Afghanistan

[Durgan]

A two page article about the conflict in Afghanistan.

This is a two page article closely typed describing the conflict in Afghanistan by some-one who was there. I suggest it will demolish a lot of the main line media propaganda.

Durgan.

Much of Afghanistan is now in a state of chaos and civil war. There is no such thing as peace-keeping in the country. The war will rage on indefinitely and in time the entire Afghan population will rise up to throw out the foreigners. Rather than wait for that, the Americans and all their supporters should get out, totally – in the way that they should get out of Iraq. Although it’s the Americans that created the disaster to begin with – in both countries -- it seems it will have to be the indigenous people to somehow resolve the problems.

And when it comes to Canada, what are the Canadians doing pulling American chestnuts out of the Afghan fire?

--John Ryan, Ph.D., is a retired professor of geography and senior scholar at the University of Winnipeg in Canada. He can be reached at [email protected]

[killjoy]

A two page article about the conflict in Afghanistan.

This is a two page article closely typed describing the conflict in Afghanistan by some-one who was there. I suggest it will demolish a lot of the main line media propaganda.

Durgan.

From the link: "Political Affairs.com - Marxist thoughts Online".

I'm convinced. That's a source that would never tell a 'story'.

jdobbin.

Canada is now committed to 2009-2010. We'll have to decide what level of success we'll accept in Afghanistan and what level of failure. If we have this same argument in 2010 about the deployment, it will be very sad indeed.

OMG. Nobody could ask for more patience than that. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear killjoy,

I think you guys misunderstand the meaning I attribute to my question.

My point is that we are at war with the Taliban (by proxy of NATO) because they attacked, or supported/helped attack one of our NATO member states.

Indeed, I am in agreement here. However, from Margolis' quote and your reply...

QUOTE

US and NATO forces are not fighting `terrorists,’ as their governments claim. They are fighting the Afghan people.

Complete and utter transparent lie and anyone can see that

It isn't exactly a lie. The vast majority of Afghanis that are fighting now were never part of that gov't we sought to 'do war upon'. Most of them could care less how the people of the West live their lives, they only care about how it affects them in the immediate. They might be called 'terrorists' because they use guerrilla tactics (and I'm not talking about suicide bombs, but rather the 'hit&run mortar attacks, etc. that the Muj used against the Soviets)

now, but they are not fighting the same fight we started. They aren't trying to re-install the Taliban, or any other gov't that seeks to commit attacks on the West (though they probably would like an Islamic fundamentalist rule), they are seeking to rid their land of the 'alien forces' that are trying to drastically change their way of life, especially away from their religiion. It seems that if anyone fights against the Nato forces, they become labelled 'Taliban', probably the number one reason there are so many 'Taliban' still left.

If we stay we are at war.

Indeed, and if you leave, this particular war of occupation will end.

If we leave we will still be at war, and in all likelihood be going back there within 10 years or less at, most likely, a MUCH higher cost than we are even paying now.

Then staying or leaving becomes less important. To 'stay and finish the job' means what, exactly? The only thing that will eliminate religious fanatacism in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) is genocide. Or God.

Maybe it's time we started understanding that this is, indeed, a "real war" and not just a peacekeeping mission where we can stay or go at our leisure?

It sure isn't a 'real war' by any stretch. Even some on the extreme right-wing must feel that Afghanistan is a small, over-valued tussle with only one of the many heads of the Hydra. (Funny that the Hydra was from Argolis...)

[killjoy]

theloniusfleabag

It isn't exactly a lie. The vast majority of Afghanis that are fighting now were never part of that gov't we sought to 'do war upon'. Most of them could care less how the people of the West live their lives, they only care about how it affects them in the immediate. They might be called 'terrorists' because they use guerrilla tactics (and I'm not talking about suicide bombs, but rather the 'hit&run mortar attacks, etc. that the Muj used against the Soviets)

now, but they are not fighting the same fight we started. They aren't trying to re-install the Taliban, or any other gov't that seeks to commit attacks on the West (though they probably would like an Islamic fundamentalist rule), they are seeking to rid their land of the 'alien forces' that are trying to drastically change their way of life, especially away from their religiion. It seems that if anyone fights against the Nato forces, they become labelled 'Taliban', probably the number one reason there are so many 'Taliban' still left.

We're going to have to disagree there. I think this image is being superimposed with Iraq. This isn't Iraq. I admittedly do not have any links at the moment but a very high proportion of the ones caught are Pakistani, Pakistani criminals and older Afghan Taliban that in all likelihood escaped the first time. It's undoubtedly true that they do get recruitment from Afghan nationals even now but even that contingency must be viewed relatively. That is to say recruitment, car bombs, roadside bombs...all of these things are going to be around for quite a while. Maybe even after we leave and there is, hypothetically, a reliable, stable self governing body there capable of continuing on it's own. The question will always be one of intensity. Admittedly the intensity is pretty bad at the current moment but I would remind that this coincides with Pakistani forces extensively playing the anvil (or hammer) and pushing them back from 2001/02. This may seem slow but that's the course of events: We pushed them in, Pakistan pushed them back and in between they had a fair bit of free travel in between, or put another way they can never stop moving.

Also this increase coincides with a recent agreement with Pakistan to extend Waziristan to native Taliban in return for a cessation to their interdiction with Afghanistan. IOW, that would mean, if they were true to their word, that it would be time for all Afghans who wish to stay to cross asap into Afghanistan and stay there. Thus an increase. on a side note I've always been hopeful about diplomacy with the Taliban because unlike al Qaueda or insurgents you have a body that can actualize an agreement whereas with an insurgency or terrorist cells there can be no guarantee.

In short I dispute the level of Afghan nationals, and reinforce the idea that levels of recruitment are a given but must be considered based on relative level.

Indeed, and if you leave, this particular war of occupation will end.

Certainly we always have options. I agree. However remember that the Afghans do not. Their fate is on the wind.

Then staying or leaving becomes less important. To 'stay and finish the job' means what, exactly?

Giving the nation enough time to develop in a protected incubator rater than a power vacuum. Just my opinion.

It sure isn't a 'real war' by any stretch. Even some on the extreme right-wing must feel that Afghanistan is a small, over-valued tussle with only one of the many heads of the Hydra. (Funny that the Hydra was from Argolis...)

This is what I'm pointing at. It's not a 'real war' right now. You're right obviously. Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban and give them time and we'll see how far it goes. These things have a tendancy to go as far as eitehr side wants them to. Again: What is Right wing? I don’t care what the 'right wing' says.

Harper today said our soldiers died fighting 'evil'. He's full of shit. There is no pretty face to fighting. Many of those evil Taliban are simply young men caught in a very bad situation. The terrible thing about a conflict is the only thing that makes you 'deserve death' is that you picked up the rifle in the first place. That law goes unbroken whether you're a 'good' person or a 'bad' one. Many of the Taliban are simple bullies, and if this were a movie they'd all 'deserve' it. Many of them are simple shepards, farmers, orphans. Many just don't feel there's any other way. Again: that's how cookies crumble. It doesn't change the lesser of two evils, and conflict is never a victory any more than it was a defeat of diplomacy before it began.

.

[Wilber]

Much of NATO is letting the rest down, particularly Germany and France as they have the means to make the biggest difference.

I'm a little suprised no one picked me up on the fact France doesn't belong to NATO.

[Charles Anthony]

Much of NATO is letting the rest down, particularly Germany and France as they have the means to make the biggest difference.

I'm a little suprised no one picked me up on the fact France doesn't belong to NATO.

Just out of curiosity, was that a mistake or are you baiting yourself now?

[Argus]

URL to the article

Afghanistan: Time for Truth 18 September 2006

Durgan.

by Eric Margolis

Foreign Correspondent

Always nice when someone reposts something which has already been posted (properly, ie, linked) by someone else and the discussion has ended.

For the record, Margolis is an Arabist. Nothing he says can be relied on. He is entirely predictable and has said nothing for the last five years which was not consistently fawning of Arab honour, manhood and bravery, and contemptuous of the West and all its efforts.

Second, the "respected Senlis" council. No one knows who or what they are. Could be one teenager with a web site. No one has heard of them. There's nothing about them on the internet prior to the last couple of months and all on drugs and afghanistan. Who are they? Who is paying for them? What is their motivation?

Without that, their "report" is worthless.

[Wilber]

Much of NATO is letting the rest down, particularly Germany and France as they have the means to make the biggest difference.

I'm a little suprised no one picked me up on the fact France doesn't belong to NATO.

Just out of curiosity, was that a mistake or are you baiting yourself now?

[/quote

I knew they weren't, they bailed in the late fifties I think but it was a brain fart. Must be getting old.

[Durgan]

The NDP has an easy to send petition at

Pertition to Parliament

Durgan.

[Argus]

The NDP has an easy to send petition at

Pertition to Parliament

Durgan.

I guess they have to do their best to make it as easy as possible, you know, considering if it was very hard their supporters would never be able to figure out how it works.

[Durgan]

A two page article about the conflict in Afghanistan.

This is a two page article closely typed describing the conflict in Afghanistan by some-one who was there. I suggest it will demolish a lot of the main line media propaganda.

Durgan.

From the link: "Political Affairs.com - Marxist thoughts Online".

I'm convinced. That's a source that would never tell a 'story'.

Suppose your house was on fire and you were down the street around the corner and somebody ran up and said, "Your house if burning". I assume by your reply to the post that you would dismiss the fire report if you didn't like the person reporting.

Personally I never even looked at the Marxist bit at the head of the post. I read the article looking for defects from my knowledge about the country, taken from many sources. I suggest the report is a close as anyone can get to the facts about the mess in Afghanistan.

Shooting the messenger doesn't solve problems or enlighten.

Marxism is dead for all intents and purposes throughout the world. The new ism is "Terrorism", since it appears the West must always have an ism in their sights.

Durgan.

.

[Argus]

Suppose your house was on fire and you were down the street around the corner and somebody ran up and said, "Your house if burning". I assume by your reply to the post that you would dismiss the fire report if you didn't like the person reporting.

It's not a matter of not liking. It's a matter of the person not only being famously dishonest, but more than a little nuts.

[killjoy]

Suppose your house was on fire and you were down the street around the corner and somebody ran up and said, "Your house if burning". I assume by your reply to the post that you would dismiss the fire report if you didn't like the person reporting.

incorrect analogy. The real analogy is there's a freak in the neighborhood who is constantly running up to people's houses in the middle of the night, trying to wake them up and convince them their house is on fire when it's not.

Should I run out of my house every time someone is pulling my leg or cries wolf? I don't "like" the story because it's blatantly lying and if you cut the rhetoric and bombastic exaggeration and loaded analogies and mis-truths and half-truths you'd end up with about 2 sentences of nothing.

Personally I never even looked at the Marxist bit at the head of the post.

That's too bad because they're always telling the same story: all war is a war against the people (which it isn’t except in the most meaningless way [i.e. obviously all who fight are people]), unless it's a Marxist war.

I suggest the report is a close as anyone can get to the facts about the mess in Afghanistan.

Shooting the messenger doesn't solve problems or enlighten.

I see. No, this story is as close to the 'fact's you find believable...mostly because of other stories like this. You have no idea, nor do you have any intention of really thinking about it. Allow me to prove it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So many articles and opinion pieces out there with out any logic or basis in reality at all and people just eat it up.

Example, from the Globe the other day:

"Why are we in Afghanistan? It's not so Afghan girls can go to school. Or so there can be free elections. Or so the drug trade can be stopped. If any of those reasons fit, Canadians should be fighting in Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan, or half a dozen other countries where tyrants hold power over their people."

Probably one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in print, and I've been to Alabama. People read that, think about it for about 1 second and say to themselves, "That makes sense".

But it doesn't. That's like saying the police and the crown prosecutors and our entire legal system isn't in place to stop/catch/punish murderers or rapists or thieves at all. It's all a big farce. What's the proof of that? Well there are still those who get away with those crimes of course. It's so 'obvious'.

It's not a logical argument at all and a complete non sequitur actually, but so few scrutinize it for even a second. Many others don't even care if it's true or not, they're simply responding to their 'rage-against-the-machine' culture of peer pressure. What would their picculi-smoking girlfriends think if they didn't tow the 'alternative radio' line? So much easier just to go with the flow - "CIA createed OSama"..."Afghanistan is pointless"...I mean who cares if it's true or a lie? They're living the great '60's myth...protestin' and more protestin'. Truth is malleable to them and really has no place in their fashion. Plenty of time to be "right wing" when they get out of school, get married and start making money.

Or how about: "There's no way Afghanistan, a nation of heavily divided warlords, tribes and sects can ever live peacefully in a democracy."

People say something like that on a political forum and they're laughed at because everyone knows if you simply go two countries to the East there's India and a living example that proves that statement wrong. People read it in a news paper, and since the medium is the message, there MUST be something to it, right? Few question it and many just absorb it because it's better than really thinking. Better to lease, broker or steal an opinion than construct a rational one yourself, or so it is for most people. Someone was asked to write a story to fill some space and presto! There's a 'story'.

Or how about: "Afghanistan can never be a stable nation because it never has historically"

Sounds logical, right? It isn't. Again, people read that in a news paper or maybe on a blog and they think it makes sense, but it doesn't does it? People barely question it if it's printed but there is no logical or historical basis to support that statement. World wide history and social evolution proves the idea that just because, 'something that has never happened before means it'll never happen', is completely stupid. I guess we never have to worry about full out nuclear war then, eh? I mean it's never happened so....Womens rights? Never happend before so....Abolish slavery? Never gonna happen.

That's not critical thinking, that's moving with the sheep. The REAL sheep. Just because it's printed doesn't mean a thing you still have to scrutinize, analyze and even visualize yourself. Especially when the writer is so O B V I O U S L Y bias and pandering to a specific crowd. I don't agree with everything someone like Gwen Dyier says but at least he's level-headed.

They used to scoff at the Afghan Army when it was less than 1000 and there was no recruitment. Now it's at 35000 and 2000-3000 recruits a month. Guess what? The media doesnt write about the ANA any more. I wonder why.

.

[Durgan]

There are several people on this thread, who continually attack the messenger. It contributes little or nothing to a debate. How about reacting to the statements. Silly one line comments mostly.

Durgan.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear killjoy,

Or how about: "There's no way Afghanistan, a nation of heavily divided warlords, tribes and sects can ever live peacefully in a democracy."

"Afghanistan can never be a stable nation because it never has historically"

Sounds logical, right? It isn't. Again, people read that in a news paper or maybe on a blog and they think it makes sense, but it doesn't does it? People barely question it if it's printed but there is no logical or historical basis to support that statement

Actually, I have a book by Robert Kaplan called "Soldiers of God: With the Mujahideen in Afghanistan" (the first one, evidently there was a second) about the Pathans (who comprised about 50% of Afghanis) fighting against the Soviet occupation. The main focus was a man called Abdul Haq, a real 'go-getter' but devout Muslim and fierce Pathan warrior. (Interesingly, he was later to meet both Reagan and Thatcher, and was sent in to Afghanistan by the CIA at the beginning of the mission to oust the Taliban, only to be captured and hung.)

The ways of the tribesmen are often beyond both logic and 'western' comprehension. On women, from pg 49 of the book.

"Here are three Pathan proverbs:

Women have no noses. They will eat shit.

One's own mother and sister are disgusting.

Women belong in the house or in the grave.

This isn't just 'more ignorant than Alabama', this is an entirely different world.

Regarding Pathans and their commitment to idealism (even if it is illogical), Kaplan writes about Ahmad Shah Massoud, the "Lion of Panjshir", who had aroused the wrath of the Pathans for a temporary truce between his Northern Alliance and the Soviets in 1983. (Also notable is that Massoud was assassinated by 'Al Queda' 2 days before "9/11'. )

Kaplan writes...(on pg 41)

Tactically speaking, the cease-fire was smart, but it certainly wasn't the way the mujahidin were going to drive the Soviets out. The Pathans would never have considered something so logical and prudent as a temporary truce. It would have been an affront to both their manhood and to Pukhtunwali, their code of honour, whose supreme precept is badal---revenge.

So Massoud was the exception to the general reason the Soviets were losing the war: because the wild, quixotic, completely unreasonable mentality of the Pathans, to whom the whole notion of tactics was anathema because it implied distinctions, and Pathans at war thought only in black and white.

So, while you may be right in criticizing the notions of those who say 'change can't happen', I would argue that while it may, it certainly will not be done by force of arms. It will not be done the way the US is trying to do it, nor the way NATO continues to do it, and I don't think Canada should waste any more troops trying to 'do the right thing' the wrong way.

[Rovik]

The NDP has an easy to send petition at

Pertition to Parliament

Durgan.

I guess they have to do their best to make it as easy as possible, you know, considering if it was very hard their supporters would never be able to figure out how it works.

I really don't take you seriously because of the way you attack individuals or groups that don't agree with your own views. There are many on this forum that I disagree with but I won't call them dumb, stupid or idiotic. In your case, there have been several times that I considered your views as either misguided, prejudiced because of your right-wing leanings or just plain wrong (in my opinion) but I have never considered you either dumb or stupid.

Anyhow, I believe that the NDP have brought up several valid points that need to be addressed and if a online petition can help to put pressure on getting answers then so be it. Of course, it might not help at all but at least no one can say that they didn't try.

[uOttawaMan]

Break out the cookie passing berets...

[killjoy]

theloniusfleabag

Thank you for reading all of that.

The ways of the tribesmen are often beyond both logic and 'western' comprehension. On women, from pg 49 of the book.

...

This isn't just 'more ignorant than Alabama', this is an entirely different world.

Ok first off Kaplan has a nasty delusion for thinking the West is Shangri-la and can do no wrong, while everyone else from Africa to China are hopeless savages, practically sub-human. He’s an ardent believer in modern US colonialism at some points and a foe of it then next. He's the kind of guy who thinks 'shock and awe' is the 'best thing for them'. He defends the US war on the Natives and says this about Iraq:

Kaplan's book Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground was published in October 2005. In it, Kaplan tells of US Special Forces on the ground across the globe in Iraq, Colombia and Mongolia. Kaplan predicts that the age of mass infantry warfare is probably over and has said that the conflict in Iraq caught the U.S. Army in between being a "dinosaur" and a "light and lethal force of the future." Kaplan sees large parts of the world where the US military is operating as "injun country" which must be civilized by the same methods used to subdue the American Frontier in the 1800s. At one point he observes a Filipino and says that: "His smiling, naïve eyes cried out for what we in the West call colonialism."

So I'm not so sure he's a great source for your argument, but I'll go along with it:

Where are the Mongols now? Where is the Japanese empire in China? How are the Hindus now compared to the way they saw the world 200 years ago? That they are from a 'different world' is an ironic metaphor, to me, because they are in the same world and the same people and you can already see the growing similar causes and effects in progress. The separation between the urban and cosmopolitan; between the rural and the old. They are changing in the same direction and with the same pangs the rest of us have and likely will in the future. Change is an omnipresent constant in human social development. This is the most threatening thing to the extremists from Tehran to Islamabad, even more than 'smart' bombs. It's not going to go away. It's not going to stop.

It also doesn’t change my point that pure dis-information is being blatantly plastered on any front page just to push a few more quarters, not to keep people informed or to spread the 'truth'. I also stick to my point that people buy it and get an erroneous picture of whets going on. The point that you're getting what you say here from a book and not a paper is not lost on me.

So, while you may be right in criticizing the notions of those who say 'change can't happen', I would argue that while it may, it certainly will not be done by force of arms. It will not be done the way the US is trying to do it, nor the way NATO continues to do it, and I don't think Canada should waste any more troops trying to 'do the right thing' the wrong way.

This is another myth. Democracy at gun point. I'm sorry but this just isn't. When the UN sends forces to protect food shipments are we forcing people to eat at gunpoint? No. People want the food. But the food won't get there without the protection right?

There is no occupation in any true sense of the word. There is no real use arguing that either. If you disagree then we disagree. If they wanted us gone, not even the majority mind you, just a large minority, or even 25% really wanted us gone now, then we'd already have been forced to leave. You say it can't be done if there are guns to protect, but sometimes it needs the help. You know what can be done at gunpoint? The subjugation of the many by the few which is what will happen. The majority is more than willing to see this out if only some of the other pressing problems could be addressed. The vast majority of Afghans don’t want the Taliban (and the Arabs and the Saudis and the Pakistanis) anymore than they want the soviets back.

The point remains also, what happens when the Taliban return? They're just going to forget the little war they declared on the West? The one they declared before 9/11? Will just be forced to go back in 10 years to kick them out again? How many civilians will die in that 'shock and awe'?

What's really historically ironic here is that Pakistani's, saudis, Arabs and Iranians and all of their money came to Afhganistan to 'liberate them from the Soviets' only to turn around an occupy as the Taliban, imprison them, subjugate them and drain them for all the heroine they're worth while taxing the farmers to kingdom come. NATO goes in to kick them out and try to keep them out to see if Afghanistan can actually stand on it's own two feet or not (and it's looking like they'd like to) and we're the 'occupiers'. Supposedly we're the ones trying to force our ways on them. Tell that to the women. No one like insecurity but they're not as stupid as your writer seems to think.

I just want to reintegrate that I respect your opinion. It's not as though I think you don't have reason to believe what you do. I just disagree.

.

[killjoy]

There are several people on this thread, who continually attack the messenger. It contributes little or nothing to a debate. How about reacting to the statements. Silly one line comments mostly.

Durgan.

Debate? Messenger? all you did was cut and paste an article and that's it. That doesn't even make you a messenger, the author was. Oh and you offered a weak metaphor.

What i did was give a thought out and relevant opinion. That you don't acknowledge that the 'message' that you cut and pasted may be false is irrelevant. That you think that's an attack is even more so. That you think what I wrote isn't debating is very telling. That you seem to think the 'medium is the message' is not a valid point is really too bad.

Frankly I was 100% right about every point I made about the media, the way it operates and the disruptive effect it has on popular perception and I’ll bet my right arm I can find writers, journalists and editors that would all back me up.

.

[Durgan]

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is on his propaganda mission to Canada. He smother Canadian's with thanks.

A dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds him.

Meanwhile in the country Canada is helping to rebuild, you know 's women rights, etc; the Karzai Government has a new ministry complete with a cabinet minister, sort of like Stockwell Day. Guess what the new ministry is called? I will give you the answer. The Department of Vice and Virtue. Guess what this department, which was abolished when the Taliban were bombed our of Kabul, does. But I will leave the answer to the pundits on this this to fill in the details.

The US is on a mission to impose world order, and Canada has decided to grab Uncle Sam's coattails under the Harper CPC's.

The mission is on the line according to Harper's UN speach yesterday. They must re-build Afghanistan. Might I remind you mindless supporters of this mission, that Canada was involved in the Congo and Gaza about 40 or 50 years ago. I spend 18 months of my life on these UN missions in the Army. I feel cheated, because those two places are still disaster areas. Afghanistan will be exactly the same. Take some time off reading you comic books, and check in as to what is going on in Haiti these days. Another Canadian mission! but they are blacks so probably don't count in the new world order.

Suddenly, Harper according the the rhetoric is going to re-build a country that had nothing to begin with. This country is about equal to Canada in population, approximately 30 million. Dream on boys.

I will finish with a quote.

"No one has deputized America to play Wyatt Earp to the world". Patrick J Buchanan in a letter to President Munroe in 1823.

Yes! I copied and pasted that one like I did the article previously to enlighten the ignorant, who unfortunately wish to remain so.

Durgan.

[killjoy]

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is on his propaganda mission to Canada. He smother Canadian's with thanks.

A dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds him.

Meanwhile in the country Canada is helping to rebuild, you know 's women rights, etc; the Karzai Government has a new ministry complete with a cabinet minister, sort of like Stockwell Day. Guess what the new ministry is called? I will give you the answer. The Department of Vice and Virtue. Guess what this department, which was abolished when the Taliban were bombed our of Kabul, does. But I will leave the answer to the pundits on this this to fill in the details.

Again you see the surface elements and miss the real and accurate state of affairs.

People try and make a big deal about them choosing to base their laws on Shia law. So what? Every land in the region does that from Pakistan to Arabia. They each have their own version. This is NOT the same as the Taliban version of the Hudood Ordinance from Pakistan influence that is harsher than the Afghans ever wanted. Go look up Hudood Ordinance, o'bringer of truth.

They are not the same. Again you read a few words in a paper and expect to grasp a region history and all the nebulous factors of their society from a couple of paragraphs and use the typical, "That sounds about right to me" fallacy of logic.

If you did not know about the Talibans Pakistani influence and their version of the Hudood Ordinance in Afghan society then I would suggest you start doing some studying of those influences and the vast differences what the Taliban was actually doing and the way the afghans want to live, even if it has similarities to a Westerner, before you start claiming you're bringing light to the ignorant. You read 3 paragraphs and you know everything you need to know apparently.

lol.

.

[jdobbin]

People try and make a big deal about them choosing to base their laws on Shia law. So what? Every land in the region does that from Pakistan to Arabia. They each have their own version. This is NOT the same as the Taliban version of the Hudood Ordinance from Pakistan influence that is harsher than the Afghans ever wanted. Go look up Hudood Ordinance, o'bringer of truth.

They are not the same. Again you read a few words in a paper and expect to grasp a region history and all the nebulous factors of their society from a couple of paragraphs and use the typical, "That sounds about right to me" fallacy of logic.

The Americans after they removed the Taliban eliminated the the Department of Vice and Virtue law as it stood. There has been alarm in NATO that the re-instated law could be used by the Taliban to strike fear again in the public. Certainly the persecution of religious converts with the threat of the death penalty doesn't garner much support from NATO quarters.

[Durgan]

date='Sep 22 2006, 06:25 PM' post='136312']

durgan Afghan President Hamid Karzai is on his propaganda mission to Canada. He smother Canadian's with thanks.

A dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds him.

.

I think I read somewhere probably one of your posts that History is irrelevant or something to that effect, anyway it is on this thread.

Maybe a little background will help you. This historical story might influence your thinking, but it takes a bit of time to read. Not your usual fare I am sure.

FIELD-MARSHAL LORD ROBERTS V.C.

Start at Chapter CHAPTER XLIX if you attention span is short.

Durgan

[Durgan]

Hudood Ordinance is simply punishments for sex, alcohol and theft in many Mulim countries. Sort of the Law of the Land. NATO is fighting to ensure these laws are respected. Its called Democracy, Muslim Style. After all there are many forms of Democracy as practiced in the world today.

This is similar to the CPC Harper crusade about fighting crime. Just a little more effective than what Canada can tolerate. Judging from some comments on various threads I assume many in this country would like to see similar laws incorported in Canada.

It tends to keep the silent majority in line.

Durgan.

[killjoy]

Hudood Ordinance is simply punishments for sex, alcohol and theft in many Mulim countries. Sort of the Law of the Land.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about. And you aren't even willing to spend 30 seconds to learn.

No it is NOT "simply punishments for sex and alcohol in many Muslim countries". You are mixing that up with Shia law which is EXACTLY what I said. Thank you for not only showing me you have no idea about it but you aren't willing to do a 30 second Goggle search to find out what it actually is. It seems scrutinizing the details and getting informed on the subject isn't your highest priority.

The Hudood Ordinance is exclusive to Pakistan and represents and entire division within the country as politicians move back and forth between making it law and trying to take it off the books.

Please read, O' "Enlightener of the Ignorant":

The Hudood Ordinance is a law in Pakistan, intended to implement Muslim Shari'a law, which enforces punishments mentioned in the Quran and sunnah for a number of crimes. It was enacted in 1979 as part of then military ruler Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization process.

The Ordinance is most criticized for criminalizing all extra-marital sex (zina), and making it exceptionally difficult and dangerous to prove an allegation of rape. A woman alleging rape is required to provide four adult male witnesses of "the act of penetration", and if the accused man is Muslim, the witnesses must be Muslims themselves. Failure to prove rape places the woman at risk of prosecution for adultery, which does not require such strong evidence[1].

For married Muslims, the maximum punishment for zina is death by stoning, or for unmarried couples or non-Muslims, 100 lashes. In practise, only imprisonment has ever been enforced, because the maximum punishments require four eyewitnesses as above.

The Hudood Ordinance also criminalises drinking alcohol (punishment: 80 lashes) and theft (punishment: amputation of the right hand).

A number of international and Pakistani human rights organizations are making an effort to get the law repealed. However, they are opposed by conservative religious parties, who accuse the government of departing from Islamic values. The governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif both set up commissions to investigate the Hudood Ordinance. Both commissions recommended amending certain aspects of the law, but neither government followed through. In 2006, president Musharraf again proposed reform of the Ordinance[2]. On September 13th 2006, a bill was delayed in parliment that would make rape prosecutable as a civil offense, falling under civil law. If the bill passes, rape will be able to be tried under Islamic and civil law, as opposed to just civil [3].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinance

Still think the Hudood Ordinance is "simply punishments for sex, alcohol and theft in many Mulim countries"?

Do your homework. There is no substitute for the details, pal.

1. It is exclusive to Pakistan.

2. It is harsher and more culturally centered with Pakistan than Afghans traditional laws. Taliban exporting Pakistan influence, just as I said.

3. Subsequently, as I said, the Afghan implementation of Shia law in no way equals what the Taliban were doing which was exporting and FORCING Afghanistan to live under a cruel set of laws that wasn't theirs, wasn't part of their culture and IS inherent to the philosophy of the Taliban, NOT Afghanistan.

Which is E X A C T L Y what I said, O' great and wise bringer of light to the ignorant.

Here is some more background about the Taliban and their Hudood Ordinance connection, if you're willing to learn:

It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan due to her support. Bhutto and the Taliban were openly opposed to each other when it came to social issues. According to the Taliban codes, as a woman she had no right to be in power. The Pakistan military, however, were insistent and Bhutto agreed to provide support. Also she saw the Taliban as a group that could stabliize Afghanistan and then allow economic access to trade with Central Asian republics. Her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even as far as sending the Pakistani army into Afghanistan. The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

.