Afghanistan war

[Östsvensk]

Western far-right groups claim Taliban victory as their own

Western extremists heralded the Islamic militants’ military success as part of their own fight against liberal values.

The Taliban have some unlikely cheerleaders: the far right in Europe and the United States.

White supremacists, QAnon followers and others in extremist online communities praised the group for their overthrowing of liberal values in the days following their victory across Afghanistan, according to a review of encrypted Telegram channels, online message boards and posts within more mainstream social networks like Twitter by Digital Bridge, POLITICO's transatlantic newsletter.

While far-right groups have typically railed against the Islamification of the West, they were quick to piggyback on the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan to promote their own anti-LGBTQ+, anti-women and anti-liberal agenda — one that shares many tenets with that of Afghan militants.

On Twitter, supporters of the Capitol Hill riots in Washington posted pictures of American rioters next to images of Taliban fighters inside the presidential palace in Kabul. On Telegram, white supremacists openly debated if the Taliban should be considered good guys because of their homophobic views. On 4Chan, a message board frequented by the far right, the Taliban's military success was promoted as evidence that Western governments would similarly soon be toppled.

"The extreme far right-Taliban nexus is particularly worrying and probably surprising to many," said Adam Hadley, director of Tech Against Terrorism, a nonprofit that works with smaller social networks in combating the rise of extremist content online. "I suppose it makes sense given their shared bigotry."

Ever since the January 6 riots in Washington, mainstream social media platforms have become more vigilant in policing their platforms for extremist material.

Yet POLITICO's review of Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube over the last two weeks found scores of Taliban-related content still widely available — often shared by groups or accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers, respectively.

In response, the companies said their existing policies against the promotion of violent groups equally applied to the Taliban and its supporters, and that they were actively removing such content whenever they came across it.

"We remove accounts maintained by or on behalf of the Taliban and prohibit praise, support, and representation of them," a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement. "We will continue to proactively enforce our rules and review content that may violate Twitter rules," said a company representative.

The far right goes global

Still, the widespread sharing of such content quickly came to the attention of far-right groups in both the U.S. and Europe. They shared these posts and videos within their own online communities — many openly praising the Taliban's rise to power, strict conservative views and antagonism towards Silicon Valley's attempts to remove them from the online world.

Several white supremacist Telegram channels cheered the Taliban's criticism of Facebook and other social media companies for deleting their posts, directly linking these takedowns to how these companies barred former U.S. president Donald Trump from these global platforms.

"I don’t think this 'Taliban' are all bad," said one anonymous Telegram user. "I think they’ve been infiltrated by good guys."

Such cross-promotion between the Taliban and Western far-right groups wasn't limited to fringe social networks and message boards.

According to research provided to POLITICO by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank tracking online extremism, a Twitter account portraying itself as a news feed for all things Taliban — posting both in English and Pashto — promoted its ties to the American Populist Union, a pro-Trump conservative movement. The account did not respond to requests for comment.

Since its creation in early August, the account has promoted attacks on U.S. President Joe Biden over his handling of the U.S. military's withdrawal in Afghanistan, showered praise on Capitol Hill rioters and linked the Taliban's rise to power to the U.S.' culture wars. It has also reshared content from U.S. far-right commentators, as well other American accounts portraying Taliban fighters.

Elsewhere on Twitter, far-right supporters associated the Islamic militants with the Confederate States of America, the pro-slavery side in the U.S. Civil War. Others made direct comparisons between the Taliban and the U.S. founding fathers. And under the tagline "one struggle," another highlighted how both the far-right and the Taliban shared a common purpose against liberal values.

https://www.politico.eu/article/far-...ebook-twitter/

[Teutone]

Civic nationalist islamophobes now publish politico woke framed articles lol.

It matches Östsvenk.

Laly you are a waste of time talking to, keep bootlicking the Talmud cult.

[SneedsFeedNSeed]

Adultery was not my point, it was the demonization of women. I wanted to show that the moral injunction concerning adultery is much more beautiful and powerful in Mt., no need for demonizing women. In the Sermon of the Mount, Jesus deals with morals in depth and interiorises morals. And those verses have of course never been understood as a literal exhortation. And we are much stricter than Muslims concerning adultery, as having more than one woman would be considered adultery, infidelity. Even if there’s a separation in a married couple, the two are linked until death, they cannot shouldn’t married until one dies. Divorced people that get married again are deprived of several rights within the Church.

And referring to the laws of the Old Testament as if it constitutes norms for Christians is dishonest. The intimacy with God humans acquired throughout history let them perceive what is really his design, through the person of Jesus. Before, during, God was deformed, misrepresented in human spirits. The modalities of the Revelation are very different in Christianity and in Islam, which makes the Scriptural reading very different.

Adultery was the point of the hadith you quoted. Adultery is ugly, it's not supposed to be beautified.

You're stricter than us on adultery?
What is the punishment for adultery in your countries?
What is the punishment for it in the New Testament? "Jesus lets prostitutes go" - is that it? That's your "beautiful morality"?
You have so much vitriol for us who follow God's laws unselfishly, you have so much to say against us(and it's not even potent, we can tell you're having an OCD sperg-fit), you are obsessed with us, the most hated to you - the people who say "we heard the Lord, whose past believers betrayed Him, so we promised Him our undying loyalty even if the world turns against us". And you hate us for that. But you slow-boiled yourself into legalizing and making apologetics for adultery because "Jesus was loving". Please, we all know the deal here, we all see what your "superior Judaeo-Christian values" brought about and how your daughter is a webcamera away from it and you can't do a thing about it in your country. And you don't tolerate any measures against it in other countries.
Nigga you turned so many cheeks that now everyone's flipping through pages of cheeks on pornhub in HD. 😂

When you read the whole passage, you see that there’s a parallel with Adam, who suffers the same way. So it's not just the woman, contrary to what you imply. The fact the man rules over the woman is a consequence of the transgression, the sin, which disrupts the order wanted by God, where both are equal.

Explained in Mulieris Dignitatem:

"He shall rule over you"

10. [/b]The biblical description in the Book of Genesis outlines the truth about the consequences of man's sin, as it is shown by the disturbance of that original relationship between man and woman which corresponds to their individual dignity as persons.[/b] A human being, whether male or female, is a person, and therefore, "the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake"; and at the same time this unique and unrepeatable creature "cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of self".[32] Here begins the relationship of "communion" in which the "unity of the two" and the personal dignity of both man and woman find expression. Therefore when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman: "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this "unity of the two" which corresponds to the dignity of the image and likeness of God in both of them. But this threat is more serious for the woman, since domination takes the place of "being a sincere gift" and therefore living "for" the other: "he shall rule over you". This "domination" indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the "unity of the two": and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic "communio personarum". While the violation of this equality, which is both a gift and a right deriving from God the Creator, involves an element to the disadvantage of the woman, at the same time it also diminishes the true dignity of the man. Here we touch upon an extremely sensitive point in the dimension of that "ethos" which was originally inscribed by the Creator in the very creation of both of them in his own image and likeness.

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ignitatem.html

Adam bears children in his womb in parallel? Interesting.
Or if you're gonna say "no, I meant him ruling over her" - isn't it amazing that you define "a woman ruling over you" is suffering? lol
So you basically concede the point that you think it was fair that God punished every single woman in history, by deflecting by saying that "He punished all men too through Adam".
My entire point is He shouldn't be punishing every single human being for the sin of two - we don't believe He did that, but you do - you're entitled to your belief.
And it's really interesting to see that you quoted an interpretation from 1988. That's "Christianity considering women equal since the dawn of time unlike Islam" - yeah, sure. "I rule over you - and that makes us equal".
Where the hell are these modern word salads of explanations of yours when it comes to our scriptures? Then all of a sudden you take issue with synonyms and can't google for the life of you.

It’s actually a very beautiful passage, and it’s a pity you quoted a truncated version of it, like for the Genesis one. How surprising…

Wives must submit to their husbands since the latter ought love their wives like their own bodies. The man and his wife will become one flesh.
“22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

And yet you still want women to submit to their husbands. And that's not demonizing, that's not sowing distrust in women or anything. You know that you couldn't inherit property, go to school, get custody of your children, vote etc. until like 1850 in your country? Where did that come from? For 1800 years you had (what you think is)"muslim law" apparently.
Now I'll play your feminist role: SUBMIT?! WOMEN SHOULD SUBMIT?! RAAAPE!
And people wonder how the left took over - this is how, you sperg over minutiae, and your children learned that from you.
The only people you will get angry with is us, for doing what God told both us and you to do.

This invitation to women for submission is cultural, settled in the ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman world.

No, you don't get to invoke "cultural/historical contexts", you quoted a verse from the Qur'an whose context was about women in another state asking about if they are forbidden from having sex in some ways, because of what Jews were telling them, and God allowed them choice, but you completely ignored all of that to make your leftist shithole point - so no, you don't get it either now, I'll treat your entire Bible exactly the same as you treat our Qur'an and hadiths.
Actually, the Bible doesn't even have an isnad chain, let alone a verified and sound one, there is nothing for you to compare your beliefs to mine with, but I'll humor you for this final post.

What Mulieris Dignitatem says about it:

We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is "old": what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.[49]
[49]1 Tim 2:11-15.
The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

It's interesting to note that 1 Tim 2 is not considered as an authentic letter written by Paul by many exegetes. I have two books on Saint Paul and women, and one of them, written by a priest, Michel Quesnel, Professor at Catholic Institute of Paris and at the Catholic University of Lyon, in France, specialist of the New Testament, tells that this letter wasn’t written by Paul, but by a disciple, after him.

Spoiler!

Before, in the same letter, in 1 Co 11, 5, Paul says women can pray and prophesize in the churches, which meant aloud.
So, the ban of the verse 34 must be relative. Michel Quesnel says he wants to combat women’s jabbering in prayer meetings of the church of Corinth. And indeed, the whole passage (1 Co 14) is about the intelligibility in worship and the word “speak” in the verse 34 is a translation of the verb laleo, meaning first “to pronounce inarticulate and incomprehensible sounds”.
Concerning the verse 35, Michel Quesnel says that according to the code of honour of the Greco-Roman society, women couldn’t express publicly a different opinion from that of their husbands, it was humiliating for the husband.

This is really the weakest point you're hitting on; you took umbrage with the wording of the hadiths, but here you allow for several passages in the Bible to be metaphorical. "shape of a devil" is not metaphorical, but "there is no more man or woman" is somehow. I can easily turn that into an endorsement of transexuality. But you don't do that to your own, because you want the Bible to be correct, you only play that game when it comes to our scriptures.
That document is shilling for the hadiths you criticized, look at this:

[...]How often, in a similar way, the woman pays for her own sin (maybe it is she, in some cases, who is guilty of the "others's sin" - the sin of the man), but she alone pays and she pays all alone! [...]
[...]Thus Jesus will say in the Sermon on the Mount: "Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:28). These words, addressed directly to man, show the fundamental truth of his responsibility vis-a-vis woman: her dignity, her motherhood, her vocation. But indirectly these words concern the woman. Christ did everything possible to ensure that - in the context of the customs and social relationships of that time - women would find in his teaching and actions their own subjectivity and dignity. On the basis of the eternal "unity of the two", this dignity directly depends on woman herself, as a subject responsible for herself, and at the same time it is "given as a task" to man.

Does it hurt you that much to agree with us on anything at all? Even when your own pope tells you what we ourselves believe? Really??
It was never about "islam being backwards" - it's you, you can't accept that we believe that we shouldn't gawk at a woman, and it starts bothering you that we do something right, it starts itching like maggots in your diseased brain, you start obsessively thinking "how can I make this against women so I can attack them and their religion?".
Be gay then, we won't stop you.

I didn’t make anything up. And the Quran and the hadiths repeat several times that the slave girls are lawful for sex for the Master. Nowhere it’s written that the consent makes the girl lawful, it’s the fact she’s a slave.

Surah 70: 29-31: “And those who guard their private parts/who guard their chastity/restrain their carnal desires [depending on the translation, all recognised ones] Except from their wives or those their right hands possess [females slaves], for indeed, they are not to be blamed - But whoever seeks beyond that, then they are the transgressors.”

In the case you mention, the slave is raped by another slave or a free man that is not her master. The consent is taken into account to determine if she is culprit of zina and it’s not the case because she was forced. But if the master, possessing her in her right hand, rapes her, there isn’t zina and it’s lawful. Also, the fact to pay the depreciation in the slave value implies that the charges concern only rapists that are not the slave owners.

Classic treaty of Islamic law (azil means coitus interruptus):

https://archive.org/details/TheHeday.../2up?q=consent

Why did you cut it off there? Why didn't you show the rest of it?

With regard to ‘azl (coitus interruptus), or withdrawing during intercourse, the correct scholarly view is that there is nothing wrong with it, because of the hadeeth of Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him): “We used to practise ‘azl at the time when the Qur’aan was being revealed” – i.e., at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). If that action had been haraam, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have forbidden it. But the scholars say that one should not engage in ‘azl with a free woman except with her permission, because she has the right to have children. Moreover, withdrawing without her permission diminishes her pleasure, because the woman’s pleasure can only be completed after ejaculation. So not asking her permission causes her to lose out on pleasure and on the possibility of having children. Hence we state the condition that this may only be done with her permission.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen, Fataawa Islamiyyah, vol. 3, p. 190.

Slave women have no right to children nor pleasure - the master has to permit her that, whether it is from himself or from someone else. The free woman can reject sex if the man intends to pull out or just satisfy himself, and needs her approval for it.
Why do you think it was also written that you are not allowed to have sex with the slave of someone else whom is legally married to you, without the consent of their owner? Because of the willingness to sex by the slave only comes from her owners?
You have zero authority, and even less knowledge, and you thought yourself intelligent enough to comment on what we have over a millennium of scholarship studying - while you struggle with proving that cheating on your spouse should be punished.
But you know what's really fucked up? Nowhere in the Bible is any type of rape outlawed. And since you want to push it in this direction,

Isaiah 13:13-16
I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place on that day when I, the Lord Almighty, show my anger. “The foreigners living in Babylon will run away to their homelands, scattering like deer escaping from hunters, like sheep without a shepherd. Anyone who is caught will be stabbed to death. While they look on helplessly, their babies will be battered to death, their houses will be looted, and their wives will be raped.”

You believe that God said this? God caused this? Or did He lie?
Was it good that His will was done?

You can always try to convince yourself that Christianity condones paedophilia/child marriages/forced marriages like Islam, lol.

Referring to Quranic verses and the paedophile example of Muhammad, Islam, the Sharia condone paedophilia/child marriages, and talking about consent regarding children is irrelevant and pure hypocrisy, lol.

I guess you’ve never heard of khiyar al-bulugh, the “option of puberty” in Islamic law:


https://www.jstor.org/stable/3399462

Another interesting article on the topic:
https://www.iiu.edu.pk/wp-content/up...1_1_010817.pdf

It’s based also on the sahih hadiths saying that there’s “no marriage except with a guardian”:
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9 (point 15)

And also on this sahih hadith:
“the Messenger of Allah said: “No woman should arrange the marriage of another woman, and no woman should arrange her own marriage. The adulteress is the one who arranges her own marriage.””
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1882

An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

It should be noted that ash-Shaafa‘i and his companions said: It is recommended for the father or grandfather not to arrange a marriage for a virgin until she reaches the age of puberty and he seeks her consent, lest she find herself trapped in a marriage that she resents. What they said is not contrary to the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, because what they meant is that he should not give her in marriage before puberty if there is no clear and real interest to be served by that for which there is the fear that it will be missed by delaying marriage, such as the story of ‘Aa’ishah. In that case (i.e., if there is a clear and real interest to be served) it is recommended not to miss the opportunity to marry that husband, because the father is enjoined to take care of his children’s interests, not to neglect them.

End quote from Sharh Muslim, 9/206

If your criteria is that you can take any sect's opinion and apply it to the entire religion, then I can take the opinion of the African churches and apply them to all of Christianity.
There's no age limit in the Bible. You're in deep shit for disowning the Old Testament, not even it has a worded age limit, but now you have nothing whatsoever.
The age of consent was 12 in Britain until 1875, in Portugal it was 12 at that time, in USA it was 10, in France it was 13, and Belgium had none at that time. Do you know why? Because they believed(and still people do) that Mary was 12 when she conceived Jesus. So you can suck it, rape-lover. Your religion allowed 1800 years of it and still exists in Christian countries outside of Europe - why don't they stop it if it's so Christian not to do that.
For 1800 years the entire Christian world couldn't find any of your arguments in the Bible lol. The Bible and real Christianity(which is from that time) are one thing, your plastic soybeliefs only have a Christianity-logo slapped onto them. If I'd tell you to stop being a faggot, you'll get upset, like a little girl. So be one then.

You can't have any more of my time. You're too stupid for it. Listen to your Bible a bit more when it says you should be quiet and learn. Or pretend like it doesn't apply to you like you do when it doesn't suit you.

[Faklon]

Too much

None of the passages you quote indicate that one can change Christian teachings to fit his own undefined spirit.

Verbum Domini is a 2010 teaching and Origen is still heretic in the Eastern church because among else he said some bullshit that human souls are predefined and posses bodies.

He was a "neo-Platonic" sophist who wanted to find a balance between Christianity and the pagan schools of Alexandria. He may be celebrated by varieties of modern Christians because they see him as the connecting link between Romantic antiquity and the modern church. A way to appeal to modern "intellectuals".

The logos you spam is the Aristotelian concept that a human can think, can ask "why I exist?" and the answer for them (0.01% of the ancient Christians that had access to education) is Jesus. That's all there is.

The notion of "spirited" beyond Christian laws is immoral and chaotic. Bet it's how every onlyfans slut who offers 0.001% of her earnings in charity feels.

[Östsvensk]

Civic nationalist islamophobes now publish politico woke framed articles lol.

It matches Östsvenk.

Laly you are a waste of time talking to, keep bootlicking the Talmud cult.

I am not against the Afghan people choosing how they want to live, whatever that may be. That is their business, not mine.

[Ford]

[Teutone]

Taliban winning the meme war, westerners like to overcomplicate things without having any clear message.

[Avicenna]

Taliban winning the meme war, westerners like to overcomplicate things without having any clear message.

The ironic thing is that the Memes actually hit deep if you think about it for a sec

[rohan]

Is there any meaning to those soldiers sacrifices. In past 20 years of war so many soldiers were killed and so many civillians were starved or bombed to death. This was just to end with the same result 25 years ago. Rest in peace to those brave soldiers and civillians who died a meaningless death.

[rohan]

Double...