Afghan girls poisoned in second anti-school attack
Source: Reuters
TALIQAN, Afghanistan (Reuters) - More than 120 schoolgirls and three teachers have been poisoned in the second attack in as many months blamed on conservative radicals in the country's north, Afghan police and education officials said on Wednesday.
The attack occurred in Takhar province where police said that radicals opposed to education of women and girls had used an unidentified toxic powder to contaminate the air in classrooms. Scores of students were left unconscious.
Afghanistan's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), says the Taliban appear intent on closing schools ahead of a 2014 withdrawal by foreign combat troops.
"A part of their Al Farooq spring offensive operation is ... to close schools. By poisoning girls they want to create fear. They try to make families not send their children to school," NDS spokesman Lutfullah Mashal said.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE84M0MM20120523
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
get the red out
(13,466 posts)There was never anything we could do about it and never will be. Females born in Afghanistan are born only to suffer and die, it is a terrible, monsterous culture and it always will be. No hope there. I wish the troops were already out of there, of course I wish no troops had ever gone there at all.
Prometheus Bound
(3,489 posts)No one knows why. No one claimed responsibility.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Disgusting country.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The US ran across the same problem in Vietnam (And the Soviet Union when it tried to Control Afghanistan), a Civil War is always a Political war, and in modern society that means who provides SERVICES, including schools. Even in Vietnam, it was more important to make sure the School Teachers were loyal supporters of the South Vietnamese Government, then it was to kill Viet Cong Soldiers. The reason was simple, the teachers were dependent on the State for their Salary thus would be loyal to the State. The peasant farmers could be controlled by the State, for such peasant farmers wanted their children educated. Thus the best way to control the peasant farmer was to control the Teachers of their children.
This was also true of the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan, the Soviets made serious efforts to control education, when they lost that fight they pulled out.
It is happening again, the Taliban want to show that only the Taliban can provide a SAFE educational environment for the children of the peasant farmers of Afghanistan. Securing these schools is more important then killing Taliban fighters in the field, but Obama and his advisers, does NOT seem to understand that fact, thus why the US is losing the war against the Taliban.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)The "service" will be provided to boys, on a very limited, Taliban approved basis.
It doesn't matter what we do or don't do, they despise any freedom for females and we can't do anything about it, never could. It's the most disgusting culture on Earth and the US is even more stupid than the USSR was in thinking somehow we could do something over there when no one else ever could. They are monsters and we are bombing fools.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that turned the women in Afghanistan into virtual slaves - they never had anything to do with educating women and the only education for males was memorizing the Koran. I wish there were a way to bring all the women there here cuz that's their only hope....as soon as we leave the lives of women will once again be nothing more than slavery.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And you have to address THAT issue, not that you dislike the Education the Taliban is providing. In many ways the best way would be to provide similar education, but this time by Government protected Religious teachers (Which is the norm in most of the Moslem World). Once the war is won, then slowly change the educational system to a more western one, but to do BOTH WHILE FIGHTING THE TALIBAN will be FATAL. People will prefer their children to be educated much like they themselves had been, thus any change from tradition, that is NOT supported by the lower classes, will just send them into the arms of the Taliban (In the Communist revolutions of the 1950s an 1960s, the Communist tended to try to educate the uneducated peasants they recruited, but that was a lower class that saw the change in education in a positive light, unlike the people of Afghanistan that do NOT see Western Education in a positive light).
Thus the key to defeating the Taliban is to provide Education and other Governmental services to the lower classes. Right now, that is NOT happening in a way the lower classes of Afghanistan wants it to happen and without their support any change in providing such Governmental services is doomed. Thus saying you oppose how the Taliban is education the youth of Afghanistan is meaningless, for your opinion as to what is a proper education does NOT count of the battlefield that is Afghanistan. The position of the peasants of Afghanistan is the key to victory in this type of conflict and right now it is the Taliban view as to Governmental services (Including Education) that is appealing to the Afghan peasants, thus why the Taliban is winning the war.
Thus we have to embrace much of the same educational system the Taliban support, for the same reason the Taliban do, the peasants wants that educational system. Once the Taliban is defeated, then you can slowly change the educations system, but the Taliban has to be defeated first and to do that the peasants of Afghanistan must turn against them.
If the Government is providing the same services that the Taliban can provide, the peasants will slowly turn to support the Government in exchange for Government Services and peace. This will take years, but the first step is to provide WHAT THE PEASANTS WANT, SO WE CAN WIN THE WAR, NOT want we think is best for them, when that is what many of them OPPOSE.
Thus we must embrace many of the things you oppose, just to win the war thus freeing the Government to then change things. We can NOT do change when the people we are fighting over, oppose such changes AND they have a way to show their opposition (i.e. support the Taliban). Thus as long as the Taliban provide a reasonable alternative to the present rulers of Afghanistan AND the present Rulers do NOT embrace what the peasants want, this war will continue and as long as the war continue there will be no change.
Once peace is achieved then changes can occur, slow changes do to the people who oppose the changes having no real way to express their opposition (i.e not open revolt and no support for such a revolt). During that time of peace the Government can slowly convince the peasants to accept changes in education, but even then the changes will have to be acceptable to the peasants. This appeared to have been occurring prior to the Soviet Intervention, but as the Afghan Government slowed down the process do to increase opposition from the peasants, the Soviet objected and overthrew, first the king of Afghanistan (A Stalin Appointee), then a few years later full scale intervention. Thus the Soviets made a mistake, they wanted Afghanistan to become more modern faster then its peasants were willing to do so AND with the US willing to support the opposition, the Soviet-Afghan war started and was fought. In my opinion had the Soviets let the King go on the pace he had been doing, no problem, but by speeding up the pace, increase resistance with the ability to get support from the US lead to open warfare.
Notice the problem was NOT the need to modernized the education system of Afghanistan, but its pace that caused the conflict. Stalin did NOT think Afghanistan would move quickly and his successors agreed, till the end of their rule. At that point of time you had a generations change in Soviet Leadership, the people who knew Stalin were dying out, replaced by people who never meet Stalin. These later Soviet leaders wanted to show how pure communists they were by making more and more of Soviet Allies true Communists. Afghanistan as a prime example of a Soviet Ally that was NOT Communistic (Worse if had a KING), thus it had to be Modernized. The King of Afghanistan did NOT oppose modernization but wanted to control the pace to minimize opposition. This was NOT acceptable to the Younger Soviet leaders and he was overthrown, then it went down hill from there. The whole thrust of the intervention to make Afghanistan a modern state failed, worse it lead to the fall of the Soviet Union and later the fall of the Government left by the Soviets, then its replacement by a various factions within Afghanistan, then the Taliban intervention. All lead to decline in services provided by Government and the development of the education (or lack of Education) in Afghanistan today.
My point is before we can reform the Educational system of Afghanistan, Afghanistan needs PEACE and a Stable Government. Right now the price for Peace and a Stable Government is to appease the Afghan Peasants so they stop their support for the Taliban. To do so, we have to give the peasant what he or she wants and right now the Afghan Peasants wants peace AND his or her children educated in traditional tribal ways. You have to give them that or you will never get the support of the peasants and without that support you will NEVER have a peaceful stable government of Afghanistan.
, but unlike now, the Government can spend its time convincing peasants that such change would be in their best interest.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)This isn't new and has absolutely zero to do with the wars Soviet or US. The only schools the Taliban want to set up are madrassas, or religious indoctrination camps, for boys only.
Most of the tribal, rural areas of Pakistan have no restrictions for girls, no war, and yet they've instituted the same despicably misogynistic "educational" systems.
This is religious bullshit.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)My point is simple, to have peace we need the support of the Afghan Peasants. To get that support we have to give them what they want. The Alternative is Genocide. Which do you support? It is an unpleasant choice, but one we have to make and will make sooner or later (and Genocide is NOT a real option).
Thus sooner or later we have to accept what these peasants want. That is what Pakistan did to its part of the same people on its side of the border (and what the British did in the same area when Britain ruled India and Pakistan) and even Stalin did when he was ruler of Russia and had the greatest say in Afghan politics.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)before one single person more dies over there trying to "bring freedom" to the Afghani people.
FWIW, I don't believe this region will change, perhaps ever. I believe the attitudes have hardened and there's nothing more to be done. Virtually every tribal area of Pakistan and Afghanistan has been exposed to educated women (either by the Soviets or by us), there's been literally trillions of dollars and rubles thrown at the country for naught. They simply want their women as breeding stock, as cattle.
You seem to harbor some illusion that the tribal areas want their girls and women educated, equal, participatory in civil society at some future date. You seem to harbor some illusion that if we just "let the tribes (men only of course) have what they want" that they will somehow evolve into respectful men towards women. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only way for the women of Afghanistan to have that reality is if they seize it themselves and to do that they must be educated and empowered. The men know this so they are doing everything to stop that process in its tracks. Every girl who is "tainted" by empowerment is ruined in their eyes.
The Soviets have tried for decades. We have tried for a decade. There should have been some generational change by now if it were possible but the men persist in horrific violence towards their female population in order to keep them oppressed. There will be no evolution in social change there. Until there is a massive cultural shift. Unfortunately their interpretation of Islam is hideously misogynistic and so deeply woven into their culture, I don't foresee any change.
Time to leave.
Igel
(35,309 posts)You want us to think you'd need a lot of 50s to give us that average.
You can also get it from averaging equal numbers of 0s and 100s. Or something like 100 150s and 200 0s.
My point is that you want us to provide what the average peasant wants, and to believe that Afghanistan is populated primarily by average peasants. I believe this is a false assumption.
You also want us to hire teachers that will teach the population that educating girls is wrong, in hopes of having them gradually accept that girls should be educated. Why? Because if you try to teach them that girls should be educated while fighting those who teach that girls shouldn't be educated all that'll happen is that the "average peasant" will fight us.
Consider this: The girls' schools' classrooms are full of girls, sent voluntarily by their parents--which means by their fathers. Nobody's going to fight the Taliban because that would be dangerous. But a lot of fathers aren't listening to them. If their daughters are in danger, however, then the fathers will protect them by keeping them home.
Point to the average peasant. Is it the Taliban supporter, who feels it's necessary to torch or poison a school? Or the fathers who are sending their daughters (and sons) to school? It takes just a few of the former to do in the latter--and the remedy isn't to tell the more numerous school-supporters to give in and be indoctrined by those who hate the idea of girls being taught how to read.
There's a complex cultural stew in front of us, and most Americans barely recognize the ingredients even as they try to decide what's wrong with it.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)it's not about securing the rights to provide said education.
It's about keeping women at about the same level as farm animals.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Speechless.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I wonder if there's some other strategy besides war we could use in furtherance of foreign policy? These monstrous, backward savages don't seem to have gotten any less monstrous, backward or savage after 10 years of unrelenting war, torture, missile strikes and random bombing.
Oh well, never mind. The violence will continue until these people understand that violence is not acceptable.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)their faces weren't covered.
Demoiselle
(6,787 posts)
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Teachers and Schools tend to be the low end of the Governmental structure. As such ares of "Conflict" between any insurgent and any the government they are opposed to. The Government wants to show the people it is the only agency that can provide a safe place for their children to be educated, the insurgents wants to show that is NOT the case, and only the insurgents can provide a safe place for the children to be educated.
This was seen in Cuba during its revolution, in the various conflicts in Central America (one group of Americas in Nicaragua during the insurgency against the Sandinistas, decided it was safer to be say they were newspaper reporters reporting on the war, then the Doctors they were, for the Insurgents viewed Doctors like Teachers, agents of the State they wanted to overthrow and thus targets, reporters just reported what the insurgents were doing and that was OK with the insurgents for ithe reports of reporters further their aim of showing that the Government of Nicaragua could NOT safety provide medical care or education).
Schools were fought over in Vietnam for the same reason, during the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong went to every teacher of any city or town they took over, told them to come to a central location and then shot them as traitors (When the South Vietnam did fall, no such killings took place, for in 1968 the war was far from over, but with the fall of Saigon the war was over, thus the loyalty of the teachers were not loner of importance for the Communist controlled the Government and thus the pay of the teachers).
I can go on, but in an insurgency like the one in Afghanistan, Schools are the front lines of the War, and teachers are the men and women in the trenches. You MUST understand that, even while the propaganda from both sides emphasis the attacks on such teachers by the other side, and cover up similar attacks by their side in regards to the same battlefield. In that type of war, Schools are the front lines and thus where the battle is going to be won or lost (and I suspect lost, for the US and its allies seems to be unwilling to provide the necessary security for such schools for it would require a lot more men then the US is willing to sent to Afghanistan, without the ability to secure the schools, the war is lost no matter how many Taliban we kill).
get the red out
(13,466 posts)The truth is that extremist forms of religion nearly always seek to make women as low as animals.
Who the fuck cares what happened in Viet Nam, this is a whole different culture. Are we supposed to see the differences in culture until those differences are completely VILE then we MUST dismiss them to keep from saying anything negative about someone's religion?
Yep, that's the rule.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And that is the point I was making, no one really cares about the educational system of Afghanistan (or Even Vietnam) EXCEPT for the peasants of those two countries. Given that concern, educations is where wars are FOUGHT when the key to victory is the support of the peasants. Right now the US is losing its fight in Afghanistan for it is NOT putting enough resources into the educational system of Afghanistan. The Taliban is making it clear it will be the only provider of education for the Peasants of Afghanistan and the peasants seems to support the Taliban for the US has NOT made any real serious efforts to win the war of the Schools and until the US does, the US efforts in Afghanistan is doomed.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)If it isn't an important religious or cultural belief to begin with? If you can't play into the misogyny generated by the culture it can't even be used as propaganda. It has to be desirable to be effective.
The US efforts are doomed, we need to get out as soon as possible. Shouldn't have gone there to begin with.
marsis
(301 posts)that religion is a wonderful thing.
You know of course that most of our born again bible belt christians would be Taliban if they were born into that culture. Same mind-set, just born in a different place.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Religion in the extreme always ends the same way for people.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, many people have said Communism has many aspects of a Religion even while saying it is atheistic, but similar attacks on Schools occurred during the Vietnam War, the Cuban Revolution, the War against the Sandinistas (To give a right wing example). Further back in history it was one of the reason you grabbed any churches for prior to about 1860, Churches performed what education the lower classes received was from their church (Thus as late as the French Commune of 1871, who was Bishop of Paris was one of the most important person the revolutionaries wanted to control, with the adoption of widespread public education it is less of an issue in the West, but can remain so in third world countries).
Thus the issue is NOT religion, but who controls the education of children. The fight in insurgencies like the one in Afghanistan tends to be over who controls the education of the children of the lower classes of society. The Taliban wants to show it can provide a safe place for children to be educated, while the state can not, and the State of Afghanistan has to show it can provide such safe education while the Taliban can not. Thus, in many ways, how wins this war is who can provide education (and to a lesser extend medical care and other Governmental services) to the lower classes. So far, the Taliban appears to be winning this fight, you do not hear of Government bombing of Taliban Schools (through such schools may be what the US is calling Insurgent meetings, this time for the US to that the Taliban can NOT provide a safe place for children to be educated).
I suspect religion is used to justify these attacks, but the reason for the attacks is NOT religious, but political, i.e. who will provide the Governmental Services the lower Classes need and right now that war, the war over who provides the Government Services, appears to be being won by the Taliban.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)We are doing shit over there. But these people are extreme religious fanatics, they think they are doing everything for that, at least the common folks are.
The Taliban was going to win no matter what, we haven't made it any easier for them.
marsis
(301 posts)but the mindset that allows us to be zealots, in any religion, or political persuasion according ONLY to where we were birthed.
In todays America, religion seems to walk hand in hand with politics. Ever hear of Pat Robertson, Falwell, Jeesus, pick a Cardinal, there's dozens and dozens of these haters promoting teabaggerism from the pulpit and on their respective TV and radio programming.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)They are all for equal opportunity between men and women?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And the answer to that question is NO. Thus the US does NOT care what the Taliban want or does not want female doctors or graduate students. The US has to work either with the Taliban or the peasants that support them, thus whatever the peasants wants the Us has to give or lose. That is the price of Victory.
Personally I do NOT think the price is worth it, thus I would admit defeat and withdraw. I would pull out all US forces and leave the Taliban have the area, but I am NOT in charge and the people who are do NOT want to look like they lost the war, so we are in this mess.
We can NOT win, for to win means to give into what the Taliban wants OR massively increase the number of Troops, which would require a draft, which the American People will oppose thus ending the war. Either way the US pulls out of Afghanistan and the Taliban wins but out leaders do NOT want to accept that is the situation for their fear it would make them look like they lost the war.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine that would also validly apply to philosophical extremes, political extremes, extremes borne of nationalism, etc.
'Extreme' rather than religion being the common denominator.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)It is just the main extreme the Taliban exemplifies. And extreme religion is always bad news for people, not the only bad news possible on the planet, but one of the worst.
If the Taliban were Christian we wouldn't have to have this discussion, everyone would be allowed to agree that the extreme religion was the dominating problem here.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"but one of the worst...."
Along with political extremism, philosophical extremism, extremism based on nationalism or economy, etc. It seems that with so many forms of extremism having wrought so much damage over so long a period of time, each extremism appears to be as bad as the other; and that any particular one extremism is little better or little worse than the other.
Seems to me that extremism in and of itself, is the common denominator, regardless of what particular it's predicated or justified on.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)If the Taliban was Christian, we could all agree about how horrific they are and how their religion is simply disgusting abuse on a grand scale.
Other forms of extremism tend to torture people for not going along with them, religious extremism tortures people for being female, gay, raped, as well as not going along with them. Many people have little or no "go along with the majority" option. IMO that is even worse than other forms of extremism.
marsis
(301 posts)religion. If you've ever tried to reason with a teabagger you know they hold their beliefs just like many religious people do. There is no reasoning involved, they shun facts and simply cannot be moved toward intelligent discussion. Again, I believe it is a mindset, just as when the commies hated us and we hated them. It is just a matter of where you're born.
On the job many years ago (I'm an electrician) I always said there are construction workers in Russia sitting around at lunch time just like us with the same problems, fears, love of and worrying about provision for our families, etc. and they're just like us. It is just our respective governments that turn us agains each other when we are more like each other than we are like our respective politicians. I didn't get through to many who were trained since birth to hate commies.
So like governments who turn it's citizens againt other countries, religion turns it's membership against other religions. And if you care to look at Islam and Christianity, they even turn against each other when not confronted with a different religion. The three main aspects of Islam seem to hate each other. In Christianiy the Catholics hate the Baptists who hate the reformed Baptist who hate the Lutherens who hate the Methodists who hate the...maybe you get the point. It's just a matter of where you are born and if you are able rise above the mantra.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)The actions of brutal misogynists aren't an excuse to demonize an entire country, or to spread falsehoods about their history.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/women-war-and-peace/uncategorized/timeline-of-womens-rights-in-afghanistan/
drm604
(16,230 posts)Sometimes I despair for the human race.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Sometimes I simply despise the human race.
marsis
(301 posts)but we don't act on it. Big difference.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)When women are treated this way it is no different from genocide. UN needs to take over.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)It will just be considered a "cultural difference" that needs to be respected. "Those poor people were economically depressed so they had to torture countless women and girls to death", will be the attitude of many.
Cultural relativity is a total piece of shit. Misogyny is REAL and embedded in many cultures throughout the world with deadly results. There are a LOT of appoligists for misogyny in other cultures to be found.
drm604
(16,230 posts)You'll find very few, if any, on DU who believe that it's acceptable to poison girls.
You'll find very few, if any, on DU who apologize for this kind of misogyny.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)See post #23 on this very thread...
drm604
(16,230 posts)I think it's saying that the exclusion of girls from Afghan schools is inevitable and we shouldn't fight it. I certainly don't agree with that, but I don't think the poster is excusing poisoning.
In any case I said "few, if any". I did not say "none".
There's a stereotype on the right that liberals will forgive anything under the guise of "cultural relativity". That's simply false and we shouldn't be perpetuating that stereotype ourselves.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)to distinguish between forgiving poisoning and still defending covering women from head to toe in a shroud (which many liberals defend on cultural grounds). I'm pretty far left and I wont make the distinction either. All cultures are not created equal and some simply suck.
drm604
(16,230 posts)and I don't accept your assertion that many liberals believe all cultures are created equal.
Those are right-wing straw men and we shouldn't be spreading them on DU.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I've seen the burqua defended on this board plenty of times....I've even seen the hideous argument that some women choose, of their own accord, to become ghosts to society. And you've been here long enough to know I'm telling the truth.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)of burqa defenders on DU alone, defending misogyny under the guise of cultural relativism!
I can't tell you how many times I've been called a bigot by DUers just for trying to defend a woman's right to walk, talk and participate equally in society. That leaves a mark I'll tell you and I'm damn well proud of it.
drm604
(16,230 posts)I highly doubt that they are defending women being forced to wear burqas. They are probably defending women who choose to do so, which is a completely different thing. It's a bad choice; it's a stupid choice; but what are we supposed to do if a woman makes that choice?
And yes, I understand that many women are pressured by family, but I highly doubt that there are large numbers of DUers who support that.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)We have laws in this country and virtually every other country telling women what they can and cannot wear in public yet whenever a country like France says that the most misogynistic garment invented, burqas, are being banned, there's an uproar that we can't tell women what to wear. We already do. We always have. Yet when it comes to misogyny and outright relegation of women to second status, the blinders are complete. Its sickening and "liberal" DUers are some of the biggest supporters.
Here are a couple sample threads but you can google and find plenty more on your own if you wish:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028275
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161797
This is way off topic for the OP though and honestly, I'm not interested in rehashing the burqa threads here.
unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....what is wrong with some of those people? (assuming Afghans did this)....do they like being hopelessly backwards?....and wish forever to remain that way?
....there isn't too many things in this world that makes me scratch my head, but this is one of them....
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)
octothorpe
(962 posts)Yes, I know western culture has its flaws, but I'm pretty sure I'd take our flaws over theirs.
