Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
And people don't have to be offended by it. It left me saddened for all manner of reasons (however much that is just 'pandering'), but not offended.
But nor is anyone obligated to take a verbal kick or refrain from making one in return, however righteous the reason for the initial kick, out of respect. Passion and anger don't afford any special insight into others' souls.
And in the least surprising news, in the rather noticeable area not occupied by the Taliban, opposition forces have started congeregating.
I mentioned last night that the CIA had wasted to time getting on the blower to the some of their old friends in the Panjshir Valley. Its notable they were dropping by in flat land doubling as airstrips as well in recent days.
Not that these guys need the US tell them what to do. Whilst it is unlikely to be a sudden massive counter march on Kabul (the fighting isnt that far away), the idea of Taliban complete control has always been a misnomer
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
Totally uncalled for.
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.
You aren't making a great deal of sense. How do you have the option of "not taking it personally"? Is it the case that your reaction to women being harmed is "fuck 'em"? If not, do you not mind at all the suggestion that it is? And I am not" responding in kind". I am not someone whose response to women being harmed is "fuck 'em". Cyclefree, on the other hand, is a turgid bore. So I don't really see the equivalence?
Because I choose not to? It's quite easy. She's clearly angry about the situation, which is understandable.
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
I wasn’t offended. But it was a boring shriek of anti-male hatred. So cyclefree can go f-ck herself. Literally
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
A part of the world run by men, at least.
I don't think anyone here is pro-Taliban, just accepting that the age of liberal-interventionist wars has just ended. No more wars will be fought to try to impose liberal values on unwilling populations.
There are a sort of men who thinks that the answer to any political question is war and force. The reality is that convincing the wretched of the world to embrace liberal values is not a matter of force. Far better is soft power and economic development.
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
And people don't have to be offended by it. It left me saddened for all manner of reasons (however much that is just 'pandering'), but not offended.
But nor is anyone obligated to take a verbal kick or refrain from making one in return, however righteous the reason for the initial kick, out of respect. Passion and anger don't afford any special insight into others' souls.
No, we all post what we post and sincerity is best unless it's one for laughs.
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
I wasn’t offended. But it was a boring shriek of anti-male hatred. So cyclefree can go f-ck herself. Literally
And in the least surprising news, in the rather noticeable area not occupied by the Taliban, opposition forces have started congeregating.
I mentioned last night that the CIA had wasted to time getting on the blower to the some of their old friends in the Panjshir Valley. Its notable they were dropping by in flat land doubling as airstrips as well in recent days.
Not that these guys need the US tell them what to do. Whilst it is unlikely to be a sudden massive counter march on Kabul (the fighting isnt that far away), the idea of Taliban complete control has always been a misnomer
There is more than a hint that the Taleban themselves have been rather caught out by the complete lack of meaningful opposition from the former government and are scrambling to maintain some vestige of control The amnesty for all government officials who turn up for work suggests that right now they simply don't have a government machine in operation.
When I left to make the dinner a while ago the discussion was actually on topic. How on Earth did it get back to the zillionth stupid mudslinging fest over another place?
Oh well, never mind. Just about the only good news about the Afghan debacle is it looks as if I may have been right when I said the Taliban had concluded it was in their interest to let the foreigners go in peace. The bad news is that I seem to recall seeing on the news earlier today that the RAF had so far managed to get 300 people out through the airport. Apparently there are 6,000 UK citizens and eligible Afghans awaiting rescue. This is far from ideal...
Yep you were right on that one. It seemed to make sense to a rational way of thinking and so it proved. Perhaps the same will apply when it comes to reestablishing a Butlins for international terrorist gangs to prepare attacks on the West. That wouldn't be rational either so maybe it won't happen. Maybe they'll take a leaf from the Americans and concentrate on the home front. Make Afghanistan Great - aka a repressive and backward Islamic fundamentalist state - Again.
Yes but they will probably nationalise lots so should be ok in your book. I bet they will abolish private schools too
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
I wasn’t offended. But it was a boring shriek of anti-male hatred. So cyclefree can go f-ck herself. Literally
Hey it's our fruity 'man of the world'!
What a shame I have to slip into a deep deep sleep.
So a mean of c. 30 per constituency. Which is eminently manageable without disruption nor backlash. What's the betting the median and mode is nowt at all like 30?
When I left to make the dinner a while ago the discussion was actually on topic. How on Earth did it get back to the zillionth stupid mudslinging fest over another place?
Oh well, never mind. Just about the only good news about the Afghan debacle is it looks as if I may have been right when I said the Taliban had concluded it was in their interest to let the foreigners go in peace. The bad news is that I seem to recall seeing on the news earlier today that the RAF had so far managed to get 300 people out through the airport. Apparently there are 6,000 UK citizens and eligible Afghans awaiting rescue. This is far from ideal...
Yep you were right on that one. It seemed to make sense to a rational way of thinking and so it proved. Perhaps the same will apply when it comes to reestablishing a Butlins for international terrorist gangs to prepare attacks on the West. That wouldn't be rational either so maybe it won't happen. Maybe they'll take a leaf from the Americans and concentrate on the home front. Make Afghanistan Great - aka a repressive and backward Islamic fundamentalist state - Again.
Yes but they will probably nationalise lots so should be ok in your book. I bet they will abolish private schools too
🙂 - But I disapprove even more of faith schools so ...
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
A part of the world run by men, at least.
I don't think anyone here is pro-Taliban, just accepting that the age of liberal-interventionist wars has just ended. No more wars will be fought to try to impose liberal values on unwilling populations.
There are a sort of men who thinks that the answer to any political question is war and force. The reality is that convincing the wretched of the world to embrace liberal values is not a matter of force. Far better is soft power and economic development.
But we've had all that for 3 decades. The sad truth is that the world isn't embracing liberal values. Outside of the west, it is reinventing traditional power structures. Neither war nor economic development is changing that.
Its perhaps better to just be grateful that we live in the situation we do.
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
I wasn’t offended. But it was a boring shriek of anti-male hatred. So cyclefree can go f-ck herself. Literally
Did you find a new source of flint?
Today I did absolutely nothing but drink, sleep, sunbathe, drink and masturbate. And halfway through I ate a bizarre salmon and quinoa salad which actually turned out to be quite delicious. So I had another wank then I watched two episodes of Anthony Bourdain and now I’m taking a load of darknet Valium with my Santorini wine so tomorrow I can work early then go see the Pnyx
So a mean of c. 30 per constituency. Which is eminently manageable without disruption nor backlash. What's the betting the median and mode is nowt at all like 30?
As long as they all go to upper middle class enclaves its all fine
So a mean of c. 30 per constituency. Which is eminently manageable without disruption nor backlash. What's the betting the median and mode is nowt at all like 30?
All going to Scotland aren't they - RP made the offer this morning.
I think the whole "woe is women" thing is an issue because feminism has abandoned women in Islamic countries. Liberal feminists seem more bothered about their pro-nouns than FGM, women's rights under Sharia law and the atrocious rape culture that pervades the Middle East and South Asia.
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
When I left to make the dinner a while ago the discussion was actually on topic. How on Earth did it get back to the zillionth stupid mudslinging fest over another place?
Oh well, never mind. Just about the only good news about the Afghan debacle is it looks as if I may have been right when I said the Taliban had concluded it was in their interest to let the foreigners go in peace. The bad news is that I seem to recall seeing on the news earlier today that the RAF had so far managed to get 300 people out through the airport. Apparently there are 6,000 UK citizens and eligible Afghans awaiting rescue. This is far from ideal...
Yep you were right on that one. It seemed to make sense to a rational way of thinking and so it proved. Perhaps the same will apply when it comes to reestablishing a Butlins for international terrorist gangs to prepare attacks on the West. That wouldn't be rational either so maybe it won't happen. Maybe they'll take a leaf from the Americans and concentrate on the home front. Make Afghanistan Great - aka a repressive and backward Islamic fundamentalist state - Again.
Yes but they will probably nationalise lots so should be ok in your book. I bet they will abolish private schools too
🙂 - But I disapprove even more of faith schools so ...
did I say anything about faith schools no I didnt. Did you become hyufd replying to points never made?
Once again Biden has completely sidelined the EU and most of Europe. His actual policy wrt the EU is basically the same as Trump. The rhetoric is warmer but there seems to be little difference in actual policy. The UK has been consulted and kept in the loop as expected with Boris and Biden speaking on the phone. No other European leader or EU politician has been, not even France.
I worry that this stance from Biden will hasten the EU's Russia/China focus. As I said yesterday, Boris' comment about not engaging with the Taliban had an entirely different audience than what the idiots on twitter think. It was squarely aimed at Germany and other EU nations who are happy to knuckle under China and Russia.
Why would Biden call anyone in the EU?
The UK had troops in Afghanistan alongside the US. As far as I understand it, no other European countries did.
Once again Biden has completely sidelined the EU and most of Europe. His actual policy wrt the EU is basically the same as Trump. The rhetoric is warmer but there seems to be little difference in actual policy. The UK has been consulted and kept in the loop as expected with Boris and Biden speaking on the phone. No other European leader or EU politician has been, not even France.
I worry that this stance from Biden will hasten the EU's Russia/China focus. As I said yesterday, Boris' comment about not engaging with the Taliban had an entirely different audience than what the idiots on twitter think. It was squarely aimed at Germany and other EU nations who are happy to knuckle under China and Russia.
Why would Biden call anyone in the EU?
The UK had troops in Afghanistan alongside the US. As far as I understand it, no other European countries did.
Biden can’t use a smartphone, like my Mum. That may also be an issue
I remembered this result when it was reported at the time. Turns out an experiment about honesty is most likely a massive fraud. The basic numerical analysis is utterly damning.
Given that it is auto insurance based I thought it might be relevant to @rcs1000 's interests.
And in the least surprising news, in the rather noticeable area not occupied by the Taliban, opposition forces have started congeregating.
I mentioned last night that the CIA had wasted to time getting on the blower to the some of their old friends in the Panjshir Valley. Its notable they were dropping by in flat land doubling as airstrips as well in recent days.
Not that these guys need the US tell them what to do. Whilst it is unlikely to be a sudden massive counter march on Kabul (the fighting isnt that far away), the idea of Taliban complete control has always been a misnomer
There is more than a hint that the Taleban themselves have been rather caught out by the complete lack of meaningful opposition from the former government and are scrambling to maintain some vestige of control The amnesty for all government officials who turn up for work suggests that right now they simply don't have a government machine in operation.
It makes you wonder how many were needed to keep the Taliban out of Kabul for a few weeks if they'd been willing to fight.
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
I wasn’t offended. But it was a boring shriek of anti-male hatred. So cyclefree can go f-ck herself. Literally
Did you find a new source of flint?
Today I did absolutely nothing but drink, sleep, sunbathe, drink and masturbate. And halfway through I ate a bizarre salmon and quinoa salad which actually turned out to be quite delicious. So I had another wank then I watched two episodes of Anthony Bourdain and now I’m taking a load of darknet Valium with my Santorini wine so tomorrow I can work early then go see the Pnyx
All in all, a good day
Must have been your DIY dressing that made the salad so tasty.
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
So a mean of c. 30 per constituency. Which is eminently manageable without disruption nor backlash. What's the betting the median and mode is nowt at all like 30?
As long as they all go to upper middle class enclaves its all fine
Tory back benchers from the Home Counties fulminating about this will be drawing up plans for emergency suitable housing, health care, employment and schooling in their constituencies as we speak, no doubt.
Once again Biden has completely sidelined the EU and most of Europe. His actual policy wrt the EU is basically the same as Trump. The rhetoric is warmer but there seems to be little difference in actual policy. The UK has been consulted and kept in the loop as expected with Boris and Biden speaking on the phone. No other European leader or EU politician has been, not even France.
I worry that this stance from Biden will hasten the EU's Russia/China focus. As I said yesterday, Boris' comment about not engaging with the Taliban had an entirely different audience than what the idiots on twitter think. It was squarely aimed at Germany and other EU nations who are happy to knuckle under China and Russia.
Why would Biden call anyone in the EU?
The UK had troops in Afghanistan alongside the US. As far as I understand it, no other European countries did.
Biden can’t use a smartphone, like my Mum. That may also be an issue
I would guess that Biden's advisors try to limit the number of interactions he has with people generally. Safer that way. He's less likely to sniff their hair, touch their knee and call them "Jessica".
When I left to make the dinner a while ago the discussion was actually on topic. How on Earth did it get back to the zillionth stupid mudslinging fest over another place?
Oh well, never mind. Just about the only good news about the Afghan debacle is it looks as if I may have been right when I said the Taliban had concluded it was in their interest to let the foreigners go in peace. The bad news is that I seem to recall seeing on the news earlier today that the RAF had so far managed to get 300 people out through the airport. Apparently there are 6,000 UK citizens and eligible Afghans awaiting rescue. This is far from ideal...
Yep you were right on that one. It seemed to make sense to a rational way of thinking and so it proved. Perhaps the same will apply when it comes to reestablishing a Butlins for international terrorist gangs to prepare attacks on the West. That wouldn't be rational either so maybe it won't happen. Maybe they'll take a leaf from the Americans and concentrate on the home front. Make Afghanistan Great - aka a repressive and backward Islamic fundamentalist state - Again.
Yes but they will probably nationalise lots so should be ok in your book. I bet they will abolish private schools too
🙂 - But I disapprove even more of faith schools so ...
did I say anything about faith schools no I didnt. Did you become hyufd replying to points never made?
Just seeking a light touch in replying to drivel. Won't happen again.
I think the whole "woe is women" thing is an issue because feminism has abandoned women in Islamic countries. Liberal feminists seem more bothered about their pro-nouns than FGM, women's rights under Sharia law and the atrocious rape culture that pervades the Middle East and South Asia.
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
So you would place a trade embargo and sanctions on Saudi would you?
I think the whole "woe is women" thing is an issue because feminism has abandoned women in Islamic countries. Liberal feminists seem more bothered about their pro-nouns than FGM, women's rights under Sharia law and the atrocious rape culture that pervades the Middle East and South Asia.
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
So you would place a trade embargo and sanctions on Saudi would you?
Yes. Tomorrow if it was up to me. Along with any other country where women don't have equal rights. Alas, I don't make the rules.
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Following the fall of Kabul into the control of the Taliban, it was reported that large numbers of anti-Taliban forces, including Vice President Amrullah Saleh, were converging into the Panjshir Valley, the only area of Afghanistan not conquered by the Taliban, in order to create a new resistance front.[10][11][12]
On 17 August, unconfirmed reports of Afghans fleeing to the resistance have come through. Former ethnic Tajik soldiers of the Afghan army have also begun to arrive in support of the resistance with tanks and personnel carriers to the Panjshir valley.[13]
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
ISIS crumbled very quickly when properly challenged. Because, when it comes to it, most people really don’t want to live under ugly medieval laws that crush individuality and repress half of humankind: women
I do not believe the Taliban are ‘popular’. They are grudgingly accepted, at best, by a mutinous people in despair at endless war and chaotic politics. And many Afghans absolutely loathe them
I can see them falling again quite quickly, certainly in large parts of the country, if confronted by a coherent local actor, supported by a nearby power
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Afghanistan as a single country is unsustainable. Parts need to be Iran. Parts Central Asian Stans. And parts Pakistan. Everyone would be much happier. Apart from the women that is.
The West didn't go into Afghanistan in 2001 because we wanted to. We did it because we had to, in order to do something about the terrorism that had led to the 9/11 attacks.
I think the whole "woe is women" thing is an issue because feminism has abandoned women in Islamic countries. Liberal feminists seem more bothered about their pro-nouns than FGM, women's rights under Sharia law and the atrocious rape culture that pervades the Middle East and South Asia.
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
So you would place a trade embargo and sanctions on Saudi would you?
Yes. Tomorrow if it was up to me. Along with any other country where women don't have equal rights. Alas, I don't make the rules.
That is good to hear Max. We have been pandering to those bastards for far too long.
I think the whole "woe is women" thing is an issue because feminism has abandoned women in Islamic countries. Liberal feminists seem more bothered about their pro-nouns than FGM, women's rights under Sharia law and the atrocious rape culture that pervades the Middle East and South Asia.
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
So you would place a trade embargo and sanctions on Saudi would you?
Yes. Tomorrow if it was up to me. Along with any other country where women don't have equal rights. Alas, I don't make the rules.
We should certainly stop the Wahhabist funding that comes from Saudi Arabia.
I think the whole "woe is women" thing is an issue because feminism has abandoned women in Islamic countries. Liberal feminists seem more bothered about their pro-nouns than FGM, women's rights under Sharia law and the atrocious rape culture that pervades the Middle East and South Asia.
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Afghanistan as a single country is unsustainable. Parts need to be Iran. Parts Central Asian Stans. And parts Pakistan. Everyone would be much happier. Apart from the women that is.
Women are better protected almost anywhere compared to Taliban Afghanistan. Only the worst bits of Pakistan compare
Just as a note: those thousands of prisoners sprung by the Taliban in the last week or so. People do know that quite a lot of are avowed Al Qaeda, right? Not to mention the sprinkling of those associating with IS.
Of course under the new Taliban they will be given jobs as community workers and in no way be interested in global jihad.
So are these Afghan refugees going to undergo a process of de-afghanisation ?
After all that's what they're refugees from.
How about:
1) No beards, no headscarfs, no tribal dress etc 2) No speaking Pashto, Tajik etc 3) No more than two kids per family 4) No religion
"Imagine there's no headscarves It isn't hard to do." Part of the problem of insisting refugees speak English is that the hideously underfunded language programmes which existed were largely abolished under Cameron. And all were housed in the same few streets. So there was no immersion, which is the easiest and quickest way to acquire functional fluency.
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Following the fall of Kabul into the control of the Taliban, it was reported that large numbers of anti-Taliban forces, including Vice President Amrullah Saleh, were converging into the Panjshir Valley, the only area of Afghanistan not conquered by the Taliban, in order to create a new resistance front.[10][11][12]
On 17 August, unconfirmed reports of Afghans fleeing to the resistance have come through. Former ethnic Tajik soldiers of the Afghan army have also begun to arrive in support of the resistance with tanks and personnel carriers to the Panjshir valley.[13]
I did mention in a post last week about the hole in the who has control map where the Taliban were not in charge and that it was heavily Tajik. It didnt take a genius to work out that rapid melting away and re-assembly is not unusual in these situations.
Not enough hard evidence yet that this amounts to an effective force that can expand into significant territory.
‘While the Taliban sought to present a kinder and gentler image to the world on Tuesday, scenes near Kabul’s airport offered a bloody counterpoint. The Taliban beat people with rifle butts and clubs to force back the crowd trying to get in.’
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Following the fall of Kabul into the control of the Taliban, it was reported that large numbers of anti-Taliban forces, including Vice President Amrullah Saleh, were converging into the Panjshir Valley, the only area of Afghanistan not conquered by the Taliban, in order to create a new resistance front.[10][11][12]
On 17 August, unconfirmed reports of Afghans fleeing to the resistance have come through. Former ethnic Tajik soldiers of the Afghan army have also begun to arrive in support of the resistance with tanks and personnel carriers to the Panjshir valley.[13]
I did mention in a post last week about the hole in the who has control map where the Taliban were not in charge and that it was heavily Tajik. It didnt take a genius to work out that rapid melting away and re-assembly is not unusual in these situations.
Not enough hard evidence yet that this amounts to an effective force that can expand into significant territory.
Weren't the Hazaras supposed to be very anti-Taliban as they are Shia ?
So are these Afghan refugees going to undergo a process of de-afghanisation ?
After all that's what they're refugees from.
How about:
1) No beards, no headscarfs, no tribal dress etc 2) No speaking Pashto, Tajik etc 3) No more than two kids per family 4) No religion
Odd post. Unless I'm missing the nuance.
Escaping a religious regime should require living a secular lifestyle in the country that has given a new home. I wouldn't go as far as saying no religion. I would deport anyone who is found to support Sharia to the nearest country that has it, however. It is utterly abominable. Women are stoned to death for adultery because they had the temerity to be raped without the necessary 7 male witnesses. Any person who supports it is unworthy of British citizenship.
So are these Afghan refugees going to undergo a process of de-afghanisation ?
After all that's what they're refugees from.
How about:
1) No beards, no headscarfs, no tribal dress etc 2) No speaking Pashto, Tajik etc 3) No more than two kids per family 4) No religion
"Imagine there's no headscarves It isn't hard to do." Part of the problem of insisting refugees speak English is that the hideously underfunded language programmes which existed were largely abolished under Cameron. And all were housed in the same few streets. So there was no immersion, which is the easiest and quickest way to acquire functional fluency.
The internet can also hinder integration - who needs to watch Corrie when you can continue to watch a soap from the old country.
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Afghanistan as a single country is unsustainable. Parts need to be Iran. Parts Central Asian Stans. And parts Pakistan. Everyone would be much happier. Apart from the women that is.
Women are better protected almost anywhere compared to Taliban Afghanistan. Only the worst bits of Pakistan compare
Indeed. That was an ill thought through nod to Cyclefree. Civil War will continue as long as the fact that this isn't a Unitary state is ignored.
I think the whole "woe is women" thing is an issue because feminism has abandoned women in Islamic countries. Liberal feminists seem more bothered about their pro-nouns than FGM, women's rights under Sharia law and the atrocious rape culture that pervades the Middle East and South Asia.
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
So you would place a trade embargo and sanctions on Saudi would you?
Yes. Tomorrow if it was up to me. Along with any other country where women don't have equal rights. Alas, I don't make the rules.
Khadija Amin the new anchor on state TV last week. Taliban taking over her seat as of Monday. Ms. Amin told us her boss informed her Taliban have banned women from returning to work at state television.
I remembered this result when it was reported at the time. Turns out an experiment about honesty is most likely a massive fraud. The basic numerical analysis is utterly damning.
Given that it is auto insurance based I thought it might be relevant to @rcs1000 's interests.
EDIT: omg, I have just got to the font analysis. This is wild.
What a great piece. Thx
Yes, fascinating piece. Both for the rather nerdy analysis of stats for stats sake - which was what drew me in - and the rather more startling and general conclusion - which those not tempted by a paper about the randomness of numbers might still be interested in:
"We have worked on enough fraud cases in the last decade to know that scientific fraud is more common than is convenient to believe, and that it does not happen only on the periphery of science. Addressing the problem of scientific fraud should not be left to a few anonymous (and fed up and frightened) whistleblowers and some (fed up and frightened) bloggers to root out."
Surprising how researchers of this sort - who presumably know what data *should* look like - are unable to fabricate it properly. I reckon I could have done a better job. Which implies that this example of making science up was only actually unearthed because the perpetrators were so bad at it. And further that there is a lot of other made-up science which is done rather better and which doesn't get spotted. Indeed, this is the implication of the piece - and the fact that the authors feel the need to report this anonymously suggests that this is an issue which science would rather not tackle.
When I left to make the dinner a while ago the discussion was actually on topic. How on Earth did it get back to the zillionth stupid mudslinging fest over another place?
Oh well, never mind. Just about the only good news about the Afghan debacle is it looks as if I may have been right when I said the Taliban had concluded it was in their interest to let the foreigners go in peace. The bad news is that I seem to recall seeing on the news earlier today that the RAF had so far managed to get 300 people out through the airport. Apparently there are 6,000 UK citizens and eligible Afghans awaiting rescue. This is far from ideal...
Yep you were right on that one. It seemed to make sense to a rational way of thinking and so it proved. Perhaps the same will apply when it comes to reestablishing a Butlins for international terrorist gangs to prepare attacks on the West. That wouldn't be rational either so maybe it won't happen. Maybe they'll take a leaf from the Americans and concentrate on the home front. Make Afghanistan Great - aka a repressive and backward Islamic fundamentalist state - Again.
Yes but they will probably nationalise lots so should be ok in your book. I bet they will abolish private schools too
🙂 - But I disapprove even more of faith schools so ...
did I say anything about faith schools no I didnt. Did you become hyufd replying to points never made?
Just seeking a light touch in replying to drivel. Won't happen again.
Not drivel...the taliban want to dictate how people live...so do you
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Following the fall of Kabul into the control of the Taliban, it was reported that large numbers of anti-Taliban forces, including Vice President Amrullah Saleh, were converging into the Panjshir Valley, the only area of Afghanistan not conquered by the Taliban, in order to create a new resistance front.[10][11][12]
On 17 August, unconfirmed reports of Afghans fleeing to the resistance have come through. Former ethnic Tajik soldiers of the Afghan army have also begun to arrive in support of the resistance with tanks and personnel carriers to the Panjshir valley.[13]
I did mention in a post last week about the hole in the who has control map where the Taliban were not in charge and that it was heavily Tajik. It didnt take a genius to work out that rapid melting away and re-assembly is not unusual in these situations.
Not enough hard evidence yet that this amounts to an effective force that can expand into significant territory.
Weren't the Hazaras supposed to be very anti-Taliban as they are Shia ?
They mainly are. Although they have a long history of ethnic prejudice against them regardless of their religious views. They are the third biggest ethnic group, but no one likes them. For reasons lost in time.
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Actually its Ahmad Massoud's territory. Whether he is going to the figure his father was only time will tell but the militia under his leadership have a long standing antipathy to the pure theocratic rule of the Taliban that
There are rumours about Dotsum, a very long standing warlord being in on this as well. His occasional rival and also occasional ally Atta Nur is the one who hasnt been yet named. Both of them reportedly did a bunk over the border into one the Stans in the last week.
Nur was considered one of the ones who might organise quickly but didnt show. Dotsum may well have picked up fleeing ANA troops
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Afghanistan as a single country is unsustainable. Parts need to be Iran. Parts Central Asian Stans. And parts Pakistan. Everyone would be much happier. Apart from the women that is.
Women are better protected almost anywhere compared to Taliban Afghanistan. Only the worst bits of Pakistan compare
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan welcomed the return of the Islamic Emirate, stating that Afghans have "broken the shackles of slavery".[89][90][88] Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi stated that Pakistan would recognize a Taliban-led government in due time.[91] The Pakistani Representative to the United Nations referred to the government led by Ashraf Ghani as "a now defunct regime"[92] and criticized the participation of the Afghan representative appointed by Ghani at a meeting of the security council.[93]
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
Following the fall of Kabul into the control of the Taliban, it was reported that large numbers of anti-Taliban forces, including Vice President Amrullah Saleh, were converging into the Panjshir Valley, the only area of Afghanistan not conquered by the Taliban, in order to create a new resistance front.[10][11][12]
On 17 August, unconfirmed reports of Afghans fleeing to the resistance have come through. Former ethnic Tajik soldiers of the Afghan army have also begun to arrive in support of the resistance with tanks and personnel carriers to the Panjshir valley.[13]
I did mention in a post last week about the hole in the who has control map where the Taliban were not in charge and that it was heavily Tajik. It didnt take a genius to work out that rapid melting away and re-assembly is not unusual in these situations.
Not enough hard evidence yet that this amounts to an effective force that can expand into significant territory.
Weren't the Hazaras supposed to be very anti-Taliban as they are Shia ?
Indeed but lead in any anti Taliban effort is lilkely to be strongly Tajik
I think the whole "woe is women" thing is an issue because feminism has abandoned women in Islamic countries. Liberal feminists seem more bothered about their pro-nouns than FGM, women's rights under Sharia law and the atrocious rape culture that pervades the Middle East and South Asia.
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
I'm not sure that's the whole story. In fact, I think it's wrongheaded. Another reason might be that it is complex and not straightforward. When you meet an educated, erudite woman who has chosen to wear a hijab it is hard to argue that she has somehow been forced into wearing it. And there are plenty of educated, erudite women who wear them. Self-choice is a major strand of feminism (albeit one that is under some strain).
Another thing to note: FGM and forced marriages are not exclusively Muslim evils. FGM is as much by location (central/east Africa, with some in the Far East) as it is by religion. Even a Jewish group used to practice it. As for forced marriages: they occur in many countries, and are as much a cultural as a religious thing. In India, as an example, 18% of children are married before the age of 15 50% of child marriages in the world happen in India.. An adult friend of ours (a Christian Indian) was put under some rather nasty pressure by her family to marry a man of their choice - which she managed to avoid.
So: not all Muslims practice FGM and forced marriages; not all forced marriages and FGM is by Muslims. It is where culture and religion intersect.
So, in fact, it's not men who are the oppressors. Or a religion. It's an intersect of religion and culture, with culture being more important.
Complex, isn't it?
Another point is that the TERF wars in feminism are noisy and visible, but a great deal of more 'traditional' feminism campaigning occurs on issues including - yes - FGM and forced marriages.
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
I wasn’t offended. But it was a boring shriek of anti-male hatred. So cyclefree can go f-ck herself. Literally
Did you find a new source of flint?
Today I did absolutely nothing but drink, sleep, sunbathe, drink and masturbate. And halfway through I ate a bizarre salmon and quinoa salad which actually turned out to be quite delicious. So I had another wank then I watched two episodes of Anthony Bourdain and now I’m taking a load of darknet Valium with my Santorini wine so tomorrow I can work early then go see the Pnyx
All in all, a good day
Have you any idea what 'too much information' means?
Comments
But nor is anyone obligated to take a verbal kick or refrain from making one in return, however righteous the reason for the initial kick, out of respect. Passion and anger don't afford any special insight into others' souls.
I mentioned last night that the CIA had wasted to time getting on the blower to the some of their old friends in the Panjshir Valley. Its notable they were dropping by in flat land doubling as airstrips as well in recent days.
Not that these guys need the US tell them what to do. Whilst it is unlikely to be a sudden massive counter march on Kabul (the fighting isnt that far away), the idea of Taliban complete control has always been a misnomer
I don't think anyone here is pro-Taliban, just accepting that the age of liberal-interventionist wars has just ended. No more wars will be fought to try to impose liberal values on unwilling populations.
There are a sort of men who thinks that the answer to any political question is war and force. The reality is that convincing the wretched of the world to embrace liberal values is not a matter of force. Far better is soft power and economic development.
But anyway ...
What a shame I have to slip into a deep deep sleep.
What's the betting the median and mode is nowt at all like 30?
Its perhaps better to just be grateful that we live in the situation we do.
All in all, a good day
The reason that Sarah Everard's death was so noteworthy was because she looked a lot like the BBC and Guardian feminists writing the articles. The reason young brown women in the Middle East are ignored is because liberals have decided that Muslims are a more oppressed class than women so no ill words about Muslims will be tolerated. Anyone dissenting will be summarily cancelled. So the Taliban, the Saudis, the women hating mullahs who require 7 male witnesses for a rape conviction are all deemed as more worthy than the women they oppress.
If people want to take up the cause of women in the Middle East condemned to a life of sexual violence and slave conditions then that's great. It starts with being realistic about who the oppressors really are, it's not men, it's certainly not anyone who frequents this place. It's religious nutcases who are continually enabled and excused by white, often female, liberals.
The UK had troops in Afghanistan alongside the US. As far as I understand it, no other European countries did.
Maybe around 500.
https://twitter.com/TCG_CrisisRisks/status/1427753886706671619
Afghanistan: Much fighting between Taliban units and soldiers thought to be directed by Amrullah Saleh (Afghan Vice President who is still in the country and is pushing a resistance). Reports they recaptured Charikar district of Parwan province north of Kabul and want Bagram.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1427048113131380737/photo/1
Basically Biden had a photo op whilst talking on a video call with various intelligence operatives in Middle East
I don't know this source but others have been talking about this for a while now
On 17 August, unconfirmed reports of Afghans fleeing to the resistance have come through. Former ethnic Tajik soldiers of the Afghan army have also begun to arrive in support of the resistance with tanks and personnel carriers to the Panjshir valley.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panjshir_resistance
After all that's what they're refugees from.
How about:
1) No beards, no headscarfs, no tribal dress etc
2) No speaking Pashto, Tajik etc
3) No more than two kids per family
4) No religion
I do not believe the Taliban are ‘popular’. They are grudgingly accepted, at best, by a mutinous people in despair at endless war and chaotic politics. And many Afghans absolutely loathe them
I can see them falling again quite quickly, certainly in large parts of the country, if confronted by a coherent local actor, supported by a nearby power
Apart from the women that is.
Of course under the new Taliban they will be given jobs as community workers and in no way be interested in global jihad.
It isn't hard to do."
Part of the problem of insisting refugees speak English is that the hideously underfunded language programmes which existed were largely abolished under Cameron. And all were housed in the same few streets. So there was no immersion, which is the easiest and quickest way to acquire functional fluency.
Not enough hard evidence yet that this amounts to an effective force that can expand into significant territory.
He is vaccinated.
Hopefully he will not be symptomatic which will encourage others to get vaccinated.
‘While the Taliban sought to present a kinder and gentler image to the world on Tuesday, scenes near Kabul’s airport offered a bloody counterpoint. The Taliban beat people with rifle butts and clubs to force back the crowd trying to get in.’
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1427749837324304388?s=21
Civil War will continue as long as the fact that this isn't a Unitary state is ignored.
Khadija Amin the new anchor on state TV last week.
Taliban taking over her seat as of Monday.
Ms. Amin told us her boss informed her Taliban have banned women from returning to work at state television.
#Afghanistan
https://twitter.com/farnazfassihi/status/1427763012686041090?s=21
"We have worked on enough fraud cases in the last decade to know that scientific fraud is more common than is convenient to believe, and that it does not happen only on the periphery of science. Addressing the problem of scientific fraud should not be left to a few anonymous (and fed up and frightened) whistleblowers and some (fed up and frightened) bloggers to root out."
Surprising how researchers of this sort - who presumably know what data *should* look like - are unable to fabricate it properly. I reckon I could have done a better job. Which implies that this example of making science up was only actually unearthed because the perpetrators were so bad at it. And further that there is a lot of other made-up science which is done rather better and which doesn't get spotted. Indeed, this is the implication of the piece - and the fact that the authors feel the need to report this anonymously suggests that this is an issue which science would rather not tackle.
https://coronavirus.bg/bg/
Multiply numbers by 10 for UK equivalent.
They are the third biggest ethnic group, but no one likes them. For reasons lost in time.
There are rumours about Dotsum, a very long standing warlord being in on this as well. His occasional rival and also occasional ally Atta Nur is the one who hasnt been yet named. Both of them reportedly did a bunk over the border into one the Stans in the last week.
Nur was considered one of the ones who might organise quickly but didnt show. Dotsum may well have picked up fleeing ANA troops
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan
Another thing to note: FGM and forced marriages are not exclusively Muslim evils. FGM is as much by location (central/east Africa, with some in the Far East) as it is by religion. Even a Jewish group used to practice it. As for forced marriages: they occur in many countries, and are as much a cultural as a religious thing. In India, as an example, 18% of children are married before the age of 15 50% of child marriages in the world happen in India.. An adult friend of ours (a Christian Indian) was put under some rather nasty pressure by her family to marry a man of their choice - which she managed to avoid.
So: not all Muslims practice FGM and forced marriages; not all forced marriages and FGM is by Muslims. It is where culture and religion intersect.
So, in fact, it's not men who are the oppressors. Or a religion. It's an intersect of religion and culture, with culture being more important.
Complex, isn't it?
Another point is that the TERF wars in feminism are noisy and visible, but a great deal of more 'traditional' feminism campaigning occurs on issues including - yes - FGM and forced marriages.