more turmoil in Afghanistan

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Take the amount of crimes done by the state against its own people under the Taliban and measure it against the amount of crime done by petty criminals under the new regime. I would say the amount of damage done against the people was much worse.

Fine, lets compare how many afghan civilians died each year under Taliban law vs the number killed in fighting since the invasion-that would be the comparison to use. I supported the invasion, but that does not mena I think it brought stability yet

Not only that, the situation was rapidly deteriorating as the Taliban gained more and more total control over the average person's life. A control that would let them do whatever they wanted to to people.

This is not a counterarguement for why people would want stability, now is it?

At least under the new regime there are things like police, the army, the Coalition forces, and a justice system, that day by day grow stronger. More and more the people have a chance for justice because they can turn to these groups for help.

Under the old regime there was an army, police, and a judiciary..you point? Again, you are not addressing the point, which is why people would want stability. For example, by 2001 the Taliban had been able to stamp out opiu porduction prety solidly-Kazai could not even try today. So what evidence do you have of this increased stability? That the new powers that be are more liberal and less repressive than the old is not a counterarguement to the old having borught stability.

In the case of the Taliban, the situation was worse, because THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE *WERE* THE CRIMINALS.

NO, they were repressive fundies: that does not make them criminals. What laws were they breaking?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yet for all this, from everything I hear, no Afghans other than rural Pashtuns want the Taliban back. And even they are divided.

They saw the Taliban brought not only stability but repression as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger




As I pointed out somewhere else, the current "regime" has very little control outside of Kabul. Everywhere else is as bad if not worse than Taliban days. The only difference is it was more stable with less crimes during the Taliban days.

From the Globe and Mail:

"But Mr. Khan has refused to hand over $250-million (U.S.) a year in customs money from this boom to the central government -- money that has cemented his rule and benefited the city. While most of Kabul retains signs of the destructive civil war of the 1990s, Herat's paved streets are lined with soaring pines, and early-morning joggers do laps around the track at a new stadium."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



They saw the Taliban brought not only stability but repression as well.

but according to posters here, 90% of afghanistan is controlled by warlords who are only marginally less repressive than the Taliban. Not a very good tradeoff for the stability is it?? Are the Afghans stupid?

Or is that posters here A. Exaggerate the portion of the country under warlord control B. Exaggerate the repressiveness of the warlords compared to the Taliban C. Exagerate the degree of instability D. All of the above

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


but according to posters here, 90% of afghanistan is controlled by warlords who are only marginally less repressive than the Taliban. Not a very good tradeoff for the stability is it?? Are the Afghans stupid?

Or is that posters here A. Exaggerate the portion of the country under warlord control B. Exaggerate the repressiveness of the warlords compared to the Taliban C. Exagerate the degree of instability D. All of the above

D. most likely.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes, in the 5% of Afghanistan they still held. The Taliban had them boxed in. The other 95% of the country was virtually free of strife and very much under the control of the Taliban. While it may not have been pleasant, it was stable.

And what percent of Afghanistan today is subject to strife on any given day??? By the way, the strategic situation pre Sept 2001 was more dynamic than you seem to realize. For example the Taliban had held Mazar i Sharif for only a relatively short time. There was no assurance that the NA wouldnt have been able to recoup Taliban gains, esp in the non-Pashtun sections of the country.

BTW, if by "not pleasant" people think that this refers only to the forced wearing of Burkas, or the lack of female education, they are not correct. In Mazar there was a massacre of the Uzbek population, and in Bamiyan a virtual genocide of the Hazara. The poster who made the Hitler comparison was not all that far off.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


D. most likely.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

BTW, if by "not pleasant" people think that this refers only to the forced wearing of Burkas, or the lack of female education, they are not correct. In Mazar there was a massacre of the Uzbek population, and in Bamiyan a virtual genocide of the Hazara. The poster who made the Hitler comparison was not all that far off.

Don't you go throwing Hitler around as well!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


NO, they were repressive fundies: that does not make them criminals. What laws were they breaking?

while i dont have the facts on the massacres of the Hazara handy, I believe a case could be made that they were in violation of the genocide convention. Perhaps thats not what the earlier poster was referring to however.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Don't you go throwing Hitler around as well!

Goodwins law is overrated. Sometimes Hitler comparisons have an element of truth.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Perhaps thats not what the earlier poster was referring to however.

Ted, giving a damn about international conventions? hardly.

Goodwins law is overrated. Sometimes Hitler comparisons have an element of truth.

Hitler had more than one side. After all, he was a vegeterian and a non-smoker..can I compare vegeterians and non-smokers to Hitler?

I know, Bloomberg in NY is like Hitler, cause he hates smoking!

[East Street Trader]

The Afghan's handed the British empire it's ass more than once and the Russians too. If there doesn't happen to be an imperialist power in easy reach they fight each other.

I guess the joys of the consumer society will reach such corners of the world before too long and things may change.

If the world still seemed big enough for the barbarity to be comfortably far off, and if it were possible to ignore the truly appalling way women seem to be treated there for a moment, it might almost be possible to feel a regret for the passing of a romantic sort of something.

Kipling and the noble savage and such like stuff, don't ya know?!

[Ted Striker]

What a great place to live!

I put a search into Google, with "Taliban rule," and this was the very first hit that I found:

IMAGINE, if you can, living in a society where a woman can have her fingers amputated as a punishment for wearing nail polish and a man can be beaten senseless and imprisoned for shaving. Where singing or listening to any kind of music is forbidden. And where the mere possession of literature deemed objectionable by the government is an offense punishable by death.

Few people except those who actually live under the rule of the Taliban have more than a vague conception of what a cruel, horrible regime the Taliban is. There almost certainly is no more oppressive or brutal regime on the face of the earth today, nor seldom has there been in recorded history. Its brutality is on a par with that of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or China under Chairman Mao during the Cultural Revolution or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

The oppressive hand of the Taliban comes down most heavily on women. Numerous restrictions are placed on women, on the pretext of protecting their honor and virtue and preventing them from corrupting males.

On women

Women are basically prisoners in their own homes. They are not allowed to leave their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative (called a mahram) such as a father, brother or husband. For a woman to be found in the presence of a male other than a mahram is a serious offense.

They are not allowed to shake hands with or talk to non-mahram males. They are forbidden from laughing or talking loudly enough that a stranger can hear their voice. They are prohibited from wearing shoes that make noise as they walk, as a man must never hear a woman's footsteps.

Women and girls are prohibited from going to school, and any attempt to educate females has been banned by the Taliban.

Except for a handful of female nurses and doctors that are allowed to work in some hospitals in the capital city of Kabul, women are forbidden to work outside the home.

Women are not allowed to be treated by mail doctors or even dentists. And since there are so few female medical personnel in Afghanistan (and no new ones being trained), it means that most Afghan women are deprived of any professional medical care whatsoever.


"Stable" and "helpful" government agencies

Patrolling the streets of the cities and villages throughout the areas of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban are compliance squads from what is euphemistically called the Ministry of Fostering Virtue and Suppressing Vice. These are groups of young Taliban militia armed with guns and whips who ride around in trucks in search of anyone who they deem may be violating Taliban orders.

"Stable" law enforcement

The penalty for adultery is execution by stoning. The penalty for preaching any religion other than Islam is death. The penalty for possessing objectionable literature is death. The penalty for converting from Islam to any other religion is death. The penalty for organizing a class to educate girls over the age of 12 is death by hanging, and the same penalty is imposed on the students.


Public Executions

Among other things, she [BBC News reporter Saira Shah] secretly filmed footage of a public execution in a football stadium in which a woman was "shot dead to the cheers of the watching crowds."

No cheering is allowed at sporting events, but at executions, apparently, it is encouraged and expected.

http://www.perspicacityonline.com/109/Talibanrule10924.htm

[Ted Striker]

Under the old regime there was an army, police, and a judiciary..you point?

Which were used to oppress the people. The new army, police, and judiciary system are used to SERVE the people. The stable enviornment allowed them to do their oppression even more effectively.

Again, you are not addressing the point, which is why people would want stability. For example, by 2001 the Taliban had been able to stamp out opiu porduction prety solidly-Kazai could not even try today. So what evidence do you have of this increased stability? That the new powers that be are more liberal and less repressive than the old is not a counterarguement to the old having borught stability.

You are making your own side argument and what point it is that you are trying to make I have no idea. The very fact that Karzai could take his own troops, not coalition troops, and exert authority outside of Kabul, which wasn't even possible a year ago, shows an improvement.

I'm sure you've heard the famous Jefferson quote, "Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither." Well in this case the people had neither freedom OR safety. Safety from who? Their neighbors? Okay so instead of common criminals breaking into your home you have the omnipotent government (which NOBODY can stand up to) breaking into your home and doing whatever they want to.

The whole Taliban stability argument is complete nonsense. It hinges on two things:

1) Wipeout of the opium production
2) Low crime rates

2 has clearly been debunked because the people in charge were the ones doing all of the crimes. The only thing you are left with is 1. Considering the US itself has never been able to totally eradicate drugs ourselves, I'd say that's not so bad. It's not great but it can be dealt with in time.

NO, they were repressive fundies: that does not make them criminals. What laws were they breaking?

Nonsense. Cut the semantics crap. Oppressing and murdering your own citizens still counts as being criminal. Okay so they were repressive fundamentalist criminals.

Finally, the Taliban environment wasn't even stable! It was OPPRESSIVE. How can I assure myself of safety and stabilty when I could have my life taken away for making a mistake and accidentally speaking to a woman?

Yeah, sounds real stable to me. Stable for who?

Is the situation better or worse for the average person now or under the Taliban?

Why don't you ask a woman who lived through it and see what she says.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I can not believe you are that stupid.

Show me what you did is not misquoting Mr DinoDoc, and you might have a leg to stand on.