Bear with me... I need to vent! Afghanistan may no longer be ruled by the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban), but they may as well be. The Taliban brutally enforced their beliefs on others and the government they were replaced by is not much better... call it Taliban-Lite. Shortly after the new government was created, a man was found guilty of apostasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy) and sentenced to death. His case is typical in a religious-male-dominated society, where strict adherance to the state's faith is expected and divergance from it is intolerated. Yet many have denied the state's beliefs: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Muslims) ...and some of them have paid with their lives. The latest news is of a woman who was raped by a neighbor (he came into her home, shut the windows, and raped her) who was sentenced to 2 years ...for adultery. Yeah, she is raped by a married man and they charge her for adultery... unreal. When she appealed her sentence they got angry and added an additional 10 years to her sentence. That's a 12 year prison sentence for being raped... I mean ...for being found guilty of adultery after being raped. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15991641) A common occurance in Afghanistan (and other religious-male-dominated societies) is woman dousing themselves with flamable liquids and setting themselves on fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation). Sometimes they are set on fire... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning) Some women are suffering so much under the authority of an intolerant government that they choose death by fire... other have no choice at all, they live and die when others say they can. While a dramatic, positve (from our perspective) social change in Afghanistan may yet occur, beliefs (especially the religious type) are intensly intractable and unwavoring in the short term, so any substantial change will likely take several lifetimes to manifest. An example of this can be found with this interpretation of Sharia Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law "Although there are many different interpretations of sharia, and differing perspectives on each interpretation, there is consensus among Muslims that sharia is a reflection of God's will for humankind. Sharia must therefore be, in its purest sense, perfect and unchanging." ...ok... mostly vented...
Can anyone really explain to me why we are over there? The original plan of sending only Special Forces and then paying tribes to fight for us was brillant. Give the bad guys a bloody nose, kill the really bad guys then make deals with whose left and willing. Having all of these troops over there is crazy.
Covertly, via CIA operatives (SAD/SOG), and later overtly, the plan was to kill Usama Bin Laden and disrupt his al Qaeda network. There was debate in Clinton's administration on whether or not America should get involved in Afghanistan's civil war. o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]0[]o[]o[]o[]o Some additional history and insights into our involvement in Afghanistan: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm "After launching cruise missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the embassy bombings (in August, 1998), the Clinton administration applied diplomatic pressure to try to persuade the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to expel Bin Ladin. The administration also devised covert operations to use CIA-paid foreign agents to capture or kill Bin Ladin and his chief lieutenants. These actions did not stop Bin Ladin or dislodge al Qaeda from its sanctuary." o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]0[]o[]o[]o[]o After Clinton failed to kill Bin Laden (on several atempts, aborted due to unwanted/negative collatoral damage), Bush Jr. took on the challenge: "The Bush administration began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat within three to five years." This was in early 2001, pre-9/11 ...but... "As late as September 4, 2001, Richard Clarke, the White House staffer long responsible for counterterrorism policy coordination, asserted that the government had not yet made up its mind how to answer the question: "Is al Qida a big deal?" Up to this point at least, neither Clinton or Bush Jr. considered Bin Laden more than an occasional nuisance. The Taliban in Afghanistan were only on their radar since they sheltered Bin Laden and al Qaeda. "Terrorism was not the overriding national security concern for the U.S. government under either the Clinton or the pre-9/11 Bush administration. The policy challenges were linked to this failure of imagination. Officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations regarded a full U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as practically inconceivable before 9/11." I really appreciate the phrase "this failure of imagination" being used in the report... I've never been accused of it... at least in the manner used here lol o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]0[]o[]o[]o[]o "Beginning in February 1997, and through September 11, 2001, the U.S. government tried to use diplomatic pressure to persuade the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to stop being a sanctuary for al Qaeda, and to expel Bin Ladin to a country where he could face justice. These efforts included warnings and sanctions, but they all failed. The U.S. government also pressed two successive Pakistani governments to demand that the Taliban cease providing a sanctuary for Bin Ladin and his organization and, failing that, to cut off their support for the Taliban. Before 9/11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives and pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship with the Taliban." (laughing) ...like sanctions work against a poverty-stricken population lol ...I added this mainly to note how the Taliban and Pakistan had a "fundamental relationship"... which has current implications. The killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan was upsetting to our own relationship with the country... and it's also telling of the likely result once we pull out of Afghanistan, which is "more of the same (pre-9/11)". o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]0[]o[]o[]o[]o P.S. - Those ^ are toilets... ...it's potty humor.
Here's a story on Aisha, a stunning woman from Afghanistan who made the cover of Time a while back. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11530849 "Some critics questioned the tone of the Time cover arguing that it was using emotional blackmail and gender politics to justify continued US involvement in Afghanistan." ...the crybabies lol
Countries such as this one do believe that those laws are constituted that a mate is committing adultery in this scenario but it is actually wrong in most. Each country makes laws such as they think is correct and many do it with the old laws of the Bible. We can not say whether it is wrong or right, but to most it does seem as wrong based on how we are raised and knowledged. Women and children have been taught in these countries to commit suicide in the name of Allah (God). It is very sad because I don't believe that we are really meant to kill ourselves in this fashion to defend what we believe in for our countries.
I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but the differences between each countries/persons beliefs can become serious enough that war becomes inevitable. In order to avoid war, beliefs need to be somewhat flexible, they need to acknowledge that there are limits to what others will accept. One example may be Thailand's recent sentencing of a man who quoted from a book that was deemed unflattering to the Queen. He had posted the quote online while living in America years before, and was arrested in Thailand when he arrived there recently. The current debate on this is on whether or not Thailand can enforce their laws in this manner. I'd understand it if he had posted the quote while in Thailand... the law is clear on that, but to enforce the law while ignoring America's Freedom of Speech laws isn't right. Not the greatest example, but I was gonna post about it here somewhere anyway... and it almost fits what I'm trying to say lol
I love Thailand and it's people but they do get sort of silly about the royal family, in my opinion. In reply to the original thread, I have a lot of trouble with Muslim countries, mostly, I allege, from the way they treat their own citizens, especially female citizens than for terrorism. And the way they treat foreign workers and children and pretty much anyone who isn't Muslim and male. I dislike making broad condemnations of peoples and countries, but sometimes it's damned hard.
I think we are making, have made the same mistake there that we made in Vietnam. Putting regular forces into a guerilla war usually turns out badly, but the generals do love having boots on the ground.
Agreed. There was talk years ago about putting a time restriction on leaving the military before taking a consulant/lobbist position with a defense contractor. When talk about extending it to Congress came into play it died. Most of it comes from the pentagon and not from those in the field. The problem came to light again with the Bushes for they surrounded themselves with good old boys who switch back and forth from presidential positions and industrial complex. Eisenhower warned about it way back. But I am sure I am speaking to the preacher about this topic,
Exactly. They can't have any hitches in their money flow. Have you noticed how when the nation's woes are being discussed the conversation always fetches up at the Congress?
So now some qurans, qu'rans, korans ...whatever... were accidently burned in an improper manner by a couple of allied soldiers and extremist muslims are raging again. So far they've killed four US soldiers in response. Obama has apologized for the mistake, and Karzai (Afghanistan's President) has also apologized for the killings of the four troops and called for calm in his people, and also for the people responsible for the burning to be put on public trial. I don't have a problem with Obama apologizing for this incident, as it should be known by all that improper burning of the book is not acceptable... much like Americans view the burning of the American flag, a standard of proper procedure for the burning surely must be in place and apparently wasn't followed. It would be very easy to burn them properly by consulting with a muslim knowledgable in the task and capable of supervising the book's burning. If that had been done, those four people would not have been murdered for it. While I don't have a problem with Obama appologizing for the improper burning, I would like to see him, and other people in the position of power, stand up to these religious cowards extremists who kill people in retaliation for the burning of a book. The crime doesn't fit the punishment. As for Karzai's call for a public trial? That's uncalled for, IMO, but I have a very limited understanding on the laws governing this type of situation.
On a somewhat related note, and a nod to Andy (nods to Andy), when I searched for spellings of the Koran my browser had a fit. The reason being Andy (at least I think it was Andy lol) had mentioned words written on the web that the government searches for and investigates. ...anyway... A paranoid person may think "the gov'ment is spyin' on me!" ...and with the current war on terrorism it's true to a point... but that's the price we pay when people allow religion to rule over others. The extremist portion of those countries who are governed by religious belief tend to produce outcomes like 9-11. In response, our government investigates certain words. If that means my browser has an occasional fit, I'm fine with it. To the government person who had to investigate my search: You're probably a bit pale and more than a little listless from being stuck in that chair all day long. May I suggest that at your next available opportunity you go outside and soak-up some sun, exercise a bit, and enjoy the day? ...and thanks for your efforts to keep the more extremist religious from killing people.
Yesterday CNN showed an image of a costumed man allegedly being attacked by a Muslim. The man was saying the costume was the prophet Mohammed. So to a certain extent I got my wish ...that people (the man and CNN in this example) would "stand-up" to these extremist demands that we respect their religion, while they have no intention of respecting our own beliefs. I haven't had the TV on since then and wonder what the Muslim reaction to the broadcasting of the image was/will be but, having artistic leanings myself, I'm definitely of the opinion that Muslims have no business telling me what image I can create or display. Respect is one thing. One-sided respect is another. I see no legitimate reason for Muslims to dictate what non-Muslims are free to do in a non-Muslim country like ours.
