Women in Kabul, Afghanistan 1972 and now.

[ErikJ]

:large
Happy International Womans Day.

[madfloridian]

1. Amazing pictures. The contrast is unreal. I found another link.

http://www.businessinsider.com/astonishing-photos-of-prewar-afghanistan-show-everyday-life-in-peaceful-kabul-2013-2?op=1

There are some great pictures here also.

I am looking for some links that were posted here about the time we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. The women were professionals, dressed that way. If I find them I will post.

[cali]

3. um, no. Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban at that time

[madfloridian]

5. Uh, here are two links that show time frame.

There is overlap, but I am not wrong that there were posts here about the time of the invasion.

I am not especially fond of either link, but they give a picture of the situation and the time frame.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543902/Photos-just-free-women-Afghanistan-Taliban-rule.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/08/frustration-hangs-heavy-over-afghanistan-women-rights-struggle-13-years-after/

[cali]

8. Your links are referencing the 50s, 60s and 70s. PRE TALIBAN

I'm sorry but you are wrong.


The Islamic State of Afghanistan was established in 1992 and the Taliban took over in 1996. During much of the seventies,

The USSR invaded in the late 70s. Over a million Afghans were killed in that period. then there were 2 civil wars.

The Taliban took over completely in 1996 and if you think women were dressing like that during that period- wow.

[madfloridian]

35. My point is how they are dressed today.

Which is shocking to me. Things have gone backwards for women.

Frankly I was only claiming that there were many posts here in the pre-invasion time frame with concern for women's rights there.

[cali]

38. You said this:

"I am looking for some links that were posted here about the time we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. The women were professionals, dressed that way. If I find them I will post."

I responded. You were wrong. No big deal. I think you were thinking about Iraq.

And women were even worse off under the Taliban than they are now- though it's still fucking awful and invading didn't change things appreciably. Also, things have gotten steadily worse for women in Afghanistan over the past 6 or 7 years as the Taliban and other fundamentalist regain power.


It cannot be overstated how bad things were for women under the Taliban

[madfloridian]

51. Whoa, women of course are worse under Taliban rule.

[cali]

55. Again, you said this

I am looking for some links that were posted here about the time we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. The women were professionals, dressed that way. If I find them I will post."

That's unambiguous. You claimed that women dressed as professionals in Afghanistan "about the time we invaded Afghanistan".

They did not. Not a single one. NONE. The Taliban controlled the government from 1996 and even before that fundamentalists were in control.

[madfloridian]

63. Read that paragraph of mine again.

We did post about that time. I did not say the women were that way then, I was thinking back to many good posts here about that time. It was an inquiring paragraph, not definitive. I guess that is why I am so surprised at the attacks on me.

But to be honest....I don't think we have helped at all by being there. From what I posted below.

http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/taliban-afghanistan/p10551


The Taliban is a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist group that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when a U.S.-led invasion toppled the regime for providing refuge to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Taliban regrouped across the border in Pakistan, where its central leadership, headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, operates an insurgency and shadow government aimed at undermining the government in Kabul. Since 2010, both the United States and Afghanistan have pursued a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, but with the planned withdrawal of international forces at the end of 2014, many analysts say the prospects for such an agreement are dim.


Not my favorite source, but gives dates.

And The Nation last year

http://www.thenation.com/article/176254/how-us-war-afghanistan-fueled-taliban-insurgency


In wars, and especially in counterinsurgency wars such as the American war in Afghanistan, it’s often said that killing civilians creates insurgents. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded US forces in the Afghan War, often referred to this as “insurgent math.” If it’s true, then the United States has created tens of thousands of insurgents since 2001, according to back-of-the-envelope calculations by the military itself and by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which studied the issue in 2010.


I will admit when I am wrong, but I reread what I wrote several times. I don't think I said anything wrong.

If the CFR site dates are correct, we toppled the Taliban in 2001. Women are still dressed in the burkas today.

The fact is I referred to no dates in the sentence in the disputed posts. In fact I wasn't sure myself, so I said I would look it up.

Here's the quote:


I am looking for some links that were posted here about the time we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. The women were professionals, dressed that way. If I find them I will post.


It was an inquiring paragraph, nothing definitive.

But now that I am having to defend what I didn't say...I might as well be honest...

2001-2014....our presence there. What have we accomplished?

How are women any better?

I am not going to apologize for that paragraph. It was not meant to be definitive about anything.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

67. He meant the POSTS were pre-invasion. Not the pictures. The pictures were from before.

[CJCRANE]

11. You might be thinking of Iraq before the invasion in 2003.

Suhad and Soodad (middle) with their childhood friends in Iraq before the invasion
?1


Iraq Ten Years On: Two Sisters, Caught In The 2003 UN Bomb Blast In Baghdad, Tell Their Brave Story
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/06/iraq-ten-years-on-baghdad-saddam-hussein_n_2631327.html

[madfloridian]

29. My claim was that there were posts here at time of invasion. Having trouble why I am called wrong.

My main point in my post to the OP was that we were discussing the treatment of women back then on DU, about the time we invaded. I never said why they were treated or who did it.

If they were able to dress like that before the invasion, then something has surely changed.

My only claim is that we were posting pictures and discussing it way back then.

I am not sure why all the indignation.

[CJCRANE]

34. I think you were probably thinking of Iraq as it was a secular country

before the invasion. I remember a video of life in Baghdad just before the invasion where things seemed okay.

Afghanistan was under the Taliban so whilst it might have been more peaceful back then it probably wasn't more secular.

[cali]

50. because that wasn't your claim and because you are confusing Iraq and Afghanistan

Women in Afghanistan under the Taliban just before we invaded were under unbelievable level of oppression just for being women:

While in power in Afghanistan, the Taliban became notorious internationally for their sexism. The stated aim of the Taliban was to create a "secure environment where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct,"[1] reportedly based on Pashtunwali beliefs about living in purdah.[2]

Afghan women were forced to wear the burqa at all times in public, because, according to one Taliban spokesman, "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them.[3] In a systematic segregation sometimes referred to as gender apartheid, women were not allowed to work, they were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an.

Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught.[4][5] They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperone, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.[6][7] The Taliban allowed and in some cases encouraged marriage for girls under the age of 16. Amnesty International reported that 80% of Afghan marriages were considered to be arranged by force.[8][when?]

Gender policies
Afghan women wearing the burqa

From the age of eight, females were not allowed to be in direct contact with males other than a close "blood relative", husband, or in-law (see mahram).[9] Other restrictions were:

Women should not appear in the streets without a blood relative and without wearing a burqa (also burkha, burka or burqua)
Women should not wear high-heeled shoes as no man should hear a woman’s footsteps lest it excite him
Women must not speak loudly in public as no stranger should hear a woman's voice[10]
All ground and first floor residential windows should be painted over or screened to prevent women being visible from the street
The photographing or filming of women was banned as was displaying pictures of females in newspapers, books, shops or the home
The modification of any place names that included the word "women". For example, "women's garden" was renamed "spring garden".[11]
Women were forbidden to appear on the balconies of their apartments or houses
Ban on women's presence on radio, television or at public gatherings of any kind[12]

Mobility

The Taliban rulings regarding public conduct placed severe restrictions on a woman's freedom of movement and created difficulties for those who could not afford a burqa or didn't have any mahram. These women faced virtual house arrest.[2] A woman who was badly beaten by the Taliban for walking the streets alone stated "my father was killed in battle...I have no husband, no brother, no son. How am I to live if I can't go out alone?"[13]

A field worker for the NGO Terre des hommes witnessed the impact on female mobility at Kabul's largest state-run orphanage, Taskia Maskan. After the female staff was relieved of their duties, the approximately 400 girls living at the institution were locked inside for a year without being allowed outside for recreation.[9] Decrees that affected women’s mobility were:

Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.
Women were forbidden to ride in a taxi without a mahram.
Segregated bus services introduced to prevent males and females traveling on the same bus.[10]

The lives of rural women were less dramatically affected as they generally lived and worked within secure kin environments. A relative level of freedom was necessary for them to continue with their chores or labor. If these women traveled to a nearby town, the same urban restrictions would have applied to them.[1]
Employment

The Taliban disagreed with past Afghan statutes that allowed the employment of women in a mixed sex workplace. They claimed this was a breach of purdah and sharia law.[3] On September 30, 1996, the Taliban decreed that all women should be banned from employment.[14] It is estimated that 25 percent of government employees were female, and when compounded by losses in other sectors, many thousands of women were affected.[9] This had a devastating impact on household incomes, especially on vulnerable or widow-headed households, which were common in Afghanistan.

Another loss was for those whom the employed women served. Elementary education of children, not just girls, was shut down in Kabul, where virtually all of the elementary school teachers were women. Thousands of educated families fled Kabul for Pakistan after the Taliban took the city in 1996.[2][15] Among those who remained in Afghanistan, there was an increase in mother and child destitution as the loss of vital income reduced many families to the margin of survival.

Taliban Supreme Leader Mohammed Omar assured female civil servants and teachers they would still receive wages of around US$5 per month, although this was a short term offering.[16] A Taliban representative stated: "The Taliban’s act of giving monthly salaries to 30,000 job-free women, now sitting comfortably at home, is a whiplash in the face of those who are defaming Taliban with reference to the rights of women. These people through baseless propaganda are trying to incite the women of Kabul against the Taliban".[3]

The Taliban promoted the use of the extended family, or zakat system of charity to ensure women should not need to work. However, years of conflict meant that nuclear families often struggled to support themselves let alone aid additional relatives.[2] Qualification for legislation often rested on men, such as food aid which must be collected by a male relative. The possibility that a woman may not possess any male relatives was dismissed by Mullah Ghaus, the acting foreign minister, who was surprised at the degree of international attention and concern for such a small percentage of the Afghan population.[9] For rural women there was generally little change in their circumstance, as their lives were dominated by the unpaid domestic, agricultural and reproductive labour necessary for subsistence.

plenty more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

[Scootaloo]

20. "Pre-War" here refers to the Afghan Civil War and the Russian intervention therein

...and then the civil war AFTER that that brought the Taliban to power.

NOT the US war in Afghanistan.

[etherealtruth]

22. Sadly, a fact the was lost on much of this thread

[madfloridian]

36. Not what I said. We have been there since 2003...look how they dress now.

I am sure it is not by choice.

Someone is really missing the point....that women there are forced to go back into the olden times.

[Scootaloo]

39. It read like you were saying it was a consequence of the US' 2002 invasion

Sorry if I misread

[madfloridian]

45. I wasn't. Thank you for understanding. Neither was the OP.

My point was they have gone backwards.

[cali]

53. and they were even more restricted by the Taliban

why not just admit you're wrong?

Our invasion- and fuck knows that it's been terrible in a myriad of ways- did not force women into burqas. That happened well before we invaded.

ykes.

[sabrina 1]

81. Perhaps you should read what the women themselves have to say about their situation. They have

been speaking out about it for years now. Risking their lives to do so. You don't have to speak for them, they have spoken clearly about this invasion and the impact it has had on their lives, despite, as they have said, their cause often being used as one of the reasons for being there.

MF did not say this latest invasion was the cause of their horrific situation. Nor did it come across that way to anyone who has spent the past dozen years listening to the women themselves.

[NutmegYankee]

30. There were no women dressed as professionals after the 1990s.

At least not outside where they would be seen and executed by the Taliban.

[cali]

56. Right. As in none. zero.

the op and the first post by MF are erroneous.

[WhiteTara]

78. This was before the Russian invasion that we helped

set up by supplying the Muhjadeen (sp?) who turned into the Taliban.

[uppityperson]

91. You are looking for DU limks posted pre-invasion of past times?

That all is very clear to me.

There were times in the past women in Afghanistan were able to not be burqa'd. It is a shame they were made to do that. I was against invading Afghanistan, but hoped once it was done that they'd do it right and be able to hlp the women, which did. ot happen.

[awoke_in_2003]

2. Although not as fast...

it is happening here, too. Religion is insidious

[cali]

4. no, it's not.

the religious right is flailing about desperately but the trends, with the exception of reproductive rights, and that's been effective through TARP laws, not religious based laws, are in the opposite direction.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Reproductive rights are incredibly significant. And the TRAP laws are funded by the religious right.

[cali]

15. didn't say they weren't, but the trends are clear

and the TRAP laws pretend to NOT be about religion at all.

Are you seriously going to argue that women in 1972 in the U.S. had more freedom and rights?

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Yes but religious anti-choicers are winning that one with secular arguments...

The country isn't becoming more hostile to reproductive rights because it's becoming more religious. It's becoming more hostile to them because anti-choicers have successfully conjured the image of abortion as "baby killing" in the minds of far too many people. And unfortunately the left hasn't done enough to combat this. Furthermore, the younger generation isn't motivated because we never lived through the days of back alley abortions.

But when you look at all of the other issues, they're losing. And they're losing because they don't have secular arguments to support their positions.

[PeaceNikki]

23. yeah, well, the fucking asterisk of *except reproductive rights doesn't cut it for me.

It's huge. And funded by, propagated by and stems from the religious right.

Like it or not. Wrap it up how you want, but that's a fact.

[cali]

32. I know it's fucking huge. and you know that I've said here that it's of major importance

but comparing the plight of U.S. women to Afghani women is absurd and that was the point I was making. Women in the U.S. are not headed in the same direction as the women in Afghanistan and the fact is that the Christian Right is not winning on most social issues and issues involving women. Furthermore, as I stated the trends are not working in favor of the religious wingnut right. The recent Pew study of Millennials bears that out.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of reproductive rights

I'm just saying that it's a unique issue and it's a unique issue because we're losing ground on it as the country becomes less religious. It's important to understand the nature of what we're dealing with.

[awoke_in_2003]

73. Half of the politicians in this country...

think that women do not have the right to make their own medical decision, should not have access to birth control, and do not deserve equal pay for equal work. I don't care what polls say- these people keep getting elected. A sizeable percentage of our population must agree with them. Of course, that is my point of view from deep in the babble belt. I took a US Government course at our local community college about 8 years ago. When we got to the Roe v Wade decision, our professor asked who supported the decision. Me and the other 35+ year old man in the class rose our hands. Opposed- everyone else. The class was a fairly even split of male/female, all freshman age or very close to it. It is the result of years of xtianity and total brainwashing through the media. I have zero hope for the younger generation. Most of them are too wrapped up in their social media and "reality" TV.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. Kabul, 1972. That was before forty years of imperialist war.

First the Russians invaded, and the US beefed up the Islamists to fight them.

Then after driving the Russians out, we left Afghanistan to curdle in warlordism, which the Taliban ended by taking power.

And now, for the past 13 year, we've been occupying the place.

Afghan women, you've come a long way, baby. Too bad it's in the wrong direction.

You can't blame the US and the Russians for a milennium of Aghan history, but you have to ask yourself if the country or its women have really benefited from our tender ministrations.

[cali]

10. yep.

[mathematic]

7. Is today one of the days where Western values are good?

Or is today one of the days where we decry cultural appropriation and Western influence?

[msanthrope]

12. That depends. Is President Obama involved? nt

[etherealtruth]

17. Yeah

You're right

Those pesky values given the name "human rights"

[cali]

13. today is the day where we ackowledge historical reality

Afghanistan got ripped to shreds in a proxy war- and that was before bushyboy invaded.

40 years of war is a very bad thing and values by force are not positive values no matter what they are..

[Scootaloo]

44. Funny how that "clash of civilizations" crap keeps popping up

Not it couldn't be because of a twenty-year war that left the entire next generation isolated in hyper-religious refugee camps. it's got to be something intrincic between "The west" and... and who, "the east?"

[CJCRANE]

14. What's your opinion? Do you prefer religious law or secular law?

Should religion be a private freedom or a public obligation?

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Cultural appropriation has nothing to do with this and women's rights aren't a western value...

The Taliban is a shitstain on humanity and anybody with a brain, regardless of their political beliefs, acknowledges that. What was it you were posting about, again?

[Comrade Grumpy]

59. The Taliban hasn't been in power in Kabul for more than a decade.

It's not just them.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. The Taliban is the reason you see the number of women wearing them today that you do...

Just because we removed them from power doesn't mean that everyone suddenly just did away with the burqa. It's not that simple.

[nomorenomore08]

80. When "Western values" dovetail with human rights for all people, they're good.

When they don't, they're bad. Not too ambiguous if you ask me.

[sabrina 1]

16. You cannot support Women's Rights and support War! That is a perfect demonstration

of what happens to women when war invades their countries.

Which is one major reason, as a woman, I will never support a pro-candidate for the WH.

[CJCRANE]

18. What about WWII and the jewish men and women who were liberated?

One of the justifications for the invasion of Afghanistan was women's rights (to free them from the Taliban).

[sabrina 1]

25. Are you asking me if I supported Hitler's war machine? Not sure what was unclear in my comment

Had I been German and alive at the time, assuming that is your question, I would not have supported his warmongering policies.

Clearly he did not support women's or anyone else's rights.

[CJCRANE]

27. There are usually two sides to a war. In WWII it was Hitler vs FDR/Churchill etc.

I wasn't accusing you of supporting Hitler. You made that jump. I assumed you'd know I meant the Allies.

[sabrina 1]

48. What is a good reason for a country to go to war?

And why would you go all the back to WW11 btw if you wanted to make a point.

We are at war right now 'with the world' according to the Bush Doctrine. Are you comparing WW11 to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and all the other places we are claiming the right to go to war with? Is there a figure to equal Hitler anywhere we are 'at war'?

From what I know of WW11 Hitler was threatening to rule the world and had shown he should be taken seriously. To compare him to Saddam Hussein, and I know some did actually, is ludicrous.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Sure, if you're willing to make an indefinite commitment...

In the case of World War II, Adolf Hitler was such a menace to humanity that it was worthwhile to defeat his army, occupy the country for decades to rid it of any Nazi remnant influences, rebuild its economy, and provide for its defense indefinitely (we're still defending Germany to this day).

If you're not willing to make that commitment (and we're clearly not) then war ultimately makes things worse.

[etherealtruth]

21. You are speaking of the Soviet invasion ....

.... that gave rise and power to the Taliban (through the mujaheddin)?

Though I was vehemently against the US invasion of Afghanistan I had prayed that it would help the plight of women in that country ... sadly there were flickers of hope, but no real progress.

[CJCRANE]

26. The neocons claimed to be spreading "liberal democracy"

but they don't even want liberal democracy in America so there was little chance of them implementing it anywhere else, sadly,

[etherealtruth]

28. Hope springs eternal

I didn't really hold out any hope for true democracy .... but , jeesh, I had really hoped that the human right abuses directed toward 1/2 of the population would be dampened .... even a little.

[sabrina 1]

31. I thought my comment was clear. If I had been a citizen of the Soviet Union, or since someone else

mentioned Hitler, of Germany, and to be clear, were I a citizen of the UK, Rome, or any other warmongering nation, I would have been opposed to their policies.

I'm sure there were people in all those nations, just like here, who felt the same way, but the warmongerging supporters they manage, for whatever reasons, to collect, obviously won out.

I live here and can only try to effect what our government does. I can't vote in Germany or Russia where there actually is a large Anti-Putin segment of the population btw, which is why I didn't say 'As a Russian I will never support anyone who is a warmonger'.

I'll remember from now on to include all historical warmongers with the explanation that I couldn't do anything in countries I did not live in, or was yet born even if I did when I state my position on war, other than when a country is directly attacked.

[etherealtruth]

37. It was the seeming conflation of the US invasion and the rapid decline of women's rights

As i clearly stated in my post I was "vehemently against the US invasion of Afghanistan"

From your post it had appeared that you were attributing the rise in oppression of women to the US invasion .... the US invasion was quite wrong ... but, did not give rise or strength to the subjugation of women in Afghanistan (.... and that is what this thread is about).

[madfloridian]

43. The OP only had 2 pics. It implied nothing like that at all.

Neither did I and I did not read Sabrina's post that way either.

Women have long been oppressed there. We have been there a while, so our presence is not helping women obviously.

Sometimes reading too much into posts results in posters being attacked without need.

[etherealtruth]

54. Many readers understood your posts and those of Sabrina's

... to mean that women's rights precipitously declined because of the US invasion.

If one person misunderstood your intent ... It may be a problem with the reader, if two or more people misunderstood the intent of your post .... consider that what you wrote did not clearly express what you had intended. Several posters (including me) appear to have understood something completely different than what you are now stating. Why not just clarify your original post and move on.

Its one of those moments when respect can be gained by stating "I wrote that poorly, sorry. Here is what i had hoped to express .... " and move on. I think we have all miscommunicated our opinion or position from time to time.

[madfloridian]

61. Isn't it true the Taliban went out of power in 2001. Regrouped in Pakistan?

These links are not about women, but about the Taliban and regrowth.

http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/taliban-afghanistan/p10551

The Taliban is a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist group that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when a U.S.-led invasion toppled the regime for providing refuge to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Taliban regrouped across the border in Pakistan, where its central leadership, headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, operates an insurgency and shadow government aimed at undermining the government in Kabul. Since 2010, both the United States and Afghanistan have pursued a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, but with the planned withdrawal of international forces at the end of 2014, many analysts say the prospects for such an agreement are dim.

Not my favorite source, but gives dates.

And The Nation last year

http://www.thenation.com/article/176254/how-us-war-afghanistan-fueled-taliban-insurgency

In wars, and especially in counterinsurgency wars such as the American war in Afghanistan, it’s often said that killing civilians creates insurgents. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded US forces in the Afghan War, often referred to this as “insurgent math.” If it’s true, then the United States has created tens of thousands of insurgents since 2001, according to back-of-the-envelope calculations by the military itself and by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which studied the issue in 2010.

I will admit when I am wrong, but I reread what I wrote several times. I don't think I said anything wrong.

If the CFR site dates are correct, we toppled the Taliban in 2001. Women are still dressed in the burkas today.

We haven't done so great in Iraq either.

I am having to defend myself here now even on education posts when I am right. I have to dig up more and prove myself correct. When I make a mistake I apologize, but I simply put a very short post . We discussed women leading up to the Iraq invasion, but we also discussed them in the lead up to the Afghan invasion.

The fact is I referred to no dates in the sentence in the disputed posts. In fact I wasn't sure myself, so I said I would look it up.

Here's the quote:

I am looking for some links that were posted here about the time we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. The women were professionals, dressed that way. If I find them I will post.

It was an inquiring paragraph, nothing definitive.

But now that I am having to defend what I didn't say...I might as well be honest...

2001-2014....our presence there. What have we accomplished?

How are women any better?

[etherealtruth]

64. No one (or at least not me) is asking you to defend anything

I stated your posts gave a different impression than what you are stating (as evidenced by the responses of multiple posters). it certainly is up to you whether you clarify your initial posts or not.

My choice would be to simply say "obviously my posts were not clear. Here is what I meant...." That's not your choice and that, of course, is up to you.

[sabrina 1]

90. And many people did understand it. As for how Bush's invasion of Afghanistan affected women there

they have made that clear themselves, the adverse affects of yet another invasion. We could ignore them, I suppose, Laura Bush eg, claimed Bush's war had raised women up in Afghanistan. The women of Afghanistan disagreed.

The women of Afghanistan have been trying to get our/your attention for 12 years, they have been telling us how Bush's invasion affected them. But if you prefer that WE decide how they are affected, then I suppose their pleas and their words will continue to fall on deaf ears.

As someone who has been following what they have to say for all those years, my comment was based on what the women themselves have had to say.

And two people not understanding, due to perhaps not having paid attention to them, one of their major complaints btw, means only that two people didn't understand, perhaps never will.

[sabrina 1]

70. I follow the plight of women all over the world. We haven't invaded the Congo yet I know for a fact

that war in that country has destroyed women's right to even basic human rights.

Mostly I try to find out what the women who live these countries feel about war, specifically our invasions since there is nothing we can do about other governments and their decisions.

There are very courageous women in Afghanistan who have trying to be heard for the 12 years since Bush invaded their country. While people like Laura Bush told us how her husband's invasion had improved the rights of Afghan women, the ONLY information most Americans received and believed, Afghan women themselves, never featured on the Corporate Media, consistently told of how their plight had in no way improved, despite claims from the Western coalition to the contrary.

If you would like their view of women's rights since the invasion, they have a blog where they have meticulously tracked women's issues in their country.

During the Bush years, RAWA were viewed by the left, as heroic women who risked retaliation by speaking out.

They are still doing so, but not getting as much attention from the Left as they used to.

Here is a link to their website: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2014/01/09/u-s-troops-are-needed-in-afghanistan-to-protect-women-o-reallyo.html

There is zero I can do regarding the UK's policies on invasions they support.

The only country whose policies we can even try to influence is this one.

Maybe if I didn't care about women all over the world, I would have accepted the position of the US that our adventures in Afghanistan had improved the plight of women there. War is responsible for their plight, the Russian invasion and our secret war against them, then the aftermath where the Taliban was able to take over after everyone left, completely destroyed women's rights there.

And when we went back in 2001, using women's rights as one of the reasons to justify that invasion, which I also opposed, according to Afghan women, only made things worse.

War and women's rights do NOT go together and I stand by my comment on that.

[polly7]

72. +1000000000000000000000 nt.

[Token Republican]

69. The point being

if you were living in the Soviet Union or Nazi German, in the 1930s to 1940s and openly opposed the leaders, you would have been shot, liquidated, missing, and your family would have paid a price too, to teach others not to disobey.

Voting meant nothing.

You would have the right to confess of course. Soviets were very good at getting to the truth they wanted.

The Great Purge of the 1930s is a classic example of a government just slightly out of control.

If you were an enemy of the state, you had the absolute right to confess your guilt. Occasionally people tried to say they were tortured into pleading guilty, but often they changed their mind, as illustrated by this example.

Bukharin's confession

On the first day of trial, Krestinsky caused a sensation when he repudiated his written confession and pled not guilty to all the charges. However, he changed his plea the next day after "special measures", which dislocated his left shoulder among other things.

Voting and opposing your government is not always an option and is something we should never take for granted here.

[Scootaloo]

52. Historical correction

The "Mujihadeen" existed prior to the soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Right-wing and Islamist milita were already fomenting a civil war as early as 1977. In 1978, US president Jimmy Carter signed an executive order to fund and arm these groups - Operation Cyclone. The reason being - as always - "containing communism" (the Afghan government was soviet-aligned, and so bringing it down was an Americna cause, regardless of the means.) As these militias became more and more problematic, the Tariki government called on the Soviets to intervene - which they did. This did not save the Tariki government, which fell shortly after, leaving the Russians to try to preserve order against US-backed militant groups.

After the Russians withdrew, US funding of the mujihadeen ceased for a few years, leading them to fall on each other and hack each other to pieces in a new civil war - from whence the Taliban emerged victorious. the US began funding and arming these guys as part of the "war on drugs" in 1994.

The soviet intervention was a reaction to the problem, not a cause of it - as was the US funding of the rightists (the problem was that the Tariki government was spectacularly corrupt - yeah. Thirty years of war and oppression because some dude couldn't keep his hands out of the treasury)

[etherealtruth]

57. You are very correct about the mujihadeen and the Taliban

... I was quickly (and admittedly loosely) trying to respond to posts that appeared to link "this" to the US invasion.

I should have taken the time to write a historically accurate history (you did quickly, clearly and concisely ... I should have taken the extra minute or two to do so). Thanks

[valerief]

40. The consequences of religion. nt

[Skip Intro]

47. The consequences of a particular religion. n/t

[valerief]

49. Have you paid attention to Texas recently? nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. What, that place where women aren't forced to cover their faces?

While most other religions have a great deal wrong with them, I think it's unfair not to acknowledge that Islam is, on average (and it's important not to forget the "on average"; this isn't a universal statement), significantly worse than any other.

[valerief]

79. Texas--Where they can't get legal abortions. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. Really?

"Can't" or "it's hard to"?

[CJCRANE]

62. A particular brand of religion: Fundamentalism. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

46. The Taliban ruined Afghanistan...

Here are more photos of Afghanistan pre-Taliban:

[cali]

58. huh? Afghanistan was a fucking ruin before the Taliban came to power

and in fact, had it not been such a disaster, they probably wouldn't have come to power.

[Drunken Irishman]

66. You're right. I meant more the Afghan Mujahideen.

[bvar22]

60. Things have regressed for women in Libya too...

...since we decided to help "The Rebels" there too.

[sabrina 1]

82. Same thing for the women of Iraq ... who used to have something we still don't have here, equal pay

for equal work. Not any more.

War and women's rights don't go together.

[MysticHuman]

65. Reagan's Freedom fighters! The Taliban!

Just one of many of Reagan's bullshit policies....

[jamzrockz]

68. Wow

This is what happens when you just have to help "freedom" fighters out to fight the Soviet Union. Reagan takes all the blame for this. The sad part is that we are repeating the same mistake with Syria cos if the so called rebels take over, we will be creating threads like this for Syria.

Lets not begin to talk about Libya where we have partial sharia law on the books.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

74. Some Iranain neighbors showed me some pictures when I was a kid

That could have been any beach town in California in the 60's or 70's.

[Blue_In_AK]

75. The late ConsAre Liars traveled in Afghanistan extensively in the late '60s/early '70s

and posted some excellent stories and photos here before he was TSed a few years ago. He has since passed away.

[sabrina 1]

83. I remember his posts on Afghanistan, they were a wonderful resource for the history of that country

I had no idea he was banned from DU, and NO IDEA he has passed away. How sad to hear that.

Thank you for letting us know, I only knew him from his posts on Afghanistan.

[Blue_In_AK]

84. It was one of the more inexplicable bannings.

For a while he posted at another site I frequent sometimes (which shall remain nameless), but then in April 2012 his son posted saying his dad was very ill and could no longer participate. He passed away soon after. It was very sad to me. He was one of the people here who taught me everything I know about photography and was always so encouraging and helpful. He was a wonderful person.



Ed. Here is a link to my post at the time in the Photo Group. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10363799

[madfloridian]

85. I found his archived journal.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=3633&page=1

I did not know that he was banned. This year I have gone through some of my saved stuff and been utterly stunned at how many have been banned from here.

That is sad about his death....I did not know. His journal will keep things fresh in our minds.

[sabrina 1]

88. I wondered why he wasn't posting every once in a while, but thought he was probably

busy in RL. As I said, I only knew him from his Afghanistan posts and did miss them when he stopped posting.

He sounds like a wonderful, kind person. Wish I had known him better. I am glad you were able to stay in touch with him on a different blog.

People like him contributed so much to DU. It's not what it used to be, imo.

I wish his family peace, death is so final.

[madfloridian]

86. That journal of his is a treasure, Blue_In_AK. So many good posts.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=3633&page=1

[Blue_In_AK]

87. He was one of my best friends here.

[get the red out]

77. Fucking Cold War

We needed to leave well enough alone in that country decades before we invaded it.

[Separation]

89. That's not exactly true

Right now one of the most popular shows on TV is an American Idol spinoff. I believe it is called Afghan Star. The females were suit pants brightly colored shirts and a head scarf. Again this is their #1 show over there.

[ErikJ]

93. Interesting- but one contestant killed for showing her hair.

Movie of the Week: “Afghan Star” (2009)
February 7, 2011

Afghanistan is well known to be one of the worst places to live on the planets. Decades of war, disastrous and corrupt governments, religious fundamentalism and a non-existent economy have turned what is probably one of the most amazing areas in the world into a quagmire of poverty, ill health, conflict and violence. One can say much about the American occupation of Afghanistan, but it is hard to believe that anything like the popular television program “Afghan Star” would have been possible under the miserable Taliban regime.

Under the Taliban, television, music and dancing were absolutely forbidden. Afghanis, of course, found ways around these restrictions, clandestinely keeping televisions and radios in their homes and patronizing secret repair shops to keep secular information from the outside flowing in. “Afghan Star” is the Taliban’s worst nightmare come true. Much like the model presented by the popular American talent show “American Idol”, regular Afghanis of all ethnic extractions line up at massive auditions. Panels of popular judges choose the best among them to allow them to display their talents for the entire country to see. Week after week, Afghan citizens vote using their cell phones, and the list of performers is pared down until the final “Afghan Star” is selected.

The movie “Afghan Star” follows a season of the television show and the five final performers as they prepare and compete for the title. Through wins and losses, each of the competitors is interviewed and clearly understands that this is more than a cheap television program. “Afghan Star” is Afghanistan’s bid at true democracy, each voter campaigning for their favorite performer. One particularly excited viewer hocks his car to purchase SIM cards to allow people to vote. Fans print posters using their own money to drum up support. Despite vast ethnic divisions in Afghanistan, competition is peaceful and all in the interest of pride and having a good time in a country devastated by years of war and tribal fighting.

“Afghan Star” is not without it’s negatives, however. One competitor dances a laughably unsexy trot during her performance and allows her hair to be exposed. It’s so incredibly innocuous to an American, that it’s mindboggling when the other contestants imply that she has committed some grave crime deserving of beating or death. Subsequently, she is evicted from her apartment in Kabul, receives death threats from all around the country and is rumored to be dead in her home town. In a world of Jennifer Lopez and Shakira, it’s hard to remember that there are places where the mere act of dancing could get one killed.

It is obvious that despite Taliban efforts to quash human expression, dancing and music are incredibly important to typical Afghanis. It’s only the hardened elderly and unemployed male youth that seem to worry about the self-expression of women and backward religious ideals. If “Afghan Star” and any number of other documentaries about life in Afghanistan is any indication, most Afghanis are like any other people on Earth.

There are very few negatives that I can say about a fantastic work like “Afghan Star.” It is an inspiring document of a country desperate to regain its identity and its place in a world and a testament to the power of technology to foster freedom of expression and cooperation. Like a multitude of other documentaries on Afghanistan, “Afghan Star” uncovers the deep complexities of one of the most troubled, but fascinating regions of the planet.

http://peterslarson.com/2011/02/07/movie-of-the-week-afghan-star-2009/