Left Behind

[Catseye3]

Something fishy here.

Item: At the website of the Humane Society of the United States, there is no mention of dogs being left in Afghanistan.

Item: In answer to the Google question, "Is American Humane the same as the Humane Society?" is this: American Humane, America's first national humane organization, is celebrating 139 years of service with a rebranding effort which begins with changing the organization's name from American Humane Association to American Humane. ... “American Humane has been and will always be animals' first responder,” said Robin Ganzert. (President of American Humane.)

In other words, she doesn't answer the question.

Item: In that answer, Ganzert says 'American Humane Association'. What is the American Humane Association?

Item: Don't know about you, but I never heard of any organization named 'American Humane'.

Item: If American Humane is not the same as Humane Society, then no way is it 'America's first national humane organization'. Elsewhere it says AH is the oldest -- which would make it the first to be established, but it's not first as in pre-eminent.

Item: A search of 'Robin Ganzert' yielded 52,500 results, with no mention on the 1st and 2nd pages of dogs left in Afghanistan.

Item: In the statement by Ganzert is this: "I am devastated by reports that the American government is pulling out of Kabul and leaving behind brave U.S. military contract working dogs to be tortured and killed at the hand of our enemies."

Really? Tortured? Who tortures dogs???

The Pentagon denial of the story now appears in several different places. They deny leaving their dogs in cages at the airport. One place clarifies that the dogs left in cages at the airport were from the Kabul Small Animal Rescue, and not the American military.

So what's going on?

[Aqua Letifer]

@catseye3 said in Left Behind:

Item: Don't know about you, but I never heard of any organization named 'American Humane'.

One Google search that would've taken four seconds would've gotten you to American Humane (AH) is an organization founded in 1877, committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals.

They're the ones responsible for the "no animals were harmed" messages in movie credits.

Looking things up is helpful.

[Catseye3]

@aqua-letifer said in Left Behind:

Looking things up is helpful.

I figured it would be obvious that I meant I'd never heard of it before this story broke. But apparently not.

[Aqua Letifer]

@catseye3 said in Left Behind:

@aqua-letifer said in Left Behind:

Looking things up is helpful.

I figured it would be obvious that I meant I'd never heard of it before this story broke. But apparently not.

Also, as to "who tortures dogs": feel free to conduct another Google search. Better yet, visit your local shelter and ask the volunteers why the animals are there and count the abuse cases. People do these things and no it's not weird to suggest such.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in Left Behind:

Also, as to "who tortures dogs": feel free to conduct another Google search.

Yes. However, the incidence of various rando weirdos doing dog torture is probably a lot less than the incidence of dogs being killed because of some people's interpretation that Islam declares that dogs are unclean.

https://www.learnreligions.com/dogs-in-islam-2004392

Most Muslim scholars agree that in Islam the saliva of a dog is ritually impure and that objects (or perhaps persons) that come into contact with a dog's saliva require them to be washed seven times. This ruling comes from the hadith:

When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.
It is to be noted, however, that one of the major Islamic schools of thought (Maliki) indicates that this is not a matter of ritual cleanliness, but simply a common-sense method way to prevent the spread of disease.

There are several other hadith, however, that warns of consequences for dog-owners:

"The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: 'Whoever keeps a dog, his good deeds will decrease every day by one qeeraat [a unit of measurement], unless it is a dog for farming or herding.' In another report, it is said: ' …unless it is a dog for herding sheep, farming or hunting.'"—Bukhari Sharif
"The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: 'Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or an animate picture.'"—Bukhari Sharif
Many Muslims base the prohibition against keeping a dog in one's home, except for the case of working or service dogs, on these traditions.

[Catseye3]

Okay, point taken. I should have clarified that I couldn't see the point of Taliban going out of their way to torture dogs, in a war situation.

Now that you've gotten your shots off, I'll point out that neither of them addressed the main point. Which is: Somebody is either mistaken or lying. Either the AH prez or the Pentagon. She describes the dogs left behind as -- I forget the wording -- military contract working dogs, which if you believe the Pentagon they weren't, or the Pentagon is lying about having left the dogs. There's a discrepancy.

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in Left Behind:

Most Muslim scholars agree that in Islam the saliva of a dog is ritually impure and that objects (or perhaps persons) that come into contact with a dog's saliva require them to be washed seven times. This ruling comes from the hadith:

How many Muslim events have you been to?

I've been to none. But I have been to quite a few Christian church services, so I know the following is not a modern Christian practice, nor is it condoned at face value by anyone sane:

Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken ... He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.

I'm not willing to judge at face value these kinds of "Muslim teachings" without knowing more about the religion in practice, because I give Christianity the same latitude.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in Left Behind:

How many Muslim events have you been to?

Wait...lemme think.

That would be zero.

But that's not the point. The correct question is this: "How many Muslims have you spoken to that consider dogs unclean?"

The answer to that is more than zero. In fact, it's more than 6.

I've been to none. But I have been to quite a few Christian church services, so I know the following is not a modern Christian practice, nor is it condoned at face value by anyone sane:

Well, yeah. "Sane" is an important word there. In this context it might even be equivalent to "more recent than the 8th century."

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in Left Behind:

But that's not the point. The correct question is this: "How many Muslims have you spoken to that consider dogs unclean?"
The answer to that is more than zero. In fact, it's more than 6.

Mine's zero.

[LuFins Dad]

Out of the 6 that have visited me, 4 were cool with our dogs and 2 were aghast…

[Axtremus]

Years ago, I had a family of next door neighbors who were Muslims and kept dogs as pets. From what I could see, they treated their dogs pretty well too.

[Jolly]

Be they service dogs or maybe just dogs that belonged to American citizens trying to get out of Afghanistan, what do you think the Taliban did with them? Took them home for their children to snuggle with?

Probably shot the legs off of them and left them to whimper and die in the street.

[George K]

@axtremus said in Left Behind:

Years ago, I had a family of next door neighbors who were Muslims and kept dogs as pets. From what I could see, they treated their dogs pretty well too.

Good for them.

I doubt the Talibs would be as accommodating.

[Doctor Phibes]

"Muslims" isn't the point. "Extremist Islamist fundamentalists" is the point.

Over and over people say this, as though all Muslims are the same, and the world is divided into Muslims and non-Muslims. Honestly, it's ridiculous. It leads to no end of bullshit and bigotry.

[George K]

@doctor-phibes said in Left Behind:

"Muslims" isn't the point. "Extremist Islamist fundamentalists" is the point.

I know of at least two "non-extremist" Muslims who will not abide dogs.

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in Left Behind:

@doctor-phibes said in Left Behind:

"Muslims" isn't the point. "Extremist Islamist fundamentalists" is the point.

I know of at least two "non-extremist" Muslims who will not abide dogs.

So therefore they kill them, too, or what?

[Doctor Phibes]

@george-k said in Left Behind:

@doctor-phibes said in Left Behind:

"Muslims" isn't the point. "Extremist Islamist fundamentalists" is the point.

I know of at least two "non-extremist" Muslims who will not abide dogs.

I know more than two white Americans who feel much the same way about cats.

My dad wasn't mad keen on the Japanese.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in Left Behind:

I know of at least two "non-extremist" Muslims who will not abide dogs.

So therefore they kill them, too, or what?

No, of course not.

But, they won't allow them in their homes.

How do you think that'll play out in Kabul?

@Doctor-Phibes said:

I know more than two white Americans who feel much the same way about cats.

My dad wasn't mad keen on the Japanese.

Yeah, I know several who don't like cats either.

Both you and @Aqua-Letifer are trying to equate reasonable, sane people who have a dislike with 7th century fundamentalists.

[Jolly]

@aqua-letifer said in Left Behind:

@george-k said in Left Behind:

@doctor-phibes said in Left Behind:

"Muslims" isn't the point. "Extremist Islamist fundamentalists" is the point.

I know of at least two "non-extremist" Muslims who will not abide dogs.

So therefore they kill them, too, or what?

Nah, the Mexican family down the street kills them for them.

Tacos, anyone?

[Doctor Phibes]

@george-k said in Left Behind:

oth you and @Aqua-Letifer are trying to equate reasonable, sane people who have a dislike with 7th century fundamentalists.

No, I'm absolutely not. That was the whole point of what I complained about. It was other people that were saying 'Muslims', I was the one who pointed out that 'Muslim' and 'Extremist Islamist Fundamentalist' are not one and the same thing. The people who are in charge in Afghanistan are the latter.