A crowd of men stands by, watching silently
Sometimes the red mist of rage just overpowers the ability to say anything judicious or coherent – and one is reduced to impotent vindictive quivering.
Muslim Khan is beginning to do that to me. He’s the Taliban ‘spokesman’ in Swat, and he’s been doing a lot of talking lately. Every fucking word out of his mouth is disgusting bullying crap. (See what I mean? I can’t characterize it any more eloquently than that.)
The two-minute video, shot using a mobile phone, shows a burka-clad woman face down on the ground. Two men hold her arms and feet while a third, a black-turbaned fighter with a flowing beard, whips her repeatedly. “Please stop it,” she begs, alternately whimpering or screaming in pain with each blow to the backside. “Either kill me or stop it now.” A crowd of men stands by, watching silently. Off camera a voice issues instructions. “Hold her legs tightly,” he says as she squirms and yelps. After 34 lashes the punishment stops and the wailing woman is led into a stone building, trailed by a Kalashnikov-carrying militant. Reached by phone, Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan claimed responsibility for the flogging. “She came out of her house with another guy who was not her husband, so we must punish her. There are boundaries you cannot cross,” he said. He defended the Taliban’s right to thrash women shoppers who were inappropriately dressed, saying it was permitted under Islamic law.
Look…even if you think that the girl did something wrong (which of course I don’t), even if you think she should be punished in some way (which of course I don’t) – even then these guys are a pack of disgusting bullying ruthless mindless bastards. Even if you accept their stupid reactionary stultifying premises, they still come out as utterly disgusting men who see nothing wrong with exercising their strength on people weaker than they are.
I am so sick of reading about groups of men collaborating in violence against a single unarmed woman. I am so sick of hearing about men who can’t see anything wrong with bullying people who are in their power. I’m so sick of it that I can’t say anything sensible about it – I can only swear and rant and fume. They make me want to vomit.
Interesting that these people are called ‘militants’. I’m old enough to remember when the term was mainly applied to workers’ leaders who were keen to call strikes.
Interesting too that many who see themselves as on the Left think the right course of action is to abandon all attempts to prevent these people increasing their power in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Thank you, Ophelia, I think you were very eloquent. What else can you say about a bunch of savage, mindless brutes? Why should you be able to do anything but rant and fume at the fucking bastards? How more coherent can you be about idiocy?
I think we should take note of the closing words of the article (I take Bob’s point about the word ‘militants’):
Note the word that is used about Maulana Fazlullah – ‘charistmatic’. Most dictators are. In what way does the latest law in Afghanistan differ from what is on show in this video? 17 years old, summary ‘justice’ carried out by thugs! And Julian Baginni thinks that the four horsemen are hard on religion! Give me strength!
Wasn’t it under Karzai’s government that a journalist was sentenced to death for downloading material about the oppression of women under Islam? So why exactly would leftists want to send Americans and Europeans to their death to uphold such a regime? Why is the position, Let’s not make war on so-and-so, the equivalent of, We condone so-and-so’s actions?
And while this is being done to helpless people the UN is lending a hand to moves to criminalise anyone anywhere in the world criticising it. And while that goes on, we’re busy fending off criticism by other atheists that it’s us who are the pushy ones.
Can’t disagree with you stewart. I guess my nervousness is that an argument like Bob leads directly to “interventionism” which rarely works and creates more problems than it solves. Certainly, let’s focus on other means to help the non-reactionary forces in these societies. I fear, though, that our very presence as invaders undermines these other goals. I have no answers, though…so :(
I didn’t say (or imply, I hope) that there was an easy solution. But I did want to point out what a battle we already have on our own turf just to maintain our right to talk about these obscene horrors.
That’s a bit of a leap, isn’t it, Brian? “all attempts to prevent these people increasing their power in Afghanistan and Pakistan” covers a lot of potential territory; military force is not the only possible kind of attempt there is.
But OB, Brian was answering Bob, and what else could Bob have meant about the Left wanting to abandon “all attempts to prevent … ” other than the Left’s opposition to military force in Afghanistan and Pakistan? It seems like it would be a leap to interpret Bob otherwise.
Quite a few things – diplomacy, dialogue, pressure, publicity, reports by NGOs. Now perhaps you will say that the Left doesn’t oppose those things – but in fact some (in fact many) opponents of military intervention also oppose various kinds of pressure in case they are steps on the path to war. (And for the record, I don’t think that’s a crazy thing to say; sometimes pressure is a step on the path to war.) In short, it’s not self-evident (to me anyway) that Bob was talking about military force to the exclusion of everything else – I don’t think he said anything crude or silly enough to warrant Brian’s little tirade.
I disagree, OB, because of what Bob said here:
many who see themselves as on the Left think the right course of action is to abandon all attempts to prevent these people increasing their power in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(The bolding is mine).
Yes, some leftists oppose specific kinds of pressure. But I’ve never come across any, certainly not any influential ones, who oppose any attempt to stop these people increasing their power.
There are boundaries you cannot cross,” he said.
And torturing a helpless woman isn’t one of them, I see.
I was thinking first and foremost of the ongoing military action against the Taliban. If those on the Left who wish to end that have some other way of fighting the Taliban in mind, they have kept rather quiet about it.
I wondered when I read this report: in such a repressed and sexually obsessed culture, doing this, and watching it, does it give these men sexual pleasure?
Jenavir:
“But I’ve never come across any, certainly not any influential ones, who oppose any attempt to stop these people increasing their power.”
Jenavir, let me introduce you to George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, etc etc etc ad nauseum in extremis.
Jenavir, let me introduce you to George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, etc etc etc ad nauseum in extremis.
I’ve “met” all of them, thanks, and I know they oppose military intervention against Islamic extremism.
Would they oppose any way of fighting it? Really? Do you have a link that would support that?
Bob, there’s one simple way “the Left” has suggested fighting Islamic extremist governments: don’t put them in power in the first place, like we did with the Taliban. Don’t prop up their governments, like we do with Saudi Arabia. And don’t create political conditions that foster such extremism, like we did in Iran. Before fighting this type of extremism, we might want to exhaust not supporting it as an option.
“Do you have a link that would support that?”
Do you have anything at all to support your recent assertion that Dawkins makes rash statements? You left that little omission completely unresolved, if you remember.
Actually, I just did. I think I have plenty to support it.
Sorry to be posting “tirades,” but there is a tone here in many posts that triggers a reaction. This kind of talk is exactly what PNAC and the War Party (Tingey can use hyperbolic terms, so I will too)use to get us involved in war after war. And, good liberals follow along-if we listened to some liberals, we would have 10,000 soliders in Sudan right now-destabilize the whole region and killing even more people.
Somalia, for example. Our Ethiopian proxies have killed thousands and thousands of people using American air support and weapons and ammunition. But, you know those Islamists are evil, so we just need to bomb ’em all and support a “government” that is even less legitimate than the Karzai regime.
Tingey’s position is exactly the “War of Civilizations” meme promote by the militaristic right. Such a war, will, of course, require the sacrifice of most of our rights as well (and economic futures) in battling the evil Islamic hordes. Because, we need our OWN religion, be it nationalism (support the troops) or fundamentalist Christianity to bloster morale for The Long War.
As for the evils of “the left”? Given that we are directly or indirectly engaged in three wars in the Islamic world right now, does it not make a little sense for “leftists” to be skeptical about the protestations of the West about how our only goals are to civilize the benighted “muslims” through peaceful means? I really doubt that Chomsky is a big fan of the Taliban…but that doesn’t mean he should support dropping bombs on every village in the NWFT.
Good, but the point is, you didn’t support it at the time, so it’s a little off to pounce on someone else for the same omission.
But you did a bang-up job in the end, so I’ll stop kvetching. Those are interesting points. Thanks.
No, Tingey cannot use hyperbolic terms; Tingey gets deleted a lot (not personally, but his comments) for doing that. There was a time when I seemed to spend half my life deleting Tingey’s comments. Tingey is not the model of how to comment here.
I dislike the tirades precisely because they are addressed to phantoms – or to people like Tingey – who want to bomb everything that moves. They’re irrelevant to me and to most people who comment here; they’re preaching to the choir; they’re superfluous.
For instance – I really don’t want dopy heavily-ironic rhetoric about ‘the evil Islamic hordes’ and ‘to civilize the benighted “muslims”‘ here. It lowers the tone.
Sorry. I will restrain myself.
I will in my defense say that I have never opposed other ways of engaging the Islamic world. And I certainly vehemently oppose attempts to quash criticism of Islam.
It’s just that American troops don’t seem to be the best approach for accomplishing these other means. .
Thanks. :- )
No, they don’t – but then I’ve never said they did.
You don’t, I know. But bob b was very easily readable as saying that he supports our various wars. Plus…Michael Ignatieff? Eek. :)
All is good.
Bob-B not only is “readable as saying that”, he flat out admitted that’s what he meant. I disagree with him, but commend his straightforward honesty.
Well, no, Bob said he was thinking primarily ‘of the ongoing military action against the Taliban’ – which is not solely American.
I don’t think ‘American troops’ are the best approach; I think international military interventions are still highly undesirable but nevertheless may be better than the alternatives; I think even American military interventions may, in some circumstances, be better than the alternatives.
I thought that “ongoing military action against the Taliban” was precisely the point of contention between Bob and Brian, not whether it was exclusively American. Bob thinks that pulling out of Afghanistan is abandoning people to the Taliban, and Brian thinks that staying there is doing more harm than good.
Thank you, Neil.
Plus, remember the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq. There were (at one point)others involved in the Iraq theater, but to think that this is not an American operation is…
Well, Neil, you put things a lot more clearly and concisely than Brian does. I thought Brian’s point of contention with Whatever was a whole slew of things, most of which I at least have been well aware of for decades. If you think he said something as clear and distinct as ‘staying there is doing more harm than good’ – I think you’re re-writing him, or at least interpreting.
I didn’t say ‘this is not an American operation’ (but what is ‘this’?) – I said the ongoing military action against the Taliban is not solely American. There is a difference.
Thank you, Brian.
Again…you may well be aware of these things, OB. But, the “liberal interventionists” in their calls for ongoing (or expanded) wars do not seem to be. That’s all I am saying
It’s not all you’re saying, Brian – you said a lot more than that. And I don’t see why you keep fighting battles with “liberal interventionists” here.
Well…I did try to provide a context as to why I oppose our various wars. Sorry. And, bob b’s post was arguably a classic example of liberal interventionism.
Those who favour the withdrawal of western (not just US) troops from Afghanistan need to explain how this would not strengthen the Taleban. They can’t. Hence the need to tslk sbout other things like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
As for Chomsky. No doubt he is not a big fan of the Taleban. But what he really dislikes is western capitalism, and if the struggle against western capitalism requires abandoning Afghanistan to the Taleban, so be it.
Here are some sensible remarks on Afghanistan from Ban Ki-Moon:
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_article=478
Better than anything Chomsky is likely to come out with.
Nobody cares what you’re for or not for. It’s not about you.