Taliban : An Analysis

I have a feeling that American people have started feeling queasy about the feel good rhetoric, which their government is trying to sell to them ``they hate us because they hate democracy and freedom``. ``Taliban are/were inhuman`` etc. In a year or two when US populace will get over its jingoist fever and writers will start writing without the fear of being labeled as unpatriotic we might start hearing very different point of view on Talibans etc. People (American) are already perplexed seeing women in shuttlecock burqas when taliban are gone, they are astonished to see people still have beards, and Northern Alliance soldiers also beat up women with sticks when they line up for food. Especially people in the West are itching to write about the murder of several thousand POWs with complete disregard of International laws and geneva convention at Mazar-e-Sharif and Qila Janigi etc.

For the rest of the world the Afghanistan was never a dilemma. The failure of Americans to present a credible proof to the world of the culpability of OBL, especially the one which prompted them to attack Afgahanistan and also the fact that Afghanistan did offer to hand over OBL to a neutral nation, make the war on Afghanistan to be viewed as shameless aggression of the strongest nation of the world on the weakest and most vulnerable nation in the world. I see that when a future historian will write about Afghanistan without the influence of CNN he will view taliban as the one who stood up to the bully and laid down their lives but refused to compromise over principles.

Let me quote what OBL has said in one of his recent tapes ``When people see a strong horse and a weak horse they by nature like the strong horse``. I think it will be almost impossible to prove to the rest of the world that Talibans were weak horse despite any number of analyses. Because such analyses still can`t prove that Tipu Sultan, Shujaul Daula, General Bakht Khan, Subhash Chandar Bose were the weak horses.

Khymer And Taliban

You must be on drugs to imagine that .

In insanity ppl. find association between micro wave oven & eaves dropping by russians LOL

Ask Libyan if they even know the meaning of Taleban.Its persian derived word unfamiliar to Arabs.

Ask tyhe indonesian .The only support Afghanistan be itr Northern Alliance or Any other Afghan

Very soon you would be claiming that PML or PPP are islamic Khymer Rhouge .

Not a bad article.

I thought you you were finally going to distance yourself from blaming Islam and the Army for all of the world`s problem, until I read the last paragraph. I am surprised you did not mention the ISI :)

I don`t think Muslims sympathesize with the Taliban as much as you are stating. Taliban have been completely wiped out and no one seems to be complaining, either inside or outside Afghanistan. Usually when whole regimes or governments get wiped out, a lot of people complain, if they support those ideals.

The problems with the Islamic world can be blamed on the conlonisers while these countries were colonised. And they should be blamed on the rulers of the these countries, after they became independent. The only real difference between countries which have advanced and which haven`t are the leaderships they received at their embroynic freedom stages. Where would Singapore be had there been no Lee Kuan Yu? Would Pakistan be independent had their been no Jinnah?

If one takes a look at the regimes that the independent Muslim countries received, after the colonisers left (or during mid 20th century), you will notice nearly all of them were Western educated and/or non-Islamic regimes, i.e. Libya, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Palestine, Bangladesh, Morroco, Algeria, Pakistan etc. Take the example of any country. Lets say Iran and Pakistan:

Iran was a basketcase of all varieties under the Shah. It is still a basketcase, but with a brighter future than it had under the Shah. Pakistan has never been ruled by Islamists. It has been ruled by Oxford, Harvard and Sandhurst and Govt. College Lahore graduates. It still is being ruled by such people. So how can one place the blame on anybody else except these leaderships. Infact Muslim common folk have gone out of their way in supporting non-Islamic leaderhships. It is only after being disappointed, again and again, that they have looked for other options. Pakistanis are still putting faith in non-Islamic leaderships, like the current one (Musharraf is about as secular a leader as one will find in the Islamic world).

Placing the blame on Islam and Islamic thought process for the backwardness of the Islamic world, is like blaming Harvard for producing Benazir, and blaming Sandhurst for producing Ayub. Should Pakistanis lose faith in Harvard and Oxford and Sandhurst because they apparently have produced terrible leaders, who have destroyed Pakistan (my jury is still out on Ayub, but I am quite sure on the Bhuttos)? Using the Taliban as a representative of Islam is like using the Bhuttos as a representative for US Ivy League schools.

The problems of the Islamic world have nothing to do with Islam, or Harvard, or the West. They have everything to do with lack of honest leadership, lack of education, excess of corruption, lack of dedication and lack of respect for the poor and underprivelaged. Unfortunately the Islamists are too busy lynching the secularists for these problems, and the secularists are too busy lynching the Islamists for these problems.

The Islamic world does not need secular or Islamic leaders. It needs honest and dedicated leaders. Once such leaders appear on the scene, these countries will automatically start progressing, and their secularness of Islamicness will become immaterial.

Considering the fact that Pakistan has had only one, ``Islamic`` leadership (Zia; even Zia was a product of the British military education system) and God-knows how many Western educated and non-Islamic ones (Jinnah and Benazir could barely speak Urdu straight, much less Arabic), Pakistan should be the most advanced country in the world. Ditto for India. All of its non-religious govts. should have turned India into Japan.

By consistently debating Islam/non-Islam as the problem of the Islamic world, we are completely missing the problems that actually need to be solved (education, corruption, etc.), and putting blame on concepts that are not the problem.

Sameer,

Good article! Kudos for excellent insight.

``For Pakistanis, their interests are better served by amalgamation of rich native cultural heritage with only a sprinkle of Islamic Civilization.``

Is this possible at all? Perhaps you overlooked the psychological aspects.

If the whole of the Indian subcontinent had converted to Islam, what you wrote above may have been possible. As it stands, with only about 40% convertion, I think Naipaul has the last word when he speaks of `Neurosis of the converted`.

regards,

You have the gist of the article peddled to Sulekha before feeding the Chowk orphans a stale ,second hand `basi` biryani .

I think my crtique must still be there ,so i am not going to waste my time even if you want to waste yours

The worlds` #1 ROGUE STATE:--------US.

Surprised?---most people in the world are not.

Are you still licking their boots?_________________________________________________

The US On The World Stage -

A Rogue Nation?

By Richard Du Boff

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG)

12-31-1

1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.



2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that ``the protocol is dead,`` at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.



3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.



4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)



5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC.



6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea`s ``overwhelming military advantage.`` He stated that the US would ``eventually`` comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.



7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared ``dead`` by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.



8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US ``Echelon`` program),



9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.



10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001



11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa



12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.



13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).



14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty.



15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for ``unlawful use of force`` in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court`s jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court`s decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).



16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO`s budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the ``big four`` wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with ``curtailment of press freedom,`` as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.



17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN`s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.



18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.



19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government.



20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified.



21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several ``reservations`` to the effect that the US Constitution and the ``advice and consent`` of the Senate are required to judge whether any ``acts in the course of armed conflict`` constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.



22. Is the status of ``we`re number one!`` Rogue overcome by generous foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26). ___



Copyright, Richard Du Boff Reprinted for fair use only. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DUB112B.html

__________________________________________________

Is the day drawing near when the bodybags of the thugs from Britain & US start arriving---de Ja Vue circa 19th century!when only one out of 26000 was sent back to report what happened to the rest.

The Muslim World is waiting with excited anticipation.

Taliban or no Taliban:Afghans,as muslims,do not want any western thugs on their soil once these servants have performed their duties.

_________________________________________________

Kabul deal leaves peace force `crippled`

By Peter Foster in Kabul and Michael Smith Defence Correspondent

(Filed: 01/01/2002) ----DAILY TELEGRAPH!

THE British-led international force that is to provide security in the Afghan capital, Kabul, was left crippled last night by a deal with the Northern Alliance that puts control of even its own troops in doubt.

The ``military technical agreement`` between Maj-Gen John McColl and Younis Qanooni, the alliance strongman who controls the Afghan interior ministry, was finally initialled yesterday after weeks of disagreements.

But it allowed Mr Qanooni and Mohammad Fahim, the new defence minister and military commander of the Northern Alliance, to ignore a key part of the Bonn agreement insisting that their troops be withdrawn from the Afghan capital.

The International Security Assistance Force will be able to mount its own patrols, but under the terms of the agreement these will have to be synchronised with Afghan patrols, with the Afghan commanders implicitly in control of what happens on the ground.

All communications, whether on synchronised or joint patrols will be carried out through an interpreter, with the Afghan commander again in charge.

A senior British defence source said the ISAF would be in charge of its own troops and the Afghans in charge of their own. But he admitted: ``It will be important that we conduct our business at all levels to ensure that the Afghans feel in charge.``

He added that, while on joint patrol, ``the Afghan military will command their section and we will command ours`` but, crucially, declined to say who would assume ultimate command in the event of violence.

The agreement, added to what defence sources admitted was ``a significantly lower force level than the contributing countries had hoped for``, called into question the point of the international troops being there at all.

The force was originally championed by Tony Blair as a means of rebuilding Afghanistan. Up to 10,000 troops, led by Britain, would keep open the aid routes and prevent the Northern Alliance from imposing its will on Kabul.

But the problems began when Britain sent 200 members of the Special Boat Service into Bagram air base to prepare for the arrival of a 3,000-strong British contingent.

The Northern Alliance, which was anxious to keep control of Kabul and north-eastern Afghanistan demanded that the troops be withdrawn.

During protracted negotiations, it eventually agreed to allow a multi-national force to provide security in Kabul. But it insisted that it could be no larger than 3,000 troops, with only 1,000 carrying out the patrols and the remainder providing back-up.

The agreement initialled yesterday by Gen McColl and Mr Qanooni restricts the size of the international force to just 4,500. It remains unclear how many of these troops will be allowed to carry out patrols.

The source admitted that it would now be early February before the force was in place but a ``substantial force`` of about 1,500 troops led by 2 Bn the Parachute Regiment, would be in place by the middle of the month.

The full British contribution is expected to be about 1,500, including headquarters elements from 3 (UK) Division, which will command the force, and 16 Air Assault Brigade, which will be in charge of the British troops.

The negotiations have reduced the German contingent from about 1,200 to less than 800. Holland and France are expected to contribute about 300 men each, with 13 other countries, including Jordan, Turkey and Canada, providing troops.

General Deen Mohammad Jurhat, a senior interior ministry commander, attributed the delay in signing the deal to the alliance`s demands that the foreign troops adhere to Islamic codes on drinking and sex.

He said: ``Afghanistan is an Islamic country and Afghanistan`s laws are Islamic. For example, drinking alcohol and also sexual affairs is usual in the countries the troops come from. They must obey Afghanistan`s laws.``

But the senior British source said the key problem had been alleged differences between the English and Dari versions of the Bonn agreement, which, in its English version, stated unequivocally that the alliance`s troops must be withdrawn from Kabul.

``The interim administration`s interpretation of the Bonn agreement is that the armed forces should be confined to barracks,`` he said.

The reaction of Britain`s coalition partners is open to question. The agreement will not be formally signed until they have reviewed it and Germany in particular has expressed concerns.

__________________________________________________