Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) (social democrat :( )

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

Now with the current US war effort, the worlds' eyes are upon Afghanistan and all its facets, including RAWA. RAWA are freedom fighters who risk their lives educating and providing aid for women and girls in Afghanistan and in surrounding refugee camps.

They are raising revolutionaries while running clandestine schools for girls who are otherwise denied education, running secret income-generating workplaces which are the only means for widowed women's survival under a regime that bans a working female population, or distributing medical care, quilts and food to refugee families in Pakistan.

At the rise of the Taliban RAWA had to expand their work into neighboring Pakistan, where millions of Afghan refugees are living in deplorable conditions. There, RAWA sends medical teams to women who have sometimes never been able to see a doctor.

They established the refugee Malalai hospital in Pakistan for 11 years but were forced to close it recently for lack of funds.

They also fought soviet social imperialism.

[khad]

Sorry to disappoint, but they're monarchists. Who were most likely started by Pakistani intelligence to push for the restoration of Zahir Shah under Daoud. They sabotaged and continue to slander Afghan socialists.

Even some the liberals are put off by this, so you wonder why so many leftists are infatuated with them.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0716.html


Much was made of the fact that in the conference in Bonn last November and December, which established a provisional government in Afghanistan, two women were included in the cabinet. These were Sima Samar, a Hazzara and member of the Hazzara-based Hezb-I-Wahdat (Party of Islamic Unity), who became minister of women's affairs and a deputy prime minister; and Suhaila Siddiqi, a former member of the Parcham faction of the pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party that had ruled Afghanistan from 1978 to 1992. Siddiqi had held high rank under the Najibullah regime, then served as chief surgeon in a Kabul hospital under the Northern Alliance, and had even been allowed to practice under the Taliban.

The RAWA (whom I respect, as an organization serious about confronting fundamentalism and promoting feminism) denounced both of these women for their histories and political associations. Nonetheless, their presence in the 30-person interim administration was used to put a female-friendly face on what was in essence another collection of Northern Alliance warlords. But that face faded during the Loya Jirga in June. The majority of delegates, including the small female component, wanted the former king, Zahir Shah, to serve as head of state rather than Hamzid Karzai, who is seen as a puppet of the Americans and pawn of the warlords. US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad effectively vetoed that proposal, shooing in Karzai, the U.S.'s man, while thugs in the warlords' service moved in to silence and marginalize opposition, including any posed by women. Sima Samar, nominated to continue as minister of women's affairs, was sufficiently intimidated by death threats that she turned down the position in favor of a lesser human rights post. (She had already stated, June 11, "This is a rubber stamp. Everything has already been decided by the powerful ones.") The Jirga concluded June 19 (following a walkout of half the delegates two days earlier, in protest of foreign manipulation of the proceedings, and warlord intimidation), without the appointment of a new Minister of Women's Affairs.

[Devrim]

Khad, I have just read this piece, which I know you have quoted on here before. I don't read it like you do at all. To me it seems that the sentence that you have put in bold refers to the Loya Jirga, not to RAWA.

Personally although it is possible, I doubt RAWA supported the monarchy as I have never heard it from anyone but yourself, and never seen it backed up with any evidence except this piece.

As far as I know, the RAWA was a front group for the Maoist Afghanistan Liberation Organisation.

Devrim

[khad]

Khad, I have just read this piece, which I know you have quoted on here before. I don't read it like you do at all. To me it seems that the sentence that you have put in bold refers to the Loya Jirga, not to RAWA.

Personally although it is possible, I doubt RAWA supported the monarchy as I have never heard it from anyone but yourself, and never seen it backed up with any evidence except this piece.

Devrim
Devrim, quit *****ing about things you know nothing about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1562596.stm


RAWA has stated that it would support the return of the exiled King Zahir Shah.

His 40 year rule which ended in 1973 "though unremarkable, was one in which at least the people did not suffer", says Behjat.


As far as I know, the RAWA was a front group for the Maoist Afghanistan Liberation Organisation.
Which was allied with Hekmatyar's mujahideen who were in turn backed by the ISI.

[Tablo]

Khad, I have just read this piece, which I know you have quoted on here before. I don't read it like you do at all. To me it seems that the sentence that you have put in bold refers to the Loya Jirga, not to RAWA.

Personally although it is possible, I doubt RAWA supported the monarchy as I have never heard it from anyone but yourself, and never seen it backed up with any evidence except this piece.

As far as I know, the RAWA was a front group for the Maoist Afghanistan Liberation Organisation.

Devrim
I agree. I have read quite a bit on this group and never heard anything about them being monarchists.

[khad]

RAWA spokeswoman: "Zahir Shah is our only hope today"

http://www.rawa.org/hindu2.htm

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

So some people on here will back islamic fundamentalist groups like the Taleban who advocate all sorts of hideous positions.

But they get far more critical when women are in the group

Anyone smell Male chauvanism?

[khad]

So some people on here will back islamic fundamentalist groups like the Taleban who advocate all sorts of hideous positions.

But they get far more critical when women are in the group

Anyone smell Male chauvanism?
The real women's movement was in women like Suhaila Siddiqi, head surgeon of a Kabul hospital, and the women's militia who helped defend cities like Jalalabad against Hekmatyar's goons. 40% of doctors in Kabul were women, 50% of civilian government workers, and 70% of school teachers.

What did these petit-bourgeois monarchists do? They wished for the destruction of Afghan socialism and gave quarter to traitors. There's nothing chauvinist about supporting the women of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan against traitors who would have them killed.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

Thats not what I am saying.

People on here actively support the Taleban, with harldy any criticism, yet when someone brings up a centreist group of women, then they cry reactionary.

it is clear that alot of chauvanist atitudes are responsible for this.

[khad]

Thats not what I am saying.

People on here actively support the Taleban, with harldy any criticism, yet when someone brings up a centreist group of women, then they cry reactionary.

it is clear that alot of chauvanist atitudes are responsible for this.
Where is this massive base of Taliban supporters on revleft?

Did you just declare that you started this thread with intent to troll?

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

No, I posted it as a reply to SovietBoy who said not supporting the Taleban was racist because they are the only ones fighting imperialism.

But this group is too, but he does not support them over the Taleban, Neither do the 10 or so people who agreed with him.

[Devrim]

Devrim, quit *****ing about things you know nothing about.

I don't claim to know a lot about it. I can read English though and the quote you posted doesn't say what you imply it does.


RAWA spokeswoman: "Zahir Shah is our only hope today"

http://www.rawa.org/hindu2.htm

I can also follow links, and if you read that article it clearly says:


Having said this, she was quick to add that this in no way meant her organisation was in favour of the monarchy.

Nor does it describe her as a spokeswoman, but as an 'activist'.

I have no axe to grind at all on this issue, but to me you certainly haven't shown that this is a monarchist organisation.

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Maoists can take up some pretty bizarre positions, but you haven't shown it. I am quite prepared to believe that it is a monarchist organisation if you can show it.

What I would imagine to be the case, with my very limited knowledge of the situation in Afghanistan, is that it is a pretty heterogeneous group, in which people can hold a variety of political positions, which is united around a single issue, feminism. I would also imagine that the fact that the woman stressed that this didn't mean that her organisation was in favour of the monarchy would at least imply that it didn't officially have a monarchist position.

Devrim

[khad]

No, I posted it as a reply to SovietBoy who said not supporting the Taleban was racist because they are the only ones fighting imperialism.

But this group is too, but he does not support them over the Taleban, Neither do the 10 or so people who agreed with him.
Then direct your response to him in whatever thread that happened in. Don't start threads just to reply to (ie troll) someone.

Do not spam the forums either. I had to clean up a number of your duplicate threads. In the future this kind of thing will get you warned and/or infracted.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

Youve got the wrong person.

Ive made three threads, none have been cleaned up.

Also its not trolling, its bringing up the fact there are groups far more moderate than the Taleban, yet imbeciles who claim to be communist, back the Islamic Reactionary groups, which are every bit as bad as the imperialists, but wont back centreist women groups.

[khad]

So it was intentional. Then consider this a verbal warning not to post duplicate threads. Persist in this behavior and infractions will follow.

[khad]

What I would imagine to be the case, with my very limited knowledge of the situation in Afghanistan, is that it is a pretty heterogeneous group, in which people can hold a variety of political positions, which is united around a single issue, feminism. I would also imagine that the fact that the woman stressed that this didn't mean that her organisation was in favour of the monarchy would at least imply that it didn't officially have a monarchist position.
Yes, and I wish you'd stop commenting on things you know nothing about. Anyone who knows the first thing about Afghan history knows that RAWA's founder was a Zahir Shah loyalist.

http://www.afghanwomensmission.org/books/


Nadir Shah, king from 1929 to 1933, abolished Amanullah's reforms, but Nadir's son Zahir, who succeeded him after Nadir was assassinated, advanced Amanullah's liberalizing policies even further, establishing a constitution in 1964 that gave women the right to vote.

It was thanks to these innovations that Meena received an education -- unlike her mother, who was illiterate. Lycee Malalai, the all-girls school she attended, was named for an Afghan heroine who in 1880, when the country was invaded by Britain, had retrieved under gunfire a fallen Afghan flag and held it high until she was shot down by British soldiers. Inspired by this story and by two of her teachers who believed in the equality of women, Meena eventually became a heroine herself to countless Afghans, legendary even before her martyrdom at age 30.

After graduation, Meena intended to study law so that she could fight for women's rights in the courts. But by then the liberal atmosphere that had fostered her determination had dissipated. Three years earlier, Zahir was overthrown by his prime minister and cousin, Mohammed Daoud, who was aligned with a pro-Soviet party.Daoud a Soviet puppet? Bullshit. Almost every RAWA account has some bit praising that degenerate playboy Zahir Shah, contrasting him with the supposed misogynists who followed.

[Devrim]

Yes, and I wish you'd stop commenting on things you know nothing about. Anyone who knows the first thing about Afghan history knows that RAWA's founder was a Zahir Shah loyalist.


It may be so, but nothing you have shown suggests it. That page you link to above certainly doesn't.

It is a copy of a review of a book from the LA times, and the only mention of the King is made to give historical context. It says nothing about her attitude towards the monarchy whatsoever.

If "[a]nyone who knows the first thing about Afghan history knows that RAWA's founder was a Zahir Shah loyalist, it should be pretty easy for you to show some evidence for it.

If this organisation are monarchists, it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide some evidence, such as an organisational statement supporting the King showing that it is.

As yet you haven't and I remain doubtful.

Devrim

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

No, i posted this thread, one about labour disparity and one for an intro

not three of this thread.

Stop acting like a playground bully, who has no way to express or debate, so just uses half truths and attacks to empower himself.

[syndicat]

What did these petit-bourgeois monarchists do? They wished for the destruction of Afghan socialism and gave quarter to traitors. There's nothing chauvinist about supporting the women of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan against traitors who would have them killed.

there never was any socialism in Afghanistan. you're referring to the Stalinist bureaucratic class regime. If RAWA didn't support them, that's a sign of their sense. That regime became the open wedge for Russian imperialism.

[khad]

there never was any socialism in Afghanistan. you're referring to the Stalinist bureaucratic class regime. If RAWA didn't support them, that's a sign of their sense. That regime became the open wedge for Russian imperialism.
And this is an example of how some Western leftists don't have the slightest bit of perspective. Your beloved mujahideen would have killed/raped every last one of you whiny liberals.

Were we talking about WW2, I bet you would have supported the Vlasov army and the Ustase because they were opposing "Stalinist bureaucratic hegemony."

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

nah, we just dont compromise on fundamental things that have to be present to make a society socialist.

1. Workers controling the means of production, through councils
2. No party or beauracratic state, whose ruling circle become the new bougoisie.

And no real communist EVER supported the Mujahadeen, who were as evil as the Taleban and even practiced Bacha Bazi.

Strawmen are made of straw

[chegitz guevara]

RAWA spokeswoman: "Zahir Shah is our only hope today"

http://www.rawa.org/hindu2.htm

"Having said this, she was quick to add that this in no way meant her organisation was in favour of the monarchy."

Definitely proof that RAWA wants the King back. :lol:

[Crux]

so some people on here will back islamic fundamentalist groups like the taleban who advocate all sorts of hideous positions.

But they get far more critical when women are in the group

anyone smell male chauvanism?
HOW WILL I EVER SOLVE THIS FALSE DILEMMA!
Uhm, why do you suppose one must support either?

[Barry Lyndon]

Khad, I agree with much of what you say, but you seem to have a vendetta against RAWA because they were critical of your beloved Najibullah.

As it stands now they are an organization that, by all accounts, is standing bravely against both US imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism.

I don't think their particularly beloved of Western liberals either. From what I know, most liberals in the US who profess to be so concerned with the plight of Muslim women have never even heard of them, even though they are the main source on the state of women's rights in Afghanistan.

[Crux]

"Having said this, she was quick to add that this in no way meant her organisation was in favour of the monarchy."

Definitely proof that RAWA wants the King back. :lol:
They do, as the article states, view a return of the king as the best alternative, as well as they support a U.N occupation of afghanistan. They might not be monarchists ideologically, but they are certainly presenting a dead end. That said, I am sure some of their ground-activism is commendable and their dual opposition to the occupation and the taliban certainly is, unfortunately that doesn't take away the obvious political limitations as well.

[khad]

I don't think their particularly beloved of Western liberals either. From what I know, most liberals in the US who profess to be so concerned with the plight of Muslim women have never even heard of them, even though they are the main source on the state of women's rights in Afghanistan.
They aren't even against imperialism, per se. In fact they advocate an "occupation" staffed with UN peacekeepers.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

whose worse khad, the UN soldiers or the Taleban, its only logical, the women in this group, want a number of troops from imperialist nations running shit, than men who want to rape them, and then stone them for being immodest.

[khad]

whose worse khad, the UN soldiers or the Taleban, its only logical, the women in this group, want a number of troops from imperialist nations running shit, than men who want to rape them, and then stone them for being immodest.
What were these petit bourgeois Zahir Shah loyalists doing when Hekmatyar's mujahideen were laying siege to Jalalabad? Pining for their monarchist "democracy" while other women were in arms in the city militia defending their rights and their country.

You're the misogynist pig for your continued slander of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. RAWA was the enemy--monarchist and allied with the mujahideen. They have zero credibility to speak of the mujahideen's crimes, or the Taliban's for that matter.

And as for your beloved UN:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/bosnia/1392175/Teenagers-used-for-sex-by-UN-in-Bosnia.html


Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'
By Stewart Payne
(Filed: 25/04/2002)

A HUMAN rights investigator who claims she was sacked for exposing the sexual abuse of Bosnian women by her United Nations colleagues, told a tribunal yesterday that girls as young as 15 were offered for sex.

Kathryn Bolkovac, 41, said women were forced to dance naked in Bosnian bars frequented by UN police officers.

Mrs Bolkovac is using a British employment tribunal to bring her case of unfair dismissal from an American recruitment agency which has an office in the UK.
The former American policewoman claims she was sacked because she sent an email to Jacques Paul Klein, the chief of UN mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which highlighted the sexual exploitation of women by those who had been sent to protect them from the sex trade.

[Crux]

whose worse khad, the UN soldiers or the Taleban, its only logical, the women in this group, want a number of troops from imperialist nations running shit, than men who want to rape them, and then stone them for being immodest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/25/unitednations

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/un-troops-buy-sex-from-teenage-refugees-in-congo-camp-756666.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7420798.stm

I could probably bring out some more but I think you get my point.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

Yeah i am fully aware UN soldiers rape ank kill and act like.. well any occupying force does.

But it isnt the same level of femle oppresion as the taleban do.

people in europe dont get stoned to death for fucking some random guy do we.

Anyway, i dont support either, I only support workers movements, that means fighting imperialism, and religeous fundamentalism.

This thread was started to see if those who support the taleban would support these people, which they dont, out of male chauvanism.

apparently "monarchists" are right wing, but theocratic rapists and murderers are not.

get some balance guys :)

[khad]

apparently "monarchists" are right wing, but theocratic rapists and murderers are not.

get some balance guys :)
When did I support the Taliban, you scumbag traitor to socialism?

[Crux]

This thread was started to see if those who support the taleban would support these people, which they dont, out of male chauvanism.

apparently "monarchists" are right wing, but theocratic rapists and murderers are not.

get some balance guys :)
HOW WILL I EVER SOLVE THIS FALSE DILEMMA!
Uhm, why do you suppose one must support either?

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

THE THREAD WAS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU, BUT WAS A REPLY FROM THE THREAD WHERE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE CLAIMED NOT SUPPORTING THE TALEBAN WAS RACIST

when someone replies, read the fucking letters they type make them into words, then comprehend the thing they are saying

you fake ass, powerjerkin respect my authoratar Leninist, who thinks the stalinist genocide in Chechneya was another great stalin policy

go apologise for genocide like the Tankie you are

LONG LIVE SOCIAL IMPERIALISM :D

[Crux]

What the fuck...?

[khad]

you fake ass, powerjerkin respect my authoratar Leninist, who thinks the stalinist genocide in Chechneya was another great stalin policy
Did I ever say I supported the deportation of Chechens? Slander and lies must come naturally to RAWA and its supporters.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

i just stated, i dont support either, yet you just read your stalin says card, which has as rule number one

call your opponent a reactionary, no matter what

[ed miliband]

i just stated, i dont support either, yet you just read your stalin says card, which has as rule number one

call your opponent a reactionary, no matter what

Majakovskij is a card-carrying Stalinist for sure, bro.

[gorillafuck]

They also fought soviet social imperialism.But according to you, they do what the PDPA did (though the PDPA did much more). Also, social imperialism is an absurd theory.

I saw one of their members speak at a library near me, once. She seemed very vague about actual demands and stances of RAWA. I think the organization itself is very vague.

[Devrim]

They do, as the article states, view a return of the king as the best alternative, as well as they support a U.N occupation of afghanistan. They might not be monarchists ideologically, but they are certainly presenting a dead end. That said, I am sure some of their ground-activism is commendable and their dual opposition to the occupation and the taliban certainly is, unfortunately that doesn't take away the obvious political limitations as well.

No, the article states that she does, not the organisation. In fact she stressed that her organisation didn't support the monarchy:


Having said this, she was quick to add that this in no way meant her organisation was in favour of the monarchy.

It is quite unclear what this group actually does support, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out that they didn't really have 'political positions' as such.

Khad opposes them because they sided with the American backed opposition to the Soviet backed regime. This is good enough reason to oppose them in itself. This is in no way a progressive group.

However, his allegations that the organisation, not a few members, support the monarchy have yet to be shown on here as have his allegations that 'RAWA's founder was a Zahir Shah loyalist'.

While it is clear that this is in no way a revolutionary organisation, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are monarchists.

Devrim

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

as ive said, i DONNNT support them, or stalinist regimes, or the taleban.

I support real communist movements, where workers fight to control the means of production, through councils, and where the army and navy have no say in civil and national affairs, and are just used to fight imperialism.

This nway we get the Freedom and egalitarianism of anarchy, with the defensive capabilities, of a leninist state.

Civil guards and militias made up of the communities and councils to govern the workplace, but a organised military to defend from the external threat of invasion.

[gorillafuck]

Now I'm confused on why you made a thread basically advertising RAWA, then.

[khad]

as ive said, i DONNNT support them, or stalinist regimes, or the taleban.

I support real communist movements, where workers fight to control the means of production, through councils, and where the army and navy have no say in civil and national affairs, and are just used to fight imperialism.
So your solution is to support Zahir Shah? That was RAWA's entire purpose from the start--to destroy Daoud and restore the king.

[Crux]

Now I'm confused on why you made a thread basically advertising RAWA, then.
To let the good times troll.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

as a rebutal to the user who said we were racist for not supporting the taleban, by showing a womans group, and saying if someone did not support it they were sexist

its the same principal, and its proved what i said correct.

BTW khad and Majovsky, its goodto see the whole Ice Axe shit isnt leaving you guys buthurt, forgive and forget and all that :D

[Crux]

as a rebutal to the user who said we were racist for not supporting the taleban, by showing a womans group, and saying if someone did not support it they were sexist

its the same principal, and its proved what i said correct.

BTW khad and Majovsky, its goodto see the whole Ice Axe shit isnt leaving you guys buthurt, forgive and forget and all that :D
You mentioned reading and comprehending, here's a little something for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Now kindly crawl back under your bridge, troll.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

i cant im leading the revolution in my head, whats your excuse?

[khad]

i cant im leading the revolution in my head, whats your excuse?
Says the kid joining the imperialist war machine of the United States.

[Crux]

Says the kid joining the imperialist war machine of the United States.
Don't feed the troll. Seriously. Don't.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

IM not American :D

YOU FAIL!!

You have dissapointed glorious stalin :(

good try though

[syndicat]

And this is an example of how some Western leftists don't have the slightest bit of perspective. Your beloved mujahideen would have killed/raped every last one of you whiny liberals.

Were we talking about WW2, I bet you would have supported the Vlasov army and the Ustase because they were opposing "Stalinist bureaucratic hegemony."

notice how this ass can reply without giving any argument whatever...just baseless slurs.

[Crux]

notice how this ass can reply without giving any argument whatever...just baseless slurs.
That's why some posts are not even worth responding to.

[khad]

notice how this ass can reply without giving any argument whatever...just baseless slurs.
Truth hurts.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/discouraging-people-you-t142802/index.html?p=1887574#post1887574


THE NAVY HAS NEVER BEEN TO AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ

how will i be sent to fight, i will not be in a combat role, alot of subs just lookout for drug smuggling etc nowadayd.

Obviously someone has an interested role in maintaining certain forms of territorial dominance.

[Crux]

Ok. AMLD is a tool. I think we knew that already. I don't see how that makes your slur against syndicat, implying that he is, somehow, being a supporter of the mujaheedin and ustase less baseless.

[khad]

Ok. AMLD is a tool. I think we knew that already. I don't see how that makes your slur against syndicat, implying that he is, somehow, being a supporter of the mujaheedin and ustase less baseless.
Of course it is not baseless.

In the war against Nazi aggression, the Vlasov army and Ustase formed a "native" auxiliary in support of the aggressor's goals--ie the destruction of "Stalinist bureaucracy."

In the war against American imperialism, these elements like RAWA and armed mercenaries like Hekmatyar and Massoud served the same function. They were fighting the Afghan state "bureaucracy," and they were already fighting against Daoud before Soviet troops entered the country. For the record, RAWA was initially formed in opposition to Daoud, before the PDPA came to power.

Analogous situation, so why the outrage? Is the truth that hard to handle?

[Saorsa]

Jesus Christ Khad, surely some of your posts in this thread count as flaming. Do you really have to be so rude and aggressive?

[khad]

Jesus Christ Khad, surely some of your posts in this thread count as flaming. Do you really have to be so rude and aggressive?
When someone comes in here accusing people of supporting the taliban, hostility is the least they can expect.

[Crux]

Of course it is not baseless.

In the war against Nazi aggression, the Vlasov army and Ustase formed a "native" auxiliary in support of the aggressor's goals--ie the destruction of "Stalinist bureaucracy."

In the war against American imperialism, these elements like RAWA and armed mercenaries like Hekmatyar and Massoud served the same function. They were fighting the Afghan state "bureaucracy," and they were already fighting against Daoud before Soviet troops entered the country. For the record, RAWA was initially formed in opposition to Daoud, before the PDPA came to power.

Analogous situation, so why the outrage? Is the truth that hard to handle?
Which of course presupposes that you can show where Syndicat supported the Mujaheedin. I see only strawman.

[khad]

Which of course presupposes that you can show where Syndicat supported the Mujaheedin. I see only strawman.
No, he supported RAWA, which supported the destruction of the nationalist Daoud government, and a fairly leftwing one by Afghan standards up to that point. Ironically, those Zahir Shah loyalists complained about lack of freedoms, when most of Daoud's crackdowns were directed at fundamentalists and their militias.

When countries (who are not fascist, theocratic, etc by any stretch) are locked in bitter existential struggle with the agents of imperialism, you do not give quarter to their enemies. This is like like condemning Zelaya while the US sacks Honduras, condemning Venezuela as Colombia threatens war, and yes, condemning "Stalinist bureaucracy" while Hitler razes Europe. It's all the same ultraleft horseshit that demonstrates yet again how much of the Western left doesn't even have a basic sense of perspective.

[GreenCommunism]

how can i negreport posts?

by the way, while i wouldn't support the taliban in words, i don't mind looking at them both killing each other, and they do have the right to defend themselves from an invader, no matter how disgusting they are, my point is that shouldn't we support the weakest group so that it causes maximum damage to the imperiailst? problem is, our voice support is nothing, we are not the cia which sends a million dollar to dissidents groups in many nation, personally, i just wish the USSR was still alive, to send money to the taliban and weaken the usa that way, give them a taste of their own medecine. then the ussr invades afghanistan after all that.

as for being racist for not supporting the taliban, i would say that there is probably some racism toward the criticism of the taliban, there's more islamophobia in the extreme-left than we think there is. of course, the taliban is fucking awful as a group, it's hard to exagerate what they do, but some end up doing so. i would like statistics of people being executed or stoned instead of merely talking about the fact that they did it.

[Crux]

No, he supported RAWA, which supported the destruction of the nationalist Daoud government, and a fairly leftwing one by Afghan standards up to that point. Ironically, those Zahir Shah loyalists complained about lack of freedoms, when most of Daoud's crackdowns were directed at fundamentalists and their militias.

When countries (who are not fascist, theocratic, etc by any stretch) are locked in bitter existential struggle with the agents of imperialism, you do not give quarter to their enemies. This is like like condemning Zelaya while the US sacks Honduras, condemning Venezuela as Colombia threatens war, and yes, condemning "Stalinist bureaucracy" while Hitler razes Europe. It's all the same ultraleft horseshit that demonstrates yet again how much of the Western left doesn't even have a basic sense of perspective.
Or opposing Kerensky, just after overthrowing a dictatorship, in midst of a coup threat from the military. Oh wait.
I think the Western left more often has the opposite problem, to be honest.
Is it like condemning fascism in midst of the threat of social democracy/social fascism?
Of course the specific examples you take would require specific answers, but hey if you're going to dumb it down..

[Sir Comradical]

"Having said this, she was quick to add that this in no way meant her organisation was in favour of the monarchy."

Definitely proof that RAWA wants the King back. :lol:

Actually.


On Zahir Shah
As a matter of principle, RAWA is not a monarchist organization. However, the majority of Afghan people whole-heartedly support the former king. That is why RAWA prefers Zahir Shah to the other self-styled jehadi and Taliban leaders.
http://www.rawa.org/points.html

What a joke, it's like they're saying 'we're not a monarchist organisation, we just wanted the monarch to rule while he was still alive because that's what the Afghan people want according to a poll we pulled out of thin air'. If RAWA preferred the monarch over the "self-styled jehadis" according to the principle that Zahir Shah was the lesser of two evils, then why didn't they support the PDPA government against Islamic fundamentalist reaction back in the 80's?

[Adi Shankara]

Anyone smell Male chauvanism?

There could be a woman on here calling for the genocide of everyone with brown skin, and some bright revleft user would still call "male chauvinism" on someone for disagreeing with that.

[khad]

Of course the specific examples you take would require specific answers, but hey if you're going to dumb it down..
You want a specific answer? The USA took over from Nazi Germany as the primary great power supporter of Afghanistan (the Afghan royal family was into all sorts of good things like eugenics) following WW2. After a number of disastrous projects like the Helmand dam and growing discontent against Zahir Shah, the king was overthrown by a coalition led by his cousin, then serving as prime minister.

While the prime minister was still of aristocratic heritage, he set Afghanistan down a path of secular nationalism and was pursuing better relations with the USSR and Arab states. During his administration his government moved aggressively to repress religious extremist elements, who were holding back the progress of things like, you know, women's rights.

Jihadis like Hekmatyar and Massoud had their start in the 70s, funded by the ISI and CIA, for they feared losing control of Afghanistan to a nationalist leader.

That RAWA was obsessed with condemning Daoud for the supposed lack of freedom under his government even as most of the state repression was exercised against extremists being paid by Pakistan and America just shows their traitorous colors. If they really cared anything for Afghanistan, if they claim to hate fundamentalists as much as they do, they would have backed the numerous actions Daoud and later the PDPA took against fundamentalist militias.

[Adi Shankara]

This is from a book review by RAWA from a book promoted by RAWA:


he following year, after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, all other political points of view were brutally repressed. That officially the Soviet regime supported women's rights made RAWA's task no easier. Indeed, educating women about their rights became more difficult under a hated government that was forcing its ideological program on an occupied people. Soon Meena's life became more difficult in still other ways when, because he was a Maoist, Faiz and Meena were forced to separate.

So it sounds like some Royalist Maoist tendency :laugh: A bit weird if you ask me.

[Devrim]

http://www.rawa.org/points.html


Thanks for that. It is the first link that actually got down to what they stand for.

Devrim

[Devrim]

So it sounds like some Royalist Maoist tendency :laugh: A bit weird if you ask me.

It doesn't sound weird to me at all. Maoism ended up taking what may have seemed to be lots of 'weird' positions if you looked at them from the stand point of working class politics. If however you looked at them from the standpoint of Chinese foreign policy they made a lot more sense, for example the alliance of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian monarch, Norodom Sihanouk.

Devrim