VJ's obsession with Muslims

[Heracles 417]

And you are prejudiced.

That's a new label. Actually, the only label you are yet to label someone is a Xenophobe.

[Peikko 1,575]

British politicians rarely talk about victory in Afghanistan. It is no longer even clear what victory would mean.

Kabul fell in November 2001, within weeks of the US-led invasion. If the sole purpose of occupation was to dismantle al-Qaida training camps, the war was won years ago. If, however, the reason for military intervention was to build a model democratic state and a beacon of good governance in central Asia, victory is a very distant prospect.

Nato's war aims have become ever more modest. As far as the UK government is concerned, the only reason for keeping troops deployed on Afghan soil is to prevent terrorists there plotting attacks on British citizens. Any explicit preference that occupation might leave the country with a government that is honest and respectful of human rights has slipped from the agenda.

Meanwhile, there are constant reminders of what kind of government allied forces ousted in 2001: the recent murder of 10 civilian medical workers; reports last week of a woman flogged and shot dead for alleged adultery; accounts of women fleeing rural areas to refuges in Kabul, having been beaten and tortured in reprisal for the slightest resistance to cruel religious fanaticism.

The Taliban imposed a reign of terror, with women in particular systematically victimised. The total abolition of cultural and political freedom and the virtual enslavement of half a country's population is a rare atrocity, justifying comparison with the most notorious dictatorships of the 20th century. That the perpetrators stand to gain if Nato's eventual withdrawal is premature or mishandled is a moral as well as a strategic consideration. Repressive patriarchy is not exclusive to the Taliban, nor is it simply foisted on Afghan society by a minority religious junta. Many features of Taliban rule that are most distasteful to western political sensibilities are common also in areas controlled by tribal leaders and warlords loyal to President Hamid Karzai.

There is not a clear line where political rights end and fundamentalist dogmas take over. There is not a clear distinction between those Taliban who are driven by ideological Islamism in the al-Qaida mould and those who have been recruited out of ethnic Pashtun loyalty, as mercenaries or to serve some labyrinthine local vendetta.

As James Fergusson describes elsewhere on these pages, aspects of Taliban practice are so rooted in Pashtun tradition as to be immune from western-style reform. But while it would be a mistake to ignore that background, it would be as great an error to value it above other currents in Afghan history, including a seam of cosmopolitan secularism.

Forty years ago, Kabul was, by central Asian standards, a permissive city of bars, cafes, pop music and jeans. It is a dangerous kind of relativism that abhors the notion of western values being "imposed", but would accept as culturally legitimate the imposition of one narrow interpretation of religious law to the exclusion of every other social and political trend.

Simply asserting the fact that some rights are universal and inalienable does not bring the Afghan state any closer to recognising and defending them. The constitution, adopted in January 2004, is profoundly deferential to the country's Muslim traditions, but guarantees certain essential civil rights, including freedom of expression and women's equality.

In practice, however, President Karzai has secured his power base by accommodating different economic, religious and tribal factions, ignoring the constitution when necessary. Last year, he signed a law specifically for the country's minority Shia community, permitting rape within marriage and giving husbands authority to forbid their wives from leaving the home.

It has long been clear that Mr Karzai is not a reliable guarantor of political rights in Afghanistan. But then, he presides over a country in a state of civil war and in partnership with occupying powers which might at any moment cut and run. It is not surprising that he trades power and favours with anyone who can shore up his position, without vetting their credentials on sex equality.

The danger, though, is that, as Nato withdrawal inches closer, the scale of those compromises grows and the tacit adoption of Taliban moral codes spreads.

In the Observer magazine this week, Shahla Farid, a Kabul-based lawyer, speaks of her experience defending women's rights. There is still, she says, "an atmosphere of terror", with the Taliban retaining much cultural, if not legal power.

Her testimony is a warning against the increasing tendency in the west to see the conflict in Afghanistan purely in terms of narrow security objectives.

The UK and US governments are carefully redefining and downgrading their definitions of success in the war to encompass anything that looks like stability after withdrawal. That might well include some explicit agreement with elements within the Taliban. In fact, stability without some accommodation with militant insurgents is impossible.

The clear trajectory is towards a model, familiar from many a cold war puppet regime, in which Mr Karzai is propped up with military and financial aid on the condition that he is loyal in counterterror operations. Political rights are thus quickly forgotten.

But, ultimately, the neglect of civil and economic rights, combined with the economic and cultural repression of women, will condemn Afghanistan to underdevelopment, poverty and deep social dysfunction.

Those conditions, more than religious tradition, are what make the country a breeding ground for terrorist ideology. In other words, the issue of women's equality and political freedom is not peripheral to the security objective of preventing terrorists operating inside Afghanistan. It is absolutely central.

Western governments are increasingly on the hunt for some arrangement that will allow them to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, leave it vaguely stable and not overrun by al-Qaida and to call that victory.

It will not be easy to build real commitment to human rights into that settlement. But failure to do so after so many years and so much blood spilled would surely be a most humiliating and dangerous defeat.

Link

[Heracles 417]

Nothing you say on these subjects in informed in any way by facts as much as they are by your own prejudices.

Actually, I could post video after picture of Muslim atrocities but they are too graphic for V.J.

[IncorrectPolitics 26]

Thank you bery much for the information.

1. in red how can that be if you model something you become it. This is from wiki and imo is total BS. How could they not be facist with a totaltarian agenda.

2. I would personally face any of these so called Christians and tell them they do not live the lives of Christians especially if they commit acts as they did in the past you mentioned. Kill me maybe but as I laid dieing and a man still tell condemning them in the name of GoD they would know that when the day comes the Gates to Heaven will be closed to them.

(I will read mor about them)

3. What acts of atrocities have they been connected to in the present not 35 years ago ( I am not discounting what they did then)

I will tell you what, instead of trying to argue with me about politics in Lebanon which you will NEVER UNDERSTAND, why don't you go there and hold a meeting with the politicians in power and tell them what you think? They will laugh you out of the room, none of them care what you or the average Lebanese citizen thinks. I simply told you how the Lebanese civil war was started and you try to turn it around into something else. There has been tension in Lebanon since time began, it has always been a battle ground and unfortunately it probably always will be.....even before Islam made it's way into Lebanon it was a battle ground. Ever since the French occupation Christians gained most of the power and refused to share power equally, the religion card was always pulled and the Muslims were oppressed and mistreated......it was like a giant pressure cooker waiting to explode. Doesn't matter what religion it is or if religion is even involved.....when people are oppressed, not represented, and ignored long enough there will be conflict. Why don't you research Samir Gaga, he was a Christian imprisoned for war crimes, unfortunately he is in power again, and I am sure if he could repeat those crimes and not be in trouble again he would do it in a heartbeat. Thank god things are quiet in Lebanon right now on both sides and I hope it will stay that way. Anyway unless you can read Arabic you will never get a full understanding of the history of Lebanon and the civil war, anything you find on the internet is biased and from a western point of view.

[Heracles 417]

...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, I could post video after picture of Muslim atrocities but they are too graphic for V.J.

And this proves you aren't prejudiced. Gotcha

[Heracles 417]

I will tell you what, instead of trying to argue with me about politics in Lebanon which you will NEVER UNDERSTAND

I just remember who bombed and killed close to 241 Americans in Beirut.

[Peikko 1,575]

Lost the power of 'speech' BY? The article I posted gives some very clear indications that blaming all the difficulties in Afghanistan (by way of one example of a current intractable conflict) on the muslim religion is the height of folly. Religious extremism necessarily means that there is a distortion of the true message - extremism takes a dogma and twists it to further a specific agenda, in this case there is an ongoing power struggle between ancient lineages of war lords and tribal allegiance. The aims of the Taliban have nothing to do with the creation of a muslim state, the muslim religion is being used to gain power and suppress opposition. As I said before, as a western educated person, you have no excuses for blurring the lines between the reality of this situation and the falsity of suggesting that it is some inevitable consequence of allowing muslims self determination.

[Heracles 417]

And this proves you aren't prejudiced. Gotcha

You ask for evidence, then it's never good enough. In other words, much like Sofiyya, you take ideological sanctimonious stances that can never be discredited. Therefore, why are you even on here? As pointed out by others, you have never changed your stance and never admitted when you are wrong on something.

Out of curiosity, at what point does something become a problem to you? That's the million dollar question for both Cleo and yourself with anything really. At what point do you say there is a problem here. Do you think El Salvador having a homicide rate that is 86 times the rate per capita of Germany is a problem? Or since not all do it, you still see no problem. Do you think the current rate of poverty in America is a problem? Or because not all are poor, then there is no problem.

[Heracles 417]

Lost the power of 'speech' BY? The article I posted gives some very clear indications that blaming all the difficulties in Afghanistan (by way of one example of a current intractable conflict) on the muslim religion is the height of folly.

Once again, no one here is discussing the Muslim religion, just Sofiyya, Pike and yourself.

You pull the same ####### in every discussion. You turn a discussion of a specific 'x', and claim it's a broad-brushed discussion about 'c'.

[Peikko 1,575]

Once again, no one here is discussing the Muslim religion, just Sofiyya, Pike and yourself.

You pull the same ####### in every discussion. You turn a discussion of a specific 'x', and claim it's a broad-brushed discussion about 'c'.

Do you remember the title of this thread and what is being discussed BY?

[IncorrectPolitics 26]

I just remember who bombed and killed close to 241 Americans in Beirut.

Not condoning killing anyone....I hate death and war as much as anyone, but most countries don't like foreign intervention. Americans don't like foreign troops on their land either, I remember seeing on the news after Hurricane Katrina some people almost p!ssed their pants when Mexican troops showed up....and rightly so even if it was to provide relief and aid. In fact Americans don't even want their own troops on their land (posse comitatus).

[IncorrectPolitics 26]

Lost the power of 'speech' BY? The article I posted gives some very clear indications that blaming all the difficulties in Afghanistan (by way of one example of a current intractable conflict) on the muslim religion is the height of folly. Religious extremism necessarily means that there is a distortion of the true message - extremism takes a dogma and twists it to further a specific agenda, in this case there is an ongoing power struggle between ancient lineages of war lords and tribal allegiance. The aims of the Taliban have nothing to do with the creation of a muslim state, the muslim religion is being used to gain power and suppress opposition. As I said before, as a western educated person, you have no excuses for blurring the lines between the reality of this situation and the falsity of suggesting that it is some inevitable consequence of allowing muslims self determination.

Yes, alot of these things going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc. is from ancient tribal wars that go on and on and on. It is just a shame that they use religion to justify their crimes instead of being honest and blaming on their ancient hatred for each other.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, alot of these things going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc. is from ancient tribal wars that go on and on and on. It is just a shame that they use religion to justify their crimes instead of being honest and blaming on their ancient hatred for each other.

I do not think those who wish to dominate use religion as a justification, they use it as a tool of repression. The only people who seem to think that religion is the justification are those who are arguing that it is the religion that leads people to act in this way - it is not and it does not.

[Danno 1,228]

Learn your history, Danno. "Europeans" weren't some sort of harmonious, homogenized happy bunch in this country. Different nationalities and religious groups considered each other to be ethnically inferior, threateningly different in culture and religion, with each wave less acceptable to the last. Hell, they didn't even consider each other to be White. They brutally discriminated against each other, segregated the "unwashed" among them into immigrant ghettos, and considered intermarriage to be undesirable. This attitude existed well into the 20th century in many American enclaves.

There are many unspoken secrets in American history that perhaps you should be aware of before making claims that Europeans were so easily assimilated. I'll bet even some of your older relatives can tell you otherwise.

Facts are facts, just a few decades ago the United States was 85-90% european extraction and an even higher consistency of CHristians, in one form or another.

Even considering the minority of Black Americans and Hispanics, we all worshiped the same God, enjoyed the same past-times, spoke the same language, cheered the same sports, watched the same movies and held singular allegiance to the same flag, not sure that can be said today.

How did this melding you refer to come about?

Immigration was cut way back so that by WW2 ... we were one nation.

However you make my point perfectly.... if 100 yrs ago such disharmony resulted from variant brands of Europeans and Christians thrust together... it's no wonder these issues now dominate our headlines with ever increasing intensity in todays America.