Afghanistan - selling children - guess which ones?

What you mean like the scheme whereby ( largely) white middle class people with spare bedrooms took in other white people and were paid for doing it?

If any of these men had a shred of decency, they'd be trying to get their wives and daughters out, like the Ukranians did when Putin kicked off.

This. How could the fathers have predicted the famine?

@selffellatingouroborosofhate
I'm also very much of the view that no one is obliged to send aid to a country in trouble.

You don’t feel obliged to help stop entire families starving.

You’d rather virtue signal and blame the fathers of the starving families for a situation beyond their control, what was it you said? Oh yes we can and absolutely should lay the blame at the feet of the very men [the fathers] who claim to be so heartbroken. and Men can choose not to father children in an environment where they will have to sell their daughters to survive.

Tell me how does a poor Afghan goat herder in 2016 predict that a famine will be manufactured by a future US president from half a world away 10 years after he impregnates his wife with a girl? Would he even have been able to predict in 2016 that the Taliban would take over in 2021 when his daughter is 4?

You know since you’re literally blaming fathers who had sex that produced girls born before the Taliban took over and the US and UK literally abandoned the Afghan people in 2021 and the famine that has gripped them this year in 2026?

In no way is this morally ok. It depresses wages leading to children going hungry in THIS country. It's not like we have no problems. Men doing this should be deported.

And as PP have said they have to pay a lot of money to get here so it's unlikely they're doing this for altruistic reasons. If they cared about their female relatives they'd stay and protect them from the horrific human rights abuses these women face - particularly if no male relatives to protect them - or at least try and bring them with them. The men coming here alone give no shits about their female relatives. Given the lack of medical care for women, there is a strong chance their female relatives will die between them leaving and arriving in the UK.

Young, fit male Afghan refugees who come alone are abandoning their female relatives to the whims of the Taliban, to live without medical care and often no-one to advocate for them. I would argue having a male relative willing to protect you in situ is probably worth more than theoretical foreign cash (that will probably be intercepted by men of one kind or another).

I see the BBC has now aired an excellent piece on girls being denied an education. I can't help but wonder if the outcry around the poor men framing of girls being sold for rape was a factor

It's irrelevant that it's the fault of the men.

Telling married couples not to have sex doesn't work.

And say if it did, what would the parents then do in old age, especially the women who are likely to be widowed, without sons?

The way things are now in Afghanistan, not having children isn't an option. The girls are expendable and the boys are needed by their families.

Short of overthrowing the Taliban (which we've already done once, only for them to be let straight back in a few years on) and completely restructuring Afghan society, there isn't a good solution to how to stop this happening.

Nope. Refusing to let men off the hook for fleeing the country whilst leaving their sisters behind. Refusing to pretend that these men care two hoots for their sisters.

You presented it as a good thing that Trump had caused famine.

No, I presented the famine as not being Trump's fault. He didn't make the crops fail and he didn't mismanage Afghanistan. Trump hasn't caused the reasons for Afghanistan to need aid.ne of him not being to blame makes it OK for him to stop aid. Sometimes, things aren't a given entity's fault but they are that entity's responsibility to resolve.

I'm annoyed because people don't read what I actually write and often themselves don't write what they mean. This makes it hard both to understand and be understood. I'm autistic so I really struggle with subtexts.

You didn’t mention incompetence earlier you said
It strikes me that, far from the famine being artificially induced by Trump, it has been caused by the Taliban mismanaging the country. Trump has stopped compensating for the Taliban's mismanagement of their own country.

You presented it as a good thing that Trump had caused famine.
I asked a question. What is wrong? Are you the only person who can ask questions?

You even replied to my question with
I'm genuinely not sure whether sending aid will just end up making the Taliban stronger.

So don’t pretend you weren’t implying Trump’s famine creation is really a good thing to weaken the Taliban.

Last night, I wrote:

I'm also very much of the view that no one is obliged to send aid to a country in trouble. It may be a kind act, but it's not an obligation, just as I'm not obliged to donate money to a charity and I'm not responsible for them having a financial crisis if I stop.

I've reevaluated that position. My application of standards for individuals to nation states that have chosen to join the UN is a logical fallacy. A comparable situation is the Equality Act in this country placing obligations on non-human entities, not on individual people. We generally accept the idea that a body corporate can be legally or morally obliged to act in a way that an individual rightly should not be.

Trump has breached moral, and possibly UN treaty, obligations by stopping this aid.

This still doesn't make the famine itself artifical, it's a consequence of natural phenomena and Taliban mismanagement. But it does allow us to argue convincingly that richer UN members should contribute famine relief according to their means.

You wonder why I'm angry after you put words in my mouth as follows?

However, my point still stands, why do you think that Trump deliberately starving Afghan civilians is good?

That's a question rather akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?" in that it is based on an assumption that I think that "Trump deliberately starving Afghan civilians is good", or that I even think that Trump is deliberately starving civilians as opposed to merely being utterly incompetent.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate

Why are you swearing at me?
I answered your question.
I quoted your question in full with its question mark like so:
But, is it right to send aid to regimes like the Taliban where women and girls are treated like chattel?

and then I answered
“Yes it is always right to send humanitarian aid. Edited to add- the food aid isn’t going to the Taliban regime, it was going direct to women and children.”

So why are you saying the following to me?
FFS will you read what I actually write? I was asking a question, not making a statement. I've seen someone interpreting a question as a statement twice on FWR in the last few days. Is this a new linguistic trend, or is it a non-autistic-people behaviour that I've just not noticed before?

I didn’t treat your question as a statement, I quoted with it’s question mark and then I answered your question.

There is no need to get angry.

Silly, simplistic view of things.

Not in the slightest. If you only have enough money to send one person, you send the person who is in the worst situation if they stay behind, which is the women.

Don't be so stupid.

Don't be so stupid.

If they did, they would send their female relatives here and stay behind themselves.