Tuareg rebels agree to impose Islamic fundamentalism in north Mali

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18224004


26 May 2012 Last updated at 20:31 ETMali Tuareg and Islamist rebels agree on Sharia state

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60513000/jpg/_60513283_014836419-1.jpg More than 300,000 people have fled northern Mali due to the rebellion
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18224004#story_continues_1) Mali's coup crisis



Life in Timbuktu under Islamist rule (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18104236)
Fleeing ethnic attacks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18057916)
What next for Mali? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17612789)
Will Mali's coup backfire? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17573294)



Two rebel groups that seized nothern Mali two months ago have agreed to merge and turn their territory into an Islamist state, both sides say.
The Tuareg MNLA, a secular rebel group, and the Islamist group Ansar Dine signed the deal in the town of Gao, spokespeople said.
Ansar Dine, which has ties to al-Qaeda, has already begun to impose Sharia law in some towns.
The groups took advantage of a coup in March to seize the territory.
Correspondents say the deal is yet another worrying development for Mali and may complicate efforts to stabilise the country.
'Accord signed' Capt Amadou Sanogo seized power in March after claiming the then president, Amadou Toumani Toure, was not doing enough to quash the rebellion.
Faced with mounting international pressure and sanctions, he was forced to step down only three weeks later, but is still thought to wield power behind the scenes.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18224004#story_continues_2) Mali coup: The story so far

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59961000/gif/_59961050_mali_north_0512.gif


22 March: Junta seizes power, accusing President Amadou Toumani Toure of not doing enough to tackle rebels
28 March: Mali suspended by regional bloc, Ecowas
1 April: Rebels seize whole of north, including historic city of Timbuktu
6 April: Tuareg rebels declare independence for the north - not recognised internationally
12 April: Speaker of parliament Dioncounda Traore sworn in as Mali's interim leader
17 April: Junta arrests several allies of former President Toure
19 April: Mr Toure and his family flee to Senegal
20 May: Ecowas deal for Traore to stay for a year
21 May: Interim President Dioncounda Traore beaten unconscious by protesters


"It is true that an accord has been signed," Col Bouna Ag Attayoub, a MNLA commander in Timbuktu, told the BBC. "The Islamic Republic of Azawad is now an independent sovereign state."
Previously, the MNLA had remained secular, resisting Ansar Dine's efforts to impose Islamic law in towns. Meanwhile, Ansar Dine had rejected the MNLA's call for an independent state.
Residents said there was celebratory gunfire in Gao and Timbuktu after the agreement.
More than 300,000 people have fled northern Mali since the rebels took the territory in the days following the coup.
Regional bloc Ecowas has said it is preparing to send 3,000 troops to Mali to help the country reclaim its northern territory, but no date has been set for the force to arrive.
Mali's interim president, Dioncounda Traore, is receiving medical tests in France after being beaten unconscious by protesters who supported the coup.
It is thought that soldiers allowed the demonstrators into Mr Traore's office, which is next to the presidential palace. Ecowas has warned of sanctions if the military are found to be involved.

So the supposedly secular Tuareg rebels have agreed with the Salafists to impose their hardline interpretation of Islam and Shariah. These thugs have already imposed their religious will on the ancient city of Timbuktu, repressing the religious practices of Sufi Muslims in the area. I also wonder what non-Tuareg and particularly non-Muslims in north Mali think about this development.

I remember a couple of the tankies on the forum supporting the Tuareg rebels quite uncritically at first. The Tuaregs have legitimate complaints of ethnic repression, but the leaders of this movement are clearly seeking power. They may not be religious fundamentalists themselves, but their willingness to compromise on this point shows them to be opportunists

[campesino]

this is caused by the Saudi government funding religious groups in the area and across the world, people don't naturally turn to religion when times get tough, they do it because it is well funded. the same seems to be happening in Northern Lebanon, Gaza and wherever else Saudis like to interfere.

[Cheung Mo]

Islamists are the enemy. Moscow offered the final solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, and yet the West and Beijing backed the rapists and pedophiles instead of the civilization-bearing leftists.

[hatzel]

Islamists are the enemy. Moscow offered the final solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, and yet the West and Beijing backed the rapists and pedophiles instead of the civilization-bearing leftists.

Beautiful words here...

/sarcasm

[Prometeo liberado]

Islamists are the enemy. Moscow offered the final solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, and yet the West and Beijing backed the rapists and pedophiles instead of the civilization-bearing leftists.

Easy there, the truth is never that black and white.

[Ocean Seal]

Islamists are the enemy. Moscow offered the final solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, and yet the West and Beijing backed the rapists and pedophiles instead of the civilization-bearing leftists.
Yep Moscow offered the solution. Bombing the shit out of those "Islamists" until they acknowledged the superiority of our secular ways.
Spreading communism == spreading democracy.

[Princess Luna]

A while back, there was a report that in several cities the Islamists where seizing and destroying TV's, video game systems and the like for being 'un-Islamic'

this is caused by the Saudi government funding religious groups in the area and across the world, people don't naturally turn to religion when times get tough, they do it because it is well funded. the same seems to be happening in Northern Lebanon, Gaza and wherever else Saudis like to interfere.

Actually al-Qaeda despises the Saudi monarchy, or so I've heard. And yes people do turn to religion when thing get tough, there doesn't have to be a giant conspiracy ...

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Islamists are the enemy. Moscow offered the final solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, and yet the West and Beijing backed the rapists and pedophiles instead of the civilization-bearing leftists.

Islamists are the enemy. George W. Bush offered the final solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentralism, and yet the left backed the rapists and pedophiles instead of the civilization-bearing neoconservatives.

[Raúl Duke]

why would the "secular group" accept an Islamic fundamentalist state, one that may even sound worse the Iran?

[khad]

Islamists are the enemy. George W. Bush offered the final solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentralism, and yet the left backed the rapists and pedophiles instead of the civilization-bearing neoconservatives.
The rapists and pedophiles are the Northern Alliance.

http://news.change.org/stories/are-afghan-security-forces-complicit-in-child-sex-trafficking

[Brosa Luxemburg]

this is caused by the Saudi government funding religious groups in the area and across the world, people don't naturally turn to religion when times get tough, they do it because it is well funded. the same seems to be happening in Northern Lebanon, Gaza and wherever else Saudis like to interfere.

Well, this is a very complex issue, and the way you are viewing this is very black and white. The Saudi government promotes and propagates a religious sect of Islamic thought called Wahhabism. The Wahhabist movement and idea stayed basically within the Saudi kingdom for a long time because of xenophobic tendencies within Wahhabi doctrine. It finally started to spread for a few reasons.

1. The Afghanistan Islamist resistance to Soviet invasion in which many Islamic revivalist movements united together. Of course, these movements would begin to split during the first Gulf War when the Saudi government allowed U.S. troops on Saudi "holy" land.

2. The increase and intensity of United States imperialist domination in predominantly Muslim lands and it's unwavering support for Israel (which go hand in hand).

Islamic revivalism is a reactionary response to legitimate greviences that people in these countries have and turned to parties not responsible for these troubles: Americans, western and secular society, and the Jews.

While the Saudi government has spent HUGE amounts of money supporting Islamic fundamentalism, what causes these people to turn to this fundamentalism is not as easy as "Saudi funding".

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The rapists and pedophiles are the Northern Alliance.

http://news.change.org/stories/are-afghan-security-forces-complicit-in-child-sex-trafficking

These guys are much more bloodthirsty and horrible than the Taliban could have ever hoped to be.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The rapists and pedophiles are the Northern Alliance.

http://news.change.org/stories/are-afghan-security-forces-complicit-in-child-sex-trafficking

As with the USSR. (http://www.ips.org/icc/tv230604.htm)

No qualitative difference between one imperialist army and another.

-

@Khad on this post
And? I'm not defending the reactionary mujahideen, the United States entered Afghanistan to fight a reactionary force as well. To defend the soviet invasion of Afghanistan is no different than to defend the American invasion, both were imperialist wars.

[wsg1991]

These guys are much more bloodthirsty and horrible than the Taliban could have ever hoped to be.

no they are exactly the same type

[khad]

And? I'm not defending the reactionary mujahideen, the United States entered Afghanistan to fight a reactionary force as well. To defend the soviet invasion of Afghanistan is no different than to defend the American invasion, both were imperialist wars.
The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan to end a situation that was already caused by the West's manipulation. As the United States was the primary sponsor of the monarchy, various elements had already been rebelling against the Daoud government. Throughout the 70s, Pakistan equipped them and gave them shelter, which provided many of the networks that allowed the mujahideen to emerge as a major military force once aid was accelerated in the 80s. A good example of this was the career of Pakistan's favorite mujahideen leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekmatyar#Exile_in_Pakistan).

Civil war and imperialist meddling were already there long before the communists were even in power.

The decision to intervene (after being requested officially eleven times) was nothing more than assistance to a revolutionary defense against imperialism.

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

Now, for the actual topic of the thread.

A good model to study for what might happen in Mali is Chechnya, since there you also had a factionalized rebel movement that really had no hope of forming a functional government. By the time round II rolled around, most of the secular nationalists defected en masse to federal forces to help them put down the Islamists.

As is usually the case, secularists tend to greatly underestimate the strength and influence of the Islamists, so I wouldn't be surprised if they try to cut some kind of deal with Mali's rump state--after being decimated by the Islamists in their internal power struggles, of course.

[Ravachol]

Islamists are the enemy. Moscow offered the final solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, and yet the West and Beijing backed the rapists and pedophiles instead of the civilization-bearing leftists.

The game Moscow played back then is the same Saudi Arabia is playing right now bro. Imperialists be imperializin'

[campesino]

Well, this is a very complex issue, and the way you are viewing this is very black and white. The Saudi government promotes and propagates a religious sect of Islamic thought called Wahhabism. The Wahhabist movement and idea stayed basically within the Saudi kingdom for a long time because of xenophobic tendencies within Wahhabi doctrine. It finally started to spread for a few reasons.

1. The Afghanistan Islamist resistance to Soviet invasion in which many Islamic revivalist movements united together. Of course, these movements would begin to split during the first Gulf War when the Saudi government allowed U.S. troops on Saudi "holy" land.

2. The increase and intensity of United States imperialist domination in predominantly Muslim lands and it's unwavering support for Israel (which go hand in hand).

Islamic revivalism is a reactionary response to legitimate greviences that people in these countries have and turned to parties not responsible for these troubles: Americans, western and secular society, and the Jews.

While the Saudi government has spent HUGE amounts of money supporting Islamic fundamentalism, what causes these people to turn to this fundamentalism is not as easy as "Saudi funding".

true, I didn't specify the sects of Islam the Saudis mostly fund. this appeal to religion when things get tough seems to be a meme western media has created. almost all anti-colonial struggles and political shifts on the spectrum in crises were secular.
the rise of the baath party,
the rise of nasser
the rise of nazism
the rise of FDR
the ANC in south africa
the mexican revolution
the french revolution
the american revolution
the russian revolution
the list goes on and on, some of these were popular movements against religion when times got tough. religion has been a tool for reactionaries.

there is a saudi conspiracy/foreign policy to bring about an islamic theocracy in their region. the reason I don't think there is really any antagonism between al-qaeda and the saudis is this blog entry on the Angry Arab. http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/05/jeffrey-feltmans-children-al-qaidah-in.html
which is a great place to get opinion and news about the middle east from a marxist viewpoint.

[Igor]

The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan to end a situation that was already caused by the West's manipulation. As the United States was the primary sponsor of the monarchy, various elements had already been rebelling against the Daoud government. Throughout the 70s, Pakistan equipped them and gave them shelter, which provided many of the networks that allowed the mujahideen to emerge as a major military force once aid was accelerated in the 80s. A good example of this was the career of Pakistan's favorite mujahideen leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekmatyar#Exile_in_Pakistan).

Civil war and imperialist meddling were already there long before the communists were even in power.

The decision to intervene (after being requested officially eleven times) was nothing more than assistance to a revolutionary defense against imperialism.

Lovely. All the bad things were caused by the heinous Amurika and the Soviet Union was merely trying to fix things out of the goodness of their hearts, with no imperialist interests of their own. This is how the world works, we have the Good Guys and the Bad Guys. Right?

[Rafiq]

As with the USSR. (http://www.ips.org/icc/tv230604.htm)

No qualitative difference between one imperialist army and another.

-

@Khad on this post
And? I'm not defending the reactionary mujahideen, the United States entered Afghanistan to fight a reactionary force as well. To defend the soviet invasion of Afghanistan is no different than to defend the American invasion, both were imperialist wars.

The "crimes" were killing a Muj brother of an Afghan women, hardly comparable to trafficking sex slaves.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The "crimes" were killing a Muj brother of an Afghan women, hardly comparable to trafficking sex slaves.


"The widespread rape and torture of women during the years of the Soviet occupation after 1979 was well documented..."

[Rafiq]

"The widespread rape and torture of women during the years of the Soviet occupation after 1979 was well documented..."

Yes, by Pakastani soldiers and the Muj. This doesn't particularly strike me as evidence of mass scale systemic rape on behalf of the Soviet forces.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

there is a saudi conspiracy/foreign policy to bring about an islamic theocracy in their region.
It has much more to do with establishing their hegemony over the region than just simply establishing an Islamic theocracy.


the reason I don't think there is really any antagonism between al-qaeda and the saudis is this blog entry on the Angry Arab. http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/05/jeffrey-feltmans-children-al-qaidah-in.html
which is a great place to get opinion and news about the middle east from a marxist viewpoint.

WHAT? Al-Qaeda has launched devastating attacks on Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Interior in Riyadh and many, many other attacks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_militant_incidents_in_Saudi_Arabia)

It is true, Saudi Arabia has helped fund many Islamic revivalist movements in the region for it's own gain, but Al-Qaeda are not allies with Saudi Arabia and in fact see them as an enemy supported by the "infidels" from the west. Saudi Arabia tries to spread predominantly Wahhabist views and ideals (although they are not against teaming-up with other revivalist movements) but Al-Qaeda is not a Wahhabist organization, it is Deobrandi.

[campesino]

well, saudis fund and support groups that have meeting which members of al-qaeda attend. Saudis are theocrats plain and simple, they have attacked Houthis(a sect of Shiism) in Yemen, Shias in Bahrain. When I say saudi I mean the Saudi Family and friends. The people of Saudi Arabia have no option but to see their countries resources be used to oppress them and fund ideologies they oppose.

[khad]

Lovely. All the bad things were caused by the heinous Amurika and the Soviet Union was merely trying to fix things out of the goodness of their hearts, with no imperialist interests of their own. This is how the world works, we have the Good Guys and the Bad Guys. Right?
When communists under attack appeal to your help when you are in a position to help, it is indeed as simple as that.

Yes, by Pakastani soldiers and the Muj. This doesn't particularly strike me as evidence of mass scale systemic rape on behalf of the Soviet forces.
Well, no shit, it's just more smear tactics by the Western press. Pass off a "fact" with ambiguous wording to make every crime appear to be attributable to commie boogeymen.



"The widespread rape and torture of women during the years of the Soviet occupation after 1979 was well documented..."

I actually tracked down one of these "war crimes" reports issued by Amnesty International (which the article posted by the Marxist-Leninist sectnut so lovingly referenced throughout the thread). It's called Women in Afghanistan and was published in 1999.

Let's see what it says about the communist period:


A number of attempts have been made by different Afghan governments throughout the 20th century to improve the status of women as part of efforts to modernise the country. Significant reforms favouring women were introduced in the 1920s, 1960s and then following the establishment of a communist government in 1978. The government of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan moved to prohibit traditional practices which were deemed feudal in nature, including banning bride price and forced marriage. The minimum age for marriage was also raised. Education was stressed for both men and women and widespread literacy programmes were set up. Such reforms however were not universally wellreceived, being viewed by many Afghans - particularly in rural areas - as the imposition of secular western values considered to be alien to Afghan culture and un-Islamic. As had happened earlier in the century, resentment with the government’s programme and the manner in which it was imposed, along with widespread repression, provoked a backlash from tribal and Islamic leaders.What's this? Mild praise for the commies? Shocking!


During the ten years of fighting that followed the Soviet invasion, serious human rights abuses were reported, forcing millions of Afghans to flee the country. Civilians in rural areas where most of the fighting took place were targeted by Soviet and Afghan troops apparently in reprisal for the actions of armed opposition groups. Men, women and children were killed in these attacks and people’s homes and livelihoods destroyed. In towns and cities, students and teachers, some of them women, were arrested for opposition to the government, including for participating in largely peaceful demonstrations. Amnesty International reported in 1986 that thousands of political prisoners were detained on account of the non-violent exercise of their fundamental human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. Many were tortured, including women prisoners who testified to being forced to witness the torture of male prisoners.Yeah, we all knew about thousands of prisoners in a country of tens of millions, but not even a direct reference to the torture of women? Just women watching men get beaten? What gives?

Now let's see what they say about the Mujahideen and their rule:


Women were often treated as the spoils of war. Many women were raped by armed guards during the period 1992 - 1995. Rape of women by armed guards appeared to be condoned by leaders as a method of intimidating vanquished populations and of rewarding soldiers. In March 1994 a 15-year-old girl was repeatedly raped in her house in Kabul’s Chel Sotton district after armed guards entered the house and killed her father for allowing her to go to school.

"They shot my father right in front of me. He was
a shop-keeper. It was nine o’clock at night. They
came to our house and told him they had orders
to kill him because he allowed me to go to school.
The Mujahideen had already stopped me from
going to school, but that was not enough. They
then came and killed my father. I cannot describe
what they did to me after killing my father..."

Several Afghan women reportedly committed suicide to avoid such a fate. In one case, a father who saw Mujahideen guards coming for his daughter reportedly killed her before she could be taken away. Scores of Afghan women were abducted and detained by Mujahideen groups and commanders and then used for sexual purposes or sold into prostitution. Some were victimised for belonging to a particular religious or ethnic group or by commanders or guards allied to an opposed faction. A woman told Amnesty International that her 13-year-old niece was abducted by the armed guards of a warring commander in late 1993.

"They said their commander wanted her. They took her away.
She was resisting and screaming, but they dragged her away.
We were frightened that if we did anything we all would be killed.
They would kill any girl who refused to go with them."Well, here we have a direct reference to rape institutionalized by the mujahideen as war policy.

And let's see what it says about the Taleban:


With the emergence of the Taleban and their military success against opposing factions, the nature of the conflict and human rights situation in Afghanistan has shifted once again. In contrast to the Mujahideen groups of the past, the Taleban appeared as a more cohesive force in 1994 and 1995, bringing a degree of order to areas of the country brought
securely under their control and winning support from traditional Afghan families.3 Their policy of disarming opposition groups resulted in a reduction in acts of banditry and extortion. However, despite the improvements brought by the Taleban in some aspects of personal security, serious human rights abuses have continued to be reported in Taleban-controlled areas.

The rigid social code imposed by the Taleban includes severe restrictions on women’s freedom of movement, expression, and association. A multitude of edicts announced by the Taleban have barred women from employment outside the home except in the health sector, discontinued education for girls, and imposed a strict code of clothing for women in public, ordering them to be veiled from head to foot. The restrictions have most immediately affected educated, working women living in the towns. However, the impact of the restrictions is felt much wider, affecting the poor, uneducated women too, as well as boys and girls, other family members, and ultimately the long-term development prospects for Afghanistan.

The most deleterious consequences of the Taleban’s edicts can be seen in the areas of health and education. Although female health professionals were given special dispensation to continue working under strict guidelines, the Taleban’s policies relating to the segregation of female patients and workers has resulted in women’s access to healthcare - which was already inadequate - being further reduced. A number of home visit mid-wife and widow’s health schemes have been shut down, as Afghan female staff have been barred from working outside approved health structures. Attempts by the Taleban authorities in September 1997 to centralise women’s hospital services in Kabul would have further limited women’s healthcare provision until protests by international aid agencies prompted a reversal in the policy. Not only was the proposed hospital to which women were meant to go for treatment not equipped and not functioning, but its central location would have made it difficult for women to reach given the restrictions on their mobility.Yep, we all know that the Taliban horribly oppresses women, but guess what is conspicuously absent in this account--that's right, you know.

Looks like the only pedophiles and mass rapists in this story are the mujahideen that you Americans love so much.

[The Machine]

Well, no shit, it's just more smear tactics by the Western press.

And look at what those Afghan women were wearing!

[khad]

And look at what those Afghan women were wearing!
In the Amnesty International report the only references to systematic rape were clearly attributed to the mujahideen.

Read your own damn sources.

[Rafiq]

Machine, the point was that charges of rape leveled at the Soviet Union are unique only to a couple of users in this thread. Had there been credible evidence to verify such, i.e. Had even something like Amnesty international to say such existed, then perhaps a charge of rape apologia would be legitiment.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Let's get this thread back on topic, people.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Yes, by Pakastani soldiers and the Muj. This doesn't particularly strike me as evidence of mass scale systemic rape on behalf of the Soviet forces.

I actually tracked down one of these "war crimes" reports issued by Amnesty International (which the article posted by the Marxist-Leninist sectnut [o rly?] so lovingly referenced throughout the thread). It's called Women in Afghanistan and was published in 1999.

Alright then, apparently my source regarding war rape taking place by soviet soldiers in Afghanistan might have been incorrect (or might not have been, I'll certainly investigate the specific issue more later). Until then, I concede you that owing to the lack of further evidence.

That doesn't dilute my point that the soviet war in Afghanistan was an imperialist war akin to the American war there.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

* is waiting patiently for a mod to split off the OT stuff and stick in in the history forum *

[Cheung Mo]

I would have handed over Mujahid to Dr. Menagle. That's how much I despise them.

[ellipsis]

Please refrain from off-topic conversation. The afghanistan related discussion is derailing the thread. Start another thread to discuss this, please.