if you have any questions to the taliban here you can ask them!!

[randolph85]

Female education was not banned or prohibited in the manner that you are claiming, but it was prohibited due to the safety and security of females which was not complete.

what does this even mean?

so these students from kandahar have the power to take mazar i sharif by military force but they can't protect girls going to school, even in their own backyard? what?????

I dont know if they had the Public Relations capacity to make a world wide proclamation as to the reasons they had to initially ban female education in some areas. This may have been a chain reaction due to 1) 'Afghan' communists who killed and murdered Daud Khan and the rest of his family 2) had their Communist government, and then 3) proceeded to support war of aggression upon the whole nation by the Soviets. The Soviets obviously were defeated, and then there was a civil war which was nearly brought to an end by the Taliban. If you want to blame someone, then the culprits are the 'Afghan' communists who started all this in the first place. Hence, they would be responsible for some of the extreme draconian laws that the Taliban brought to Kabul and other parts. There was radicalization, but what was it in response to? Foreign intervention and foreign ideologies such as communism.

i don't even know what 70% of the above quoted post is supposed to mean. how did the taliban end the civil war? do you even know what a civil war means? the entered the civil war and just changed who the players were. the taliban ended lawlessness in the territory controlled by them, but they certainly didn't end the civil war.

It is due to the rape of two young girls by one of the supposed Mujahideen commanders, that the Taliban first arose to power, and swept Afghanistan within a manner of weeks, not months. With their rule, came order and security, but with this came their strict interpretation of Islamic law. Yes, it was extreme at first, but the reasons behind it are evident if you have been paying attention so far.

you are rehashing the non afghan, western commentary of how the taliban came into being. if you read mullah zaeefs book, the taliban didn't come into power because 2 girls got raped. it was because of the general lawlessness of kandahar, their rise to power didn't happen in weeks either.

Due to the fact that there was still ongoing fighting due to Masood and Rabbani, stabilization did not come into full effect.

and hekmatyar. stabilization is just one side ruling over the other completely. there would be stabilization if the taliban completely defeated the americans today, or if the communists completely defeated the mujahadin back in the day. and so on.

The Taliban essentially sought to implement the rules upon Kabul and other areas mostly in the North which were considered bastions of immorality where murder, drug taking, prostitution were the norm. Southern and Eastern Afghanistan already adhered to the social principles which most of the initial people who were part of the Taliban had adhered to as they grew up. To this day, Southern and Eastern Afghanistan operate on mostly the same social rules which adhere to Pashtunwali.

Northern Areas and the capital Kabul did not adhere to Islamic Sharia or Pashtunwali as vice was rampant in those areas. Being raised in the conservative Pashtun areas, this was something alarming for emerging Taliban. Their radicalization was then only seen in Kabul and other Northern Areas where they crushed alcohol bottles, executed pimps and prostitutes, and banned other things such as dog fighting. It may have been considered draconian by the outside, and that is understandable.

huh?

i love how you like to pretend that the kabul that had been under rocket attack, ruled by military gangs, and in utter poverty for the last 4 years before the taliban took the city was like some sort of night club in paris lol . as if it was more sinful than any pashtun town out there. despite massouds western friendly interviews, jamiat was an islamist group with wahabbi links. i don't really know how much you know about afghanistan or its people in real life, but a guy in a lungee in paktika is about as likely to be a liar, cheat, and lowlife as some mustacio in herat or kabul.

also, what kind of movement is this that enforces rules for one town but not another?



the hell is wrong with you "yes men"???????

[Karpo]

the truth is that the ethnic minorities who are predominant in Kabul, the Tajiks, the Uzbeks, and the Hazaras have been involved in immoral practices which do not exist in the rural areas. This is probably the reason why the Taliban felt they needed to enforce the customs they were brought up with in those Northern Areas.

Even now, alcoholic consumption is on the rise. Viagra is now widely sold in the markets, and STDS are on the rise in Northern Afghanistan. There have been brothels in the North. Many Tajik/Uzbek/Hazara women are forced and beaten into prostitution by their own men. This is a fact, not some fabrication. It is this difference that has also resulted in tensions between Pashtun and the other ethnic minorities. Again, unity is needed, but not saying things for the sake of unity is dumb and stupid. It is well known fact that the some of the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras are cooperating with and promoting the occupation.

The Northern Alliance is not an organization that yields to Islamic rule, but one which acts more like a criminal outfit. The ANA (the remnants of the defunct Northern Alliance) today is filled with drug takers.

It is a policy of crime which permeates much of those areas.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Hello Revolution,

I have read most of the exchange between you and Khushal, and it looks as if you are putting forward some notions which are weak to say the least.

Female education was not banned or prohibited in the manner that you are claiming, but it was prohibited due to the safety and security of females which was not complete.

I dont know if they had the Public Relations capacity to make a world wide proclamation as to the reasons they had to initially ban female education in some areas. This may have been a chain reaction due to 1) 'Afghan' communists who killed and murdered Daud Khan and the rest of his family 2) had their Communist government, and then 3) proceeded to support war of aggression upon the whole nation by the Soviets. The Soviets obviously were defeated, and then there was a civil war which was nearly brought to an end by the Taliban. If you want to blame someone, then the culprits are the 'Afghan' communists who started all this in the first place. Hence, they would be responsible for some of the extreme draconian laws that the Taliban brought to Kabul and other parts. There was radicalization, but what was it in response to? Foreign intervention and foreign ideologies such as communism.

Remember the reason that the Taliban emerged from the aftermath of the Soviet defeat was due to the fighting that went on between supposed Mujahideen groups. In this fighting, criminal elements created an atmosphere of disorder and crime where girls/women were raped and others were murdered.


It is due to the rape of two young girls by one of the supposed Mujahideen commanders, that the Taliban first arose to power, and swept Afghanistan within a manner of weeks, not months. With their rule, came order and security, but with this came their strict interpretation of Islamic law. Yes, it was extreme at first, but the reasons behind it are evident if you have been paying attention so far.

Due to the fact that there was still ongoing fighting due to Masood and Rabbani, stabilization did not come into full effect.

For you information, females were allowed to go to schools which were deemed safe for them. These schools from afar were usually guarded by security and religious police. There are a few sources which have been cited here in many other discussions.

Khushal is right in saying that the rural areas were left alone since much of the rules the Taliban brought to Kabul were already naturally implemented there due to tribal custom and tradition. The reason they probably left the rural areas alone may have been due to foresight, knowing that they could implement rule through tribal linkages and through the local village mullahs.

The Taliban essentially sought to implement the rules upon Kabul and other areas mostly in the North which were considered bastions of immorality where murder, drug taking, prostitution were the norm. Southern and Eastern Afghanistan already adhered to the social principles which most of the initial people who were part of the Taliban had adhered to as they grew up. To this day, Southern and Eastern Afghanistan operate on mostly the same social rules which adhere to Pashtunwali.

Northern Areas and the capital Kabul did not adhere to Islamic Sharia or Pashtunwali as vice was rampant in those areas. Being raised in the conservative Pashtun areas, this was something alarming for emerging Taliban. Their radicalization was then only seen in Kabul and other Northern Areas where they crushed alcohol bottles, executed pimps and prostitutes, and banned other things such as dog fighting. It may have been considered draconian by the outside, and that is understandable.


There was separation of male and female education. This still happens in the rural Pashtun South and East, as well as the conservative enclaves in and around Kabul (there are a few). This is also evident in many parts of FATA and KP.

Even though Randolph did a more than excellent job debunking this, since this was directed towards me I will happily reply back.What you're presenting here has some very scant facts but is by the bulk more or less a narrative. Yes Initially, in the first phase of the Taliban which by the way was nothing more than a matter of months; the Taliban did do some righteous things. Rescuing kidnapped girls and boys, putting an end to the highway bandits and so on. But doing a few good things in the beginning does not in anyway redeem the awful , irrational things they did after and this is where I deconstruct your narrative to show how defunct it really is.


First and foremost you begin your first statement with a MAY, MAYBE; you just asserted my debate was weak and that Khushal was right. Your BEST argument here is SPECULATION? You don't get rectitude on Narratives; this is a narrative. You dont even know yourself. The rape and kidnapping of two girls is never a legit reason to suspend the basic necessities and functioning of an entire society. It would be like closing down every highway just because two cars crashed and the passengers died. Furthermore let's say we grant that the Taliban did this temporarily as a precaution. Didn't the Taliban not claim they brought stability, safety and security to the regions under their control?

If so then there was no legitimate meritable reason to hold such restrictions on women on the account of lawlessness. You can't argue it both ways, say they were pushing this heinous laws to protect women from lawnessness but then claim they brought security. It is contradiction. And that's what makes your claims absurd. You really didn't think this through did you? Whether Taliban completely banned or partially female education isn't the issue; they Hindered Female education, women's access to resources and medical care to such a great degree; that access to education was almost non-existent . Using Khushal's generic scapegoat and saying the UN and Interatonal Community were at fault is fallacious. Yes they did restrict resources to Afghanistan MUCH later AFTER the Taliban started imposing gender apartheid to such a rigid degree.So the already scarce resources in Afghanistan became even MORE scarce for women which became even MORE scarce due to the Taliban laws. The Laws did not alleviate problems it created more.

This is what nurtures prostitution; obviously prostitution is nothing new, but the increase of Prostitutes is inevitable when you cant grow food, and you can't gain access to some form of gainful employment; your last recourse is this. So women who were not prostitutes before became prostitutes during this time. And this is documented.The Taliban did not concentrate only on Kabul, they hit Mehter Lam, Nangarhar, Qandahar, Khost, Gardez, Predominantly Pashtun inhabited areas; And the claim that they were willfully accepted the Taliban's Laws because they were "strict Pashtuns" is grossly exaggerated. You even admitted it yourself that they rose up in Qandahar because of the lawlessness. This debunks the claim that Pashtun areas were intrinsically more Law abiding and morally upright.

The Communist ideology scapegoat is grossly exaggerated. At the time of the Taliban; the communist content was flushed out and commies were being hunted down in pogroms. There was no communist threat by the time Taliban was on the scene, neither ideologically or politically. Foreign intervention is nonsense because one of the first countries to work with and offer Taliban assistance was Pakistan . If resisting foreign intervention was Taliban's concern they'd have rejected this. As for the despicable crimes; while Taliban may have never sexually violated Pashtun women it is well documented that they did it to Non-Pashtun women, particularly Hazara women. The claim that because they saved Pashtun girls from warlords so they couldnt have done those crimes is faulty as Taliban by policy viewed the Hazaras as "Infidels" and thus not under the consecration of the moral parameters they would afford Pashtuns. The crimes of this nature are documented and corroborated by many victims. This totally nullifies the moral credibility of the Taliban.

As for everything else Randolph did an excellent job covering it. So I needn't add anymore. But these and more demonstrate why your argument is discoherent, inconsistent and internally flawed from top to bottom

[Karpo]

Even though Randolph did a more than excellent job debunking this, since this was directed towards me I will happily reply back.What you're presenting here has some very scant facts but is by the bulk more or less a narrative. Yes Initially, in the first phase of the Taliban which by the way was nothing more than a matter of months; the Taliban did do some righteous things. Rescuing kidnapped girls and boys, putting an end to the highway bandits and so on. But doing a few good things in the beginning does not in anyway redeem the awful , irrational things they did after and this is where I deconstruct your narrative to show how defunct it really is.


First and foremost you begin your first statement with a MAY, MAYBE; you just asserted my debate was weak and that Khushal was right. Your BEST argument here is SPECULATION? You don't get rectitude on Narratives; this is a narrative. You dont even know yourself. The rape and kidnapping of two girls is never a legit reason to suspend the basic necessities and functioning of an entire society. It would be like closing down every highway just because two cars crashed and the passengers died. Furthermore let's say we grant that the Taliban did this temporarily as a precaution. Didn't the Taliban not claim they brought stability, safety and security to the regions under their control?

If so then there was no legitimate meritable reason to hold such restrictions on women on the account of lawlessness. You can't argue it both ways, say they were pushing this heinous laws to protect women from lawnessness but then claim they brought security. It is contradiction. And that's what makes your claims absurd. You really didn't think this through did you? Whether Taliban completely banned or partially female education isn't the issue; they Hindered Female education, women's access to resources and medical care to such a great degree; that access to education was almost non-existent . Using Khushal's generic scapegoat and saying the UN and Interatonal Community were at fault is fallacious. Yes they did restrict resources to Afghanistan MUCH later AFTER the Taliban started imposing gender apartheid to such a rigid degree.So the already scarce resources in Afghanistan became even MORE scarce for women which became even MORE scarce due to the Taliban laws. The Laws did not alleviate problems it created more.

This is what nurtures prostitution; obviously prostitution is nothing new, but the increase of Prostitutes is inevitable when you cant grow food, and you can't gain access to some form of gainful employment; your last recourse is this. So women who were not prostitutes before became prostitutes during this time. And this is documented.The Taliban did not concentrate only on Kabul, they hit Mehter Lam, Nangarhar, Qandahar, Khost, Gardez, Predominantly Pashtun inhabited areas; And the claim that they were willfully accepted the Taliban's Laws because they were "strict Pashtuns" is grossly exaggerated. You even admitted it yourself that they rose up in Qandahar because of the lawlessness. This debunks the claim that Pashtun areas were intrinsically more Law abiding and morally upright.

The Communist ideology scapegoat is grossly exaggerated. At the time of the Taliban; the communist content was flushed out and commies were being hunted down in pogroms. There was no communist threat by the time Taliban was on the scene, neither ideologically or politically. Foreign intervention is nonsense because one of the first countries to work with and offer Taliban assistance was Pakistan . If resisting foreign intervention was Taliban's concern they'd have rejected this. As for the despicable crimes; while Taliban may have never sexually violated Pashtun women it is well documented that they did it to Non-Pashtun women, particularly Hazara women. The claim that because they saved Pashtun girls from warlords so they couldnt have done those crimes is faulty as Taliban by policy viewed the Hazaras as "Infidels" and thus not under the consecration of the moral parameters they would afford Pashtuns. The crimes of this nature are documented and corroborated by many victims. This totally nullifies the moral credibility of the Taliban.

As for everything else Randolph did an excellent job covering it. So I needn't add anymore. But these and more demonstrate why your argument is discoherent, inconsistent and internally flawed from top to bottom

Revolution,

Excuse me, but it looks as if you may have a habit of stating to others what you yourself are doing. Well, yes, I cant get inside the head of the Taliban movement, and say this is what they thought, and this is what they did. I am no psychic. Maybe you have these supernatural skills.


Secondly, most of what you are saying can be cut down to a few words, and simply put like this:

You blame the Taliban for every single negative that has happened in Afghanistan.

Since you have this mind set in stone, it is then irrational for anyone to have discourse with you because rather then look at the facts (which is what a reasonable thoughtful person would do), you are instead pushing a narrative where the people responsible for all the woes of Afghanistan are the Taliban, not the foreign interventions or the emigres who advocate war on Afghanistan. You put the tail on the nose of the donkey rather than at the backside.


There are always reasons for something, and to ignore the reasons that brought about a situation is ignorant and short sighted. Again, nothing is the world is black and white, but grey, and maybe even greyer

I never said that the Taliban were able to fully bring law and order to the whole country. There was still the Northern Alliance which was waging a war in the North, creating instability.


The Taliban were not a part of the initial civil war, but formed to put an end to it which was what they did in most of the country. With this, came their interpretation of Sharia as well as the tribal customs they were raised with in their youth.


The non-pashtun elements did not want this infusion of Sharia and Pashtunwali. This is at the heart of the problem.


You are wrong. The Taliban had no need to enforce any rules in the rural South and East as those areas were already conservative as it was, maybe even more conservative that what the Taliban were pushing in places like Kabul


Again, your narrative goes like this

[Karpo]

Hi Revolution, once again,

You brought up something which is unheard of.

You stated that the Taliban violated non-Pashtun women. Please show me your citations. There is no conclusive reports about this as the Taliban adhered to a very strict Salafi interpretation of the Sharia. Since they were Pashtuns mostly, they adhered to Pashtunwali which compounds this even more.

I would like to see all your sources for this that you state.

If your sources are not authentic, and can not be confirmed, then it does not hold.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Excuse me, but it looks as if you may have a habit of stating to others what you yourself are doing. On one hand, you say my explanation which is based on facts for what the Taliban did is a maybe. Well, yes, I cant get inside the head of the Taliban movement, and say this is what they thought, and this is what they did. I am no psychic. Maybe you have these supernatural skills.

Facts dont begin with "Maybes" you mentioned some facts, stuff that everyone knows; but everything else is narrative full on

Secondly, most of what you are saying is can be cut down to a few words, and simply put this:

You blame the Taliban for every single negative that has happened in Afghanistan.

Nope wrong; they didnt do all of it, but they contributed to a great deal of it for sure. This is undeniable, Look at the last nearly 20 years.

Since you have this mind set in stone, it is then irrational for anyone to have discourse with you because rather than look at the facts (which is what a reasonable thoughtful person would do), you are instead pushing a narrative where the people responsible for all the woes of Afghanistan are the Taliban.

When you first say the taliban brought justice and stability and THEN in the same breath say they kept these rules because of lawlesness. Then the problem isn't the irrational to talk to me; it is the irrationality in your own narrative. Look at the stuff you wrote. It contradicts itself on a very fundamental level.


There are always reasons for something, and to ignore the reasons that brought about a situation is ignorant and short sighted. Again, nothing is the world is black and white, but grey, and maybe even greyer

I never said that the Taliban were able to fully bring law and order to the whole country. There was still the Northern Alliance which was waging a war in the North, creating instability.

And I never said YOU said that. I said that the areas controlled by the Taliban. If Qandahar was now Lawful because was in taliban control and they naturally were inclined for such practices; they were never have to implement those Laws in the first place.

The Taliban were not a part of the initial civil war, but formed to put an end to it which was what they did in most of the country. With this, came their interpretation of Sharia as well as the tribal customs they were raised with in their youth.

But they carried it on; Oil and Water don't mix; neither does Tribal Customs an Shari'ah

The non-pashtun elements did not want this infusion of Sharia and Pashtunwali. This is at the heart of the problem.

Irrelevant but I dont blame them. why should they have someone else's culture shoved down their throats?

You are wrong. The Taliban had no need to enforce any rules in the rural South and East as those areas were already conservative as it was, maybe even more conservative that what the Taliban were pushing in places like Kabul

They couldnt do that even if they wanted to. Afghanistan is a few million square miles, for 50,000 men to watch over nearly at the time 23 Million people would have been impossible. They simply did not have the man power.

The South is not all "rural" Qandahar, Gardez, Nangahar, Ghazni, Mehtar Lam, Nangarhar, Lashkar Gah are not considered "rural" areas in Afghanistan, those are cities. Sure they may not have Skyscrapers; but they're not rural. It shows how little you actually know about Afghanistan

again, your narrative goes like this

Your narrative is inexplicably far from reality.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Hi Revolution, once again,

You brought up something which is unheard of.

You stated that the Taliban violated non-Pashtun women. Please show me your citations. There is no conclusive reports about this as the Taliban adhered to a very strict Salafi interpretation of the Sharia. Since they were Pashtuns mostly, they adhered to Pashtunwali which compounds this even more.

I would like to see all your sources for this that you state.

If your sources are not authentic, and can not be confirmed, then it does not hold.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dld2wJ2Z__4C&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Taliban+raping+hazara+women&source=bl&ots=j-qmNwxZ-I&sig=QLQPY8uBagkKdejscptddDuliFg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7Th5T7XvJM2B0QGK4unaDQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Taliban%20raping%20hazara%20women&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=n8jS9Wlgs24C&pg=PT133&lpg=PT133&dq=Taliban+raping+hazara+women&source=bl&ots=3QkASYgbhF&sig=wmxdNEmF02vWYv4iwvXz30dJdKE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7Th5T7XvJM2B0QGK4unaDQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Taliban%20raping%20hazara%20women&f=false

Just because the Taliban claimed to uphold shari'ah doesn't mean they did.

[Karpo]

I have stated this in another thread, and will state it again.

It is the objective of any emergent government of a nation to be recognized by all nations around the world wether that be by Poland, Indonesia, Mali, US, Pakistan, Iran, etc.

FACT: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Focusing on Pakistan alone is misinforming, and certainly a narrative. Foreignizing that which is indigenous is inconsistent as no one can make anyone fight. People have been fighting for their own reasons since antiquity.

Recognition and support does not make any government the proxy of another. If this is the reasoning or method of defining proxy, then in that case, all nations in the world are proxies to some extent of one another.


The world is not black and white, but grey. If you feel the world is black and white, then that is dumb and stupid.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I have stated this in another thread, and will state it again.

It is the objective of any emergent government of a nation to be recognized by all nations around the world wether that be by Poland, Indonesia, Mali, US, Pakistan, Iran, etc.

FACT: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Focusing on Pakistan alone is misinforming, and certainly a narrative. Foreignizing that which is indigenous is inconsistent as no one can make anyone fight. People have been fighting for their own reasons since antiquity.

Recognition and support does not make any government the proxy of another. If this is the reasoning or method of defining proxy, then in that case, all nations in the world are proxies to some extent of one another.


The world is not black and white, but grey. If you feel the world is black and white, then that is dumb and stupid.

yes and you just contradicted yourself, foreign intervention is foreign intervention; wasnt that your part of argument as to why the Taliban were so radical? It wasn't necessary to mention everything especially since Pakistan was the primary military benefactor at that time. what you're doing is called special pleading

[RevolutionThroughReason]

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,463af2212,469f279014,3ae6abb48,0,IRBC,,.html

Afghanistan: Information on house-to-house searches by the Taliban in the province of Maidan in January 1995 killing all Hazara men and raping and kidnapping the women


Information on the above-mentioned topic could not be found among the sources consulted by the DIRB. Please note that Maidan is not a province but a city located 25 kilometers southwest of Kabul. Refered to as Maydanshahr or Maidan-Shahr, it is located in Wardak province. According to the attached map from Olivier Roy's book Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War, the Hazara community can be found in the provinces of Bamiyan, Parwan, Wardak and in the city of Maydanshahr.

The DIRB could not find any reports about a massacre perpetrated by the Talibans against the Hazara community in Maydanshahr in January 1995. The attached articles from the Agence France-Presse (4 Feb. 1995) and Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network (5 Feb. 1995) outline that Maydanshahr was taken over by the Taliban in February 1995.

An April 1995 Amnesty International Report states that

In recent months, dozens of prisoners have received punishments including execution and amputation ordered by Islamic courts set up in areas controlled by the Taleban in Afghanistan. Several men have been executed in Taleban-controlled areas on charges of murder. At least three men have had their hands and feet chopped off on charges of theft. Several Hezb-e Wahdat leaders have died in the custody of the Taleban in circumstances which raise concern that they may have been killed deliberately and arbitrarily; and 22 corpses discovered in a mass grave in Charasyab in March were believed to have been the bodies of prisoners allegedly killed by the Taleban (1).

The report also mentions that the Taleban

emerged as a strong military and political force in November 1994 when they captured the city of Kandahar from the Mujahideen groups. They reportedly have full control over at least nine of Afghanistan's 30 provinces, by far the largest number of provinces controlled by a single armed political group. The Taleban's most significant advance was the capture in February 1995 of Maydan Shahr (ibid.).

Finally, the report adds that "the Taleban have claimed that poppy cultivation, looting, abducion and rape of women and children — reportedly so characteristic of the previous Mujahideen rulers — have now stopped in the Taleban-controlled areas" (ibid., 2).

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995 reports that

While the Taliban were generally acknowledged to have been more successful than other factions in restoring peace and order to areas under their control, they also were reputed to enforce strict Islamic punishments in areas that they controlled — public executions, amputations of hand and feet for theft, and restricting women's rights by preventing them from working and girls from attending schools (1996, 1288).

The report also adds that

In March Abdul Ali Mazari, the leader of an anti-Rabbani Shi'a faction, was killed while in the custody of the Taliban. The Taliban carried out public executions of purportedly corrupt officials in certain areas they controlled. In March a mass grave with 22 bodies was found south of Kabul; 20 of the deceased were Shi'a Muslims of the Hazara ethnic minority. They apparently were killed execution style with ther hands tied behind their backs and bullets fired into their heads. It was unclear who was responsible for the Shi'a deaths (ibid.).

For additional information on the recent events in Afghanistan, please consult the attached articles.

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the DIRB within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.

References

Agence France Presse. 4 February 1995. Hervé Clerc. "New Religious Movement Has Kabul in Its Sights." (NEXIS)

Amnesty International (AI). April 1995. "Afghanistan: Executions, amputations, and possible deliberate and arbitrary killings." (AI Index: ASA 11/05/95). London: Amnesty International.

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995. 1996. United States Department of State. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Roy, Olivier. 1995. Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, n.p.

Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network [Tehran, in Persian]. 5 February 1995. "Internal Affairs; Religious Students Continue Advance Towards Kabul." (BBC Summary 7 Feb. 1995/NEXIS)

Attachments

Agence France Presse. 4 February 1995. Hervé Clerc. "New Religious Movement Has Kabul in Its Sights." (NEXIS)

Amnesty International (AI). 16 March 1995. "Afghanistan: Amnesty International Condemns Deliberate and Arbitrary Killings, Torture and Rape." (AI Index: ASA 11/WU 01/95). London: Amnesty International.

Asian Survey [Berkeley, CA]. February 1996. Vol. 36, No. 2. Zalmay Khalilzad. "Afghanistan in 1995: Civil War and a Mini-Great Game," pp. 190-95.

Asiaweek [London]. 3 March 1995. "Afghanistan: The Rise of the Taliban," pp. 26-27.

The Women's Watch [Minneapolis]. April 1996. Vol. 9, No. 4. "Human Rights," p. 4.

Roy, Olivier. 1995. Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, n.p.

Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network [Tehran, in Persian]. 5 February 1995. "Internal Affairs; Religious Students Continue Advance Towards Kabul." (BBC Summary 7 Feb. 1995/NEXIS)

[Karpo]

http://books.google.com/books?id=dld...0women&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=n8j...0women&f=false

Just because the Taliban claimed to uphold shari'ah doesn't mean they did.

This is weak, and not authentic. I thought you were going to show me several sources which confirm your stated claim.

Additionally, it looks as if the author is an Indian, and this is extra information that sheds light on what exactly he is doing which is misinformation.

In short, this is not fact, and you holding it as fact is an example of bias

[RevolutionThroughReason]

This is weak, and not authentic. I thought you were going to show me several sources which confirm your stated claim.

Additionally, it looks as if the author is an Indian, and this is extra information that sheds light on what exactly he is doing which is misinformation.

In short, this is not fact, and you holding it as fact is an example of bias

How do you determine if its weak?

you just respond back claiming it is weak....not why, you denying something doesn't make it untrue.


If your reasoning for why it is weak is because it's a "Western" or because it is "Ahmed Rashid" then your counter claim is biased; That's called Ad-Hominem

[Karpo]

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,...,0,IRBC,,.html

Afghanistan: Information on house-to-house searches by the Taliban in the province of Maidan in January 1995 killing all Hazara men and raping and kidnapping the women


Information on the above-mentioned topic could not be found among the sources consulted by the DIRB. Please note that Maidan is not a province but a city located 25 kilometers southwest of Kabul. Refered to as Maydanshahr or Maidan-Shahr, it is located in Wardak province. According to the attached map from Olivier Roy's book Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War, the Hazara community can be found in the provinces of Bamiyan, Parwan, Wardak and in the city of Maydanshahr.

The DIRB could not find any reports about a massacre perpetrated by the Talibans against the Hazara community in Maydanshahr in January 1995. The attached articles from the Agence France-Presse (4 Feb. 1995) and Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network (5 Feb. 1995) outline that Maydanshahr was taken over by the Taliban in February 1995.

An April 1995 Amnesty International Report states that

In recent months, dozens of prisoners have received punishments including execution and amputation ordered by Islamic courts set up in areas controlled by the Taleban in Afghanistan. Several men have been executed in Taleban-controlled areas on charges of murder. At least three men have had their hands and feet chopped off on charges of theft. Several Hezb-e Wahdat leaders have died in the custody of the Taleban in circumstances which raise concern that they may have been killed deliberately and arbitrarily; and 22 corpses discovered in a mass grave in Charasyab in March were believed to have been the bodies of prisoners allegedly killed by the Taleban (1).

The report also mentions that the Taleban

emerged as a strong military and political force in November 1994 when they captured the city of Kandahar from the Mujahideen groups. They reportedly have full control over at least nine of Afghanistan's 30 provinces, by far the largest number of provinces controlled by a single armed political group. The Taleban's most significant advance was the capture in February 1995 of Maydan Shahr (ibid.).

Finally, the report adds that "the Taleban have claimed that poppy cultivation, looting, abducion and rape of women and children — reportedly so characteristic of the previous Mujahideen rulers — have now stopped in the Taleban-controlled areas" (ibid., 2).

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995 reports that

While the Taliban were generally acknowledged to have been more successful than other factions in restoring peace and order to areas under their control, they also were reputed to enforce strict Islamic punishments in areas that they controlled — public executions, amputations of hand and feet for theft, and restricting women's rights by preventing them from working and girls from attending schools (1996, 1288).

The report also adds that

In March Abdul Ali Mazari, the leader of an anti-Rabbani Shi'a faction, was killed while in the custody of the Taliban. The Taliban carried out public executions of purportedly corrupt officials in certain areas they controlled. In March a mass grave with 22 bodies was found south of Kabul; 20 of the deceased were Shi'a Muslims of the Hazara ethnic minority. They apparently were killed execution style with ther hands tied behind their backs and bullets fired into their heads. It was unclear who was responsible for the Shi'a deaths (ibid.).

For additional information on the recent events in Afghanistan, please consult the attached articles.

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the DIRB within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.

References

Agence France Presse. 4 February 1995. Hervé Clerc. "New Religious Movement Has Kabul in Its Sights." (NEXIS)

Amnesty International (AI). April 1995. "Afghanistan: Executions, amputations, and possible deliberate and arbitrary killings." (AI Index: ASA 11/05/95). London: Amnesty International.

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995. 1996. United States Department of State. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Roy, Olivier. 1995. Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, n.p.

Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network [Tehran, in Persian]. 5 February 1995. "Internal Affairs; Religious Students Continue Advance Towards Kabul." (BBC Summary 7 Feb. 1995/NEXIS)

Attachments

Agence France Presse. 4 February 1995. Hervé Clerc. "New Religious Movement Has Kabul in Its Sights." (NEXIS)

Amnesty International (AI). 16 March 1995. "Afghanistan: Amnesty International Condemns Deliberate and Arbitrary Killings, Torture and Rape." (AI Index: ASA 11/WU 01/95). London: Amnesty International.

Asian Survey [Berkeley, CA]. February 1996. Vol. 36, No. 2. Zalmay Khalilzad. "Afghanistan in 1995: Civil War and a Mini-Great Game," pp. 190-95.

Asiaweek [London]. 3 March 1995. "Afghanistan: The Rise of the Taliban," pp. 26-27.

The Women's Watch [Minneapolis]. April 1996. Vol. 9, No. 4. "Human Rights," p. 4.

Roy, Olivier. 1995. Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, n.p.

Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network [Tehran, in Persian]. 5 February 1995. "Internal Affairs; Religious Students Continue Advance Towards Kabul." (BBC Summary 7 Feb. 1995/NEXIS)

Very superficial indeed. Is that all?

Voice of Iran as a source? Iran is currently calling the Syrians who are uprising terrorists and the Bahrainis who are uprising protestors. Accurate and factual news? Yeah right

Additionally, what the UN reports can be taken with a grain of salt, as there annual reports about the civilian casaulties put all the blame on the Taliban when other reports not influenced or based in the US, show that the US has actually killed more civilians. UN is a tool of the US, and does not hold any away in terms of facts. US-led NATO coalition is responsible for 100% for the Afghan civilian deaths because they are an occupation, and that is mostly the reason for all the violence

[RevolutionThroughReason]

This is weak, and not authentic. I thought you were going to show me several sources which confirm your stated claim.

Additionally, it looks as if the author is an Indian, and this is extra information that sheds light on what exactly he is doing which is misinformation.

In short, this is not fact, and you holding it as fact is an example of bias

Logical Fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Yep the bias is yours here.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Very superficial indeed. Is that all?

Voice of Iran as a source? Iran is currently calling the Syrians who are uprising terrorists and the Bahrainis who are uprising protestors. Accurate and factual news? Yeah right

Logical Fallacy Circumstantial ad-Hominem

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false..