The cartoon at top is somewhat offensive. I tried to make sure it was.

Quite a few years ago, a European friend of mine organised a world-petition to stop the taliban from further ensnaring women into ruthless slavery with their draconian archaic laws. Of course the laws have been written by men, mostly opportunistic useless bastards — masquerading as righteous prophets in order to induce submission through fear, pain and maintenance of the habit of submission in women — men whose guns are their best friend, then the goat, then the wife... As far as the camel goes, who knows...

As human, we need to foster the freedom of being, as much as possible, but we need to remove this freedom from those who strongly deny this freedom to others — especially those denying women. It's a stylistic choice to care or not care. And I have cared strongly for yonks.

Many things could be said here, including that some "previously free" chick might have decided by personal aspiration to become ensnared in these stupid religious laws. Such person is often well educated by western standard, is free to chose and is far and few in between... But most of the women born under these terrible rules are deprived of proper education, are deprived of their natural curiosity which is not allowed to develop into the greater human context, operating only in a very narrow bandwidth of existence. Even the slaves in Roman times BC had more rights than women under talibanic laws.

So, there was a glimmer of hope for oppressed women (some of whom know their oppressed status, some don't know... due to powerful reinforced brainwashing) — that under a new "communist" regime that had taken over the Afghan government in a coup in the late 1970s — better equality for all would flourish.

But the new regime was under massive pressures from the powerful warlords and from the Taliban. The new "communists" thus asked for help from Moscow, to maintain power. The Soviets "reluctantly invaded" Afghanistan (see story on this site) and it was war... The Russians did not care much for civilians, as they knew — as the Americans presently would know — that, of course, Taliban fighters have families, including young kids that are indoctrinated to the extreme sharia laws and will be on the fighting front by age 14 should they be male.

In those days, the United States of America placed "communists" at the head of their hatred list, with the Taliban in about sixth or seventh position, after socialists, anarchists, gays in the armed forces and Castro, possibly North Korea, and just before blacks.

It has been my "experience" and observations that there are specific steps in any social evolution. At some stage, it involves some form of delusion in order to move onto the next step. This premise could be expanded here but we shall leave it for now.

Say, the French went through their freedom revolution in 1789 against the nobility, after the Americans already had their revolution against colonialism a few years earlier. Thereafter, the USA went through a bloody civil war in order to "abolish slavery" (freedom for the blacks) although there were other less noble motives in the bloodshed... Germany meanwhile gelled its many little independent kingdoms into a more powerful unified empire, under the Kaiser. And while all these things happened, the spirit of relative individual freedom relatively blossomed, although it became attached to "patriotism" somewhat. Even with the Soviet revolution, this spirit blossomed too, in order to liberate the poor from the small but crushing super rich upper class. In most revolutions, equality-in-opportunity is the major aim and although the process faltered somewhat in Russia, it developed a certain resilience that is still evolving and liberating, whatever we think of it in the West. As mentioned before on this site, unlike the USA that have had a svelte lying propaganda machine in Hollywood, the Russian equivalent has always lacked the sense of the beautiful porkies. The dreams and the scripts are too literal, too rigid and not carefree, nor Jewish enough. That's my view.

So, the Taliban men, used to get away with dreadful sharia laws getting worse and worse for women, a bit of communism was not going to go astray, so I thought — that their little sphinctered world would evolved nonetheless via new rules enforcing "equality" for men and women.

We know, such human "evolutions" are often traumatic, if not violent, but eventually relative "freedom and better conditions" usually prevailed.

But no.

The USA did not want the Russians to help the communists (the memory of Vietnam was still very fresh in the USA administration's psyche) so they started to fund arm shipments to the warlords — whose religious "philosophy" was barely a notch above that of the Taliban in their treatment of women — thus by default the USA also funded the Taliban. The result was the retreat of the Russians after 21 years of gory fighting, the warlords having to compromise with the Taliban, a Taliban which soon got control of the government, and that enforced the barbaric dreadful sharia laws against all women, across Afghanistan.

I must admit, here I do not know the laws per say, as I haven't had time to read them line for line, but many good trustworthy analysts (we have to trust some people, don't we?) of what they mean and how they are used against women have spoken loud and clear for decades.

When Bin Laden did his 9/11 deed in the US — possibly with inside help (who knows) — it opened the door for a US led invasion of Afghanistan, the bombing of Bin Laden's lair, etc... but, so far, EIGHT years later and counting, the war has had no success in the eradication of the Taliban, nor that of Al Qaeda, nor that of the warlords, nor any success in the elimination of the other extremist Pashto religious side-shows. The war so far has not made a dent in the Afghan opium trade and, apart from death and pestilence in the countryside, has added a few powerful undesirable dimensions — such as envy and resentment, for within some quarters of Kabul gentry exclusivity is being cultivated as social success.

Not a good look.

The underlying theory from the Yanks is that if you show how private enterprise gloriously works and succeeds, if you present the concept of growing wealth, it will permeate to the rest of the population. But this process is slow and in some conditions, instead of eliminating the "class" structure and inculcate the desire of improvement, it does reinforce the difference between the rich and the numerous poor. Thus it becomes a number's game between the privileged and the religiously decided underclass.

In Afghanistan (CIA WFB), the average life-span is 44.5. According to some statistics (not the CIA world fact book), Afghanistan is the only country on the planet where women life expectancy is shorter on average than that of men, amazing stats when one consider that men are often fighting wars of some kind or another.

Applied at a certain point of general social status the US private enterprise success mindset might work, then evolve, but from a general backward antiquated fanatical farce of a brainwashed religious polarisation, it won't work. Or at best it will splutter for another 50 years.

And in an environment like that of fanatical sharia laws, war imposed by outsiders reinforces the desire to throw the "conquerors" (the US, NATO and other countries) and their puppet government out. OUT!...

Thus we have to come back to the Byzantine laws of conquest and maintenance of power. One needs to control at least 67 per cent of the loyalty of a population in order for the group to be stable. At this stage the Kabul government and the American led coalition have barely 30 per cent under foot. Kazai is thus forced to compromise with local "allies" in order to stay on his throne and most likely his position has been corrupt from day one.

I will add that one of the most devastating aspects of these sharia laws, for me, is the total control of women's friendships and interrelationships, by their masters. Not an ounce of freedom to be something else but a captive, hidden breeder...

Although our own Western civilisation contain some (many) perverse aspects (but not enshrine in law though) — from sexual deviancies to sadomasochistic pleasures, the Taliban law backwater takes the cake of perversity a hundred to one. Supposedly trying to be of a strict godly nature, it only achieves to be one of the most vile human stylistic expressions. If not the vilest.

Mind you, the Saudis and many of the Muslim fiefdoms need their lack-of-democracy bottom spanked too...

Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.

You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.

For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the "democracy" backed by Nato troops....

So far, Obama has pursued the same policy as Bush in Afghanistan. Sending more troops and expanding the war into Pakistan will only add fuel to the fire. Like many other Afghans, I risked my life during the dark years of Taliban rule to teach at underground schools for girls. Today the situation of women is as bad as ever. Victims of abuse and rape find no justice because the judiciary is dominated by fundamentalists. A growing number of women, seeing no way out of the suffering in their lives, have taken to suicide by self-immolation.

Malalai Joya, from Afghanistan

The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said.

Gen Sir David Richards, who takes over on 28 August, told the Times the Army's role would evolve, but the process of "nation-building" would last decades.

Troops will be required for the medium term only, but the UK will continue to play a role in "development, governance [and] security sector reform," he said.

"There is absolutely no chance of Nato pulling out," Gen Richards added.

-----------------------

The Ruskies had a go at Afghanistan for at least 21 years until they were defeated by US supported Taliban and War Lords...

As long as no morality is brought in by our governments to make us swallow the bitter pill, then so be it. But for this, all the Western world leaders will have to give up their allegiances to whatever creed they claim to support and start walking on the toes of popes, mullahs, emirs and rabbis... and become "humanist warriors". They should also give up their support for Kazai and install a rule by the boot, to enforce equality "of being" in Afghanistan, changing that country's entire culture. For this the western warriors will need at least 2 million troops and fight hard till the last war lord drops his weapons at the feet of the victorious Western general. Fictional scenario?

A ban on the wearing of the burka in France would help stem the spread of the "cancer" of radical Islam, one of its female Muslim ministers has said.

Urban Regeneration Minister Fadela Amara told the Financial Times that a veil covering everything but the eyes represented "the oppression of women".

Ms Amara said she was "in favour of the burka not existing in my country".

The comments come as French MPs hold hearings on whether to ban the garment, which covers the body from head to toe.

The National Assembly set up the 32-member commission after President Nicolas Sarkozy said the burka was "not welcome" in France, home to Western Europe's largest population of Muslims.

-------------------------

A Sudanese woman has been jailed for a month after refusing to pay a fine for "dressing indecently" by wearing trousers, her lawyers say.

Lubna Ahmed Hussein did not want to "give the verdict any legitimacy" by paying the fine of about $200 (£122), her lawyer, Nabil Adib, told the BBC.

Ms Hussein, a journalist in her 30s, could have been given up to 40 lashes.

Before the verdict, she had said she wanted her trial to become a test case for women's rights, correspondents say.

Ms Hussein had resigned from her job at the UN, which would have given her immunity.

"She thinks she was unfairly tried and convicted and was not given a proper chance to put her defence case," Mr Adib said.

------------------------

As the French ban the burka and the Sudanese ban the trousers, one can reflect on a naked humanity. In fact it is a fallacy to believe the Qur'an (or whatever spelling one wishes) states the dress code for women. The Qur'an only expresses the concept of "modesty' clothing that minimises the enticing of desire. This can be interpreted thus — in various cultures — as a hijab, a veil, a burka, a bikini or a fig-leaf... or nakedness in all its glory.

In some Muslim ruled country, men can wear silk Ikats while in others Muslim cultures it is forbidden and reserved for women only. Say, Western civilisation relies heavily on identification of individuals and a burka is designed to hide, whichever way we look...

Egypt's highest Muslim authority has said he will issue a religious edict against the growing trend for full women's veils, known as the niqab.

Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar university, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

Although most Muslim women in Egypt wear the Islamic headscarf, increasing numbers are adopting the niqab as well.

The practice is widely associated with more radical trends of Islam.

----------------------

see toon at top and picture above...