Taliban stone couple (age 20 & 28) to death for adultery in Afghanistan

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Gen. David Petraeus has concluded that the U.S. strategy to win the nearly nine-year-old war is "fundamentally sound."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/16/politics/washingtonpost/main6777322.shtml

Taliban stone couple for adultery in Afghanistan
The Associated Press
Published: Monday 16th of August 2010 09:20:35 AM

http://www.rawstory.com/stories/Taliban-stone-couple-for-adultery-in-Afghanistan_20100816.html

Taliban militants stoned a young couple to death for adultery after they ran away from their families in northern Afghanistan, officials said Monday.

The Taliban-ordered killing comes at a time when international rights groups have raised worries that attempts to negotiate with the Taliban to bring peace to Afghanistan could mean a step backward for human rights in the country. When the Islamist extremists ruled Afghanistan, women were not allowed to leave their houses without a male guardian, and public killings for violations of their harsh interpretation of the Quran were common.

This weekend's stoning appeared to arise from an affair between a married man and a single woman in Kunduz province's Dasht-e-Archi district.

The woman, Sadiqa, was 20 years old and engaged to another man, said the Kunduz provincial police chief, Gen. Abdul Raza Yaqoubi. Her lover, 28-year-old Qayum, left his wife to run away with her, and the two had holed up in a friend's house five days ago, said district government head, Mohammad Ayub Aqyar.

They were discovered by Taliban operatives on Sunday and stoned to death in front a crowd of about 150 men, Aqyar said.

First the woman was brought out and stoned, then the man a half an hour later, Aqyar said. He decried the punishment, which he said was ordered by two local Taliban commanders.

[david13]

1. Who thinks it would be different if they were a same sex couple? dc

[snagglepuss]

2. I fail to see the point you are trying to make. nt

[CBGLuthier]

7. who cares?

I think clamoring for gay rights in Afghanistan is really, really, really, really, really, really fucking stupid. Lets see if we can get them out of the fucking stone age first.

[Subdivisions]

10. Um...what? n/t

[louis-t]

3. How sad.

Here they would get their own reality show. Bush kept firing generals until he found one that would tell him what he wanted to hear. That would be Petraeus.

[GSLevel9]

4. oh yeah, now THAT'S a country worth spending American lives on... nt

[Dr.Phool]

5. It will take another 400 years to drag them out of the 8th Century.

However, they just found minerals and oil. So, we'll have to liberate them. I mean the minerals and oil.

[eomer]

6. We're so much more advanced and civilized than these barbarians.

We use laser-guided munitions to kill innocent couples, women, and babies, and we do it for strategic purposes that are so much more civilized (sarcasm).

[maxsolomon]

9. so, 'it's all relative, who are we to judge'?

i will judge. stoning people to death is barbaric. afghani culture is misogynist. the taliban are poorly educated, sexually frustrated terrorists.

our munitions aren't knowingly AIMED at couples, women and babies. the taliban AIM at these people every day, since their goal is to terrorize them into submission.

it's a minor point, i'll admit, but there is a distinction of intent.

[uncommon]

11. Precisely. There is a difference between assuming superiority over other cultures and standing up

to human rights violations.

Stoning human beings to death for adultery is cruel and unusual and should be called out as such EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAPPENS.

Cultural relativism does not help anyone - it only helps us feel better about doing nothing and saying nothing while people suffer and die.

[Fumesucker]

12. How can you be certain that our weapons aren't knowingly aimed at the innocent?

You really have no way of knowing how and where our weapons are aimed and for what purpose.

Abu Ghraib was not an aberration, it was the way men (and women) often act when given a free hand with helpless people they have been conditioned to hate.

[maxsolomon]

14. because i am naive and gullible

and i don't think the military are machiavellian enough to devise a strategy of deliberate (but limited) civilian kills. what would be the goal of such a strategy?

if our military deliberately aimed at afghani civilians, there would be a lot more of them dead. of, this, i can be certain. we have lots of underutilized killing methods that could depopulate the country within days. our reticence to kill is one of the reasons that the taliban/al queda think/know we are defeatable.

as usual, i will quote marlon brando in apocalypse now to illustrate my point. substitute taliban for viet cong, and it's fairly applicable:

KURTZ
" I've seen horrors...horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...But
you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is
necessary to those who do not know what horror means.
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and
moral terrorare your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared.
They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems
a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children.
We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old
man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went
back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There
they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...
I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I
wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want
to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought:
My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not
monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with
their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with
love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You
have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to
utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgement...without judgement. Because it's judgement that
defeats us. "

[Fumesucker]

17. As I said, Abu Ghraib was not an aberration..

If you think it was you're welcome to believe that but it's not the truth.

[eomer]

20. What is your opnion, then, of declaring "free fire" zones where there are "no friendlies"?

That would be in areas that are heavily populated by innocent civilians. What is your opinion of the morality of that and in particular why do you think it is justified, if you do?

Just because there are things we could have done but didn't, that's not much of an argument is it? I'm sure there are things the Taliban could have done but didn't, too. What about the things we could have done and did do?

[maxsolomon]

25. the Taliban pretty much does everything they can do.

since they do not judge themselves for the atrocities they commit in allah's name. that's my point in quoting apocalypse now.

we don't do everything we can do in Af-Pak, because we are under the delusion that war and killing can be 'honorable'. 'free fire' zones are the overreaction of a confused and frightened war machine, as was abu graib.

i don't think any war is justified, unless it is strictly defensive. even then i would hesitate to say it is 'moral' (especially since i don't like that word and it's religious connotations - i prefer 'ethical'). ww2 was 'justified', and we dropped an atomic bomb.

our entire misguided adventure in islam, in iraq especially, is an indefensible war crime. so, that's something we DID do, but the blame lies in the policy and it's advocates (*, cheney, rumsfeld, etc.) more than the individual soldiers who commit atrocities. they are asked to do the impossible, kill ethically, and the military judges them when they cannot.

[eomer]

26. We agree, except...

there are some individual soldiers and factions of soldiers who are also guilty. It's not just Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their peers -- there are people of the same mindset all through all the different levels. I don't know what percentage but it is definitely not zero.

[proteus_lives]

22. So you think the U.S military deliberately and with malice kills civilians?

Why? And for what purpose?

[Fumesucker]

23. Sometimes, sure...

And why?

Because they can, just like happened at Abu Ghraib.

Americans are no different than any other group of human beings, put us in a position of absolute power over others and a damn big percentage will show sadistic tendencies if not outright sadism, and those who don't will very easily follow orders of superiors who are sadists.

Although I haven't been in combat I *have* been in the military and know quite a few others who have, including combat vets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[proteus_lives]

29. You're talking about individuals and I agree on that level.

But I was talking the U.S. military. Do you think that the U.S. military as an organization deliberately and with malice kills civvies without purpose? If so, why?

[Fumesucker]

32. The military is a collection of individuals..

We have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the last ten years and I'm absolutely certain that some of those deaths were deliberate.

Did you listen to the pilots in the choppers fucking *begging* to be allowed to kill the people on the ground on the Wikileaks video?

That's the mindset you're very often dealing with and it goes right up the chain of command.

[proteus_lives]

33. Yes, I've seen the helicopter video.

It was my understanding that the pilots didn't think they were engaging civilians.

Yes, thousands of civilians have died during combat operations but where do I find the evidence that U.S. soldiers/commanders said, "Ok, let's go kill civilians today."

If you please.

[Fumesucker]

35. I guess you missed the news recently..

Where every time an IED would go off the US unit would shoot everyone in the area..

You know, like the ones who set off the IED are going to stick around for the retribution, these things are all either booby trapped or set off by remote control from a distance, anyone out in the open is almost certainly innocent, they wouldn't be there if they knew the IED was about to explode.

[proteus_lives]

36. You're avoiding.

[eomer]

37. Yes, there is evidence.

At various times the U.S. military chain of command ordered troops to go to an area known to be civilian populated and ordered them to treat it as a "free fire" zone with "no friendlies".

Translated to civilian-speak, that is: "Ok let's go kill civilians today." And it is a war crime.

[proteus_lives]

38. I'm famliar with the concept.

But you're leaving one part out.

Free-fire zone If they're attacked, they're not just driving through spraying.

[eomer]

39. Not true, here's the evidence.

Here are some examples:

"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

--snip--

"One time they said to fire on all taxicabs because the enemy was using them for transportation.... One of the snipers replied back, 'Excuse me? Did I hear that right? Fire on all taxicabs?' The lieutenant colonel responded, 'You heard me, trooper, fire on all taxicabs.' After that, the town lit up, with all the units firing on cars. This was my first experience with war, and that kind of set the tone for the rest of the deployment."

--snip--

Vincent Emanuele, a Marine rifleman who spent a year in the al-Qaim area of Iraq near the Syrian border, told of emptying magazines of bullets into the city without identifying targets, running over corpses with Humvees and stopping to take"trophy" photos of bodies"An act that took place quite often in Iraq was taking pot shots at cars that drove by," he said, "This was not an isolated incident, and it took place for most of our eight-month deployment."

--snip--

Garret Reppenhagen served in Iraq from February 2004-2005 in the city of Baquba, 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) northeast of Baghdad. He said his first experience in Iraq was being on a patrol that killed two Iraqi farmers as they worked in their field at night"

I was told they were out in the fields farming because their pumps only operated with electricity, which meant they had to go out in the dark when there was electricity," he explained, "I asked the sergeant, if he knew this, why did he fire on the men. He told me because the men were out after curfew. I was never given another ROE during my time in Iraq."

Emmanuel added: "We took fire while trying to blow up a bridge. Many of the attackers were part of the general population. This led to our squad shooting at everything and anything in order to push through the town. I remember myself emptying magazines into the town, never identifying a target."

--snip--

Jason Wayne Lemue is a Marine who served three tours in Iraq."My commander told me, 'Kill those who need to be killed, and save those who need to be saved'; that was our mission on our first tour," he said of his first deployment during the invasion."After that the ROE changed, and carrying a shovel, or standing on a rooftop talking on a cell phone, or being out after curfew were to be killed. I can't tell you how many people died because of this. By my third tour, we were told to just shoot people, and the officers would take care of us."

--snip--

When this Truthout reporter was in Baghdad in November 2004, my Iraqi interpreter was in the Abu Hanifa mosque that was raided by US and Iraqi soldiers during Friday prayers."

Everyone was there for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying Iraqi National Guards entered," Abu Talat told Truthout on the phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. "Everyone starting yelling 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the greatest) because they were frightened. Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!"

They have just shot and killed at least four of the people praying," he said in a panicked voice, "At least 10 other people are wounded now. We are on our bellies and in a very bad situation." Iraqi Red Crescent later confirmed to Truthout that at least four people were killed, and nine wounded. Truthout later witnessed pieces of brain splattered on one of the walls inside the mosque while large blood stains covered carpets at several places This type of indiscriminate killing has been typical from the initial invasion of Iraq.

--snip--

http://www.truth-out.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378

There's more at the link, there's more than that if you search, and there's even more that no one is talking about.

[proteus_lives]

40. Still not was I was talking about.

It's not an order to "kill civilians" it's responding to a perceived threat or defense. It's been a common military tactic for centuries. Is it bloody? Yes. Does it result in the death of innocents? Yes. It's still not the same thing. Also, the brutal truth is if soldiers didn't react that way, the casualties would be much higher.

Even the soldiers taking pot-shots at people aren't acting under orders, in fact they're disobeying them.

[eomer]

41. No, some of the examples *are* what you were talking about.

When the chain of command ordered to "fire on all taxicabs" then they ordered to kill civilians, knowingly.

When they ordered "to just shoot people, and the officers would take care of us" then they ordered to kill civilians, knowingly.

When they ordered to fire on men just working in a field at night then they ordered to kill civilians, knowingly.

The only way to say that the above three examples were a reaction to a perceived threat is if you say that they perceived all civilians as a threat, basically. And once we arrive at that point then we've come to conclude that they ordered to kill civilians just going about their business, which is what they did in those three cases. And that's what you're claiming they didn't do.

[eomer]

24. There are individuals and factions who kill people just because they are Muslims.

Some of them are in the military, some of them are in the new non-military military: the contractor corps. Plenty of them are officers at various levels.

They do it because they see it as a religious war. A crusade.

[eomer]

15. No, actually, it's not relative, so let's judge both as morally abhorrent.

Both the Taliban stoning for adultery and our mass destruction for greed are completely morally abhorrent.

Just because we don't aim at specific individuals does not take us off the hook. "Our" intentional actions have killed about a million people and for no justifiable reason -- it was done purely for the greed and selfish interests of those manipulating and controlling the policy. If you claim otherwise then you are the one applying moral relativism. But maybe you don't claim that; maybe we agree (let me know, please).

[gratuitous]

8. Has Time magazine been notified?

Because this kind of barbarism might happen should we decide to pull out. Okay, well, it's happening already, and we're powerless to stop it, but if we quit wasting our military lives and spending ourselves into oblivion, it could, uh, well something. Not that Time would be taking sides in the discussion, they'd just be pointing out something that could continue to happen if we pulled out.

[Bobbieo]

13. These Taliban men are obsessed with sex and really don't know how to handle

their obsession which becomes a curse on their women.

[mmonk]

16. Lots of stories about stonings.

Not as many stories on the war.

[eomer]

19. Especially lately.

The recent flurry of stoning stories feels like a propaganda campaign to me. Not saying that the DUers passing along links are part of a campaign but rather that the reason there are more links for them to pass along is because someone in the MIC and their corporate media stooges have a propaganda campaign going.

[mmonk]

27. That's what I think when we start seeing so many.

The Taliban have been a known quantity for a long time now, even when we supported them while negotiating the pipeline deal in the 90's.

[Bobbieo]

21. Woud the Taliban be interested in dog fighting? It is just as brutal as stoning.

[lpbk2713]

18. Can we send Gingrich over there on a fact-finding mission?

Just a thought. :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

28. US MILITARY kills thousands of afghan couples to save couples from US-created "taliban".

[proteus_lives]

30. They must of learned from the Soviets.

[Hannah Bell]

31. soviets must have learned from the brits.

[proteus_lives]

34. Who learned it from the Russians.

[Hannah Bell]

42. uh: last time i checked russia is next to afghanistan, while britain is on a far-away island.

and britain didn't need any lessons in imperialism or torture from russians; they did quite well with their home-grown models.