A journalist sentenced to death for that tricky "humiliating islam" thing. Apparently where there's no civil law on a matter, religious law takes precedence. I wonder how often that ends up being the case? Seriously: hello, 13th century. Where've you been? We've been waiting for forever for you to catch up. Or maybe you never really left. Some apologetics, anyone?: Well, the law is the law, innit? Silly journo should have understood his place, and God's. Why, if he just hadn't offended, he'd be fine now. or: Well at least it's Hanafi! He gets a chance at an apology. That's more than a Hanbali court would give 'im, I tells ya. Or fill in your own.
So this is the "liberation" that America has brought to Afghanistan ? When this nation in the 1970's was called the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan , it had a Socialist goverment which implemented equal rights for women and progressive economic reform and more importantly the stamping out of backward Islamic medievalism . But American destabilization in 1979 led to a Soviet invasion where America backed Islamic Fuckheads led by Bin Laden who later became the Taleban , who were all along Americas allies . As for the Journalist , well , his execution you can lay at the feet of America .
Yes. the USA destablized Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion. They were the good guys who were just trying to clean up our mess. ~String
Even then only Kabal was civilized as we would define it. The best thing for Afghanistan would have been 20 more years of atheist Communism followed by a slow transition into a social democratic republic.
Originally posted by Michael: The Soviets were brutal in their conquest of Afghanistan, utilizing a careful campaign of genocide to wipe out the population outside of the major cities. The rural population even then practiced a "traditional" form of Islam, and had no plans on changing it during Russia's occupation. Twenty more years of Islam would probably lead to that many times more fanatics who had nothing to lose except their lives to martyrdom.
Yes, because Soviet dominance worked out so well in the other countries it intervened in, right? Czechoslovakia? Hungry? East Germany? Yemen? Ethiopia? Do you read history?
Why does anyone need to invade Afghanistan? They were managing well enough on their own before all the interventions. To make it simple, which country do you prefer to be occupied by?
Do you read history countezero? Because you're comparing apples with oranges - the soviets were investing a LOT of money into Afghanistan. Billions. Anyway, the best thing would be to leave. Let the whole ME do it's thing and we do ours. Done.
I'm comparing interventions with interventions. I'm sorry if the reality inherent in these interventions troubles you and shakes your Marxist convictions, but the fact is, the Soviets pretty much ruined the countries they forcefully moved into their sphere of influence. Based on our previous forays, I'd warrant I know a heck of a lot more about Afghanistan than you do. For example, what are we to make of this "billions" claim? What's your source? What were the investments for, etc.?
Certainly Eastern European countries emerged from the fall of the Soviet Union in better condition than Afghanistan did from the proxy war that we fought with the Soviets there. Eastern bloc countries had roads, schools, hospitals - maybe not up to our standards, but they had them. They had equal rights for women. The proxy war we fought there may have been in our best interests, but I don't think it was in the best interests of most Afghans.
The fact Eastern European countries emerged in "better" condition than Afghanistan in no way alleviates their suffering. Basically, you're saying because things are worse in Afghanistan, it's OK things were bad in Europe. This is illogical. You also overlook the obvious fact that the proxy war fought in Afghanistan was started by a Soviet invasion. We armed the Mujahadeen because they asked us to and because it was in our interest, but without the Soviet agression, the conflict never would have occured.
Guess you missed the memo: Zbignev Bzezhinski in an interview to French Le Nouvel Observateur said: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujaheddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, Dec. 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it On July 3, 1979 US President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul...We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. The day the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war... http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
I'm not a Marxist I'm a ... whatever works-ist. Keep the system moving. The fact is it's impossible to KNOW but I'd wager if the USA had left the Afghans to the soviets they'd have simply turned into just another one of the many -stans like Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc... THE biggest mistake we made was investing money into religious fanatics - I think we can both agree to that? If you think that life NOW, or under the Taliban, was somehow better than life would have been in a communist Afghanistan go ahead and believe it - I simply disagree. sure life would not have been comparable with life in the USA BUT I am damn well sure it would have been miles better than it was under the Taliban or is under occupation. Which was my point. JUST because communism doesn't work that great doesn't mean it doesn't work better than other forms of government - namely fundamental Islamic theocracy. Almost all of the public infrastructure was built by soviets, Kabul's public transportation system, Kandahar's main hospital, dams, hydroelectric generators, etc... etc... etc.... .even today the largest investment in that dhit hole is from Communist China! well over 2 billion dollars. Anyway, that was from a BBC doco I watched on SBS years ago. Michael
I said nothing of the sort. But even Ceaucescu's Romania or Hoxa's Albania weren't as repressive as the Taliban. And as repressive as they were, most people still had food to eat, a roof over their head, schools, roads. But would we have done so if we really gave a damn about the people of Afghanistan? We armed and helped train the worst sort of religious fanatics. And, as Sam pointed out, there are hints that we were working behind the scenes to provoke the Soviets into invading in the first place. How bad would it have been if the Afghans surrendered? I don't think the aftermath would have been nearly as bad as what actually happened.
You say that like it's a foregone conclusion that they would have. I don't think that word is even in the vocabulary of the Pashtun.
i agree with Michael on this. what Communism taught its subjects was civilization, culture, classical writings, electricity, modern medicine, engineering, how to build structures instead of living in mud huts, etc. etc. etc. it would have subjugated the country to a Soviet master, but it would have transformed its 7th (not 13th) century inhabitants into a civilized bunch to which "beheading" and "sharia" are foreign concepts. this happened in the former Soviet republics, like in Chechnya. and now that there is no Soviet master, the savages there are going back to their roots. one of the former Russian negotiators said "we should make a deal with the Chechens now, while they are still like us: speak Russian, understand Russian culture, have not receded into a primitive way of living". his warning wasnt heeded, and Chechens are increasingly becoming more and more primitive (going back to the "roots"). 20 or more years of Soviet occupation in The 'Ghan and then a transition to democracy would have yielded much better results there than what we are seeing now.
You excused bad behavior with other, more egregious bad behavior — and you're continuing to do so here. Saying Soviet rule is better than Taliban rule is like picking poision. And who, exactly, are you blaming the rise of the Taliban on? The US? It's a little more complicated than that... We obviously used the Afghans, as we turned our back on them after the war and left them to their sorry fate. That has come back to bite the US in the ass now... The US did not directly invest in religious fanatics. Our money passed through the ISI and was distributed among various mujihideen. And while it's true the more religiously-bent got most of the money, largely because they did most of the fighting, the US did not fund, arm or train the Arabs who flocked to the region, and it is the Arabs who are the real kooks and the real shit starters. I will deal with Sam's claims below... How brave of you. You realize these places are hotbeds of insurgencies, too, don't you? The only tangible difference being that the governments of the above did not allow an international terrorist group like Al Qaeda to use their country as a base. No, because you're oversimplifying the matter. See my response to Repo. The biggest mistake the US made, in my opinion, was turning its back on Afghanistan AFTER the fight with the Soviets was over. And it's difficult to have such a theoretical argument, in that we know what life is like now and we know what life was like under the Taliban, but we don't know what a Soviet Afghanistan would have been like. We can, however, look at what life during the Soviet conflict was like and say with some certainty that it really sucked. We can also realize that the Afghans hated the Soviet control, prior to the conflict, and ASKED for our help in kicking their Moscow-controlled puppeteers out of the country. From this, one can conclude that life wasn't so grand. Afghanistan, to my knowledge, has never been an Islamic theocracy, except for the brief period under the Taliban. And it isn't one now. Bully for them! They built roads and whatnot. I didn't miss the memo, nor did anyone who actually reads history. The fact the Carter Administration began the covert funding in Afghanistan is well-known, and it's discussed at length in Robert Gates' From the Shadows. The Soviets were on the rise all over the Third World, and even a Dove like Carter realized he had to act in places like Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Central America. The fact B said the US didn't "push" the Soviets to intervene is spot on, especially when you consider how paltry the amount of money under Carter was. I think it was about $5 or $10 million, which Zia dubbed a "joke" in the film version of Charlie Wilson's War. It was a joke, and real funding for the Muj didn't take off until Wilson got involved in the early 1980s, so your guarded attempt to characterize the Soviet invasion as being a reaction to the US just doesn't jive with history. Sorry.
