Having read the stuff on the link provided, you...

Published by *DUST* on 5 July, 2005 - 03:50
54 posts / 0 new
Post reply
Last post
Submitted by You on 10 July, 2005 - 17:19

"100" wrote:
I don't know if he's lying, Admin. I know he's into Revival.

lol.

from what the guy said, he is generally a likeable person. He is/was an optimist.

He spoke a lot of truth (especially the fact that alot of Afghanistans problems are due to foreign meddling).

However as he mentioned the taliban council, that may have had alot of people who were not as forward thinking and practical. I found the following to be very true though:

Quote:
Everybody knows about the statues. For us, we are surprised, that the world is destroying our future with economic sanctions, then they have no right to worry about our past. Everybody is saying that they are destroying their heritage they don t have any right to talk about that. They are destroying the future of our children with economic sanctions, how are they going to justify talking about our past?
—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by *DUST* on 10 July, 2005 - 18:42

"100" wrote:
In the links, the senior advisor to Mullah Omar makes the case.

and who usually makes the case against the Taliban? ...some journalist who hasnt ever been to Afghanistan? or President Bush maybe...? i've heard all those views before 100, and i was drawn to reading the link because of views expressed by those journalists who had actually been to Afghanistan whilst the Taliban were in power.

the link provides info which comes "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak. i'm sure historians would tell u its quite reliable, as a primary source... Wink

—

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

Submitted by 100 on 10 July, 2005 - 18:46

In the articles I've read people were maimed and abused routinely for petty crime and indecencies and lived in a joyless culture of fear from the authorities. I don't know if you suggest the journalists made their interviews up, but you are linking the Taliban, which obviously doesn't do it for me you know.

Submitted by laila on 10 July, 2005 - 21:03

those with close links to the Taliban and Taliban qualities live not far from my fathers place in Pakistan. They are a hardliners and have very little in common with Islam. They have drawn their lines in black and white and there is no shifting. They have a way of living that defies all sense and there is no reasoning with them.

Perhaps because of the extreme climate and environment such a breed of ple were needed to maintain order. i make no judgement whether they were good or bad as leaders i do not think it is my place to make such silly and flippant judgements as a westerner.

for our western eyes also only see black and white

Submitted by You on 10 July, 2005 - 21:10

The taliban were too harsh.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by You on 10 July, 2005 - 23:53

"100" wrote:
In the articles I've read people were maimed and abused routinely for petty crime and indecencies and lived in a joyless culture of fear from the authorities. I don't know if you suggest the journalists made their interviews up, but you are linking the Taliban, which obviously doesn't do it for me you know.

Its always possile to find people who do not like what is happening around them.

Go to any country, look around and there will be people with stories to tell. As a journo, you ask the righjt questions to hit the notes you want them to hit.

Regarding therecent happenings in Afghanistan; I did mention that currently not even the capital is fully secure.

It a war down there. You expect casualties. Even if its the police who have been brutally murderred.

And then you can expect a 'guided' custer bomb to add insult to injury and kill more people, mostly civillians. Thats what happend last week, when US command announced they had destroyed a Taliban hideout, but upon confirmation it was a house full of civillians. 17 of them. Murdered.

Shit happens.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by 100 on 11 July, 2005 - 01:46

What is your view if any on who should rule Afghanistan at this moment? I don't have one but a secure democracy would satisfy me that the country is unlikely to be oppressed.

Submitted by muslim_kuri on 11 July, 2005 - 10:33

iv just finished reading Yvonne Ridley's 'In the hands of the Taliban' and it fascinated me that they treated her so well...despite the bad reputation that they've got, they treated Yvonne Ridley with respect...so personally i think that they cant have been all bad

Submitted by 100 on 11 July, 2005 - 13:27

[size=16][url= Afghan-Arabs Part 1[/color]
[img] Asharq Al-Awsat has obtained a rare manuscript entitled, ''The Story of the Afghan-Arabs: From the Entry to Afghanistan to the Final Exodus with Taliban'', written by a man who lived in close proximity to the most important moments of the drama. The ... [/color][url=

[url= Afghan-Arabs Part 2[/color]
[img] The author of the book which is based on the Afghan-Arabs, from their arrival in Afghanistan until their departure after the collapse of the Taliban regime, reveals secrets and mysteries of Al-Qaeda Shura Council meetings and exposes the ways in which ... [/color][url=

[size=16][url= Afghan-Arabs Part 3[/color]
[img] In this part, the author of the book focuses on the overall political atmosphere following the arrival of Osama Bin Laden in Jalalabad in 1996 and the failure of Mullah Omer in silencing Bin Laden, who is obsessed with the international media. The author ... [/color][url=

[url= Afghan-Arabs Part 4[/color]
[img] The book by the first theoretician of Al-Qaeda entitled ''The Story of the Afghan-Arabs: From the Entry to Afghanistan to the Final Exodus'' which Asharq Al-Awsat obtained from a fundamentalist source, talks of his experiences within the organization ... [/color][url=

Submitted by You on 11 July, 2005 - 21:47

"100" wrote:
What is your view if any on who should rule Afghanistan at this moment? I don't have one but a secure democracy would satisfy me that the country is unlikely to be oppressed.

My views of what may succeed in Afghanistan.

1. It does not have to be a democracy. Too many people get caught over this fact. Democracy can just as easily be subverted. Instead of being a choice from the best, it generally becomes a choice between a lesser of two (or more) evils.

2. A strong sound constitution.

3. preferrably a federal system, where each ethnic group has its own geographic province, and lead minister.

4. Ruling council with the ministers of each province with a 'president', vice 'president' and heads of various departments: 'military advisor', 'finance', 'education', 'religion', and more.

Before the taliban, there was a rotating presidency set up with each faction involved. One of the sides decided not to give up the presidency at the end of the 6 month (I think) term, rendering it useless, and resulting in civil war.

Regarding who's best; unfortunately they are all as bad, so I do not know.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by 100 on 11 July, 2005 - 22:58

Thanks Admin, I didn't know if you were going to get round to that. I'm surprised you don't consider some 'bottom-up' element, whether a local or national democracy, something that breaks from the authoritarians.

Submitted by You on 11 July, 2005 - 23:19

"100" wrote:
Thanks Admin, I didn't know if you were going to get round to that. I'm surprised you don't consider some 'bottom-up' element, whether a local or national democracy, something that breaks from the authoritarians.

lol, that was the Taliban!

In grassroots movements the leadership is (IMO) hijacked by parites with their own agenda.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by 100 on 11 July, 2005 - 23:36

I didn't say grassroots. I said incorporating some bottom-up such as democracy.

I agree, grassroots is anything and some people, doesn't mean much.

Submitted by You on 11 July, 2005 - 23:53

Democracy is not bottom-up.

It top-down with multiple choices of top.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by 100 on 12 July, 2005 - 00:11

That's what I call factoring in an element of bottom-up. The fact a choice rests with you is the only difference, but results in a totally different style of governance. It's a big difference. Regarding the top-down element, I guess that's whether you'd prefer us all to be making the law while we eat our cornflakes in the morning, and whether you'd trust us to do that, over politicians. I don't prefer that, and in any case someone's drafting the proposals. So we the citizens outsource it. That's bottom-up.

Submitted by laila on 16 July, 2005 - 21:43

"100" wrote:
That's what I call factoring in an element of bottom-up. .

thats what i call really confusing

Submitted by 100 on 18 July, 2005 - 13:55

It just means we have a vote. We vote someone to do something rather than do it ourselves.

Submitted by judda on 3 October, 2005 - 15:10

Exactly how many of u have lived under the taliban regime?

have any of you guys read the book "my forbidden face"?

aasia r u off ur head?

shall i do to u the stuff taliban did to women?

ur all a big bunch of weirdos....

—

What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…

Submitted by You on 3 October, 2005 - 21:15

"Judda" wrote:
Exactly how many of u have lived under the taliban regime?

have any of you guys read the book "my forbidden face"?

aasia r u off ur head?

shall i do to u the stuff taliban did to women?

ur all a big bunch of weirdos....

and shall I tell you what the people before the taliban did? and wha the people after them do?

Taliban were not a utopia. Far from it. They were hardline. However they were not as bad as has ocasionally been accused.

They were hardline (I am saying that again), and enforced brutally their practices. However there was law, and women had some rights. They had even less before. The warlords would previously rape and plunder. the taliban did put that to an end. They may hve been harsh against women who never covered their face... but they were equally harsh against men who never kept a ful beard.

My forbidden face? i guess its someone writing how she had to cover up? or is it something else? What does it say?

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by Dave on 3 October, 2005 - 21:21

"Admin" wrote:
and shall I tell you what the people before the taliban did? and wha the people after them do?

Taliban were not a utopia. Far from it. They were hardline. However they were not as bad as has ocasionally been accused.

They were hardline (I am saying that again), and enforced brutally their practices. However there was law, and women had some rights. They had even less before. The warlords would previously rape and plunder. the taliban did put that to an end. They may hve been harsh against women who never covered their face... but they were equally harsh against men who never kept a ful beard.

My forbidden face? i guess its someone writing how she had to cover up? or is it something else? What does it say?

My Forbidden Face pretty much counters most of these "accomplishments" you just talked about. The Talibs [i]did[/i] rape (a 15 year old girl in one instance) they did plunder by giving large tracts of land to Pakistan, they enforced strange laws such as no jogging in the street (for anybody) and beat people with television cables for doing it.

It's not just about a girl who is sad because she has to have her face covered, it's about a girl who is sad to watch her mother dying because she isn't allowed to go to a hospital, and about a girl who is sad because her teacher as well as some children (as young as nine) were killed for educating young girls in the privacy of their homes - as that was illegal.

That's not law, Admin. As a person who studies it there are a thousand reasons that is not law. It's state tyranny in its truest most Stalinistic terms.

Don't judge the book by its cover, it's a very disturbing read.

And she is the first to say that the regimes prior to the Talibs were just as bad, she talked about a regime that basically had a bloodbath in her brothers university - he had to clean up the mess and found severed bodies nailed to doors.

But she doesn't go so far as to say it's all "media hype" and wasn't "that bad."

Submitted by You on 3 October, 2005 - 21:24

what you are writing is indeed disturbing.

they were bad. However what I had read did suggest media hype. It may have been biased what i read.

I'll take the opinion of a first hand witness over mine.

So they were almost as bad as the predecessors? or just bad, with no actual comparision to those before?

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by Dave on 3 October, 2005 - 21:29

"Admin" wrote:
what you are writing is indeed disturbing.

they were bad. However what I had read did suggest media hype. It may have been biased what i read.

I'll take the opinion of a first hand witness over mine.

So they were almost as bad as the predecessors? or just bad, with no actual comparision to those before?

Really it's better to just read the book. Her description of the prior regimes are that they are as equally capricious, tyrannic, and bloodthirsty as the Taliban. Her brother was forced into the army and basically was forced into committing war crimes in a previous regime. Warlords basically fought back forward left and right (and not in the outlands like you would imagine but in the major cities). What really offended her though was that the taliban did what they did in the name of [i]her[/i] religion. She spent an entire chapter talking about how they basically conquered the mosque her family went to and arrogantly flew their flag atop it to make sure everyone understood.

As a result of the Taliban controlled not just the government but religion - these people went above and beyond other regimes, every inch of her and her family's life was controlled.

Her story is consistent with a lot of what I have read - especially about the connections to the Pakistani government.

But read it - it's a real eye opener.

Pages

Post reply