Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2436-1001605505-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 27 Sep 2001 08:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4913 invoked by uid 510); 27 Sep 2001 15:45:22 -0000 Received: from n7.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.57) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 15:45:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2436-1001605505-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.52] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2001 15:45:06 -0000 X-Sender: Ross.Leo@csoconline.com X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 27 Sep 2001 15:45:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 65786 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 15:45:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.4.52 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 15:45:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO csoc-fire05.csoconline.com) (140.169.36.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 15:45:04 -0000 Received: from csoc-mail-msfc.csoconline.com by csoc-fire05.csoconline.com via smtpd (for mta1.onelist.com [208.48.218.7]) with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 15:43:41 UT Received: by csoc-mail-msfc.csoconline.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <TLAMT331>; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:44:42 -0500 Message-ID: <72222DC86846D411ABD300A0C9EB08A156FF64@csoc-mail-box.csoconline.com> To: "'iwar@yahoogroups.com'" <iwar@yahoogroups.com> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) From: "Leo, Ross" <Ross.Leo@csoconline.com> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:45:09 -0500 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [iwar] [fc:Taliban:.Portrait.of.a.Lunatic.Asylum.(egg.on.all. faces)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is yet another fine example of the various parties around the world that, in the course of pursuing "constructive engagement" and their own private economic agendas simultaneously, steadfastly refuse to learn the lessons of History. There is a very basic philosophical difference between the non-Muslim and the Muslim. It is that everyone who is not Muslim is by definition an infidel, in accordance with Islam. And while I am not an expert on Islam. the appearance (historically, in my interpretation of events) is that whatever arrangements are made with infidels are okay as long as they serve the purposes of Islam (in the interpretation of those making the deal). * However, when such deals interfere with "pure Islam" (again, in their highly subjective interpretation), or merely become inconvenient, they can be disregarded as having been made with infidels, who effectively have no rights (being infidels) and can therefore be easily disposed of. I have seen this happen to Western countries, especially the US in dealings with most of the Middle Eastern Islamic states in the past few decades - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, etc. We proceed from a western "Christian" perspective, which allows for women's rights, kind and fair treatment, the rule of civil laws, and so on. And when we in the west try to levy these same values on our Muslim partners as part of the requirements for continuing good relations (as is our custom), they chafe. Why do we never learn that their values are not ours? Why do we continue to believe that all others think like we do, or should? This philosophy keeps getting the West in trouble, and yet the West never learns the lesson. I say this because we need to acquire the posture or managing our risk when we become involved with these other parties. It seems we go into these situations thinking that everything has been worked out, such that when things turn sour (as they frequently have), we are shocked and surprised. Worse yet, we are unprepared to cope because we never seem to prepare and execute contingency plans - other than trying to apply punitive measures in an effort to force the other party to honour they agreements. This route has occasionally worked, but at great cost - often in humanitarian ways. I am not trying to impugn Islam. I am only going by what I have seen over the years. My measuring stick has always been "Ye shall know them by their fruits." No one measures up all the time. But by this rubric, Islam (as demonstrated by the religious leaders in many, but not all of these countries) appears to be a most cruel, unforgiving, and merciless religion. From what I have learned recently, the fruits of the Taliban appear to be the death and devastation of its country and its people, regardless of what sort of "oppression" or conspiracy they claim goes on against them externally. * BTW - the same holds true in its essence for Judaism and Christianity in that all non-Jews are gentiles - non-chosen - and all non-Christians are unsaved and therefore something approaching heathen. The non-Jew is in a sense excluded, and the non-Christian is a target for conversion, but neither call for death of the convert should he subsequently renounce. Ross Leo -----Original Message----- From: Fred Cohen [mailto:fc@all.net] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 08:45 To: iwar@onelist.com Subject: [iwar] [fc:Taliban:.Portrait.of.a.Lunatic.Asylum.(egg.on.all.faces)] Note the reference to the gas pipeline ... the Great Game continues. Thursday, September 27 5:37 PM SGT Five years on, old allies turn on the Taliban PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Sept 27 (AFP) - Five years ago the Taliban rolled into the Afghan capital Kabul, proclaiming the world's purest Islamic state and setting itself on a collision course with the international community. But back in 1996, few could have predicted the world would soon be bent on the destruction of the militia, as diplomats, oil giants and donors did their best to court the regime. Despite their barring of women from work and education, profiteering from drug production and brutal implementation of rules on social conduct, five years ago the Taliban were riding high. In 1997, Taliban officials were invited for trips to Texas by US oil giant UNOCAL, and its competitor Bridas of Argentina took a turbaned delegation on a tour of Buenos Aires. Both were hoping to win the contract to build a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to densely-popuated South Asia. It was all smiles when former US ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson visited Afghanistan in 1998 for talks with the Taliban, also centered on exploiting Central Asia's gas riches. The Taliban were seen as the latest episode in the regional Great Game -- a strategic tug-of-war for influence that has been played out for centuries on Afghan soil -- and they had Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States on their side. European Union aid continued to pour into Taliban-controlled areas, despite the restrictions that made reaching Kabul's starved widows almost impossible. A queue of EU diplomats visited Kabul: only a few dared confront the militia's human rights record. UN officials shrugged their shoulders after they renovated Kabul's stadium only to see it used as a venue for weekly game-show style executions. In 1998, the world body signed a memorandum of understanding with the militia, recognising that the path to securing women's rights "needs to be gradual." Promoted by sympathisers as a group that would restore order to the war-torn country and backed by Pakistan, the Taliban appeared unstoppable. The people of Kabul were subject to beard inspections, prayer tests, forced haircuts and draconian punishments. Women were placed under wraps, television and music banned, while the city began to starve. One Taliban official described the rules as "medicine for a city of sinners." But in 1998, the militia began to shift its priorities. Frustrated by the failure to win formal international recognition and refusing to ease what it had said were "temporary" restrictions, an internal battle for influence appeared to be going in favour of hardliners. The word of the Taliban leader, the one-eyed Mullah Mohammad Omar, was final, and their depleted ranks were filled by increasing numbers of Pakistani and Arab volunteers while alleged Saudi-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was rising in the ranks of decision makers. In trials of terrorists across the globe, the name "Afghanistan" was springing up again and again. Drugs also continued to flow, and Afghanistan overtook Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle as the world's leading heroin producer. Any cuts in production ordered by Mullah Omar merely pushed the prices -- and profits -- up. Under UN sanctions, the Taliban waved goodbye to dreams of gas riches and have since appeared almost determined to confront the international community head on. Bamian's ancient giant Buddhas were destroyed and restrictions tightened. But after years of alarm over women's rights, the destruction of Afghanistan's heritage, drugs and widespread human rights abuses, Bin Laden's alleged attack on the US appears to have been the final straw. "Let's face it, constructive engagement didn't work," quipped a senior United Nations official. "It's true, we bent over backwards to accomodate the Taliban. Some say we bent over too far, but what was the alternative, and who could have predicted this?" ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:50 PDT