Attack on Afghanistan

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>"The protection of individual rights" is a rather amorphous phrase, though. Which individual rights? The right to a roof over your head, or the right to criticize the government? The right to earn a living, or the right to free medical benefits? The right to privacy, or the right to have your security protected by certain procedures which invade privacy?</STRONG>

EXCELLENT! Man, I wish I could talk face-to-face with you. This is worth a day in the coffee shop, if not a week. But, for a short synopsis of what rights a government should protect, see the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Lazarus ]

[scully1]

If this is culture, it's an evil culture. The women of RAWA certainly don't think it's cultural. [url="http://RAWA.org"]RAWA's website[/url] should prove very enlightening on that point.

Here are two items from the CompuServe website's main menu for today:
*****************************
From the AP, 25 September:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United Nations painted an alarming picture Tuesday of life inside Afghanistan: relief agencies shut down and occupied by the Taliban, thousands of people fleeing their homes in fear and countless others at risk of starvation.
"A humanitarian crisis of stunning proportions is unfolding in Afghanistan,'' said a U.N. statement issued in Geneva and Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.
The world body's alert came as Afghanistan's Taliban rulers found themselves almost completely isolated in the world community with a decision by Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to cut off diplomatic ties. That left Pakistan as the sole country to maintain formal relations with Afghanistan's hard-line leaders.
The prospect of war is exacerbating what was already considered one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, the United Nations said. Afghanistan is a likely target of a U.S.-led military assault because the Taliban harbor Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States.
"I haven't seen Osama. I don't know Osama. Why when things happen in the east, the west or the north of the world, do the problems have to come here and hit straight at the people of Afghanistan?'' asked Farida, a 40-year-old widow and mother of four who was begging Tuesday on the streets of Kabul, the Afghan capital.
"I pray to my God that as soon as America attacks the first cruise missile hits my house and kills me and my family,'' the former teacher said from behind her all-encompassing veil. She recited a long list of woes including hunger and a lack of water and sanitation in her home, a ruined building.
According to relief agencies and reports from Kabul, survival is becoming a daily struggle for people like Farida, who like many Afghans uses only one name. International relief operations that supported millions of people before Sept. 11 have been halted or vastly scaled back.
The foreign staff of the United Nations and virtually all non-governmental organizations have been evacuated. And the Taliban have restricted or stopped the activities of local staffers who remained.
Over the weekend the Taliban shut down and occupied all U.N. offices in Kandahar, the militia's spiritual capital. They also prohibited most U.N. workers from using communication equipment, effectively cutting them off from the outside world, said U.N. spokeswoman Stephanie Bunker.
Since the 1980s, the Central Asian nation of 22 million people has contended with Soviet invasion, civil war, hunger, drought and the rise of the radical Taliban militia.
More than 4 million people have already fled in the past two decades. U.N. refugee officials have been meeting with officials in Pakistan and other countries bordering Afghanistan to set up makeshift camps to receive new refugees.
So far, the numbers of people fleeing are in the thousands, not millions. Some people who fled Kabul immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks have returned, and the capital's streets were filled with people Tuesday. But that could change quickly.
A big concern is the large number of people without food and other necessities who would like to leave but can't afford fuel or transportation, said Peter Kessler, spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
"The situation inside Afghanistan is so fragile that many people who may want to move don't have the means to move,'' he said.
The United Nations has been supporting 5 million Afghans inside the country after decades of war and three years of severe drought, said Ross Mountain, the U.N. head of humanitarian coordination in Geneva.
Under the worst conditions, the number of people inside the country desperately needing U.N. aid could increase by 50 percent to 7.5 million, he said.
Many of those already at risk are women and children ``with a fragile grip on survival,'' said a U.N. statement. ``The onset of winter will loosen that grip even further.''
The United Nations' World Food Program announced Tuesday that it is planning trial deliveries of food by truck into the northern part of Afghanistan to see if it can establish a lifeline.
Among the targeted regions for the new food shipments are Faryab and Balkh provinces, where the United Nations estimates 320,000 Afghans will exhaust their food supplies within a week.
Another 1.6 million in other northern provinces have stocks to last only through December.
"We are trying to see what kind of avenues we may be able to explore, be it by air, be it cross-border, be it otherwise, to try to provide support inside the country,'' Mountain said.
*************************

Rules to Live By:

If you are an Afghan woman you could be beaten or killed for:
• Leaving the house unless accompanied by husband,
brother or son.
• Walking with a man who is not a relative.
• Showing any part of the body.
• Laughing in public.
• Seeing a doctor that is not a woman, but
female doctors are rare, since the Taliban has put a
ban on education for women.
• Wearing white (the color of the Taliban flag).

What the Taliban has banned for Afghan women:
• Education
• Applause
• Working outside the home
• Makeup
• Nail polish
• Jewelry
• Plucking eyebrows
• Short hair
• Colorful or stylish clothing
• High heels
• Walking loudly
• Talking loudly or laughing in public
• Singing
• Using public transport except special buses, which
are rarely available
• Being photographed
When women do leave the house, the Taliban states it must be for an essential, government-sanctioned purpose, and they must at all times wear the all-enveloping burqa. They also must paint their windows black to hide themselves from view.

What the Taliban has banned for everyone (The list seems to grow daily):
• Music
• TV and Movies
• Magazines
• Newspapers
• Most Books
• Internet
• Photographs and paintings of people and animals
• Pet parakeets
• Cigarettes
• Alcohol
• Picnics
• Wedding Parties
• New Year Celebrations
• Any kind of mixed gender gathering
• Children?s toys
• Cards and board games
• Paper bags
• Applause
• Being out after a curfew of 7:30 p.m., except government troops

Every Friday afternoon in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, 30,000 men and boys pour into a dilapidated sports stadium. The Taliban forces store owners to close up shop. Outside the stadium, street vendors sell popcorn and nuts. The men are there to watch supposed thieves and criminals be shot, hung, buried alive, or even have limbs amputated. This week a young woman, Sohaila, receives 100 lashes for walking with a man who was not a relative. And two male suspected thieves have their right hands cut off. This information is gathered by RAWA through smuggled tapes, videos, and photographs. RAWA is an organization of Afghan women who gather evidence beneath the darkness and heat of their burqas. A burqa is a robe that covers Afghan women from head-to-toe, with a mesh grid over their eyes. If these women were caught, they would be killed.
The Taliban likes to widely publicize its actions through the one radio station and newspaper in Afghanistan (which is run by the Taliban). The Friday stadium events provide the Afghan men with entertainment. Since the Taliban has taken over, this is the only form of entertainment in Afghanistan, since most everything else is banned.
The situation is so bad that Afghan people are literally dying to get out of the country. For more then 20 years, Afghanistan has produced the world?s largest refugee group. Currently numbering 2.6 million, Afghan refugees are still the largest displaced population in the world. More that 1 million Afghan refugees live in 203 officially recognized refugee "villages" in Pakistan.
************************

These articles make no mention of women being forced into prostitution because the Taliban forbids them to work. They make no mention of women being burned to death for the slightest infracion of the "law".

I'm sure people already know this. I think however that we need lots and lots of reminders that the Taliban are NOT acting out of a cultural or religious context. They are as evil as the Third Reich and they need to be destroyed. Simple.

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

[Xandax]

Well I think that the general oppinion from all sources are that the Norten Alliance are not that much better than the Taleban, but they are currently one of the best tools for removing/limiting Taleban and/or the terrorists network still present in the country.
Nobody really knows what will happen if Taleban is removed, because the NA are generally a mix of anti-taleban groups and warlords that actually don't like each other much.

To me, the most severer question present is what will happen in Pakistan. The Taleban has many many supporters in Pakistan, and the general that currently holds power in Pakistan might not have the armys complete loyality(sp?) - so if it came to civil unrest in Pakistan, it is hard to predict what will happen.
And if India is feeling presured/provoked/threatend by Pakistan, well then all hell could break loose.

[Yshania]

Posted by Fable -

I have to wonder just how far this policy will go, however. A high-ranking Saudi diplomat was quoted by the BBC as tartly stating that "We will not accept the Israeli view of what constitutes a terrorist organization."

I heard that quote - quite disturbing actually. BTW - I agree with the rest of your post

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Yshania ]

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>If this is culture, it's an evil culture....Simple.</STRONG>

Man, loner72, I agree 100%, and yes, it is worth reminding people, but try to keep those post-lengths down The link is sufficient.

[scully1]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Please don't take offense, but I have to ask you: are you trying to pick an argument with me? Why do you post "I never said otherwise" to me? [ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]</STRONG>

I'm not trying to pick an argument at all. I said that to clarify my meaning, not just for you but for anyone on here who might misunderstand what I was saying.

But you are right on one count, that I am defensive about this whole thing. When I hear people say or imply (not necessarily you or anyone in particular) that we shouldn't take action because of the threat of civilian casualties, that infuriates me. It infuriates me to see people on the news, protesting a just war. If EVER a war was just, this one is. That is why I say that the risk is acceptable.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>And that is exactly what's happened. We've given the Russians carte blanche on attacking the Chechyan opposition as terrorists, while the Russians have been all-too-happy to arm the Northern Alliance with a few outdated weapons at reduced prices, and look like a team player.
</STRONG>

This was one of the things I feared would happen. Who is a terrorist and who is legitimate guerilla freedom fighter? I suspected Putin & CO would take the first possible excuse to strike at the Chechnyan rebels. We have also seen Sharon in Israel saying "Arafat is our bin Laden" etc. I think some states are going to use the global war against terrorism as an excuse to get rid of uncomfortable elements.

[Crassus]

Is anyone scared? I'm sitting in an office building in midtown Manhattan. I can feel the hairs raising on the back of my neck. I knew the U.S. would retaliate at some point, but I guess I was still taken by surprise when it happened.

[Yshania]

I saw the interview with Sharon. What disturbed me was his comment on lack of Western World support for Israel against their 'own terrorists'

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>I'm not trying to pick an argument at all. I said that to clarify my meaning, not just for you but for anyone on here who might misunderstand what I was saying.

But you are right on one count, that I am defensive about this whole thing. When I hear people say or imply (not necessarily you or anyone in particular) that we shouldn't take action because of the threat of civilian casualties, that infuriates me. It infuriates me to see people on the news, protesting a just war. If EVER a war was just, this one is. That is why I say that the risk is acceptable.</STRONG>

Thanks for your explanation, Loner I understand what you are defensive against. I think an interesting note about "worth the risk" (of civilian causalties) is that perhaps surprisingly, all Afghan people I've been in touch with here, has firmly supported an attack at the Talebans. Obviosly Afghan refugees are people who both wanted to and managed to escape, but the Afghans I have heard comment on the issue have said that the country is doomed under the Talebans, that people will starve to death anyway so they rather chose war casualties for a limited period, to get rid of the Talebans. One guy even said he thought an Us coalition attack was the only hope for the Afghan people.

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG> ...the Afghans I have heard comment on the issue have said that the country is doomed under the Talebans, that people will starve to death anyway so they rather chose war casualties for a limited period, to get rid of the Talebans. One guy even said he thought an Us coalition attack was the only hope for the Afghan people.</STRONG>

Amen to that. Well, it's been fun monopolizing this thread, but I have to be going.

@fable: we'll have to argue the fuction of government another time.

[fable]

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>I saw the interview with Sharon. What disturbed me was his comment on lack of Western World support for Israel against their 'own terrorists' </STRONG>

It's instructive to recall that when Sharon was Israeli Defense Minister in 1990, he took offense at US demands on Israel for a cooling down period with the Palestinians, and flew without preparation to berate Bush Sr. This was entirely outside protocol channels. When Bush heard that Sharon was outside the Oval Office and demanding to see him, supposedly he replied, "I don't know he's there." Sharon flew back the following day after never meeting Bush or even highly-placed officials.

I never liked George Sr. He didn't have many ideas, and he was a back-alley b!stard; but he was *our* back-alley b!stard. I strongly fear that Dubbyah is going to roll over and play dead for Sharon, rather than conceptualize that world and national interests are better served by bringing the Israeli government to heel.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Crassus:
<STRONG>Is anyone scared? I'm sitting in an office building in midtown Manhattan. I can feel the hairs raising on the back of my neck. I knew the U.S. would retaliate at some point, but I guess I was still taken by surprise when it happened.</STRONG>

I'm not scared in a personal way. That's the advantage of living in a little uninteresting country - Sweden. "Safe and boring" is an epithome often used about Sweden. I'm sitting in my bed in what is probably one of the safest places on earth. A small country with small international impact, noone really cares about what's going on here. We haven't been involved in war since the 19th century. The only terrorist attacks I think have ever happened here are minor incidents in the 1970's.

Living here, my fears are more abstract, directed at humanitarian and political issues.

[fable]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>
I'm not scared in a personal way. That's the advantage of living in a little uninteresting country - Sweden. "Safe and boring" is an epithome often used about Sweden. I'm sitting in my bed in what is probably one of the safest places on earth. A small country with small international impact, noone really cares about what's going on here. We haven't been involved in war since the 19th century.</STRONG>

I was under the impression that Swedish ninjas in lifejackets were becoming a threat to Norwegian shipping, with war immanent.

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[ThorinOakensfield]

Just want to add a thing on the NA.
For some reason Pakistan doesn't like them, so FAS's views are a bit bias. well maybe.

But he is right that they aren't unified. The reason the Taliban got control of Kabul so easily because the guys were fighting amongst themselves. warlord vs. warlord.

[C Elegans]

@Lazzarus: Good bye, see you later

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I was under the impression that Swedish ninjas in lifejackets were beginning a threat to Norwegian shipping, with war immanent.</STRONG>

Sweden and Norway was a union until 1917. Historically, we have been the same country for a much longer time than not. If Norway and Sweden was at war, if would be very beneficial for Sweden to let surrender immedieatly. We are the same culture, the same people and has the same constitution. But Norway has a h*ll of a lot of oil money, lower taxes, higher salaries and the best social welfare system in the world. (If you need really expensive health care like complicated surgery, go to Norway as a tourist and get ill there. All healthcare are for free, even for tourists)

[Trym]

"Ground forces will be a massacre?" It depends on how much you're gonna sacrifice. The Soviets never had more than a 100.000 men in Agfhanistan at a time. During the 10 years of occupation, they appr. lost 15.000 dead (1.500 a year). It's up to the American people and the U.S. adiminstration to decide wheter comparable losses are necessary and could be tolerated or not. I'd understand either way.

[ThorinOakensfield]

The US isn't going to send ground forces in. a few bombing via planes and ships, and then send some commandos in to kill the top officials and then let the NA deal with killing the rest of the Taliban. Maybe the US will equip them like they did with the Taliban. i wonder?

[Silur]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>It's instructive to recall that when Sharon was Israeli Defense Minister in 1990, he took offense at US demands on Israel for a cooling down period with the Palestinians, and flew without preparation to berate Bush Sr. This was entirely outside protocol channels. When Bush heard that Sharon was outside the Oval Office and demanding to see him, supposedly he replied, "I don't know he's there." Sharon flew back the following day after never meeting Bush or even highly-placed officials.</STRONG>

I'm liking the old GB better already. I happened to come across a press release from the UN from 1998 that states that Israel is breaking practically all parts of the UN human rights resolution. For some reason, I very much doubt that the situation has changed for the better. See
[url="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1998/19980803.hrct519.html"]UN Press release[/url]. There's a "simplified" version written by pro-palestinians available [url="http://w1.858.telia.com/~u85819409/altinfo/Israel%20violates.htm"]here[/url], but for all sceptics out there, the UN unabridged version is the least biased - something that doesn't make the case against Israel milder in the least.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
<STRONG>Just want to add a thing on the NA.
For some reason Pakistan doesn't like them, so FAS's views are a bit bias. well maybe.

But he is right that they aren't unified. The reason the Taliban got control of Kabul so easily because the guys were fighting amongst themselves. warlord vs. warlord.</STRONG>

I have no idea what Fas personal opinions are, but many Pakistani are of course not very positive towards the NA since NA consists of groups who have unified against a common enemy: the Taleban. The Taleban movement originated from the fundamentalist religious schools in Pakistan. Later, fundamentalist people from several different countries have joined the Taleban. Many Afghans seem to view the Talebans as something coming from the outside, mainly from Pakistan.

Pakistan has supporting the Talebans, Iran has supported NA. The US coalition co-operates with the NA now, perhaps also supporting them with equipment, since the NA is needed. But when this war is over, I'd like to see a UN controlled, democratic process where the people of Afghanistan can at last, after so many years of opression, elect the goverment they want.