World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Oh, I got an idea. Let's bomb the shit out of them, including a bunch of weddings, reinvade, and install another heroin kingpin as President.
Look, the Taliban is shit and these stories are truly horrific, but where was the coverage of Afghanistan the last 10 years?
Whenever I read these stories, all I see, aside from the obvious human misery and evil, is a media class that is continually trying to rewrite history to somehow justify the failure that was the 20 year occupation, and discredit the withdrawal.
I hope this woman gets justice and I hope things improve for women in Afghanistan. But I also want the Western audiences not to be the blinded by the sinister intent that is behind a lot of the Western Afghanistan media coverage.
Not because they should dismiss this women's story, or those like hers, but so they don't forget what a failure the NATO adventure in Afghanistan was. So they don't believe that the next war, should go on forever, or that expeditionary military force and occupation can be used to improve women's rights.
things wont improve for women in Afghanistan, as long as the Taliban are in power. I hope thats clear.
.....and how many more years of military occupation would have prevented that?
A generarion or two. If you invade; you better be prepared to build the state as well.
I don't even know where to begin with the levels of idiocy contained in your remark.
Like, do I start with the realities of how Western PMC mineral extraction fed into the cycle of extremism and poverty, the problems inherent with trying to use foreign military occupation to create a functioning centralized state out of a tribal society who's only a nation because colonial powers drew lines on maps, or just the raw racism of believing that the white saviors should invade and occupy poor brown countries because we have to show those savages how to be better people.
Let's start with how it's racist to stop religious fundamentalists from abusing women. This should be fun.
Just a wild guess here, but I take it that you never got very good marks for reading comprehension. But whatever, I'll answer your bad faith question:
The racism is ignoring all of the ways in which colonial powers have fucked, refucked, and then triple fucked, the collection of tribal regions known as Afghanistan, which only exists as a nation state because of colonial powers drawing politically convenient lines on maps.
All while pretending that religion, and not the colonial conflict legacy is the root cause of these problems. Because admitting that colonialism is why we're here, isn't a very good narrative for selling the next war.
So great, now it's the white Savior's moral obligation to fix the problems that these brown people created all on their own, and definitely did not happen as a result of over a century of colonial violence , resource exploitation, and constant warfare.
And not for nothing, but you also clearly don't have a clue about the crimes against humanity level shit that happened during the occupation.
So stop and think, why all this coverage now, and not for the last decade of occupation?
Manufacturing consent for the next foreign war.
Unfortunately you're basically highlighting the reason that propaganda like this works: immediacy bias.
This story, and the idea of the video, of the woman being raped is immediately visible.
The historical context surrounding this story, and the political context of its dissemination, is not visible. All the stories that were neglected by the media that is cynically using this current story are not immediately in front of us.
It's hard for people to step out of that immediate reaction because it feels like the story they just heard is happening in front of them. We're not mentally built for a global news environment where news stories can be cherry picked for their desired impact.
It's ironic that something called "immediacy bias" is being exploited by the media, when immediate literally means "without media". Maybe in this case it should be called the immediacy illusion.
You're vastly oversimplifying.
Afghanistan as we know it was created by Pashtuns, the majority ethnicity in Afghanistan back then in 1747 (A large chunk of Tajiks settled in North Afhghanistan fleeing the Red Army, that's why they're so numerous now). It's already post-colonial, in the sense that it's not part of Persia (or Greece) any more and avoided becoming Russian, it fought for its independence. Saying "it only exists because it's convenient to colonial powers" is a fucking insult.
You're erasing their own struggles and achievements for your own messed-up white saviour complex, "Oh poor brown people are poor and behave like assholes that must be because we did it".
No, colonial conflicts did not instil misogyny in Afghanistan, least of all during the Soviet or US invasion. That's a mixture of ancient tribal values reinforced by convenient interpretations of Islam. The US could certainly have supported nicer people than the Mujahideen to fuck with the Soviets trying to colonise but it's not like Afghanistan was a beacon of progressivism before, on the contrary. Some enlightened absolutism in Kabul, yes, the Royals got around and studied abroad, everywhere else, very much not.
If you ask me the mistake the US made, big-picture, was to not arming women.
The taliban is a bunch of woman abusers because of...colonialism?
See I knew this would be fun, tell me another one
Afghanistan did not arise as a result from colonial powers. That's false and completely ignores the self determination of Afghans.
Also, the stuff you're saying about how the country was just a simple, tribal place is actually very hurtful. Borderline racist.
Lmao are you high rn? I swear it's always a huge invented argument/event with you fine folks.
We left, the Taliban took over. This woman got raped and blackmailed in a Taliban jail. After the US left. A jail ran by the Taliban. The taliban's jail. The jail which was ran by the Taliban. The jail ran by the Taliban which wasn't being ran by the US.
But go on about how western racism is the problem here lmao. The issue I'm seeing is prisoners getting raped, but what TF do I know 🤷
If that's how Taliban jails are operated it would be super racist of me to deem that unsafe, unethical or even wrong. I'll choose to be open and accept that Taliban jails are for raping and blackmailing because I am a man of culture.
Probably more than a few generations. The U.S. failed to deal with the Islamic religion other than giving education to females. The entire culture of the area would need to be changed, and that means mitigate aspects of a radical religion. The U.S. was probably unwilling to do that due to its freedom of religion philosophy.
Bro. The way the US treated afgahnistan doesn't help people to look up to what the US has in mind for the country...
Years of competent and cooperative occupation? 5? Thats how long it took in Germany. Probably a bad example, but it is possible. And the occupational force reaaaaally has to work to combat the reasons for this. Under the US Occupation women had a lot more rights and presence in society. The PMCs and scumbags that led this regime however did nothing else to attract loyalty from the afghan soldiers.
Years of extractive Nationbuilding? fuck if i know.
I'm having flashbacks to Iraq, or rather talking to Americans about the thing when they were all gung-ho about it. "It's going to be just like Germany!" is what you always say, completely ignoring that Germany had a democratic tradition, proper civil society, well-educated population able to re-industrialise in a couple of years, Universities that pre-date Columbus, and in many ways created those very values you claim you instilled. Do I have to remind you of the US's domestic Apartheid policies at that point in time gods fucking thanks you didn't instil shit.
Also the occupation of Germany lasted 45 years (1945-1990) but that's a technicality.
Iraq was an absolute shit show and nowhere near as competently planned as the German Occupation.
Yeah, drawing up an entire rebuilding plan, funding years and years of developement in that country is definitely the same as throwing ones hands in the air and yelling "THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX ALL OF THIS" while disregarding any local democratic initiative. Torturing the civilian population, releasing the entire army on day one, thereby creating 400.000 armed and disappointed men.
Iraq did not fail because the Americans or the West couldnt. It just had no interest at that time.
Btw, the democratic tradition in Germany was barely 14 years old and was hated by more than 30% of its pre war population. We had just come out of commiting the worst genocide in history and most of us cheered for it.
I cant mention it enough: Under the american occupation, afghan women and minorities enjoyed more protection and participation than they ever had in the last 100 years. And as soon as the military presence went away, women were kicked out of public life and the Taliban started ethnically cleasing the Hezaras.
The SPD was founded 1863. Germany had been a constitutional monarchy with a parliament for quite a while, based on Prussia's introduction of the thing in 1848. That was introduced not so much by grace of the King but because of the people demanding it.
And, no, the Americans didn't have a plan going into Germany, either. Not having plans is kind of their thing. They didn't even plan on entering the war, remember. I could go into endless detail here but that e.g. VW still exists is due to the Brits, definitely not US policy, and let's not forget the French keen on overcoming arch enmity and turning it around into European integration.
For claiming to be German you know preciously little German history.
Yes. And it was a grave mistake to not arm the women. Imagine the Taliban trying to take Kabul if there were two or three women battalions around, very much fighting in self-interest, calling their male colleagues limp-dicked over not putting up a fight.
Pakistani kingpin
I feel you. Been fighting that war half my life.
Counterpoint. This horrific story could emotionally trigger and activate anger in those who've never been exposed, as horrible as it is after all this time.
Am I naive?
So people shouldn't know about war crimes, so people wo go to unnessecary wars and kill wont get triggered?
Whats that shit? Don't fucking go abroad to kill people then?
Wrong turn big dog. I believe we're on the same team here.
I'm suggesting that constant reminders bring truth to light and respective responses to found truth. (E. G. Getting angry) And that is a good thing to do so. Not suggesting avoiding triggering.
This article is about the plight of afghani women and you've instead shifted away from the victims to cry about NATO. Can we not discuss anything without running unprompted to the comments to cry about how the US didn't make this issue any better?
We don't need a comment on every article about how the us bad, we need comments related to the actual article. This is why so many people around the world talk about how americans act like they are the entire world. This article isn't even from an american outlet.
Like seriously... Can we not condemn the absolute horrid treatment of women without making the conversation about the west?? Why is that so hard? These things are related deeply to culture, history, religion and that should be allowed to be discussed.
This article is about manufacturing consent for the next foreign war.
For the last decade of occupation, at least, the Taliban controlled all the tribal regions, which is the majority of the nation. Do you think these crimes against humanity were not occurring then?
So how come now, after the withdrawal and end of the occupation, are news organizations suddenly devoting so much masthead to covering them?
People tend to believe that propaganda means lies, but the most effective propaganda is the truth. It's putting out information that is designed to elicit a specific emotional response or reaction. That is what this torrent of post withdrawal Afghanistan articles are about.
How much coverage has been devoted to women's rights versus the American post withdrawal policy freezing Afghanistan bank accounts to repay victims of 9/11? A policy that was directly linked to famines and food insecurity across the country.
That is serious question and my point isn't some reductive America is bad argument. It's that only one of those stories advances a pro-western military intervention narrative.
I will repeat what I already said, the story of that women is horrific and the Taliban is full of evil sadistic pieces of shit. But that is exactly why those narratives have been selected, because they help condition Western readers to be ready for the next foreign war.
If you don't believe me, look through all of the replies here that are using the emotional resonance of that woman as justification for military occupation.