International Taliban Ban All Afghan Women From Higher Education, Parks, Gyms, Working for NGO's.

[Yehudim]

Final post: I wonder what the percentage of NGO workers in Afghanistan are women. Seems like a much more catastrophic decision than banning women from education.

I can’t find any data but I get the sense that at least NGO workers, at least the western ones are disproportionately women.

 

[Bald1]

Exactly. A lot of people try to be nuanced and say that the people are caught up, or they have to choose between two bad choices, but ultimately the choice resides with the people and their sympathies.

The fact of the matter is that the people have a lot of sympathy for the Taliban. Perhaps not the NAME Taliban, but ideologically, they are there. I say that because someone can always pull out some poll (did they really go into the countryside and poll people?) that says that Afghan’s don’t support the Taliban, yet the Taliban exists among them, and always comes to power without a fight.

When the people have no sympathy, these movements do not exist, and can only exist with overwhelming force, as in with Hazara areas of Afghanistan.

It frustrates me to high hell when I hear about how some peoples supposedly disapprove of one group, yet always seems to be on their side.

Example: Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine are nominally against Russia and the invasion, yet the Russians are embedded in and hold those communities. Yet the Russians cannot hold Ukrainian areas, with the same amount of force.

Sunni Arabs in Syria supposedly hated ISIS and yet ISIS strongholds were in their area, yet ISIS could never conquer minority villages nearby or surrounded by ISIS territory. Why? Well because they had zero ideologically sympathy for them, obviously, and resisted all the way.

The fact of the matter is that Afghan’s hold some deep ideological sympathies with the Taliban and perhaps more importantly VIEW THEM AS THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE.

They may not agree with everything, but THIS is better than the American lead government, apparently.

Of course it's because of ideological affiliation. They accepted religion based rule after Russia left and did the same when the west withdrew. We could send all the money and goodwill their way but the people prefer their Muslin brothers, no matter how corrupt or controlling, to any other alternative. As is their right. Notice I don't mention "sisters". They're fucked, unfortunately.

There's no unifying identity in many parts of the Islamic world other than religion. The Saudi peninsula would devolve much the same if tomorrow the world found itself without any need for oil. It would go back to being a theocratic shit hole ruled by tribal interests. Whatever strides MBS has made wouldn't last 5 years without the money flowing from oil. And much of the population would accept it.

After the fall of the Soviet union much of Eastern Europe started pulling up their bootstraps and tried to move forward. That's not going to happen in tribal lands ruled by religous law. Not until there's a great shift in mentality akin to the reformation or enlightenment or something similar. And dogmatic, conservative thinking will resist that tooth and nail. Not because the US failed, but because that's how those people believe is the right way to live.

#notall

 

[Yehudim]

Of course it's because of ideological affiliation. They accepted religion based rule after Russia left and did the same when the west withdrew. We could send all the money and goodwill their way but the people prefer their Muslin brothers, no matter how corrupt or controlling, to any other alternative. As is their right. Notice I don't mention "sisters". They're fucked, unfortunately.

There's no unifying identity in many parts of the Islamic world other than religion. The Saudi peninsula would devolve much the same if tomorrow the world found itself without any need for oil. It would go back to being a theocratic shit hole ruled by tribal interests. Whatever strides MBS has made wouldn't last 5 years without the money flowing from oil. And much of the population would accept it.

After the fall of the Soviet union much of Eastern Europe started pulling up their bootstraps and tried to move forward. That's not going to happen in tribal lands ruled by religous law. Not until there's a great shift in mentality akin to the reformation or enlightenment or something similar. And dogmatic, conservative thinking will resist that tooth and nail. Not because the US failed, but because that's how those people believe is the right way to live.

#notall

If you think about it, all the deflections and outrage are simply due to Western dominance. We need to find deep explanations as to why people are not our mirror images, when sometimes a simple explanation will suffice.

A British ethnographer from the 1800’s would not need to explain the Afghani political and cultural system any further than “the people would have it no other way”

Now that is simplistic, true, but when you dig deeper it just brings out uncomfortable truths for liberals (not uncomfortable for me that different people hold different values) that Afghan’s view the role of women quite differently from me.

It is the same attitude but from a different perspective of neocons who believed that all people are thirsting for democracy and capitalism, which is now laughed at, but nobody is laughing yet (in the mainstream) that not everybody feels the same way about civil rights.

 

[SummerStriker]

Modern economies and militaries are made strong by the number of people with IQs over 130 you can put it logistic positions. Some shitholes cut their useful workforce in half. Sucks to be them. Especially when women and their interest in people makes them ideal for necessary tasks men dont feel like doing.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I would have much more sympathy with this argument if I knew it was in good faith.

Obviously some of the current issues are because of us, since Afghanistan was partly ran by us.

But in 20 years, I just know that people who say things like this (not necessarily you) will inevitably go back to blaming the US, because that is the case with a place Iran, for example.

If the US ever touched it, all the failures will be our fault. We won’t get credit if they succeed, though.

Sure but I'll give credit where credit is due, the US' occupation of Japan and South Korea did turn out well and the US deserves credit for those success stories.

Afghanistan was never going to turn into South Korea in 20 years but I don't think it would've been impossible to build state structures that could defend themselves and provide basic governance at least within Kabul and its hinterlands.

I'm not an apologist for colonialism but even the colonial powers seem to have had a better track record of statecraft, sure at a lot of the post-colonial governments were ruthlessly authoritarian but many of them could at least survive on their own and kind of provide basic services. The US puppet state had all the predatory and corrupt attributes of a post-colonial state without any of the upsides.

The fact of the matter is that Afghan’s hold some deep ideological sympathies with the Taliban and perhaps more importantly VIEW THEM AS THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE.

They may not agree with everything, but THIS is better than the American lead government, apparently.

Taliban are generally better than the US led government which says a lot about how bad the puppet state was. Its really not about ideological sympathy, the vast majority of Afghans are too poor and too illiterate to really care about ideology. All they care about who is less corrupt and who can provide security better and no question the Taliban were superior. Here's a microcosm of the difference

Taliban competence compared to government corruption is still a recurring theme of reporting on the conflict. A driver delivering a cargo of potatoes on Highway 1 recently reported that while he needed to pay the Taliban a one-time toll of the equivalent of $75, the government was worse, with 12 different checkpoints on the same road, each demanding up to $37, while providing inferior levels of security.

This is actually a tame example of government corruption in Afghanistan. When we think of "corruption" in government we think of what you might see in Russia or Ukraine where bureaucrats loot state coffers or get kickbacks for contracts awarded and things like that. In Afghanistan it took the form of rural police robbing people and warlords accusing their enemies of being Taliban and getting them sent to Gitmo. That's a reoccurring theme under the occupation, Afghans using accusations of Taliban ties to get their enemies eliminated.

Another key difference between the Taliban and the US/Afghan government is on the question of surrender. The US did not accept surrender, you were either captured or killed. Taliban did accept surrender for amnesty so the enemies of the US know they have no option but to fight while enemies of the Taliban know they can surrender and return to civilian life.

This is a good Twitter thread that goes over a lot of the nonsensical and predatory aspects of the US occupation and its not like Hanania is a left winger

Final post: I wonder what the percentage of NGO workers in Afghanistan are women. Seems like a much more catastrophic decision than banning women from education.

I can’t find any data but I get the sense that at least NGO workers, at least the western ones are disproportionately women.

A lot of them are women precisely because the deep gender segregation requires female professionals to work with women on the ground. If in general NGO workers are disproportionately women then in Afghanistan its even more so given how much money is poured into initiatives aimed specifically at women.

 

[cooks1]

Well Afghans saw no reason to fight for the corrupt and nonsensical constitutional order that the US left behind. For instance some Afghan police were bribed with $150 pay outs by the Taliban and this worked because many had not been paid for 6-9 months.

Here's a good Twitter thread on a lot of the shenanigans that went on under the US occupation.

I don't disagree with that. What the US did there was dishonorable and pointless. The Afghans should not have fought FOR that. But they should have been willing to fight against the tyrannical oppression they are enduring now. Which they knew, to a certainty, was coming.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't disagree with that. What the US did there was dishonorable and pointless. The Afghans should not have fought FOR that. But they should have been willing to fight against the tyrannical oppression they are enduring now. Which they knew, to a certainty, was coming.

There are resistance groups like the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Freedom Front and they are largely made up of elements from the US led regime. But they seem to only have clout in areas where their leaders have ethnic/tribal ties and they are a scattered resistance with no unified front or international legitimacy and many of their leaders aren't even based in the country.

At the end of the day I bet most Afghans are just happy that most of the fighting is over. If you live far from Kabul or Taliban strongholds in the south your life is probably not that affected by Taliban rule, you're likely still answering to the local warlord who cut a deal to recognize the Taliban to keep their fiefdom.

 

[cooks1]

You don't think the US is at least partly responsible for the current state of Afghanistan given the 20 year occupation and trillion's spent on state building there?

Yes- Partially responsible. Should not have gone in the first place and they screwed the pooch royally every minute they were there. But it's appropriate to both acknowledge that and acknowledge that the Afghan people let themselves down. All they had to do was fight, and their country would be entirely their own right now.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yes- Partially responsible. Should not have gone in the first place and they screwed the pooch royally every minute they were there. But it's appropriate to both acknowledge that and acknowledge that the Afghan people let themselves down. All they had to do was fight, and their country would be entirely their own right now.

What a great idea, how come no one ever thought of this before? Just fight bro, its that easy <Lmaoo>

 

[cooks1]

What a great idea, how come no one ever thought of this before? Just fight bro, its that easy <Lmaoo>

Never said it was easy. Just that it was simple. The Taliban are outnumbered 99-1 in Afghanistan and are a highly flawed group themselves. Even now they are struggling somewhat to maintain their grip.

You seem to prefer whining and blaming the US. If you had an actual suggestion, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Never said it was easy. Just that it was simple. The Taliban are outnumbered 99-1 in Afghanistan and are a highly flawed group themselves. Even now they are struggling somewhat to maintain their grip.

Yeah bro its the Taliban on one side and, like, everyone else on the other so why can't they win? Its not like there's deep tribal and ethnic divisions in Afghanistan or anything, just get together and win.

You seem to prefer whining and blaming the US. If you had an actual suggestion, I'd love to hear it.

I'm not going to solve the problem of Afghanistan in a forum post but in hindsight refusing to accept the Taliban surrender for amnesty and funneling billions to pederast warlords was maybe a bad idea.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Did western-preference afghanis have an opportunity to leave that shithole before the demented one’s horrendous withdraw?

 

[cooks1]

Yeah bro its the Taliban on one side and, like, everyone else on the other so why can't they win? Its not like there's deep tribal and ethnic divisions in Afghanistan or anything, just get together and win.

I'm not going to solve the problem of Afghanistan in a forum post but in hindsight refusing to accept the Taliban surrender for amnesty and funneling billions to pederast warlords was maybe a bad idea.

On That we agree.

It's pretty clear you are still in the 'bitch about the US' phase, which is fine.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's pretty clear you are still in the 'bitch about the US' phase, which is fine.

I think that's a really juvenile way of thinking about it but that's no surprise given your takes on this issue. Obviously dislodging the Taliban is a tall task, its not as simple as "Just shot them maaan"

Any resistance to the Taliban has to have a broad base of support among various tribes and ethnic groups which means creating an inclusive coalition. In Afghanistan politics is dominated by tribal elders so those are the types you have to get on board to resist the Taliban. First and foremost some group has to engineer a victory against the Taliban to get international credibility and the subsequent aid and support that brings but that is easier said than done.

 

[evansusmc2]

Did western-preference afghanis have an opportunity to leave that shithole before the demented one’s horrendous withdraw?

If I remember right, not many were able to. Pretty sure some got killed along the way.

 

[Trabaho]

I worked with a 40 year old afghan woman who couldn't read and write. Also reason why she got fired later. Actually they offered to teach her reading writing and English for free she declined.

Also worked with a lot of afghans and once for one. One of my close friends is afghan.

Afghans gon afghan. But in the west they aren't traditional they're just regular folks. Well as regular as it gets being born in the war. Most of the time came as refugees. I also seen afghans become Bankers. Well just regular folks just a crazy war in their country. Imo international resource war. Plus being religious in a literal way.

 

[Arkain2K]

UN suspends some Afghanistan programs after ban on female aid workers
Many humanitarian activities ‘paused’ as Taliban decision to bar women NGO workers prevents vital services across the country

The United Nations said that some “time-critical” programs in Afghanistan have temporarily stopped and warned many other activities will also likely need to be paused because of a ban by the Taliban-led administration on women aid workers.

UN aid chief Martin Griffiths, the heads of UN agencies and several aid groups said in a joint statement on Wednesday that women’s “participation in aid delivery is not negotiable and must continue”, calling on authorities to reverse the decision.

“Banning women from humanitarian work has immediate life-threatening consequences for all Afghans. Already, some time-critical programmes have had to stop temporarily due to lack of female staff,” read the statement.

“We cannot ignore the operational constraints now facing us as a humanitarian community,” it said. “We will endeavour to continue lifesaving, time-critical activities ... But we foresee that many activities will need to be paused as we cannot deliver principled humanitarian assistance without female aid workers.”

The move came as foreign ministers of 12 countries and the EU, including the United States and Britain, urged Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government to reverse its decision barring female employees of aid groups.

The ministers from countries including the US, France, Germany, the UK and Australia, said the Taliban’s “reckless and dangerous order” has put at risk millions of Afghans who rely humanitarian assistance for their survival.

Almost all the large NGO aid agencies operating in Afghanistan have suspended almost all their work while talks continue to persuade the Taliban to rescind or clarify their decision. Tens of thousands of aid workers – many of them the chief breadwinners for the household – have been told to stay at home during the suspension, as the UN seeks to persuade the Taliban of the consequences for ordinary people in Afghanistan.

The aid agencies say under Afghanistan’s customs they cannot provide vital services to women such as health advice without female staff or doctors.

Not all Taliban ministries support the ban on women working for NGOs and are looking at a plan that could allow women to continue working in a way that satisfies the conservative-minded leadership in Kandahar. Ramiz Alakbarov, the UN’s top humanitarian coordinator in Afghanistan, claimed the Taliban health ministry had accepted it should continue its health-related work and women could “report to work and discharge their services”.

Other ministries had also contacted the UN directly to say work in the areas of disaster management and emergencies should continue, he added. But there was a lack of clarity about what would be permitted in practice.

Samira Sayed Rahman, a spokesperson for the International Rescue Committee, told the Guardian from Kabul that many of the past issues between aid agencies and the Taliban had been at checkpoints about the lack of a mahran, a male guardian, rather than whether our women workers were wearing the hijab, but that was the issue raised by the Taliban in announcing the ban on women workers at NGOs.

“It puts us in an incredibly difficult situation. Aid prevented a famine last winter. We have 28 million people in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, but the de facto authorities made the decision that women cannot work in national and international NGOs.

“It is practically impossible to continue our work without female staff. This is a conservative society and we need female workers to access women. This is a country where men and women do not interact in the public space. We would be cut off from half of Afghanistan.

“The impact is not just in terms of aid, but lost jobs. We have to be hopeful that the de facto authorities understand the implications of this.”

In a rare show of unanimity the 15-strong UN security council agreed on Tuesday and called for the full participation of women and girls in Afghanistan. “These restrictions contradict the commitments made by the Taliban to the Afghan people as well as the expectations of the international community,” the UN said.

It added it was also “deeply alarmed” by the increasing restrictions on women’s education, calling for “the full, equal and meaningful participation of women and girls in Afghanistan”.

The Taliban have already suspended university education for women and secondary schooling for girls.

Shahabuddin Delawar, the Taliban’s acting minister of mining and oil, said that by April a decision would be made regarding the opening of schools and universities for girls, which was in line with both sharia and “Afghan customs”.

He told TOLOnews TV that the decree of Haibatullah Akhundzada, the leader of the Taliban, regarding the closure of schools and universities might be temporary.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...istan-programs-taliban-female-aid-workers-ban

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Scheme]

Banning women from gyms is simply unforgivable in my book.

 

[Nameless King]

Probably the only upset people about it are...westerners. Afghani clearly did not wanted to fight for their country when US left so they are the only responsible for what is happening.