Fate of Afghanistan, Taliban resurgence

[PhaelixWW]

We totally have changed, trust us!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58682998

Wrong link. Here's the right one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58675153

[zorkuus]

I can't believe we negotiated with these fuckers.

I can. U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has been one big tragicomedic fuck up. Clown country... the US that is.

[Forogil]

I can. U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has been one big tragicomedic fuck up. Clown country... the US that is.

And the US have a harder time opposing these new laws than the EU, since the US still execute criminals (although not for sex outside of marriage).

[PhaelixWW]

And the US have a harder time opposing these new laws than the EU, since the US still execute criminals (although not for sex outside of marriage).

Uh, no.

The US does not have a harder time opposing these new laws. Only the simple-minded would equate the two countries' policies. When's the last time you heard of the US government amputating a prisoner as punishment, for example?

[Breccia]

And the US have a harder time opposing these new laws than the EU, since the US still execute criminals (although not for sex outside of marriage).

I'll start with

Uh, no.

The US does not have any harder of a time opposing, say, execution for adultery than the EU. Yes, the US is hardly the bastion of moral compass city on the hill beacon etc etc and yes, we do execute people, but even Texas has a limit. Can you imagine if the US had made adultery punishable by death in, oh I don't know, 2016? Trump would have lost the election because he'd be dead.

[DarkTZeratul]

The US does not have any harder of a time opposing, say, execution for adultery than the EU. Yes, the US is hardly the bastion of moral compass city on the hill beacon etc etc and yes, we do execute people, but even Texas has a limit. Can you imagine if the US had made adultery punishable by death in, oh I don't know, 2016? Trump would have lost the election because he'd be dead.

Yeah, it's less a question of the punishment itself and more whether it's an appropriate reaction to the crime. Execution for murder is one thing - whether you agree with it or not, a life for a life is not disproportionate. But execution for adultery? Amputation for petty theft? These are extreme punishments that are way out of scale with the offenses.

[Breccia]

Yeah, it's less a question of the punishment itself and more whether it's an appropriate reaction to the crime.

I will 100% agree that the punishment itself is still up for debate. A country that doesn't execute for anything and the US won't agree. That may be what @Forogil was talking about. I just side with you and @PhaelixWW that, just because the US does execute, doesn't mean we execute for that level of crime. That's easy to assert. Even a thief doesn't have to be a murderer -- it doesn't make them less of a thief.

[zorkuus]

Yeah, it's less a question of the punishment itself and more whether it's an appropriate reaction to the crime. Execution for murder is one thing - whether you agree with it or not, a life for a life is not disproportionate. But execution for adultery? Amputation for petty theft? These are extreme punishments that are way out of scale with the offenses.

I also wouldn't trust a bunch of extreme religious fanatics to give a fair trial before the punishment.

[Breccia]

I also wouldn't trust a bunch of extreme religious fanatics to give a fair trial before the punishment.

I know, right? It's a good thing the US doesn't allow religious laws to...oh. Right. Alt-right, sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Biden denounces Taliban plan to resume executions. So, yeah, there's that.

[Goliad]

I know, right? It's a good thing the US doesn't allow religious laws to...oh. Right. Alt-right, sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Biden denounces Taliban plan to resume executions. So, yeah, there's that.

He denounces this but has no words about why no one in the military is being fired over using taliban intel to kill 10 civilians including 7 children?

[PhaelixWW]

using taliban intel

Source for this?

[Breccia]

He denounces this but

Wait, did you seriously come back after a ten-year break and, instead of posting about LFR loot rules, immediately start talking about "woke" Marvel and jumping on the whip wagon? Yeah, I smell something fishy.

Remember to use strong passwords, everyone.

[Easo]

I can't believe we negotiated with these fuckers.

Politics make strange bedfellows. Very, very strange ones.

Wrong link. Here's the right one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58675153

Thanks! Had multiple tabs open, I think.

[Draco-Onis]

Forgotten like a fart in the wind just a couple of weeks after AUKUS was announced.

Nobody will remember or care come next election.

In general no one really cares about foreign policy unless it's something that affects us domestically like the trade war.

[Forogil]

Uh, no.

The US does not have a harder time opposing these new laws. Only the simple-minded would equate the two countries' policies.

I don't equate them, but from the US you have to be specific and look at the specific crime (and specific punishment) to oppose them, like a single bullet to the head for murderers.

In the EU it's easier, since capital punishments are simply seen as barbaric and illegal (at least during non-wars).

When's the last time you heard of the US government amputating a prisoner as punishment, for example?

There are also other forms of corporal punishment by the state than amputations, and the US doesn't have such a good track record in that respect - including actions in Afghanistan.

And all thieves don't get their hand cut off by the Taliban, although the Taliban practice of black-facing first-time petty thieves is just weird.

Interestingly the US constitution says that you cannot risk amputations twice for the same crime.

[PhaelixWW]

I don't equate them, but from the US you have to be specific and look at the specific crime (and specific punishment) to oppose them, like a single bullet to the head for murderers.

No, you don't have to. I mean, the law does. But the US as a country and the people of the US don't have to do anything of the sort. Most people are simply for or against the death penalty. Even for those who are for it, I would wager that the delineation for where it's deserved is much more a simple matter of thought (though not necessarily of practice, which is why it's the policymakers' job to come up with the legal delineation).

As such, it's not even remotely a difficult thing for 99% of the people.

And none of that really has any bearing on the Taliban style of punishment, either.

No, this is just you attempting to shit on the US, badly.

In the EU it's easier, since capital punishments are simply seen as barbaric and illegal (at least during non-wars).

And this belief that the EU, cohesively, sees it as barbaric is a fucking lie. Legally, it might be outlawed, but polls tell the truth: there are massive amounts of people in the EU who still support the death penalty. Even where they're a minority, they're typically nowhere near an insignificant minority.

9/17/21: "...about 50 percent of the French public want to re-instate the [death penalty] sentence."

4/7/21: 54% of Britons said they would support reinstating the death penalty for those convicted of terrorism in the UK. About a quarter (23%) of respondents said they would be opposed.

5/20/21: ...the 54th Censis report that found that 43.7% of Italians support the death penalty

Your naked sense of superiority is misplaced. The US is not as "barbaric" as you describe, nor is the EU as "saintly". It's not any more difficult for the US to object to the Taliban style of punishment than it is for the EU.

[Mihalik]

And this belief that the EU, cohesively, sees it as barbaric is a fucking lie. Legally, it might be outlawed, but polls tell the truth: there are massive amounts of people in the EU who still support the death penalty. Even where they're a minority, they're typically nowhere near an insignificant minority.

9/17/21: "...about 50 percent of the French public want to re-instate the [death penalty] sentence."

4/7/21: 54% of Britons said they would support reinstating the death penalty for those convicted of terrorism in the UK. About a quarter (23%) of respondents said they would be opposed.

5/20/21: ...the 54th Censis report that found that 43.7% of Italians support the death penalty

Your naked sense of superiority is misplaced. The US is not as "barbaric" as you describe, nor is the EU as "saintly". It's not any more difficult for the US to object to the Taliban style of punishment than it is for the EU.

It's more complicated than that really.

While Europeans are technically often broadly in favor of certain measures such as the death penalty or stricter sentencing, when objectively questioned about the application of such measures they tend to imagine a much narrower and stricter application than the American public does.

When actual such laws are proposed and their application and impact is explained people will immediately oppose it. They often hear about certain extreme cases of crimes, such as murders, terror attacks, sexual attacks etc that they are repulsed by and have a gut reaction that the perpetrators are ought to hang or rot in jail, but when it's explained to them how people convicted of "lesser" crimes could potentially be impacted by those legal changes, people tend to do a whole "Yeah, but that's not what I meant."

The notion that prison/incarceration is more about rehabilitation than it is about punishment is also more pervasive. As is the resistance to things such as pre-emptive incarceration/detention for whatever reason, and bail as a concept either doesn't exist or has a much narrower application.

[Elegiac]

It's more complicated than that really.

While Europeans are technically often broadly in favor of certain measures such as the death penalty or stricter sentencing, when objectively questioned about the application of such measures they tend to imagine a much narrower and stricter application than the American public does.

When actual such laws are proposed and their application and impact is explained people will immediately oppose it. They often hear about certain extreme cases of crimes, such as murders, terror attacks, sexual attacks etc that they are repulsed by and have a gut reaction that the perpetrators are ought to hang or rot in jail, but when it's explained to them how people convicted of "lesser" crimes could potentially be impacted by those legal changes, people tend to do a whole "Yeah, but that's not what I meant."

The notion that prison/incarceration is more about rehabilitation than it is about punishment is also more pervasive. As is the resistance to things such as pre-emptive incarceration/detention for whatever reason, and bail as a concept either doesn't exist or has a much narrower application.

Also: most European countries don't have the "Christian" equivalent of the Taliban as one of their two major political parties. The GOP is a thing. It's kind of hard to criticise people for abrogating womens' rights and being brutal to foreigners and convicts when said party is advocating for the exact same things.

[PhaelixWW]

It's more complicated than that really.

Except it's not. Or rather, the question of support for the death penalty might be slightly more complicated.

But that's not what prompted this horrible take. Namely, that the US would have some sort of "conflict of interest" that is somehow absent from Europe, that would make it challenging to protest the Taliban style of punishment.

Bull. Shit.

While Europeans are technically often broadly in favor of certain measures such as the death penalty or stricter sentencing, when objectively questioned about the application of such measures they tend to imagine a much narrower and stricter application than the American public does.

Narrower and stricter? Sure. "Much"? No. On a scale that includes the US, the EU, and the Taliban, the US and EU are comparatively close to each other. Don't even begin to pretend otherwise.

When actual such laws are proposed and their application and impact is explained people will immediately oppose it. They often hear about certain extreme cases of crimes, such as murders, terror attacks, sexual attacks etc that they are repulsed by and have a gut reaction that the perpetrators are ought to hang or rot in jail, but when it's explained to them how people convicted of "lesser" crimes could potentially be impacted by those legal changes, people tend to do a whole "Yeah, but that's not what I meant."

Yarp, same thing happens in US polls. Imagine that.

The notion that prison/incarceration is more about rehabilitation than it is about punishment is also more pervasive. As is the resistance to things such as pre-emptive incarceration/detention for whatever reason, and bail as a concept either doesn't exist or has a much narrower application.

Well, the prison system in the US is fucked; that's decidedly true.

[Mihalik]

Also: most European countries don't have the "Christian" equivalent of the Taliban as one of their two major political parties. The GOP is a thing. It's kind of hard to criticise people for abrogating womens' rights and being brutal to foreigners and convicts when said party is advocating for the exact same things.

Conservative Catholics (they are a minority of Catholics, but do hold a lot of sway in countries like Hungary, Poland, Italy and of all places France) and conservative Orthodox (in countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Greece) can get pretty fucking nutters too.

They tend to be less vocal, but they do relentlessly push for socially conservative measures.

There's a weird thing with religious conservatives in Europe, especially conservative Catholics, they tend to wield a lot of institutional power, but they also tend to be a lot less vocal about it, this mostly because social conservatism-religiosity tends to be synonymous with "old money". Many of leading business/political science/economics/law universities of western Europe are actually church run. So the Church wields a lot of institutional soft power. This is a bit of a double edged sword when it comes to specific social policies, such as for example the death penalty. The Church is vehemently opposed to it, but the downside is that they are often also vehemently opposed to things such as defunding religious schools, gay marriage, trans rights (France, Hungary, Poland, Italy), or reproductive freedom (Poland, Hungary and until recently Ireland).

In general, it's given the European religious conservatives are broadly more moderate than American ones, and even in the US Catholic conservatives tend to be marginally less insane than Evangelicals, but just as in Europe, the furthest right fringes of conservative Catholics wield a shocking amount of institutional soft power. There's a reason why the SCOTUS is like 2/3 Catholics, despite the fact that Catholics make up less than 22% of the population.