Out With the Old, In With the…Old

Amid the certainty that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden and his ilk, the US government, after weeks of thumb-twiddling, thought it important to oust them. After teaming with the “freedom fighting” Northern Alliance, Administration officials heaped large piles of praise on themselves for opposing the Taliban regime on moral issues, as well.

While suddenly unaware of the gross mistreatment of women throughout the Arab world, GOP mouthpieces and their trained parrots in the media feigned horror at the treatment of women in Afghanistan and hailed our military as a messianic liberation force akin to those who landed at Normandy and Omaha. The Taliban, admittedly a pack of thugs whose collective back begs for the lash, were doubtless a repressive lot who gave aid and comfort to the crazed zealots of Islam who murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11 in addition to having ruled their male and female subjects alike with an iron fist.

Stories of Taliban oppression are everywhere. A simple web search will span the gamut from truth to exaggeration to a bewildering personification of evil itself. And while there is little reason to doubt the tales of flogging, jailing and insane degrees of sex-segregation attributed to these criminals, the “liberation” stopped well short of any real change within the framework of the new and improved Afghan government.

It is apparently impossible to slip in a human rights suggestion between dictating our expectations on border policy and demanding a reduction in poppy growth. Our priorities are again right in line with logic.

The AP continues the horrifying tale of an Afghani man the state shamelessly wants executed for converting to Christianity. The following demonstrates the nature of the kinder, gentler Afghanistan we brought to power at considerable financial and human cost:

Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to “pull him into pieces.”

In the allegedly free, post-Taliban Afghanistan that has received billions in US “foreign aid,” a country in which it was vital to wrestle control away from the fanatics, the government murders its citizens as punishment for their private spiritual beliefs. As the AP reported Wednesday, this man’s only defense is insanity.

“We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn’t talk like a normal person,” prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari told The Associated Press.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.

To recap: government officials of allegedly sound mind will only fail to murder one of their citizens for subscribing to different religious beliefs than they do if it can be proven that he is the crazy one.

Thank God Allah we ran the pro-terrorists out of Kabul.

When asked about the situation, President Bush began his statement with an admission we have long anticipated, confessing that he is “deeply troubled.” In an obvious attempt to lighten the mood after such a bombshell, he mentioned the “principle of freedom,” a concept he is completely ignorant of. His final remarks couldn’t be heard over the laughter.

posted by artusregister
  • Stephen Gordon

    We’re (collectively) the crazy ones. We voted for Bush.

    This sort of stuff would have happened with our without US involvement. Because of our foreign intervention, our (again, collective) fingerprints are on this as much as theirs are.

  • Artus Register

    Indeed, but the good guys/bad guys thing is just perception and a name change, just like here.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    Stephen, that’s not accurate – had the guy converted to Christianity under Taliban rule, he would’ve been killed straight up.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    Oops, I misread what you said. Egg on my face.

  • http://nonannystate.blogspot.com The Other Mike S

    You can almost taste the irony. We remove a theocracy and it is replace with….. a theocracy.

    Kinda like what’s happening in Iraq…

    Great site, btw

  • paulie cannoli

    We’re (collectively) the crazy ones. We voted for Bush.

    Not me, not (I’m sure) you, and not most Americans, either.

    You can almost taste the irony. We remove a theocracy and it is replace with….. a theocracy.

    Kinda like what’s happening in Iraq…

    Saddam’s regime was secular.

  • Erin

    I’m not buying the idea of collective guilt. We Americans aren’t all guilty because Bush was elected, any more than all Afghans are guilty for what the muslim clerics are determined to do now.

    One bad egg does not rot the whole barrel.

  • Andy

    The REAL culprits behind 9/11 are sitting in the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon. Don’t buy the government’s conspiracy theory/fairy tale. 9/11 was Bush’s Riechstag Fire.

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/911_redux.html

  • http://nonannystate.blogspot.com The Other Mike S

    Paulie: I’m missing your point. I was stating that we installed a theocracy in Afghanistan and we’re doing the same in Iraq. I’m well aware Saddam was a secular government.

  • paulie cannoli

    Paulie: I’m missing your point. I was stating that we installed a theocracy in Afghanistan and we’re doing the same in Iraq. I’m well aware Saddam was a secular government.

    You said:

    You can almost taste the irony. We remove a theocracy and it is replace with….. a theocracy.

    Kinda like what’s happening in Iraq…

    Even thought that was apparently not what you menat, this implies that in Iraq “we” *also removed a theocracy and replaced it with a theocracy*, so I pointed out that unlike Afghanistan, Iraq didn’t have one before the US invasion.

    Although you apparently knew that, it was not evident from your comment, and other people reading might not know that.

    I’m not buying the idea of collective guilt. We Americans aren’t all guilty because Bush was elected,

    Especially because he wasn’t.

  • Erin

    Whether Bush was elected is a totally different discussion.

  • paulie cannoli

    Well, since we are talking about rigged elections engineered by the Bush Crime family in Afghanistan and Iraq, why not also mention that they also rigged two elections in the good ole USSA with the help of Diebold, Bush Crime Family members and the Supremely Kangaroo Kort claiming jurisdiction where it had none?

  • http://threestooges.net Robert

    We’re (collectively) the crazy ones. We voted for Bush.

    Speak for yourself, Stephen. I sure as hell didn’t vote for that evil lunatic, either in 2000 or 2004. (I didn’t vote for his evil clones, either.)

  • Sandra K

    Spreading freedom is a job for capitalism. Look what Levi’s and McDonald’s did to the USSR.

    Social change is impossible to do with force from the outside. Carrots. That’s what we need. Carrots and time. The really sad thing is, we don’t need a single tax-dollar to do it.

  • http://nonannystate.blogspot.com The Other Mike S

    Paulie, It implies no such thing. I’m sorry you have troubles with reading comprehension. Just as a little game, pretend in the first sentence that I AM talking about Iraq.

    “We remove a theocracy (in Iraq) and it is replace with….. a theocracy (in Iraq).

    Kinda like what’s happening in Iraq…”

    Does the second sentence make any sense? Yeah, I thought not. Thanks for playin’ along.

  • Artus Register

    We’re (collectively) the crazy ones. We voted for Bush.

    Speak for yourself, Stephen. I sure as hell didn’t vote for that evil lunatic, either in 2000 or 2004. (I didn’t vote for his evil clones, either.)

    How can you quote his parenthetical collectively and then advise him to speak for himself?

  • paulie cannoli

    Other Mike S,

    I’m not the one with the reading comprehension problem.

    But this is pointless to continue. We agree, and I pointed out the problem for anyone else who may have misunderstood you.

    Now I’ll move on.