so, is it a good idea to install UN peacekeepers in Kabul? I'm not sure how the politics of it would play out. I feel it could go either way as far as getting the average Afghan on our side goes. What do you think?
Printable View
so, is it a good idea to install UN peacekeepers in Kabul? I'm not sure how the politics of it would play out. I feel it could go either way as far as getting the average Afghan on our side goes. What do you think?
The Taliban was installed by Pakistan after the US and the RoC lost interest. The world needs to pay an interest in the outcome, and must see this through to the end. That is why we made the UN. Yes, the UN should step in.
I would imagine that Secretary-General Annan would agree.
Northern Alliance have apparently asked the UN to help build a government, a good sign I think
Who else is going to do it? The Northern Alliance? They're not much for keeping peace themselvs.
In principle it seems exactly what's needed (showing a mandate from the international community etc). In practice the UN are not exactly awesome on the ground (think Somalia, East Timor etc)
If I were an evil overlord I'd have a good laugh if the UN were sent in - humiliating the UN is always a good chance to show your 'world-beating' power to the local people.
So it depends on how its done.
very very bad idea
where was UN to prevent this war ?
nothern alliance are FAR worse than taliban
How can you say that?Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
nothern alliance are FAR worse than taliban
NA are no angels but they're lords of the realm compared to those bullies
As soon as NA liberated Mazar-E-Sharif they allowed women/girls to go to school, to work, relaxed the laws on this covering up business.
I think its a good idea...if it is a well run operation. Going there and getting slaughtered and/or humiliated isnt going to help anything.
Its a great idea, just make sure we dont do another vietnam, that would suck
Kovan, I've heard people say they were worse than the Taliban before, but I've never really had their opinions on why that is. What is it that makes the NA worse than the Taleban?
The whole Kabul thing is going to turn to ****e I think ...
I don't think that is possible. Looking at the relief on the faces of the citizens of Kabul last night, I don't think things could get any worse for them than with the Taliban.Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
nothern alliance are FAR worse than taliban
not being Northen Alliance expert though, I'm open to enlightenment: from what previous events do you derive your opinion?
Kovan
Yeah right! The UN are crap. The Northern Alliance are crap. What would you propose? Re-introduce the Taliban? The very organisation that are hated by the population?
Gaffer, I know what you mean, the people we all saw on TV all looked very happy to see the Alliance retaking the city. There has been some fairly vicious revenge taken on Taleban supporters though, so anybody you see in the news in the vicinity of the Alliance troops is pretty much bound to be an Alliance supporter.
I don't know how much animosity there is between the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan. It could be that the Alliance are more friendly in Kabul (mostly Tajiks isn't it?) but they might not treat civilians in Pashtun areas as kindly.
On the surface of it at least, it seems to me that Kabul is better off with the Alliance than with the Taleban. They both run on a system of martial law. The Alliance seems quite willing to cooperate with the outside world, which is a good thing from my perspective. If they are willing to cooperate then they won't be able to just act as a law unto themselves.
I believe Kabul is actually mostly Pashtun. The Taliban, although being Pashtun themselves, are only supported by a minority of the Pashtun population. An unhealthy proportion of the Taliban numbers come from abroad - Pakistani, Arab, British...
From the reports I read, the majority of the reprisals were being made against foreign Taliban members. One NA soldier was quoted as saying that he'd got his new jacket by killing an Arab soldier. If he'd been Afghani, he said, he'd have let him live because they "now all have to live together". PR, maybe... or maybe an encouraging sign.
One thing that has been confusing me... is the Northern Alliance NATO? Or is it some other group that has now emerged? :confused:
The Northern Alliance is nothing to do with NATO - it's an alliance of most of the Northern tribes in Afghanistan. They've been fighting the Taliban ever since they came to power.
Unlike the Taliban, they are almost completely Afghani.
Interesting Duncan.... hmm.
I was a little concerned with Musharraff's suggestions that troops from Pakistan and other Islamic nations should be used for peacekeeping. I don't have a problem with using Islamic nations' troops (for political reasons anyway) but I'm not sure about having a large body of Pakistani peacekeepers there. The Taleban were, after all, mostly (if not entirely) funded and equipped through Pakistan's support for them. Many of the Taleban had very stong links with Pakistan. Many of the citizens of Afghanistan seem to hate Pakistan, presumably for those reasons.
Ahhh... I see :D Cheers Duncan
It's a tricky one. I don't think there's any way that we can tell how the various factions within the population are going to regard the various creeds of foreigners that might be part of a peacekeeping force. It's probably safe to say that any such force shouldn't include Israelis ( :rolleyes: ), but would they prefer troops from a different Islamic faction to their own, or non-Islamic troops?
The situation isn't helped by Bin Laden saying the other day that any Islamic countries who are members of the UN are traitors to Islam. How widespread might that view be?
Bin Laden is always saying that kind fo thing though. I wouldn't be surprised of his next little bit of wisdom was, "Anybody who doesn't let me sodomise the beasts of their fields is a traitor to Islam". The people he is aiming his opinions at aren't stupid though, and I don't think they will be easily convinced just because he's trying to lay on the religious guilt trip.
I think there is a good chance that some of the more impressionable and, frankly, dim-witted muslims he is trying to convey his message to will take what he says as gospel and go get themselves killed for his cause, but I don't think it will be a widespread thing. At least, I hope not. Famous last words and all that.
Bin Laden does spout a lot of pious bull**** that from anyone else would be considered slightly insane rhetoric. The problem is, though, that he's been successful with this kind of crap in the past. No rational person person would agree with his assertion that the USA is populated by devils and that the best way to destroy them would be to fly a couple of airliners into some of their biggest buildings, but nevertheless he managed to find people willing to do it - and to die doing it.
Religious fanatics may not need to be stupid (although it must certainly help), but they are, by definition, fanatical. This makes them exceedingly dangerous, especially when the leaders they revere as holy are so clearly insane. (In Bin Laden's case - also rather camp. Has anyone else noticed that?) No matter how ridiculous what he says might be, and how comical he himself appears, there will always be those who will swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Oh yes I agree he will get some people, but I personally think that the vast majority will see that he's really just using the religion as a tool, whether he knows it or not, to achive his own misguided aims.
There will always be people deperate enough for meaning in their lives that they will make themselves believe what they're told by nutters. That's not something you can really expect to stop though. You can only hope to prevent them from causing any damage.
Well, fingers crossed it doesn't all end in tears.
1. They dont take prisoners of war (either the enemy must surrender before they are captured, or die when they are captured). When they captured Mazar I Sareef, thats exactly what they did, they truely believe in revenge killing. And another proof of this is when they entered Kabul. They were kicking and beating the men who were still in kabul when they entered it. You could see dead bodies on the roads and in the ditches. One cant really argue that these are dead from the war, because there was NO war as taleeban just packed up without much of a fightQuote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Kovan, I've heard people say they were worse than the Taliban before, but I've never really had their opinions on why that is. What is it that makes the NA worse than the Taleban?
2. I believe majority of afghanistan are pishtuns, and Northan Alliance hate pisthuns, NA represent a small number of aghani population, they are tajiks.
3. They broke the promise they made with the exiled king
4. They dont really want to share power with anyone else, (even though they say they would)
5. They have very good relations with India which creates a problem for Pakistan
do the math, pakistan pissed more than it is already, india pissed more than it is already
we got nukes flying in the air..
From people i have talked to say that Taleeban follow a VERY strict law of Islam (go too far such as letting not letting women to go to school, etc)
where as NA dont really care about religion all that much
and most people say that taleeban is some what better for them because they have at least some religious rules that follow Islam
I didnt see many people dance in the streets when NA entered Kabul, infact there were few, who were being shown over and over
same thing as when some palestinians were dancing on sep 11, who were being shown over and over
Kovan
I don't think abybody seriously suggests that Afghanistan should now be run by the NA, all we are saying is that many people in formally taliban controlled areas were celebrating by practising the freedoms that were denied to them whilst under taliban rule.
Absolute Rubbish! The NA doesn't (as far as I know) prevent people from living their lives according to Islamic law. The point is that they are just not being forced to.Quote:
and most people say that taleeban is some what better for them because they have at least some religious rules that follow Islam
This is just an unfounded allegation. It can only be judged in time as we see how well they cooperate with the international community.Quote:
They dont really want to share power with anyone else, (even though they say they would)
Kovan
You say you live in Canada. How would you like it if people were being forced to live by Christian laws? Do you not enjoy the freedom of choice you have in Canada to follow the religion that you want? Why should the same not be true in an Islamic country?
I bet if muslims were being forced to hide their Islamic behviour in Canada, you would be one of the first people jumping up and down complaining about muslims being repressed and persecuted.
Well Kovan I agree that we are being shown much of the same footage again and again. Everyone expects propaganda. Like I said before, we're not going to be seeing Taleban supporters complaining much.
Anyway, to address your issues:
1. there were quite a few Taleban and Al-Quaida people still in Kabul when the Alliance entered it. The majority of the Taleban forces had withdrawn, but there were definitely still some there, and there was fighting going on even when it became clear that the Alliance had taken the city. There are still almost undoubtedly Taleban/Al-Quaida supporters in the area surrounding Kabul who are still intending to take part in military action. I am sure many of the dead we saw were civilian Taleban supporters but I expect the majority were a threat the the Alliance.
2. I was enquiring earlier on the level of animosity between the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan, since I don't know much about it, but I am fairly confident that the Alliance don't all hate Pashtuns, as you suggest. If I'm not mistaken, Abdul Haq was a Pashtun himself. Tajik's aren't a small minority either, they represent around 20% of the population I think, compared to around 35% for Pashtuns. I'm not exactly certain on those figures but the proportions are about right I think.
3. That is true, they did go back on their agreement not to take Kabul. The Alliance commanders were trying to stop the Alliance troops from attacking, but there was little point as Kabul has a lot of sentimental significance to the Northern Alliance, and the Alliance footsoldiers were very keen to retake it.
4. That could be true, but I don't see any evidence for it besides human nature.
5. The Taleban have very, very close ties with Pakistan. Doesn't that create a problem for India? The situation isn't different. You said the Alliance were far worse than the Taleban.
So, who do the Taliban share their power with?Quote:
4. They dont really want to share power with anyone else, (even though they say they would)
I do enjoy my freedom, although i would prefer to see some Islamic Laws (like that will happen) in placeQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kovan
You say you live in Canada. How would you like it if people were being forced to live by Christian laws? Do you not enjoy the freedom of choice you have in Canada to follow the religion that you want? Why should the same not be true in an Islamic country?
I bet if muslims were being forced to hide their Islamic behviour in Canada, you would be one of the first people jumping up and down complaining about muslims being repressed and persecuted.
after all your effected by the society around you
since i like living in canada, and i like it even though there is no islamic laws, iwould never want someone forcing ANYTHING on me
but i dont totally like capitalism all that much
since afghanistan is bordered with pakistan, its best that the government in place are approved by pakistan and in good relations with pakistan,
same goes for the rest of the borders
oh and from what i heard from people that actually lived there
the real drug dealers were the NA
No one is defending taleeban here,
while ihave said it before, taleeban give a very very bad image of Islam.
but than again all so called islamic gov't abuse human rights Islam has given to the people
and they claim that this is Islam
saudi arabia being one of them (but not as bad as others)
Alot of people are moving to middle east (countries without war)
from canada because they want their kids to grow up in a Islamic
environment
Turkey for example, prevents women from wearing the cover in governemt buildings and high eductanal institutions such as universities
what happened to the rights of those woman that want to cover themselves?
as long as the USA's nose is in any country, the people will not have any peace
.
Kovan
You say:
And then you go on to say:Quote:
I do enjoy my freedom, although i would prefer to see some Islamic Laws (like that will happen) in place
Are you saying you wouldn't want non-Islamic laws forced on you but you would like to see some Islamic laws forced onto the other people of canada? What Islamic laws are you refering to?Quote:
iwould never want someone forcing ANYTHING on me
This may be true but a hello of a lot more people are moving from the middle east because they don't like it there (either for economic or political reasons).Quote:
Alot of people are moving to middle east (countries without war)
from canada because they want their kids to grow up in a Islamic
environment
But there's nothing wrong with migration. People should be able to choose where they want to go and live. What suits one person does not necessarilly suit another.
I don't understand this law and it sounds unfair. Why should it matter what people wear?Quote:
Turkey for example, prevents women from wearing the cover in governemt buildings and high eductanal institutions such as universities
what happened to the rights of those woman that want to cover themselves?
maybe you missundrestood what I said
i want Islamic laws put in place for ME
not be forced on the rest of canadians
do you see me raising my voice that all canadians should follow Islamic Law?
nope
what laws i like to see are
Weekend to include Fridays (now which even non muslim wouldnt like an extra day for weekend)
I like to see Islamic events to become national holidays such as xmas and easter
The main reason people are moving from middle east is NOT religion, its the lack of it, or in other words things are forced on them that have absolutely no base in Islam
but majority of them are moving because of economical problems and no jobs.
The point i was trying to make with Turkey is
why arent human right groups speaking for those that are forced to do something against their religion?
Islamic Politics are banned from running in Turkey
and about 80+% of Turkish population is muslim
why isnt anyone speaking for these peoples rights to practice their religion?
answer is clear
its part of NATO, and no one messes with US interests
Well, you can't be that good an Islam follower if you need a law to be forced upon you to follow it. And maybe if the weekend didn't include friday the economy would be better.Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
maybe you missundrestood what I said
i want Islamic laws put in place for ME
not be forced on the rest of canadians
do you see me raising my voice that all canadians should follow Islamic Law?
nope
Kovan
Well, if laws are put in place, everyone in that country has to follow it. If you want to follow Islamic law, and it does not conflict with the laws of the country you live in, fine. No one will stop you (or at least they shouldn't).Quote:
i want Islamic laws put in place for ME
not be forced on the rest of canadians
do you see me raising my voice that all canadians should follow Islamic Law?
nope
Well, this isn't actually a law but I get the point of what you are saying. It could be a good idea. People register with a particular (state recognised) religion and they are then allowed to have certain days off work (as national holidays) according to the nature of the religion. Therefore, you would get off Islamic holidays but would have to work Christmas day etc.Quote:
I like to see Islamic events to become national holidays such as xmas and easter
You'd have to make sure that all religions had the same number of days though (to be fair) and also allow atheists to register under which ever regligion that suits them ;)
I didn't say that people were moving to get away from religion. They might be fleeing from institutional and cultural repression though.Quote:
The main reason people are moving from middle east is NOT religion, its the lack of it, or in other words things are forced on them that have absolutely no base in Islam
but majority of them are moving because of economical problems and no jobs.
I don't think that is the case. Most human rights organisations would recognise that everyone should be able to practice the religion they wish to. The problem is a case of priorities. Someone not being allowed to wear a cover over your head in public buildings is not as bad as being physically beaten for not wearing one in public.Quote:
why isnt anyone speaking for these peoples rights to practice their religion?
It is still wrong but the more serious crimes against humanity should be tackled first.
to a muslim women who covers herself, not wearing one is worse than than being beatenQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kovan
I don't think that is the case. Most human rights organisations would recognise that everyone should be able to practice the religion they wish to. The problem is a case of priorities. Someone not being allowed to wear a cover over your head in public buildings is not as bad as being physically beaten for not wearing one in public.
It is still wrong but the more serious crimes against humanity should be tackled first.
physical abuse goes away eventually
emotional abuse is far worse
but if your looking at it from your prespective then i undrestand why you would say that...
the cover for a womn is not just hiding her hair
I think kovan is trying to say that muslim women look like an inbred redneck's dog.
Kovan
OK, I don't want to get into a debate on the ethics of women covering themselves and, as I have said, I don't see why anybody should be forced to wear (or not wear as the case may be) particular clothing in public places.
But, the abuse that women suffered in Afghanistan (who did not wish to cover themselves) was more than just physical. The emotional stress caused for fearing for their lives everytime they went outside must have been great.
As you say though, priorities can differ depending on your point of view. In the west, the priorities for human rights start with a right to life and to be free of (actual or the threat of) physical and emotional violence. Freedom to practice your chosen religion comes further down the line.
hmmm, is it me or do MOST woman wear the cover because they want to, so it is the same case in afghanistanQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kovan
OK, I don't want to get into a debate on the ethics of women covering themselves and, as I have said, I don't see why anybody should be forced to wear (or not wear as the case may be) particular clothing in public places.
But, the abuse that women suffered in Afghanistan (who did not wish to cover themselves) was more than just physical. The emotional stress caused for fearing for their lives everytime they went outside must have been great.
As you say though, priorities can differ depending on your point of view. In the west, the priorities for human rights start with a right to life and to be free of (actual or the threat of) physical and emotional violence. Freedom to practice your chosen religion comes further down the line.
where i am actually from there is no laws for putting this on
yet 90% of the muslims cover themselves,
so there is no abuse for making them wear it
at least i dont think. Now not being able to go to school, i can see emotional harm here
this discussion is about taleeban i beliee
they go too far, replacement will be good
but Islamic laws will always be laws for muslims, no matter who is in power
What about if they have strict husbands? They might beat her or emotionally blackmail her into doing it because what he believes. I wonder how many of those women have bruises underneath? Some women must want to cover up because of their religion and thus is their right, but I don't not believe that all women who cover up outside of an islamic community do so because it is what they believe.Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
hmmm, is it me or do MOST woman wear the cover because they want to, so it is the same case in afghanistan
where i am actually from there is no laws for putting this on
yet 90% of the muslims cover themselves,
so there is no abuse for making them wear it
at least i dont think. Now not being able to go to school, i can see emotional harm here
this discussion is about taleeban i beliee
they go too far, replacement will be good
but Islamic laws will always be laws for muslims, no matter who is in power
the covering placed as a duty on the woman
there for if the husband says or doesnt say
its still required of the woman to cover up
if she doesnt, its only between her and her God