Between the Bomb and the Burqa

by: Yana Kunichoff and Mike Ludwig, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Between the Bomb and the Burqa
(Photo: Dirk Haas / AfghanistanMatters)

Her voice was thick with passion as she argued for ending violence against fellow Afghan women, but the men didn't listen. Instead they hurled insults at her; they called her a prostitute and a traitor to her religion. The stubborn men's insults were abusive and frustrating, but it had been worse for other women in her position. They were threatened and hunted down. Some of them were killed.

Like many recent reports in the media, this story conjures up images of a brave Afghan villager struggling against the tyrannical rule of a Taliban court or insurgent militia, but that's not case: the woman in this story is an unnamed member of the Afghan Parliament supported by the United States. The verbal abuse is recounted by another female Afghan official in a recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) report. The men who called her a prostitute were her colleagues and fellow legislators, the supposed enemies of the religious fanatics fighting for control of Afghanistan.

Such accounts shed doubts on the narrative of female liberation following the initial toppling of the Taliban, as the reinvigorated debate over the occupation has renewed the media's interest in the abuses suffered by Afghan women at the hands of America's enemies. Human rights advocates may be pleased, but media critics say the plight of Afghan woman is being used to rally support for the war, and as a recent military leak reveals, the government secretly considered such a media strategy as recently as this spring.

Time magazine became the poster child for this trend last week with a cover story featuring the disfigured face of a young Afghan girl named Aisha with the ominous headline: "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan."

"They are the people that did this to me," Aisha told the Time reporter as she touched her damaged face, disfigured as part of Taliban punishment for running away from her abusive in-laws. "How can we reconcile with them?"

Aisha's heartbreaking plea reveals the harsh reality of living in a war-torn and ultra-religious society. She puts a face on the Afghan dilemma, but critics contend that the Time article on Aisha oversimplifies a complicated issue.

"Feminists have long argued that invoking the condition of women to justify occupation is a cynical ploy and the Time cover already stands accused of it," wrote Priyamvada Gopal, an English professor at Cambridge University, in The Guardian UK. "Misogynist violence is unacceptable, but we must also be concerned by the continued insistence that the complexities of war, occupation and reality itself can be reduced to bedtime stories."

A careful editorial by Time editor Rick Stengel insists that the magazine is not "either in support of the US war effort or in opposition to it," but its intention is also an attempt to counterbalance the recent WikiLeaks release of more than 90,000 documents detailing the military actions in Afghanistan.

According to Stengel, the leaked documents cannot provide "emotional truth and insight into the way life is lived in that difficult land," but a different WikiLeaks release does provide some insight on using Afghan women to promote war.

The Red Cell CIA Leak

An internal Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) document released by WikiLeaks in March reveals a secret plan to use the plight of Afghan women and refugees in developing media strategies to "leverage French (and other European) guilt" during an especially bloody summer of military escalation. The confidential document was prepared by the Red Cell, a secretive group that consults the US intelligence community.

In response to the news that Dutch forces would soon withdraw from Afghanistan, the Red Cell outlined a plan to use Afghan women and refugees in developing media strategies to ensure that more NATO allies would not succumb to public pressure and follow suit. The memo claimed that a "not our problem" sentiment toward the Afghan conflict allowed European leaders to ignore voter's vast disapproval of the occupation, but "forecasts of a bloody summer" could provoke a public backlash.

The forecast was correct: June and July were the deadliest months for NATO and US forces to date. The record number of body bags coupled with the firing of former US Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the bloody revelations provided by the massive WikiLeaks release has pushed international support for the war to a new low.

Bloomberg reported last week that, in the wake of the WikiLeaks release, approximately 70 percent of Germans want their troops to leave "as soon as possible." Germany has the third largest military presence in Afghanistan.

The number of Americans who believe it was a mistake to invade Afghanistan in 2001 reached an all-time high of 43 percent, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released this week.

It's unclear if the CIA anticipated such a perfect storm of public controversy, but the Red Cell memo reveals a startling strategy for dealing with it, especially in regards to women.

The memo suggests that Afghan women "could serve as ideal messengers for humanizing" the coalition's role in Afghanistan, citing polls showing that fewer French and German women support the war compared to males in both countries.

"Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German and other European women could help overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe. Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences."

The Red Cell memo encouraged creating media opportunities for Afghan women because of their "ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory."

The Role of the Media

Jennifer Pozner, the director of Women in Media and News, a media analysis and advocacy group, told Truthout that the similarity between the Red Cell memo and Time magazine's push for militarism as the answer to the abuse of women is not a new phenomenon.

Pozner said that, following 9/11, the Bush administration used "the supposed humanitarian aspect of the war [to sell it to] those few who weren't convinced by rah-rah patriotism." Support of the corporate press was essential.

Pozner, who had followed the coverage of Afghan women in the media before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, said she saw this cynical trend continue under the Obama administration. The women's rights issue became a convenient propaganda tool for corporate media to sell the war.

Do you like this? Click here to get Truthout stories sent to your inbox every day - free.

"Once Afghan women and girls' suffering was no longer needed as a propaganda device, we quickly lost sight of their stories again in the U.S. media," Pozner said.

Nahid Aziz, an Afghan woman and professor of clinical psychology at Argosy University in Washington, DC, who now works with Afghans at home and immigrants in the United States, also derided the American media's concentration on the plight of Afghan women as a "political tactic ... that unfortunately is very true and representative of the American media."

"There are phases of talking about Afghan women, but there is no continued kind of attention," Aziz said. "It is all dependant on the politics."

Peter Hart, activism director at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , a media watchdog group, said that Afghanistan had always been the "good war" in the media.

"There was very little built-in criticism of the Afghanistan war, and I think that has attributed to the general lack of criticism of the war nine years later," Hart said. "Focusing on this feminist issue as a way to maintain public support is the first and last refuge of people trying to rationalize the Afghan war."

He noted the similarities between last week's Time cover and the one in the first week of December, 2001, just as the invasion was getting underway.

"We were going into Afghanistan to rescue the women from the brutality of the Taliban, but in 2010 the women of Afghanistan are still being brutalized," Hart said. "This makes no logical sense."

Pozner said the corporate media's addiction to access forces it to forgo truly critical reporting for the latest scoop from the White House.

The portrayal of women in Afghanistan was particularly one-dimensional, Pozner noted. Looking "at pictures of women in burqas should offend western sensibilities" was the message of the media as the invasion took off, allowing the running of "a few pictures of Afghan women in more urban centers removing their burqas" to equate in American minds with "victory, mission accomplished."

These reports never really considered the vast depths of oppression, Pozner said, such as the abuse Aisha suffered. Aisha's case is an example of some of the most entrenched excesses of the Taliban and particularly of Pashtun tribal society in remote areas. At the age of 12, Aisha and her younger sister were used to settle a dispute. Under a tribal custom known as "baad," the two girls were given to the family of a Taliban fighter to settle a blood debt incurred by their uncle.

Aisha was married to the Taliban fighter and, because he was constantly in hiding, was housed with her sister with her in-laws' livestock. Aisha and her sister were used as slaves and frequently beaten, a situation Aisha eventually fled.

A year ago, Aisha's husband tracked her down in Kandahar, took her back to his remote village and, on a deserted mountainside, cut off her nose, both her ears and left her bleeding. To this day, Aisha does not remember how she managed to walk to help.

The Obama administration's increased focus on civil society and female literacy has helped move Afghan civil society away from the worst gender-based oppression of the Taliban years. Thousands of girls' schools have opened since the fall of the Taliban, and an estimated half a billion dollars in international assistance is now destined for gender-equality programs.

The Debate on the Ground

Women for Afghan Women (WAW), a community and advocacy group based in New York, but working on the ground in Afghanistan, and the Feminist Majority Foundation have been at the forefront of the discussion as progressive groups in favor of the US troop presence in Afghanistan.

"If the coalition forces leave, the Taliban or other conservative factions will be much stronger," said Manizha Naderi, the Afghan-born executive director of WAW. "Women's mobility and participation in everyday life will be limited again."

But Aziz, who herself fled Afghanistan in 1982 at the age of 15, said the view on the ground is not so simple. Aziz said that women in the urban city of Kabul or female parliamentarians may have a positive assessment of Western occupation, but women living in remote areas may have a much different perspective.

In addition, women are disproportionately affected by military conflict or disaster. According to the United Nations, about 80 percent of the world's refugees are women and children.

Sonali Kolhatkar, founder of the Afghan Women's Mission (AWM) and Mariam Rawi of the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) wrote last month on AlterNet, "Coalition troops are combat forces and are there to fight a war, not to preserve peace ... Women always disproportionately suffer the effects of war, and to think that women's rights can be won with bullets and bloodshed is a position dangerous in its naiveté."

The American military itself has come under attack for their treatment of women, both within the civilian population of Afghanistan and in its own ranks. The highly publicized rape and murder of a young Afghan woman ended only in the honorable discharge of the accused soldier, and rape among women in the military is nearly twice as common as it is in the civilian population - nearly one out of three women.

Malalai Joya, a former parliamentarian and outspoken critic of the Taliban as well as Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said Afghan women "are sandwiched between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces of the U.S. and NATO, the Taliban and the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai."

Karzai was once seen as a champion of women's causes and a welcome change to Taliban rule until he failed to deliver on promises to appoint women to cabinet posts. In 2009, he angered international allies by signing onto the so-called "rape" law, containing clauses making it illegal for woman to refuse to have sex with their husbands, and women can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with the permission of their husband. It was dropped under international pressure.

In addition, the Karzai government, with tacit approval from the Obama administration, has moved toward discreet negotiations with senior level Taliban commanders and the men who made decisions that left women all over Afghanistan shrouded and house bound.
Reports from international observers further reveal the current situation of Afghan women on the ground nine years into the US invasion.

The Human Rights Watch report released last month revealed that Afghan women continue to suffer horrific abuses in Taliban-controlled areas and continue to be ignored - and even violently attacked - while attempting to participate in the US-backed Afghan government. The report warns that abuse will flourish if women are left out of upcoming negotiations to end the conflict.

"The Afghan government is already undermined by the entrenched power of former warlords and gangster oligarchs," according to the report. "This situation reflects years of deal making made in the name of stability and security for which both the government and its international supporters bear responsibility."

A 2009 report by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan found that, although underreported and concealed, rape "is an everyday occurrence in all parts of the country" and is most often carried out by individuals who are immune to the law due to tribal or political affiliations.

Crucially, Aziz notes, it must be recognized that the brutal disfiguring of Aisha occurred during the US presence in Afghanistan.

"If there was really this protection provided by the US, that would not have happened," Aziz said.

The discussion over the contentious Time magazine cover has highlighted a rift in the progressive, between those advocating a complete withdrawal and those arguing for a continued presence to mitigate the violence of the Taliban against women.

But Aziz notes that media reports leave out a crucial third option for Afghan society.

"The military is not the only solution," Aziz said, arguing that a genuine commitment to Afghanistan must go beyond troop surges. "We have to use diplomacy to make sure that there is civil society and comprehensive education, issues that were not taken very seriously in the past nine years."

According to Pozner, the continual uncritical coverage of American war efforts in Afghanistan by the corporate media does a disservice to Afghan women and everyone involved in the conflict.

"Afghan women deserve far more than to be used as pawns in US war games, and journalists need to do their jobs," said Pozner, decrying a media that "is far more willing to act as stenographers than watch dogs."

There is no question that the struggles and abuses faced by Afghan women are real. But experts affirm that only fundamental reforms in Afghan society can change this. Afghan women are trapped somewhere between the truth and the spin, the bomb and burqa.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



Yana Kunichoff is a Truthout Fellow.

Mike Ludwig is an intern at Truthout.


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



A nice article htat ends not

A nice article htat ends not with a bang but a sllow yawning whimper: only reforms can change things...no shit! thanks. And how do you bring about reforms?
Note to writer: you are really dealing with a number of tribes, a corupt govt, and a civil war. Now how do you bring about reform?



Corporate propaganda would

Corporate propaganda would have us believe in corporate "humanitarian" missions.

Could any of this readership please name any and every single USA and global corporation with a stake in controlling Afghanistan? Could we collectively site bible book and verse on their INTERNAL corporate concern with empowering women WITHIN their corporations, and how their concern with women's rights manifest in all areas of the world where they conduct business?

Concern with women's rights has NEVER been CORPORATE INTENTION, even in their HOME COUNTRIES. To the extent that corporations have implemented women friendly policies, they have been pushed and pulled to the table by a relentless women's movement. Yet suddenly, European and American women can be manipulated by the corporate media to believe that the corporate enterprise in Afghanistan is the liberation of Afghan women? And that enterprise of emancipating Afghan women is to be carried out by USA combat troops with their own outrageous record of eggrigious violations including rape of their fellow, women soldiers?

WHY, I ASK ALL WOMEN, HAS "The women's rights issue became a convenient propaganda tool for corporate media to sell the war"? WHY, WHEN THE ANTI WAR MOVEMENT VIRTUALLY GLOBALLY IS OVERWHELMINGLY WOMEN ORGANIZING, IS THIS STILL POSSIBLE?



War is a RACKET. See the

War is a RACKET. See the video on utube.



The U.S.'s Afghanistan

The U.S.'s Afghanistan invasion was ILLEGAL, as is also the invasion's continuation.

The UN Charter says all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means; no state can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed Resolutions 1368 & 1373, which condemned the September 11 attacks; but neither authorized use of military force in Afghanistan.

Our Afghanistan invasion was not self-defense per article 51 of the Charter. The 9/11 attacks were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" wrought by another state - another national government or national military. Afghanistan did not attack the United States.

Of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists, 15 were Saudis. None was Afghan. The attacks did not originate in Afghanistan or use Afghan land or airspace in any way.

Perhaps bin Laden conceived the 9/11 attacks when he was in Afghanistan. But his thoughts did not equal action or even conspiracy of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. And CIA counterterrorism chief Paul Pillar wrote [Washington Post op-ed (9/16/09)]: "The preparations most important to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States."

After 9/11, the US did not face an imminent threat of an armed attack wrought by Afghanistan. Just so, Bush waited three weeks before starting to bomb Afghanistan. And the reason was just that Afghanistan's Taliban government would not turn over bin Laden, not that the Taliban government made any threat of attacking the US or any of its territories.

The UN-Charter-required self-defense NECESSITY must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This long-standing principle of self-defense was affirmed not only by the U.N. General Assembly, but also by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Al Qaeda may be a terrorist organization and guilty of crimes against humanity and susceptible to trial by the International Criminal Court, and its leadership and many members may have been present in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks occurred. But the official Afghan government did not violate any international law by refusing to extradite them to the United States or by refusing to turn them over to U.S. agents.

Many nations, even western European nations, refuse to extradite or yield to the United States their citizens or even their non-citizens residing, or merely present, in their territories. The United States would violate international law if it invaded Switzerland to apprehend Roman Polanski. Just so, the U.S. violated international law by invading Afghanistan to apprehend (or kill) bin Laden and his associates.

The Taliban were the legitimate leaders of a sovereign state that never threatened the United States. The U.S. invasion was a war crime, and it continues to be an ongoing war crime and an ongoing crime against humanity. Every U.S.-caused Afghan death or maiming or U.S. soldier death maiming is murder or criminal mayhem committed by the U.S. officials and military leaders who are responsible for the U.S. military's ongoing invasion of Afghanistan.

Suppose, before 9/11, Afghanistan's Taliban government asserted that a certain international terrorist organization had set up headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri and that the organization had planned a terrorist attack that was executed against Kabul. The Taliban government demanded that our government render to the Taliban government the terrorist organization's leaders. Our government refused, asserting sovereignty. The Taliban invade the US to find and apprehend the terrorist organization's leaders, and the Taliban's invading force topples our government.

Obama and the US do not have a defense in the assertion that the Afghan "government" permits the US military's (and NATO forces') presence. The Afghan government is a US installation achieved by the US's illegal invasion. With illegal invasion, the US military ousted the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

This year (2009), U.S. puppet Karzai stole re-election by blatant, massive fraud. Only because of Obama's pressuring UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon does the UN not declare that Karzai was not re-elected and resolve that Afghanistan must hold a new election poll. See also, e.g.,
http
Now we learn that the Obama administration seeks use a phony "plight of women" story to justify its continuing illegal military operations in, and military occupation of, Afghanistan. Even if the “plight of women” story were true exactly as the U.S. portrays it and not caused by U.S. military presence, still U.S. military presence would be illegal. International law does not permit one nation to invade another nation to cure social ills of the invaded nation.

But U.S. military presence DOES explain much of any plight of Afghan women, so that the U.S. argument is utterly absurd: The U.S. can invade another nation illegally then convert the invasion to legal occupation by causing the invaded nation’s women a plight that might increase if the U.S. ceases its occupation.



Most of the interviews I've

Most of the interviews I've seen with ordinary Afghan citizens - mostly living in a poverty which the average Americans could hardly even imagine - suggest that the overwhelming motivation for a young man to join the Taliban would be to have some kind of income where there is none ... for the same motive hundreds of innocent people have been sold as captives to the occupying forces to pick up bonuses - the so-called dangerous enemy combatants, terrorists etc who end up locked up in Guantanamo or whatever... in a region where the only function industry is a foreign war people who want to earn money try to get a piece of the action some way or other...
I don't think the West & more particularly the US BEGINS to understand Afghan society
The propaganda piece of the girl without a nose is particularly revolting for those who remember that aftershooting up and blowing up much of the country and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan, the US is one of the nations which refuses entry to all but a very few refugees ... and those very few only so that they can be used for this kind of "aren't we wonderful?" propaganda.



The day that Time runs this

The day that Time runs this picture on its front cover and starts to talk about US imperialism, its fascism, its war crimes, and its two party ruling class consensus is the day I will start reading.

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/images/no_arms_boy.jpg



We have been covering the

We have been covering the issue of how women's rights and humanitarian concern is being exploited for the sake of continued occupation, on a number of fronts.

The latest is an article from an Afghan anthropologist that thoroughly disputes and discredits the details in TIME's article, and they should not be simply repeated, as above. Nonetheless, this is a very good article and I am happy to have recommended it to several people so far.

For the article by our Afghan anthropologist, please click here.



We should still leave

We should still leave Afghanistan as terrible as the situation is, for women.

It is far less costly, and more efficient, to simply give women who want to leave, political asylum, through the U.S. and number of other nations, cooperatively.

I did read an article that said the situation for women had worsened since we initially went in.

Not to get all sci fi, but as Gene Roddenberry tried to warn all the way back in the sixties, the Prime Directive: Do not mess with the cultures and societies of other people. Even the best of intentions can bring the most horrible results.

By the time significant change happens in Afghanistan, the same changes could be wrought, and will less damage, by our going, and the Afghan people working things out for themselves.

The Taliban, is not by any reach of the imagination, a group like the Nazis, ready to invade and conquer other lands. They are a rag tag group of religious radicals wanting control over their own society, for their own people. IMO, they would likely simmer down more -- though perhaps not initially -- with our departure.

We shouldn't be there, anyway, regardless. So let women and others leave, if they so wish, along with the departure of our troops.



I think the protection of

I think the protection of women from the religious fanaticism of the Taliban is a valid reason for our country to be in Afghanistan, but we invaded because the 9-11 attack came from there. The war is not illegal. We were attacked from Afghanistan by people being sheltered by the sitting government. People who filled that government react to the education of girls by blowing up the school and the girls.

I keep asking and get no response. When the Taliban gains control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, what will you advise that we do then?



addition to my last comment

addition to my last comment -- about providing political aslylum globally and getting out -- if we left, the country would likely continue its course with poppy production, right?

Well, let them produce it. It's less destructive than the military stuff going on.

Don't buy it, that's all.



Doesn't it strike anyone as

Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that we have an entire U.S. troop up there in this remote location of Afghanistan protecting Aisha?

Have her emigrate to the U.S. for asylum - or another nation. This is an insane use of manpower just designed to stir up sentiments to keep the war machine going.

But we can't afford it !



Yeah, well, told you so. In

Yeah, well, told you so. In 2001.

Beginning when I reported from Afghanistan in 2001 for the Village Voice, I repeatedly wrote that the tales of women's liberation in Afghanistan were a lie—beginning with the tale of the burning burqas. As I wrote in my 2002 book "To Afghanistan and Back," Western TV camera crews paid Afghan women to take off their burqas as the cameras rolled. Off the air—minutes later—they purchased and donned new ones and pocketed the hundred dollar bills. I saw it with my own eyes, and confirmed this practice elsewhere.

Anyone who travels in Afghanistan can tell you that, especially outside Kabul, there is not a single woman who stopped wearing the burqa since the U.S. occupation began.

The narrative about girl's schools is similarly misleading, but that's another story.

The main responsibility for this horror of a war falls squarely on the shoulders of Democrats and liberals, including Obama, who accepted the idea that Afghanistan was "the good war" we "should" be fighting instead of "taking our eye off the ball."

A voice in the wilderness, I have repeatedly tried to point out that Afghanistan was, if anything, even less winnable and more immoral than Iraq. All I got for my efforts was getting shut out of liberal rags like The Nation and Mother Jones completely.

P.S. I am on my way back to Afghanistan this week. Check out rall.com/rallblog to follow my journey in real time.



Do a search under HOnor

Do a search under HOnor Killings in the united States, you will be surprised.



Yes, BOTH sides are abusing

Yes, BOTH sides are abusing Afghan women.
It isn't tolerable from either side, so it is
f-ing obvious what SHOULD/MUST be done.
The Afghans cannot now govern themselves
justly , not the Taliban, not the current
Karzai government, and the U.S. cannot govern it
justly either. There is ONE solution:
Afghanistan MUST become a U.N. mandate,
governed by the U.N. if necessary for ten thousand
years until the Afgganis can govern themselves
justly.



Using the oppression of

Using the oppression of women to justify war and occupation where civilians are killed by the occupier on a daily basis EQUALS oppression of women.

The US is not in Afghanistan to help women --and ALL women who understand patriarchal oppression know this. In fact, women are NOT better off since the years of war -- not at all.

I find it INSULtiNG that the US is exploiting women once more in order to underwrite their own reasons for this war -- MONEY, control, footprint in the area next to China, pipelines -- these are more like it -- whether women suffer, are killed, mutilated by Taliban -- or now -- and how many women and children have been killed by US forces and drones??? Don't pretend you are there to help the women -- Good God/dess.



thank you for this

thank you for this au-courant disquisition of the US-controlled and funded NATO depredations against the afghan citizenry, which has now succeeded in up-staging the pertinacious US/UK despoliations against iraq over the past 2 decades, under the putative seigneury of bushI, clinton, bushII, obama... and whatever subsequent media-whore myrmidon of global corpdom in the executive branch who succeeds the craven quisling, barack obama, a young afro-american whom we erroneously trusted to end the US' imperious, hegemonistic insanities in the middle east, and whose electoral caryatid was our military's immediate exit from the US's illegal, illegitimate, resource-robbing, geo-politically induced assaults on iraq and afghanistan. all quaesi-sentient life forms recognize that these rag-dolls are suspended from the strings of corporate puppeteers who finance and manipulate their digits, limbs and cortices. never did we, the misled, misguided obama votaries in the US electorate, suspect that we were to be so ignominiously duped, deluded and dismissed, immediately following obama's inauguration, by all his corporate masters in the resource-extraction and armamentarium industries, including all those 'service' enterprises, like halliburton, blackwater, and bechtel, who are in lock-step servitude to their corporate overlords.



an addendum here: may i also

an addendum here: may i also point out that during our 3 years in the hashemite kingdom of jordan, 7 and a half years in egypt, 6 months in saudi, 5 and a half years in the hindu kingdom of nepal, and 2 years in malaysia, most of the women w/ whom i became acquainted asseverated that they PREFERRED TO BE COVERED, either to avoid being stared at and visually raped by the ogling males, or because they felt too shy, too unattractive, too unfashionable or too confidence-deficient to display themselves to the frog-bog. many even repined that it was such a relief not to be relentlessly compelled to fix their faces w/ makeup, or to wash and coif their hair, or to agonize over what colour-coordinated garment to wear whenever they deracinated from the home-hearth to visit friends or bargain in the markets for their families' daily provender. so, you westerners who have never lived long term amongst islamic or hindi cultures, do please spare the nescient rhetoric about a female cultural diathesis about which you have not a scintilla of heuristic knowledge, never mind any empathy for. altho' i'm a white canadian/american, i too felt more comfortable, more liberated under cover. i was manumitted to wear whatever i pleased beneath the burkha and swan about as unwashed and ugly as i cared to under the veil of anonymity propined by public 'covering'. i came to apperceive and appreciate covering as a blessing, liberating me from vanity, so that i could concentrate on more mind-expanding and productive enterprises.



.... as to jdbishop5's

.... as to jdbishop5's rejoinder, s/he is egregiously deluded... soi-disant deceived by his/her own government and their paymasters. not by any stretch of the imagination could some ignorant saudi/yemeni bedouin named bin laden, living in a cave in the rusticated, remote mountains of afghanistan, have been responsible for 9/11. you are a misguided, duped buffoon to swallow such nescient balderdash from the faux-news outlets in the MSM, most of which are under the suzerainty of precisely the global, cabalistic peculators who own the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the US oligarchy. 9/11 was bush/cheney/rummy's 2001 simulacrum of hitler's reichshtag fire. google that moment in nazi history for further elucidation and edifications.



The more I follow this

The more I follow this issue, the more I think of the Taliban along the lines of the American Indian. This came to me particularly upon reading about the 10 aide workers who were killed -- some, at least, missionaries, though not all - though all of them involved in health care in this one region. Possibly one of them involved in bible smuggling, since an article reported that the taliban claimed there were translated bibles and they killed for being missionaries. Though some members of the group were reportedly secular or entirely involved in, for example, dentistry or eye exams.

The reason why I know bible smuggling is not entirely out of the picture is because, back during the eighties, I knew of some people who were planning to smuggle bibles (presumably Cantonese) into China. They were Christian missionaries. So it's not a new thing, in this day and age, or that far from the realm of possibility as to what, maybe at least one person if not more were involved with.

Suddenly, to me, the savage murder of these people fell into a different light / perspective. I thought of the American Indian groups that were more militantly opposed to the settlers and attacked and butchered them in their beds.

Some were peaceful, some were traditionally attacking, but some became quite aggressive because of what they had learned about Europeans and the settlers coming in:

They were there to butcher their women and children, send them to school, take away their religious practices, cultural traditions, and way of life. They were there to change their families, and basically disband their people adn destroy their culture altogether.

Many of the settlers looked upon the Indians somewhat as we Americans see the Taliban today. "Savages". Just incomprehensible they could behave in such a manner. Even cutting off the nose and ears of the young woman who was married to this man who went looking for (and was on Time's cover).

At the same time the Europeans went violently into South and North America, the missionaries came on their coattails preaching the love of Jesus. Just like the missionaries killed the other day -- and who went in peace -- but not really a peace because they arrived by virtue of the violent invasion of their governments.

The Indians don't look so savage to many Americans anymore. We look back at history adn we .. understand what happened.

I think we need to take a look at what's happening with the taliban in the same way. They are, indeed, like the American Indian, fighting for their way of life, their land, their right to be what they are without western inteference. Out view of them as savage and uncivilized and uncomprehenisbily unable to accept these wonder missionary gifts we bring -- is somewhat like the perspective of the settlers in early colonia America who saw teh Native Americans in a similar light.

Let's learn from history and not make the same mistakes.

Let's leave Afghanistan to Afghanistan. As for the women and any others, they can leave as a matter of political asylum with our troops, if they so wish. Thereby taking the "women's question" out of the matter entirely.

Many wonderful comments here. Thank you for sharing and teaching.



There is an error in this

There is an error in this article concerning the rape/murder of an Afghan girl. I am not saying anything but the link to this is one that leads to the 2006 crime in Iraq. Yes, the soldier was discharged before the crime was reported. He was tried and convicted in Kentucky and received a life sentence. The other four soldiers were tried in the Army and all convicted, and sentenced to from 27 moths to 110 and ten years.



RE: I think the protection

RE: I think the protection of
Sun, 08/08/2010 - 22:43 — JDBishop5

Dear JDBishop5:

You are hallucinating false facts concerning the ?9/11" attacks, and you bear zero understanding of international law. The U.S. invasion was, and continues to be, illegal because neither the Afghan government nor "Afghanistan" attacked or threatened the U.S. and neither was not involved in or acted in any way to support anything bin Laden or al Qaeda did or planned related to the "9/11" attacks.

You are hallucinating and understand nothing of international law.



Time magazine is a tool of

Time magazine is a tool of the Right and the war profiteers so the cover is more propaganda to sell the illegal occupation and genocide on-going in Afghanistan. As this has dragged on, as more and more evidence comes to light of the U.S. illegal "war", the mounting war crimes, it is now very clear to me anyone serving is now a war criminal and has become a mercenary as the orders are illegal and the mission is not defined. bin Laden was the target and Al Qaeda, and the U.S. should have left when the mission was over. The U.S. had no legal mandate to invade Iraq so all who have been deployed or contracted are war criminals. Now the Taleban is the target and they were the legitimate govt. of Afghanistan. Again, there is no mandate or authorization for being an occupier in Afghanistan. All the lies have clouded the truth of an invasion against a country that was weaker, but is kicking our ass. Bring them all home, or face a war crime tribunal.



The corporate shills who

The corporate shills who perpetrated this war on the Afghan people, and indeed the world, know that it is a heck of a lot more profitable to maintain the existing war than it is to end this one and start beating the war drums for the next illegal attack on whoever - North Korea, Venezuela, Costa Rica - wherever. I would look for this campaign of misinformation to increase as the war supposedly starts to "wind down". I am pretty sure that the only way to end this cycle of killing is for the American people to take to the streets en masse and to say "NO MORE!" Even then, it's a crap shoot, as some pretty goddamn evil people have the reins of power in this nation and around the world.



Someone already pointed this

Someone already pointed this out, but it hasn't been changed... When I saw the link labeled 'rape and murder of a young Afghan woman', I was surprised because I hadn't heard of it. That's because it's actually a young Iraqi woman.

Also, there is a lot of doubt about the story of the mutilation to the young woman on the Time cover. The Taliban have denied that it was any kind of a ruling from them, and I've never heard of a judge in an Islamic court - no matter how backward and much you may hate the Taliban - ordering a face mutilated. It's very much against Islamic teachings in any way.

There's an article by Ann Jones, in which she says: "I heard Aisha's story from her a few weeks before the image of her face was displayed all over the world. She told me that her father-in-law caught up with her after she ran away, and took a knife to her on his own; village elders later approved, but the Taliban didn't figure at all in this account."

(See http://www.thenation.com/article/154020/afghan-women-have-already-been-abandoned)



The Time picture is about

The Time picture is about WHAT IS HAPPENING IN AFGHANISTAN NOW. This is not a picture of the future.



burberry handbag

burberry polo suprisely aZVawVfF http://www.burberryoutlet--online.com/



uggs sale clearance uk

ugg stockists uk for more detail FdYkPbSE http://www.uggboots--uk.net/



kids uggs cheap

you love this? [URL=http://uggsclassictallcheap.enterprisebusinessexperts.biz/]cheap real uggs[/URL] with confident HnkgsJXJ [URL=http://uggsclassictallcheap.enterprisebusinessexperts.biz/ ] http://cheapuggclassictallboots.komunitasonline.com/ [/URL]



replica christian louboutin

best for you replica christian louboutin boots to your friends VGLIynca http://www.replicachristianlouboutin.net/



modern living room chairs

you love this? ikea living room chairs for less xBmVnvaN http://www.living-roomchairs.com/?cat=7



chanel bags outlet

you must read chanel outlet to get new coupon VcJJruUc http://www.chaneloutlet-handbags.com/



Echarpe Gucci

Located in prosperity all buddys recognise all of; of difficulty can easily all buddys.
Echarpe Gucci



legarrette blount jersey

qakhg mario williams jersey
aslct brian dawkins jersey
vodef matt ryan jersey
ajkle justin blackmon jersey
nznsi steve smith jersey



swtor credits

swtor credits Parfaite convention; livraison très agile, ajouté à mes vendeurs favoris



A separate marketer by jones sabo charisma accessory

Very interesting info!Perfect just what I was looking for!