quote:

---

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghanistan's lower house of parliament voted Monday to oust an outspoken female lawmaker who has enraged former mujahedeen fighters now in President Hamid Karzai's U.S.-backed government.

The lawmaker, Malalai Joya, compared parliament to a stable full of animals in a recent TV interview.

The video clip was shown in parliament on Monday, and angry lawmakers voted to suspend her from the body, said Haseb Noori, spokesman for the parliament. No formal vote count was held, but a clear majority of lawmakers voted for her suspension by raising colored cards, Noori said.

A parliament rule known as Article 70 forbids lawmakers from criticizing one another, Noori said.

Joya, 29, said the vote was a ``political conspiracy'' against her. She said she had been told Article 70 was written specifically for her, though she didn't say who told her that.

``Since I've started my struggle for human rights in Afghanistan, for women's rights, these criminals, these drug smugglers, they've stood against me from the first time I raised my voice at the Loya Jirga,'' she said, referring to the constitution-drafting convention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by redflag:

Time to start writing MPs demanding answers again folks.

---

I support her courage, but I'm not sure if the international community really needs to get caught up in demanding that she be allowed to call her fellow representatives "animals" while keeping her seat. I'm not sure why she wants to sit there anyway while warlords rule, backed by foreign guns.

As Canadians, I think a far more important priority is to withdraw our troops and support the Afghan people in their struggle to expel the invaders and the imposed puppet regime.

As Joya said:

quote:

---

Joya said Monday that if she couldn't remain in parliament, she would fight against "criminals" independently.

---

Perhaps the insurgency could use her as a spokesperson? Otherwise, the field is left open to the Taliban.

I'm not giving advice, just thinking out loud.

[Edited by Michelle to change redflag's name]

[ 22 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Perhaps the insurgency could use her as a spokesperson? Otherwise, the field is left open to the Taliban.

---

While the insurgents are not all Taliban, I have yet to see any evidence that much of the insurgency is about building a progressive Afghanistan where free speech reigns and where women's voices are heard and respected. For her to align with any aspect of the insurgency would be to go from frying pan to fire.

quote:

---

Perhaps the insurgency could use her as a spokesperson? Otherwise, the field is left open to the Taliban.

---

Since the NDP adopted this stand (more or less) at convention and started issuing this call in September 2006, it has been less necessary to re-argue the point in every single post.

The next step is for a few people to say that they support the rebellion, resistance and war of the Afghan people to rid their homeland of the invaders. The way we cheered when the Afghans defeated and expelled the Soviets. The way we cheered when the people of Southeast Asia defeated and expelled the U.S. and its allies.

I know it will take time. The Malcolms and the Stockholms will need convincing. People need convincing that oppressed people choose their own means and representatives in fighting back against the enemy. That's why I wish that people like Joya and others would join the insurgency, so that people like Stockholm could stop claiming that only Taliban hate the invaders enough to take up arms - and so that Stockholm can see that the overwhelming majority of Afghans hate their "liberators", as they hated the Soviet and British "liberators" before them.

I favour Canada withdrawing from Afghanistan because I think that our role there is serving no purpose that and it isn't our problem if Afghanistan goes to hell in a handbasket. That doesn't mean that I have to start "rooting" for the 100% Taliban-based insurgency that represents values that are 100% antithetical to what I and any decent person would subscribe to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So, in the meantime, I'm still waiting for evidence that there is such a thing as a part of the "insurgency" in Afghanistan that is NON-Taliban and that supports religious freedom, democracy, rights for women and all that other good stuff.

---

You won't get any such evidence in the near future, because all Afghan corpses and detainees are pronounced as "Taliban", whether they were combatants or not.

My gauge of an insurgency is whether it's conducted by the people of the country in question - not what it believes, nor any guarantees about what it plans to do once the invaders are expelled.

Which historic insurgency met your high moral standards? The Mujaheddeen fighting the Soviets? ZANU-PF of Robert Mugabe fighting the white racist regime? The Algerian national liberation front and the Viet Minh fighting the French? The Palestinian and Lebanese organizations fighting Israeli aggression and occupation? The Khmer Rouge fighting first U.S., then Vietnamese invasion?

I shudder to ask whether you support the myriad of Iraqi organizations fighting to free their country - or only those scoring well on the Stockholm Morality Index.

quote:

---

My gauge of an insurgency is whether it's conducted by the people of the country in question - not what it believes, nor any guarantees about what it plans to do once the invaders are expelled.

---

quote:

---

I guess that means you would have wanted to wander into the jungles of Cambodia in 1975 to meet up with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge so you could wish them "Viva la revolucion!" before they tortured you to death!

---

Get your historical analogies lined up: Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were backed by the US and Kissinger. They weren't revolutionaries, they were the typical gangsters so favoured by the CIA and the hysterical anti-communist crusaders of the US government.

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Jingles ]

quote:

---

As dysfunctional and compromised as the Karzai government is, the current structures are likely the only place where a progressive voice has any chance to be heard, as little chance as it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I guess that means you would have wanted to wander into the jungles of Cambodia in 1975 to meet up with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge so you could wish them "Viva la revolucion!" before they tortured you to death!

---

What an asinine comment. I thought we were beyond, "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists", or "Either you support Shock and Awe, or you support Saddam Hussein."

quote:

---

Originally posted by trippie:

Appearently this in incorrect as the topic of this thread is the Woman being kicked out of the government for expressing her views...

---

If I were Joya, I'd apply for refugee status in Canada and turn my back on Afghanistan. It's clearly a failed state where the choice are evil or more evil.

What's worse for Joya? The current regime that will kick her out of parliament? or the Taliban insurgency with is 100% certain to kill her if they get their hands on her.

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
What's worse for Joya? The current regime that will kick her out of parliament? or the Taliban insurgency with is 100% certain to kill her if they get their hands on her.

---

Or an insurgency led by people like her?

quote:

---

Originally posted by trippie:
look , I can understand if you called Unionist cocky and an ass...

---

Thanks, I could understand that as well.

quote:

---

i don't thing Unionist would advocate the support of Pol Pot or any other such butchers...

---

quote:

---

Or an insurgency led by people like her?

---

Are you seriously expecting Joya to go out into the wilderness of Afghanistan and try to become a warlord and raise her own army of insurgents and then go on to win a three-way civil war? This in a country where outside of Kabul, woman get shot dead for appearing in public without a burqa???

If you think she had popular appeal, she can form a party and run against Karzai in next Afghan election.

quote:

---

i don't thing Unionist would advocate the support of Pol Pot or any other such butchers...

---

Why not? He seems to have s soft spot in his heart for Taliban (Viva la revolucion!) and I don't see any way in which they are less atrocious than the Khmer Rouge.

quote:

---

Which historic insurgency met your high moral standards? The Mujaheddeen fighting the Soviets? ZANU-PF of Robert Mugabe fighting the white racist regime? The Algerian national liberation front and the Viet Minh fighting the French? The Palestinian and Lebanese organizations fighting Israeli aggression and occupation? The Khmer Rouge fighting first U.S., then Vietnamese invasion?

---

None of the above meet my moral standards. That doesn't mean that the people any of the above were fighting meet my moral standards either.

People must take power through the ballot box and not through the barrel of a gun. There is an electoral process in Afghanistan. People should use it. If Joya wants to form her own political party and run in the next Afghan election on a platform that includes expulsion of all foreign troops from the country - then all the more power to her.

Free, fair, multiparty elections is the only way to go.

[ 22 May 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

I don't recall reading anywhere that Taliban pledges to hold free elections if they regain power....so don't hold your breathe for Joya to be reinstated in the Afghan parliament if Taliban regains control. -Stockholm

---

Why is the fixation with Taliban ? Because the Western imperialist powers dictated so and Stockholm is only obliging.

Apparently Stockholm would love what is going on in many countries with Western client regimes that "hold free elections" and come out with 99.9% vote for client regime's Party. Tunisia is one of these. (I have recently noticed that this darling of the West has been perennially on the list of the internet censors and made some researh).

Fox News must have hinted to Stockholm to turn the blind eye on that and get obsessed with the Taliban.

By the way, women in Tunisia are forbidden from wearing hijab in public institutions which seems to include the streets: jailed tortured and prevented from their livelihoods.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

People must take power through the ballot box and not through the barrel of a gun. There is an electoral process in Afghanistan. People should use it.

---

I threw in the Khmer Rouge as a trap. But thanks for confessing that you oppose all the other liberation movements.

Thanks too for your welcome advice to the Afghan people, that they should cast ballots under the watchful eye of foreign gun barrels, but not resort to violence themselves.

You think you're more civilized than the Afghans, but you're not. They have grasped the need to liberate themselves, and have done so throughout the centuries. You have grasped only the need to lecture others and interfere in their affairs.

Trippie, it is a trifle hypocritical to whine about Stockholm misrepresenting unionist (or at least attributing to unionist opinions he's never expressed), and then to twist the meaning of other posters.

I'm certainly not going to argue that the Karzai government is the sine qua non of democratic freedom. I am merely saying that it seems to be a trifle more tolerant of uppity women than at least some of the insurgents. After all, they suspended her from Parliament which, as wrong as it is, hardly compares with killing her.

The Afghan insurgency is certainly not monolithic. It includes the religious hardliners of the Taliban - probably the largest single aspect. It includes other hardliners who, for whatever reasons, are not aligned with the Taliban. It includes drug lords who are concerned about the opium trade - including some drug lords who are also represented in the Parliament.

To date, I haven't heard of any element of the insurgency advocating a free and democratic Afghanistan where a woman like Malalai Joya would be free to act in the political process.

quote:

---

The Afghan people will destroy the invaders and establish precisely whatever kind of regime(s) they like. I fully support their right to do so, by whatever means they see fit (as long as they don't interfere with other nations).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Am I to gather from the last poster that free elections are no longer part of the orthodoxy of the Canadian left?

---

Look after your own elections. Or, send troops to all the countries in the world that don't have "free elections" to your taste.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Am I to gather from the last poster that free elections are no longer part of the orthodoxy of the Canadian left?

Personally, I think the left is damaged by this simplistic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thinking.

---

I have to chime in with Unionist on the 'free election' comment, though the general tenor of your post sits ok with me. I think its wildly insensitive to local structures to just think if you graft on western 'democracy' its all going to be peachy. Mao said it was POWER that comes from the barrel of a gun, not DEMOCRACY; and all this latest western intervention has done is swap out one set of - by our standards - barbarians with another.

That we're in there at all, in armed-to-the-teeth, warmaking form, only reinforces precisely those barbarian traits that so offend our oh so superior western sensibilities - but of course to appreciate that requires a degree of subtlety beyond the ken of our smooth Mr.Harper.

I think its a great shame that M. Joya has been given her walking papers, it suggests she was pretty effective, I certainly admire her.

What happened to the voice of progressive Afghanistan? It certainly used to exist; was it wiped out in post-Russian invasion purges?

As to the insurgency, I confess a lack of information. Presumably its principally a re-formed Taliban but as Unionist notes, given the nature of the occupation and the inevitable trend for civilian casualties to drive Afghans into the opposition's camp, aren't there regional variations and perhaps other structures, organizations on the ground who while currently under the Taliban banner might emerge once the infidel is repulsed?

quote:

---

Free, fair, multiparty elections is the only way to go.

---

What's with the "democracy" obsession? Without defining what "fair", "free", "multiparty" or "elections" means, it is just the bleating of sheep. Multiparty? Like here, where we have the conservatives and liberals, whose agendas (the ones that count, not the dog whistle issues) are identical. Or the US, where the Dems and Republican are run in the background by the same people? It's all bloody nonsense anyway.

The assumption, of course, is that "our" way of pretending to choose leaders is far superior to the backward nations' methods. Therefore, we have the right, nay the duty, to force our "progress" onto those ungrateful natives.

quote:

---

Well, I suppose that some people would consider that harbouring Osama Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan DOES constitute "interfering with other nations".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I support her courage, but I'm not sure if the international community really needs to get caught up in demanding that she be allowed to call her fellow representatives "animals" while keeping her seat. I'm not sure why she wants to sit there anyway while warlords rule, backed by foreign guns.

As Canadians, I think a far more important priority is to withdraw our troops and support the Afghan people in their struggle to expel the invaders and the imposed puppet regime.

---

I actually agree with you, it's just that I was being cautious about what I wrote because I had something far more ... um... expressive? And I deleted most of it because I wasn't sure it was appropriate.

The way I see it, this isn't about interfering with the Afghan parliament so much as it is to write them and remind them that we are supporting the government currently being described as worse than a stable of animals.

It's also a parliament where MPs are allowed to yell out that the women in the house should be raped and killed.

But of course, we don't talk about that.

It's to wonder how Joya has held her composure as well as she has given the fact that she's had to endure so much. If I was her, there would probably have been a lot more cuss words and damning people to hell in my description of the current Afghan parliament.

Edit: Changed the quote I was talking about to the correct one.

[ 22 May 2007: Message edited by: Joshua Kubinec ]

quote:

---

What's with the "democracy" obsession?

---

[ 22 May 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]

[ 22 May 2007: Message edited by: mark_alfred ]

quote:

---

Sorry for thinking democracy is important.

---

When every two-bit banana republic dictator and shitheel oligarch lays claim to democracy, it is corrupted. When you say democracy is important, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean voting? Voting for what? Voting when? Who gets to vote? Etc, etc, etc.....

The fact of the matter is that every single country claiming to worship democracy fails miserably when it comes to practice. You can call dog crap liver pate, but it's still dog crap. If you really believe in liver pate, the first step is to stop eating what their feeding you in the hopes that it'll soon taste better.

Of course, that's very very different from a previous generation that felt privileged and blessed to have found Christianity and just wanted to spread the good word to all the heathen.

It's not the same thing at all.

It's not as if we send soldiers to force people to see things our way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Sorry for thinking democracy is important. You're right. Who needs democ racy when we can have "dictatorship of the proleteriat" and live in a workers paradise!

---

quote:

---

So when will Afghanistan become another showcase for capitalism, like Mexico, Haiti, El Salvador, or even Puerto Rico, the real one not Canada ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
What would one do in the present situation?

---

I already gave my opinion - she should join the insurgency and influence it in a proper direction - but that's not advice as I stated, it's what I think patriotic people should generally do when their land is invaded.

quote:

---

The idea that democracy is imperfect but it is is an ideal.

---

In case you haven't read my many posts on this topic, I strongly believe in democracy for Canada and will fight to defend it. I am wary about promoting "democracy" for Afghanistan, because I believe that unless people come to their own conclusions, lessons imposed by force of arms will not stick.

Imagine some very serious, well-meaning people in a suburb of Riyadh thinking: "Those poor Canadians. They live in a society of greed, sex, gluttony, and godlessness, imposed by their wealthy rulers. The people are too weak by themselves to overcome these evils, and too uneducated to even understand what evil is. We should help them see the light."

Or 30 years ago, in the Kremlin:

"These Afghans need socialism - to overcome feudal backwardness, to liberate women once and for all, to build their country and join the peace-loving socialist camp. It is our duty to help them."

No, thank you very much. To all of the above. Including the democracy- and liberty-lovers. Every swine in modern history embroiders "democracy" on his uniform.

quote:

---

I asked as a concerned leftist from Canada if Joya is kicked out of the house who protects her?

---

Who exactly was protecting her while she was in the house?

If Joya is connected with real people - if she has a base of support - she will have protection. If she doesn't, then she's a goner, whether in the house or out. Guess who "protects" the Taliban, so that this dark medieval force can continue to hold sway and, 5.5 years later, still pose a credible threat to the invaders and the only organized-looking resistance force? You know who "protects" them? The masses of people in the regions where they are active. It was the same in Viet Nam, in Cuba, in Algeria... It is the same in Iraq.

quote:

---

lessons imposed by force of arms will not stick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

FYI: The only reason Taliban was ever in power was through force of arms. They never won any election and there is no evidence that a majority of Afghans want them to rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Are you suggesting that a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan would be a socialist workers' paradise?

---

quote:

---

They are Afghans. That's all that matters. The Afghan people will sort them out, as they sorted out other oppressive regimes in the past. But do-gooders like you should keep your noses out of their business, or you'll be short a nose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Oh you're sooo right. I must apologize for ever having donated one red cent to the fight to end the white supremacist government of South Africa.

---

I'm guessing that you donated money to civil society type protest groups then ?. Because I read that the white power regime in South Africa would have endured all the criticism from powerless protest groups had it not been for people eventually thinking to ask,

"Hey, wait a minute!. Where is my money being invested actually?."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
But was it any of our business what form of government South Africa had or has? Wasn't it hopelessly arrogant of us in Canada to take sides in South Africa. We should have remained scrupulously neutral and made it clear that if majority rule was ever to come to South Africa it could not involve any help from the outside world.

---

Anyways, I've already said I'm opposed to Canada having troops in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean that once Canada withdraws I'm supposed to be "rooting" for those murderous thugs in Taliban to regain power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

We didn't send troops to South Africa. Do you really not get it? We can "take sides" all we want. From afar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

If there was an insurgency that was made up of people who favoured equal rights for women, non-violence and the construction of Scandinavian-style welfare state and total separation of church and state and free elections - then I might look kindly on them.

---

So, to try to entice you back to the topic: You do agree that democratic-minded people like Joya, and there must be many, ought to consider joining the insurgency (not joining the Taliban, for god's sake) and helping to create a democratic movement which will actually establish some credentials among the Afghan people as liberators?

Is this notion of patriotic people taking up arms against invaders and occupiers such a novelty?

[ 22 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
I am not diverting anything.

---

For Christ's sake, when I said "both of you", I was referring to Fidel and Stockholm. Get a grip, man. You asked me questions. I answered them. Please let me know what you thought of my answers. Forget about South Africa. Please.

ETA: Scroll up. Can't you see my "stop diverting both of you" post and your "no comment" were both time-stamped 7:21? I didn't see yours when I posted, obviously.

Now back to the topic. Here are my answers to your questions. I would appreciate your comments.

[ 22 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
In the absence of such an alternative, i think Canada should pull out of Afghanistan and then i don't give a damn what happens there.

---

As to her joining the insurgency - I am not aware of any element of the insurgency that would let this dangerous woman live, let alone play a leading role.

If she can find a group of progressive insurgents, more power too her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:

If she can find a group of progressive insurgents, more power too her.

---

If she can't find one, she should collect one.

Otherwise, she and her homeland are finished.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Now back to the topic. Here are my answers to your questions. I would appreciate your comments.

---

quote:

---

Or 30 years ago, in the Kremlin:

"These Afghans need socialism - to overcome feudal backwardness, to liberate women once and for all, to build their country and join the peace-loving socialist camp. It is our duty to help them."

---

But the Kremlin and Kabul were a bit closer then than Warshington. The Afghan men and women volunteers of the PDPA army held out for over two years against fundamentalist robots of CIA-Pakistani ISI-Saudi operation cyclone who were armed to the eye teeth. The PDPA womens auxiliary even defeated the mujahideen at Jalalabad. NATO and the world turned their backs while a atrocities were committed and several million Afghan refugees fled to surrounding countries and Europe where many are still living in self-imposed exile and terrified of being deported.

And before someone suggests that South Vietnamese held out against the NVA for two years, there are clear differences between the two tragedies. The Afghan PDPA were holed up in cities and surrounded by well-armed proxy fighters and foreign mercenaries coming and going across the Kyber Pass border region. Rockets rained down on Kabul and destroyed what was left of anything. And the mercenaries celebrated as they would later in 1996 by raping and murdering Afghan women. Those bastards were not in the same league as the NVA, Sandistas, FMLN and not close to the Cuban revolutionaries. The foreign proxy fighters and paid mercenaries, some from as far away as Brooklyn, NY were scum of the earth. Some were opportunists who later became part of the Albanian and Kosovar drug mafia ferreting heroin to Europe and the west through those regions as well as Pakistan.

The NVA, on the other hand, had their hands full with U.S. and Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. And the Chinese at one point amassed a million man army along the northern border and began attacking. The NVA repelled the Chinese, too. And then Ho Chi Minh's army was able to focus on taking South Viet Nam, and it fell like a house of cards even with continued U.S. military aid and funding getting through. And there was an escalation of drugs flown out of Burma and Thailand across secret Himalayan routes by we all know who.

Operation Cyclone was the largest covert CIA operation in history. Vietnam was just a war to murder an idea while a military-industrial complex rode a taxpayer-funded gravy train to the end of the line.

There are similarities to Vietnam in that not one thin dime in reparations has shown up in the form of social democracy or much of anything that would benefit the population at large. The destruction and loss of life to civilian population was excessive in Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia. The Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan was a really bad idea anyway we look at it. I think militant Islam is the biggest threat to women's rights in that region of the world today.

The Stani nations are to Russia as Central America and the Caribbean are to Uncle Sam. The Spice/drug route was always recognized to be a buffer zone of nations on Russia's front doorsteps. There were even reports of covert military operations taking place on Russian soil at the time. Canadian commentators have since said that for a nuclear power at the time, the Russians displayed remarkable restraint.

quote:

---

Once the Afghan occupation began, the political process was rushed. Warlords were allowed to take over the government. The loya jirga, the constitution, the presidential elections, and the parliamentary elections were all rushed processes, designed to meet U.S. political deadlines. This was the quickest way to create the short-term appearance of stability and success and thus was the quickest way to Iraq. But this process created a hopelessly dysfunctional, intensely corrupt Afghan government, and that foreordained Western failure. After all, who would stand up as the West stood down? The international community's military spending in Afghanistan has outpaced development spending by 10 to 1....

---

quote:

---

Before the reform-minded PDPA
took power in the late 1970s, Afghan women were forced to wear the stifling head to toe veil, and had no right to own property, go to school, or divorce. They were considered non-persons in the eyes of the law. The female literacy rate was one percent and polygamy was common.

---

So western imperialists, from Washington to Riyadh and Lahore, paid for the destruction of progressive secular forces in Afghanistan, and now they're angry about their own bad decisions?. Bull!

[ 22 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Well, I suppose that some people would consider that harbouring Osama Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan DOES constitute "interfering with other nations". Had there been no Sept. 11 and no Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar and the Taliban would be happily ensconced in power and stoning women to death and collapsing walls on gay men to their heart's content - and no one in Washington would give a shit. -Stockholm

---

1. As Jingles wrote: "Afghanistan attacked one one".

2. The Afghani government expressed its intention to hand Bin Laden to the US once the latter has provided evidence of his involvment in the 9-11.

3. Just a few days before 9-11 he Taliban regime was cherished by the USA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

The thought that a progressive woman can only be safe in the bosom of a Parliament of druglords and warlords . . .

---

Of course, I never said that it was the only place she was safe. But it is easier arguing against a straw man.

What I did say was that there was not (to my knowledge) any element of the insurgency who would have any interest in making common cause with her. Indeed, virtually every insurgent group within Afghanistan would prefer to see a woman like Malalai Joya dead.

I didn't compare the present Parliament to every other possible situation in Afghanistan. I compared it to the alternative you offered up - the insurgency.

"Suspended" is at least safer than "dead."

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I prefer to believe that she represents a far broader section of Afghan public opinion than that.

---

I suspect she does. But I have yet to see any evidence that it is a segment of public opinion that is even minimally represented within the insurgency.

Given the number of insurgent attacks against places and people providing education to girls, I rather suspect that there is a reason for that lack of evidence.

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bohajal:
Stockholm, for a "progressive", you watch too much Fox News and thus you are no longer capable of sober thoughts and analysis.

---

ETA: You said:

quote:

---

Of course, I never said that it was the only place she was safe. But it is easier arguing against a straw man.

---

Sorry to leave that impression. I was actually referring to mayakovsky's earlier question:

quote:

---

If Joya is kicked out of the Lower House, who affords her protection?

---

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

From what you can see, is there any real evidence that such a base exists in Afghanistan? The impression I have is that the only competition is between factions favoring repression, factions favoring more repression, and factions favoring much, much, much, much, more repression.

Are there any factions you know of that represent, at this point, any real alternative to this rather dismal range of current possibilities?

If not, isn't asking Joya to "become an insurgent" basically the same thing as asking her to commit suicide?

If you've got sources on the Afghan situation that the rest of us don't, than please clue us in here, unionist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Are there any factions you know of that represent, at this point, any real alternative to this rather dismal range of current possibilities?

---

No I don't. But Ken, don't factions have to be started by somebody? If everyone in Afghanistan is a druglord or warlord or religious extremist reactionary, then the country is finished. I don't happen to believe that at all, and actually I think it's a racist and condescending approach to "inferior" civilizations. When I speak of Joya, I'm using her as a proxy for all Afghan democratic and progressive minded people - of whom there are many, if you look at the developments in the pre-Soviet invasion period. These people need to throw off the shackles of the bad guys, both foreign and domestic, and find a way to build their movement. They will not do it in a parliament under the guns of invaders.

quote:

---

And, also, if you were to insist that the left was obligated to support any armed movement that claimed to be a "liberation" movement, you'd end up by making a case that all of us would have been obligated to back the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War.

---

Don't be silly. I never said anything remotely like that. The left must support every nation or people whose land and homes are occupied and who suffer under foreign domination and oppression. That doesn't mean we pick and choose organizations to support, nor tactics, nor slogans, nor political platforms. It means we understand that before the nation can be free, it must unite, somehow, to expel and crush those imperial marauders who would enslave it. How they work out their domestic affairs is their business.

In short, when the U.S. or the Soviets or the British or the French or whoever invades another country and installs its puppets, we must support the popular resistance as a whole - no matter whether we like who happens to be the strongest faction or not.

ETA: The Civil War is a great example, but of the wrong kind. There were no foreign invaders. There was an illegal attempt by some states to secede. No democratic person would support an attempt to destroy a federation by force of arms with the slogan of defending slavery as its banner.

Contrast that with the American Revolution. All progressive and democratic people of the time cheered on the struggle of the colonials to throw off foreign domination - even though the colonials were slaveowners.

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Actually, public opinion in the 13 colonies was every split during the American Revolution and many, many people opposed the declaration of independence and were massacred and tarred and feathered for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Actually, public opinion in the 13 colonies was every split during the American Revolution .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
No I don't. But Ken, don't factions have to be started by somebody? If everyone in Afghanistan is a druglord or warlord or religious extremist reactionary, then the country is finished. I don't happen to believe that at all, and actually I think it's a racist and condescending approach to "inferior" civilizations.

---

Many of the Afghan "rebels" weren't even from Afghanistan in the 1980s. One of several web articles I pointed to described some of the foreign proxy fighters as being from Pakistan, China, UAE, Turkey, and even CIA recruits from as far away as Brooklyn, New York. Think Staligrad surrounded by an enemy at the gates, or 25 international armies invading and attacking as it was in Russia from 1918 to mid 20's.

quote:

---

Contrast that with the American Revolution. All progressive and democratic people of the time cheered on the struggle of the colonials to throw off foreign domination - even though the colonials were slaveowners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Oh for sure, let's not talk about the only women in Afghanistan parliament being kicked out, cause she spoke truth to patriarchial power,let's talk about everything else but that, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Ok, remind, let's get to it. I said Joya should forget about the legislature of warlords and druglords and go help organize resistance to them and their foreign protectors - in the field. What do you think?

---

quote:

---

FYI: The only reason Taliban was ever in power was through force of arms. They never won any election and there is no evidence that a majority of Afghans want them to rule.

---

This is true, the Taliban is a Pashtun organization. People shouldn't claim that they're a front for the liberation of Afghanistan as a whole. Such an idea is grossly uninformed. Taking a look at the Afghan stats on ethnicity, the numbers range wildly. But the point is in no cases are Pashtuns the majority, and even if they were their rights shouldn't come at the expense of others.

quote:

---

They are Afghans. That's all that matters. The Afghan people will sort them out, as they sorted out other oppressive regimes in the past. But do-gooders like you should keep your noses out of their business, or you'll be short a nose.

---

Exactly. Involving oneself, directly (that word being specifically used for the benefit of Stockholm), in another countries civil war is hardly a smart idea. This isn't for us to decide, but it seems like it would be best if the country was partitioned into a Pashtun dominated state and a mostly non-Pashtun state. I wonder to what extent foreign interference changed the ethno-cultural composition of the country over the years?

Now, let's play who do those two quotes belong to?

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

I think you are a narrow minded partiarch actually with a solitary focus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Ok, remind, let's get to it. I said Joya should forget about the legislature of warlords and druglords and go help organize resistance to them and their foreign protectors - in the field. What do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
BTW: What happened to Malalai Joya is not that different from what happens in the Canadian Parliament. MPs routinely get suspended for using "unparliamentary language" or for calling each other "liars". In fact, an MP calls another MP a liar, he or she will be kicked out of the Commons until he or she apologizes and retracts the comment.

---

I agree - in fact, I said as much in my first post above:

quote:

---

I support her courage, but I'm not sure if the international community really needs to get caught up in demanding that she be allowed to call her fellow representatives "animals" while keeping her seat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

I think your pals in the "resistance" would make a very graphic video of Ms. Joya in order to help "bring the troops home"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

[jester style on] Would that be like those photos your pals took in Abu Ghraib? [/jester style off]

---

A non sequitur to deflect comment. How original.

Answer a question with a mendacious question designed to mislead. Very valuable propaganda skill,I'm sure in a less critical environment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
In fact, an MP calls another MP a liar, he or she will be kicked out of the Commons until he or she apologizes and retracts the comment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

Answer a question with a mendacious question designed to mislead.

---

You make an infantile and provocative statement - out of the blue, I wasn't even addressing you - referring to my "pals in the resistance", and you complain about my mirror reply to you?

Now you are so befuddled that you think you asked me a "question"??

Here was your so-called gratuitous "question":

quote:

---

I think your pals in the "resistance" would make a very graphic video of Ms. Joya in order to help "bring the troops home"

---

quote:

---

But what if an NDP MP were to call them Washington lap dogs ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No question mark, no interrogative tone - just hatred. I thought my sarcastic response to you was controlled and succinct - and cleverer than yours. No need to thank me.

---

Ah...The clever punctuation attack. Very controlled and succinct