81% Approval Rating. God Help Us!

Falling Back to Taliban Ways with Women
By Zama Coursen-Neff and John Sifton
International Herald Tribune
Tuesday, January 21, 2003

NEW YORK -- In the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, the government of the warlord Ismail Khan recently applied new rules rolling back educational opportunities for women and girls. Men may no longer teach women or girls in private classes. Girls and boys are no longer allowed to be in school buildings at the same time. The effect of the ban will be to block many women and girls from attending private courses. There is a shortage of women teachers; almost all the teachers in private courses are men.

The new rules are especially cruel now. Many women and girls are studying hard to make up for the six years lost under the Taliban. They have been using private classes in English, computers and basic subjects to supplement formal schooling.

The order has created a local uproar. As one Afghan woman said, "It is a very strong kind of discrimination against women getting education." She was resentful of the authorities' suspicions. "All the time they suspect girls of immorality," she said.

Unfortunately, the situation in Herat is not unique. All over Afghanistan, especially outside the capital, progress on female education is being compromised by the behavior of ultra-conservative local leaders, allies of the U.S.-led coalition in the war against the Taliban. They used their connections to the United States to seize power but then embraced some of the Taliban's most odious restrictions.

Hundreds of thousands of girls and women have returned to schools and universities across the country. But "only the doors to the schools are open," a young women in Herat told us. "Everything else is restricted." Even education is now under assault. In the north and east, girls' schools have been burned or shelled (luckily, when closed). Leaders in some southern provinces have allowed police forces to threaten women and girls going to school. Pamphlets have been secretly distributed warning families against sending their daughters to school.

Attacks on female education are linked to the growing power of fundamentalist groups. In many areas, police are imposing supposedly Islamic rules on women and girls, many of which appall ordinary Afghans.

Officials in the north and west have pressured women not to work for foreign organizations. Herat police have forced women to wear the all-encompassing burqa and have subjected women and girls seen with unrelated men to forced "chastity" examinations at the local hospital.

Local police in several areas near Kabul have shut down wedding parties for playing music, harassed shopkeepers selling music or movies, and beaten up musicians.

Donor countries involved in Afghanistan should increase their pressure on the Afghan warlords to stop targeting women and girls. The right to education, and women's rights generally, should be emphasized by donors as Afghanistan's new constitution is drafted and then elections are held in 2004.

Donors should make sure that Afghan women's groups get adequate support and funding, not just in Kabul but throughout the country. Women and girls must have the right to use their education: to work, speak publicly about the government and women's rights, and participate in the decisions that affect them.


The writers, who have traveled widely in Afghanistan, are researchers for Human Rights Watch and authors of its recent report on women in Afghanistan.


Home | Current Events | News | Publications | About HRW | Documents by Country | Global Issues | Campaigns | Contribute | What You Can Do | Community | Book Store | Film Festival | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | Press Contacts | Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2003, Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA



Given how well we're doing in Afghanistan, I can hardly wait to see how the Iraqi people enjoy the freedoms we just endowed upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+3 May 2003 - 23:07--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 May 2003 - 23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@3 May 2003 - 13:35


You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.

---

Oh, I arrived at my position after watching some guys on tv.

They seemed to know what they were talking about. [/b][/quote]
Oh well I can&#39;t argue with that.

Unfortunately the debate I referred to was not on television, so I can&#39;t put the same stock in my sources as you can in yours.

Excellent proof by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JmiF+4 May 2003 - 00:02--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JmiF @ 4 May 2003 - 00:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -clocker@3 May 2003 - 23:07
<!--QuoteBegin--JmiF

---

Quote:

---

@3 May 2003 - 13:35


You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.

---

Oh, I arrived at my position after watching some guys on tv.

They seemed to know what they were talking about.

---

Oh well I can&#39;t argue with that.

Unfortunately the debate I referred to was not on television, so I can&#39;t put the same stock in my sources as you can in yours.

Excellent proof by the way.[/b][/quote]
He was poking fun at you. You heard it from some commentators, so he countered by saying that he saw it on tv. He mimicked your expression as well, "they seemed to know what they were talking about".

Understated humor, he didn&#39;t even throw in a smiley or wink, the bastard.


The interesting point is that our freedoms are different than freedom under Islamic law. You will find no freedom of the press, freedom of religion, women on par with men.

So at best, basic freedom, no HBO, no Showtime.

Goes back to my point, do you want to die for this type of freedom? For a bunch of people who regard anyone not sharing their religious beliefs to be infidels.

I think Iraq will fare better than Afghanistan as the US has a vested interest in creating a stable government before they leave, lest Iran come over the border to assist. Too much oil there to leave the country in the hands of Ethnicity based warlords.

Anyway, I&#39;ve said more than my share.

Jmif....With Clocker around, watch out for sarcasm.


I can only stay serious for so long, then I start to ponder things like........What if Ross Perot were incharge, or is he........ hmmmm. Running the country from a bunker in Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@3 May 2003 - 21:20
It seems the boat may have sailed :o

Hobbes-

You demand accountability, attack from several fronts (lives lost, big oil, imperialist tendencies, ad infinitum), then meekly admit you&#39;d be satisfied if we&#39;d only find WMD?
If the WMD is eventually found, whether it be somewhere in Iraq, or Syria, or wherever else, will you still be satisfied?
The media has been making a collective ass of itself by demanding, from the backseat, "ARE WE THERE YET?" Please don&#39;t tell me you wish to join THAT chorus?
Don&#39;t you find it the least bit curious that (depending on which poll) between 60-80% of U.S. citizens (which, given polling practices in the U.S., constitutes a majority of Democrats-most polls are conducted in urban settings, phone polls, too) have said they supported the effort, period, and 80% of THEM had no qualms about the pretext for Saddam&#39;s removal?
Blood/oil/empire lust must be awfully catchy.
Anyway, they&#39;re not done looking, and as the Libs are demanding that we effectively police and rebuild the entire country of Iraq, set up a new government, find Saddam and his cronies, involve the U.N., apologize to France, Germany, Russia, AND the Hollywood left, drastically reduce the on-site presence, stay out of Syria, establish Palestine, calm Israel, hunt for terrorists, and keep Afghanistan propped up, just to cite a FEW objectives, the hunt for WMD is, for now, necessarily and justifiably compromised.

I&#39;m afraid I&#39;ve gone a bit afield here; but why is everyone so quick to condemn the U.S., and Dubya in particular?
Under the best of circumstances, no president has more than eight years to enact, or try to enact, his platform. I&#39;ve forgotten what his platform was, it&#39;s been so long since he&#39;s had anything on his plate that didn&#39;t have as it&#39;s genesis the horrible events of 9/11. In effect, he&#39;s had to make it up as he goes along.
I AM NOT AN APOLOGIST for the short-comings of this administration; there are plenty, especially on the domestic side, but some of these things are lacking nothing other than stewardship (such things as judicial appointments, border control, etc.) that can only come from the man himself. The Democrats are attempting to capitalize on this lack of oversight, and are, for the most part, showing how philosophically barren and bereft they are.
They bitch alot, but where are the ideas (Opening HERE for proud Democrat to step to the plate)?

I could go on (and will attempt to, later), but you jerks ran this thread onto the second page, thus precluding me from continuing without reviewing your posts :angry: .

You guys..........you&#39;re just exercising me, aren&#39;t you? :D

---

J2,

What is up with these word bricks? C&#39;mon give us some spacing, make your posts both eloquent and aesthetic.

In a hurry or something? I picture you hammering the keyboard with one hand, a cup of coffee in the other, a sandwich in your mouth, with a jacket half-way on.

I think it&#39;s a shame that we all have jobs that interfere with out time on this forum. It&#39;s just not right.

Democracy&#39;s push, theocracy&#39;s pull

In war&#39;s wake: Is the Middle East bound for resurgence of radical Islam?

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – The startling explosion of Shiite passion in Iraq is forcing US officials to contemplate the possibility that by toppling Saddam Hussein they have made the region safe for theocracy rather than democracy.
There are many reasons to believe that Iraq will not end up as a mullah-controlled state - the next Iran. Shiites, while a majority in Iraq, must still strike some governing arrangement with sizable Sunni Muslim and Kurdish minorities. Iraqi Shiites are themselves split over how much religion should be intertwined with civil affairs.




But at the least the end of Mr. Hussein&#39;s police state has opened a land bridge between Iran&#39;s ruling clerics and Hizbullah and other Shiite-dominated terror groups to the west. The new boldness of Iraq&#39;s religious leaders could inspire long-oppressed Shiite populations from Syria to Saudi Arabia.

"Suddenly the Shia are feeling their time in history has arrived," says Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University in Washington.

On Wednesday Shiites celebrated the final day of their pilgrimage to a holy shrine in the central Iraqi city of Karbala. The pilgrimage was long banned by Saddam Hussein, who also murdered many leading Shiite clerics and brutally suppressed an uprising in the Shiite-dominated south of the country following the end of the Gulf War of 1991.

The pilgrimage has been marked by an eruption of piety among the faithful, and by chants of anti-Hussein, anti-American, and anti-Israeli slogans.

Asked about the demonstrations, retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, civil head of Iraq until a new government is established, said Wednesday that they were evidence of the new freedom that Iraqis have to dissent. He also said a number of them were staged - presumably by Iranian agents said to have infiltrated Iraq in the wake of US forces."A majority of the people realize we&#39;re only going to stay here long enough to start a democratic government for them," General Garner said.

Shiites are a minority in Islam as a whole, making up some 10 to 20 percent of all Muslims. They believe that Islam&#39;s leader should be a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, while the majority Sunni branch of Islam has held that the religion&#39;s leader should be chosen by consensus.

In Iraq, Shiites are a majority of around 60 percent. Yet Sunnis have dominated the country from its founding in the wake of World War I through Hussein&#39;s tyranny.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq US officials seemed most worried that it was the Kurds, in the north, who would be the country&#39;s most independence-minded population. CIA and Special Forces officials did try to make contact with Shiite leaders, but had only moderate success.

One Shiite cleric who was working with the US, Abdul Majid Khoei, was murdered in Najaf earlier this month after returning to the country from exile in London. In retrospect this seems a sign of the turmoil to come.

Kept down by history and Saddam, the Shiites were bound to erupt, says Akbar Ahmed of American University. "The centrifugal forces have been released," he says. "If there is a democracy in Iraq ... the president will be Shia."

Furthermore, if Shiites do dominate the government, they might propose some sort of federation with Iran, Mr. Ahmed says. The result would be twin pillars of Shiite Islam - a nightmare for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and other Sunni-dominated states.

Iraq&#39;s neighbors are indeed watching the rise of the Shiites with trepidation, say sources in the region. Many worry that if the US is not careful, religious extremism could spread from the Israeli-occupied territories through Lebanon and the Gulf states, and into Syria and Jordan.

"The worry is there. We would be as displeased as the Americans," says a Jordanian government official.

But there are many reasons to believe that the current demonstrations do not reflect the full will of Iraq&#39;s Shiites, say experts.

Many Shiites in the country are followers of clerics who call for separation of "church and state" - though many others are indeed influenced by the Tehran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an exile group that has resisted US entreaties.

Furthermore, Iraqi Shiites are largely Arabs, while Iranians are Persians. And many are nationalistic enough to have fought without rebelling in Hussein&#39;s brutal war with Iran.

"Some Shiite leaders question whether Western democratic values are right for Iraq," says a Western diplomat in Jordan. "But the Shiites are not a unified group, and others have expressed openness to democracy."

FOR the short run, the US will probably try ensure that Iraq&#39;s government is a tripartite Shiite-Sunni-Kurd arrangement that allows all a measure of freedom, as in a federation. For the long run, the US is counting on the experience of sharing power, and the power of education, to accustom Iraqis to democracy instead of theocracy.

But if such civic life is seen by others in the region as being imposed on Iraq, the consequences could be very negative. The result could be further radicalization of Islamist groups, as is happening to some extent in Pakistan in response to the US expulsion of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"The clock is ticking, and the Americans have to quickly transfer power to the Iraqi people," said Jordan&#39;s King Abdullah in a broadcast interview on Tuesday. "The US has only one chance to get it right and win the peace."

• Danna Harman in Amman, Jordan, and Jane Lampman in Boston contributed to this report.









So, let&#39;s see...

As yet no evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry.
No credible links to al-Qaeada or 9/11.
Saddam Hussein seems to have disappeared.

We plan on gifting the blessings ( and benefits) of democracy on a part of the world which has shown zero interest in attaining them for themselves.
Somehow we are going to have free and open elections whilst preventing the Shiites, who just happen to be the majority, from gaining control and forming their own theocracy.
We have undermined any remaining credibility left to the U.N. and alienated many of our major (past) allies.
We have committed support, both monetary and personnel, for a as yet to be revealed amount of time.

Yup, sure smells like victory to me.
And 81% of my fellow sheep.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@3 May 2003 - 14:20


You guys..........you&#39;re just exercising me, aren&#39;t you? :D

---

Yup.

I was afraid that the vast quantities of bourbon and horsemeat you were planning to consume would leave you dazed and confused.

Back in the traces there Daisy, ya gots a long row to plow here... :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+4 May 2003 - 00:30--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 4 May 2003 - 00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -JmiF@4 May 2003 - 00:02

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -clocker@3 May 2003 - 23:07
<!--QuoteBegin--JmiF

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

@3 May 2003 - 13:35


You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.

---

Oh, I arrived at my position after watching some guys on tv.

They seemed to know what they were talking about.

---

Oh well I can&#39;t argue with that.

Unfortunately the debate I referred to was not on television, so I can&#39;t put the same stock in my sources as you can in yours.

Excellent proof by the way.

---

He was poking fun at you. You heard it from some commentators, so he countered by saying that he saw it on tv. He mimicked your expression as well, "they seemed to know what they were talking about".

Understated humor, he didn&#39;t even throw in a smiley or wink, the bastard.



Jmif....With Clocker around, watch out for sarcasm.

[/b][/quote]
I find it interesting that you see sarcasm in his reply to me, while failing to see the irony in my reply to him.

Unless of course you thought I was serious when I described his proof as excellent.

I have conversed with clocker on several occasions and recognised his style instantly. An old diversionary tactic he uses, he hasn&#39;t actually answered the question, instead chosing to use humour as an effective tool.

I thought I could smell something strange in your first reply to me. It should have been obvious at that stage that you felt this thread was for the cogniscenti alone. My apologies for having wasted both your time and my own. I shall leave the debate to those who can more easily cope with it&#39;s intricacies.

Oh and yes I do understand sarcasm, but prefer irony (I never thought that clocker intended to hurt or offend me, which would be a pre-requisite for his post to be sarcasm).

JmiF = JPaul?

New member = 1460 posts?

I see that your participation in this topic has caused an overnight metamorphosis.

What have you become? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@3 May 2003 - 06:43


All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.

---

I&#39;ve gone back through the posts and realized where I made my error, JPaul.

I took the "in fact" statement literally.
Clearly, what you meant to say was "in my opinion".

I&#39;m sure that we can both agree that we are all entitled to hold any opinions we care to.

I shall simply remember in the future that you use the two phrases interchangably.

Here&#39;s another short one (Hobbes: right about the jacket, wrong about the coffee; I don&#39;t have that much time, plus I do need the extra hand, as I am NOT a typist).

I&#39;ll apologize upfront for &#39;word bricks&#39;-I&#39;ve been to the Doctor: he prescribes ENTER key/SPACEBAR usage.

Clocker-you poor beast, having to attend those meetings of snooty people.
Boy, if I had to do THAT to live anywhere...
Re: your remark about "Staunchly Republican Colorado":
Colorado MAY exhibit some Republican tendencies on occasion, but they are strictly of an elitist/neo-con nature; the rest of the country looks upon Colorado as merely one time-zone short of California, kind of Marin-county Lite (no adware?).

As to budget concerns, a tax cut, in addition to intelligent use of available local monies, would be sufficient.
Problem being, no one wants to spend only that amount that accomodates inflation: "If we don&#39;t spend more this year, we&#39;re failing our children&#33;&#33;-OH, LORD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;" (Please excuse gratuitous religious reference).

Given everyone&#39;s general distaste for numbers, I&#39;ll recount only one very important statistic:
The federal government is projected to collect &#036;27.9 TRILLION dollars in tax revenue over the next ten years. This is based on "normal" growth, and assumes no catastrophic occurrences, i.e. total economic collapse (believe it or not, the war in Iraq doesn&#39;t qualify).

IF Congress and the Senate passed Dubya&#39;s entire &#036;750 BILLION tax cut, the government would still pull in &#036;27.2 TRILLION over that same ten years-hardly a "major" tax cut.

So, to be as polite as I can be, those who cry budget crises are jerking us off so they can keep what they have come to regard as their "folding money", which is, in reality, your tax &#39;contribution&#39; (LOVE that word).

I wish I could stay longer, but I&#39;m off to see a wizard (something about my &#39;heart of stone&#39;?) :P