Taliban Law

Remove all ads!

It appears the Tali are up to their old tricks again:

This is what the Tali will mean for the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan if they are allowed to spead their version of "Islamic Law" throughout the region.

Pakistan is already surrendering to the Tali. And it could be bad news for our efforts in Afghanistan:

Before long we may be fighting these petty despots in Pakistan on a larger scale. But I really believe that change will have to be internal. In other words, it's their problem. It's not that I'm insensitive, but the only way to be rid of these fools is for the people who live there to stand up to them and start to take back their individual rights again from these muderous thugs. It will be painful for them, at the cost of many lives, but in the end it's their freedom -- and it's worth it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30194622/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30205074/

 

I see it as a catch-22 of sorts. Without an external presence, I don't see them changing on their own. But so far, the external presence in Afghanistan has been largely (not completely, but considerably) ineffective; I attribute this to (1) a general mis-trust of Western forces, and (2) a cultural attitude so ingrained in their society that change will be very difficult to bring about without even more external resources (not necessarily miltary). But since everyone is talking about pulling out in the next couple of years, they'll be on their own again, and I suspect the Taliban will regain control. I don't see Pakistan being much different.

 

Ah, conservatives, don't you all love them? Sounds like a martaug, Chev and Gnarff paradise.

 

Haha, ahh joacqin, i can always count on you to make me laugh.
It doesn't matter how much i dislike what you(not you as a person but just as an example) may say, i would fight to defend your right to say it.
Thats differnt from a lot of liberals in this country. If you don't agree with them then they want to shut you up or shout you down.

Oh BTW, i think we have lost gnarff to WOWcrack His last post was about being up to 11 WOW characters & having others to try.

 

I can't believe you said that, joacqin! No North American conservative that I have ever heard of or spoken to advocates the death penalty for petty crimes*. They advocate it for rape, murder, and maybe treason, but that's about it.

*Come to think of it, no NA conservative thinks that eloping is any sort of a crime!

 

Well, Cuba may be socialism let run wild and the Netherlands are liberalism without checks. The taliban is what you get when you let conservatism run loose.

 

No joacqin, you are confusing conservatism with fundamentalism.
They are two completely different things.

 

Hmmm. I would argue that the distinction between the Taliban and a North American conservative is similar to what Peter Worthington delineates as the difference between a liberal and a leftist in this column

I'll post a few excerpts:

In a nutshell, his usage of words looks to me like this:

liberals = good, decent people with leftist leanings (everyone on SP that I can think of with a left of centre slant to their views)

leftists = extremists and whackjobs who care more about their particular leftist ideology than the welfare of other human beings. I do not believe that anyone on these boards falls into this category no matter how vehemently I disagree with them.

I shall extend the word definition fest to the other end of the political spectrum,

conservatives = good, decent people with rightist(!) leanings (everyone on SP that I can think of with a right of centre slant to their views)

rightists (maybe neo-cons?) = Extremists and whackjobs who care more about their particular rightist ideology than the welfare of other human beings. No one here qualifies.

 

martaug fundamentalism is what classical conservatism is generally all about. The taliban *is* pure conservatism. I know in America the concepts are muddled as the term "socialism" has such negative connations that liberal has grown to encompass many aspect of what is nowadays viewed as socialism (in the shape of social democracy). In the classical sense most of the US political spectrum is liberal with a dash of conservatism on the right wing. Conservatism is what the talibans are all about, it is old values, respect for authority and god, respect for your elders and your nation (tribe). This is what makes the people in those countries do all the stuff we consider so wack here in the west. Ahmendinejad (probably screwed spelling but the president of Iran) is another classical conservative. Bush and many of the leading Republicans have more in common with him than with most western politicans.

 

That could not be further from the truth. I could potentially agree with a statement that said "Islam run loose"

 

As I see it islamism is just one version of conservatism you could replace the religion with pretty much any other and get the same result.

 

Any other extreme religion, yes, but not all religions are that extreme. In the current age, only Islam is this drastic.

 

But all religions can be though, that's the point.

As any moderate Imam will tell you, Islam is not a violent religion and does not preach violence. The vast majority of Muslims can't stand groups like the Taliban. The fundamentalist kooks who carry out barbarism in Islam's name are practicing a warped and inaccurate interpretation of the faith. They are no more representative of mainstream Islam than Fred Phelps or David Koresh are of Christianity.

In fact, Phelps and Koresh just prove that Christianity is by no means immune to this phenomenon. If the West spent a few hundred years (decades?) with the same levels of poverty, social injustice and absence of opportunity as has been seen in the Middle East, you'd be almost certain to see the same thing happen among some Christian groups here. Desperation would attract new followers looking for some "other" to blame for their lot in life and before you knew it, you'd have an army on your hands. This is how these movements get started and become a threat. It's less about religion than it is about frustration.

 

I agree - But there is one part about religion that is somewhat worrying. In any sufficiently religious country (and I would certainly include the US in this grouping) it is the majority of religious moderates that enable the religious nutters to exist and spread.

Flame suit on!

We live in a society where all religions are to be "respected". That sounds fine at first, until you realize that inevitably means you're also allowing groups that pervert the tennents of Christianity, Islam, etc, the same standing as the moderate groups.

I'm not going to take obvious examples from the Middle East - I'll stay right here in my own country to illustrate. The reason why Koresh's perversion of Christianity was allowed - even encouraged - to flourish was in no small part because people gave him a lot of leeway. "Oh, he's a Christian - his church cannot be all that bad." It doesn't even have to be to the extreme like Koresh - even people that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and believe in faith healing are lesser examples. They exist because while they are outside the mainstream of the dominant religion, they are just close enough to it that soceity allows them to exist.

It works that way around the world, with whatever religion is dominant in that area. You get Christian nutters in countries where mainstream Christianity is given far more deference than it logically should, and you get Muslim nutters in countries where mainstream Islam is given for more deference than it logically should. There's a reason you don't see Christian nutters running all over the place in Europe - Christianity isn't nearly as important in most European countries than it is here in the US.

 

I think 'Pakistan surrendering to the Taliban' is taking things a bit far. The remote areas we're talking about might look big shaded in on a map but the % of population actually living there is tiny. It's remote, desolate landscape. Support for extremists drops dramatically as you approach the densely populated areas.

Not that I'm not concerned by the resurgence of the Taliban. I would like to see Pakistan do more to fight this. I'd agree that they need to do this themselves. They won't get acceptance amongst the locals if they're seen to be just fighting someone else's war.

 

Joac, what you forget is that political positions are relative to the political climate. In Afghanastan and Pakistan, Taliban may be vastly conservative, but here in the US they would make the KKK look like liberal hippies. Likewise, what is liberal in the US is more conservative to much of europe.

The problem with these terms is not a matter of lack of distinction, but that they define the direction of desired change, but not the ideals that are being fought for. Conservatism is keeping things the same as they once were, with the farther back they go for the 'once were' meaning more extreme conservatives, while liberalism means changing things from what they are, with the more to be changed representing more extreme liberals.

The problem with this is that, if I want abortion outlawed, I'm labeled as a conservative because I want what once was to be again. That generalizes me in with those who want to abolish women's right to vote, blacks' right to freedom, and want to put religious law back into effect (a throwback all the way to Europe). I don't want any of those things, and I would avidly fight to prevent them, but because I oppose abortion, I am a 'conservative'.

Yes, the Taliban are conservative, but they are conservative in a society that needs liberalism, not because liberalism is good, but because that society needs to move in that direction. I believe the US is just a little too far on the liberal side, and needs to move just a touch more conservative. Because of that, I'm a conservative here, but if I were there, I'd be a radical liberal (and probably dead or in jail).

Basically, the Taliban aren't 'conservatism gone wrong' so much as some greedy people wanting the power and authority they once had at the expense of others.

 

Actually I generally tend to agree with what you are saying though but I still hold to that the taliban represent a pure conservatism. There really are no good examples of pure liberalism or socialism but neither would probably be very nice. I am quite convinced though that conservatism is the ideology with the most inherent viciousness and violence.

 

Exactly.

 

Actual Afghani law is pretty worrying. Nevermind hypotheticals about the Taliban.

For instance, it's now virtually legally impossible to rape one's wife. Freedom's on the march.

 

technically the law is not in effect yet. But it is a worrying step if it pass, especially since the Afghan constitution oppression of women and should forbid such a law.