Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Pictures of Afghanistan

By M0dUluS in MLP
Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 01:22:05 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

Here are some pictures reputedly from Afghanistan. Perhaps they'll be of interest to some of you. I've seen very few pictures as yet.


The Revolutionary Afghanistani Women's Association (RAWA) have put up some pictures on their web page in order to provide a rare glimpse of what the war looks like. Enjoy.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
The pictures are:
o Fake 4%
o portraits of a place I wouldn't mind living in. 9%
o of no interest to me...I'm bored 36%
o a rare glimpse of our war 48%

Votes: 41
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o pictures
o Also by M0dUluS


Display: Sort:
Pictures of Afghanistan | 58 comments (51 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Interesting (4.33 / 9) (#2)
by trhurler on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 07:29:08 PM EST

I'd like to know how a women's group is moving around Kabul with technology the Taliban has outlawed, then sending images to be put on the net, which the Taliban has also outlawed, given that groups of women can't even travel freely in Afghanistan.

I'd also like to know their motive; clearly, they're anti-Taliban, and they also appear to be against the current military action, but perhaps not? They certainly can't expect to get rid of the Taliban by being preachy, so if that's their goal, I'd have to assume they'd want some sort of action or other.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Interesting Indeed (4.33 / 6) (#6)
by PhillipW on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 07:42:20 PM EST

I would say they probably are anti-Taliban, and want Bin Laden out of their country, like most Afghans. And, also like most Afghans, do not want bombs to be dropped in their hometown, because they do not want to die. Despite the fact that supporting, financially or otherwise, revolutionary groups in other nations is stupid, these are the kinds of people that should be getting it. Not ruthless brutes like the Northern Alliance.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
One small problem. (3.75 / 4) (#7)
by physicsgod on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 07:49:29 PM EST

If you want to oppose the Taliban the Northern Alliance is pretty much it. The western contries are pushing for some other, non-military, group to be formed that could act as a interim government when the Taliban collapses, but there are political problems. Why do you think the US waited 3 weeks before bombing the Taleban/NA front lines? The US doesn't want the NA is control, they just want the Taliban out.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Ha (none / 0) (#50)
by Kalani on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 01:07:35 AM EST

Have you seen what they wear? Seriously, it probably wouldn't be difficult for a woman to carry around a portable blender and make smoothies for herself right in the middle of the headquarters of the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Cameras are easy.

If you read through the RAWA site, I'm sure you'll see that's how they claim to do it.

-----
"I [think] that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement; in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the checker board."
--Richard Feynman
[ Parent ]
guess what!? [OT] (3.07 / 13) (#3)
by fudboy on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 07:34:45 PM EST

On any given day, more civilians lost their lives during the Afgan civil war than during this era of US bombings!

That means *gasp* that the bombing is actually saving lives!

and the thing is, I heard this first on uber left leaning National Public Radio. I have since verified the claims on BBC and CNN.

Funny how a little violence now is sometimes practical and saves more lives in the long run. But I suppose it doesn't look like that from the vantage of overly idealistic (read: naive) youth...

:)Fudboy


With a name like fudboy... (4.50 / 2) (#5)
by theboz on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 07:42:12 PM EST

I can't lend you much credibility. Can you back up those statements with some links that you verified it with on CNN or the BBC?

I'm sorry that I can't believe you, but I'm a skeptic in almost all things.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Gentle Reply: (4.50 / 4) (#20)
by fudboy on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 04:37:38 AM EST

This is the main BBC story I refer to: Massacre warning for Afghan city (23 October, 2001), which describes repeated massacres in the multiple thousands. It also warns of further looming massacre.

Here are a few additional links that at least allude to the intense history of death and suffering prior to the US retaliation:

Afghanistan: Campaign of conflict (2 January, 1999)

Afghanistan: 20 years of bloodshed (26 April, 1998)

Annan: Kabul's grim future (28 June, 2000)

Long lasting humanitarian crisis (real video)

Furthermore, I present the granddaddy of all sources on this particular topic: The Amnesty International and their Annual Report Index for Afganistan, which as you may guess is a listing of AmnInt annual reports on attrocities and abuses as well as their up to date index of press releases dating back to 1996.

Be a pal and let this stand in the stead of the CNN story, please. I'd rather avoid digging through that site, and they seem to have a rather low reputation hereabouts to begin with. But if you insist I may possibly be persuaded to dig it up again.

Now as for my nickname, and you are the second person to question it, it's an allusion to a DEVO song, S.M.A.R.T. Patrol/Mr.DNA from their album 'Duty Now for the Future'. Basically I mean it to suggest that I am 'on the fud patrol', an ever vigilant 'slashdot poster that monitors reality'. I'll let your imagination take you from there.

:)Fudboy


[ Parent ]

What?? (4.50 / 2) (#24)
by bil on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 06:48:29 AM EST

On any given day, more civilians lost their lives during the Afgan civil war than during this era of US bombings!

That means *gasp* that the bombing is actually saving lives!

How so?

The bombing has not ended the civil war, in fact it is going on in parallel with the war so therefore more people are dying then would otherwise have done.

As far as I can see the civilian casualties of the civil war, and the bombings are completly independant from each other, and if less civilians are dying due to the civil war today then they were 2 years ago thats just coincidence, not cause and effect.

There were massacres during the civil war, there may be again, the fact that the US is bombing in the mean time makes no difference at all to this as far as I can see.

In fact it makes more sense to say that the Talibans control has reduced the number of civilian casualties because they have kept the major cities out of the war zone, there was one violent episode when they took over and no more, rather then the repeated violence that would have occured if the cities had been captured and recaptured repeatedly by more evenly matched waring factions. The fact that the US is currently trying to destabilise the Taliban and allow the Northern Alliance to capture Kabul means that the fighting will once more return to civilian areas and so civilian casualties will go up.

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

re: What?? (none / 0) (#46)
by fudboy on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 04:54:58 PM EST

Your interpretation of this info is reasonable enough, I admit. However, my interpretation is that the native madmen are currently rather pre-occupied with the incessant obliteration of their war-making capabilities, and thus unable to concentrate on civilian slaughter as they have in the past.

However, I will grant that they are a creative and resiliant band of butchers, and are always looking for a new way to slaughter the citizens: take recent allegations that they plan to poison US food drops to 1)kill anyone foolish enough to eat them and 2)starve more civilians by restricting even those scant relief efforts.

The debatable respite for the civilians as a result of US military action may be short lived after all, even if it could never be clearly shown to have existed in the first place. However, a new government and the scrutiny of the world should serve to prevent future attrocities once this is all over. And the only way it's ever going to be 'all over' is by handing absolute control to one governing body or another. I for one would hope any government but the Taleban is utimately chosen, based on those Amnesty Internation reports of the past few years.

:)Fudboy


[ Parent ]

yeah, right (none / 0) (#51)
by Ender Ryan on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 01:29:15 AM EST

I guess the entire villages of young men they force into their military at gunpoint don't count as civilians?


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

Photos (3.80 / 25) (#8)
by AmberEyes on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 08:04:17 PM EST

Here's a picture repudedly from the United States. Perhaps it will be of some interest to you.

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
Fakes (2.75 / 4) (#9)
by Dlugar on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 08:14:48 PM EST

Those are definitely fakes. The US is just pushing their propaganda as usual, to support their own lousy political agenda. They probably got the idea for these from some Tom Clancy novel.

Dlugar

[ Parent ]
Oops (2.50 / 2) (#10)
by SIGFPE on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 08:20:48 PM EST

Tom Clancy novel.
They're fiction?
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
Your response is glorious. :) (3.00 / 4) (#13)
by joegee on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 09:42:44 PM EST

I am still laughing. :)

<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
[ Parent ]
Difference being ... (4.71 / 7) (#19)
by StrontiumDog on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 04:10:23 AM EST

the US is doing the damage pictured to Afghanistan, but Afghanistan didn't do the damage shown in your pic.

Small difference, I know.

[ Parent ]

Afghanistan (3.66 / 3) (#40)
by PresJPolk on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 01:28:08 PM EST

By sheltering key conspirators, and giving them aid and comfort, they *did* take a small role in it. Taleban is calling Usama their guest, after all.

Now, if you reply to this by talking about how the US may have given aid and comfort to someone who did bad things in Afghanistan, Indonesia, ..., you're drifting off the point. Such acts would justify an attack on the US, they would not make current US attacks unjustifiable.

[ Parent ]
Feeling lonely? (4.42 / 7) (#22)
by FredBloggs on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 05:24:51 AM EST

Why not hook up with one of our beautiful girls?

http://citizens.reagan.com/right/WSGil/talibansingles.jpg


[ Parent ]
LOL (2.33 / 3) (#28)
by AmberEyes on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 08:01:56 AM EST

That's one of the funniest damn things I've seen all month. :D

I think I'm going to use that as my background for a while.

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
[ Parent ]
I am winking at you (nt) :))) (none / 0) (#43)
by joegee on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 03:19:07 PM EST



<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
[ Parent ]
Save that picture of "talibansingles" (2.00 / 3) (#30)
by t0mmi on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 09:44:41 AM EST

Talibansingles will be valuable historical evidence of American racism in 2001. It can be compared to pictures that were presented a few decades earlier on a different continent.

[ Parent ]
Maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by FredBloggs on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 10:13:17 AM EST

...Or maybe its just social commentary.

The picture in your link was presumably created as part of a program of vilification of the Jews; unjustly, as far as I am concerned.

Not that i feel the need to strongly defend the TalibanSingles site, as i have nothing to do with it. But it makes me laugh, in a way which anti-semitism has never succeeded.

Taking the piss out of other peoples belief systems is fair game as far as i`m concerned. Or are you seriously suggesting theres no real difference between, say, "The triumph of the will" and "Monty Pythons Life Of Brian"?



[ Parent ]
The reason why (3.66 / 3) (#32)
by StrontiumDog on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 10:47:43 AM EST

... the Nazi portrayal of "conniving Jews" is seen as unjust vilification (in contrast with, say, portrayals of "awkward Victorian Englishmen"), is that the Nazis were also engaged in extermination of the same group they were vilifying.

Thus that cartoon is seen as having a purpose other than "social commentary": dehumanization.

The US government is engaged in the extermination of the Taliban (no hyperbole, this is stated US policy). Considering that the Taliban have committed no crime against the US, other means are necessary to quell any doubts or feelings of unease about the bombings in Afghanistan. Such dehumanising cartoons as the Talibansingle one are very welcome indeed.

[ Parent ]

I see it as wrong (none / 0) (#33)
by FredBloggs on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 11:03:34 AM EST

(the Nazi portrayal of "conniving Jews", that is) because it is factually incorrect - an accusation which cannot be said to be true of the majority of the TalibanSingles site.

Call it dehumanisation if you like, but i`d say that is an accusation you should be levelling at the women who put up with that crap, not the people taking pictures of them.

To the extent that the US government is `exterminating` the Taliban - well, so what. They have committed a crime against the US - they`ve allowed their land to be used to plan attacks against the west. Its `tough love`, no?



[ Parent ]
Wrong? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by StrontiumDog on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 11:30:29 AM EST

(the Nazi portrayal of "conniving Jews", that is) because it is factually incorrect - an accusation which cannot be said to be true of the majority of the TalibanSingles site.

There is not one single "fact" to be seen on the TalibanSingles site.

Call it dehumanisation if you like, but i`d say that is an accusation you should be levelling at the women who put up with that crap, not the people taking pictures of them.

I'm not accusing the women of dehumanising anything, nor the photographers. I'm accusing the people who thought it would be funny to turn the pictures of Taliban women into singles ads. It would be like taking a photo of concentration camp victims and labelling it "Raw Materials For Making Soap". The photographer is not to blame, the camp victims are not to blame, but the asshole who wrote the label is. And if the asshole in question is also a German then the matter moves out of the range of "tasteless humour" into "dehumanization".

They have committed a crime against the US - they`ve allowed their land to be used to plan attacks against the west

Ah yes. The "we need to kill Afghans because someone who is said to have been associated in some unspecified way with a bunch of terrorists from other countries who attacked us is living in Afghanistan" line. Well. Almost two months after the attack and not one shred of evidence of Bin Laden's complicity has been produced.

Besides which the official stated US objective has become to remove the Taliban from power, not to catch Bin Laden.

Tough love, indeed. But keep the singles jokes coming, they're real amusing.

[ Parent ]

By `Fact` (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by FredBloggs on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 11:46:56 AM EST

I meant the photographs. They werent retouched - people actually choose to look like that. (Well, it amuses me anyway).

I dont agree with your comparison (concentration camp victims vs photos of Taliban women). The dehumanization is hiding what makes you unique, and wandering around like an extra from a film about Moses. If someone takes a picture (or sticks it on a website) then so be it - i wouldnt call it immoral.

I strongly disagree with the deaths of civilians.

I do, however, believe that the terrorist group(s) Mr Laden is involved with are responsible for the WTC attacks, and that those groups use Afghanistan, and that the Taliban support them, and so its understandable that the US holds them to account. I`ll admit to not having kept up with the daily change of mind regarding whether the US wants or expects to be able to capture or kill Mr Laden, though!


[ Parent ]
Come on... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Ken Arromdee on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 12:13:03 PM EST

The Taliban Singles site and the anti-Jewish propaganda are different because it is true that the Taliban makes women wear veils and it is not true that Jews are evil subhumans like in the picture. The Taliban Singles picture shows real oppression (of women by the Taliban), and the anti-Jewish picture shows fake oppression (of Nazis by Jews).

A proper comparison would be to a photo of concentration camp victims (perhaps sarcastically suggesting the Jews in Germany have a wonderful social life). And if that photo makes people want to bomb Nazi Germany, well, then it does.

[ Parent ]

t0mmi (none / 0) (#42)
by joegee on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 03:17:18 PM EST

I would have never have seen the site had it not been for your link.

<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
[ Parent ]
Whoops, credit goes to Mr. Bloggs :) (nt) (none / 0) (#44)
by joegee on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 03:21:24 PM EST



<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
[ Parent ]
I had no idea! (3.91 / 12) (#11)
by DesiredUsername on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 08:47:47 PM EST

I mean, I knew we were dropping bombs. But until the moment I saw these pictures I had no idea that buildings were being destroyed or people killed. That's not what war is about!

Play 囲碁
Why this is good (4.28 / 7) (#16)
by mmcc on Thu Oct 25, 2001 at 10:44:38 PM EST

These are pictures that you will never see much of in mainstream western media. They seem to be close to the source.

I don't really mind if they are propaganda, because we've had enough of that from the Western media.

Another thing that is interesting is that the women in the photos were not wearing a full veil, like the ones you see in the paper every other day. (The unspoken message of those photos is "Taliban repress women, so it's ok to repress the Taliban")



really? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by theantix on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 11:51:30 AM EST

These are pictures that you will never see much of in mainstream western media. They seem to be close to the source.
Really? I've seen a lot of pictures on the BBC (and I think CNN too) that looked a _lot_ like this and this one from their site. But I agree, some of the pictures are very interesting, like the view of the airport, and the apartment block that looks damaged from a nearby bomb.
Another thing that is interesting is that the women in the photos were not wearing a full veil, like the ones you see in the paper every other day. (The unspoken message of those photos is "Taliban repress women, so it's ok to repress the Taliban")
Hmmm... I dunno about this. I've seen a special on the BBC that featured RAWA (post 9/11, pre-american bombing) that stressed the requirements of the full-length veils. Plus, I've seen a wonderful French documentary "Massoud, L'Afgan" on the Northern Alliance commander, that also interviewed some Afghani women in Northern Alliance territory that were claiming to be relieved to no longer have to wear the full veil. And that documentary was produced before the WTC attacks... in fact the closing line of the documentary was something like: "I fear that Massoud's life will be in danger, I hope he will be alive when I return to Afghanistan". Of course, he died on September 9th, two days before the attacks on the WTC. In any case, I suspect that it's not just american propaganda, though they the message you speak of certainly gets across.

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]
What war looks like... (3.08 / 12) (#17)
by WombatControl on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 12:30:20 AM EST

This is a war, folks. Bombed out buildings, casualties, they're all part of war. No surprises here.

Let's be honest, we're going light on Afghanistan. The sad thing about my generation is how weak we have become - take a look at Berlin in April of 1945, that was destruction. Do you honestly think we worried about collateral damage back then? We bombed the Nazi regime into complete and utter submission. We hit them with everything we had, and if we'd had a nuclear device before they fell, we probably would have used it. Was that the actions of an evil government?

The answer, to anyone with a clear sense of history, is no.

We did what we had to, because the short term loss of a few hundred thousands meant the salvation of millions. We could negiotiate with the Taliban, yes, but how many more would die while we tried such a futile gesture.

It would not be surprising that for every 1 casualty of our US airstrikes, the Taliban execute 5 Afghanis. They shelled Kabul in their revolution without regard for human life. They are the ones who deserve the utmost condemnation, not the United States.

The fact is, we've forgotten that freedom requires vigilence and sacrifice to be maintained. Yes, people will die in this war, on both sides. But their deaths have meaning - and if we can eradicate the scourge of the Taliban from this Earth thousands more lives can be saved. That's what war truly looks like.



yeah! (3.20 / 5) (#21)
by hjw on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 04:52:42 AM EST

Keep repeating your democratic fundamentalist mantras and you might actualyl convince yourself.

I find it ironic that you use the Taliban's own actions to justify the US's actions.

Everything you have said can be reversed and used as a justifaction for supporting the Taliban.. let me give you an example.. The fact is, we've forgotten that Islam requires vigilence and sacrifice to be maintained. Yes, people will die in this war, on both sides. But their deaths have meaning - and if we can repel the scourge of the US, then thousands more lives can be saved. That's what war truly looks like Which is complete nonsence

I've noticed a reduction in the amount of mindless anti-american comments and articles here in Kuroshin. Those prone to lash out have been tempered by reasonable debate and good examples of positive US action. The other anti-us commenters seem to have stopped posting, possibly due to a lack of interest, hopefully because the Kuroshin community has demonstrated a lack of interest in such posts

Clearly written, well esearched and well argued posts are what people want here.



[ Parent ]

US != Taliban (3.50 / 2) (#37)
by WombatControl on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 11:56:50 AM EST

That kind of logic requires a very deep moral equivalence that simply doesn't work. There's a big moral difference between the US and the Tabliban. We stand for human rights - the Taliban doesn't. We stand for a liberal democracy, the Taliban stands for a totalitarian regime. Are we right? Absolutely. Am I a "democratic fundamentalist"? Fine, I see nothing wrong with being in total support of freedom and human rights. Granted, the U.S. is far from perfect, but we damn sure are better than the Taliban. Anyone who doesn't believe that needs to remind themselves of exactly what the Taliban has done to the Afghani people.

The question is simple; Is the world better off without the Taliban. The answer is a resounding yes. I would rather be a "democratic fundamentalist" than one who didn't have the moral courage to condemn an evil regime.



[ Parent ]
AI's argue better than you. (none / 0) (#47)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 06:03:29 PM EST

By reversing the subject/object structure of the parent post, you claim to have deconstructed his argument. However, you fail to consider that the Taliban, unlike the US, intentionally shelled residential neighborhoods, and humiliated, beat, stoned and executed civilians on a regular basis. You need only look as far as the RAWA site to see graphic footage of the Taliban killing civilians by declaring them religious criminals, wrapping them in blankets and cutting thier heads half off.

If one were silly enough to engage your equivalency argument, one would have to accept that US bombing campaign is just as bad as what the Taliban does. Now, run this one through your equivalency bot:

If the Taliban would leave Kabul, the US would not kill Afghan civilians.

Does it follow that if the US would leave Kabul, the Taliban would not kill civilians?
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

That may be through (none / 0) (#58)
by hjw on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 11:24:36 AM EST

I normally totally ignore Ad Hominem arguments, but this one just makes me laugh

There was no attempt to deconstruct his argument, just a comment on how his argument is very similiar to the type of arguments we hear coming rom the Taliban.
If you were to actually read my comment you might notice after my equivilance argument that I claim it as the nonsence it is.

It is nothing more than a piece of rhetoric to demonstrate my contempt for the type of argument that george bush was spouting in the days following the 11/9. You know, the 'you are either with us or against us', 'I remember a poster way out west'. and worst of all the whole 'they attack us because we stand for freedom' nonsence.



[ Parent ]

No smart weapons (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by pdion on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 08:56:26 AM EST

I partially agree with you. What I don't agree with is the attitude of the US and UK governments and the large media. It insults my intelligence to hear about surgical strikes, only military (and no civilian) targets, smart weapons etc when in reality they just bomb away, targetting both civilians and military and of course killing much more civilians than military. I don't have to like their hypocrisy and their belief that I am stupid.

What I don't agree with is the part about eradicating the Taliban from the Earth. Remember who created them. America today is like doctor Frankenstein who is attacked by his own abnormal creation.



[ Parent ]
Oh come on now ... (none / 0) (#49)
by Kalani on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 12:49:15 AM EST

Pakistan is a bit more responsible for the creation of the Taliban than we are. Where are the "look at big evil Pakistan" messages? Hello? Yeah our nation may have made a mistake in backing the mujahedeen back in the 80s, but I've never found any evidence that suggests that we ought to install a Pashtun Sunni Muslim government that'd abandon the notion of taking the land delimited by the expired Durand line in Pakistan.

That's not to say that the US is innocent, but in this case there are more appropriate places to point that finger.

Maybe it's easier to bash America at every turn?

-----
"I [think] that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement; in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the checker board."
--Richard Feynman
[ Parent ]
what? (none / 0) (#54)
by Anon 17933 on Sun Oct 28, 2001 at 01:14:54 AM EST

You're an idiot if you actually believe that. Why is it that the taliban isn't claiming that we're killing more civilians than military? For the most part, our bombs appear to be targetting military equipment and logistics support -- how is that civilians?

[ Parent ]
What freedom looks like (3.66 / 3) (#45)
by Rand Race on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 03:24:48 PM EST

The fact is, we've forgotten that freedom requires vigilence and sacrifice to be maintained.

Don't forget justice, truth, and honor.

Oh, wait. We are forgetting justice, truth, and honor.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

possible benefits? (2.20 / 5) (#23)
by ragnarok on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 05:58:18 AM EST

It'd be cool if the American bombing cleared out some of the mine fields that both sides have sprinkled liberally over Afghanistan.

Now that would be something positive to come out of the misery of the 20 yr-old Afghanistan civil war.

"And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sister's prophecies
No benefit (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Rand Race on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 02:09:34 PM EST

Sorry, but we're just making it worse.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Many of you are missing the point. (4.75 / 8) (#26)
by emc2 on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 07:22:04 AM EST

The association that is posting these pictures has been campaigning against Taliban rule, they smuggle cameras into Afghanistan (puting themselves in great danger) to document all the attrocities of the Taliban regime (when all this is over, lets remember that the Taliban must face a court, local, or international, for their crimes).

The pictures posted, far from being propaganda, are documenting the results of the bombing, this is badly needed given the restrictions to get any reliable information in Taliban controled areas.

Somebody else was nice enough to post yet another picture of the WTC bombing like if this justifies to commit exactly the same action against Afghan civilians, that have absolutely nothing to do in all this mess.

All the killings of civilians that happen consequence of mistakes, although unnacetpable, are understandable. Nevertheless one has to wonder what is going on in the mind of the US military people while they drop cluster bombs, that by most accounts are nothing more than land mines trhown from the air.

I heard yesterday (must confirm this) that since the end of the Kosovo conflict 200 people have been killed by these same bombs that are being dropped now in Afghanistan.

If civilians are not the target, the US and the UK should make a real effort to at least stop using weapons that clearly harm civilians.



---
The Devil is in the details.
Did you read that EULA today?

What weapons won't target civilians? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by sonovel on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 12:55:19 PM EST

What mythical weapon won't kill civilians?

Severe looks? Strongly worded editorials in the New York Times?

If the U.S. _wanted_ to target civilians, there wouldn't be a Kabul anymore.

War is just about the most evil and awful thing that humans do quite often.



[ Parent ]
Bush was advised against that course of action (1.00 / 2) (#48)
by greenrd on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 08:39:11 PM EST

If the U.S. _wanted_ to target civilians, there wouldn't be a Kabul anymore.

No no. You don't understand. They want to target civilians, but they don't want to start World War Three.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Why do "they" want to target civilians? (4.00 / 1) (#53)
by sonovel on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 12:01:56 PM EST

?



[ Parent ]
That is absolute nonsense (none / 0) (#56)
by emc2 on Tue Oct 30, 2001 at 04:38:11 AM EST

There are weapons that are clearly designed to destroy only targets with a military or strategic value: a bomb that hits the target, exploits, and destroys the target and that is the end of the bomb and the damage. If there are civilians around that are killed, it is the most regrettable thing, but they were not the principal target.

There are weapons that aim to make life for anybody (enemies and civilian population, differentiation that is at its most poignant in Afghanistan) as difficult as possible. Cluster bombs are of this kind. This has several problems, the most important is that this kind of weapons contravenes the Geneva (sp?) convention that clearly states that no civilians should be targeted in purpouse during a conflict. That is one of the reasons land mines were rennounced by most of the nations that considere themselves civilized (some glaring exceptions, not worth mentioning, shame on them). Cluster bombs fall in this same category and are moraly as reprehensible, so any goverment intending to avoid civilian casualties should not be using these weapons.

What is the strategic value of a child, a farmer or any other innocent person maimed or killed long after the conflict is over?

---
The Devil is in the details.
Did you read that EULA today?

[ Parent ]
Cluster bombs (none / 0) (#57)
by sonovel on Tue Oct 30, 2001 at 06:59:08 PM EST

You do know what cluster bombs are designed for, right?

They are not made to 'make life difficult for everybody'.

They are not designed to target civilians.


So what part of my comment is "absolute nonsense"?

We could have a reasonable discussion of whether they should be used or not. However, _every_ weapon of war can and has killed an maimed civilians.

Cluster bombs are most dangerous this way when they are "duds" and don't explode as expected. However, this can happen with any sort of explosive. There is no mythical perfect weapon that always hits the targets, always explodes as expected and always destroys only military targets.

This isn't "nonsense", it is fact.

[ Parent ]
Pictures have been shown in Europe (3.75 / 4) (#27)
by t0mmi on Fri Oct 26, 2001 at 07:38:29 AM EST

I have seen REUTERS' pictures of dead children in the Finnish newspapers, but have not been able to find those pictures on the net. Most pictures I have seen were taken during the last weekend in the children's hospital of Kabul.

Nurses of that hospital were also interviewed on TV. I don't remember if it was a BBC interview or Al-Jazeera's. Even male nurses must have long Taleban sanctioned beards and since women are not allowed to work there are no female nurses. It looked difficult to get the beard behind surgeons face mask. The hospital has no electricity, not much medicines and no blood to give to those who are injured.

The residential area in northern Kabul that has been attacked by the US Air Force is called Khair Khana. Pictures of the neighborhood have been distributed by the Associated Press. No pictures can be found on the net, though. So you need to contact AP, if you want to see those pictures. The attack has been confirmed by local people and the United Nations.

The most disturbing picture I have seen was a picture of two dead little boys, brothers, who lie on the floor. The one who is closer to the camera has large fraction of his skull blown away. That is a REUTERS picture and I have seen it published by a Finnish newspaper called "Ilta-Sanomat".

The journalist who wrote the article is Reetta Vairimaa. You can reach her at reetta.vairimaa@sanoma.fi and ask about her source at the REUTERS. But I believe it is easier to just contact REUTERS directly.

I do not wish to be indefinitely detained next time I visit the U.S. so I have now probably reached my daily quota of Echelon alarms. :)


Enjoy (3.00 / 2) (#52)
by Ender Ryan on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 01:45:15 AM EST

Enjoy?

You post pictures of bombings and you end the article with, Enjoy?

I'd like to nominate you for, "Most extreme asshole" on K5.

Whatever you meant by it, it is uncalled for and an insult to all who have lost their lives in this whole mess.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#55)
by epepke on Sun Oct 28, 2001 at 05:55:33 PM EST

Thanks for posting these, although I already knew about RAWA.

There's one interesting thing that people have been seeming to miss. We've been hearing from RAWA for years how the Afghani people don't like the Taliban, it's repressive to women, blah blah blah. Yet of these pictures, there doesn't seem to be a single interview of anybody expressing gladness that a Taliban stronghold has been taken out.

Is that because no Taliban strongholds have been taken out? Is it because the idea that the people of Afghanistan do not love the Taliban is a lie? Or is there some other reason?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


Pictures of Afghanistan | 58 comments (51 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!