Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments
Urstruly September 30, 2001
#569 Posted by ylh on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
Fickleness Oh Fickleness
On Islam`s Challenge by rkr
http://WWW.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=rodebaugh_sep2301&n=340#reply209
On Islam`s Challenge by rkr
http://WWW.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=rodebaugh_sep2301&n=340#reply209
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#568 Posted by ylh on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
Sigalph and Stuka,
Thankyou for your positive comments. Stuka I must say though, that your assessment of Aisha might be a little colored by some interaction you might have had with her. Having known her for more than a year, I know that a possible interaction in the future will change your view of her just like you changed your view of me.
-YLH
Thankyou for your positive comments. Stuka I must say though, that your assessment of Aisha might be a little colored by some interaction you might have had with her. Having known her for more than a year, I know that a possible interaction in the future will change your view of her just like you changed your view of me.
-YLH
#567 Posted by ylh on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
Gowardhan,
Who discredited the wall street journal? would you look for advice on Stocks in the Jane`s Defence Weekly? If not are you discrediting the Jane`s Defence Weekly?
For people brought up on Hindustan Times, Times of India, and a dose of Hindu fundamentalism, I suppose Dawn will always be Yawn. Ironically it was an Indian who informed me 2 years ago that Dawn a Pakistani newspaper was on line and that Chowk.com was a Pakistani site.
What is your obsession with pakistan anyway?
Who discredited the wall street journal? would you look for advice on Stocks in the Jane`s Defence Weekly? If not are you discrediting the Jane`s Defence Weekly?
For people brought up on Hindustan Times, Times of India, and a dose of Hindu fundamentalism, I suppose Dawn will always be Yawn. Ironically it was an Indian who informed me 2 years ago that Dawn a Pakistani newspaper was on line and that Chowk.com was a Pakistani site.
What is your obsession with pakistan anyway?
#566 Posted by ylh on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
Dear Sigalph,
To the best of my knowledge Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Liaqat Ali Khan were shiites. You are right, my statement of 70% was erroneous, yet atleast 4 out of these 5 leaders were the most popular ones in that respect and their time in office is rather significant.
Jinnah 1 year.
Liaqat Ali Khan approx 4 years
Yahya Khan approx 3 years
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto approx 6 years.
Benazir Bhutto approx 5 years
A Sum of 19 years
Now if you take out the dicatorships of Zia and Ayub, which amount to 22 years, you have a total 33 years left. So 19 out 33 years isnt that bad.. it approximates to more than 60% of the rule.
Musharraf`s and Yahya`s presidencies were of different nature from Zia and Ayub so I am not excluding their tenures.
To the best of my knowledge Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Liaqat Ali Khan were shiites. You are right, my statement of 70% was erroneous, yet atleast 4 out of these 5 leaders were the most popular ones in that respect and their time in office is rather significant.
Jinnah 1 year.
Liaqat Ali Khan approx 4 years
Yahya Khan approx 3 years
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto approx 6 years.
Benazir Bhutto approx 5 years
A Sum of 19 years
Now if you take out the dicatorships of Zia and Ayub, which amount to 22 years, you have a total 33 years left. So 19 out 33 years isnt that bad.. it approximates to more than 60% of the rule.
Musharraf`s and Yahya`s presidencies were of different nature from Zia and Ayub so I am not excluding their tenures.
#565 Posted by rkr_327 on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
Saminashah # 531
rkr 327
I read your post with great interest. I have a few questions:
Looking forward to your response...
regards
1. Do you agree with the common knowledge that the greatest amount of wealth in the USA is owned by ten families?
Am I aware that much of the wealth of my country is either owned by, or under the direct influence of, a small portion of the population? Yes. Am I certain of the exact distribution? No. I will now offer a notion of my own. The specifics of the distribution may not truly matter, as long as everyone has “enough”. The question, of course, is what is “enough”? Is it plausible even to define it? I think it is. There should be sufficient genuinely graspable opportunity in a society that everyone can, in the course of a normal lifetime, earn enough such that they can think of marrying, raising a family, educating their children and retiring with a measure of comfort and security. Within these parameters most would be able to engage (in Jefferson’s wonderfully felicitous phrase) the Pursuit of Happiness. Understand that I do not consider, nor do I believe most people in their heart of hearts, consider the Pursuit of Happiness to be a pursuit of sybaritic indulgence, or even of untrammeled wealth, but rather understand it to be inalienable from the health, happiness and well-being of those they love, and with existing in a loving and productive relationship with what they hold most dear. With everyone in a society effectively able to see such an opportunity for themselves, how much more some few individuals may have beyond the generality is, arguably, irrelevant.
If you point is to argue that an overwhelmingly disparate distribution of wealth is inherently unjust, understand that democratic societies have been, as I argue in my piece, distinctly reluctant to make such an assumption apriori; however, when it is understood to be a case of people in genuine need, we are hardly beyond a measure the “Robin Hood” syndrome. Only we seem to have a healthy sense of proportion about it.
2. Who (ethnic and class) tend to be sent to fight the wars the US seems to be incapable of abstaining from?
For the early part of our existence, America specifically avoided foreign entanglements – understood, of course, to be those outside this hemisphere. We formally entered the world stage with the Spanish-American war, and subsequently became “entangled” by WW I and WW II. After the latter, we decided we needed to remain “entangled”. As to who fought. It has varied, and certainly is not as simple as I take you to imply. Often our armies have been voluntary. The draft was first instituted during the Civil War, and those with resources could buy their way out by hiring someone to take their place. But the burden has, of the very nature of any burden which must be borne by many, fallen on those of more limited means. The important point, from my perspective, is that the decision to fight has to be filtered though a democratic process. In the past century, and certainly continuing to this very moment, we have deferred a good deal of the point by point decision making to the executive – who gets to have his (as yet no her) way. But ultimately whoever exercises the power will have to reckon with the electoral judgment of those who fight and with the judgment of their parents, husbands, wives, suns and daughters.
3. How does war mongering help our economies?
I believe there to be no simple, not to say simplistic, relationship. Pace Marx.
4. Who are the elites(in the developing world) that benefit from US intervention? (i.e. overthrowing and installing leaders in countries that are deemed ``hostile`` to US interests)
To address the latter part first. In the second half of the twentieth century, American efforts to displace leaders “hostile” to our interests were largely associated with our cold war stance, i.e. it was the orientation of those leaders in regard to what we understood as the international communist menace that largely drove our actions. The elites in the developing world we supported, as a result of the foregoing overriding concern, were those who tended to openly align themselves with anti communism. As to their relationship to their own society, they tended to be drawn from the traditional governmental, military, and religious elites that, for by far the greater part, had governed human societies from the time we transitioned from tribal societies into large scale, division of labor constructs with the rise of large scale domesticated agriculture – what is termed the Agricultural Revolution (something between five and ten thousand years ago).
5. Do these elites have any responsibility in working to address the economic and political inequities that face the majority of the citizenry?
I would understand that they do, and the principle point of my argument was that democracies understand it as well, but generally (Real Politik) they decline to do much of anything about it. I tried at the end of my piece, to suggest a rationale by which they might begin to engage the matter. Understand that I regard the modern economic world as a kind of stealth strategy for bringing about a real address to those problems. As societies become more and more educated, in the modern sense, i.e. able to interface creatively with the cornucopia of opportunity which science and technology opens to us, the work by which they prosper shifts from the efficient organization of the sweat of our brows and the strength of our backs to the engaged creative efforts of their people. As this slowly happens, economic and political inequity becomes more and more of a clear liability, discouraging realization of exactly the work most necessary to success in the modern world.
6. Do the institutions in some of the most powerful democratic countries in the world participate in manufacturing an agenda for the citizens of these respective countries? How so?
I assume you are referring to globalization. Yes in a sense they do fashion agendas, and, frequently, not good ones in the short term. Having lived through the difficulties of the early stages of the transition to the modern world (the satanic mills et al), we have every reason to expect ourselves to try to avoid the mistakes that plagued us. Our record so far has not been good, but there are signs we are beginning to take cognizance of this – a stance the people of democracies will be in sympathy with. Our task is to manage far more intelligently than we managed for ourselves the transition a new world. A transition as momentous, and far more fraught with danger, as that which human societies effected in moving from tribal societies to what may be termed civilizational ones (although “Civilization” arguably, was an unintended consequence). A whirlwind of change this vast seems to those who experience it, to be sweeping them to a world they do not know, and which lacks any familiar anchoring points of reference. It is profoundly frightening. Is it any wonder peoples facing such change seek out venerable, deep structures of faith, belief, custom and practice which offer orientation and understanding?
7. How can the citizens of a democracy organize against state sponsored violence against marginalized citizens in their country?
I have suggested, in a world dominated by democracies (and flooded with media attention) non-violence should be the option of choice.
8. How can the citizens of a democracy organize against state sponsored violence against the civilian populations of a country chosen by administration to be ``hostile``?
Same answer as above. Non-violent demonstration. I assume, however, that by “hostile” we are no longer obsessed by communism (which seems to have passed, at least as a major player from the world stage) and that the hostile regimes who we are to oppose by such demonstrations are dictatorial and oppressive of their people, and not judged “hostile” by reason of their use of terrorist attacks. And our approach, as indicated in what I wrote, should be more in sorrow than in anger.
9. Isn`t the concept of ``nation-state`` in itself a one based on exclusionary citizenships?
Sorry, I don’t follow you very well here. One principle effect of accepting the modern sovereign nation state is to explicitly separate ourselves from whatever goes on within that state, its organization, its beliefs, its practices, so long as they do not threaten some other nations vital interests.
rkr 327
I read your post with great interest. I have a few questions:
Looking forward to your response...
regards
1. Do you agree with the common knowledge that the greatest amount of wealth in the USA is owned by ten families?
Am I aware that much of the wealth of my country is either owned by, or under the direct influence of, a small portion of the population? Yes. Am I certain of the exact distribution? No. I will now offer a notion of my own. The specifics of the distribution may not truly matter, as long as everyone has “enough”. The question, of course, is what is “enough”? Is it plausible even to define it? I think it is. There should be sufficient genuinely graspable opportunity in a society that everyone can, in the course of a normal lifetime, earn enough such that they can think of marrying, raising a family, educating their children and retiring with a measure of comfort and security. Within these parameters most would be able to engage (in Jefferson’s wonderfully felicitous phrase) the Pursuit of Happiness. Understand that I do not consider, nor do I believe most people in their heart of hearts, consider the Pursuit of Happiness to be a pursuit of sybaritic indulgence, or even of untrammeled wealth, but rather understand it to be inalienable from the health, happiness and well-being of those they love, and with existing in a loving and productive relationship with what they hold most dear. With everyone in a society effectively able to see such an opportunity for themselves, how much more some few individuals may have beyond the generality is, arguably, irrelevant.
If you point is to argue that an overwhelmingly disparate distribution of wealth is inherently unjust, understand that democratic societies have been, as I argue in my piece, distinctly reluctant to make such an assumption apriori; however, when it is understood to be a case of people in genuine need, we are hardly beyond a measure the “Robin Hood” syndrome. Only we seem to have a healthy sense of proportion about it.
2. Who (ethnic and class) tend to be sent to fight the wars the US seems to be incapable of abstaining from?
For the early part of our existence, America specifically avoided foreign entanglements – understood, of course, to be those outside this hemisphere. We formally entered the world stage with the Spanish-American war, and subsequently became “entangled” by WW I and WW II. After the latter, we decided we needed to remain “entangled”. As to who fought. It has varied, and certainly is not as simple as I take you to imply. Often our armies have been voluntary. The draft was first instituted during the Civil War, and those with resources could buy their way out by hiring someone to take their place. But the burden has, of the very nature of any burden which must be borne by many, fallen on those of more limited means. The important point, from my perspective, is that the decision to fight has to be filtered though a democratic process. In the past century, and certainly continuing to this very moment, we have deferred a good deal of the point by point decision making to the executive – who gets to have his (as yet no her) way. But ultimately whoever exercises the power will have to reckon with the electoral judgment of those who fight and with the judgment of their parents, husbands, wives, suns and daughters.
3. How does war mongering help our economies?
I believe there to be no simple, not to say simplistic, relationship. Pace Marx.
4. Who are the elites(in the developing world) that benefit from US intervention? (i.e. overthrowing and installing leaders in countries that are deemed ``hostile`` to US interests)
To address the latter part first. In the second half of the twentieth century, American efforts to displace leaders “hostile” to our interests were largely associated with our cold war stance, i.e. it was the orientation of those leaders in regard to what we understood as the international communist menace that largely drove our actions. The elites in the developing world we supported, as a result of the foregoing overriding concern, were those who tended to openly align themselves with anti communism. As to their relationship to their own society, they tended to be drawn from the traditional governmental, military, and religious elites that, for by far the greater part, had governed human societies from the time we transitioned from tribal societies into large scale, division of labor constructs with the rise of large scale domesticated agriculture – what is termed the Agricultural Revolution (something between five and ten thousand years ago).
5. Do these elites have any responsibility in working to address the economic and political inequities that face the majority of the citizenry?
I would understand that they do, and the principle point of my argument was that democracies understand it as well, but generally (Real Politik) they decline to do much of anything about it. I tried at the end of my piece, to suggest a rationale by which they might begin to engage the matter. Understand that I regard the modern economic world as a kind of stealth strategy for bringing about a real address to those problems. As societies become more and more educated, in the modern sense, i.e. able to interface creatively with the cornucopia of opportunity which science and technology opens to us, the work by which they prosper shifts from the efficient organization of the sweat of our brows and the strength of our backs to the engaged creative efforts of their people. As this slowly happens, economic and political inequity becomes more and more of a clear liability, discouraging realization of exactly the work most necessary to success in the modern world.
6. Do the institutions in some of the most powerful democratic countries in the world participate in manufacturing an agenda for the citizens of these respective countries? How so?
I assume you are referring to globalization. Yes in a sense they do fashion agendas, and, frequently, not good ones in the short term. Having lived through the difficulties of the early stages of the transition to the modern world (the satanic mills et al), we have every reason to expect ourselves to try to avoid the mistakes that plagued us. Our record so far has not been good, but there are signs we are beginning to take cognizance of this – a stance the people of democracies will be in sympathy with. Our task is to manage far more intelligently than we managed for ourselves the transition a new world. A transition as momentous, and far more fraught with danger, as that which human societies effected in moving from tribal societies to what may be termed civilizational ones (although “Civilization” arguably, was an unintended consequence). A whirlwind of change this vast seems to those who experience it, to be sweeping them to a world they do not know, and which lacks any familiar anchoring points of reference. It is profoundly frightening. Is it any wonder peoples facing such change seek out venerable, deep structures of faith, belief, custom and practice which offer orientation and understanding?
7. How can the citizens of a democracy organize against state sponsored violence against marginalized citizens in their country?
I have suggested, in a world dominated by democracies (and flooded with media attention) non-violence should be the option of choice.
8. How can the citizens of a democracy organize against state sponsored violence against the civilian populations of a country chosen by administration to be ``hostile``?
Same answer as above. Non-violent demonstration. I assume, however, that by “hostile” we are no longer obsessed by communism (which seems to have passed, at least as a major player from the world stage) and that the hostile regimes who we are to oppose by such demonstrations are dictatorial and oppressive of their people, and not judged “hostile” by reason of their use of terrorist attacks. And our approach, as indicated in what I wrote, should be more in sorrow than in anger.
9. Isn`t the concept of ``nation-state`` in itself a one based on exclusionary citizenships?
Sorry, I don’t follow you very well here. One principle effect of accepting the modern sovereign nation state is to explicitly separate ourselves from whatever goes on within that state, its organization, its beliefs, its practices, so long as they do not threaten some other nations vital interests.
#564 Posted by ylh on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
`Rsaxena:
RE: PM
Go screw yourself.`
Oh ho itna Ghussa? Kiya hua bhai?
MaheshG,
I didnt lie about the article. I merely said that I dont believe Rsaxena. In any event your contention. As for the article of repute... anyone on Chowk will tell you that the numerous articles I have posted and numerous links I have given are all reputed articles from reputed journals.
Perhaps the answer to your question was best put by PM #481 who said :
(To Rsaxena)
`As for `cut-and-paste`` jobs, weren`t you thanking MaheshG for doing just that? Oh, wait a minute.... I see your point... it`s ok to scrounge around for and quote ONE article that (obliquely) supports your POV, but it`s somehow ignorant on YLH`s part to provide references to 10 articles or books by more established authors? Right?!?`
So Mahesh G I dont think I need to prove anything to anyone. If someone thinks I am a liar so be it. I am confident of my facts and figures. Maybe someday you will read John Fricker`s `Battle for Pakistan` or maybe you will pick up the NYtimes of dates of Sept 1965 and you will see what NYtimes said back then.
PM,
I am most thankful once again for your rather eloquent support. I know you will say that you were just speaking out for you thought was right, but I am personally in gratitude once again for not everyone speaks out for what is right...
Interestingly enough my `qari` sahib appointed by my parents to teach me Quran in the evenings used to say that `a true Human being is the one who speaks out against injustice`.. He couldnt teach me Quran due to my lack of interest in it, but I am grateful for that definition of a true Human Being :). Does away with a lot of other hangups which people in Pakistan abundantly possess unfortunately dont you think?
Thankyou
-Yasser Hamdani
#563 Posted by Rdesikan on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
Bigots/misanthropes like urstruly may call her ungrateful for all that the taliban have done
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/14/wlamb14.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/10/14/ixhome.html
`I hear the bombs drop and I pray that they will end our suffering`
(Filed: 14/10/2001)
FROM the blasted heart of Kabul, a brave young woman smuggled a letter out to our correspondent Christina Lamb in Quetta through a friend. This is her dramatic account of the Taliban`s destruction of her nation and of her hopes that `Bush and Blair mean what they say`
THIS week I listen to the bombs falling on the airport and military command just a few miles away and though we are scared by the bangs which shake our flat, we believe they will not hurt us and we come out and watch the flashes in the sky and we pray this will be an end to our suffering.
You asked me to write a letter about our life under the Taliban regime and I hope this will help you outside to understand the feelings of an educated Afghan female who must now live under a burqa.
Although Marri is not my real name, please use this as what we are doing is dangerous. I`m 30 years old and live in a three-roomed flat with my family on the outskirts of Kabul. I graduated from high school and speak Dari, Pashto and English as my father was a diplomat and my mother an English teacher. My mother went to university in India.
I know from our friend that you have a kind husband and a beautiful son and you travel the world reporting and meeting people. I dream of a life like that. It`s funny we live under the same small sky yet it seems we live 500 years apart.
You see us now in our burqas, like strange insects scurrying in the dust, our heads down, but it wasn`t always this way. I do not remember much before the Russian invasion as I was still young but even when the Russians came we still went to school.
Women worked as professors and doctors and in government. We went for picnics and parties, wore jeans and short skirts, and I thought I would go to university like my mother and work for my living.
I know in the villages many schools had been destroyed in the war but here in Kabul we were lucky. Only when the Taliban came were all the girls` schools and university closed.
Hidden in our house, behind all the burqas and shalwar kamiz, is a red silk party dress, my mother`s, from the time when the king was in power and my father was in the foreign ministry. Sometimes I hold it up against me and imagine dancing but it is a lost world.
Now we must wear clothes that make us invisible and cannot even wear high heels. Several of my friends have been beaten because the Taliban could hear their shoes clicking on the pavement.
You might think we women are doing nothing but my friends and I struggle for the rights of Afghan women, working secretly here for the Afghan Women`s League, trying to educate our women and young girls. There is not much we can do as we are not allowed out, but some of our members make naan bread and distribute it.
We have small rebellions. Maybe you do not know but we are forbidden to wear make-up under the burqas but I have a red lipstick.
I have two brothers and two sisters, and right now my elder brothers work and we women must stay home all day. We study or we try to teach our neighbours some English but it is hard as we fear someone might report us and we cannot get English books.
At night there is no light. Life here is very miserable. We have no rights at all and we have asked many times other countries of the world for help but they have been silent.
Now it is good that after all this time the world has turned its face towards Afghanistan. Right now I want to laugh at the world a lot because in other countries of the civilised and progressive world no one knew about our problems before those attacks on America and now we are all the time on BBC.
You cannot imagine how an educated Afghan girl lives or how even when we go out for something in the market; the Taliban, in particular Pakistani Taliban, tease us a lot. They insult us and say: ``You Kabuli girls, still coming out in the streets, shame on you,`` and worse.
Now think, Afghanistan is my motherland and a Pakistani Talib treats me like that. You might wonder why I am not married. It`s hard to find love in this situation, we are so tired. I look in the mirror and I see a face that does not remember a time before war, and I would not want to bring a child into this city of fear.
We do not have schools, the doors of education are closed on all, especially us. We cannot paint or listen to music. The Taliban ran their tanks over all the televisions.
We asked the world, are we not human beings? Do we not deserve to live in peace? Can we not have our rights as women in other countries?
Many people have left but my family is staying, praying for change. The market is still working - we Kabulis are tough - and there is food in the market but we have stocked up in case it runs out. Already there is no oil.
The Taliban say this is a war on Afghanistan. Some of our friends say we must now support the Taliban against the outside, but how can we support those who lock us away? We listen secretly to the BBC and hope that Mr Bush and Mr Blair mean what they say.
I hope they do not come and bomb, then forget us again. Maybe when you watch the bombs on CNN you will think of me and know we are real feeling people here, a girl who likes to wear red lipstick and dreams of dancing, not just the men of beards and guns.
I do not know what you want me to write to you. If I start writing I will fill all the paper and my eyes will fill with tears because in these seven years of Taliban no one has asked us to write about our lives. In my mind I make a picture of you and your family.
I wonder if you drive a car, if you go out with friends to movies and restaurants and dance at parties? Do you play loud music and swim in lakes? One day I would like to see and I would also like to show you a beautiful place in my country with mountains and streams, but not now while we must be hidden.
Maybe our worlds will always be too far apart.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/14/wlamb14.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/10/14/ixhome.html
`I hear the bombs drop and I pray that they will end our suffering`
(Filed: 14/10/2001)
FROM the blasted heart of Kabul, a brave young woman smuggled a letter out to our correspondent Christina Lamb in Quetta through a friend. This is her dramatic account of the Taliban`s destruction of her nation and of her hopes that `Bush and Blair mean what they say`
THIS week I listen to the bombs falling on the airport and military command just a few miles away and though we are scared by the bangs which shake our flat, we believe they will not hurt us and we come out and watch the flashes in the sky and we pray this will be an end to our suffering.
You asked me to write a letter about our life under the Taliban regime and I hope this will help you outside to understand the feelings of an educated Afghan female who must now live under a burqa.
Although Marri is not my real name, please use this as what we are doing is dangerous. I`m 30 years old and live in a three-roomed flat with my family on the outskirts of Kabul. I graduated from high school and speak Dari, Pashto and English as my father was a diplomat and my mother an English teacher. My mother went to university in India.
I know from our friend that you have a kind husband and a beautiful son and you travel the world reporting and meeting people. I dream of a life like that. It`s funny we live under the same small sky yet it seems we live 500 years apart.
You see us now in our burqas, like strange insects scurrying in the dust, our heads down, but it wasn`t always this way. I do not remember much before the Russian invasion as I was still young but even when the Russians came we still went to school.
Women worked as professors and doctors and in government. We went for picnics and parties, wore jeans and short skirts, and I thought I would go to university like my mother and work for my living.
I know in the villages many schools had been destroyed in the war but here in Kabul we were lucky. Only when the Taliban came were all the girls` schools and university closed.
Hidden in our house, behind all the burqas and shalwar kamiz, is a red silk party dress, my mother`s, from the time when the king was in power and my father was in the foreign ministry. Sometimes I hold it up against me and imagine dancing but it is a lost world.
Now we must wear clothes that make us invisible and cannot even wear high heels. Several of my friends have been beaten because the Taliban could hear their shoes clicking on the pavement.
You might think we women are doing nothing but my friends and I struggle for the rights of Afghan women, working secretly here for the Afghan Women`s League, trying to educate our women and young girls. There is not much we can do as we are not allowed out, but some of our members make naan bread and distribute it.
We have small rebellions. Maybe you do not know but we are forbidden to wear make-up under the burqas but I have a red lipstick.
I have two brothers and two sisters, and right now my elder brothers work and we women must stay home all day. We study or we try to teach our neighbours some English but it is hard as we fear someone might report us and we cannot get English books.
At night there is no light. Life here is very miserable. We have no rights at all and we have asked many times other countries of the world for help but they have been silent.
Now it is good that after all this time the world has turned its face towards Afghanistan. Right now I want to laugh at the world a lot because in other countries of the civilised and progressive world no one knew about our problems before those attacks on America and now we are all the time on BBC.
You cannot imagine how an educated Afghan girl lives or how even when we go out for something in the market; the Taliban, in particular Pakistani Taliban, tease us a lot. They insult us and say: ``You Kabuli girls, still coming out in the streets, shame on you,`` and worse.
Now think, Afghanistan is my motherland and a Pakistani Talib treats me like that. You might wonder why I am not married. It`s hard to find love in this situation, we are so tired. I look in the mirror and I see a face that does not remember a time before war, and I would not want to bring a child into this city of fear.
We do not have schools, the doors of education are closed on all, especially us. We cannot paint or listen to music. The Taliban ran their tanks over all the televisions.
We asked the world, are we not human beings? Do we not deserve to live in peace? Can we not have our rights as women in other countries?
Many people have left but my family is staying, praying for change. The market is still working - we Kabulis are tough - and there is food in the market but we have stocked up in case it runs out. Already there is no oil.
The Taliban say this is a war on Afghanistan. Some of our friends say we must now support the Taliban against the outside, but how can we support those who lock us away? We listen secretly to the BBC and hope that Mr Bush and Mr Blair mean what they say.
I hope they do not come and bomb, then forget us again. Maybe when you watch the bombs on CNN you will think of me and know we are real feeling people here, a girl who likes to wear red lipstick and dreams of dancing, not just the men of beards and guns.
I do not know what you want me to write to you. If I start writing I will fill all the paper and my eyes will fill with tears because in these seven years of Taliban no one has asked us to write about our lives. In my mind I make a picture of you and your family.
I wonder if you drive a car, if you go out with friends to movies and restaurants and dance at parties? Do you play loud music and swim in lakes? One day I would like to see and I would also like to show you a beautiful place in my country with mountains and streams, but not now while we must be hidden.
Maybe our worlds will always be too far apart.
#562 Posted by shankar on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
Saxena,
{{still trying hard to start a fight with me? pathetic...}}
After getting regular butt whippings from scout, I see you have developed the good sense of not getting into a fight with another Pakistani lady.
Those tigresses are beautiful as they are ferocious. I can understand why some of their men want to keep them caged in a burkha.
Oops I`d better quit, before anNy starts whacking me with her pigtails:)..
{{still trying hard to start a fight with me? pathetic...}}
After getting regular butt whippings from scout, I see you have developed the good sense of not getting into a fight with another Pakistani lady.
Those tigresses are beautiful as they are ferocious. I can understand why some of their men want to keep them caged in a burkha.
Oops I`d better quit, before anNy starts whacking me with her pigtails:)..
#561 Posted by sadna on October 14, 2001 6:46:15 pm
PM #560
I donot think this is going to do any good. But here are my own comments, feel free to ignore.
I think Pakistanis are questioned about their SUPPORT for the Taliban inspite of their policies.
I donot think there is a doubt about those policies, they are pretty well documented.
``Nobody has seen the problems of Afghanistan; nobody saw their problems before. And the only thing that represents Afghanistan today are the statues. ``
Not true. Its in the press too that many Muslim countries have tried to reason with the Taliban on their harsh policies and sheltering of bin Laden both over the last few YEARS, not just the statues. Even on chowk someone spoke of how, many delegations from the world`s oldest Islamic university in Egypt have tried many times in the recent years to reason with the Taliban about their faulty understanding and implementation of Islamic principles, to no avail. Many womens` organisations in the West, and some Afghan womans organisations have been agititating about the Taliban restrictions on women. Due to this public uproar, the Clinton govt gave up the idea of patronising the Taliban govt in `96-`97? or so, in exchange for a oil pipeline.
``Even today, our children are dying because of the landmines that they planted for us. And nobody knows about this. ``
Not true. Only the other day, I posted a reference of how the humanitarian agencies in Kabul were conducting training for ordinary Afghans to learn to avoid mines. (dozens die every week) Because ordinary Afghans are mostly illiterate, the Western humanitarian agencies were using pictures and game boards to teach them to steer clear of mines. The Taliban shut these training session down and seized all the teaching material saying pictures are unIslamic. If you want the reference, I can find it again.
``Hearing this story, many other students joined this movement and started disarming the rest of the warlords.``
Mullah Omar was described as having gained prominance after he murdered a homosexual commander who had married a young boy, inspite of Massood and Rabbani? trying to dissuade him from doing so because he(the homosexual commander) was an ally. Mullah Omar got a huge following after that and never looked back.
The Taliban disarmed, they united, I am sure they did and were welcomed by Afghans in the beginning. They have set up an administration, yes. But a recent survey found more than 90% Afghans disagreeing with their policies mostly their harsh laws and treatment of women. Opium is reportedly not cultivated in such quantities, yes, but they reportedly have a huge store of it, from which they still sell into the international market. It is said that the international prices havenot risen because of this reason.
``restoration of human rights``
Right to live : Taking on the world to defend an Arab guest and his 3000-odd warriors who finance and fight the Taliban`s war on NA and isolating Afghanistan and Afghans, and making 2-3 million refugees cannot be called the right to live. Holding up aid trucks and demanding hafta cannot be called concern for citizenship.
Women`s rights:
I can give you any number of references that women cannot work in Afghanistan, cannot visit a doctor, cannot attend school. I know you have made a statement on chowk ``The Taliban donot lie``, but I believe you are very much mistaken on this count.
Women`s education:
Why is there only illegal camera footage of underground girl`s schools, if girls can attend school. Are you saying the journalists who visited those schools conducted clandestinely, and the women teaching in those schools were all lying?
``segregated medical school``
Which medical school, why donot they name it?
Is RAWA lying?(Revolutionary Women`s Association of Afghanistan www.rawa.org)
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/rules.htm
``bin Laden``:
There is evidence that the attacks on African embassies were carried out by bin Laden operators. Because the Taliban donot believe bin Laden has organized attacks on US installations in S. Arabia, Africa, on WTC and Pentagon in the US,(which evidence even Pakistan and Musharraf say is sufficient) bin Laden is not a terrorist?
Why do bin Laden and the Al-Qaida send those threats by video then? They have threatened `more` attacks and asked Muslims not to travel by air or stay in tall buildings. Is that an admission ? If it is then are bin Laden and Al-Qaida terrorists? Is Taliban justified in harboring these people at the cost to their own Afghan countrymen?
``we donot declare war``
bin Laden issued a fatwa against Americans back in `98 on ABC? if I am right. He said American civilians, women and children were also valid targets in this war against Jews and Christians. Is that not a declaration of war?
``Trial in Saudi Arabia:`` Apparently Prince Abdullah made such an offer earlier this year (months before the attacks) when he travelled to meet Mullah Omar with the Pakistani ISI chief. Mullah Omar refused. I can find the reference from Asia Times, a Pakistani reporter, I had posted it on chowk too.
``Sanctions``:
I agree these are stupid and criminal, both in Afghanistan and Iraq.
``Kofi Annan, refugees, never bothered`` :
Who else has been feeding `one-third the population of Kabul` for many years if not UN relief agencies. Who else is taking care of refugees with Pakistani help in Pakistani refugee camps?
``And we believe that it is better to die for something than to live for nothing. ``
Then why complain? Are the Taliban the only ones in the world to have principles they prefer to stand by than compromise?
I donot think this is going to do any good. But here are my own comments, feel free to ignore.
I think Pakistanis are questioned about their SUPPORT for the Taliban inspite of their policies.
I donot think there is a doubt about those policies, they are pretty well documented.
``Nobody has seen the problems of Afghanistan; nobody saw their problems before. And the only thing that represents Afghanistan today are the statues. ``
Not true. Its in the press too that many Muslim countries have tried to reason with the Taliban on their harsh policies and sheltering of bin Laden both over the last few YEARS, not just the statues. Even on chowk someone spoke of how, many delegations from the world`s oldest Islamic university in Egypt have tried many times in the recent years to reason with the Taliban about their faulty understanding and implementation of Islamic principles, to no avail. Many womens` organisations in the West, and some Afghan womans organisations have been agititating about the Taliban restrictions on women. Due to this public uproar, the Clinton govt gave up the idea of patronising the Taliban govt in `96-`97? or so, in exchange for a oil pipeline.
``Even today, our children are dying because of the landmines that they planted for us. And nobody knows about this. ``
Not true. Only the other day, I posted a reference of how the humanitarian agencies in Kabul were conducting training for ordinary Afghans to learn to avoid mines. (dozens die every week) Because ordinary Afghans are mostly illiterate, the Western humanitarian agencies were using pictures and game boards to teach them to steer clear of mines. The Taliban shut these training session down and seized all the teaching material saying pictures are unIslamic. If you want the reference, I can find it again.
``Hearing this story, many other students joined this movement and started disarming the rest of the warlords.``
Mullah Omar was described as having gained prominance after he murdered a homosexual commander who had married a young boy, inspite of Massood and Rabbani? trying to dissuade him from doing so because he(the homosexual commander) was an ally. Mullah Omar got a huge following after that and never looked back.
The Taliban disarmed, they united, I am sure they did and were welcomed by Afghans in the beginning. They have set up an administration, yes. But a recent survey found more than 90% Afghans disagreeing with their policies mostly their harsh laws and treatment of women. Opium is reportedly not cultivated in such quantities, yes, but they reportedly have a huge store of it, from which they still sell into the international market. It is said that the international prices havenot risen because of this reason.
``restoration of human rights``
Right to live : Taking on the world to defend an Arab guest and his 3000-odd warriors who finance and fight the Taliban`s war on NA and isolating Afghanistan and Afghans, and making 2-3 million refugees cannot be called the right to live. Holding up aid trucks and demanding hafta cannot be called concern for citizenship.
Women`s rights:
I can give you any number of references that women cannot work in Afghanistan, cannot visit a doctor, cannot attend school. I know you have made a statement on chowk ``The Taliban donot lie``, but I believe you are very much mistaken on this count.
Women`s education:
Why is there only illegal camera footage of underground girl`s schools, if girls can attend school. Are you saying the journalists who visited those schools conducted clandestinely, and the women teaching in those schools were all lying?
``segregated medical school``
Which medical school, why donot they name it?
Is RAWA lying?(Revolutionary Women`s Association of Afghanistan www.rawa.org)
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/rules.htm
``bin Laden``:
There is evidence that the attacks on African embassies were carried out by bin Laden operators. Because the Taliban donot believe bin Laden has organized attacks on US installations in S. Arabia, Africa, on WTC and Pentagon in the US,(which evidence even Pakistan and Musharraf say is sufficient) bin Laden is not a terrorist?
Why do bin Laden and the Al-Qaida send those threats by video then? They have threatened `more` attacks and asked Muslims not to travel by air or stay in tall buildings. Is that an admission ? If it is then are bin Laden and Al-Qaida terrorists? Is Taliban justified in harboring these people at the cost to their own Afghan countrymen?
``we donot declare war``
bin Laden issued a fatwa against Americans back in `98 on ABC? if I am right. He said American civilians, women and children were also valid targets in this war against Jews and Christians. Is that not a declaration of war?
``Trial in Saudi Arabia:`` Apparently Prince Abdullah made such an offer earlier this year (months before the attacks) when he travelled to meet Mullah Omar with the Pakistani ISI chief. Mullah Omar refused. I can find the reference from Asia Times, a Pakistani reporter, I had posted it on chowk too.
``Sanctions``:
I agree these are stupid and criminal, both in Afghanistan and Iraq.
``Kofi Annan, refugees, never bothered`` :
Who else has been feeding `one-third the population of Kabul` for many years if not UN relief agencies. Who else is taking care of refugees with Pakistani help in Pakistani refugee camps?
``And we believe that it is better to die for something than to live for nothing. ``
Then why complain? Are the Taliban the only ones in the world to have principles they prefer to stand by than compromise?
#560 Posted by rsaxena on October 14, 2001 5:45:42 pm
Re: binifer #564
still trying hard to start a fight with me? pathetic...can`t even do that well...
still trying hard to start a fight with me? pathetic...can`t even do that well...
#559 Posted by Gowardhan on October 14, 2001 5:45:42 pm
A new way to ``ably discredit`` the Wall Street Journal.
Just say I dont believe it. Or it is bonehead. Wall Street is discredited.
What can anyone expect from people fed with Nation, News, Yawn from their childhood?
Just say I dont believe it. Or it is bonehead. Wall Street is discredited.
What can anyone expect from people fed with Nation, News, Yawn from their childhood?
#558 Posted by stuka on October 14, 2001 5:45:42 pm
Sigalph:
I would agree with your assesment of YLH, but not of Aisha Sarwari. He may not be bigoted in terms of religion, but certainly on the asis of nationality.
I`d be the first to admit that recognizing bigotry is much easier on the other side than it is on your own side. But what I find redeeming about YLH, even though he loses his temper, is that he has a vision, a belief system that is positive. In Sarwari`s writings I see nothing but negativism, self pity, and a defense of the staus quo while laying blame on to others.
I acknowledge that a person`s posts on Chowk can be different from the articles themselves. My initial impression of Yasser was very negative because I read about him slapping an Indian dude at a Paki concert. Regardless of that event, I read his articles and was duly impressed, not only by his extensive grasp of history but his inherently secular vision. There is nothing wrong in being a patriot to your country. In fact, that is the natural order of things. But to base patriotism on negativism is unforgivable.
YLH patriotism is composed of love for Pakistan, while Sarwari`s is composed of hatred for India. Two distinct mindsets, the former to be respected, the latter to be regarded with contempt.
Regards
Stuka
I would agree with your assesment of YLH, but not of Aisha Sarwari. He may not be bigoted in terms of religion, but certainly on the asis of nationality.
I`d be the first to admit that recognizing bigotry is much easier on the other side than it is on your own side. But what I find redeeming about YLH, even though he loses his temper, is that he has a vision, a belief system that is positive. In Sarwari`s writings I see nothing but negativism, self pity, and a defense of the staus quo while laying blame on to others.
I acknowledge that a person`s posts on Chowk can be different from the articles themselves. My initial impression of Yasser was very negative because I read about him slapping an Indian dude at a Paki concert. Regardless of that event, I read his articles and was duly impressed, not only by his extensive grasp of history but his inherently secular vision. There is nothing wrong in being a patriot to your country. In fact, that is the natural order of things. But to base patriotism on negativism is unforgivable.
YLH patriotism is composed of love for Pakistan, while Sarwari`s is composed of hatred for India. Two distinct mindsets, the former to be respected, the latter to be regarded with contempt.
Regards
Stuka
#557 Posted by rsaxena on October 14, 2001 5:45:42 pm
Re: PM
``tsk. tsk.... And I was only just starting to have some fun.``
You can continue to have fun. Just make sure your wrist doesn`t get injured.
So tell us, PM, why was ylh lying?
``tsk. tsk.... And I was only just starting to have some fun.``
You can continue to have fun. Just make sure your wrist doesn`t get injured.
So tell us, PM, why was ylh lying?
#556 Posted by audio-video-rad on October 14, 2001 3:09:35 pm
Re: Ms. Shah`s post
Hey! Progress! Sadna also posted and this increased the number of female posters on this topic by 33%! Now thats progress!
BTW, I agree with you that, on this topic at least, I would like to hear from more women and fewer men. However, I recall reading that Touraeg men veil themselves, so if there are any Touraeg out there, feel free to give your two cents worth.
Kindest regards.
PS: Have you considered an article on what it feels like to be male in America?
Hey! Progress! Sadna also posted and this increased the number of female posters on this topic by 33%! Now thats progress!
BTW, I agree with you that, on this topic at least, I would like to hear from more women and fewer men. However, I recall reading that Touraeg men veil themselves, so if there are any Touraeg out there, feel free to give your two cents worth.
Kindest regards.
PS: Have you considered an article on what it feels like to be male in America?
#555 Posted by Gowardhan on October 14, 2001 3:09:35 pm
PM 560
You say people ``should know facts before they start grunting against the taliban``. Then you post some total crap supposed to be rantings of some Talibanis. You ``invite comment``.
Comment will matter if we know what you agree with. Do you agree with this sh *t? Which part of it you dont agree with? If you dont agree with any of this crap what do you mean by looking at both sides?
You say people ``should know facts before they start grunting against the taliban``. Then you post some total crap supposed to be rantings of some Talibanis. You ``invite comment``.
Comment will matter if we know what you agree with. Do you agree with this sh *t? Which part of it you dont agree with? If you dont agree with any of this crap what do you mean by looking at both sides?
#554 Posted by rsridhar on October 14, 2001 3:09:35 pm
Re: further to my earlier post to Shammi
Shammi,
I also have to add that i never regarded caste system as a religious evil but only as a social evil. The reason why many from low castes were not allowed to enter the temples in the past (and perhaps in some places even now)has a lot to do with the power structure. At least in Tamil Nadu i can say that as the lower castes were empowered with the ballot, such practices have vanished. Besides, i have seen that in many villages the scheduled caste or adivasis have their own gods/goddesses which they worship. They have built their own temples. There is no necessity for these people to get any sanction from the priests. I visited one such temple some 40 miles from Pondicherry when i visited that place about a year ago.
Islam today is at cross roads. The images that we get on T.V is of a tolerant religion. At the same time we see a lot of hatred among some people. This hatred cuts across nationalities. The silent majority of good muslims should make their voices heard. I am sorry to say that is not happening. To use an old cliche, their silence is deafening.
I expected the muslims on the panel on CNN to denounce the practice of not allowing non-muslims on Mecca. To me that practice is as deplorable as a low caste person not being allowed inside a temple (which has no legal sanction) or a non-hindu not being allowed in Pushkar or Puri (that is if what you say is true). I am sure all hindus on this forum will condemn the latter. Will the muslims be ready to condemn the former? Do you also know that as a non-muslim if i happen to walk on the road to Kaaba, i will be beheaded. I do not think such practice exists among any other religions. It is time for muslims to ask some tough questions. It is also a time for introspection.
Sridhar
Sridhar
Shammi,
I also have to add that i never regarded caste system as a religious evil but only as a social evil. The reason why many from low castes were not allowed to enter the temples in the past (and perhaps in some places even now)has a lot to do with the power structure. At least in Tamil Nadu i can say that as the lower castes were empowered with the ballot, such practices have vanished. Besides, i have seen that in many villages the scheduled caste or adivasis have their own gods/goddesses which they worship. They have built their own temples. There is no necessity for these people to get any sanction from the priests. I visited one such temple some 40 miles from Pondicherry when i visited that place about a year ago.
Islam today is at cross roads. The images that we get on T.V is of a tolerant religion. At the same time we see a lot of hatred among some people. This hatred cuts across nationalities. The silent majority of good muslims should make their voices heard. I am sorry to say that is not happening. To use an old cliche, their silence is deafening.
I expected the muslims on the panel on CNN to denounce the practice of not allowing non-muslims on Mecca. To me that practice is as deplorable as a low caste person not being allowed inside a temple (which has no legal sanction) or a non-hindu not being allowed in Pushkar or Puri (that is if what you say is true). I am sure all hindus on this forum will condemn the latter. Will the muslims be ready to condemn the former? Do you also know that as a non-muslim if i happen to walk on the road to Kaaba, i will be beheaded. I do not think such practice exists among any other religions. It is time for muslims to ask some tough questions. It is also a time for introspection.
Sridhar
Sridhar