Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Accommodation wanted in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Designers available in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

Do you support the coalition troops?, well... do you?


shafique
Kanelli - I'm sorry, but I must not have communicated clearly enough.
I don't think that the Taliban were the best rulers - in my post above I clearly state that I don't agree with the reported policies of stopping women from working, schooling, banning of music etc. It was reported they banned make-up as well (but if you are covered up, how would they know?? - that didn't make sense to me).
However, I've discovered that I did not get the whole truth about the Taliban (eg the destruction of the Buddha) and whilst they weren't good, they did do a lot of good things for the country and the security situation has gone backwards since their over-throw.
As for women in education - Lionheart explained once that it was all schools that were closed for security purposes, then when it was safe to open them, only boys were allowed back - girls being held back for safety. Now, this does not tie in with the media reports and I still believe in the reports that the Taliban did forbid women from working and getting an education.
The puzzling part for me is the NYTimes article from 2001 where at the end the spokesman speaks of his daughters and says he of course wants them to go to university and better themselves! This is where the article ends, intriguingly.
In summary, kanelli, I object to the unnecessary killing of innocent Afghans, and do not now think that the bombing of the country was justified - either from a legal perspective or a moral one. The overthrow of the Taliban has actually made things worse for the populace - including the women. If things were rosy, everyone secure and women playing a full role the whole society, then I perhaps would be less critical of the invasion - but it isn't, so there aren't really any good 'side-effects' of the invasion. Women are as oppressed as ever and now have a security problem - but, on the other hand, yes the schools are open.
Cheers,
Shafique
kanelli Shafique, why were the Afghan women holding classes for girls in secret if the Taleban supposedly let women go to school? Are all those women liars? Sorry, but I believe what the Afghan women say they were subjected to - not what the men have to say about it. rvp_legend has definitely made some good points, but it is still my opinion that things will improve and that a new government will be the lesser of the evils when compared to the Taleban. We are all entitled to our own opinions. Anyhow, this thread was supposed to be about coalition troops in Iraq. I'm sorry for my part in shifting the discussion to Afghanistan. Jamal yea ... why dont those 9 members say who u is.... 9 ppl that support arab brothers/sisters being killed an u livin in arab land .. ??? no wonder ppl say arab's are fag's cause they actually allow them coallition troops in there lands to begin with .. then secondly they allow ppl like u supporters to reside here.. bunch of puni's yes they truly are. lets see u representing what u claim freza rvp_legend You have made some excellent points! Wow. Now if those points would only get across to some people... To those that support the coalition troops, who are you? I mean, we know it's Concord (aka Mr. & Mrs Enquirer) and Arnie and those other um... highly informed and completely impartial (ha! :lol: ) members. Are you coalition supporters like afraid of saying who you are in the forum? If so, why? rvp_legend Totally agree with you Shafique about the disagreements of their interpretations. All of my Muslim friends do the same. But if the Taleiban was replaced by a government with a clean slate i would be all for it. instead the warlords have been chosen. and the Afghan people will make their own choice. Even though much of the hysteria turned out to be propaganda, they still commited terrible crimes in some areas. Women's right to education and health amongst the worst. I remember during the invasion i was still living in Stockholm, and soon as it was mentioned that the warlords with karzai were to be the new head of an already war torn nation , documentary after documentary was shown in regards to warlords such as Ahmed Shah Masood, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Ismail Kham, Abdul Rahid Dostum and others. So therefore i was against this invasion from the off Especially also learning of the oil deals such as The US painted a picture of Masood as a hero (much like they did with Saddam in the eighties) after he got killed but his militia commited some of the worse abuses in Afghan history. If only the media did their duty... AND OH, it is also believed in certain circles that Hamid Karzai was an advisor to UNOCAL... shafique You make some very good points RVP. This is not a black and white issue - there are shades of Grey. I still condemn the interpretation of Islam that the media said the Taliban had imposed on Afghanistan - the banning of females working and going to school, banning of music, television and kite flying (!) - the forcing of men to wear beards and women to cover up totally. And that they blew up the Buddha because it was an idol and against Islam (insulting, let alone destruction of idols of idol worshippers, is forbidden by the Quran). Had I not made more research into the subject, that is where my knowledge of the Taleban would have stopped and I would still be condemning them for carrying out acts contrary to Islam and the Quran. Now I read, for example, that they protected Hindu temples and forbade any idols that were being worshipped from harm - and that they brought order from chaos. I therefore find that not all I read about them was true in totality... and as a result my attitudes have changed. Cheers, Shafique rvp_legend
Yes there will be some. Many Maybe. Even most perhaps. And what if some villages dont? i.e Kandahar, where they enjoy enormous support. and then another town endorses, then another? it looks that way at the moment.

Although my responses may appear arrogant, i was only suggesting that the reality is much diferent to those painted by CNN and CSM. Sure your articles make some vital points, and i acknowledged (even previously) the fact that some women are progressing.

If you look back i didnt start talking about Al qaeda. You started that topic as about the Taleiban kept dodgy company, and my reponse was to show the US did the same. In fact as Shafique points out. The US government were ready to deal with the Afghans via UNOCAL(waving all the humans rights, womens rights, childrens rights abuses), even though they had OSAMA in their country! i can quite happily stop talking abotu Al Qaeda as that opens a massive debate on its own.

See my problem that is not that i think the Taleiban were not so bad, but the fact that the guys "We" have on "our" side are recognised as much worse by Human rights watches.
Below is a small link ive posted before, also found on wikipedia - under afghan northern alliance.
What annoys me is that people actually think the current government and warlords will make the country Prosper. When in fact the warlords and the lawlessness were the reason why the Taleiban gained so much support! And is doing so AGAIN!
Karzai only controls Kabul. His own appointed warlords even have skirmishes with themslves - Karzai and US and NATO were helpless!
If you read up about the Northern alliance (posted earlier) you will see that they were worse than the Taleiban when it came to abuse of women and children. They have for years tried to prevent women from going to school, as a strong womans voice is a threat to them. The taleiban achieved it so there is no way the Warlords will change that. The only success stories have been in Kabiul, under the national army and NATO, but its the same as saying Iraq is now in peace just because its quiet in the green zone. what about the rest of the country? hence i say the situation is much worse than before.
For the Ordinary afghan they will ask the simple questions.
Taleiban and the current government have now had 5 years each.
What has the Government done, even those its in civil war? Few more female attendees in school and a few became entreprenuers.
then
What did the taleiban do in those 5 years while also being at civil war?
"The Taliban made some progress in three areas: centralizing the government, national security, and a de-weaponized Afghanistan. Another issue the Taliban addressed was drug issues. Some Afghanis supported the Taliban because they brought peace and subdued the ferocious people of Afghanistan."
shafique
Ok Concord. Hello Crazy.
:)
I agree with you - the point I was making was that it wasn't a humanitarian mission to liberate the Afghan people. The question Chomsky poses is whether the bombing and invasion was justified - no Afghanis, for example, took part in 9/11 and there's no evidence that the Taliban were involved in the planning or execution of the act either.
Cheers,
Shafique Concord
Call me crazy but I thought what happened in Afghanistan might have had something to do with the events of 9/11. rvp_legend
quote
"I bet those same women are now begging for the Taleiban to return. " unquote.
So unless the whole world of language has changed and i am not aware, then "I BET" means what "I" , yes "I" Concord, think and bet.
This was the point Kanelli was contesting. argument closed.
As mentioned previously i made many points, not just on the subject of women, but poppy... warlords with worse records than the taleiban...and privided links....there will be more to follow.

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique Concord - thanks, good to be back posting. I'm hoping to shed more light and less heat in my posts now :)
You ask for references for Chomsky's extract - as kanelli rightly points out, there are extensive notes/references in the book.
He does not give a reference for the first line - about the motive for the bombing (that is common knowledge, surely) or that the US did not provide evidence (they didn't provide any evidence - there is a later quote from the FBI report into 9/11 sometime later that stated that they still, at that time, did not know for certain who exactly were behind the planning etc. The planning, training, execution of 9/11 was carried out by Saudis and Egyptians in - Germany being a base. )
Emmanuel Constant being harboured by the US and a renewed request for extradition took place after 9/11 is also presented as a fact. I'm sure a reference to prove/disprove this fact won't be hard to find.
References aside, Chomsky makes a very good point - was the bombing of Afghanistan justified for the crime of not handing over Osama Bin Laden?
Kanelli - America did not bomb Afghanistan to liberate the women. I think at best you can argue that the side-effect of the US bombing was the 'liberation' of the women from Taliban rules. The other side effects are well documented - a return to massive opium production, government/official corruption, lack of security in most areas (war lords back in power) - and that is not to mention those directly killed by the bombing.
Let's not kid ourselves that the US did this for the Afghan people. Let's also remember that the path is now clear (at least for now) for US control of any oil/gas pipelines through Afghanistan.
If the US were concerned about women's rights - surely they would do something about the country from whom the majority of the 9/11 bombers came from?
Cheers,
Shafique Concord
Pathetic: Intially you did not even hint that it was your opinion but only did so after being asked for facts and evidence :roll: Not surprising though. kanelli The book likely has a reference list in the back for all the sources. Concord
What are the sources for the first senctence? For starters.
Any fool can write anything they want as they will surely find many more fools who will believe it. kanelli So if the Taleban comes into rural villages and takes over, threatening the people and forcing them into submission - this is according to their will? The links I posted were from various sources besides CNN and CSM and the documentaries etc. have been shown on various sources. It is arrogant for you to assume that I am only reading propagandist media. Yes, it is irrelevant to discuss Al Qaeda as being the bastard child of the US because it has nothing to do with our discussion as to why the Taleban is not fit to run Afghanistan. Well, nothing to do with it except that the Taleban made a huge mistake by befriending Al Qaeda and letting them use the country as a base camp. It is Al Qaeda and their terrorist attacks that brough the troops into Afghanistan, not the West wanting a regime change in Afghanistan. I like debating and it is fine with me if people have opposing opinions. I just wanted to speak up about what I think is important, which is that women and children are being forgotten when people start arguing about how in hindsight the Taleban might not have been so bad compared to the current instability. I especially get annoyed when people just want to argue about how terrible the US is and not consider all factors involved in the complex situation that is Afghanistan right now. From what information I have, women seem to have hope without the Taleban, and I don't want to see them lose that. Politics is not just for men and about men's issues only. Women make up 50% of the population. Concord
Safique, welcome back and Eid Mubarak to you and your loved ones.
Back on topic :wink: - Chile, Nicaragua (35+ years ago :roll:) rvp_legend
Apologies if i am appearing like i am contesting yoru every point, but under the Taleiban, the children were much better off than in the previous generationg of Soviet invasion, Communist rule and warlord anarchy.
The druglords and warlords with thier actions were the reason why the taleiban managed to take power. people supported them.
Those same druglords and warlords are now back and have been empowered. and guess what? the taleiban are also returning, its a common trend it seems. and no, they are NOT being dealt with. they cannot be controlled by the central government at all as they all have their own private militia.
If you think the Taleiban is more evil than the warlords and druglords.. then i cannot change your opinion.
But if the Taleiban comes back, it cannot be without the peoples support. rvp_legend
Well you could very well accuse me of doing so. But i have previously been called a Leftist, a communist apologist and pure anti establishment. but i take my position after reading left, and right wing views and also History which shapes the present.
Sure i read those articles, but CNN and CSM are no match for reality, they have always rolled the war bandwagon. I acknowledged that some girls and women were making progress. But it is no way near as many as is being represented by the media. As i said previously i know people on the ground in Afghanistan, esp in Kabul and Kandahar. And trust me, the reality is MUCH different to what is being braodcasted on TV.
A little bit of Robert Fisk, Henry Makow, Noam Chomsky wll help balace the CNN's and Fox's of the world.

Not illogical at all and not irrelevant either, since it was you who said the Taleiban kepy dodgy friends. My point is that al qaeda is the b$stard child of the USA in 1973 when they funded the group and helped it become what it was. So they are no people to bring happiness. Esp with the curent friends they are keeping.

Who said the Taleiban fostering them had anything to do with him Hating the US? his issue with the US was during the first gulf war, when he didnt want them on Saudi Soil! they did not foster him because they shared the same ideology. He was win Sudan and Somalia but then got kicked out. He then offered financial assistance to the Taleiban during civil war, so therefore exploited the situation...the taleiban faught a civil war with little support against warlords (the current government) who were supported by Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and uzbekistan far as they were concerned all help was welcome.
And their co operation wasnt the reason why they were invaded.
They were Ordered to hand over the terrorist leader. And as a guest living in their country, they did what all Tribal countries do, ask for proof.
The USA was arrogant in its approach, and these people do not like force hence they refused to bow down like leaders in the middle east would.
The USA then went all out attack as far as they were concerned "how dare they"
Shafique makes a great example of how Haiti requested a leader also, the US completely ignored them..... some inconsistency here? shafique The question is under what conditions regime change is allowed. If the rules used by the US were applied to the USA, they are just as guilty. Afghanistan wasn't bombed because it was oppressing it's people - if this was the criteria, then Zimbabwe, Burma etc should have been bombed ages ago. On the contrary, one of the charges levelled against the US is that it supports by and large despotic rulers and has actively acted against democracies that would not support it's rule (eg Chile, Algeria, Nicaragua) Cheers, Shafique
kanelli Hegemony or Survival - that book looks interesting Shaf. I'm only used to reading Chomsky's linguistics books. :) kanelli What does the US's involvement with other terror-related criminals in other countries throughout history have to do with whether the Taleban should be allowed to run Afghanistan again? The Taleban have a crap record. It doesn't mean they didn't solve some problems in society or provide some stability (as any stable government provides). On the whole though, how would a return of the Taleban affect the lives of women and children. Don't forget, women make up 50% of the population. Some of you are only looking at what benefits the men, not what benefits the women and children. Warlords are a problem, but they are also being dealt with. There are people in the Afghan government that are rotten, but how is that any different than any other government in the world? The question is which is the lesser of the evils? I believe that the Taleban is more evil. shafique An extract from Chomsky's book:
Afghanistan was to force the Taliban to hand over people that the US suspected of involvement in the crimes of 9-11; the US refused, however, to provide any evidence. At the time when Taliban reluctance to comply was the lead story of the day, arousing much fury, Haiti renewed its request for extradition of Emmanuel Constant, leader of the paramilitary forces that had primary responsibility for the brutal murder of thousands of Haitians during the early 1990s, when the military junta was supported, not so tacitly, by the first Bush and Clinton administrations. The request apparently did not even merit a response, or more than the barest report. Constant had been sentenced in absentia in Haiti; it is widely assumed that the US is concerned that if he testifies, he may reveal contacts between the state terrorists and Washington.30
Does Haiti therefore have the right to set off bombs in Washington? Or to try to kidnap or kill Constant in New York, where he lives, killing bystanders in approved Israeli style? If not, why not? Why is the question not even raised in this case, or in that of other murderous state terrorists who enjoy safe haven in the US? And if the question is considered too absurd even to consider (as it is, by elementary moral standards), where does that leave the consensus on the resort to violence by one's own leaders?
Referring to 9-11, some argue that the evil of terrorism is "absolute" and merits a "reciprocally absolute doctrine" in response: ferocious military assault in accord with the Bush doctrine that "If you harbor terrorists, you're a terrorist; if you aid and abet terrorists, you're a terrorist—and you will be treated like one."
It would be hard to find anyone who accepts the doctrine that massive bombing is a legitimate response to terrorist crimes. No sane person would agree that bombing Washington would be legitimate in accord with the "reciprocally absolute doctrine" on response to terrorist atrocities, or a justified and properly "calibrated" response to them. If there is some reason why this observation is inappropriate, it has yet to be articulated, even contemplated, as far as I have been able to discover.
Consider some of the legal arguments that have been presented to justify the US-UK bombing of Afghanistan. Christopher Greenwood argues that the US has the right of "self-defense" against "those who caused or threatened. . . death and destruction," appealing to the World Court ruling in the Nicaragua case. The paragraph he cites applies
far more clearly to the US war against Nicaragua than to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, so if it is taken to justify intensive US bombardment and ground attack in Afghanistan, then Nicaragua should have been entitled to carry out much more severe attacks against the US. Another distinguished professor of international law, Thomas Franck, supports the US-UK war on grounds that "a state is responsible for the consequences of permitting its territory to be used to injure another state"; the principle is surely applicable to the US in the case of Nicaragua, Cuba, and many other examples. shafique I used to think that getting rid of the Taliban after 9/11 was a good thing. Slowly I've had to re-visit the underlying 'facts' that led me to that belief, and now after reading into the subject, I have to recognise that the picture I had of the overthrow of the Taliban was not complete and was biased. I posted a while back an article in the NY Times from early in 2001 when a Taliban Government envoy was touring the US, meeting the government (who were trying to negotiate an oil pipeline, amongst other items) and speaking at various US universities. That article, and others, showed the true circumstances surrounding the destruction of the ancient Buddha statue. Over Ramadan I read Noam Chomsky's 'Hegemony or Survival'. This cemented the change of mind. After 9/11 the Taliban were willing to negotiate handing over Osama Bin Laden - but the US were bent on regime change. Chomsky points out that Afghanistan's 'crime' was the harbouring of terrorists who plotted and enacted terrorist acts in other countries. The punishment was the mass bombing and mass killings of Afghan soliders, civil insititutions and civilians. Chomsky points out that this 'crime' is one that the US is committing - and not just of one or two, but of many terrorists wanted for crimes against other nations. The most notorious is a Haitian who was responsible for killing tens of thousands in terrorist acts in Haiti, who has been tried in absentia, but who the US refuses to extradite. Chomsky asks whether Haiti would therefore be justified in bombing Washington? Why not? The list of terrorist activities carried out, sponsored or supported by the US was an eye-opener to me. I had forgotten that millions had died in Indo-China, tens (if not hundreds) of thousands killed in Latin America, Phillipines etc - all in acts which if were committed by others would have been branded as 'terrorism'. The problem is that it takes effort sometimes to uncover the truths that aren't widely published - it is very easy to lazily accept propaganda/bias without being aware that we are not being told the whole truth. Not only is the effort seldom exercised, but we often see strong resistance to the evidence when presented - perhaps because no one likes to admit they were fooled. I certainly was in terms of the information I had of the Taliban. Cheers, Shafique kanelli rvp_legend, be careful about accusing me of only paying attention to media propaganda. I could accuse you of the same thing. Some of your arguments are tedious and refuted according to many reports. Did you read any of the links I gave about the women in Afghanistan? Saying that Al Qaeda was created by the US is illogical and not relevant to this thread. Al Qaeda was created by Osama Bin Laden for many reasons - mainly because he wants to follow his own radical interpretation of Islamic jihad. The Taleban fostering and supporting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden hating the US, but more to do with the Taleban also sharing radical Islamic ideologies and seeking out a partnership with Al Qaeda, even though it did nothing for the betterment of the Afghan population. The Taleban's cooperation with Al Qaeda is what brought on the invasion of their country. Hardly a smart move on their part. nostradamus There are only three things that they respect the lash, yoke and the sword. President Bush (cousin to Ming the merciless & satan-the-redeema) the glorious ruler of all the sand wallas will see that they get all three with vengeance Go George Go and Nuke! :lol: rvp_legend
The UN needs to get its finger out of its backside, because unlike the Iraq situation, it endoresed this invasion. If it wants democracy and stability in that country, it needs to recognice all the many different ethnic lines there and at least make a solid proposal which hears the Loya Jirga and gives a voice to all groups. It automatically isolates the violence loving men, and should it turn nasty Nato should be at hand to then disperse it.
What they are doing now, is trying to MAKE the locals accept a completely unrepresentative government whose officials lack the balls to go outside the capital.
Then there are the surrounding countries. Iran and Pakistan need to tame the Pashtun. Tajikistan, Turkemnistan and Uzbekistan need to tame the Warlords and make it known they will not deal with warlords, as they have always have influence on those ethnic groups/people.
ive said this previously, that no outside party who doesnt have a clue about how the countries culture behaves will ever impose themselves on a foreign country. Especially not when they have Previous ethnic clensing Warlords on their side.

Sorry, but i take the complete opposite view of that. Yes some schools have been re opened again in Kabul.... but attendances are at a serious low. Secondly... Kabul is not the most populous part of the country No progress whatsoever has been made elsewhere. of course, CNN and Fox will never tell you that. I have friends who work for the UN in Afghanistan and trust you me.. the reality is quite different!
Nobody said the Taleiban were life saviours... but the Warlords are MUCH worse. They are stopping the progress of the country and the previous Laws created are still in place? why? because the taleiban managed what they couldnt...so why would they get rid of them?

Definately agree with the actions of men. But that has happened all throughout history. But the Criminal activities are by the current government, who were in charge before the taleiban. The taleiban banned poppy growth by 91% in a year. they also deemed kidnap as punishable by death. These two have become fashionable again with the current government. Nato is helpless and their "friends" have brought the corruption back
read the below if you dont believe me.


Ok, sorry to say, but you sound like someone who has been seriously misinformed by their domestic media groups. of course wartime propaganda does this.
The Taleiban had a total of 5 years of power of majority Afghanistan - with little help, little aid, and were still part of a civil war at the time of the invasion. and yes, They coudnt improve their country.
the new government has now had 5 years in power, with inernational help, with international recognition, with international AID and Military. They are still part of a civil war, but a much smaller one than the one prior 2001. whats their achievement? few schools in the capitals one or two opportunities for women and thats it! Poppy growth is at an all time high, violence at an all time high... and the government only controls one city...hardly a success story even with all the international assistance.
"Buddies with the freaky groups?" HANG ON A MINUTE! didnt the USA create these B$STARDS!?!?!?! They created them, armed them to the teeth and even supported their activities . Clinton even invited them to the US and toured them around!!!!! how short peoples memories are!
Also, did you not watch Farenheit 9/11? EVERYONE knows that the Bush family and Bin Laden families are almost related due to the number of joint business ventures they have.
So, the US who create the frankenstein, team up with former Criminals and are now the saviour of the people - thats hardly a good record!
If i was an Afghan, i would, and most are doing so in Afghanistan reject this new government due to the fact that they are not change. They are the worse criminals in the countries History. and that is supported by all Human rights watches!
This country needs serious help if it is ever going to improve. And that means a fresh aproach. Militia free. kanelli Sorry, multiple post. kanelli Sorry, multiple post. kanelli rvp_legend, who do you suggest takes power in Afghanistan? It looks to me like many men in the political arena in Afghanistan are rotten and have been involved with corruption and unsavoury characters in order to achieve their own goals. Who is suitably non-corrupt to take the job and find enough non-corrupt people to flesh out the political ranks? Life is already getting better for women and children in the larger cities. The countryside is still problematic. If the Taleban comes back, all those gains will be lost. Women and children have been suffering for a long time, but all the men care about is carving up territory, padding their pockets with reconstruction money and money gained from criminal activities like drugs etc., and beating out rival gangs, or trying to make some kind of strict Islamic utopia that keeps the country in the dark ages. The Taleban had time to show what they could do for the country, and the country was a mess. They were buddies with freaky terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. I'd hardly call that a good record. If I was an Afghan citizen, I'd rather try out some new leadership rather than go back to what I used to know because change is too uncomfortable. valkyrie Perhaps most important, it is not only the derided “cut and run” domestic critics of the president’s policy who recognize that our continued presence is part of the problem rather than of the solution, but 90 percent of the Iraqi people we are supposedly trying to help, according to recent U.S. government and scholarly public-opinion surveys.
Even more shocking: Six in 10 believe it actually is acceptable to target U.S. troops for assassination . And while President Bush on Monday once again reassured the impotent puppet government in Baghdad that the United States is prepared to “stay the course,” the vast majority of both Shiite and Sunnis want us to leave within the next year.
valkyrie ... rvp_legend Some articles which reflect on the various aspects ive touched on my previus posts. Not just on women. Crimes of the newly placed government supported warlords "Human Rights Watch and other agencies report that, behind the romanticism of the “rag tag army” is a history of bloody and horrific war crimes." #2 One site which provides details far more deeper than CNN or FOX ever would. It knocks the taleiban and clearly shows/ idetifies the goverment approved warlords as criminals. Read the background of the pre taleiban era. #nytarticle poppy ban by the taleiban. once againt braught back by the new government. -- The future is so bright for afghanistan..... more to follow later.... satan-the-redeema [qIt is the men who are out of control and the men who are destroying the country.women in Afghanistan. Even if the Taleban are gone, the men still hold many of the same attitudes and opinions about women. The bottom line is that when women can gain more power Just Another woman Man Hater rvp_legend
The pictures which stick to my head are the ones were tanks went over the heads of two dead soldiers in afhganistan and Iraq. both were unarmed had their top halves flattened.
Nice regime the British and US armies are also ?
Lets face it, shit happens in this world. no one is innocent. rvp_legend
Regarding the Burkhas, Actually it tells me that The country is in a worse situation than the CNNS and FOX;s of the world report. There is so much nonsense in the last 5 years about how the country is progressing. its pure propaganda. Poppy growth is higher than ever, by whom? Government officials. Corruption and Rape is higher than ever, by whom? Drug Lords and Warlords who are part of the government. Therefore all these actions are now state sponsored. You think this country will prosper under these situations?
Secondly.. Yes there has been some progress made in terms of womens education and work... . But where? Kabul. nowhere else. WHY? because the central government dont control the other areas. The Druglord sectioned part of the government does. remember Afghanistan was suposed to be the model nation for democracy...why are the taleiban coming back so strongly? the militia cannot do it without local support. and they have plenty of it.

I was merely passing an opinion regarding the women asking for the taleiban back. you are not looking beyond recent historical propaganda filled reports by CNN and Fox.
There were some articles posted by Shafique a while back on the taleiban which highlighted how they came into power, and how the women were thankfull to the taleiban from helping them into many fronts. Not least saving them from the now termed "Northern Alliance" who sold them into slavery and prostitution. That was the truth many many women were thankfull to them. CNN and FOX only filmed those who suffered and supported their agenda. Remember, iraq also had WMD, ? and as per CNN anf FOX, the people were desperate for the americans to enter? now look...sure turned out to be true didnt it?
And what everyone keeps fogettng is that women were not the worst sufferes in afghanistan in the last 20 or so years. Children were. it is sad that peoples historical knowledge only stretches to that of the content provided by certain news channels in the west. no one seems to mention the children, who were sold into slavery in surrounding countries, abused by warlords and were taught to farm poppy, by guess who? Our northern alliance friends..yup the ones the coalition handed over power to, who in turn helped the taleiban grow.
So my position is not that i support the Taleiban, but i am completely against this government which was put in place by the coalition. they were the reason the taleiban gained so much support and are doing so again. So do not think i support the taleiban. i just completely disagree with the ourguments you are putting up which have hallmarks of political agendas presented by news channels.
What afghanistan needs is an alternative government, with no history of destruction in the country. For that the UN needs to get its finger out of its backside, defy the US and implement a formal democracy.
You cannot achieve any aspirations with the Current warlord government or the taleiban.

At no point did i say no woman was raped. Ive said countless times the majority of rapes occurred, pre and post taleiban. And yes, i will try to post the links. valkyrie bump viewsoniczee ???? viewsoniczee Coalition troops means what? the Western Terrorist Alliance which went in for looting and stealing and bombing an entire nation back to stone age.
The Western Terroist Alliance mastreminded by the evil nation of US and UK. The rest simply joined in for contracts including India...
Sadam killed 3000 kurds with chemicl weapons and american killed milllion from green agent gas and mastard gas in vietnam inclusing children and women.
US and UK murdered more than 1.5 million children and exterminated a tens of thousands of families for OIL ' O peration I raqi L ibaration'
The coalition troops and their killing fields alla round the world, every century a new massacre, No wonder Hitler came to power... valkyrie
Really, got any sources for that?
Here, I'll look it up for you.
'Among the occupants of these graves are 100,000 Kurdish men and boys machine-gunned to death during the 1988 Anfal genocide

You also have no clue what you're talking about. Muslims have committed atrocities that parallel the west.
In Sudan:
Two civil wars have taken place in this country, and a massacre, under government patronage, has been taking place in recent years in the district of Darfur. The first civil war spanned the years of 1955-1972. Moderate estimates talk of 500,000 victims. In 1983 the second civil war began. But it wasn’t a civil war but a systematic massacre suitably defined as ‘genocide’. The goals were Islamization, Arabization and mass deportation, that occasionally becomes slaughter, also for the need to gain control over giant oil fields. We are talking about an estimated 1.9 million victims.
Recent years have been all about Darfur. Again Muslims (Arabs) are murdering (black) Muslims and heathens, and the numbers are unclear. Moderate estimates are talking about 200,000 victims, higher estimates say 600,000. No one knows for sure. And the slaughter continues.
Bangladesh: This country aspired to gain independence from Pakistan. Pakistan reacted with a military invasion that caused mass destruction. It was not a war, it was a massacre. One to two million people were systematically liquidated in 1971. Some researchers define the events of that year in Bangladesh as one of the three greatest genocides in (history - IJ) (after the Holocaust and the Ruanda genocide).
In Bangledash (inflicted by the terrorist state of Pakistan):
Bangladesh: This country aspired to gain independence from Pakistan. Pakistan reacted with a military invasion that caused mass destruction. It was not a war, it was a massacre. One to two million people were systematically liquidated in 1971. Some researchers define the events of that year in Bangladesh as one of the three greatest genocides in (history - IJ) (after the Holocaust and the Ruanda genocide).
[b]An inquiry committee appointed by the government of Bangladesh counted 1.247 million fatalities as a result of systematic murder of civilians by Pakistan’s army forces. There are also numerous reports of ‘Death squads’, in which “Muslim soldiers were sent to execute mass killings of Muslim farmers”.[b/]
The Pakistani army ceased only after the intervention of India, which suffered from waves of refugees - millions – arriving from Bangladesh. At least 150 thousand more were murdered in acts of retaliation after the retreat of the Pakistan army.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html
I could continue if you like, but it would be superfluous. viewsoniczee
Any war that you quote are not islamic but nationalistic wars in nature and are condemend in Islam the least i can say about the bloody 2 World wars which took as many as 110 million and communist alone after the World War toll 70 million lives...
You obvious dont know the difference between Islam and Nationalism. the Prophet pbuh said any one who calls for tribalism and nationalism is not from amoung us. So go adding the massacres of nationalistic wars, it is of no concern of me...
Mainly if you justify the third world massacres and legalize your Western massacres then you are no different than war mongoring misguided people who have obviuosly sided with satan.
The pakistani and bangladeshi, the sudanese and african tribes are tribal wars in nature not islamic..
The purpose is to condem these massacres, isnt it valkyrie The massacres were committed by muslims. In many of them, such as Sudan, the governments evoke Islam to justify their imperialist war mongering. About nationalism, the wars and atrocities committed by the west have been pretty much under the banner of nationalism and not religion. In the 19th century when pseudo-Darwinian Romantic Nationalism began linking country with identity and "nation" became more important than "Christendom".
You highlighted war crimes perpetrated by the west, likewise I returned the favor.

You don't know the difference between Christianity or nationalism.

Whatever makes you feel better :) viewsoniczee The massacres were not created by Muslims as you like to wish with your half baked ideas. If they sudan and tribal africans are both muslims then they are fighting for a lost cause, which agiain has nothing to do with religion.
Nationalism was choked down the throats of the Islamic world by the Imerialists, during 300 to 200 years of oppressions and in which the chrisitians tried there best to distort islam and destroy its teachings.

Christianism doest have any form of legal backbone to stand on or to run a governement, It lacks the abilitiy to sovle issues of daily disputes thats why secularism overpowered christianism easily and which evolved into darwinism.

I dit not highlight the crimes against of the west to win a debate but rather to ask a fundemenatal question that when saddam could have been removed in the first gulf war, then why wait and murder 1.5 million children under satanic sanctions.
So according to you is saddam is a criminal then that proves you are a bigger one? :roll:
I never heard the Pope condemn it unles it was in his favour to get elected after the first one dies?

you mean Christianism cause the word "christianity" was never preached by our Beloved Porphet Jesus pbuh the Slave of Allah,and is no where to be found in his so called recorded teachings.
Islama nd nationalism can never co exists but on the other hand christ-ians have benn voting darwinists and extremists jews and chrisitnas in power so they do their dirty work , while the pope can go on his world tour.nad spend billions covering up the sex scandals. 8)
try not to call anyone who has difference of opinion an idiot cause it relects on your upbringing, you christians tend to kill anyone who has differenc of opinion. So what you called me i say "SAME TO YOU"
You still havent condemed the killings happening all around the world but rather fuel more comments with no conclusion. you seem to be filled with anger and hatred if someone does not accept your views.
you are a perfect example of an Islamophobian. kanelli I don't support coalition troops in Iraq at all. In Afghanistan I do. The Taleban should not be allowed to rule Afghanistan again. As a woman, I wish that women in Afghanistan will never again live under the terrible conditions that they suffered under the Taleban. Every woman deserves to go to school, have a profession, and have a way to make her own money. She should also be able to choose what she wears, who she sees, and what she does with her spare time. valkyrie
So which option did you vote for? kanelli The poll was for Iraq - so I voted according to the opinion I already stated above. Believe me, I am not one of the morons who voted for the last option - hoping for coalition troops to get their asses kicked by insurgents etc. kanelli Here are some articles, documentaries etc. that tell about women in Afghanistan. Even if the Taleban are gone, the men still hold many of the same attitudes and opinions about women. The bottom line is that when women can gain more power it will help turn things around. They are in a position to gain more power without the Taleban, at least in the major cities so far. The women in the countryside are not seeing much improvement. Afghanistan Unveiled - CNN conversation with Saira Shah, Life in Afghanistan under the Taliban - Afghanistan's Women after "Liberation" - "If I Stand Up" - &URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Italians Train Afghans for Non-Traditional Jobs - &mode=articlesent&CFID=10703423&CFTOKEN=61061741 Afghan women start businesses, help reconstruct a torn nation - Chocoholic The picture that always sticks in my mind is the one of the Afghani woman who'd been shot in the head on the tarmac of an airport for some small thing, that the Taliban forbade women to do. Yeah nice regime :roll: kanelli I saw it on a TV news report - how do you expect me to link to that? It was BBC I believe. As you said already a few sentences above - some women are still wearing Burkhas, so what does that tell you about the rights of women in Afghanistan? The women don't feel safe because if they don't wear then men can do what they want and justify it by saying the women were being immodest by not covering from head to toe. It is the men who are out of control and the men who are destroying the country. Do you have any links or evidence of news stories where Afghan women are yearning for the Taleban to come back and curb their rights completely? Please show the evidence where women are itching to be removed from schools, jobs etc. :roll: Could you also please provide links to prove that Afghan women are no longer raped and beaten - that it only happened to them by the Russians and hasn't happened since. I'll try to dig up links to the titles of the documentaries I have seen. Don't know if I'll find them but will do my best. viewsoniczee
I think you forgot the communist rule i afghanistan, and their treatment of the afghan people. The russian used chemical and biological weapons to exterminate entire villages including women and children. The conditions were worst off then or were they after the russian retreat.
Some poepl wont know the true living conditions of afghanistan unless it came on CNN or Fox News, only after 911? but what about before that? No body knew about the afghan women and never cared when they were raped and served as sex slaves for the rusian troops.
More than 3 million were killed by the communist terrorists
The women were never oppressed by the taliban.
taliban stands for (Students) and Taliban came into existance because of the girl complained that school girls were abducted by the northern alliance (Pro communist at that time) and raped. the students took up arms against the communist regime for the honor of women.
The unfair treatment of women in Afghanistan was much more of a propaganda done by the CIA and fumed by CNN and other propaganda channels.
Girls were sent to schools but was later not recommended cause they were easy targets for the communist supportors to bomb and rape young girls. in order to destroy the unity of the Population by labelling one tribe against other.
UN had offcially acknowledged that under the taliban rule the growth of opium production went to zero. and now it has skyrocketted under the occupational regime.
So i dont see from where you get the women oppression syndrome under taliban rule which offcially got the spot light in the west prior invasion? rvp_legend
I bet those same women are now begging for the Taleiban to return. Do you know why? Becaue the Taleiban made rape, and corruption serious offenses often punishable by death.
In a country where there is no human rights and basic rights, School is the last thing on peoples minds.
Stats prove, that most women raped in Afganistan were pre and post taleiban. Which proves the situation is a bad as it was during the Russian invasion

I am not a muslim, but i can clearly see that the invasion has made a poor country poorer. A lawless country more vulnerable. A Poppy free zone into a drug supplier, and corruption at every level...even in checkpoints where civilians who pass must pay government soldiers. It was things like this which helped the Taleiban rise. And is doing so again.
regarding the women, They were perhaps telling the truth. Where there is no democracy shit can happen. Womens lives are terrible in many parts of the world.
The Taleiban had now been gone for 5 years, gone. Why are the Women STILL wearing Burkhas? It's deeper than the reasons shown on Fox and CNN thats why.

I say the Taleiban are MUCH BETTER rulers than the current government. Thats not to say the Taleiban were angels. They had serious flaws.
But what has our wonderfull coalition done since they toppled them? They handed them to Druglords, Warlords and Criminals. people who were famous for Human traficking. People who made the Poppy culture in afgahnistan. People who Killed anyone they saw fit. People who snatched women off the streets and sold them prostitution anywhere. They were corrupt, answered to no one.
The Coalition has just handed to country back to those people. Karzai cannot control any of the Warlords because they are in the government!..... you think the country will get better? you clearly do not know what is going on there.

Please forward a link to this. I am desperate to see this. rvp_legend
Ok, first of all before you start to blabber. Get your facts right.
3 million were dead in Bangladesh. HALF of them Hindu. Most of the attacks were against Hindu's and those who had intellect and wouldnt sell out. It was just a barbaric way to kill off a potential leadership. Retarded Pakistani soldiers didnt know the difference most of the times and were trigger happy.
Secondly, Bangladesh did not aspire to become independant. They won the then pakistan elections, FAIRLY. it was after the military dictators/rulers refused to hand over power and peacefull protesters being shot that the peoples believed that the only way for them to continue was independance.
India entered the ground war towards the end, by then the Pakistan army, although killing discriminantly, were in a real quagire as the resistance led my General Usmani were gaining the upper hand. So it was a political move by India which let the resistance wear the army down for it to have an easy capture.
The story of Bangladesh was political CHess between Silly Pakistani military and exploiting (British Raised) Indian goverment. Just Like Kashmir is right now.
Your post was to vilify Muslim butchers, well the Pakistani Army has never had islamic values and to this day still hasnt any Islamic Values. Only one division were devoutely Islamic which faught againts India previously. The were the people of Balochistan and Waziristan.
These people refused to get into the Bangladesh War because they didnt want to kill their fellow muslims and other innocent people. kanelli I've seen documentaries and numerous news interviews with Afghan women who tell their stories and about their hopes for their future. It comes straight from their mouths that the Taleban were extremely oppressive! Yes or no - were women allowed to go to school, hold any important offices, have careers outside the home, and dress according to what the Quran says? Is it your position that these women were lying about life under the Taleban? Perhaps you are a Muslim male with a strict view of Islam and you would rather side with the Taleban than pay attention to what life was really like for the women? I don't think much of anyone who thinks the Taleban were good rulers who deserve to take hold again in Afghanistan. Sure, some Afghan males likely miss the stability of a stable government, no matter if that government was terrible. To me that is very short-sighted and they just need to be patient and work together to make Afghanistan a better place for everyone. It takes time to root out the warlords and Taleban, but in the end the people will have a better life, especially the women. I don't care about Russia, because they are no longer there. I also clearly see that you throw in Russia abusing Afghans in order to deflect the issue, but the fact remains that women are still being beaten and raped in towns over-run by Taleban because they leave their houses without wearing a Burqha. There was a news report about this a week or so ago. Some men all over the world are raping and torturing women - it doesn't matter what nationality or religion - men can be very cruel to women because they think they are superior and the women are there to be used for their purposes. Something needs to be done about this kind of attitude! Bogus-Borgas This is not a black and white issue - there are shades of Grey. No there are no shades of grey the Americans have gone soft they should carpet bomb and if that does not work NUKE they can still get the oil and the joos will be very happy and we will not have to read all the whineing from the repressed r*ghe*ds Go George Go! rvp_legend i just wanted to add this post i found on It touches on many of the points myself and Shafique have commented on. October 17, 2006 The Taliban Aren't Gone, Women Haven't Been Liberated Afghanistan Reconsidered By SHARON SMITH The October 7 anniversary of the war on Afghanistan passed virtually unnoticed on U.S. soil. Mainstream news outlets spared the Bush administration the embarrassment of accounting for the subsequent fate of Afghanistan's 30 million people five years after the U.S. launched the first "regime change" in its never-ending war on terror. But an honest accounting is long overdue, not merely among those who have prosecuted this disastrous war-but also for the U.S. antiwar movement, whose sole focus on opposing the war in Iraq continues to sustain the fiction that the war on Afghanistan was a justifiable response to 9-11. It was not. Perhaps most damning is a BBC News report issued on Sept. 18, 2001-long ignored by the U.S. media-showing that the U.S. was planning to bomb Afghanistan well before Sept. 11. The BBC reported, "Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by mid-October." The events of Sept. 11 provided the U.S. with an excuse to set its sights higher, using the war against Afghanistan as a launching pad for attacking Iraq, with the aim of militarily reshaping the entire Middle East to suit its own interests. With the benefit of hindsight, even a cursory examination of Afghanistan five years on provides ample evidence that the U.S.' stated goals in Afghanistan were based upon a set of lies equivalent in scale to those used to justify the war on Iraq. Lie number one: The overthrow of the Taliban brought a flowering of democracy to Afghanistan. During his gloating 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed the U.S. victory over Afghanistan "saved a people from starvation and freed a country from brutal oppression." He then introduced former Unocal consultant and Afghan President Hamid Karzai as "the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan" to thunderous applause. In reality, the U.S.' swift victory over the Taliban in 2001 involved striking a deal with the "Northern Alliance"-the same Mujahideen warlords, drug kingpins and mass rapists who ruled Afghanistan immediately before the Taliban seized power in 1996. To bolster the puppet Karzai's wobbly government, Northern Alliance warlords were offered important government posts. Defense Minister Abdul Rashid Dustum was described by journalist Robert Fisk in 2001 as "one of the most powerful Alliance gangsters, whose men looted and raped their way through the suburbs of Kabul in the Nineties. They chose girls for forced marriages, murdered their families Dustum had a habit of changing sides, joining the Taliban for bribes and indulging in massacres alongside the Wahhabi gangsters who formed the government of Afghanistan, then returning to the Alliance weeks later." With drug-trafficker and warlord Gen. Mohammed Daoud installed as Afghanistan's Deputy Interior Minister (in charge of "cracking down" on poppy production), it is no wonder that Afghanistan is now setting record levels of heroin exports-supplying up to 92 percent of the world's heroin. Meanwhile, "Afghanistan's people are starving to death," according to a comprehensive report by the British-based Senlis Council issued last month. "One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live beyond the age of five, and certain provinces of the country lay claim to the worst maternal mortality rates ever recorded in the world," the report added. Lie number two: The war on Afghanistan aimed to liberate Afghan women. After the fall of the Taliban in November 2001, President Bush gallantly ceded airtime in his weekly radio address to First Lady Laura Bush, who claimed: "Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women." U.S. bombs were never meant to bring about the liberation of Afghan women. Indeed, five years later, President Hamid Karzai's cabinet has formally resurrected the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice-the Taliban's notorious religious police renowned for beating Afghan women for revealing their wrists, hands, or ankles, or venturing in public without a close male relative. Late last month, the Burqa-clad Safia Ama Jan, director for Kandahar's Ministry of Women's Affairs, was gunned down outside her home as she left for work. As a member of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) observed in an October 7 speech, in toppling the Taliban, the U.S. "just replaced one fundamentalist regime with another." Lie number three: The Taliban could not be negotiated with--and was therefore overthrown--for providing a "safe haven" for terrorists. Five years later, the U.S. appears ready to negotiate with the undefeated Taliban. Senate majority leader Bill Frist admitted this in early October, arguing that the war against the Taliban can "never" be won militarily because the Taliban were "too numerous and had too much popular support." It might be time, he added, to include "people who call themselves Taliban" in the Afghan government. This idea has clearly gained some traction among policy wonks. With more than 3,000 Afghans killed so far this year, Afghan expert Peter Bergen from the New American Foundation argues that the Taliban is using insurgent attacks as bargaining leverage. "The fact that they are using these tactics doesn't mean that you shouldn't be thinking about ways of dealing with them," said Bergen. Asked whether bringing the Taliban into government is a good idea, he responded, "I think it's an excellent one." Stephen P. Cohen of the Brookings Institution agrees that making deals with the Taliban might work. "Our true interest is in ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a haven for al Qaeda," he told the Council on Foreign Relations. "The Taliban, under Pakistani pressure, might ensure this if its own position was secured. This is distasteful, and might mean Karzai's departure, but it does preserve our one core interest in Afghanistan." As the Senlis Council bluntly concluded, "U.S. policies in Afghanistan have re-created the safe haven for terrorism that the 2001 invasion aimed to destroy." Sharon Smith is the author of Women and Socialism and Subterranean Fire: a History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States. arniegang
When you quote someone Freza, at least have the intellegence, decency and respect to make sure what you quote is correct and factual. I have no where said on this forum i support the collition troops.
The way you write is indicative of your immaturity and ignorance. You laugh and make funny references when you write, are you unsure of what you write or just nervous or slightly highly strung ??
:roll: :roll: :roll: freza
Where did I quote someone? I did not quote, I assumed , do you know the difference? I assumed because your past statements speak for themselves, I mean c'mon now, you're trying to be neutral now? Yeah, so believable.
It's interesting how you use what others criticize about you against me now, very original. Am I getting to you? You play the laid back and fresh bloke but you do seem to get jumpy rather easily...
oh, and that whole intelligence, decency, maturity reference - as my grandmother would say - like a donkey criticizing someone's ears :wink:
(don't bother with your reply, I know that it's going to read: Predictable) freza Kanelli, A few years ago the LA Times ran a series on the crimes committed by the US backed war lords and the US itself in Afghanistan. The bombing of a "Taliban school" by US air forces was something that was particularly striking; the school was literally a school full of kids, and this was a known fact to the US forces, the kids burned to death. War lords killing their prisoners by placing them in metal boxes and leaving the boxes in the hot sun. Kidnapping and imprisonment of children - children getting raped in prison. The fact that Afghanistan has sunk into even more danger, become even more splintered and has essentially become a drug state run by feuding war lords and criminal gangs has been known for a while, but the media and international attention has mostly eluded these facts. HRW and Amnesty International have a good record of what's been going on, you should check their reports. kanelli *sigh* Concord I may be 10 years younger than Freza but... rvp_legend
They (the Northen alliance) also killed them in other, more direct ways. The dead guy was later proven to be NOT part of the Taleiban, but only a suspect.
(apologies for the graphic nature)
rvp_legend An interview with BBC's David Loyn, regarding the re emergence of the Taleiban. The BBC's David Loyn had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against British forces in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan. He answers some of your questions about his trip. Q: In the UK, the Taleban are depicted as a harsh oppressive regime which ruled by fear. You associate closely with them. What are your feelings about them? Raymond Mcalpine, Gravesend, UK I am not sure about the word 'associate', which seems to imply approval, but if it means that I have spent a fair amount of time with them, then yes that is true, both in the late 90s and since. As far as their regime was concerned, it is worth remembering that it was popular in many parts of the country - particularly the Pashtun rural areas in the south, although deeply resented in the north, the west and urban areas everywhere. It was popular because it was seen as not corrupt, and brought law and order so it was possible for Afghans to travel safely around the country in ways that have not been possible before or since. Their new leadership do admit that some mistakes were made in terms of the harshness of their rule, but they have not changed their profoundly conservative religious austerity, nor their desire to impose severe restrictions on women. Q: Where are the Taleban getting their funding from and why are they fighting the Nato forces? Mohammed Baba Iddrisu, Ghana Travelling with them in Helmand I was struck by how much they do have, in terms of new vehicles, ammunition, and well-maintained weapons. They claim to have recently bought 8,000 Thuraya mobile satphones. So they are not short of money. The leadership deny that they are directly funded by Pakistan, although little happens in Afghanistan that does not have some Pakistani intelligence element in it. Their money comes from sympathisers, including governments in Arab states and collections from mosques around the world, raised from people who see them as fighting a 'jihad' - a holy war. Q: Are the Taleban motivated more by Islam or a sense of nationalism? Additionally, do they discuss their war as part of a wider conflict which includes their 'brothers' in Iraq? James Flynn, London, UK It is nationalism fuelled by Islam. They draw considerable strength from painting themselves as the heirs of Afghanistan's warrior traditions. Even the most uneducated foot soldier will quote the dates of the battles in the nineteenth century when they beat the British. They do not see themselves as part of a wider world ''jihad', but an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem. However there are clear tactical links. For example, they now adopt suicide bombing as a weapon. This is quite new in the Afghan context, but they have seen how it works in Iraq. Q: You mentioned that the Taleban often stop at villages demanding food. How do they treat the villagers, especially the women? I have read that some Taleban warlords are very fond of western goods like branded sunglasses, cigarettes etc. Delnavaz, Haryana, India None of the Taleban I spent time with had any western consumer goods, cigarettes etc. In fact, while they were showing off a cache of captured military equipment, a commander found an expensive pair of American sunglasses. But after playing around with them for a while, he tossed them aside. As far as the villagers are concerned, the Taleban treated them with respect and familiarity. A Taleban commander told me that the fact that villagers are willing to provide them with food shows their support. Along with the core of fighters, they recruit from local villages, and all wear the standard loose shirts and trousers (salwar kameez), so it is impossible to say who is a soldier and who a farmer - many are both. Of course, since I was travelling with armed Taleban fighters, it is impossible to know what the villagers really think of them (as it is equally impossible to find out the truth if a reporter jumps out of the back of a British or American armoured vehicle on an embed) I did not see any women during my stay. They always remain behind closed doors when men are around. These may look like severe restrictions. The Taleban see them as a mark of respect. Q: The Taleban appear to be an indomitable force, disappearing and re-forming. Would the current government of President Karzai consider discussions with them and the possibility of a coalition or power sharing scenario? Barry Derbyshire, Brisbane, Australia They did disappear after 2001, and found it very hard to reform and recruit. Their re-emergence is very much as a force designed to beat foreign 'occupiers', and they express contempt for Karzai. The last real attempt to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with outsiders, remarkably enough, was in 1998, but it collapsed after an American cruise missile attack. The current leadership would not be likely to be interested in dialogue, and it is hard to see the United States agreeing to any power-sharing agreement, although there is increasing talk among analysts in the region about the possibility of Afghanistan splitting up, leaving the Pashtun south in Taleban hands. Q: There seem to be a notable difference between al-Qaeda and the Taleban. What are the differences between the Taleban and al-Qaeda's political ideology? Abdullah, Surrey, UK The Taleban are very keen to point out the differences. They see al-Qaeda merely as 'guests' in their country and do not share their foreign policy or desire to export 'jihad' . But they do share the same austere iconoclastic view of the Islamic way of life. Q: When the Taleban first started to take Afghanistan I remember reading reports of them being welcomed by cheering locals as they rid the country of the scourge of the war lords. Is there any support among the Afghan population for a return of the Taleban? Dirk Dil, Luxembourg There is growing support for a variety of reasons: firstly they see the Karzai government as corrupt and too keen on promoting the old warlords - I was shocked to see soldiers from the newly-formed Afghan national army taking money at gunpoint from every car that passed. This was happening on the main road linking Iran to Pakistan across the south of Afghanistan, and has powerful resonances since it was to stop corruption on this very road that the Taleban first emerged, with some popular support, in 1994. The trucking companies are paying the Taleban again to see if they can clear the road for them again. The Taleban are also winning support because of the failure of the international aid effort to make enough difference to people's lives. Civilian casualties in the worsening conflict also play into their hands. Q: Since the Taleban forces are employed fighting and killing British troops, I am at a loss to understand why the BBC feels that it is using our licence fees well by giving their propaganda oxygen? If you were killed during an attack by Nato, who would accept responsibility for your death? Paul Jewell, Ivinghoe, Buckinghamshire I took an assessment of the risks, well aware of the possibility you talk about. The BBC would not have blamed Nato forces for my death in these circumstances. Like Churchill I rather think jaw-jaw is better than war-war, and feel that my job as a reporter is to explain best what is going on. Indeed in a democracy I have not just a right but a duty to do this as comprehensively as possible. 'Our licence fees' did indeed support what was actually rather a cheap trip by the standards of these things (I was both the cameraman and reporter). But on a separate point, 'our taxes' are paying for 'our soldiers' to fight a difficult conflict, and I rather wanted to know what they are up against and why. Don't you, Paul? Q: Does the current Taleban force have intrinsic links to the Taleban political wing (in a similar manner to the IRA and Sinn Fein)? If they are only interested in ousting corruption, why can't they be given an official role working alongside the UN forces to re-build the country? Jay Willcox, Barcelona, Spain There isn't really a 'political wing' like the IRA - the whole Taleban movement atomised after the fall of the government. The military revival this year is the first real sign that they are still a potential force. I did suggest to a number of their commanders that since they share much of the same agenda as foreign interests in the country - fighting corruption, ending the opium trade and so on - they might join forces. They were contemptuous. To them the British-led forces in the south are foreign invaders, and they see them as infidels, (although there have been British Muslim military casualties). There is no compromise on this. But given the way they have been demonised by the world, I wonder too if the Karzai government would be willing to make the compromises necessary to offer them an official role. Q: You mention the fact that soldiers of the Afghan Army are demanding payment at gunpoint for access through vehicle checkpoints. Are these the same soldiers that have been trained by British and coalition forces? Why have the British led coalition not put a stop to this? Adrian Lewis, Newcastle, UK Beats me, Adrian. This was the most surprising thing I saw. They are the same soldiers whose training has been paid for by western taxes. And frankly there seems to be little point in sending good British soldiers to fight in this kind of political context. They are fighting with one arm tied behind their back. Every time government checkpoints steal from a motorist the Taleban recruit another soldier. The trucking companies are now paying the Taleban again. Q: If Nato is failing in its promise to rebuild and modernise, how does this effect the morale of the British troops who are having to face the brunt of violent frustration? Richard V Evans, Neath , South Wales Read their blogs. On this trip I did not meet them, since I was behind Taleban lines throughout, although I have been embedded with British forces in Afghanistan this year. But I did talk to a lot of local people, and their perception that the international community has brought only bloodshed and not aid is a hard one to shift with guns and tanks. A farmer who I spoke to (not a Taleb, but a refugee who had fled to safety with his family after his father was shot and wounded in crossfire) said that the Taleban are the only people to gain from this situation. Military vehicles do brutal things just by being in villages made of mud houses. He is worried about his orchards and vineyards. He saw tanks breaking down the walls and setting up a military position in his village. Does he think they have come to deliver aid? On the record British troops, the bravest and best in the world, talk the talk. But given that the defence secretary who sent them in said they might not have to 'fire a shot' - put yourself into the shoes of a soldier who is going in for the next tour - knowing that his predecessors went in to provide goodwill and a secure environment for aid, and found themselves fighting one of the most intense conflicts of the last half century. Q: How significant is Pakistani assistance with regards to the return of the Taleban? Is the ISI (Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence) still providing them with funding and logistical assistance and, if so, what can be done to pressure Pakistan to cease this assistance? Jonathan Hall, London, UK This is the hardest question. The Taleban deny it - strongly and vehemently. They portray themselves as Afghan nationalists and successors of a warrior tradition. The easy answer is that there is considerable 'soft' support in Pakistan, ie in allowing the madrassas - religious 'schools' to function. The Taleban are not just educated here, but go back for R&R between trips. The international border - the Durand line - was drawn up by a British colonial administrator more than a hundred years ago in a hurry - and has been blissfully ignored since. So there are a lot of men who are Pakistani nationals who fight for what they see as a Pashtun cause. Pakistan's biggest security concern is to the east - India. Of course the ISI need to know what is at their backs when they look at the threat from India. But I do not know if they are behind the new rise of the Taleban. I do know that they are not short of money. Their vehicles, communications equipment and weapons are new. Q: Do you think that the Taleban will win the war? Can Afghanistan really become a democratic country with the help of the West? Ramon Garway, Monrovia, Liberia I am short of a perfect crystal ball, Ramon. The Taleban were under-rated by everybody in the late 90s but they took most of the country. As it stands the war is unwinnable for Nato. Afghans say the West has had five years to install a functioning democracy and Afghanistan is still waiting. Q: Is it justifiable and correct to speak of the Taleban as one cohesive force? How do they perceive themselves in terms of identity? Finally, did you ask them whether they know Osama bin Laden and what was their reaction? Daniel Maier, Stuttgart, Germany Apart from the main Taleban under Mullah Omar, still their leader, there are a number of other militias based in the tribal areas of Pakistan who have an ability to operate. But his central force is the strongest. I did not meet anyone who has met Osama, and they claim he was only a guest. Q: Are the Taleban happy with the Afghanistan borders as they stand? Charles Trimnell, Bournemouth, UK The Durand line, the Afghan border, is not a major issue for them - nor indeed a problem . They can cross it at will, and never really agreed with it. (When I was crossing it once about 10 years ago on the main road, we had to wake up a customs officer to put a stamp I needed in my passport, only because I would need the exit stamp for the next time I went into Afghanistan. There is no more porous border on the planet) Their hero is Ahmed Shah Durrani, who first united Afghanistan in the eighteenth century. The exact border is immaterial. Q: Are the Taleban aware of the fact that many people in Britain disagree with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Craig Eastman, Birkenhead, UK They have no idea of any of the complexities of the debate in Britain. Q: Do the Taleban foresee a time when they will lay down their arms and stop fighting? What is their objective and can they see a time when there will be peace? Edward McCarthy, Edinburgh, UK 'Islam' means 'the way of peace'. That is their dream. But it may not be achievable in any normal human context, Edward. Rather like the dreams of communism the struggle may be as important as the result. They were very surprised that when they brought relative security to most of the country in 1996 the international community did not congratulate them. Q: Is life more bearable now, for the average Afghan, five years after the fall of Taleban? Umar Mukhtar, Kano, Nigeria It got a bit better. But it has got worse, particularly in the south. Many refugees have returned. More schools have opened. Roads have been built. But corruption, the return of the warlords, and now substantial civilian casualties have turned the debate. Five years is a long time. Five years after Germany's defeat in the Second World War, the country was transformed to the point that it was one of the founder members of the European Union - the most stable economic power bloc in the history of the world. It seems to be harder to make peace now than it was then. valkyrie valkyrie I don't want American soldiers to die out of cruelty, or because they're all bad people who deserve it (which, maybe they are and do) I want them to die so they can't kill any Iraqi soldiers, guerrillas or civilians. I voted for I condemn coalition soldiers and want them to get their asses kicked by Iraqis and/or insurgents, obviously. valkyrie
Bin Laden was not an employee of the CIA. He was funded by Saudi millionaires, whereas CIA money was funnelled through the Pakistani Intelligence service to their own proxies - of whom Bin Laden was not a member.
The CIA did fund Afghan warlords who have killed considerably more people than Bin Laden however.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
The important thing to remember is not that the CIA gave money to one man or not, it's that they funded hundreds others like him, who subscribed to Islamic fundamentalism. Burken "I support the coalition troops 40% [ 10 ]"
Damn I get disgusted to see that result. Didn't think this was a Swedish poll,
but what da heck, it's the same crap were ever you go I guess. valkyrie
Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying. scot1870
I haven't read all 5 pages of this but correct me if I'm wrong, the mass killing in Iraq is being done by Muslims against Muslims just now isn't it? Do you think that would stop were the coalition to leave? shafique
It certainly won't get any better with the troops there - everyone now agrees they are part of the problem, and that things are worse for ordinary Iraqis now then before the invasion.
The mass killings are occuring as a direct result of the mess made to the Iraqi infrastructure by the US led invasion.
and to compound the tragedy, all of this was predicted by many countries who opposed the invasion.
Cheers,
Shafique jabbajabba And a lot of this is because the top dog was taking out. As evil as he was - Saddam kept order with a rule of fear and he was more then willing to mame and torture anyone who questioned or posed a threat to his rule. Now he is gone all the disputes and resentments are being settled again. My answer is that i would like to see an immediate withdrawl and I loath bush and blair for putting troops there in the first place - but bush and blair are just puppets to multi-nationals but no one seems to consider this. As for valkrie and co who would like to see troops killed (when most of them do not even want to be there in the first place) - you are merely another part of the problem - 'division and hatred ' and no better then bush and blair or shell / BP etc etc. You are no better then someone who would take pleasure from seeing an Iraq insurgent killed. You have made the biggest mistake which is grouping people under the assumption that they all support the ethos of their government or the worlds corporate powers. valkyrie
The equivalent of Germans who did what they could to not get stationed at the Death Camps, cursed Hitler, but still fought in his wars. Tough situation, buddy, but you’re on the wrong side. scot1870 Edit: I'll rewrite later, too much idiocy on here. freza Scot, you don't get it do you? Iraq is refusing to be the colony of the US/UK. So why don't they take their oil and leave? Oh, but they're not there for the oil, they're there to spread democracy (hahaha). Well guess what? The democratic consensus says: Invaders Go Home. jabbajabba
:)
This was just the kind of answer I expected from you,
Quote the only sentence you can take a flimsy poke at such as the above (surely you can do better then that and be half as6sed to propose a comparison founded in reality).
I have finally sussed you and what you crave.......
Attention.
Poor little man. Bogus-Borgas Iraq is refusing to be the colony of the US/UK. WE CAN SOON FIX THAT LITTLE PROBLEM :lol: asc_26
You say little problem? How? 8) scot1870
We don't want them to be a colony, we washed our hands of that sort of thing many moons ago :wink: Bush wanted some stability in oil, but more importantly for him he wanted to do what his dad didn't do and there's no doubting he made a mess of it.
My primary beef is with the people on here saying it's OK to want Western people to die whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that the main conflict is between Muslim sections and it would have come to a head at some point. It should also be noted that there exists the power and influence in other Middle Eastern states to appease the situation (maybe not stop entirely), but they stand by and do nothing.
Nobody deserves to die, not Iraqis, soldiers nor insurgents. People who continue to wish death on people are part of the problem as they refuse to accept any peaceful way out. Withdrawal of the UK and US (which they are working towards) will not stop the killing, so who will be your scapegoat then? freza scot, The reality is that Iraqi on Iraqi bloodshed of this magnitude would not be happening if it weren't for the foreign invasion. That blood is on the hands of the invaders as much as it is on the hands of the Iraqi death squads and criminals. (And there's a lot that we don't know, info that is not being reported about who really is behind some of the death squads).
The whole wishing violence on others thing is irrelevant. Wishing harm on someone doesn't translate into much does it? The problem is the action behind a wish. I don't see your type decrying the thousands upon thousands of deaths of "alleged" insurgents so why do you complain about someone wishing harm on the (should I remind you) illegally invading forces?
What/who is stopping the killing NOW? The invaders are pretending to care about the future of Iraq if they withdraw ... oh my ... why aren't they caring about the present? As if we should believe liars. I don't buy into that, I don't believe illegal invaders who lied to their people and tried to lie to the world (the rest of the world knew better, thank God). scot1870 [quote="freza"]scot, The reality is that Iraqi on Iraqi bloodshed of this magnitude would not be happening if it weren't for the foreign invasion.



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy