Probably not far off the views of many DM readers, tbf.
Probably not far off the views of many DM readers, tbf.
I read the DM. I know loads who read it just for the vacuous celeb shit. It's entreating in its own way. Doesn't mean all those people who read something that is freely available online falls into a stereotype.
The mendacious, insidious language of capitalism.Wants rather than needs surely ?
Hence I said "many", not all.
Because obviously #NotAllDailyMailReaders!
Bit lazy isn't it, all this medieval, middle ages shit. They think that way because...they're not as "advanced" as us? Do they need some more colonialism so we can bring some enlightenment to them?
Fucking hell. Only on U75 could slagging off the Taliban get you compared to DM readers.
No Shiite Sherlock.That's not true. The Taliban are Deobandi, and the bottom up 'philosophy' relies on flexible and (male) consensus-based honour code structures such as the Pashtunwali. If pressed, most Afghans would label themselves as Hanafi Sunnis (apart from the Hazara who are Shiite), but as the majority of the country is illiterate any engagement with the sources of Hanafi jurisprudence by tribal councils (or even by Taliban-appointed officials) has traditionally been rare.
Americans don't generally like to be humiliated internationally of course. I've no idea what happened politically after Saigon. I doubt it played well though? His speech was clearly aimed at his local audience so he's obviously a bit concerned.
How else would you characterise their politics, influences and their practical application upon ordinary people?
Yeah, I think what I’m questioning is a response that skips over the beatings, stonings, subjugations, killings and terror of the Taliban and questions instead how they are being characteristised. It could be dismissed as a bizarre, clunky response but it’s not. The rehabilitation of the Taliban by the PMC is well underway today. For a variety of reasons. All of them shitWhat I think smmudge is getting at is that Western intervention helped cause this return to "medieval punishments" .
The Mujadiheen whose views aren't that much different were armed and encouraged by the US. Seen as freedom fighters against communism.
It is not what you term the left that should be questioning its relevance.
Its Centre politicians who thought interfering in this country would improve matters for ordinary Afghans.
What has just happened shows its not the so called Left that is not relevant but the centre / centre right political system who played a major role in bringing Afghanistan to the sorry state its in now.
So don't blame the left.
Yeah, I think what I’m questioning is a response that skips over the beatings, stonings, subjugations, killings of the Taliban and questions instead how they are being characteristised. The rehabilitation of the Taliban by the PMC is well underway today.
I posted a long Twitter thread above about the historical development of the Taliban and Muhajadeen. It’s worth reading before wading in and conflating the two by the way.
I also put a post on a doc about women in Afghanistan. Perhaps you should watch it before wading into me.
For Afghan women the US funded Mujadiheen was a threat to any rights they had obtained prior to the war.
I’m not wading into anyone. I’m questioning the politics of an approach that responds to a post about the Taliban killing people by questioning if calling them medieval is fair/western imperialist.
I’m also questioning the conflation of them and the Mujahideen.
Calling them medieval is (a) a way of comparing them to Europe and (b) a way of saying they are 'backward'. Whatever emotional truth you might find in saying those things, it is not remotely helpful for understanding a very current, very not-European movement. I know it's painful to try to understand people you don't like, but refusing to try to understand anything about Afghanistan, Afghan people, and history and current affairs in Afghanistan is how the Western powers got where they are today. Going around calling people medieval despite their recent and particular history is just a way of switching off your brain and not thinking about them any more apart from how dislikeable they are. I'm tired of the immense ignorance and stupidity in the establishment on Afghanistan so forgive me for getting impatient with tendencies in that direction here. Okay, you don't like them, fine. What's the next thought? Maybe why has a bunch of loosely organised, poorly trained and lightly armed villagers twice been able to take over the country? The clues to that are all around us, not in medieval times.How else would you characterise their politics, influences and their practical application upon ordinary people?
Calling them medieval is (a) a way of highlighting their stated aim - and grotesque attempts - to impose Sharia law on the population and (b) a way of pointing out that those attempting today to construct a new identity for it are doing so for a variety of reasons. None of them good.
He'll get shot for riding a woman's bike !
Fixed for you.