
Imperialism was operation cyclone, not soviet aid to the legitimate government of Afghanistan
TheBigOof96@reddit
Imperialism is the policy or practice of a nation extending its power and domination over foreign territories typically through direct territorial conquest, military occupation, or the exertion of overwhelming economic and political control.
Imperialism is not simply "a country I dislike goes to war". Soviets were also imperialists and these self proclaimed anti-imperialist "leftists"/tankies bending over justifying imperialism as long as it's done by a specific country they like, makes them look like a bunch of crayon eaters.
blown-transmission@reddit
They did not invade Afghanistan, they went to help the government of Afghanistan.
TheBigOof96@reddit
Executing the president (Amin) and installing a new pro-Soviet one (Kamal) isn't exactly "helping" the government and reeks of the latter part of "imperialism" definition
blown-transmission@reddit
Amin himself requested military intervention.
TheBigOof96@reddit
He did not ask to be overthrown and replaced by a puppet government, what's your favorite crayon?
blown-transmission@reddit
He did ask military intervention. The party remained, not replaced.
You are all wrong.
combrade@reddit
There were several Soviet satellite countries that became richer as a result of investment from the Soviet Union, and it was not an extractive relationship in any way.
TheBigOof96@reddit
Literally the "but Brits built out railways in XYZ" argument lmaoo y'all not even hiding it.
For reference, during the interwar period Estonia was on par with Finland development wise. In 1991 after Estonian independence was restored, the purchasing power was 1/3 of the Finnish one.
NicholasMac69@reddit
You do realize the ex Soviet countries had a huge religious revival after the USSR’s fall right?
blown-transmission@reddit
Operation cyclone and operation gladio.
NicholasMac69@reddit
Those operations had nothing to do with ex USSR countries. Please explain.
blown-transmission@reddit
USA likely funded right wing religios views to combat communism. As they have done before.
combrade@reddit
What are you talking about? All the Central Asian Stan countries are all relatively secular.
Radiant-Fly9738@reddit
because they're mainly ruled by dictators.
swelboy@reddit
FACT: 90% of interventionists quit RIGHT before they uplift their savages into “civilization”.
ronburgandyfor2016@reddit
The communist created the problem in the first place
polymute@reddit (OP)
Paywall bypass: https://archive.md/0ruWp
From the article. Beyond what is said in the title:
Just... so fucking sad.
token-black-dude@reddit
They had 20 years of assistance, trying to build an army and a better government. They couldn't be bothered to do anything to make that work, so they effectively chose this government. So fuck them, this is what they wanted to have.
PhraatesIV@reddit
So ignorant
Paradoxjjw@reddit
Feel free to elaborate. I agree that the story goes deeper than "Afghans didnt want to die for the puppet state the west installed therefore they deserve death" but you need to at least put something of substance to paper if you want to call it out
PhraatesIV@reddit
Fair enough. As someone with origins from Afghanistan, it is an emotional matter, thus sometimes I can't even be bothered.
To put it very simply, Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country that is dominated by one ethnicity (and has been seens its creation), which does not even constitute the majority (around 40%), and the talibans supporters and members are 90% of that ethnicity. They follow a very ethnocentric agenda, which in many cases even goes above their Islamic agenda. There is a reason no other Muslim country is as barbarian as them.
Before, other ethnicities were to some degree armed and could put up a fight, but these days, especially after 40+ years of war, people don't fight back (besides some very inactive guerilla fighters in the Northern areas). Even many from the talibans main ethnicity disagree with their policies, but for them ethnicity and that they have the power is more important.
blown-transmission@reddit
20 years of invasion and bombing... right after supporting islamist radicals to topple the previous leftist government.
Hyndis@reddit
The US spent around $145 billion on rebuilding Afghanistan over two decades, including also giving them an army with equipment most other nations couldn't even dream of having.
The Afghan National Army surrendered to the Taliban while barely even firing a shot. The entire government collapsed in a mater of hours.
If no one is willing to fight for your country you don't have a country anymore. Someone else has it instead.
blown-transmission@reddit
I think you are confused, US puppet government was not their country. Taliban, while being awful and not actually popular, is at least a local group. They surrendered bc people of Afghanistan didn't like the american invasion.
Someone else is USA, and they fought against it.
Baka-Onna@reddit
They already do that. With or without laws, most of Afghan’s population are tribal and are subjected to their own tribes’ laws, and the written law are enforced whenever Taliban members feel like it. Pashtun tribes that ally with the Taliban often go to the Taliban for marriage interference.
Kind-Preference7172@reddit
And this is why you never give an inch to islamism in your country, because this is their endgoal : To follow some ancient megalomanic schizo pedophile word for word
Darendolf@reddit
the fact the country even functions after what was done to it's people is a miracle in of itself. The government is made up of mostly Fighters/warriors and to them cruelty is just a part of life.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
The law also makes provisions for children who are married before reaching puberty. “The law … essentially acknowledges that marriages of minors happen,” Shaharzad Akbar, executive director of Rawadari, an Afghan rights organisation, said. “If they happen, the girl can get out of it, but only by going to a Taliban court, and only under certain conditions.”
Can someone explain how long a minor is supposed to wait until she can go to a court. This is ridiculous. You think someone who’s like 10- or 11-years-old can go in front of a court and demand a divorce? Insanity.
I know in the US has a minor married off by parental consent has to wait until she’s a legal adult (18-years-old) to seek a divorce and if that’s the route the Taliban is going down on it’s going to be a disaster with 9-year-olds being allowed to marry.
mrgoobster@reddit
Not true. In many states, entering a marriage automatically emancipates a minor; but even in the states where that doesn't occur, the minor still has the right to file for divorce, but may need to get an adult to appear in court for them. This is not a high barrier, since they can appoint a next friend (representative appointed by the minor) or guardian ad litem (appointed by the court).