PDA

View Full Version : New Taliban rules target teachers, aid workers


lily
12-10-2006, 02:16 AM
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16127078/)

New Taliban rules target teachers, aid workers
Group warns, then kills educators, says they don’t work for Afghans
An Afghan student waits for class to start at the Bibi Mahroo high
school in Kabul on Nov. 22. Twenty teachers have been killed this year by
the Taliban, and nearly 200 schools have been burned in a campaign of
intimidation.



KABUL, Afghanistan - The Taliban gunmen who murdered two teachers in eastern
Afghanistan early Saturday were only following their rules: Teachers receive
a warning, then a beating, and if they continue to teach must be killed.

The new list of 30 rules, decided on during a high Taliban meeting in
September or October and since circulated over the Internet, span from the
organizational — no jihad equipment may be used for personal means — to the
health conscious — militants are not supposed to smoke.

They also contain a grave warning for aid workers and educators.


Rule No. 24 forbids anyone to work as a teacher “under the current puppet
regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels.” One rule
later, No. 25, says teachers who ignore Taliban warnings will be killed.

Taliban militants early Saturday broke into a house in the eastern province
of Kunar, killing a family of five, including two sisters who were teachers.

Teachers killed, hundreds of schools attacked
The women had been warned in a letter to quit teaching, said Gulam Ullah
Wekar, the provincial education director. Their mother, grandmother and a
male relative were also slain in the attack.

The two sisters brought to 20 the number of teachers killed in Taliban
attacks this year, said Education Ministry spokesman Zuhur Afghan. He said
198 schools have been burned down this year, up from about 150 last year.

The 30 Taliban rules also spell out opposition to development projects from
aid organizations, including clinics, roads and schools.

“If a school fails a warning to close, it must be burned. But all religious
books must be secured beforehand,” rule No. 26 says.

An addendum to the rules said they were distributed initially at a meeting
of top Taliban leaders during Ramadan this year. The rules were signed by
Mullah Omar, the fugitive Taliban leader and “the highest leader of the
Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan,” according to the document.

Group stands by its rules
A purported Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, confirmed the
authenticity of the rules. He said aid organizations were not working for
the Afghan people but for the policies of occupying countries. “If they won’t
stop their work we will target them, like we’ve targeted them in the past,”
he said.

Mohammad Hashim Mayar, the deputy direct of ACBAR — the Agency Coordinating
Body for Afghan Relief — an oversight body for almost 100 aid organizations
in Afghanistan, said the rules are no surprise.

“They’ve been practicing this in the past,” Mayar said. “We already knew
when they were burning schools, when they were killing people, we said that
they were against education, and they are well aware of the importance of
education.”

The rules confirm a Taliban policy of undermining all forms of development
that benefit ordinary Afghans and seem to sanction the targeting of
civilians, said Maj. Luke Knittig, a spokesman for NATO’s International
Security Assistance Force.

Grasping for power
“The rules likely represent an attempt at indirect leadership by the Taliban
in the face of increasingly hindered ability to lead directly and visibly,”
said Knittig, who said officials had no reason to doubt the authenticity of
the rules, which are being circulated on various Web sites.

Other edicts focus inward on the Taliban command structure:

a.. No. 9: Taliban may not use jihad equipment or property for personal
ends.
b.. No. 10: Every Talib is accountable to his superiors in matters of
money spending and equipment usage.
c.. No. 12: A group of mujahedeen may not take in mujahedeen from another
group to increase their own power.
Other rules appear focused on not having ordinary Afghans turn against the
Taliban. Rule No. 16 says it is “strictly forbidden” to search houses or
confiscate weapons without a commander’s permission. No. 17 says militants
have no right to confiscate money or possessions from civilians.

No. 18 says fighters “should refrain from smoking cigarettes.”

Rule 19 says that mujahedeen may not take young boys without facial hair
onto the battlefield — or into their private quarters, an attempt to stamp
out the sexual abuse of young boys, a problem that is widely known in
southern Afghanistan but seldom discussed.

“The rule regarding behavior toward young boys shows this has been a
problem,” Knittig said.

Elrathin
12-10-2006, 02:29 AM
Taliban, weren't they the folks the neocons said we had defeated?

Cobra
12-10-2006, 02:29 AM
We should have kept more of our attention focused on Afghanistan it's becoming as bad to worse than it was before our invasion in places. Will have to fight their again if the NATO forces can't keep a lid on things.

Elrathin
12-10-2006, 02:32 AM
We should have kept more of our attention focused on Afghanistan it's becoming as bad to worse than it was before our invasion in places. Will have to fight their again if the NATO forces can't keep a lid on things.



We left before the job was done. Which is the biggest failure of GWB. We should have left Iraq where it was and finished Afghanistan first.

Sorry, but Iraq was NEVER the threat this administration made it out to be compared to the job we still had to do in Afghnistan to ensure that the Taliban would not be able to uprise again.

lily
12-10-2006, 02:36 AM
Taliban, weren't they the folks the neocons said we had defeated?


Yaeh, that would be them. Also I remember something about how women were treated and now they could get an education.

Cobra Wrote:
We should have kept more of our attention focused on Afghanistan it's becoming as bad to worse than it was before our invasion in places. Will have to fight their again if the NATO forces can't keep a lid on things.

Cobra.........you and everyone else that has known me for a long time know that's what I've been saying since we went into Iraq.

We could have been done with Afghanistan by now. People are still in favor of the war there. It could have been our shining example of democracy.

Cobra
12-10-2006, 02:44 AM
We could have been done with Afghanistan by now.
I see your point but then again even if we had kept our full attention there this still could have happened. Most of these people can and do hop between Pakistan and Afghanistan and we can't follow them across that boarder. Plus all the fighters coming from Pakistan. We can't secure our own boarder let alone one with as rough terrain as that's found along their's. Only so much you can do with military forces. You can't predict the future or change the past.

lily
12-10-2006, 03:12 AM
Oh, I beg to differ. They took soldiers from Afghainstan to fight in Iraq. Three years of full force American soldiers would have done wonders in Afghanistan.

You're right, you can't predict the future, but any fool would have figured out, if you take soldiers from one war to fight another war, neither is going to be won......and you're right we can't change the past, but it's not too soon to take care of the present.

I'll have to make a guess here and bet you that the average American doesn't give Afghanistan a second thought. It's the forgotten war.

Cobra
12-10-2006, 03:19 AM
I'll have to make a guess here and bet you that the average American doesn't give Afghanistan a second thought. It's the forgotten war.
True enough, people aren't dying there.
Oh, I beg to differ. They took soldiers from Afghainstan to fight in Iraq. Three years of full force American soldiers would have done wonders in Afghanistan.
Maybe so but we would of had to leave sometime and when we did the fighters would just come right back across the boarder. Our troops can't stop them over there and all they have to do is wait us out anyway. We can focus on making the government stronger without the need for a lot of troops so they can defend themselves. that's the only long term soultion that will work in this situation and in Iraq.

Also remember we never took out the Afghan war lords, there still running the country outside Kabul so there's another problem just to throw that out into the discussion. Even if we built up Karzi's government he doesn't control the whole country and are troops can't help that unless we want a bloody fight to take them out ourselves then you might just get a power vacume like the one in Iraq with tribe fighting against tribe without the warlords keepin everyone in check.

lily
12-10-2006, 03:32 AM
True enough, people aren't dying there.

You're kidding, right?

Maybe so but we would of had to leave sometime and when we did the fighters would just come right back across the boarder. Our troops can't stop them over there and all they have to do is wait us out anyway. We can focus on making the government stronger without the need for a lot of troops so they can defend themselves. that's the only long term soultion that will work in this situation and in Iraq.

Then we are occupying the country, not building a democracy. Are we going to make it a state of something?

Also remember we never took out the Afghan war lords, there still running the country outside Kabul so there's another problem just to throw that out into the discussion. Even if we built up Karzi's government he doesn't control the whole country and are troops can't help that unless we want a bloody fight to take them out ourselves then you might just get a power vacume like the one in Iraq with tribe fighting against tribe without the warlords keepin everyone in check.

Hmmmm.........how did you read the deleted part of my post?;) I had this whole post written, of when I posted the articles about Karzi giving more power to the War Loards in order to keep the peace......but on to Karzi doesn't control the whole country.......Cobra, that's his JOB.

Cobra
12-10-2006, 03:57 AM
You're kidding, right?
No, fewer of our people are dying, so it's not in the news, so people don't care. That's what I was meaning.
Then we are occupying the country, not building a democracy. Are we going to make it a state of something?
Who knows it's kind of a complex situation you know. It takes time to make a democracy, it's one of the hardest forms of government to make in a tribal and war torn region where the slightest thing can knock it off balance and where the people are all fractured and don't want to work to together in a democracy but rule over the others. I think that can be said for Afghanistan although you can see it a lot more in iraq right now.
Karzi doesn't control the whole country.......Cobra, that's his JOB.
Maybe so but it's a hard job and he does not have the resources to do it. To bad but there's nothing we can do about that. What do you want to do plunge the country into civil war by forcing Karzis hand in dealing with the war lords. Even with our support our country is war wary and it wouldn't take a lot of dead soldiers to get us out of there leaving Karzi up a creek without a padle and the situation worse then having him with the war lords. Atleast that would keep the taliban out of some of Afghanistan.

wonder cow
12-10-2006, 06:04 AM
We should have kept more of our attention focused on Afghanistan

True.

We had a real chance of changing Afghan for the better forever.

And still could do so, if we focus again on it. The conditions in Afghanistan in terms of the people's attitude towards the US is not the same as Iraq, and most of the people in Afghanistan hate the Taliban.

I recommend the novel Kite Runner. It's fictional but you learn a lot about Afghanistan's history and the people.

lily
12-10-2006, 11:56 PM
Cobra


No, fewer of our people are dying, so it's not in the news, so people don't care. That's what I was meaning.

To be perfectly blunt, Cobra.......it's NATO forces and mostly Canadian that are being killed and let's face it........Americans don't really care.


Maybe so but it's a hard job and he does not have the resources to do it.

Sorry, after hearing Bush say what a hard job it is, I'm pretty well fed up with that excuse. If you can't handle the job, step aside and let someone else do it.

To bad but there's nothing we can do about that.

Well, since we're the ones that pulled the troops out to go to Iraq, I would think that it would be our job to fix another mess gotten into with piss poor planing. After we pulled out troops to go into Iraq, suddenly there were Iraqi type of attacks starting in Afghainstan.

Cobra
12-11-2006, 12:07 AM
Americans don't really care.
Exactly what have I been saying.

I'm pretty well fed up with that excuse. If you can't handle the job, step aside and let someone else do it.
It doesn't work that way. Even if there are people out there who could do a better job politics and the like will prevent them from getting the job most of the time anyway. Karzi isn't doing such a bad job, maybe not all we had hoped for from him but he has made positive steps. That countries had 20 years of war, rome wasn't built in the day and we can't baby sit him with our troops.
I would think that it would be our job to fix another mess gotten into with piss poor planing.
Not really, we did our job it's really up to them now.

Remember also large # of troops foreign on their soil is just as likely to piss off the locals and make us look like an occupying force so drawing them dow might have been a good idea.
After we pulled out troops to go into Iraq, suddenly there were Iraqi type of attacks starting in Afghainstan.
They would have learned them eventually with or without Iraq. I really don't think large # of our troops on the ground coould have prevented that esspecially with the terrain they have there.

lily
12-11-2006, 01:06 AM
Cobra wrote

It doesn't work that way. Even if there are people out there who could do a better job politics and the like will prevent them from getting the job most of the time anyway. Karzi isn't doing such a bad job, maybe not all we had hoped for from him but he has made positive steps. That countries had 20 years of war, rome wasn't built in the day and we can't baby sit him with our troops.

Can I translate this for you? In another two years we will have to in and do a regime change.

Not really, we did our job it's really up to them now.

Huh? When did we declair victory in Afghainstan?


They would have learned them eventually with or without Iraq. I really don't think large # of our troops on the ground coould have prevented that esspecially with the terrain they have there.

Well, we'll never know what would have happened if we focused on finishing what we started.

Cobra
12-11-2006, 01:23 AM
Huh? When did we declair victory in Afghainstan?
When we gave up the search for Bin-Ladan, when we handed over troop control to NATO, when the government came into being and we ceaded some power to them. Pick one.
Well, we'll never know what would have happened if we focused on finishing what we started.
We finished a lot of it, but these type of things have a way of re-surfacing as soon as your back is turned. We did a great job with low troop levels, we never had huge amounts of troops in Afghanistan unlike Iraq. The opian boom is something we should encourage Karzi to work on though. A lot of that money is finding it's way to the terrorists. Although there isn't that much we can do them being a soverighn country and all that if we don't want to step on toes and stir up a hornets nest.

lily
12-11-2006, 01:41 AM
When we gave up the search for Bin-Ladan, when we handed over troop control to NATO, when the government came into being and we ceaded some power to them. Pick one.

None of the above, Cobra. We are still at war with Afghanistan

We finished a lot of it, but these type of things have a way of re-surfacing as soon as your back is turned. We did a great job with low troop levels, we never had huge amounts of troops in Afghanistan unlike Iraq.

Um.........yes we did, before re-deploying them into Iraq.

The opian boom is something we should encourage Karzi to work on though. A lot of that money is finding it's way to the terrorists. Although there isn't that much we can do them being a soverighn country and all that if we don't want to step on toes and stir up a hornets nest.

Yeah, I know..........Bush's brilliant idea of having them grow "beautiful date trees" come to mind.........complete to America does not know how beautiful a date tree is.:rolleyes:

BoogyMan
12-11-2006, 02:57 AM
None of the above, Cobra. We are still at war with Afghanistan

We are not at war with Afghanistan, we are now fighting a deposed faction that would like to destabilize (not too stable to start with) the government we helped to setup there.

lily
12-11-2006, 03:20 AM
No shit! I must have missed the Mission Accomplished speech. Do the**13,000 American troops know this?

Oh wait.........I missed this:

we are now fighting a deposed faction that would like to destabilize (not too stable to start with) the government we helped to setup there.

By your standards, we are no longer at war in Iraq.

Cobra
12-11-2006, 03:31 AM
Define war.

Was iraq ever even a declared war.