That their reaction is foreseeable does not mean: (a) the reaction is justified; or (b) the reaction is deserved.

If I am insulted by the statements of another, it is not a justification for the use of violence against that person, nor does it show that they are deserving of violence.

Victim blaming is wrong - including in this case. You can say he was a terrible person, but that does not diminish the seriousness and wrongfulness of the brutal acts of violence.

The statement "actions have consequences" might be true, but is entirely beside the point.That it might be foreseeable that an insult or slur would provoke a violent reaction: (a) is not a justification for that reaction; or (b) does not establish that the reaction was deserved.

There are no circumstances in which violence is a justified or proportionate response to an insult or slur. Furthermore, the response of the criminal justice system to this brutal, violent crime was manifestly inadequate.

See the other comment I made earlier. Again, I never said that it is not an important sentencing objective; only that it is not the only or even primary objective (which was implicit in your comment).

Surely, the relative priority of rehabilitation should depend on the nature of the crime, and the susceptibility of the offender to rehabilitation? I don't think that it is possible to posit a monolithic rule that it should always be of equal weight to other sentencing objectives on the facts of each case.

In any event, rehabilitation and community protection are still only two objectives of sentencing. For example, others will include punishment, general and specific deterrence, and, as you have observed in your comment, community protection.

I would agree that rehabilitation is important. There is also no doubt that it is better than "locking someone up forever" (though no one argued for that). However, it is wrong to assume that rehabilitation is the sole or primary object of sentencing, or that the main reason we imprison offenders is to protect the community from future offending.

Rehabilitation is not the only, or even the primary, point of imprisoning most persons convicted of crimes.

There are numerous credible and independent sources which support the assessment that the terrorist threat in the Middle East has been degraded since 2001. At least one academic source is the Middle East Institute, which presented a policy paper on the subject available here:

https://www.mei.edu/publications/afghanistans-terrorism-challenge-political-trajectories-al-qaeda-afghan-taliban-and

This is an institute that has been skeptical of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan since their inception. But even it concluded that both the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda have had their capabilities severely degraded relative to 2001, though since 2018 Al-Qaeda has been strengthening. They also found that the Taliban is less disposed than it was in 2001 to facilitate or sponsor terrorism against the West, which if true reduces the likelihood (though it is not eliminated, especially in light of the US' withdrawal delivering a military victory to the Taliban) of Afghanistan being used as a platform to carry out terrorist attacks on the US and its allies.

This assessment is supported by other articles in leading academic journals.

That there remains conflict in the Middle East does not mean that the capabilities of terrorist organisations have not been degraded. The civil war in Yemen and the Syrian Crisis have nothing to do with the capability of terrorist organisations. There are other terrorist threats that have emerged across the world, though none as sophisticated and capable as Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. These threats would have emerged even if the US had not invaded Afghanistan (and, indeed, would be strengthened if coordinated by Al-Qaeda or Islamic State).

It follows that the capability of terrorist organisations in Iraq and Afghanistan has been severely degraded.

Yes, there would have been a worse humanitarian crisis. This is the evaluation of most experts on the subject, and it is the reason the US remained in Afghanistan until 2021.

Afghanistan in 2003 (and 2011) was a poorer, more unstable and violent nation than it is now. More men, women and children were uneducared; more terrorists were present in the region; there was less intelligence support and infrastructure to facilitate the distribution of and or humanitarian support; the Taliban was more brutal and ideological, and less pragmatic, than they are now; there were no institutions of government that could be used to provide basic state services and support to the people.

A full invasion was carried out because the Taliban was supporting and concealing Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. As soon as US troops were deployed to target Al-Qaeda, those troops were targeted by the Taliban. It would have been impossible to degrade the capabilities of Al-Qaeda without removing the Taliban as the Government of Afghanistan.

A group of "small elite forces" would never have succeeded. Al-Qaeda had tens of thousands of members in Afghanistan, and was supported by the Taliban. And there were numerous special operations carried out over the first 10 years, none of which succeeded in killing Osama Bin Laden until 2011. These operations required a local platform from which they could be carried out, and robust intelligence and logistical supported, which necessitates a substantial military presence within Afghanistan.

So the point is: (a) a full invasion was necessary to degrade the terrorism threat in Afghanistan; (b) that invasion is widely considered to have succeeded in reducing the terrorism threat; and (c) there would have been a worse humanitarian crisis had the US withdrawn in 2003 (or even 2011), which is part of the reeason why successive US Presidents have attempted to build the national institutions of Afghanistan.

Those efforts were not doomed to fail: multilateral institutions and the US itself considered that nation-building could have been successful in Afghanistan (and it had succeeded elsewhere- see Japan, Germany, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, and so on). The issue was that the US was never willing to invest the time and resources that would have been necessary for there to be a real possibility of building robust institutions in Afghanistan because its activities there were opposed by the US public. For that reason, the US' commitment and investment was too limited for it to be able to achieve its objectives, which prompted Joe Biden's recent withdrawal.

None of this is as simple or obvious as you have claimed. You simply don't know enough to understand the complexity of the situation, so it seems "stupid" to you.

Do you have any basis for claiming that the actions of the US created more terrorists than they destroyed? As I understand it, the capabilities of terrorist organisations in Afghanistan and Iraq have been severely degraded since 2001.

You have also claimed that the nation-building efforts of the US and its allies were "stupid". What else were they to do? Topple the Taliban and then leave a humanitarian crisis in a fragile state which would become a hotbed for terrorism? Had that been done, the conditions of Afghanistan would have been worse than they are now, and there would have been greater threats to the US and allies in the last 20 years.

Is that because you feel that there is no reason not to do so?

He edited his comment. It previously said: "I can't update you enough". I was trolling him.

But I have seen proof of it!

What about logic or the philosophy of language? Both disciplines contain propositions susceptible to a priori confirmation.

Yep. 100% right.

Why do you think that robots could in the near future replace humans in positions where empathy is central to the performance of their role?

The point is that we negatively evaluate others for engaging in behaviours that do not cause harm, so the mere fact that two persons engaging in sexual acts does not cause harm does not seem to be a sufficient reason to claim that they should be free from negative evaluation.

I did not claim that they should be negatively evaluated. I claimed that the mere fact that their actions have not caused harm is not a sufficient reason to claim they should not be.

However, as I also mentioned, an act which does not cause harm in itself can, when published, inculcate attitudes in others that could motivate them to cause harm. If that is so, then indirect harm would seem to be a reason to negatively evaluate the behaviour, even if we accept for the sake of argument that an act causing harm is a condition of it being negatively evaluated.

I don't understand why these modest claims seem to cause you such anger.

(a) Is there not a difference between claiming that a person is not obliged to X, and that a person who does not X should be negatively evaluated? It seems that we can evaluate a person as being rude, callous, miserly, uncharitable and so on, without requiring someone to breach an obligation.

I am simply suggesting that the range of negative moral or other evaluations that we make of others in our community does not seem to be confined to the causing of harm.

(b) There are many laws that we have that are designed to prevent behaviours which, though not directly causing harm: (i) are likely to inculcate attitudes or beliefs which might cause others to engage in harmful behaviours in the future; or (ii) encourage others to engage in harmful behaviours.

These include the prohibition in some countries of animated or drawn child exploitation material which might encourage attitudes or desires that cause others to exploit children. This is just one example, and not the most extreme case.

Do you consider these laws to be illegitimate? If they are not illegitimate, then can we not negatively evaluate the publication of sexual acts that inculcate attitudes that might motivate harmful behaviours in others?

OK. But: (a) in response to the first point that I made, do you apply the same abstention from judgment to all whose actions do not cause harm to others? and (b) is there not a difference between those who choose to engage in such behaviours in their own homes, and those who choose to publish it online, which might inculcate undesirable or harmful attitudes within others?

Not intending to be rude, but I just found your answer to be evasive.

Out of interest, why? Is there a reason that we cannot evaluate the actions of others unless they cause harm?

For instance, I would think that a person who was wealthy but refused to donate any portion of their income to charity was deserving of criticism. However, her failure to alleviate harm is not the same as her actions causing harm.

But is it not also true that these particular kinks, when promoted online and made accessible to others, would not be of such a character that they inculcate undesirable or harmful attitudes towards sex in others?

I am not saying that I would be disposed to shame the kinks of others. I have my own kinks that no doubt others would object to. However, I am not sure I would pre-emptively evaluate another person as bad if they did.

I would also point out that the women would have had more to lose by fighting on the front lines.

It is also true that many women welcomed the Taliban in 1996 even knowing the brutal oppression of their civil liberties that would ensue. This was a pragmatic decision: oppressive order was better for them than war and disorder.

The reasons for the collapse of the ANA was not that the soldiers did not have enough to lose. It is because: (a) they were fighting for a corrupt government that collapsed as soon as the US withdrew; (b) they had not been paid in months, and had little food and water, due to that corruption; (c) the number of their military was greatly inflated, by between 100,000 and 200,000 soldiers; and (d) the Taliban was given economic, military, and intelligence support by two superpowers (Russia and China) and one regional power (Pakistan), when the Afghan Government was no longer being supported by its major backer, the US Government.

Including women in the ANA would have made no difference at all.

Toothy-san. FiFY

Managing receiver here: cannot be restructured for profitable turn around, has to be wound up.

Wow. Good to see that you are willing to learn, or even engage in discussion with others!