To be shocked this isn't getting more coverage?

Yes, if the Taliban are only 400 000 and there are 20 million men not happy about it one would hope they eventually would band together and chuck the Taliban out.

I take it you approve of NAMALT as well?

It's definitely not all Afghan men. But aren't there enough Afghan men to overthrow the Taliban? By not resisting, doesn't that make them complicit in the appalling treatment of their women?

Yes this. I highly doubt most Afghan men are happy living under this regime either. Yes I appreciate they aren’t quite as oppressed, but they still are oppressed

Muslim does not equal Taliban 🙄

People need to stop saying "Afghan men". Afghanistan has a population of 40m, the Taliban make up between 100,000 and 400,000 men, depending on sources so it is not all Afghan men.

Well after the riots, there were huge demonstrations by white people to say ‘not in my name’ and register their disapproval. Should they not have bothered?

Edit - obviously the counter protests weren’t solely white, but in terms of registering disapproval of the actions of others you share that characteristic with.

And do you hold all Christians accountable for the actions of say Christian Russia or America? No of course you don't. Nice bit of stereotyping and othering holding an entire religion accountable for some rogue nations states.

Aren't Christians supposed to care about everybody? Well, at least you admit your bias, I guess.

I see someone else has already covered the historical abuse and persecution, so I'll focus on the present.

If you were to ask the women being denied bodily autonomy in certain states in America, the women forced to stay in abusive marriages in the Philippines, the religious minorities imprisoned and tortured in Eritrea, or the LGBT community facing death in Uganda simply for existing, they'd probably say they feel persecuted by Christianity today.

But no doubt none of the above will be because of Christianity in your eyes.

As I am culturally and ethnically British, and have no religion, I am most comfortable living in secular Britain. If you're asking whether I would choose to live in a Muslim-majority country, probably not, but then I wouldn’t choose to live in any country where religion has a heavy influence and would be equally uncomfortable adapting to the culture of Norway as to the culture of Algeria.

If I were forced to choose, it would depend entirely on the country. For example, I’d prefer the USA to Saudi Arabia, but I’d take Indonesia over the USA any day.

But my preferences are irrelevant to the point I was making. Britain is a secular country (I know there are still some ties to the Church in certain areas, but functionally, we’re secular) and that isn’t going to change in my lifetime.

Even if it did, and Islam became the dominant religion here, I can guarantee that I’d have far more in common with a Muslim born and raised in Britain than I would with a Christian raised in the Philippines or an atheist raised in Serbia, so would probably be fairly comfortable here culturally still.

Quoting myself here...... but I just wanted to add that one of the young women supported by the Linda Norgrove Foundation - now in Scotland to study medicine!! - was interviewed on yesterday's Woman's Hour:

Wednesday 28 August, about 21 minutes into the programme. You can catch it BBC Sounds or iPlayer.

It seems very shortsighted. It would have made much more sense to leave when an 8 year Trump was a strong possibility, not a definitely 4 year Trump. Tbh I don’t really believe when people threaten to emigrate in protests at politics - they very rarely do and it’s usually hot air.

Well, exactly. It won’t happen because over time, authorities (who were primarily men over the years) have tied the knots tight in embedding rights for women into the framework of the country to a point it’s virtually irreversible (thank heavens)

There are some 20 million women/females in Afghanistan. Most Western countries are at capacity as it is. We can’t simply taken in a million refugees every time there is a crisis. I acknowledge the majority of them sadly will be unable to leave, but the point stands.

Ukraine is different - they’re fighting (HARD) to regain control of their country and eventually the refugees will return home. You can’t help a country who won’t help themselves.

Can’t see that happening when the UK left behind Afghan translators.

But I totally agree would love to see this happen.

If we can take hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian women and children we can do the same for Afghan women and children.

We could coalesce in the west to offer refugee status and full resettlement and education to any female citizen who can get out of Afghanistan.

How would they do that? Only by some kind of force, bearing in mind that Parliament is not exclusively male and we have various checks and balances. I don’t think this kind of point is useful in the context of the op.

They’re not just trying to excuse it, they’re pretending it’s not there at all. It’s really mind blowing.

I’m sure it’s not the way the women want to live though!

You still got there with the US so I doubt you couldn't understand it, just wasted typing otherwise.

For all your posts re the west you have chosen that after all over the alternative

How come?

Is it due to those rights and opportunities being lower for women and girls?

If you'd typed a complete question that made sense there would have been something to understand.

Where would I choose to live? - anywhere in the EU, for the combination of rights and opportunities available to all.

Because he and his supporters have got so much worse, and in a second term he's likely to go for broke.

• The Jan 6th Capitol riot wasn't until after he'd lost the last election.
• First time around many of his plans were constrained, but he was able to sow the seeds for the future. For example, Roe vs. Wade wasn't overturned until after his period in office but this was achieved due to the Supreme Court appointments he made whilst in office.
• Project 2025 is showing a good indication of the direction those backing him want to take him. Whilst he's maintaining a legal separation from that group, many of it's members are former members of his campaign and administration and are very likely to be brought back by him if he's elected.

I know it's so far off. What's the motivation?

It is concerning though that a fanatical religious reality is being downplayed, I'm not sure why.

Or is it just that it's so terrible and we all feel so powerless to prevent it that we just prefer to ignore the situation?

This is where my head is right now. There are so many horrific things going on in the world that I feel like I have to just skim-read the news to keep any level of sanity.