Terrorism? is it really?

Remove all ads!

Ragusa. Are you sure that "no-one" wanted the Taliban? Is it so that they followed wahabi style Islam? They were paid by the Saudi government? Perhaps the US would have objected to this if they had known? I don't remember the US being overly fond of extremist Islamic governments...

You mention that the Taliban brought back law and order but were a failed state because like Somalia there was no law and order...

I find it interesting that Yago mentions that women wore mini-skirts in Kabul before Taliban. Perhaps some. You can see photos of women in Kabul now who wear burqa and there is no Taliban to force them to do so.

My point is that it one thing to make comments like these about Afghanistan, but unless you have been there it is probably best to avoid gross generalisations.

 

Is slightly going into another direction, from history of Afghanistan to ANC, a former terrorist organisation.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/chronology/special-chrono/mandela.htm

Taliban:

http://www.unomaha.edu/afghanistan_atlas/talhist.html

Mini-Skirts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1899783.stm

In the light of the articles I've found, I think I change my statement from above. Afghanistan seemed to be once a functioning state. I always new Afhganistan only as part of the great game, a.k.a. land of British and Russian invasions.

[ May 18, 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Ragusa, it was the CIA which trained Osama and the Taliban.

 

Kharzaj,
the Taliban are following wahhabi islam and wahhabi islam schools, also called Taliban schools, received generous funds from Saudi Arabia and guidance from the pakistani ISI. You can get a glimpse on that here and here and here. For excellent background info I strongly recommend regular reading of good newspapers and news magazines, specialised books even; I can only recommend the FAZ, Zeit and the Spiegel but as these are german you might need an alternative; libraries for example ... even a simple search on google, like "wahhabi + taleban" can work wonders ... ...

How unwanted the taliban were can be seen at the number of countries who had diplomatic relations with them: Only two, Saudi Arabia & Pakistan vs the rest of the world, a brief glimpse on how many others that might be here, not following their example.

A degree of law and order is one criterium, not the only one. More on the failed state here:

The "but you haven't been there objection", taken serious, would make about any dispute in the alley pointless - it doesn't bring you any further. As you haven't been there too - how can you for certain say I'm wrong? For the sake of argument, how about for once believe me what I say? Unless you do so we have no basis for discussion.
I suggest you search info on the web (or elsewhere, in more reliable sources) to check my points for validity (or invalidity if you prefer that) and when you find something to object I will check if I'm wrong. This way we can constructively exchange arguments.

**************************************************
Erebus,
you are simplifying. Take a look at the map and reflect a sec: How might the US have brought support to afganistan? In any case they would have had to pass other countries: Russia (kinda unlikely ...), iran (after "Eagle Claw" ??!, never ...), china (very reserved to the US) or india - via their narrow strip of Karakorum territory - very inhospitable terrain) or ... pakistan - the pro-west (they had strong ties to the british) country with harbors and long open border to afganistan. Supporting a guerrilla group is almost impossible to undertake in another country without that country supporting it.

Yes, the CIA helped the mujaheddin, among them the taleban as well - but they had pakistani support and were tolerted by pakistan. In fact the pakistani ISI was cooperating with the CIA. When the US decided to ignore afganistan after the withdrawal of the russians the ISI overtook the wole taleban coordination as they had an interest in stability in afganistan - in times of war it has first of all been pakistan to harbor the refugees, quite an expensive luxury.
The intimate involvement of the ISI and the taleban has also rised questions on how reliable an ally the ISI is in the war against terror.

[ May 18, 2003, 11:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

3 countries, you have forgotten the UAR (United Arab Emirates)

Unwanted. That is another question. Afhanistan is a key part of the Great Game. Maybe the public looses interest, but no country, at least the British, forget a key country of the Great Game.

As you have seen in my post above, the Taliban were welcomed, because people thaught, they'd bring peace, law and order.

And diplomatic relations with Pakistan were enough, to have enough relations for trade, without having other countries make their hands dirty.

At least enough relations, to send people to Argentina and Texas, to make business deals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

I wouldn't be so sure of that. As I stated before, no country of the Great Game gets forgotten. And Pakistan has always been a key ally for the British. That's the region with China, India, Russia, Iran, Pakistan. No country there gets forgotten be strategical analiysts. And the connection bettwen the British (and the US ?) and Pakistan have alway been tight.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/632611.asp?cp1=1#BODY

Benazir Bhutto, former PM of Afghanistan, Education:

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P024

What did she learn there, in Harvard and Oxford ?

Sidenote: The biggest countries ever been ruled by woman, were...... islamic ones and India. Unthinkable in Germany, France, USA, Spain and Italy, I guess.

 

Let's not get into a meaningless debate here. We should not make assumptions. I have more than 10 years of experience with muslims and I have travelled in muslim countries so I have some idea of what I am talking about. I may well be wrong, but I will not assume that you are either. You are more than welcome to your opinions and I base mine on my experiences and first hand knowledge.

Ragusa.

I have my experiences of Taliban from muslims and Afghans, not the net, not second hand opnions nor interpretations from second hand sources. Many people laughed at the wahabi Taliban connection. Not my idea, theirs, so I trust that opinion over the net. The Taliban may be extremists, but they are not Wahabis, at least they are quite different from the Arab wahabis.

So if the world does not want a nation that means it should just go away? What counts is that the people inside the country want the leaders.

Did you assume that I have never been to Afghanistan, or because you have not, therefore I have not? My point is that people who have been and lived there are more reliable sources of information than those who have not. I prefer to take my information from people who lived in Kabul and Qandahar over someone from a place called Melbourne or Bergheim...

You are welcome to use the net to look for information about Afghanistan and I'll stick to those sources that are not quite so second hand or perhaps biased.

There were many who were against some of the Taliban policies and there were others who were for them. It is one thing to announce that "nobody" wanted or supported the Taliban and another to hear opinions that supported them.

I remember a newspaper article in which an Afghan stated that he would support the Taliban now because the current government (which is not a failed state for the above reasons?) is not coming up with the goods. How many states have recognised Afghanistan now? Is it because they are doing a better job than the Taliban or is it because "we like them because they are not the Taliban"?

Yago. I know what you mean about Afghanistan and mini skirts. If some women, even a handful, in Kabul at that time wore miniskirts and now they don't is it because they are oppressed?

I recall that when Hikmetyar came along with the Mujahideen the western world lamented the oppression of women because they wore a burqa. Then when the Taliban came along people expected freedom and celebrated but they were again forced to wear a burqa. Now that Karzai is "in charge" they still wear a burqa. And in all cases the same photos were used.

This burqa thing has nothing to do with governmental changes nor Kabul. It is something that some (if not most) women in the region have been using for a long long time. (Not all people live in cities). There are women in Australia from Afghanistan who wear burqas, is the Taliban forcing them to do so here?

There are burqa wearing women who are highly educated in muslim countries and even in (shock horror) "the West" that wear a burqa. Who forces that? Themselves. It is the same force that allows women to not wear a burqa.

Why not criticise the Turkish government that has made it illegal to wear clothes like that? If a Turkish woman wants to wear a burqa it is illegal, is that not restrictive of human rights? I agree that women (and men) should not be forced to do anything that they don't want to, can that include taking off a turban or a burqa?

Here in Australia some people asked to make Islamic dress illegal because terrorists can hide behind it! This is taking away freedoms from people. It is because oppressive regimes exist in the Middle East that people leave to places like Australia hoping that the locals will accept them as they are.

We could say that in Saudi Arabia western women are forced to wear a burqa if they work there. Who disputes that the Saudi government is not tough and also oppressive? Does that mean that we should ask for the same here vis a vis muslims?

As I mentioned before please don't turn this into a meaningless debate. I am aware of the issues and I won't assume that you are unread or unaware. I just take my information from other sources.

I apologise if I have offended.

 

1. Traditional clothes of the Arabs (I know, Afghans are no Arabs). Now, some Arabs were their clothes out of religious duty, others just out simpe "tradition", i.e. their just used to it. But the main point is, those clothes (male or female) are just fantastic. Ever watched how Arabs easily move through the worst heat in a southern European city ? The clothes they wear (male and female) are fantastic, I own some too, but too get them to work, you need the whole thing. But fragments work fine enough for me. And their inspire European fashion (at least French) a lot. Arab clothes are the proof, that humans can overcome problems which are posed by great heat with ingenuity and style.

2. This means, under traditional Arab clothes (male/femal), you often find a western-style educated modern mind, not a backwarded fool.

3. A handful, in Kabul. Now, in Afghan-urban- areas, I don't think, that only a "handul" wore mini-skirts. I actually think, it used to be a lot. But in rural areas and people who remain connected to traditon, they were burkhas out of personal choice and there is nothing wrong with it. And a lot do that. And, as stated in 1. (but I know nothing about Burkhas), that does not mean, they are backwarded or forced by laws to do so.

4. The mini-Skirt and the women-rights example also gets one of my main point through. Most Arab countries (Yemen, Saudi-Arabia taken out, but even those are way more complicated), have traditionally good educated females in strong positions. Especially the very secular Iraq.

Now Turkey is a very different case. (If i'm not mistaken, Iran under the Shah had similar rules). Turkish women don't wear burqas, because turks have a different culture, i.e. burqas are form central-asia. Islam is like christanity, split in thousands of different cultures and creeds.

A lot of turkish are allevits, one of those many factions of islam. Allevits don't wear veils. Other turks wear veils. Allevits don't. In fact, I was together with 2 turkish girls in school, on of them wore a veil, the other was allevit, there quarrels where always funny.

To the rules in turkey, that forbids women in offical functions to wear a veil. That is a typical law in a typical European laiciste (sp ?)country. That's no big problem. Or in other words, islamists who have a problem with it, are like Bavarians or Lucerenes(sp ?), who are protecting their crucifix.