RE: [iwar] [fc:Taliban:.Portrait.of.a.Lunatic.Asylum.(egg.on.all.faces)]

From: Mohammad Ozair Rasheed (ozair_rasheed@geocities.com)
Date: 2001-09-27 10:02:26


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2439-1001609462-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 09:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8958 invoked by uid 510); 27 Sep 2001 16:52:12 -0000
Received: from n21.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.71) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 16:52:12 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2439-1001609462-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.223] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2001 16:51:56 -0000
X-Sender: ozair_rasheed@geocities.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 27 Sep 2001 16:51:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 15860 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 16:51:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 16:51:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO server.super.net.pk) (203.130.2.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 16:51:46 -0000
Received: from Ozair (lhe-line-191.super.net.pk [203.130.6.191]) by server.super.net.pk (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f8RGlIZ14016 for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 21:47:19 +0500
To: "Info War" <iwar@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <000901c14776$32379120$6301a8c0@Ozair>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <72222DC86846D411ABD300A0C9EB08A156FF64@csoc-mail-box.csoconline.com>
From: "Mohammad Ozair Rasheed" <ozair_rasheed@geocities.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 22:02:26 +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=Windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Maybe it can be said that you have a different perspective of the world
around you, and what you think is kindness to women may be construed as
blatant violation of women's rights. It is very appropriate to SPIT in
front of an elder in the sub Saharan culture where water is precious
(the spitter shows respect by offering his own water to the elder).
Although in most cultures it is considered a sign of disrespect.


Regards,
Ozair

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo, Ross [mailto:Ross.Leo@csoconline.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:45 PM
To: 'iwar@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [iwar]
[fc:Taliban:.Portrait.of.a.Lunatic.Asylum.(egg.on.all.faces)]


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/ 



------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_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