How Has the Status of Women in Afghanistan Evolved Historically?

[rootX]

I will be very interested if someone has any studies about women status in Afghanistan through out the history (or before Soviet, during Soviet, post, and American).

Second if there has been any study on the comparision of people welfare in all those periods.

I made this post in Wikileaks but it got locked.

 

[heusdens]

I will be very interested if someone has any studies about women status in Afghanistan through out the history (or before Soviet, during Soviet, post, and American).

Second if there has been any study on the comparision of people welfare in all those periods.

I made this post in Wikileaks but it got locked.

This is what Wikipedia has to tell:

In 1978, a prominent member of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), Mir Akbar Khyber, was killed by the government. The leaders of PDPA apparently feared that Daoud was planning to exterminate them all, especially since most of them were arrested by the government shortly after. Hafizullah Amin and a number of military wing officers of the PDPA managed to remain at large and organised an uprising.

Outside the Palace Gate (Arg) in Kabul, the day after Saur Revolution on April 28, 1978.

The PDPA, led by Nur Mohammad Taraki, Babrak Karmal and Hafizullah Amin, overthrew the regime of Mohammad Daoud, who was assassinated along with his family during the April 1978 Saur Revolution. On May 1, 1978, Taraki became President, Prime Minister and General Secretary of the PDPA. The country was renamed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA), and the PDPA regime lasted, in some form or another, until April 1992. Some believe that the 1978 Khalq uprising against the government of Daoud Khan was essentially a resurgence by the Ghilzai tribe of the Pashtun against the ruling Durranis.[80]

Once in power, the PDPA implemented a socialist agenda. It moved to promote state atheism,[81] and carried out an ill-conceived land reform, which were misunderstood by virtually all Afghans.[82] They also imprisoned, tortured or murdered thousands of members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment, and the intelligentsia.[82] They also prohibited usury[83] and made a number of statements on women's rights, by declaring equality of the sexes[83] and introduced women to political life. A prominent example was Anahita Ratebzad, who was a major Marxist leader and a member of the Revolutionary Council. Ratebzad wrote the famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial, which declared: "Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country ... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention."[84]

The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter) began to covertly fund forces ranged against the pro-Soviet government, although warned that this might prompt a Soviet intervention, according to President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski described the U.S. activities as the successful setting of a trap that drew the Soviet Union into "its Vietnam War" and brought about the breakup of the Soviet empire. Regarding U.S. support for Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski said, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"[85] The Mujahideen belonged to various different factions, but all shared, to varying degrees, a similarly conservative 'Islamic' ideology.

 

[Jack21222]

There's an interesting documentary called Afghan Star which goes into this a little.

 

[Evo]

I will be very interested if someone has any studies about women status in Afghanistan through out the history (or before Soviet, during Soviet, post, and American).

Second if there has been any study on the comparision of people welfare in all those periods.

I made this post in Wikileaks but it got locked.

Yours was the interesting topic to which I referred. I'm glad you started a thread on it.

 

[Proton Soup]

This is what Wikipedia has to tell:

interesting. given the ideology of PDPA, it sounds like they might have been soviet-influenced from the beginning.

 

[rootX]

This is what Wikipedia has to tell:

It only describes what policies they made or what they had in their agenda but it does not mention how effective those policies were. US is also making similar efforts but not with much success. The main subject of this thread to know people quality of life (particularly women) in different periods not what the country occupants or governments attempted to do.

 

[Proton Soup]

It only describes what policies they made or what they had in their agenda but it does not mention how effective those policies were. US is also making similar efforts but not with much success. The main subject of this thread to know people quality of life (particularly women) in different periods not what the country occupants or governments attempted to do.

it's still interesting, because it makes me wonder that if there was an attempt to abolish religion and culture there, that it might cause a backlash, with those religious and cultural aspects expressed even more forcefully.

but, as someone mentioned in the other thread, we see these same cultural attitudes toward women in pakistan, india, etc. and seeing it in India tells me that it's got nothing to do with islam in particular, it's just the way people in this geographical region have lived for centuries.

 

[rootX]

it's still interesting, because it makes me wonder that if there was an attempt to abolish religion and culture there, that it might cause a backlash, with those religious and cultural aspects expressed even more forcefully.

but, as someone mentioned in the other thread, we see these same cultural attitudes toward women in pakistan, india, etc. and seeing it in India tells me that it's got nothing to do with islam in particular, it's just the way people in this geographical region have lived for centuries.

US faced similar problems.

While those countries share similar cultures but a big difference between three countries is that India has been political stable for past 5-6 decades while Afghanistan and Pakistan not so stable.

I found few reports on women status in those countries. I would need some time before I can go through all but from quick look seems like in all three countries women status has improved. I believe a report from western perspective might not be similar to what some scholar from Afghanistan would write.

Afghanistan:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000916/091693eo.pdf

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0734-e.htm
claims that

Even though the results of a recent Environics survey shows that the majority of Afghans believe that women in their country are better off today than they were under the Taliban,(9) more detailed surveys conducted by the Asia Foundation point to uneven progress. For example, findings from the Foundation’s 2006 survey indicate that women “remain oppressed and discriminated against in crucial areas like healthcare and education” despite “significant levels of improvement.”(10) The 2007 survey report notes that opinions toward women with respect to matters such as wearing the burka and participating in politics(11) reflect “a country that is strongly rooted in tradition and conservatism.”(12)

India:
Some progress over time as mentioned in both following reports:

http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/ec483/tv4.pdf

http://www.gasat-international.org/conferences/G11Mauritius/proceedings/proceedings%205.pdf
If you go to page 4, it provides some historical background and British reforms.

Pakistan:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Country_Briefing_Papers/Women_in_Pakistan/chap_02.pdf

Pakistan ranks 120 in 146 countries in terms of the Gender-related Development
Index and ranks 92 in the Gender Empowerment Measurement ranking of 94 countries

However it does specify that some women are involved in politics and there is an awareness (right in the beginning).http://www.unescap.org/huset/women/reports/pakistan.pdf

There is considerable disparity between the status of men and women in Pakistan. While some indicators relating to women’s status have improved marginally in recent years, several have remained static, and there has been further deterioration in other areas.

 

[heusdens]

It only describes what policies they made or what they had in their agenda but it does not mention how effective those policies were. US is also making similar efforts but not with much success. The main subject of this thread to know people quality of life (particularly women) in different periods not what the country occupants or governments attempted to do.

I understand that, but that info is all I have, I do not have a report on the actual position of women during that timeframe, if I had, i would have submitted it.

 

[heusdens]

interesting. given the ideology of PDPA, it sounds like they might have been soviet-influenced from the beginning.

It might be, fact is that they did ask for military assistance of the Soviet Union.

 

[Astronuc]

I will be very interested if someone has any studies about women status in Afghanistan through out the history (or before Soviet, during Soviet, post, and American).

Second if there has been any study on the comparision of people welfare in all those periods.

I made this post in Wikileaks but it got locked.

I believe there are studies. One really has to look at individual tribes, provinces, and regions.

There is this on Hazara women.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Hazara_People

While Afghan women in many areas of the country are still struggling to gain basic rights in the aftermath of the Taliban, Hazara women are achieving greater advances than many of their female neighbors. Some 80 percent of eligible girls attend school in the Hazara region—a stark contrast to 10 percent in five southern provinces. Hazara women aren’t required to seclude themselves from men, as are many of their counterparts, and they have even attained leadership roles in the newly emerging Afghan government: In March 2005 Habiba Sarobi was the first Afghan woman to become a governor, appointed by President Hamid Karzai to head the province of Bamiyan. . . . .

Elsewhere, I have read that Hazara women fought with their husbands, and thus the group was especially targeted by the Taliban.

Women in Shiite tribes/areas seemed to have had more rights than those in the Sunni areas.

One can get a glimmer of understanding in Greg Mortenson's book "Stones to Schools". The Tajiks and Kyrgyz apparently appreciate education for girls.

 

[mheslep]

It might be, fact is that they did ask for military assistance of the Soviet Union.

If the PDPA was little more than a Soviet stooge installed by the Soviets then there's little significance to the 'fact' that the PDPA requested Soviet assistance.

 

[mheslep]

In the decades prior to the Soviet invasion and the Taliban it appears Afghanistan was making some progress in the treatment of women, under the rule of the former king http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah" .

Notables:
o Shah supported an http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2123943.ece"
o In 1957 "a delegation of Afghan women attended an international women's conference" in Ceylon
o In 1958 "a woman was included in the Afghan delegation to" the UN in New York
o In 1961 the academic faculties in Kabul were opened to women.
o The 1964 Afghan constitution was "characterized by some writers as perhaps the finest in the Muslim world". In theory, it granted equal rights before the law of men and women citizens, though the institutions were no yet in place to guarantee those rights.
o By 1974 "[...]there were 56,099 men and 6323 women employed by the government in 1974, with 35 percent of the men and 69 percent of the women working as teachers"
The above is notable since we know the Taliban later forbade female employment completely.

http://books.google.com/books?id=h-...afghanistan history monarchy&num=100&pg=PA38" By Angelo Rasanayagam

Also see: Afghanistan http://www.culturalprofiles.net/Afghanistan/Directories/Afghanistan_Cultural_Profile/-644.html"

 

[Char. Limit]

I believe there are studies. One really has to look at individual tribes, provinces, and regions.

There is this on Hazara women.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Hazara_People
Elsewhere, I have read that Hazara women fought with their husbands, and thus the group was especially targeted by the Taliban.

Women in Shiite tribes/areas seemed to have had more rights than those in the Sunni areas.

One can get a glimmer of understanding in Greg Mortenson's book "Stones to Schools". The Tajiks and Kyrgyz apparently appreciate education for girls.

I'm currently reading the book myself, and it is fascinating. The chiefs in these tribes are practically begging Greg for women's schools.

 

[Werg22]

Ah, so it's another case of the US destabilizing a region and twarthing efforts towards modernization in the pursuit of its interests, only to later claim having moral autorithy. Why am I not surprised?

 

[mheslep]

Ah, so it's another case of the US destabilizing a region and twarthing efforts towards modernization in the pursuit of its interests, only to later claim having moral autorithy. Why am I not surprised?

Nonsense. The Soviet Union destabilized and wrecked Afghanistan, then the Taliban stomped on the detritus that was left for another decade.

 

[Werg22]

Nonsense. The Soviet Union destabilized and wrecked Afghanistan, then the Taliban stomped on the detritus that was left for another decade.

The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter) began to covertly fund forces ranged against the pro-Soviet government, although warned that this might prompt a Soviet intervention, according to President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski described the U.S. activities as the successful setting of a trap that drew the Soviet Union into "its Vietnam War" and brought about the breakup of the Soviet empire. Regarding U.S. support for Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski said, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"[85] The Mujahideen belonged to various different factions, but all shared, to varying degrees, a similarly conservative 'Islamic' ideology.

Straight from the quoted article. The US contributed towards the creation of the Taliban.

 

[epenguin]

Not an academic study and not nice to see is this week's Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html

 

[apeiron]

Here are some good pix of swinging 60s Afghanistan before it was broke...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/27/once_upon_a_time_in_afghanistan

 

[mheslep]

Straight from the quoted article.

Which?

Edit: I see you quoted from Wiki. Nevermind.

and this

The US contributed towards the creation of the Taliban.

Is bull, not even supported by Wiki.

 

[Werg22]

Which?

Edit: I see you quoted from Wiki. Nevermind.

and this
Is bull, not even supported by Wiki.

Of course, whether they did is state secret. But it's highly rumored, and likely.

 

[Proton Soup]

Straight from the quoted article. The US contributed towards the creation of the Taliban.

as a response to the PDPA ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People...stan#Formation_and_early_political_activities

Formation and early political activities
Main articles: Politburo of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan and Central Committee of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan

Nur Mohammad Taraki started his political career as an Afghan journalist. On the 1 January 1965 Taraki with Babrak Karmal established the Democratic People's Party of Afghanistan, while at the beginning the party was running under the name People's Democratic Tendency, since there were no officially political party law in Afghanistan at that time.[4] The party held its First Congress meeting on January 1, 1965. Twenty-seven gentlemen gathered at Taraki's house in Kabul, elected Taraki as the first party Secretary General and Karmal as Deputy Secretary General, and chose a five-member Central Committee also called a Politburo. Taraki was later invited by the Communist Party of the Soviet Unions International Department in Moscow later that year.[5]

The PDPA was known in Afghan society at that time as having strong ties with the Soviet Union, the party itself was established for winning parliamentary seats in the Afghan Parliament. Eventually the PDPA was able to get four of its members into parliament. Later on Taraki established the first radical newspaper in Afghan history under the name The Khalq, the newspaper was eventually forced to stop publishing in 1966 by the government.[6]
[edit] The Khalqs and the Parchams
Main articles: Khalq and Parcham

In 1967 the party itself divided itself into several political sects, the biggest being the Khalqs and the Parchams. These new divisions started because of ideological and economic reasons. Most of Khalqs supporters came from Pashtuns from the rural areas in the country. The Parchams supporters mostly came from urban citizens who supported social-economic reforms in the country. The Khalqs accused the Parchams to be under the allegiance of King Mohammed Zahir Shah. Because the Parcham newspaper the Parcham was tolerated by the king himself and their for published from March, 1968-July, 1969.[6][7]

Karmal sought, unsuccessfully, to persuade the PDPA Central Committee to censure Taraki's excessive extreme radicalism. The vote, however, was close, and Taraki in turn tried to neutralize Karmal by appointing new members to the committee who were his own supporters. After this incident, Karmal offered his resignation, which was accepted by the Politburo. Although the split of the PDPA in 1967 into two groups was never publicly announced, Karmal brought with him less than half the members of the Central Committee.[8]

Because of the internal strife within the party, the party lost most its incumbent seats in the Afghan parliamentary election in 1969.[6] In 1973 the PDPA assisted Mohammed Daoud Khan to seize power from Zahir Shah in an nearly bloodless military coup. After Daoud had sized power he established the Daoud's Republic of Afghanistan. After the coup, the Loya jirga approved Daoud's new constitution establishing a presidential one party system of government in January, 1977. The new constitution alienated Daoud from many of his political allies.[9]
[edit] Reconciliation

The Soviet Union set in Moscow played a major role in the reconciliation of the Khalq faction led by Taraki and the Parcham faction led by Karmal. In March 1977 a formal agreement on unity was achieved, and in July the two factions held their first joint conclave in a decade. Since the parties division in 1967 both sides had held contact with Soviet government.[8]

Both parties were consistently pro-Soviet. There are allegations that they accepted financial and other forms of aid from the Soviet embassy and intelligence organs. However, the Soviets were close to King Zahir Shah and his cousin Daoud Khan - the first Afghan President - and it could have damaged their relations. There are no facts proving that the Soviets provided financial help to either Khalqis or Parchamis. Taraki and Karmal maintained close contact with the Soviet Embassy and its personnel in Kabul, and it appears that Soviet Military Intelligence (Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye - GRU) assisted Khalq's recruitment of military officers.[citation needed]
[edit]

 

[apeiron]

Which?
Edit: I see you quoted from Wiki. Nevermind.

But if the US set up Afghanistan as a bear trap, then how can it be "nevermind"? In fact Werg has just knocked your arguments that others created the mess out of the ball park.

The full text of the Brzezinski is really worth reading - especially because it shows how much governments will conceal about their true motives. You can either respond naively to the latest emotive propaganda cover pictures, or intelligently by an analysis of international power relations.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

 

[apeiron]

In the decades prior to the Soviet invasion and the Taliban it appears Afghanistan was making some progress in the treatment of women, under the rule of the former king http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah" .

Amusingly, Wiki credits major moves towards equality to the Marxist PDPA. But I suppose this can't be correct as socialism = "bad guys" .

Once in power, the PDPA implemented a socialist agenda. It moved to promote state atheism,[81] and carried out an ill-conceived land reform, which were misunderstood by virtually all Afghans.[82] They also imprisoned, tortured or murdered thousands of members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment, and the intelligentsia.[82] They also prohibited usury[83] and made a number of statements on women's rights, by declaring equality of the sexes[83] and introduced women to political life. A prominent example was Anahita Ratebzad, who was a major Marxist leader and a member of the Revolutionary Council. Ratebzad wrote the famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial, which declared: "Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country ... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention."[84]

 

[Proton Soup]

Amusingly, Wiki credits major moves towards equality to the Marxist PDPA. But I suppose this can't be correct as socialism = "bad guys" .

communism is not socialism, but it is correct to say that both would be supportive of more gender equality. and there are other reasons people might think of communists as "bad guys".

 

[talk2glenn]

Of course, whether they did is state secret. But it's highly rumored, and likely.

Highly rumored by whom?

The US mission in occupied Afghanistan predates the emergence of the Taliban by approximately ten years. The US, for its part, denies providing any material support to the Taliban, and all evidence suggests the US had long ceased any covert action in that country by the mid 1990's (specifically, around 1991-1993, when the CIA-backed warlords toppled the communist government in Kabul). Is there any evidence, anywhere, to the contrary?

The question becomes, could the United States have reasonably forseen the rise of the Taliban in the mid 90's, its support for Al Qaeda later in that decade, and ultimately that organizations attack on New York and Washington in 2001. The answer would certainly appear to be "no"; to suggest otherwise assumes a degree of causal insight I think only psychics claim to have. One might have reasonably predicted that Afghanistan would ultimately establish a theocratic, conservative Islamic government, but why assume it would be openly hostile to the US, given our support for that nations independence? And note also that the US tried to prevent this - the CIA threw its support behind local warlords later in the intervention in an effort to keep the more religious types out of power, specifically Ahmad Shah Massoud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Shah_Massoud#Soviet_invasion_and_occupation).

But let's imagine for a moment that the answer is "yes". Does that fact change the US' mission in Afghanistan in the early 80's? That is, was the possible emergence of the Taliban and its ultimately having a role in directly supporting terrorism against American targets sufficient to make a successful Soviet occupation of Afghanistan more preferable?

 

[Gokul43201]

Amusingly, Wiki credits major moves towards equality to the Marxist PDPA. But I suppose this can't be correct as socialism = "bad guys" .

Do you attribute the improvement in women's rights to principles derived directly from Socialism any more than you do the torture and murders of thousands of the so-called elite?

 

[Gokul43201]

The question becomes, could the United States have reasonably forseen the rise of the Taliban in the mid 90's, its support for Al Qaeda later in that decade, and ultimately that organizations attack on New York and Washington in 2001.

The question does not become that at all - especially not in this thread. Making that the question is setting up a strawman.

This thread is not about 9/11; it's about women's rights in Afghanistan. Is it true that the US helped empower radical Islamist groups in the 80s? That, I believe, is undisputed. Some of those jihadis (like Mullah Omar) joined the Taliban, others joined related groups, still others became competing warlords. Most of them were not, to my knowledge, known for their support of women's rights.

This tidbit from the wiki, however, I found somewhat interesting:

The most credible and often-repeated story of how Mullah Omar first mobilized his followers is that in the spring of 1994 Singesar neighbors told him that a warlord commander had abducted two teenage girls, shaved their heads and taken them to a camp where they were raped repeatedly. 30 Taliban (with only 16 rifles) freed the girls and hanged the commander from the barrel of a tank. Later that year two warlord commanders killed civilians while fighting for the right to sodomize a young boy. The Taliban freed him.​

​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Early_history

 

[rootX]

Ah, so it's another case of the US destabilizing a region and twarthing efforts towards modernization in the pursuit of its interests, only to later claim having moral autorithy. Why am I not surprised?

Irrelevant.

 

[apeiron]

Do you attribute the improvement in women's rights to principles derived directly from Socialism any more than you do the torture and murders of thousands of the so-called elite?

No, I just get tired of naivety. The world is so much more complex than the black and white emotional reactions that pass for critical analysis here.

You are using rhetorical flourishes again. That's fine for grabbing attention and opening an argument I guess, but then I await the substance.

Women's rights are suddenly being painted as a reason for the US to occupy Afghanistan. Where are all the PF voices calling for the US to impose gay rights on the mullahs too? Wouldn't that be consistent? Wouldn't it be great if Time put out an emotive cover with a story like this?

On March 22, 1998, 18-year-old Abdul Sami and another young man, a 22-year-old named Bismillah, were buried alive—put beside a mud wall that was bulldozed upon them—inside a stadium in the Afghan city of Herat.
The gruesome public execution was the young men’s sentence, under Taliban law, of having been found guilty of engaging in sodomy.
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world/afghanistan/afnews006.htm

 

[Gokul43201]

You are using rhetorical flourishes again. That's fine for grabbing attention and opening an argument I guess, but then I await the substance.

Women's rights are suddenly being painted as a reason for the US to occupy Afghanistan. Where are all the PF voices calling for the US to impose gay rights on the mullahs too? Wouldn't that be consistent? Wouldn't it be great if Time put out an emotive cover with a story like this?

Is all of this also directed at me? If it is, I'm clueless about what you mean, or more specifically, what you think I'm saying/doing.

 

[apeiron]

Do you attribute the improvement in women's rights to principles derived directly from Socialism any more than you do the torture and murders of thousands of the so-called elite?

OK, so I am expected to treat this question as if you were seriously puzzled. :zzz:

If we are talking about socialism/communism as poltical theory, then yes, women's equality would be part of a general desire for social equality. And no, torture and murder of elites is not a necessary part of that theory.

Is your understanding of the political theory different?

 

[edward]

A much different TIME cover.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20011217,00.html

The status of women in Afghanistan is affected more by religion that politics.

History has just repeated itself in Afghanistan.

 

[apeiron]

A much different TIME cover.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20011217,00.html

Nice link.

The conflict in Afghanistan has confounded expectations. Who anticipated that the Taliban's rule would disintegrate wholesale two months into the U.S. bombing campaign? Or that the regime's soldiers would abandon Kandahar as meekly and abruptly as they did, quitting the city in the dead of night?

That was in 2001 of course. So the confounded expectations was certainly true.

 

[Gokul43201]

OK, so I am expected to treat this question as if you were seriously puzzled. :zzz:

Yes, I was (seriously puzzled), but given your attitude, I am no longer interested in having a conversation.