View Full Version : Afghanistan - the Stewart file
I think that everyone here with any unanswered questions on Afghanistan - and I am sure there are many of us here on the Org - might like to consider this seminal analysis. If only because it outlines the likely policy that Obama will adopt, or in fact is already adopting in Afghanistan.
This should put to bed the current acrimonious discussion on the Org.
Of course it is in nobody's interest to create a 20+ page posting marathon. So should we not place a limit on the number of postings here on this subject? By placing a limit on debate we would simply be following democratic procedures to be found in democratic assemblies throughout the world.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23562
I enclose some biographical material on Stewart and a (much!) condensed version of his opinions.
http://www.radioopensource.org/rory-stewart-nonsense-policy-in-afghanistan/
northener
22-Mar-10, 16:06
........
This should put to bed the current acrimonious discussion on the Org.
......
Oh dear......
Of course it is in nobody's interest to create a 20+ page posting marathon. So should we not place a limit on the number of postings here on this subject? By placing a limit on debate we would simply be following democratic procedures to be found in democratic assemblies throughout the world.
Greetings rich from a gloriously sunny Edinburgh.
You can set the limit of the discussion. When you think that things have gone on long enough put a post up to the effect that you are closing the thread and then close it yourself.
Of course it is in nobody's interest to create a 20+ page posting marathon. So should we not place a limit on the number of postings here on this subject? By placing a limit on debate we would simply be following democratic procedures to be found in democratic assemblies throughout the world
This is the biggest load of old rubbish I have ever read here on .org
Debate is the word and sometimes a debate will never end and sometimes a debate will have a very short life. But whatever a debate should always try to reach a conclusion and not be limited to a number of posts.
You mean I can do that????
Kodiac, an unending debate doesn't seem to me like a debate at all. It sounds like a conversation or a dialogue or a rant. A debate has a definite beginning and ending as in a parliamentary debate. And it is clearly focused. I think the debate model could work in covering political issues.
I am surprised how close we sometimes come to th Oxford Union model of dabate where there is a leading speaker and a follow-up speaker (Fred and Stavro perhaps...) There seems to be a natural fit there and as long as we dont lose our heads we might all learn a thing or two.
Speed debating, 3 minutes and then we move on to another.......
This is the biggest load of old rubbish I have ever read here on .org
Debate is the word and sometimes a debate will never end and sometimes a debate will have a very short life. But whatever a debate should always try to reach a conclusion and not be limited to a number of posts.
Well said.
Another answer is that if you do not like thread, then don't follow it - Simple
Speed debating, 3 minutes and then we move on to another.......
Mass debating where 50 people.......
Where's my coat...:lol:
Kodiac, an unending debate doesn't seem to me like a debate at all. It sounds like a conversation or a dialogue or a rant. A debate has a definite beginning and ending as in a parliamentary debate. And it is clearly focused. I think the debate model could work in covering political issues.
I am surprised how close we sometimes come to th Oxford Union model of dabate where there is a leading speaker and a follow-up speaker (Fred and Stavro perhaps...) There seems to be a natural fit there and as long as we dont lose our heads we might all learn a thing or two.
Next time please actually read correctly what I post and not what you think I posted.
Re-read it and you will find that nowhere did I say anything about an "Unending Debate"
Also since my name is clearly posted I would have thought it would have been simple to spell correctly. I suppose then there is an excuse for you for not reading my post correctly since you couldn't read my name correctly.
Yer evil,but ever so good-kogak.:)
This is the biggest load of old rubbish I have ever read here on .org
Debate is the word and sometimes a debate will never end and sometimes a debate will have a very short life. But whatever a debate should always try to reach a conclusion and not be limited to a number of posts.
Kodiac, I didn't mean to offend you but " a debate that will never end sometimes" sounds a lot to me like an endless debate.
If my thread is "the biggest load of old rubbish you have ever heard" then you must have had a very sheltered life!
Kodiak I'm truly repentent for mis-spelling your name.
There now, is that enough.
You mean I can do that????
Yes, rich, the power is in your hands. Above the first post of your thread there will be 4 boxes on the right hand side of the screen. The first says 'Thread Tools'. Click on it and then check 'close thread' and hit the 'Perform Action' button. Good luck. :)
This must be the most off topic I have ever strayed!
But thank you, Canuck - I now have the poison pill I can crunch down on when the bullying gets too much for me to bear.
I enclose some biographical material on Stewart and a (much!) condensed version of his opinions.
http://www.radioopensource.org/rory-stewart-nonsense-policy-in-afghanistan/
Stewart says ".. In fact the lesson of the last seven years is that Osama Bin Laden prefers to be in Pakistan than in Afghanistan, in part because Pakistan is a more established state and because Pakistani state sovereignty prevents US Special Forces from operating freely in their territory.."
Yet today it was reported that "..Missiles fired by a suspected US drone have killed at least five people in north-western Pakistan,."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8579350.stm
So if America is bombing in Pakistan, where is Bin Laden going to be rumoured to be next.
My money is on Iran
Stewart says ".. In fact the lesson of the last seven years is that Osama Bin Laden prefers to be in Pakistan than in Afghanistan, in part because Pakistan is a more established state and because Pakistani state sovereignty prevents US Special Forces from operating freely in their territory.."
Yet today it was reported that "..Missiles fired by a suspected US drone have killed at least five people in north-western Pakistan,."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8579350.stm
So if America is bombing in Pakistan, where is Bin Laden going to be rumoured to be next.
My money is on Iran
Bin Laden died in December 2001.
It was on the news http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html
That can't be right. Why else would NATO spend billions of pounds, and sacrifice thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civillians chasing a ghost.
Tubthumper
22-Mar-10, 21:36
Bin Laden died in December 2001.
It was on the news http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html
That can't be right, Fox are part of the Bush/Blair/Cheney Zionist conspiracy axis. Isn't that so??
Or do they get it right when it suits the purposes of those who get moist when they think they 'know'?
Iran may be a perilous hiding place for Bin Laden (if he is still alive). Historically speaking, the Persians - as fire worshippers - have never been allies of Pakistan and the relationship of their revolution to the Arab world has been throughly soured by the war with Iraq.
On the ground, in Afghanistan, the question is how much autonomy does SIS (the Pakistani CIA) have?
A year ago the SIS was running the show (we were told).
But now the USA and their allies on top of things thank to their drone capacity.
How long can that last? Long enough for the USA and the alies to scarper?
Rory Stewart, who is probably the best informed westerner and who certainly has the ear of Obama is suggesting that a military presence may be needed for years to come.
Also he is saying militarily the Taliban are on their last legs.
But the USA would say that, wouldn't they?
Ultimately this comes down to a collision of civilizations. Which means we have to look to history for the beginnings of an answer.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 22:07
"Ultimately this comes down to a collision of civilizations. Which means we have to look to history for the beginnings of an answer."
Sorry Richard I disagree- it's not that, and it's a mistake to think it so for it is nothing so serious.
It's more like the Villagers versus Frankenstein.
The Yanks created this mess back in the 1980s in a masterpiece of matched funding with the Saudis. They trained Gulbuddin Hekmatyr's forces, set up the |Taleban and pumped $6 billion into radicalising the Mujekheddin against the Soviets.
As in so many other places they created a monster which went out of control, just like Noriega in Panama, Saddam Hussein, Dinh Diem .... they never bloody learn
But this time they expect their allies to show their loyalty by getting them out of the mess - or lending legitimacy to what they do.
It ain't us versus the Muslims.
It's us versus a thing conjured up and nourished by Washington because they never never learn.
That can't be right. Why else would NATO spend billions of pounds, and sacrifice thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civillians chasing a ghost.
They haven't been looking for Bin Laden for a long time, the CIA disbanded Alec Station, the task force set up to look for him, in 2005.
Hi, John Little.
I think that history can be a help in understanding what is going on in today's Afghanistan.
But much depends on where you enter the historical narrative.
You are absolutely right to focus on the US funding of the Taliban and assorted other groups. But have they created a Frankenstein's monster?
I could argue that every post- colonial society resembles a Frankenstein's monster.
We have imperialism to thank for that.
So to use the Frankenstein metaphor is to say at onec too much and not enough.
We have imperialism to thank for that.
But beyond imperialism there are very real problems for traditional societies as they adapt to the technological genius of the West.
I thnk that's where it might repay us to look back, say, 150 years when the British were playing "the great game."
John Little
22-Mar-10, 22:36
Aye - that is true, and the memory of it taps into what the modern Taleban think of us. But Afghanistan was a pretty somnolent backwater until the Soviets went tromping in.
But yes - the roots can be traced back much further - if we had time or inclination to do so.
Point is that without cash, an industrial base and access to materiel the Taleban would wither,
And the matter will end in a fudge, like Vietnam because in the end it's actually getting in the way of what the US policy planners really wish to achieve.
I have an inkling that it's just a needle - a lever to make Russia uneasy in their own great game, but I can't quite see their ends yet.
Point is that without cash, an industrial base and access to materiel the Taleban would wither,
And the matter will end in a fudge, like Vietnam because in the end it's actually getting in the way of what the US policy planners really wish to achieve.
I have an inkling that it's just a needle - a lever to make Russia uneasy in their own great game, but I can't quite see their ends yet.
No, the Taliban wouldn't have been without cash, an industrial base and access to material they had already done a deal with the Chinese for economic aid and development. China had already started putting in a telephone system. That is what made Russia uneasy, well downright angry, which is why the plans made for the invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11 was for a joint American Russian invasion, with help from Iran and India.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
Tubthumper
23-Mar-10, 00:27
No, the Taliban wouldn't have been without cash, an industrial base and access to material they had already done a deal with the Chinese for economic aid and development. China had already started putting in a telephone system. That is what made Russia uneasy, well downright angry, which is why the plans made for the invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11 was for a joint American Russian invasion, with help from Iran and India.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
So the war was nothing to do with oil, gas pipelines or opium poppies then?
Tubthumper
23-Mar-10, 00:29
They haven't been looking for Bin Laden for a long time, the CIA disbanded Alec Station, the task force set up to look for him, in 2005.
What about these videos and voice recordings of Osama Bin Laden that keep getting released on the internet - are you now telling we can't trust anything on the internet?:eek:
So the war was nothing to do with oil, gas pipelines or opium poppies then?
Where did I say that?
What about these videos and voice recordings of Osama Bin Laden that keep getting released on the internet - are you now telling we can't trust anything on the internet?:eek:
No, I am not saying you can't trust anything on the internet.
Tubthumper
23-Mar-10, 13:19
No, I am not saying you can't trust anything on the internet.
So are you saying that we can trust everything on the Internet?
Fred, your post from the BBC about the US assembling its allies to attack Afghanistan is nearly 10 years old!
Which should put us in the mood for some history. So here is a backgrounder from Tariq Ali
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFDcGnupj8E
John Little
23-Mar-10, 16:07
Right - so the Russians invaded Afghanistan because of the Chinese telephones.
Got it
They haven't been looking for Bin Laden for a long time, the CIA disbanded Alec Station, the task force set up to look for him, in 2005.
Yes that section was disbanded:
NEW YORK - The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, The New York Times reported in its Tuesday edition. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the CIA Counterterrorist Center, the officials told the paper.
Intelligence officials said the realignment reflects a view that al-Qaida is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, as well as a growing concern about al-Qaida-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Agency officials said that tracking bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened.
Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals, the Times reported.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13699308/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13699308/)
Right - so the Russians invaded Afghanistan because of the Chinese telephones.
Got it
That got me thinking about a prog. I saw on telly recently, well several actually. The Taliban rely heavily on mobile phones for both command and control communication and in the manufacture and detonating of IEDs.
Where do they get them? I can't imagine they have an account with the local phones 4 u.
What happens to all these phones that are recycled via companies advertising currently?
(for a laugh I got a quote for my wife's £1000 Blackberry, they offered 8 quid for it) :eek:
You don't think we are inadvertently providing the phones to the Taliban?
John Little
24-Mar-10, 19:19
It would not surprise me at all if such a conspiracy exists.
However I do know that mobile phones had nothing to do with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because that was 1979...
So they were obviously hacked off about the Chinese landlines.
If they offered you £8 for the Blackberry it was they who were having a laugh! Cheeky beggars.
Right - so the Russians invaded Afghanistan because of the Chinese telephones.
Got it
No, the Russians didn't invade Afghanistan because of the Chinese telephones the Chinese didn't start installing the telephones until 2000 and I think it was the entire economic and development deal that ticked them off more than just the telephones.
As it happened Russia didn't invade Afghanistan with America, thanks to 9/11 Britain joined America and then NATO followed, if it hadn't been for 9/11 they would have though.
No, the Russians didn't invade Afghanistan because of the Chinese telephones the Chinese didn't start installing the telephones until 2000 and I think it was the entire economic and development deal that ticked them off more than just the telephones.
As it happened Russia didn't invade Afghanistan with America, thanks to 9/11 Britain joined America and then NATO followed, if it hadn't been for 9/11 they would have though.
That's interesting, Fred. Where can I find evidence that Russia was going to be an ally of the USA? I thought the whole slippery slide into blood and anarchy was a result of the US arming the Taliban and other, various, unsavoury war lords.
Hi, John Little.
I think that history can be a help in understanding what is going on in today's Afghanistan.
But much depends on where you enter the historical narrative.
You are absolutely right to focus on the US funding of the Taliban and assorted other groups. But have they created a Frankenstein's monster?
I could argue that every post- colonial society resembles a Frankenstein's monster.
We have imperialism to thank for that.
So to use the Frankenstein metaphor is to say at onec too much and not enough.
We have imperialism to thank for that.
But beyond imperialism there are very real problems for traditional societies as they adapt to the technological genius of the West.
I thnk that's where it might repay us to look back, say, 150 years when the British were playing "the great game."
Of course history gives us the players and sets the board for us, but we have the freedom to decide how to move those players around. We can follow the old 'rules' or we can be creative and find new ways of working toward peace so that all people might live fulfilling lives.
Peace would be wonderful in Afghanistan. But the only way of bringing it about is to educate the women of Afghanistan. They are going to be the great losers if we pull out.
Peace would be wonderful in Afghanistan. But the only way of bringing it about is to educate the women of Afghanistan. They are going to be the great losers if we pull out.
You are preaching to the converted. I've long held the opinion that the education of the women of Afghanistan (and any country for that matter) is vital for the renewal of our world.
You are preaching to the converted. I've long held the opinion that the education of the women of Afghanistan (and any country for that matter) is vital for the renewal of our world.
That makes so much sense.
Peace would be wonderful in Afghanistan. But the only way of bringing it about is to educate the women of Afghanistan. They are going to be the great losers if we pull out.
Education is very important, propaganda doesn't work too well on people who can't read.
However I don't think it is the most important factor when it comes to peace. I think the greatest threat to peace is foreigners marching into a country with guns and pushing the locals about. History has shown that the people always resent it and it never leads to peace.
Education is very important, propaganda doesn't work too well on people who can't read.
However I don't think it is the most important factor when it comes to peace. I think the greatest threat to peace is foreigners marching into a country with guns and pushing the locals about. History has shown that the people always resent it and it never leads to peace.
I suppose we could cherry pick episodes in history where women have had some influence at least. At this stage I need to remember that Mdm Laforge (spelling?) was a creation of Charles Dickens in a Tale of Two Cities. She's the rather bullying lady who sits by the guillotine knitting shrouds. Was there any truth behind the fiction? I consulted Simon Schama's book-Citizens - and he points out the march on Versailles where the royal family was snatched and taken back to Paris was done by an exceptionally violent contingent of viragoes at the head of the mob.
And of course Charlotte Corday, the assassin of Marat was no shrinking violet.Nearer home is our own dear former commander in chief, Mrs. Thatcher....
But the question remains - should we pronounce the situation hopeless and scuttle away from Afghanistan abandoning the socially progressive elements in the country?
Would that not be morally reprehensible?
I suppose we could cherry pick episodes in history where women have had some influence at least. At this stage I need to remember that Mdm Laforge (spelling?) was a creation of Charles Dickens in a Tale of Two Cities. She's the rather bullying lady who sits by the guillotine knitting shrouds. Was there any truth behind the fiction? I consulted Simon Schama's book-Citizens - and he points out the march on Versailles where the royal family was snatched and taken back to Paris was done by an exceptionally violent contingent of viragoes at the head of the mob.
And of course Charlotte Corday, the assassin of Marat was no shrinking violet.Nearer home is our own dear former commander in chief, Mrs. Thatcher....
But the question remains - should we pronounce the situation hopeless and scuttle away from Afghanistan abandoning the socially progressive elements in the country?
Would that not be morally reprehensible?
After the crime we committed in invading them I don't think we can use the excuse of morality to stay there.
Do you honestly think the band of corrupt war lords and drug barons we put back in power are morally superior to the Taliban? Do you think the women of Afghanistan are better off with the government that legalised rape?
Don't you see, it's pointless teaching the women of Afghanistan how to write till we teach the men in the west how to read.
http://www.malalaijoya.com/index1024.htm
After the crime we committed in invading them I don't think we can use the excuse of morality to stay there.
Do you honestly think the band of corrupt war lords and drug barons we put back in power are morally superior to the Taliban? Do you think the women of Afghanistan are better off with the government that legalised rape?
Don't you see, it's pointless teaching the women of Afghanistan how to write till we teach the men in the west how to read.
http://www.malalaijoya.com/index1024.htm
I certainly hold no brief for the warlords. And, Fred, neither do you. I think though that you may be excessively pessimistic. Surely it is a fine thing for women to be empowered by literacy! What for example, in the event of a scuttle, would become of that brave lady in the Afghan assembly in the material you sent to this thread?
My feeling about this is that we in the west are recipients of some extremely successful propaganda from the USA and the UK (I'll leave the Canadians out of it....for now.) There are after all a couple of cities in Afghanistan, (and cities are always incubators of freedom) internet access is providing an alternative to the official line yet all we see and hear in our mainstream media is doom and gloom.
So I guess I am going to have to repeat my question. What do we do with the socially progressive elements in Afghanistan? We need some clear thinking here which is why I called this thread the Stewart files since he seems to suggest a solution - or the beginnings of one.
I look forward to your comments.
I certainly hold no brief for the warlords. And, Fred, neither do you. I think though that you may be excessively pessimistic. Surely it is a fine thing for women to be empowered by literacy! What for example, in the event of a scuttle, would become of that brave lady in the Afghan assembly in the material you sent to this thread?
She will set about the slow task of reforming Afghanistan from within, it will take time but it will be reforms the people of Afghanistan can accept and they will be reforms that will last.
They don't want Western culture forced on them at the point of a gun.
All the west wants is an excuse to keep troops in Afghanistan for ever which means the people of Afghanistan will never stop fighting them. We gave the Afghan women eight and a half years of living in a war zone, don't you think we've done enough to them?
I applaud your sentiments about long term prospects for Afghan politics because I share them.
However the last thing Afghanistan needs at the moment is (yet another!) civil war.
It may be that we are throwing our hands up in despair a bit prematurely.
On the bright side the US and the allies are protesting that they are not in negotiations with the Taliban. Of course they are! In fact it seems to be the case that right now in Afghanistan everyone is talking to everyone else (along the Irish/Ulster model)
I find that encouraging. The sudden removal of one of the players would throw this progress right out the window.
After the crime we committed in invading them I don't think we can use the excuse of morality to stay there.
Where do you get this idea that NATO invaded, NATO was asked by the Afghanistan Government of the day to assist, with the Taliban, and fred try to remember it is Afghanistan not Tabalistan, the Taliban are considered to be the insurgents not NATO.
I applaud your sentiments about long term prospects for Afghan politics because I share them.
However the last thing Afghanistan needs at the moment is (yet another!) civil war.
It may be that we are throwing our hands up in despair a bit prematurely.
On the bright side the US and the allies are protesting that they are not in negotiations with the Taliban. Of course they are! In fact it seems to be the case that right now in Afghanistan everyone is talking to everyone else (along the Irish/Ulster model)
I find that encouraging. The sudden removal of one of the players would throw this progress right out the window.
Reply With Quote
Well yes, they had a civil war after the withdrawal of the Soviets and the Taliban won because the Taliban had the support of the Afghan people. If America had accepted that the attacks on their embassies and USS Cole were a direct result of their imperialism, their building American bases in Saudi Arabia, if they had not been so heavy handed with the Taliban Afghanistan could be a stable country well on it's way to reform now.
But America chose the jack boot approach and the women of Afghanistan are the ones paying for it, they can look forward to permanent war or a long war with a civil war at the end of it then starting again from where they were in 1989.
Well yes, they had a civil war after the withdrawal of the Soviets and the Taliban won because the Taliban had the support of the Afghan people. If America had accepted that the attacks on their embassies and USS Cole were a direct result of their imperialism, their building American bases in Saudi Arabia, if they had not been so heavy handed with the Taliban Afghanistan could be a stable country well on it's way to reform now.
But America chose the jack boot approach and the women of Afghanistan are the ones paying for it, they can look forward to permanent war or a long war with a civil war at the end of it then starting again from where they were in 1989.
I'm sorry, Fred, but I find it doubtful that the Taliban ever had the support of the Afghan people en masse. Also I can't share your scenario about the results of a US withdrawal.
In this type of discussion one has to resist the temptation to play the role of armchair general. (A temptation to which I am prone!) But if I read you correctly you are saying that the result of a US withdrawal would be a long war with a civil war flung in at the end of it.
That is a dire prediction. It begs the question, could things be any worse if the US and its allies remained in Afghanistan?
Perhaps we should be lookinig a little more closely at the diplomatic options.
I'm sorry, Fred, but I find it doubtful that the Taliban ever had the support of the Afghan people en masse. Also I can't share your scenario about the results of a US withdrawal.
In this type of discussion one has to resist the temptation to play the role of armchair general. (A temptation to which I am prone!) But if I read you correctly you are saying that the result of a US withdrawal would be a long war with a civil war flung in at the end of it.
That is a dire prediction. It begs the question, could things be any worse if the US and its allies remained in Afghanistan?
Perhaps we should be lookinig a little more closely at the diplomatic options.
For as long as we stay in Afghanistan Afghanistan will be a war zone, they will not give in and they can't be beaten. The Taliban isn't a unit with a head, it is a lot of small independent regional units all self contained, they raise their own finances and provide their own weapons and food. Kill a leader they elect a new one. They can't be beaten and as long as foreign troops are in Afghanistan they will fight them and innocent civilians will be killed.
Yes the Taliban did get to power with the support of the people because they protected the people from the corrupt war lords and drug barons. The Taliban laws might have been strict but they were better than the alternative, those in power could do anything they liked to anyone they liked with impunity. The girls might have to wear veils and not go to school but they could take a bus ride without getting raped at a checkpoint. People could sleep in their beds knowing that the Taliban were out guarding the roads into the village against marauding bandits. When you live in a lawless society you welcome any law as how strict and you welcome anyone who can enforce it. Then the Taliban were students, students of theology, now their ranks have been swelled by anyone who wants to see foreign troops off Afghani soil and they will continue to swell with every innocent civilian we kill.
For as long as we stay in Afghanistan Afghanistan will be a war zone, they will not give in and they can't be beaten. The Taliban isn't a unit with a head, it is a lot of small independent regional units all self contained, they raise their own finances and provide their own weapons and food. Kill a leader they elect a new one. They can't be beaten and as long as foreign troops are in Afghanistan they will fight them and innocent civilians will be killed.
Yes the Taliban did get to power with the support of the people because they protected the people from the corrupt war lords and drug barons. The Taliban laws might have been strict but they were better than the alternative, those in power could do anything they liked to anyone they liked with impunity. The girls might have to wear veils and not go to school but they could take a bus ride without getting raped at a checkpoint. People could sleep in their beds knowing that the Taliban were out guarding the roads into the village against marauding bandits. When you live in a lawless society you welcome any law as how strict and you welcome anyone who can enforce it. Then the Taliban were students, students of theology, now their ranks have been swelled by anyone who wants to see foreign troops off Afghani soil and they will continue to swell with every innocent civilian we kill.
Fred, could you give me a source for the above?
Fred, could you give me a source for the above?
www.talibanprweareniceguysreally.tv (http://www.talibanprweareniceguysreally.tv)
Here is a video that adds a human dimension.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXYJrUEoxU&feature=fvw
Fred, could you give me a source for the above?
Which bit?
Fred, I'm sorry, it was the whole thing - more or less. Dont worry about it. Ducati answered but his connection doesn't work.
Fred, I'm sorry, it was the whole thing - more or less. Dont worry about it. Ducati answered but his connection doesn't work.
Ducati as usual was not being serious. Whenever I point out that the truth about the Taliban and the propaganda are not the same I get accused of being a Taliban sympathiser and claiming that the Taliban are all saints.
Finding the entire story all in one place isn't easy, if you want to spend some time and watch this documentary it's more accurate than most.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ_SaGIPe94&feature=fvw
Fred, I'm sorry, it was the whole thing - more or less. Dont worry about it. Ducati answered but his connection doesn't work.
Sorry rich, I think the web site was taken down. Usual thing, lack of advertising revenue :(
The Drunken Duck
25-Mar-10, 23:25
Sorry rich, I think the web site was taken down. Usual thing, lack of advertising revenue :(
I heard it will be back up once those nice caring Taliban have a whip round. Or rather they have the villagers roundly whipped until they cough up for it.
Lovely people arent they ??, just look how nice they were to their own people when they were in power .. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/stories-of-taliban-atrocities-spread-as-villagers-flee-over-the-front-line-616396.html
I heard it will be back up once those nice caring Taliban have a whip round. Or rather they have the villagers roundly whipped until they cough up for it.
Lovely people arent they ??, just look how nice they were to their own people when they were in power .. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/stories-of-taliban-atrocities-spread-as-villagers-flee-over-the-front-line-616396.html
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=440
The Drunken Duck
26-Mar-10, 00:24
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=440
Typical Fred. When an article appears from an Afghan that contradicts his self proclaimed "truths" about the Taliban, from a time when NATO wasnt in country and cant be blamed, he attempts to change the subject. And this from someone who is the first to moan that other people dont debate the subject.
You have never been to Afghanistan Fred, you've never met a Taliban. Your "truths" are nothing more than what you chose to believe from your diggings on the Internet. If you were to tell me the sky was blue I would go outside and check for myself.
Please go back to ignoring me, I prefer it.
Typical Fred. When an article appears from an Afghan that contradicts his self proclaimed "truths" about the Taliban, from a time when NATO wasnt in country and cant be blamed, he attempts to change the subject. And this from someone who is the first to moan that other people dont debate the subject.
You have never been to Afghanistan Fred, you've never met a Taliban. Your "truths" are nothing more than what you chose to believe from your diggings on the Internet. If you were to tell me the sky was blue I would go outside and check for myself.
Please go back to ignoring me, I prefer it.
I don't recall saying I was ignoring you, I seem to remember you saying you were ignoring me.
Here are more truths from my diggings on the internet, the cause of much of the troubles in the world including those of Afghanistan, the reasons the Taliban came into being in the first place.
http://www.truthout.org/have-a-nice-world-war-folks57985
Boozeburglar
26-Mar-10, 01:14
I don't recall saying I was ignoring you, I seem to remember you saying you were ignoring me.
Here are more truths from my diggings on the internet, the cause of much of the troubles in the world including those of Afghanistan, the reasons the Taliban came into being in the first place.
http://www.truthout.org/have-a-nice-world-war-folks57985
Why do you need to dig on the internet to know what is going on?
Why do you need to dig on the internet to know what is going on?
The internet is a great source of knowledge.
No one can be everywhere, personal experience can only represent an extremely infinitesimal amount of what goes on in the world from the corridors of Westminster and the White House to the streets of the poorest war torn countries. Only by accessing lots of information from a lot of different sources can you start to get a grasp on what is really going on. I can know what is happening half way round the world as it happens yet I haven't a clue what is happening in the next house or the next village.
The internet gives us that ability, it is a leap forward as great as the invention of the printing press, I have all the information of all the libraries and newspapers of the world at my finger tips in my own home.
I think the people who knock it are the people who want to push their own agenda and discredit every one else's.
Boozeburglar
26-Mar-10, 01:51
I am not knocking it.
I have spent twenty years on this.
I am pre internet on this.
Just asking if you really need the internet on this.
I am not knocking it.
I have spent twenty years on this.
I am pre internet on this.
Just asking if you really need the internet on this.
To know that having armed forces half way round the world in another country trying to run the lives of people with an entirely different culture to us is wrong.
I don't need the internet to tell me that.
To know that having armed forces half way round the world in another country trying to run the lives of people with an entirely different culture to us is wrong.
I don't need the internet to tell me that.
Well that is hardly breaking news. Why do you expect it to change now?
As far as the internet giving more (accurate) info.
than previously available, that is just wrong. The motivation behind information uploaded to blogs & websites is rarely questioned. The vast majority of information I have accessed is at best opinion at worst propaganda driven by a particular person or group's agenda.
The internet hasn't created any new information, it has just put it where you increasingly can't trust it.
Another example: the "Allies" have the same access as anyone else but think back the Second WW. The sort of news bulletin you heard every day compares Allied to Axis losses (usually favourable to the Allies) but now all you hear about are rare mistakes and Allied casualties.
Less information, not more.
Another example: the "Allies" have the same access as anyone else but think back the Second WW. The sort of news bulletin you heard every day compares Allied to Axis losses (usually favourable to the Allies) but now all you hear about are rare mistakes and Allied casualties.
Rare mistakes? I read about civilian casualties in Afghanistan every day.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121638§ionid=351020403
Even though, as can be seen from the link I posted from a reporter, the military go to great lengths to see they aren't reported.
Who in WWII could read the German papers and the papers of the neutral countries as well every day?
Rare mistakes? I read about civilian casualties in Afghanistan every day.
Of course you do, that's exactly my point. But you don't find Press TV (for instance) reporting on Allied successes. Or for that matter the violation of Iranian citizen's human rights.
Didn't see this on Press.TV:
The European Union will put pressure on Iran to stop jamming satellite broadcasts from the BBC and other international channels.
Iran has been blocking news channels broadcast into the country from a French satellite following widespread anti-government protests there. But it is not yet clear exactly what action the EU will take.
A statement from the EU foreign ministers said they would act to end the "unacceptable situation". "The EU calls on the Iranian authorities to stop the jamming of satellite broadcasting and internet censorship and to put an end to this electronic interference immediately," a statement from the EU foreign ministers said. In February three major international broadcasters strongly condemned Iran for its "deliberate electronic interference" in their broadcasts.
The BBC, Deutsche Welle and Voice of America said the jamming began as Iran marked the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8579719.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8579719.stm)
Thank you for the video material - I think it runs to 10 parts.
I thought it was a nicely balanced piece although I haven't yet got beyond part 4.
Where we differ, I think, might be in the conclusions we draw from recent Alghanistann history.
That's why I posted the piece about musicians and women.
I am not sure what the legal definition is of a just war but one that sees the forces of ignorance stoning women and attacking musicians leaves me in little doubt what side I am on. Who will the Taliban pick on next - university professors, feminists, Muslim theologans, poets, novelists, concert promoters, restaurant owners - the list could go on and doubtless will.
But the young people interviewed in the piece I posted looked to me like a sign of hope - green shoots in a desert of ignorance and violence.
As you surely remember, I have repeatedly asked your opinion about the role of women and socially progressive people in Afghanistan.
Now I am not attacking you - I am simply perplexed - by the unrelenting pessimism you have about the future of Afghanistan, pessimism that is delivered perhaps from a comfortable armchair in some suburban nirvana like Morningside
I think this pessimism of yours is unearned. There are people in Afghanistan who could well be pessimists yet they are not. They live in a world in which one can dare to be free and that of course means they are optimists.
History is a very difficult area but there are a couple of points I wouild like to take up with you (as soon as my boss stops bugging me for copy!)
And of course my last post was to Fred. (In case trhere was any doubt!)
I am not sure what the legal definition is of a just war but one that sees the forces of ignorance stoning women and attacking musicians leaves me in little doubt what side I am on. Who will the Taliban pick on next - university professors, feminists, Muslim theologans, poets, novelists, concert promoters, restaurant owners - the list could go on and doubtless will.
You are looking at it from a western perspective. Many of the laws introduced by the Taliban were their Pashtun tribal laws, the people in the remote areas have lived under these laws for generations, central government has little influence on them.
Take a woman from rural Afghanistan and bring her to Britain, take her into any newsagents and show her the magazines on full display there, she'll be begging to be on the next plane back. She will be just appalled and when she gets back to Afghanistan she will tell the other women people in the west are evil. Take her to a city centre on a Saturday night at turning out time and see if she doesn't prefer to be back in her village in Afghanistan.
They don't all succeed
(dated 25th March 2010)
Locals pelt, slash Afghan suicide bomber to death
A suicide bomber wearing a vest laden with explosives was killed by locals Thursday in eastern Afghanistan before he was able to detonate, police said.The incident occurred in the Muqur district of Afghanistan's Ghazni province, according to Kheyal Mohammad Sherzai, a police chief in the province.
The suicide attacker was from Pakistan's Warizistan area, authorities said.
The people who intervened in the incident pelted the man with stones and slashed him with knives and were able to kill the man and give the suicide vest to police.
– Journalist Matiullah Mati contributed to this report.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/locals-pelt-slash-suicide-bomber-to-death-in-afghanistan/ (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/locals-pelt-slash-suicide-bomber-to-death-in-afghanistan/)
You are looking at it from a western perspective. Many of the laws introduced by the Taliban were their Pashtun tribal laws, the people in the remote areas have lived under these laws for generations, central government has little influence on them.
Take a woman from rural Afghanistan and bring her to Britain, take her into any newsagents and show her the magazines on full display there, she'll be begging to be on the next plane back. She will be just appalled and when she gets back to Afghanistan she will tell the other women people in the west are evil. Take her to a city centre on a Saturday night at turning out time and see if she doesn't prefer to be back in her village in Afghanistan.
Fred, you raise an important point.
With imperialism there also comes modernity. The modern world offers a host of advantages to tribalism. Think of painless surgery, antibiotics, extended life spans, education a world of art and music for the asking.
These are things which the Taliban is determined to deny to its people.
And I speculate that here in Canada many Afghan women - dare I say most - would prefer to stay. For one very good reason. They can watch their children grow and thrive without being recruited into a vicious war.
Take a woman from rural Canada. She is just as easily sickened by the offerings at the city news stand.
Education should give her the tools to make the discernment to avoid or reject the tabloid gospel. What she most certainly should realize is that there are other aspects to a healthy life.
Here's a point I want to make from history. Let's compare Afghanistan to Scotland in the late 17th century. There are many parallels.
(What follows is based on the Scottish Enlightenment web site. )
Seventeenth-century Scotland was mired in superstition and religious intolerance. Men and women were accused of witchcraft, tortured, tried and executed. Blasphemy was punishable by death.
.
In 1697 an 18-year-old university student named Thomas Aikenhead stood at the gallows in Edinburgh. He had been found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death.
At his trial it was said that Aikenhead had ‘ridiculed the Holy Scriptures’ and claimed that they were ‘stuffed with madness, nonsense, and contradictions’. He had called the Old Testament ‘Ezra's fables’ and said that Christ was an ‘imposter’ who had ‘learned magick in Egypt’ so he could ‘perform those pranks which were called miracles’.
Thomas Aikenhead pleaded for mercy and took back everything he had said. The Lord Advocate James Stewart called for the death penalty. Stewart condemned Aikenhead for ‘shaking off all fear of God’ and for venting ‘wicked blasphemies against God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
When Aikenhead was found guilty the Lord Advocate stated ‘you ought to be punished with death... to the example and terror of others.’
Does that sound like Taliban values?
Of course it does.
Yet ten years later the Scottish Enlightenment was underway and Scottish thinkers were on the way to a peak of human intellectual acheivement.
Could we not hope for a similar intellectual odyssey from the Afghans?
I am closing this thread as of 10:30 eastern standard time this coming Monday 29th
That should give you time to find someone who can figure out Grennwich Mean Time!
It should also give us all time to get our last words in.
Cheers, it's been fun.
I am closing this thread as of 10:30 eastern standard time this coming Monday 29th
That should give you time to find someone who can figure out Grennwich Mean Time!
It should also give us all time to get our last words in.
Cheers, it's been fun.
rich you realize of course that you are living in eastern daylight savings time these days while the UK is still on standard time. For the next few hours there is a 4 hour time change. But after we observe the earth hour on Saturday evening we will reset the clocks here so that by Sunday and thus Monday there will be a 5 hour time difference again. We shall watch for the big closure of the thread, but please don't phone me if you cannot get it to work. I need my beauty sleep.
Could we not hope for a similar intellectual odyssey from the Afghans?
No, that is not what anyone wants, not America, not Russia, not India, not Pakistan, not Iran and not Israel.
Everyone wants to keep the Afghanis poor, ignorant and oppressed.
No one wants to see Afghanistan emerging as a modern power with an economy, an intellectual middle class, top research scientists, political influence and ambitions like Iran has since they escaped the west's political influence. They want to keep Afghanistan under the boot like Palestine.
As long as they can use the women of Afghanistan as a lever to sell death and destruction in the same way they sell soap powder they will succeed.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=121725§ionid=3510203
Tubthumper
27-Mar-10, 11:47
So we're back to 'THEY' again... :roll:
A tremendous improvement in women's social, economic and political life has been noted in Paktya [Afghanistan] over the past ten years. "Comparing 2001 to 2010, there has been tremendous improvement in women's social, economic and political life. During the Taliban regime, women were not able to participate in public meetings, or even leave their houses when they wished. Today, 50 per cent of women are enjoying their rights in Paktya," said Mahira Ahmadzai, head of Afghan Women Education Centre (AWEC).
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EGUA-83CQNG?OpenDocument (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EGUA-83CQNG?OpenDocument)
Canuck, don't worry - in threadland all times are approximate!
[QUOTE=fred;682034]No, that is not what anyone wants, not America, not Russia, not India, not Pakistan, not Iran and not Israel.
Everyone wants to keep the Afghanis poor, ignorant and oppressed.
No one wants to see Afghanistan emerging as a modern power with an economy, an intellectual middle class, top research scientists, political influence and ambitions like Iran has since they escaped the west's political influence. They want to keep Afghanistan under the boot like Palestine.
As long as they can use the women of Afghanistan as a lever to sell death and destruction in the same way they sell soap powder they will succeed.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=121725§ionid=3510203[/QUOTE
Fred, your concern for the people of Aghanistan does you credit. However I don't see what anybody gains by keeping rural Afghanistan in the Stone Age!
The USA has no real interest in being in Afghanistan, the Russians are long gone, the Canadians have one foot out the door - as you imply it is a complete shambles. So whose interest is at stake here?
Surely if one wanted to make money out of the plight of Afghanistan then building an urban superstructure, with a realistic legal and economic system would be a number one priority.
Perhaps I am missing something....Reply soon - time is running out....
John Little
27-Mar-10, 16:57
"Everyone wants to keep the Afghanis poor, ignorant and oppressed."
Yeah! Let's get 'em...
No, that is not what anyone wants, not America, not Russia, not India, not Pakistan, not Iran and not Israel.
Everyone wants to keep the Afghanis poor, ignorant and oppressed.
No one wants to see Afghanistan emerging as a modern power with an economy, an intellectual middle class, top research scientists, political influence and ambitions like Iran has since they escaped the west's political influence. They want to keep Afghanistan under the boot like Palestine.
As long as they can use the women of Afghanistan as a lever to sell death and destruction in the same way they sell soap powder they will succeed.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=121725§ionid=3510203
Eh I don't, but if that is the aim of some, then I know a few who could easily fit in.
On the "ambitions" of Iran, do you think these will be of benefit to the World Fred? Perhaps you would care to explain to others what Irans ambitions are?
Is that 'nuclear ambitions '?
[QUOTE=fred;682034]
Fred, your concern for the people of Aghanistan does you credit. However I don't see what anybody gains by keeping rural Afghanistan in the Stone Age!
The USA has no real interest in being in Afghanistan, the Russians are long gone, the Canadians have one foot out the door - as you imply it is a complete shambles. So whose interest is at stake here?
Surely if one wanted to make money out of the plight of Afghanistan then building an urban superstructure, with a realistic legal and economic system would be a number one priority.
Perhaps I am missing something....Reply soon - time is running out....
Of course America has an interest in being in Afghanistan, it is of huge strategic importance. It borders with the old Soviet satellite states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to the north, China to the east, Iran to the west and Pakistan to the south. Whoever has military bases in Afghanistan controls the entire area.
It is of huge economic importance, it could be the regions centre of commerce. Whoever controls Afghanistan controls the trade routes, the pipelines from the oil and gas rich Caspian to the emerging economies of China and India. Afghanistan is itself a very rich country when it comes to oil, gas and other natural resources, a goldmine largely untapped in just the right place to feed the industries of the east. And it produces over 90% of the world's heroin supply.
By rights they should be one of the richest countries in the world with a great deal of political clout so why aren't they and why aren't they going to be?
A tremendous improvement in women's social, economic and political life has been noted in Paktya [Afghanistan] over the past ten years. "Comparing 2001 to 2010, there has been tremendous improvement in women's social, economic and political life. During the Taliban regime, women were not able to participate in public meetings, or even leave their houses when they wished. Today, 50 per cent of women are enjoying their rights in Paktya," said Mahira Ahmadzai, head of Afghan Women Education Centre (AWEC).
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EGUA-83CQNG?OpenDocument (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EGUA-83CQNG?OpenDocument)
Here are some women who's social, economic and political lives we didn't do too much for.
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=1844
[quote=Fred;682130]
Afghanistan is itself a very rich country when it comes to oil, gas and other natural resources, a goldmine largely untapped in just the right place to feed the industries of the east. And it produces over 90% of the world's heroin supply.
I thought Afghanistan had essentially negligible petrochemical resources
Here are some women who's social, economic and political lives we didn't do too much for.
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=1844
Was this written by an Afghan woman? or a 'peacemaker' site?
Was this written by an Afghan woman? or a 'peacemaker' site?
Here is a link to some Muslim women protesting about their right to an education and religious freedom.(wmv file).
mms://217.218.67.244/presstv/20100328/OUTPUT_05-01-00-FTP-ANNA-BRUSSELS.wmv
I thought Afghanistan had essentially negligible petrochemical resources
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav090306.shtml
John Little
28-Mar-10, 12:51
"Afghanistan is itself a very rich country when it comes to oil, gas and other natural resources"
Your words.
"The release of new estimates showing that Afghanistan may possess substantial reserves of oil and gas"
The article you cite.
Bit of a difference.
Tubthumper
28-Mar-10, 13:33
It becomes apparent that a lot more could be done to sort out the Afghan situation, by decent people in the west and the arab world with the right motivations and support. And of course a mandate.
So who can we think of who could step forward, gain a mandate through a democratic process, improve the situation and the plight of these people?
Is there anyone locally who has the answers? Anyone with the time and the willingness to research and comment? Anyone who is not afraid to put their opinion forward, and who has the best interests of the oppressed at heart?
I think we should have a poll.
But how to frame the question?
Any ideas, Fred?
Perhaps something along the line of "IS THE COLD WAR OVER?'
"Afghanistan is itself a very rich country when it comes to oil, gas and other natural resources"
Your words.
"The release of new estimates showing that Afghanistan may possess substantial reserves of oil and gas"
The article you cite.
Bit of a difference.
Tend to agree with John Little "Estimates of oil range from 0.4 to 3.6 billion barrels (BBO), with a mean of 1.6 BB0." does not make Afghanistan a very rich country when it comes to oil"
Tend to agree with John Little "Estimates of oil range from 0.4 to 3.6 billion barrels (BBO), with a mean of 1.6 BB0." does not make Afghanistan a very rich country when it comes to oil"
The oil and the gas and the coal plus the iron and the copper should provide a tidy income.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0924455620100309?type=marketsNews
John Little
28-Mar-10, 16:51
This remind me a bit of Joseph Chamberlain's idea of Imperial preference; using the resources of the British empire to make the old country rich. Ernest Bevin had the same idea in 1947 about retaining our African possessions for the same reason. But in both cases it was a fallacy because if you want to get stuff out then certain conditons have to prevail.
You need infrastructure, a trained workforce, specialist plant and vast amounts of development capital. It may well be that Afghanistan 'may' prove to have vast wealth in future but anyone investing there at this time would need their heads examined. And they may have to put more in than what they get out....
And anyway since all this stuff appears to be quite new discoveries I do not think they can be seen as the cause of the original invasion. Seems to me that good old corporate capitalism could have done that job better - use of force is expensive and inefficient at achieving this sort of exploitation. Neo Colonialism is much better than Imperialism at gaining its ends/
Tubthumper
28-Mar-10, 19:42
But to whom will the Afghan Government award the licenses to find and recover said natural resources? Who will take on the risks attendant in working in that hostile environment, who would assist in the provision of expertise in order to help the Afghani people realise some benefit from their natural resources?
Companies from the USA? Or Russia? China even? What about Canada? The UK?
Aaldtimer
28-Mar-10, 19:53
But to whom will the Afghan Government award the licenses to find and recover said natural resources?
Short answer...whoever bribes them the most! :confused
Was this written by an Afghan woman? or a 'peacemaker' site?
Here are some more Afghan women giving their opinions.
http://www.rawa.org/index.php
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.