Inspired by the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers and Afghans For Peace this GLOBAL DAY of LISTENING will allow everyone to listen to the stories told by the Afghan People of what it is like to live now in Afghanistan. Anyone interested in talking with those gathered in Kabul and Bamiyan may now request a time to speak during this Day of Listening. You may listen at any time via conference call-in or Skype! Reference the Details Page and request a time to speak through email.
The Purpose of the day-long teleconference is for LISTENING:
1. To the PEOPLE : to ordinary Afghans, to ordinary internationals, including others from war-torn countries, and to world public opinion.
2. To the PAIN (anger, grief, disappointment) of the people :
– the world public whose opinion is swinging against the Afghan War
– read the Open Letter to our World Leaders,
– and We Want You Out – you may sign the petition here.
– the pro-war people who have their concerns, with the understanding that most Afghans are now anti-war.
3. To The People’s Afghanistan December Review
The Afghan people know the expected military outcome of the Obama administration’s Afghanistan December Review. Afghans want those willing to LISTEN to hear the Afghan People’s Review.
Paul S. Graham 
Afghan people will not forget the 1960s-1970s, when Afghan women were going to school, working side-by-side men in high positions and travelling the world for internships.
Was that under the Taliban?
They don’t allow schooling for girls.
They blow up the schools.
They throw acid in the girl’s faces.
And yes, during the time of the king there were war-lords.
Actually, the biggest advances for women came during the decade or so of communist government. According to Wikipedia, “in 1988, women made up 40 percent of the doctors and 60 percent of the teachers at the University of Kabul; 440,000 female students were enrolled in educational institutions and 80,000 more in literacy programs. Western dress was common in the cities, and women enjoyed freedom from having to cover their faces with veils.”
The communist period was a disaster for too many reasons to go into in any detail here, but clearly one of the reasons they were opposed was their progressive attitude towards women.
The Taliban do not have a monopoly on misogyny in Afghan society. The warlords and the Karzai government seem cut from the same cloth. I suggest you investigate a website maintained by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (http://rawa.org) for some useful insights.
@PSG
“Actually, the biggest advances for women came during the decade or so of communist government.”
“The communist period was a disaster for too many reasons to go into in any detail here,…”
That would fit the title of ‘bafflegab’.
I presume you mean the second item to be when Moscow sent in its Spetznatz to murder the government and instal a stooge, and thus started its war with Afghanistan.
“…but clearly one of the reasons they were opposed was their progressive attitude towards women.”
Delightfully ambiguous, old chap.
I presume ‘they’ were the neo-Taliban, and ‘their’ means Moscow’s men?
“The Taliban do not have a monopoly on misogyny in Afghan society.” Oh? The west’s intents are the same?
Maybe the Taliban are just a tad more misogynistic than the status quo ante.[sarc off] And you are disengenuous if you and your readers believe that the west approves of any retrograde steps by anyone in Afghanistan to the hateful Sharia misogyny.
There was a huge outcry against allowing ‘marital rape’, except from the left and the so-called feminists, who see no evil when mohammedan women are victimized.
Naturally you and RAWA toe the same line. You couldn’t for the life of you, direct me to a blog which agrees with me, or even is unbiassed, if there is such a one.
From RAWA I can learn of the communist/leftist mindset, i.e. yours. Is that a smear?
@PSG This from RAWA:
“Parween said: “There are three enemies in this country: the Taliban, the [former mujahideen commanders] and the Karzai government, and foreign troops. All three of them commit crimes against our people.
“When the foreign troops go, we will only have two left to deal with.””
And what will happen to them when the Taliban have TOTAL power, and come looking for revenge?
I venture that there is a relatively low incidence of crime from the west and there would be precious little if they weren’t fighting a group which sees no value in any human life. Presumably a kufr’s life is worth less than a mohammedan, even one from another sect.
Does the Taliban have ROE, human rights observers, or a JAG?
Just asking.
The crux of the matter is: When the west fights, they target the enemy fighters; they do NOT like ‘collateral damage’.
That’s why the US spent $millions developing the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), to kill the people shooting at them, without, if possible, harming innocent civilians and their homes.
[This could be a whole other thread.]
The Taliban, on the other hand, just build bigger and bigger IEDs, as the west is forced to use more and more heavily armoured vehicles. And Iran supplies modern more lethal mines.
If civilians get killed by an IED, it’s “inshallah”, God’s will.
I believe that many families have received compensation from the west for inadvertant killings. Does the Taliban do that? They have vast profits from opium selling.
The west does NOT want to kill innocents, does NOT kill randomly, but mistakes WILL regretably occur. And they will be followed up by AI, HRW, JAG, and every leftist blog under the sun. Of course, none of this would happen if the west weren’t there. Which is the point of the Taliban’s exercise.
They want to go back to the good old days of extreme misogyny, women almost locked up at home, no school, no jobs, no women MPs; and back to being hosts to alQaeda.
I think that another logical reason for strict ROE is the costs of munitions and aircraft. Say a simple unguided rocket costs $2,000 and a guided one $30,000. You would not fire those at random, at a hut or cave, to kill an innocent person. And when they’re expended, you have to return to base to refuel and re-arm. That might be just the time an enemy mortar fires, and you are out of rockets. So I would dispute ‘cowboy’ mentalities.
There is EVERY reason not to kill civilians. You don’t want to. You don’t want to feed the Taliban and the left ammunition.
So I would challenge the ‘Troops Out’ crowd. Show me the mea culpa. Show me the order which says ‘Go and bomb that farm, we don’t like their faces’.
The last item is: What is a civilian?
Is it a part-time Taliban, who left his AK-47 at home with his wife, today?
Is it the regular Taliban’s brother-in-law, who is acting as lookout while the other is laying an IED?
Is it the Taliban fighter’s 14 year old son who makes up the bombs for him? (When Palestinian bombs pre-detonate, they obviously blame an Israeli strike. Same here?)
What if half the ‘civilians’ killed at a wedding party are active fighters, if not at that moment?
Without any kind of uniform or insignia, WHO is a fighter?
Will a multitude of readers vehemently oppose my thought that the Taliban would, and indeed HAVE concealed weapons of dead or wounded fighters, and declared them to be non-combatants?
Just asking.