Sharia in action in Afghanistan: Actresses stabbed, threatened for immodesty

The Guardian describes the attackers as "conservative."

Yes, Wellington you are right. This is Orwellian propaganda with misuse of words. Those who misuse words for political purposes and for the spreading of propaganda or in order to conceal the truth will be brought to justice one day. Have no fear, the Guardian has a falling circulation. They are losing readers daily!

Right here...
"After a few hours in hospital for treatment, they were taken to prison, where they face intrusive virginity tests and possible charges of prostitution or collusion in the attack. "We have already sent them to the forensic office to do an examination, to make clear whether these girls are having illegal relations with anyone," said prosecutor Ghulam Dastegir Hedayat, responsible for western Kabul, where the killing took place."

Once again, islam shows itself to be the micro-management-minded, invasive, discriminatory, wrongheaded, delusional and perverse cult that it is.
islam makes the Nazi SS look 'reasonable' by comparison.
THEY were attacked, but wait--let's arrest them, sexually assault them by way of 'forensic examination' and then find a way to sentence them to prison, because they're women, and automatically in the wrong.
islam, and every theocratic-minded dipwit adherent to that cult needs to be expunged from this world, this insanity and abuse has gone on long enough, and there's NO room for 'tolerance' with thses psychotics anymore nor for their apologist liars either.

Right here...
"After a few hours in hospital for treatment, they were taken to prison, where they face intrusive virginity tests and possible charges of prostitution or collusion in the attack. "We have already sent them to the forensic office to do an examination, to make clear whether these girls are having illegal relations with anyone," said prosecutor Ghulam Dastegir Hedayat, responsible for western Kabul, where the killing took place."

Once again, islam shows itself to be the micro-management-minded, invasive, discriminatory, wrongheaded, delusional and perverse cult that it is.
islam makes the Nazi SS look 'reasonable' by comparison.
THEY were attacked, but wait--let's arrest them, sexually assault them by way of 'forensic examination' and then find a way to sentence them to prison, because they're women, and automatically in the wrong.
islam, and every theocratic-minded dipwit adherent to that cult needs to be expunged from this world, this insanity and abuse has gone on long enough, and there's NO room for 'tolerance' with thses psychotics anymore nor for their apologist liars either.

Right here...
"After a few hours in hospital for treatment, they were taken to prison, where they face intrusive virginity tests and possible charges of prostitution or collusion in the attack. "We have already sent them to the forensic office to do an examination, to make clear whether these girls are having illegal relations with anyone," said prosecutor Ghulam Dastegir Hedayat, responsible for western Kabul, where the killing took place."

Once again, islam shows itself to be the micro-management-minded, invasive, discriminatory, wrongheaded, delusional and perverse cult that it is.
islam makes the Nazi SS look 'reasonable' by comparison.
THEY were attacked, but wait--let's arrest them, sexually assault them by way of 'forensic examination' and then find a way to sentence them to prison, because they're women, and automatically in the wrong.
islam, and every theocratic-minded dipwit adherent to that cult needs to be expunged from this world, this insanity and abuse has gone on long enough, and there's NO room for 'tolerance' with thses psychotics anymore nor for their apologist liars either.

PRCS = Pro recondite conservative syndrome..? :)

You wrote: 'I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.'

Well, it's not really a fuss PRCS. The point being made is that The Guardian, for example, refers to out and out jihadist thugs as 'conservative' and the same leftist pro-jihad rag refers to people opposed to out and out jihadist thugs as 'conservative', too.

That confusion show that these idiots haven't really decided what the word 'conservative' means because they use it to label two diametrically opposed groups.

Now do you understand the 'fuss'?

By the way, being opposed to 'open homosexuality' in the US army is being rather recondite. I'm not sure what the difference between 'open homosexuality' and 'closed homosexuality' might mean. And could there be a 'not open, but then again not completely closed homosexuality'? :)

Sorry, PRCS, I don't see it your way, nor does Robert Spencer, who has regularly indicated his disdain with the way Muslims behaving badly are described as "conservative" by leftist publications in the West. Conservatives in the West (like a Ronald Reagan type) should hardly be lumped with Muslims who call for such things as death for apostasy, amputation for theft, death for criticism of Islam or Mohammed and so on.

By Western standards, your more "devout" Muslim is not a conservaive but a reactionary. Put another way, Western conservatives and Islamic conservatives function in such two different worlds that using the word "conservative" to describe both does indeed bastardize the English language. Besides, in the minds of many leftists, Western conservatives are more of a threat to them than even the most "enthusiastic" of Muslims. That's how warped leftist thinking has become. And so using the word "conservative" to characterize the most "traditional" of Muslims is hardly accurate, dictionary meanings notwithstanding.

Parachute Rigger Chief {Senior}.
1968--1989.

The previous policy concerning homosexuality in the military--not the Army--was "don't ask, don't tell".

That has been replaced by open homosexuality.

To paraphrase duh_swami:

A 'conservative' Muslim is simply a pious Muslim doing what pious Muslims do.

Substitute what you wish for "Muslim".

The dictionary definition of "conservative" is not driven by an individual's particular ideology; rather the reluctance or refusal to allow changes to tradition or views.

It is as appropriate a description of Orthodox Islam, and of Muslims in general, as it is a definition of Orthodox Judaism, for example.

While many leftist Western publications (plus television and radio)use "conservative" pejoratively, that doesn't change the dictionary meaning of the word.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think that the word "reactionary" would far better describe Muslim fanatics than the word "conservative." Not even a close call for me. Once again, an American conservative, like myself, has virtually nothing in common with some Muslim cleric calling for death for apostasy and who is described as "conservative" by people in the West who have an agenda to discredit Western conservatives as much as possible. Maintaining some kind of strict dictionary definition of a word can, you know, be at times an arid argument. I believe this is such a time.

No hard feelings here I hope. Just an honest disagreement between you and me. Best regards.

"I think that the word "reactionary" would far better describe Muslim fanatics than the word "conservative.""

With the dictionary definition of "conservative" being what it is, Western news outlets will continue to use it to describe (honestly or not) a reluctance or refusal to accept changes to traditional thinking or views.

And they are technically accurate in doing so, without regard to the ideology, the place or the culture.

The argument is not arid in that context, merely a reflection of reality, of journalism as it exists and the public's understading of that word--in that context.

The problem, my friend, as we're not likely to see Muslims defined as "reactionaries", with you and I given the "conservative" label during our lifetimes, the question--no offense intended--is what are you or RS going to do about it.

What, even, CAN you do about it?

PRCS is being obtusely literal-minded and unsubtle with regard to this issue of the use of the word conservative. If we existed in a world where the mainstream was not saturated with an irrational mockery and demonization of Western (usually American) "conservatives" (one episode of the very popular and mainstream Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert is enough to demonstrate my point), PRCS might have a point. But his point only pertains in an abstract vacuum -- where only logic can survive, but not reason & intellect -- a vacuum curiously detached from the actual context of sociopolitical reality.

I'm already doing something about it, PRCS. For instance pointing it out here at JW, also to friends, family and, arguably most important, to the students I teach. I'm sure I'm not doing enough, all I could, but I'm working on it. As for Robert Spencer, since he reaches such a large audience worldwide, I'd say he's doing a great deal to bring attention to this lexicographic deceptiveness. Besides, what is one supposed to do when faced with any injustice or error, even though the odds are very much against you, just give up? Ain't gonna' happen with me. As Churchill said, never, never, never give up.

I wouldn't want you to give up, of course, and don't think you have. Nor do I allow myself that luxury. And, as you and I have been "here" a long while, we are each, I'm sure, well aware of our mutual disgust and hatred of Islam, and, in my case at least (yours likely, too), of those Muslims who can and could and should tell the truth about Islam--but don't.

Like virtually every Muslim in America.

But the unanswered issue continues to be, for me, that while your personal desire is to have Muslim "fanatics" relabled as reactionaries, I just don't think that will happen as you'd be bucking the dictionary definition of "conservative"--which to me is equally applicable both to those fanatics and to you and me, as self indentified conservatives--and because most "journalists" and politicians--of all political stripes, for their own purposes--have no compelling reason to rethink that.

When I read Robert's disdaimful comments about this "lexicographic deceptiveness", (1)I don't think that such is the case with every journalist or politician, and (2)I haven't personally seen a solution from him to what he, and you, believe is a problem--short of redefining Muslims.

Although this may end--as you previously suggested--agreeing to disagree, I'd hate to have to do that.

Bob

Conservatives don't mind change. It's just that they don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water (as liberals are only too wont to do many times). Devout Muslims don't want any change and thus betray true conservatism. And so to label such miscreants "conservatives" is a bastardization of the language, never mind the juxtaposing, as liberals do, Muslim barbarians with those in the West, i.e., conservatives, who are actually the greatest defenders of real liberty, something which modern liberals are not and Muslim true believers definitely are not.

I'm a conservative. A Muslim cleric in Muslimland putting forth Muslimthink is not a conservative in any Western sense. Such a person is a reactionary, a barbarian, a reprobate, an idiot, but not a conservative. If this means bucking some dictionary definition, then so be it.

sharia, In addition to your cogent argument, PRCS is also oblivious to the propaganda usage of "conservative" that directly impacts on our war of ideas in trying to wake up the West, insofar as the Western "conservatives" are seen as anti-liberal and therefore anti-progress and anti-freedom, and along with that have tendencies to be "bigoted" and discriminate against "ethnic" people in favor of "whites" -- with a clear context there of the alleged victimization of Muslims perceived to be "ethnic". Et cetera, ad freaking nauseam.

Hence, the abstract vacuum I referred to in which PRCS is making his "point".

My friend, the point I make is the use of the word "conservative" as it was used in this and similar articles, by various authors, to describe a people and a culture, as the dictionary defines it. Those who've ever seen a picture of an Afghani riding an ass through the wastlands of his homeland likely understand it that way.

Some posters, seemingly convinced that the word--in their opinion--does not accurately describe that environment, prefer to to call it something else.

Fair enough. But that does not make me wrong, or the author wrong for using it.

While others are certainly entitled to their opinions--so am I--and I saw no argument that the author of the article intended its use to describe anything but the mindset of traditional minded local Muslims.

If there was other intent, I must have missed it, in fact, I saw no bigoted, biased attempt whatsoever to smear Western conservativism or conservatives and no argument was given that changed my mind.

Some, however, can't stay on point.

LemonLime, late to the party, assertis that I am oblivious to the propaganda usage of "conservative".

Really. And what does that have to do with the point I was making? A review of my posts in this thread shows the idiocy of his manufactured idea.

"While many leftist Western publications (plus television and radio)use "conservative" pejoratively, that doesn't change the dictionary meaning of the word."

"With the dictionary definition of "conservative" being what it is, Western news outlets will continue to use it to describe (honestly or not) a reluctance or refusal to accept changes to traditional thinking or views."

That, in my opinion, is what the author meant. The traditional, unchanging Afghan culture. And nothing more.

Nary a conspiratorial intent in the whole article.

This was Robert Spencer's question concerning it's use in that article:

"The Guardian describes the attackers as "conservative." So you're "conservative" if you're an Islamic supremacist pro-Sharia thug, and "conservative" if you're an anti-Sharia defender of equality of rights for all."

That is true--sometines. But not always.

Here is the actual passage, from that article, about the stabbing of women dancers in an Afghan town:

"The trio were minutes from moving out of a neighbourhood in which conservative locals had made them feel unwelcome..."

***Your scenario--concerning the use of avialable technology is not a good analogy to the Afghan culture. As you know, while some of them ride motorcycles, now, they still beat their wives.

Best.