What is "stoning" now that this fate is the future for many Afghan women?

There is an old Afghan saying warning women to not do whorish things.

"Touch the bone, feel the stone"

Also there is

"Burn the scone, feel the stone"

And

"Walk alone, feel the stone"

And

"Mind your tone, or feel the stone"

All are good adages to live by...IMHO.

MAKE ME A SANDWICH!
 
Bush92 said:
www.rferl.org

Afghan Rights Group Investigating Video Of Woman Being Stoned To Death

An Afghan human rights watchdog is investigating video footage that shows the brutal stoning to death of an Afghan woman.
www.rferl.org www.rferl.org
Barbarism on full display in Afghanistan right now but it's only going to get worse for women.
Click to expand...

excerpt:

Death by stoning for convicted adulterers is banned under Afghan law, although offenders face long prison terms for adultery. The penal code, originating in 1976, makes no provision for the use of stoning.

Afghanistan's constitution prescribes that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam" and sometimes appears at odds with more liberal and democratic elements within it.

Capital punishment was widely practiced by the Taliban regime that ruled much of the country from 1996-2001, when convicted adulterers were routinely shot or stoned in executions conducted in front of large crowds.

In rural areas, where Taliban militants exert considerable influence, some Afghans still turn to Taliban tribunals to settle disputes because many view government bodies as corrupt or unreliable.

The Taliban employs strict interpretations of Shari'a law, which prescribes punishments such as stoning and executions.

In many Taliban-controlled areas, men or women found guilty of having a relationship outside of marriage or an extramarital affair are either sentenced to death or publicly flogged.
 
Bush92 said:
www.rferl.org

Afghan Rights Group Investigating Video Of Woman Being Stoned To Death

An Afghan human rights watchdog is investigating video footage that shows the brutal stoning to death of an Afghan woman.
www.rferl.org www.rferl.org
Barbarism on full display in Afghanistan right now but it's only going to get worse for women.
Click to expand...

Barbarism, yes. Then again the US went and invaded Iraq for cheaper oil and to destroy OPEC, and got hundreds of thousands of people killed.

I bet you supported that.

People are dying in Ethiopia, women and children. Do you give a ****?
People in Madagascar are dying, women and children. Do you give a ****?

Why do you care about Afghani women more than women elsewhere? Let me guess, you also care about the women in Xinjiang. But then you'd happily bomb the shit out of Muslims in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran......

Oh, you're a free thinker alright, cough, cough
 
frigidweirdo said:
Barbarism, yes. Then again the US went and invaded Iraq for cheaper oil and to destroy OPEC, and got hundreds of thousands of people killed.

I bet you supported that.

People are dying in Ethiopia, women and children. Do you give a ****?
People in Madagascar are dying, women and children. Do you give a ****?

Why do you care about Afghani women more than women elsewhere? Let me guess, you also care about the women in Xinjiang. But then you'd happily bomb the shit out of Muslims in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran......

Oh, you're a free thinker alright, cough, cough
Click to expand...
Nope. Opposed unilateral invasion of Iraq.
 
frigidweirdo said:
Barbarism, yes. Then again the US went and invaded Iraq for cheaper oil and to destroy OPEC, and got hundreds of thousands of people killed.

I bet you supported that.

People are dying in Ethiopia, women and children. Do you give a ****?
People in Madagascar are dying, women and children. Do you give a ****?

Why do you care about Afghani women more than women elsewhere? Let me guess, you also care about the women in Xinjiang. But then you'd happily bomb the shit out of Muslims in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran......

Oh, you're a free thinker alright, cough, cough
Click to expand...

We didn't get any oil from Iraq.
 
surada said:
We didn't get any oil from Iraq.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

A) OPEC were trying to form a tighter group so they could control oil better. Happened because Hugo Chavez started putting it together.

B) There were four OPEC countries that were anti-USA in the period from 1999. Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Libya.

What happened to them? 2002 Hugo Chavez was deposed by a US supported group. It lasted a week before he got back in power.
2003 Iraq got invaded.
2011 Gaddafi was overthrown.
Huge sanctions against Venezuela and Iran.

The more OPEC could control oil prices, generally the higher oil prices would go.

If the US could break those four countries, then they'd break the strength of OPEC and OPEC would be selling oil at a cheaper price.
 
Abrahamic religion are inherently barbaric and advocate global domination. I suggest that anyone unfortunate to be a member of one renounce the insanity. Either become an atheist, or if you really need god or gods, become a pantheist or adopt the paganism of your ancestors.
 
frigidweirdo said:
Doesn't matter.

A) OPEC were trying to form a tighter group so they could control oil better. Happened because Hugo Chavez started putting it together.

B) There were four OPEC countries that were anti-USA in the period from 1999. Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Libya.

What happened to them? 2002 Hugo Chavez was deposed by a US supported group. It lasted a week before he got back in power.
2003 Iraq got invaded.
2011 Gaddafi was overthrown.
Huge sanctions against Venezuela and Iran.

The more OPEC could control oil prices, generally the higher oil prices would go.

If the US could break those four countries, then they'd break the strength of OPEC and OPEC would be selling oil at a cheaper price.
Click to expand...

US oil is always a dollar or two higher than OPEC prices.

The US has the highest production costs in the world and most US wells produce fewer than 50 barrels a day so there are no economies of scale.

Iraq's oil business was in terrible shape before Bush's invasion...After two decades of war and sanctions they were in desperate need of oil services. That's why in 1998 Saddam begged the US to let Haliburton come in and do the work. But, that didn't suit Clean Break Strategy or the PNAC.

The US wanted Gaddafi to stay.. he was horrible, but Libya was relatively stable. The eastern tribes had other ideas.

Venezuela was just a stupid, spiteful move. They have the right to whatever kind of government they want.
The capitalists had 70 years to do the right thing. It's obvious why they elected Hugo Chavez. There was no middle class.
 
surada said:
US oil is always a dollar or two higher than OPEC prices.

The US has the highest production costs in the world and most US wells produce fewer than 50 barrels a day so there are no economies of scale.

Iraq's oil business was in terrible shape before Bush's invasion...After two decades of war and sanctions they were in desperate need of oil services. That's why in 1998 Saddam begged the US to let Haliburton come in and do the work. But, that didn't suit Clean Break Strategy or the PNAC.

The US wanted Gaddafi to stay.. he was horrible, but Libya was relatively stable. The eastern tribes had other ideas.

Venezuela was just a stupid, spiteful move. They have the right to whatever kind of government they want.
The capitalists had 70 years to do the right thing. It's obvious why they elected Hugo Chavez. There was no middle class.
Click to expand...
Whether US oil costs more or not has nothing to do with what I said.

The reality is the US went after OPEC, it's pretty obvious. You had Halliburton in the government, not that that made a difference as the policy under Obama was pretty much the same.

Afghanistan was going to be a staging post for the invasion of Iran, that never happened because the US needed both Afghanistan and Iraq to be more stable.

Venezuela wasn't "spiteful", it was a deliberate act done to try and stop a guy who was dangerous for US interests.
 
15th post
frigidweirdo said:
Whether US oil costs more or not has nothing to do with what I said.

The reality is the US went after OPEC, it's pretty obvious. You had Halliburton in the government, not that that made a difference as the policy under Obama was pretty much the same.

Afghanistan was going to be a staging post for the invasion of Iran, that never happened because the US needed both Afghanistan and Iraq to be more stable.

Venezuela wasn't "spiteful", it was a deliberate act done to try and stop a guy who was dangerous for US interests.
Click to expand...

Dick Cheney was hired by Haliburton to lobby his pals to lift sanctions on Libya, Iraq and the Stans. They didn't go after OPEC.

Afghanistan was about ENRON. As soon as Bush's negotiations with the Taliban failed, he invaded. They wanted a gas pipeline across Afghanistan to Dabhol.
 
surada said:
Dick Cheney was hired by Haliburton to lobby his pals to lift sanctions on Libya, Iraq and the Stans. They didn't go after OPEC.

Afghanistan was about ENRON. As soon as Bush's negotiations with the Taliban failed, he invaded. They wanted a gas pipeline across Afghanistan to Dabhol.
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Iran and Libya Sanctions Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"Iran and Libya Sanctions Act"

"ILSA included a five-year sunset clause and was to expire on August 5, 2001."

"ILSA was renewed by the Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.[5] ILSA was renewed for another five years,[6] until August 2006."

"In 2005, the Iran Freedom Support bill was introduced in both houses to extend the provisions of ILSA indefinitely"

"On July 25, 2006, bill H.R. 5877, to extend ILSA until September 29, 2006, was introduced in the House, and passed the next day by voice vote. It was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on July 31, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 4, 2006."

Right... so, Bush TWICE signed an extension of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, and you think Cheney was hired by Halliburton to stop such a thing?

Afghanistan was about a lot of things. However why would the US stay in Afghanistan so long? The oil pipeline never happened. Afghanistan was way too unstable for such a thing, the Taliban would have just kept blowing it up. And yet the US stayed under three presidents. Ever see a map of Iran?

1711755364339.webp


In order to invade they might want to attack from both sides. But they never got Afghanistan stable enough to stand a chance. Bush and his team thought Iraq would be won very quickly, it wasn't, because of Iran, and they might have thought they could put a puppet govt in Afghanistan and the same thing. Simplistic nonsense from Bush.
 
frigidweirdo said:
en.wikipedia.org

Iran and Libya Sanctions Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"Iran and Libya Sanctions Act"

"ILSA included a five-year sunset clause and was to expire on August 5, 2001."

"ILSA was renewed by the Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.[5] ILSA was renewed for another five years,[6] until August 2006."

"In 2005, the Iran Freedom Support bill was introduced in both houses to extend the provisions of ILSA indefinitely"

"On July 25, 2006, bill H.R. 5877, to extend ILSA until September 29, 2006, was introduced in the House, and passed the next day by voice vote. It was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on July 31, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 4, 2006."

Right... so, Bush TWICE signed an extension of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, and you think Cheney was hired by Halliburton to stop such a thing?

Afghanistan was about a lot of things. However why would the US stay in Afghanistan so long? The oil pipeline never happened. Afghanistan was way too unstable for such a thing, the Taliban would have just kept blowing it up. And yet the US stayed under three presidents. Ever see a map of Iran?

View attachment 924279

In order to invade they might want to attack from both sides. But they never got Afghanistan stable enough to stand a chance. Bush and his team thought Iraq would be won very quickly, it wasn't, because of Iran, and they might have thought they could put a puppet govt in Afghanistan and the same thing. Simplistic nonsense from Bush.
Click to expand...

Nobody has ever managed to subdue Afghanistan.. not even Alexander the Great.

Remember the tarbaby in uncle Remus stories?
 
surada said:
Nobody has ever managed to subdue Afghanistan.. not even Alexander the Great.

Remember the tarbaby in uncle Remus stories?
Click to expand...

I know that, you know that, but Bush and his team lived in some kind of fairy land.

Either way, they tried to destroy OPEC's power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

So many Mullahs - So little time

< Previous Thread

Its time the Afghan men fight for the afghan women.

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Doc7505
Balochistan: Coordinated attacks in border region with Iran over autonomy and resources
Replies
0
Views
289
Doc7505
Doc7505
Andrew_Jackson_FTW
Propaganda about how women dress in Iran.
Replies
19
Views
256
Dogmaphobe
Dogmaphobe
Doc7505
Almost All Afghan Households With Offspring Are on Welfare
Replies
1
Views
95
toobfreak
toobfreak
1srelluc
Afghan Pedo Sex Crimes in the US and how it was a "normal" thing in Afghanistan
Replies
6
Views
169
EMH
EMH
TroglocratsRdumb
If you are going to be the leader of a women's rights commission; you have to be a real woman.
Replies
0
Views
233
TroglocratsRdumb
TroglocratsRdumb

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom