World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Remember when the Afghan people had a phenomenally well equipped and well trained army, and then they just gave up inside a week because things were “hard”?
Like if you don’t give a shit…no one is going to give a harder shit about you than you will.
Yeah man, I feel sorry for the people who will have to live under the fucking Taliban, but we've spent way too much time, money and blood on Afghanistan already.
We shouldn't have been there in the first place, but for them to just instantly roll over to the Taliban... Just compare it to Ukraine, where they are fighting for their lives and freedom against a much more powerful enemy.
It's long past time for Afghanistan to deal with their own problems.
Yeah, like what do they expect? Another foreign military intervention?
That will not happen again for decades at best. Longer if all the developed nations really learn from America's mistake this time.
Sure, we can sanction them, but any aid just gets intercepted, so that's out. It sucks so many Afghans are suffering under the system, but it's the system they let happen. Did they want to be an occupied country forever? Was this a fight America was expected to wage indefinitely? Twenty years was already too long.
They should have trained the Afghani women who have an actual reason to fight against the Taliban, instead of the lazy men who instantly capitulated.
I never thought about this at the time. It was all just shocking and frankly pathetic. Didn't realize the men had the least at stake, while women had the most, but were not allowed to join the fight. Many men probably didn't care or even resented the "changes". (Women's rights. Sounds familiar. MAGA?) Unwilling to put up any kind of fight for that kind of future for their partners and daughters.
I wonder what most Afghan women think of these men now. And if joining the military was ever a realistic possibility, and could have changed the result.
Kipling has some lines about what happens when you give Afghan women knives
Tbf Afghanistan defeated a much stronger Russia back in the 80s.
With less help than Ukraine gets.
Edit: so the downvotes are just ignorant of history or are they trying to rewrite it to suit their own agendas? Regardless, not a good sign for the future.
It's not the graveyard of empires because it's farmland.
Those were pretty much the Taliban though. No one doubts the will to fight of the Taliban.
Well the Taliban took over the pieces after the U.S. abandoned the Mujhaideen.
Funny how history repeats.
The downvotes are probably because you seem to 'ignore' the US role in arming the Taliban.
See below. This was addressed yesterday.
I wonder if it was "hard" or "I want the Taliban to take over." There's probably a decent amount of people in that area that can fundamentally agree with the Taliban. it's a religious and oppression group. If you're ideologically aligned with the Taliban, and male, you're probably either as good or better of under them.
Not saying this is everything but I imagine there's at least some people who are ok with the new government, mostly because they don't care about others over their own self.
Well, that sounds like propaganda videos where they had already surrendered and the taliban wanted to make it seem like all it would take was one person to make people volunteer...
But, you're also talking about all the equipment that was expensive but neither side had the knowledge or equipment to maintain, right?
About why the Taliban took over so quickly?
Yeah, Afghanistan isn't a normal country. It's a loose collection of tribes that have been pitted against each other for centuries. There's no unity, they've never really had a federal government just other countries that used militaries to try and force compliance from all the tribal leaders.
So when America left with like 2 weeks notice, everyone just went back to their tribes. The "Afghan Army" had better equipment, but it was equipment they just couldn't maintain. After a couple weeks of fighting it would have all broken down and they'd have ran out of ammo. Meanwhile the Taliban had supply lines and decades of experience fighting with their equipment.
The Taliban is just a coalition of the most extreme tribes. One that was trained in gurellia warfare by America and is actually united in their religious extremism.
Edit:
On second thought, there's no point in replying anymore.
Yup. One of the first things we did in the invasion of Afghanistan was ally with the northern tribes. The Taliban mainly represent one ethnic group and constantly engaged in ethnic cleansing of Shia, other tribes, and various minorities.
First of all, none of these women were in that army so painting this as the consequences of their actions seems a bit dishonest.
Second, I remember when they were alleged to have a phenomenal army but it turned out most of that was on paper not real.
The facade crumbled.
I wonder how things would have turned out if the US had built up divisions of the Afghan army with women.
What makes you think that these women who choose their culture as dignity would oppose their rulers which they gained power from it?
I'm sorry but I don't understand this question, could you maybe rephrase it or explain your reasoning? I don't think these women have "gained power" it seems like the opposite.
First woman quoted in the article (a refugee):
The Afghan army seemed totally incompetent. Examples:
Remember that the government is installed by the US and allies. If they actually care, the could have spent some time to find candidates that can gather people around and build a unionized front along with education and infrastructure. The reality is they put a thief in power who is now living somewhere in Europe and enjoying his wealth.
Blaming a victim complaining about their experience or at least expectations is in bad taste.
I don't think that person existed in Afghanistan.
The ANA never had very good moral, just read the experiences of US troops with them.
You didn't read the Afghanistan Papers did you?
You gonna link or
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/
There is also a book by the same name. I also recommend the documentary Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis.