Taliban execute teacher in front of his pupils for educating girls

Was he "executed" or murdered? I suggest the latter. If his murderers are ever found, they should be executed.

But Augusta National only allows women to play golf as the guest of a member. Priorities!

And yet we actually have voices here at JW/DW, intelligent articulate voices, saying we shouldn't help the Karzai government fight these people...that no Muslim government is worth helping...that distinguishing between Muslims is a waste of time except on the basis of ethnicity.

I think there's one hell of a difference between this man trying to educate young girls and those who murdered him for doing so...between the Karzai government that is fighting the terrorists and the Taliban who walk lock-step with the terrorists...between those who are rebuilding the Bhuddist antiquities at Bimayin and those who destroyed them in the first place...between those fighting and dying alongside American soldiers and those trying to kill us.

Once again, in this tragedy, we see how small minds attempt to control (and when that doesn't work, destroy)those who dare to think differently, how they attempt to take the law into their own hands, and how they use violence and murder to help their cause.

Many aspects of misogynist Islam are wrapped up in this sad story: manipulation, intimidation, discrimination, and killing. The fiendish manipulation intended by the Taliban way of thinking (the word "thinking" here is a misnomer: their mental processes are more like conditioned responses, devoid of any attempt at insight) aims to deny young females an education and later condemn them for being ignorant. On that level their strategy is illogical, but logic isn't their goal -- ironclad control is the goal.

But there is some logic in their scheme, fueled by their small, small minds and even smaller egos: deny young females an education and they will believe the women-hating propaganda of the Taliban, they will cower appropriately when threatened, they will swallow the lies fed to them of their inferiority, and most importantly, they will not rise up against the "superior" male, for having never felt the sun and the breeze of freedom upon their necks, how could they desire it?

This scheme of violent intimidation works -- but only so far. There will always be women, and men, as we see by the courage of the murdered male teacher, who will not let their thinking be controlled by thugs. In the name of self preservation, they may comply with the bullies' threats temporarily, but one day, the groundswell of opposition will reach such a level that the Taliban will be held in check, and hopefully, destroyed.

Afghanistan, this land of supposed democracy supported by Western troops, has recently seen the stoning of a young woman, the jailing of an editor, the "suicide" of a brilliant young female poet, and now the killing of a teacher. With the retrograde force of Islam still tremendously strong there democracy as we in the West know it does not exist.

We can only hope and pray that free-thinking Afghanis will have the fortitude to survive.

There have been one or two books about life in Afghanistan just before, during and after the rule of the Taliban. Probably the best known is Asne Seierstad's 'The Bookseller of Kabul', which tells of how even a well-educated, wealthy man oppresses his family, particularly his daughters, who cannot go to school or choose their own husbands. There are others, too. 'My Forbidden Face' by Latifa(?) springs to mind. Like Jean Sassoon's 'Princess' books, telling of life in Saudi Arabia, or, for Iran, Betty Mahmoody's 'Not Without My Daughter', these are very accessible books. They speak eloquently of the oppression, cruelty and sheer emptiness of life in those countries, and the injustices meted out to both men and women, but particularly women. Girls are executed for being raped, rich men (in Saudi Arabia) have harems of young girls, and a father drowns his own daughter because she had sex outside marriage.

It is astonishing, however, that none of these writers makes a connection between these practices, the mindset behind them, and Islam. In 'Princess', the author explicitly states that there is no connection. How can she say this? Nearly all of the injustices and atrocities described are fully sanctioned, or even prescribed by the Koran. The cruelty to women and young girls that Sassoon and others rail against was practised by Mohammed himself. How does this go unnoticed? Is it self-censorship, or just ignorance?

I as an American male find this interesting.
ESPECIALLY since when i was a child...

I didnt want to go to school (its the truth)

I didnt see the worth of studying History

I didnt see why i needed to study engrish or englishhh oh heck i told you i only got c's :)

But as i grew up i found out that the teachers and my mother WERE RIGHT... Still cant figure out how they KNEW :)

Why my tirade...

Because i am constantly bemused at the islamic world..

I watched an interview where the muslim was COMPLAINING that all the notable inventions such as

The autmobile
The airplane
Gasoline refineries.
Computers
The telephone
The internet (except for al gore)
The light bulb
The phoneograph
Radiation
The Gun
Gunpowder
Keep going the list is endless

Were ALL Invented By the WEST..
NOTHING has come out of the muslim world or ANY Islamic country in the past 1400 years.

Now i read that ISLAMIC militants are so AFRAID of Education that they KILL the Childrens teacher right in front of the School..

Islam and Islamic scolars are Deathly AFRAID of ANY NON muslim or their own children forming their own ideas about islam that they will
Destroy their own future by killing their own teachers.

So they can then claim that Islam is the purest perfect religion on the face of the planet.

But then have to use Western designed weapons, or go to a
western flight school to learn to fly
western invented aircraft fueled by
western technology which is used to pump

Islamic oil out of the ground for use in the western world so they can kill
western civilians so they can protect

islam from westen influince..

We CAN live without islam and the Islamic world..
It would be draconian but we could do it...

Muslims could not LIVE without touching five times a day at least something western civilization...

If someone criticizes my faith i can answer logically almost any question ....
It doesnt mean you would believe what i do but i can answer it...

Islam is Unable to answer ANY criticism of it..
Islam hinders a society from development..
Islam causes wars...
Islam brings death

and I not supposed to criticise this???

Far be it for me and my childrens sake..

Not to stand up aganst this EVIL...

If I hear the words "Islam is peace" I will puke. Islam does not know the word peace or what it means. Its a horrible death cult imposed on a billion human beings in the world today. Now they have arrived in the West and start spreading their hate of everything we stand for.
Islam promotes barbarism & cruelty. Its a primitive ideology meant for the uneducated Arabs of the 7th century and it has no place in the 21st century. They approve of killing anyone who appears to be in their way. Its perpetually ignorant & bankrupt of modern ideas. Its difficult to believe that this perversion considered a religion exists in the 21st century. Its not fit for civilized people. Muslims themselves have to wake up an ask. Is this what we want in our lives? Unfortunately, whoever comes up with a question like such is murdered by the order of the uneducated Mullahs and so called teachers of Islam. So the rot goes on and no one seems to know what to do. Its a blot on civilization, that such an evil ideology is allowed to exist in this century.
They seem to have a self imposed victimology very similar to an inherited disease and it goes from parent to child and it appears unable to be eradicated.

Jingoist,

Your post is thought provoking. As I ponder it I feel the need to explain that what is going on here is bigger than what we discuss here.

This fight is not merely the clashing of opposite temporal philosophies. This is a fight between God and Satan for the ownership of mankind's soul. And what a precious prize it is.

Read any line in the Koran that contains the word "Allah" and then substitute it with the word "Satan". This should turn a light on for those of us who think deeply on the present situation we find ourselves in. Try it:

(From Catherine's post yesterday on Jihadwatch.)

"...Whether you ask for their forgiveness or not (their sin is unforgivable). If you ask seventy times for their forgivenss Satan will not forgive them."

"...Do not pray for any of them...that die, nor stand at his grave. They rejected Satan and disbelieved his messenger."

Jesus said to forgive my neighbor seventy times seven times. As a Catholic I know that it is "a holy and wholesome thing to pray for the dead." He also said that we will know a tree by it's fruit and we will know Christians by their love.

What do we know Moslems by? I don't hate them but I do detest the behavior they exhibit based on their beliefs.

Which ideology serves man better? The One that teaches loving your neighbor, having patience, being kind, sacrificing for others, praying to God Who loves us? The other amazing thing about Christianity is that we have freewill, we can choose to live however we want. I can follow my Christian faith and try to do God's will or I can reject him outright and do whatever I want. The true God gives me that great gift.

In Islam, I would be required to accept my faith as long as I lived on the earth, under pain of death if I decided to change it. I would have no rights other than what my father or husband gave me, which could be taken away on the whim of human nature. (I see how this would be appealing to small minded people, oppressed in their own right who displace their frustration and abuse others because of their lack of control over their own lives, who lack the courage or the brains to do something about it.) I would have no hope, nothing to look forward to. Suicide would be honored and probably contemplated based on the lifestyle I would have to look forward to.

And that's another thing...suicide goes against everything that man holds dear but also goes against our very nature. The strongest instinct that any of us possesses is survival. What kind of belief system encourages us to destroy our own lives? Satan hates us, hates our relationship to Our Lord and wants nothing more than for each and every one of us to be eradicated from this earth in the most miserable way possible.

When we take a look at Islam, does it not embody these very beliefs? And if the fight between God and Satan is what we are dealing with, which side will we be on? We can't live with Islam. We can't support it for ourselves or our neighbors. Jesus says that you are either for me or against me. There is no sitting on the fence on this one. If Satan and Jesus are mortal enemies we have to choose. There is no other to go to and we cannot fight this fight on our own. And what is the more powerful sentiment, to forgive your neighbor and be reconciled in peace or to never forgive? There is no sin so great that it cannot be forgiven right up to the last breath we take as we leave this earth. What a comfort that is.

I for one, choose the side of Our Lord and I believe with all my heart that He will give us the answers to eradicating this dismal Islam from the earth, if we honor Him and ask Him to help us. And I ask Him to help the poor misguided Islamic people who live in this misery and spread it in their unhappiness and misguided allegiance to Satan, to be healed of this horrible cancer. That is a Christian act towards my neighbor.

"we actually have voices here at JW/DW, intelligent articulate voices, saying we shouldn't help the Karzai government fight these people....that no Muslim government is worth helping...that distinguishing between Muslims is a waste of time except on the basis of ethnicity
-- from a posting above

One would like to know the names of those whom the poster above thinks has insisted that ther should be no help, of any kind, extended to "the Karzai government" to "fight these people." And if it is the same person whom he insists has argued that "no Muslim govrnment is worth helping." Presumably, then, such a person would be opposed to giving arms to the Tunisian regime of Ben Ali were it attempting to suppress a rebellion. And that person would also, one must assume, any Western military aid to the Turkish army if it were suppressing, violently, assorted Islamic groups and the "secularists" who make up 25% of the population would othewise be crushed? And apparently there are no circumstances, if we are to believe the poster above in his version of what others, out of miscalculation or cruel indifference (presumably, cruel indifference to the murder of the Afghani teacher in the article above) which he -- according to the poster above-- would countenance arms sales to any Muslim regime, under any circumstances.

And does this poster, or posters, believe that "distinguishing between Muslims is a waste of time except on the basis of ethnicity"? We cannot know until we are given not a possibly inaccurate paraphrase, but must await the precise quotes, the verbatim, in-context words of those whose views the poster above purports to describe.

So let's have those quotes, in context, and identified as to time and place of appearance, so that the matter may be further discussed.

HUGH: "It is idiotic to continue to prop up any Muslim regime."

The alternative to "propping up" Karzai is to let his government stand or fall on its own. Though the Afghan army is gathering strength and numbers, it will need another couple of years before it is capable of securing the country from the Taliban without Western support.

So what's it going to be Hugh? And let's not play games with semantics. For all intents and purposes, we are "propping up" Karzai. Shall we continue to do so or not?

Conciseness and brevity would be surely appreciated.

"It is idiotic to continue to prop up any Muslim regime."

How about issuing arms that break down and are essentially useless after a span of time. Disposable weaponry, so to speak, to last long enough to repel an invading army but will need to be recycled after so much use.

Hey, it worked with the C-130s we sold to Iran!

Isabellathecrusader: AMEN, AMEN

islam at its best. And this is what CAIR would like to see here in the good old US of A.

This school teacher was a brave person, and l think there is still some hope to bring about change in Afganistan, but changes can take a very long time.
we cannot back down, and let the Taliban take over.
keep them in the caves, they will score some of the times, but we cannot back down!

Isabella a fine post
Strange that our local Church has sent cash to assist and help the moslem earthquake victims in Pakistan, as we did for the tsunami victims. Do I decry this - No! - This is what Christians are commanded to do and want to do.
This also is a major difference between Christians and pagan, death loving, moslems. We have read the end of the Book and we Christians eventually win One day there will be no practicing moslems on earth at all.
Regards,numbat

C-130's!

And H-3's and F-14's, and all manner of other equipment for which they were eventually unable to acquire spare parts and tech support.

Perhaps we could help them similarly with their nuclear programs.

What is the islamic justification for no education for girls? The verses?

If females are not allowed to be educated and females are not allowed to go to a male doctor, who will be the doctors for females? No one. That's why the death rate for childbirth is so high in Afghanistan ~ 1 out of 15. Instead of one out of l,000 like in many countries. But since the men don't really care about the women and can always replace them I guess they just don't think that far ahead. I'm sure they justify the situation by saying it was their time to die and there is nothing that should be done.

Thank you, Mrs. O & Numbat,

"Strange that our local Church has sent cash to assist and help the earthquake victims in Pakistan, as we did for the tsunami victims."

Not strange at all, because that is what we do.

You will know they are Christians by their love.

We as Christians have a responsibility to clean up our own lives and be a good example to others so that they can see the full possiblity of living a life of joy with peace in our hearts, no matter what the circumstances. Our Moslem brethren are frightening to be sure, but is there another way to take our country back? I know we have to be strong and fierce to stand up to them but can they be coaxed to a better way of life? Jesus said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, so they've already set themselves up for a very hard time. Wouldn't it be great to have them put their swords down and embrace a God Who is full of love and creative power, Who cuts us a break when we've done something wrong as opposed to a demon who hates us and wants to destroy us and make our lives miserable? It can be done. History is full of stories about people who were not afraid, who stood up to Satan and defeated him, like St. Anthony of the desert. God allowed Satan to physically beat St. Anthony one time, but after that he had no fear. People who came to visit talked about hearing wicked fights with wild animals and noisy demons, but he would say Christ's name and they would disappear. He had God's power within him because he trusted Him and he was able to fight the good fight because he knew with God, all things are possible, and he had NO FEAR.

We have the tools to fight this foe. God is willing to give us the power. But do we have the guts and brains to humble ourselves, ask God for forgiveness and ask Him to help us do the right thing so that we can fight this and win?

A poster above accused someone (me) of maintainingg the following propositions:

1)"we shouldn't help the Karzai government fight these people...

2) no Muslim government is worth helping...

3) distinguishing between Muslims is a waste of time except on the basis of ethnicity.

He was asked to adduce evidence in the form of verbatim quotes, not ripped out of context but with the full context supplied, for those three assertions.

He replies above as follows:

"HUGH: "It is idiotic to continue to prop up any Muslim regime."

The alternative to "propping up" Karzai is to let his government stand or fall on its own. Though the Afghan army is gathering strength and numbers, it will need another couple of years before it is capable of securing the country from the Taliban without Western support.

So what's it going to be Hugh? And let's not play games with semantics. For all intents and purposes, we are "propping up" Karzai. Shall we continue to do so or not?

Conciseness and brevity would be surely appreciated."

So, by way of adducing of evidence for those three separate charges listed above, evidence which was supposed to be given in context, the poster came back with a single sentence of less than a dozen words, ripped out of the required context: "It is idiotic to continue to prop up any Muslim regime."

Let's begin by doing what that poster failed to do, which is to put the quotation back into its context, without which its meaning cannot be fully apprehended.

It comes from a posting on December 11, 2005, a posting that, in turn, had been a response to a quotation, with which the entry begins, from the very person whose assertions above, and attempt to support them, are now under discussion.

Here is that December 11 posting, which begins with that poster's wondering aloud why one should argue against aid from Infidel countries to "poor Muslim countries that cooperate with us" because, the poster plaintively inquires, "why should they [those poor Muslim countries] be treated differently than [sic] Latin and African countries...":

"This includes security assistance and even economic aid to poor Muslim countries that cooperate with us...(why should they be treated differently than Latin and African countries that are also habitually mismanaged but are allies of America and the West?)."
-- from a poster above [the same poster whose attempt to find a quote in support of his three assertion is the entirely inadequate, despite its virile all-caps format, capital letters, ]

Why should they -- Muslim and non-Muslim countries -- be treated differently? Because the problem is not merely one of habitual "mismanagement." That is a problem, but it is not the main problem about giving aid to Muslim countries that didn't manage to share in the OPEC bonanza. Every dollar they are given by the Infidels, even if they were to manage rather than mismanage it, makes it that much easier for their mis-rulers to continue to enjoy the fruits of misrule. Every dollar they are given by Infidels continues to disguise the jizyah-nature of this transfer of wealth, which is on top of, in addition to, that other, greatest transfer of wealth in human history -- that from the oil-consuming to the oil-possessing (since most of them can't even "produce" the oil themselves, much less discover it, the adjective "oil-producing" doesn't quite do the job). But since those oil-rich Arab and Muslim states will use a great deal of their discretionary income to further the Jihad, it is important to find ways both to diminish their actual revenues, and ways to force their expenditures up. What better way than for the world of Infidels to deny all aid to poor Muslim states, to draw the world's -- and those poorer Muslim states's attention -- to the fabulous sums flowing into Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, Iran, and soon Iraq, not to mention Algeria, Libya, and a few others. In other words, why should not, every time malevolent Egypt, or the Arab Muslim shock troops of the Lesser Jihad -- the "Palestinians," or meretricious Pakistan, be given aid by Western Infidel taxpayers, to people who hate us, are taught to hate us, and possibly some may not but only to the extent that they reject or ignore or choose not to know about Islam and what it requires of them.

It is idiotic to continue to prop up any Muslim regime. The only time a Muslim state has tried to constrain or limit Islam is when it became clear to a local quasi-enlightened despot (Ataturk, Bourguiba) that too-much Islam was keeping the country back, and the only way to lift itself up, if only economically, would be to limit Islam. That day of reckoning will be put off if Infidels insist that the real problem is "poverty" or that we need to buy off, with aid, this or that Muslim state incorrectly -- always incorrectly -- described as "friendly" or still worse, an "ally," or worst of all, a "staunch ally."

One should look forward to turning down all requests from Muslim states for aid. Let the Egyptians, the Pakistans, the "Palestinians" have to go hat in hand or hand extended in eleemosynary position #1, to those infuriatingly rich Arabs. And by the way, why is Egypt given nearly $2 billion a year to assuage its "poverty" and then permitted to spend $7.5 billion a year on arms purchases? Anyone care to comment on that? For that matter, why is poor Pakistan spending so much on arms, not to mention the sums that went into its nuclear bomb project? And as for the darlings of the world's moral idiots, the recently-invented "Palestinian people," surely we wish to make their lives a little bit busier earning their daily bread, instead of spending so much time plotting and scheming and killing and screaming and howling with delight at signs of mayhem and murder -- and one way to do it is not to give them a penny, which considering that so much of those already-given billions merely go from Western middle-class taxpayers to fund the likes of Arafat, or his grieving, fabulously rich widow, or the assorted corrupt officials -- including Abbas way up front -- who are making out like gangbusters, when they are nothing but gangsters.

Not to able to tell the difference between a Latin American country, and a Muslim country, as recipients of aid -- I won't attempt to begin to analyze what that could mean. Imperviousness to all that has been presented here at JW over so many months, a refusal to take in what has been demonstrated, in continuing to suggest that the Americans cling to a policy (aid to poor Muslims if they are "allies of America and the West"-- they aren't, they can't be), a policy that makes no sense because instead of propping up Islam, giving it a new lease on life (which is what the oil money has done), we should be showing it up, allowing it to be shown up, on every occasion, and thereby be encouraging demoralization, discord, and division within Islam while the Infidel world is bought a little time to come to its senses -- the continued display borders on a deliberate act of provocation. That is one possible interpretation. The other is that of obstinate obtuseness, for which there is no cure."

Out of this long reply, the first sentence of the antepenultimate paragraph is ripped out, and offered up, by way of putatively unanwerable gotcha! retort.

But think of what that sentence, in context, means. I was arguing that those Muslim regimes that are so weak as to need "propping up" should not be helped. There are of course some regimes that are not in need of “propping up” but contain elements that may merely need a little help, and which are on the right track – the track that comes from recognizing that the power of Islam needs to be constrained so as to create some space within which secularism, real secularism, not merely another variant on Islam, can grow in power and influence. In the posting he attacked I was arguing that a colder view of the Infidel world toward the Muslim world, toward Muslim peoples, and countries, would in the end be good for us, because by failing to rescue those countries or regimes that require "propping up," one would hasten the day when the inhabitants of such places would have to recognize, and inwardly admit, and confront, the connection between the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Muslim peoples and polities, and the nature and teachings of Islam itself. The inculcated indifference to Man or to men as the source of a government's or a legal system's legitimacy naturally makes despotism easier, although it does not always and everywhere mean that Muslims are incapable of the most primitive kind of "democracy" (i.e. that defined as merely a matter of head-counting, which is not the definition of advanced, Western parliamentary democracy, based on some social-contract ideas), and finding the source of law in the Shari'a, which is simply the Holy Law of Islam, teased out of the canonical texts. As for the economic backwardness, despite the fantastic oil bonanza, that is owed primarily to the inshallah-fatalism that molds minds, and whole societies. Whatever else Arab and Muslim societies are about, they are not about 40-hour work weeks, and the work ethic as it is practiced in countries as different as Japan, the United States, Germany, China, Denmark, and Argentina. The intellectual failures, the almost complete absence of the enterprise of science, not to mention the non-existence of real literature, which is entirely propagandistic trash (see Adonis's withering remarks on this), the ban on most kinds of artistic expression (sculpture, paintings of living things, most music), cna only be explained with reference to Islam. The social failures, the primitive mistreatment of women, and the barbaric treatment of non-Muslims, are both attributable to attitudes fostered by the immutable tenets of Islam.

The poster seems to think that I must be insufficiently unsympathetic to the Afghan teacher taken out and shot by the Taliban. Why? Because I am not convinced that the war in Iraq will if pursued for the stated goals, will help to divide and demoralize and weaken Islam, and in my view, anything that helps to divide and demoralize and weaken Islam is good for Infidels -- and good, in the long run, for Muslims as well, who are suffering from Islam more than anyone.

He thinks that I would never ever wish to extend any kinds of aid to Muslim countries. But if he reads the context from which that ll-word sentence was ripped, he sees it was mostly about his attempt to make us treat, with the same kind of sympathy, "poor Muslims" as we would "poor non-Muslims." But that makes no sense. If you wish "poor Muslims" well, you would wish for them, that they might some day throw off the shackles of Islam. You would wish them to have, at the very least, their own Ataturks. You would wish, in any regime that replaces the repellent Islamic Republic of Iran, a fury directed not merely at this or that group of mullahs, but at Islam itself as a poisoned chalice offered long ago by desert Arabs to Sassanian Persians with a much longer and more distinguished civilization, and one which, despite Islam, managed to keep certain things alive, including of course the Persian language.

As the matter is Afghanistan (the teacher, the Taliban killers), the poster probably would like me to declare exactly what this incident means to me. What should it mean? I regret the death. I think that assorted warlords, however corrupt or vicious they might be, should be encouraged to suppress the Taliban, and supplied where necessary with arms and sometimes money, and possibly air support. That's it. As for the Karzai regime, it should not be "propped up" if it cannot effectively marshal troops to suppress the Taliban where the latter is resurgent. Karzai is better than most Muslim rulers, though a trifle oleaginous (it comes with the territory); his enthusiasm for the O.I.C. speech of Mahathir Mohamad, however, was both revealing, and unforgivable. I don't agree that we are better off with a strong central government. I think we are better off having less to do with Afghanistan, intervening through injections of weapoons supplies to whomever at the moment we favor, and keeping the American presence low, and Afghani expectations for rescue by the Americans lower, much lower still. The Infidel Man's Burden should never have been taken up. If one wishes Muslims well, then one should do whatever it takes to hasten the day when they will themselves realize what is wrong with Islam. This is best accomplished by having as little Infidel connection, or intervention, or contact, as possible. For in any situation where there are Infidels, they will always be blamed, always be on the receiving end. And one wants those famous "moderate" Muslims to cease being "propped up" which merely prolongs the agony.

But there are regimes, in Muslim lands, that are fairly strong, and do not need "propping up" but merely a little boost. For example, I think it would be silly not to support the Kurds with some weaponry, and possibly some training, so that they can successfully conduct a war, should it be necessary, to protect their de facto independence. And in "Tunisia, the inheritor of Bourguiba's constraints on Islam, Ben Ali, though he runs a police state, runs it in order to limit the power of Islam and those who want more, not less, of a role for it in the political and social order. Again, not all kinds of aid can be characterized as "propping up." The Tunisian regime is sturdy, and determined to suppress the power of Islam, and if it needed some equipment, or the turning of a blind eye to its methods, that hardly constitutes “propping up.” Had the United States told the Shah of Iran to use everything at his disposal to smash Khomeini, and had the United States helped interdict the shipment of those audiocassettes of Khomeini from France to Iran, that would have been wise – but again, that is not by way of “propping up.” The Shah’s problem was not that he was too ruthless, but that he was weak, and vainglorious (the very claim that Iran would become the “second industrial power in Asia after Japan”). And if the Turksih army, defender of Kemalism and the Cult of Ataturk (a necessary replacement cult for the Cult of Muhammad) were to decide that it needed to act against Erdogan (in the way that the Iranian army ought to have acted against Khomeini's supporters early on), that would not in my view constitute "propping up" a faltering regime, but taking sides -- sides with those who clearly wished to continue to limit the power of Islam.

Your entire retort to me consists of a ripped-out-of-context quote consisting of all of eleven words, I have put back those words into that context, and carefully explained that context. I have shown for others, what I meant by that phrase “It is idiotic to prop up any Muslim regime.” That does not mean a regime which may qualify as essentially being anti-Muslim, or at least attempting to control Islam – like Ben Ali or Bourguiba before him in Tunisia, or the Shah of Iran (his regime certainly deserved support, and possibly help in easing him out and replacing him with an intelligent figure such as Shahpour Bakhtiar – but of course Carter and Brzezinski, each more unappealing and stupid than the next, were in power then, so what do you expect?), or the Turkish Army. That is not contradicted by that eleven-word phrase, properly understood from its context.

Just wanted to add re the question should we "prop up Karzai or not" the answer can be given by first considering if Karzai's position is akin to that of those who do not need "propping up" but merely a little waeaponry, encouragemtn, and looking-the-other way, like the Shah of Iran, the various rulers of Tunisia, and the Turkish army -- that is, does he need much more than they would or do? And the second question to ask is: is Karzai a committed secularist bent on containing and constraining Islam. The answer to both these questions, based on what I can glean from the Internet about Afghanistan and Karzai, is No. He really would require complete "propping up" for he has no military force at his own command. And while he himself seems not terribly devout, he did applaud the O.I.C. speech of Mahathir Mohamad and has given no hint of being against, not merely the Taliban, but any major political role for Islam (on this I may be unfair -- I cannot read his mind).

But since the answer, based on what I know at this point, is No to both of those considerations, to the question "should we prop up Karzai or not" the answer is: No. Just keep supplying, in small doses, weapons and other kinds of aid to this or that collection of local warlords, but only to those who ruthlessly pursue the Taliban, and only to the extent of that pursuit, and their successes.

Cornelius, the problem with being a rabid partisan is that they were blinders, live in denial or ideologically blind themselves visually, mentally and emotionally.

What's the purpose of propping up yet another Islamic state - Afghanistan. Bad enough that Iraq was handed over to the Iranians as a Shi'a theocracy, but Afghanistan was handed over to the Islamists without any pressure (I suspect the reason is to secure the proposed UNOCAL pipeline the Taliban refused to allowed to be built, Kharzai was a consultant for UNOCAL and spent more time in the U.S. than in Afghanistan).

Here's the new NEO CON approved Afghanistan an Islamic Nation

Afghanistan Draft Constitution

Article One Ch. 1. Art. 1

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two Ch. 1, Art. 2

The religion of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to perform their religious ceremonies within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article Three Ch. 1, Art. 3

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam and the values of this Constitution.

Compare the above to the Taliban Constitution

ARTICLE ONE:
THE REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN IS AN INDEPENDENT, UNITARY AND INDIVISIBLE AND ISLAMIC STATE, HAVING SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE WHOLE OF ITS TERRITORY. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IN THE REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE EXERCISE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH LOYA JIRGA AND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.
ARTICLE TWO: THE SACRED RELIGION OF ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF AFGHANISTAN. IN THE REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN NO LAW SHALL RUN COUNTER TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SACRED RELIGION OF ISLAM AND OTHER VALUES ENSHRINED IN THIS CONSTITUTION.

Compare the above Constitutions to The Iranian Constitution

My reply above was not only solicited, but demanded. And not only demanded at this thread, but I was requested, at another thread, to return here and answer the question which had been posed in such an impudent manner. I promptly and politely did so, wasting a perfectly good half-hour for the same reason I bother with these other posts to the same poster -- not for his sake (he's beyond listening to me, and merely wants to score points, and believes that someeday he will emerge triumphant), but for that of others who may think that if I fail to reply, it is because I am tongue-tied. No, I'm not. From here on out, no more of this. I have promised this to myself three or four times. This time I mean it.

So he can have the last word right at this thread. And then I would implore him to leave me alone, to take no notice of me or what I write. I hereby declare him, I admit, I confess, I give in, I yield -- the Winner For All Time. So he doesn't have to go to the trouble of calling me out, and wasting my time. He's Won -- got that, everybody?

Hugh seems to forget that when people challenge him, it sometimes brings out necessary and fruitful responses from him that often are as important to the general mission here as are his other more official posts.

I speak from experience. Some months ago, I "demanded" of (i.e., asked) His Hughness to engage in some critics of his analogy to the Benes Decree, and after my repeated and stubborn and obviously highly annoying to him requests that he refute their many counter-arguments, he finally did so, albeit exceedingly grudgingly and petulantly throughout the process. I had to do a lot of heavy lifting, copying Hugh's posts here and carrying them over to another discussion forum to where I pasted them in, then waiting for the critics to respond, then copying their responses and bringing them back over here to post for Hugh (only after my repeated prodding) to read and hopefully, tremblingly awaiting his decision to deign to respond to them.

In the middle of this debate which I facilitated against the prickly and petulant will of Hugh, I was undecided about whether Hugh's Benes Decree analogy was apt. The final results of the debate helped tip me back again to support Hugh, as his final responses to those critics overwhelmed them on logical and historical grounds -- and they never counter-responded after that, only slunk away hoping nobody would notice they had been roundly defeated.

I'm glad for that fruit of Hugh's labor, and it was worth all the time and labor I had to put in (worth less than Hugh's, I know); though throughout the process, Hugh acted like Harold Bloom having his wisdom teeth extracted without anesthetic.

Hugh,
I'm convinced that you are correct, but that
alas you (and Robert) are still too "civilized".

More than a "divorce" is needed. Bush had it
right the first time when he called it a crusade
(a Jewish guy said this to me!) and I think that
the West needs to inflict a grievous blow on the
ummah. But we can agree to disagree, in a friendly fashion, since all of your
prescriptions are in fact a subset of mine.

For the record,

Though I certainly had him in mind, my initial post on this thread did not address Hugh Fitzgerald directly at all. He took it upon himself to repond anyway, asking me to produce relevant quotes. I did so. Then he attacks me for "demanding" a response.

I did indeed ask for a response, though I'd hardly call it a "demand." I'm in no position here to demand anything of anyone. I also specified that "conciseness and brevity would be surely appreciated."

Hugh went on to post perhaps the lengthiest comment he's made on these pages, one sufficiently muddled that it didn't even answer my question. He only did so with an addendum, which would have entirely sufficed.

Hugh,

Our differences are political sir. I personalized them once by ascribing motive to your writings...and apologized forthrightly afterward. I don't regret the apology. It was the right thing to do.

You recently called me an epithet on a different thread. My crime was to disagree with your stated positions on the issues. I took the insult with equanimity and made no attempt to respond in kind. I wonder if you think your comment was appropriate. I wonder if you feel it merits an apology. I guess I'll never know.

Meanwhile, I reiterate, this is political, not personal. Notice I've never once challenged you on your interpretations of Islam, because we are in agreement on them. I've only challenged your positions as a geo-strategist and I will continue to do so because I think you advocate policies that are detrimental to the security of the Western world.

In the above addendum, you write that you would NOT continue propping up Karzai. You would deliver Afghanistan to the Taliban just as you would deliver Iraq to Al Qaeda, Iran or both.

Thank God a man like you is on the outside looking in...and not at the pinnicle of power, where you would be determined to impliment policies that would empower the most fanatical elements in the Muslim world.

"a man like you is on the outside looking in.."
-- from a posting above

Quite sure of that, are you?

Think of the terrifying ripples sent through society by actions such as this... Think of the long lasting effects of the shock and horror on all concerned. Think about the concentric shockwaves which spread from the moment of this act, and which will continue to reverberate forever in the minds of all directly involved, and all of those who know those who were directly involved...

Now recognize the effectiveness of the tactic of terrorism by Muslims... a tremendous force multiplier -- a very inexpensive way of exerting a disproportionate control over a wide population -- one which has proved that it's hugely successful...

This is Islam's great advantage -- for the mere cost of petrol, and the investment of a few hours to plan, plus the cost of one bullet, the law is definitively established, and "submission" is achieved... Who could blame the hapless witnesses of this barbarity if they never challenged another Muslim for fear of retaliation like this? How many were permanently cowed on that day -- completely made into slaves of the Islamic menace? 100? 300? 500?