You are in:
- Archives » 2006 » March 2006
Taliban-tastic
Imagine if a group of disgruntled fundamentalist Christians seized power of a US state by force. Those who resisted the takeover were rounded up and slaughtered. Teaching of any subject other than their warped version of Christianity was banned. Women were prevented from attending schools, forced to wear extremely modest clothes and threatened with execution if they contemplated adultery. Homosexuals were executed. Television was banned as "The Devil's Jukebox", as its messages from the outside world risked corrupting young minds. Dancing was forbidden. Don't even think about the Internet.
Citizens were forced to church on pain of beatings or worse. All signs of secularism and other religions were wiped from official history. Historical buildings and art that preceded the religious dictatorship were put to the torch.
Gangs of armed men roamed the streets, enforcing the strict moral code with violence. In churches and public meetings - the only places where citizens were informed about developments outside their villages - approved speakers preached messages of fascistic hate against "inferior" races and cultures.
The only entertainments on offer were public executions of apostates, adulterers and petty criminals.
Worst, perhaps, for the rest of the world, the leadership of this new state allowed an international terror group that shared its views to use the nation as a base to launch an international crusade against the inferior peoples. Far-right Christian militiamen were indoctrinated and trained in the state in army camps, before spreading out across the world to strike at the symbols of multiculturalism.
Do you think this nation's rulers would find much support among liberals elsewhere when the rest of the world decided to take the religious maniacs out of power by force?
You'd be surprised. The increasingly demented Madeleine Bunting spends the better part of her latest column attacking the US and Allies' record in Afghanistan. Bunting opposed the toppling of the Taliban, as Norman Geras, in a masterful demolishing of her column, tells us.
It was possible to oppose the invasion of Iraq for decent reasons. Discount extremist anti-Americans, the Islamo-cranks who believe that no Muslim country should be subject to western scrutiny, the apologists and admirers of dictators. Besides the self-interest of certain politicans and national elites, there were real fears of a wider bloodbath in the Middle East, a pessimistic belief that Iraqis might be happy to see the back of Saddam but not likely to thank us for it, concern that toppling the Ba'athists might prevent us dealing with the far more dangerous regime in Iran. Saddam might even have agreed to less hostile relations with the west - seems unlikely, but he was Our Man in the Middle East before. Not exactly idealistic opposition, but understandable reservations.
But opposing the removal of the Taliban and the destruction of al-Qaeda's support network can't possibly be justified. The Guardian should ask itself why it is allowing apologists for the world's most vicious theofascist dictatorship to write columns in what's supposed to be a liberal newspaper.
