PDA

View Full Version : Meeting a Taliban Commander(video france 24)



Irish Eyes
11-20-2007, 02:16 AM
In the heart of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, FRANCE 24's Claire Billet meets "Abu Tayeb," a Taliban special brigade commander.
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/20071116-afghanistan-taliban-nato-soldiers-victims-landmines/20071115-afghanistan-taliban-claire-billet-iranian-arms.html

astro
11-20-2007, 02:38 AM
Very interesting. Well worth watching the entire video and seeing their point of view, agree with it or not; and she's certainly very brave to conduct it.

All the time I was thinking whether US Intelligence will scrutinise it and try to glean anything from it? The answer would be obviously be yes I imagine.

Irish Eyes
11-20-2007, 03:34 AM
Im sure Us Intel has a few reporters under some sort of surveilence....They will definately view the vid for some Intel.

Tebryn
11-20-2007, 03:48 AM
Thanks, very interesting. The quality is better than on UAV's cam :)

PBLV
11-20-2007, 02:33 PM
Indeed, it is an interesting report. I am more and more impressed by France24, they come up with interesting things.

thunderbird84
11-20-2007, 02:40 PM
Indeed, great one, it's interesting to see how they manage to survive and how they really hide.
The lady reporter deserves respect for her courage, not all reporters would have done that.

Peiper_76
11-20-2007, 03:59 PM
In the face of what the "Taliban" is and what they are responsible for, I despise this reporter for her bias. An objective reporter would not have omitted the context within which the "Taliban" exists. They would not have allowed the "Taliban" members to make unqualified and uncontextualized statements. The purpose of the reporter is to remind the audience of the context, to accent any hypocrisy, to provide a check for the factuality of statements made, not to vocally swoon over the affections of the local "Taliban commander." From a gloss of neutrality, she imparts the impression that they are merely permissive, but watchful governors and fighters for "God and country" against, what they view as, a morally repugnant occupier.

What has the reporter left out? Here is a small sample:

HUMANITY DENIED
Systematic Violations of Women's Rights in Afghanistan (2001)
[ http://hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan3/ ]

HUMANITÉ BAFOUÉE
Violations systématiques des droits des femmes en Afghanistan
(En français for our dear reporter)
[ http://hrw.org/french/reports/afghanwomen/index.htm#TopOfPage ]

The Taliban's War on Education: Schoolgirls are still under fire in Afghanistan (2001)
[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/21/afghan14057.htm ]

MASSACRES OF HAZARAS IN AFGHANISTAN (2001)
[ http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/ ]

Paying for the Taliban's Crimes:
Abuses Against Ethnic Pashtuns in Northern Afghanistan (2002)
[ http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/afghan2/ ]


(many more if anyone actually care)

khukuri
11-20-2007, 04:01 PM
Fighters for islam my ass, they fight for pashtun domination over afghanistan.

thunderbird84
11-20-2007, 05:05 PM
In the face of what the "Taliban" is and what they are responsible for, I despise this reporter for her bias. An objective reporter would not have omitted the context within which the "Taliban" exists. They would not have allowed the "Taliban" members to make unqualified and uncontextualized statements. The purpose of the reporter is to remind the audience of the context, to accent any hypocrisy, to provide a check for the factuality of statements made, not to vocally swoon over the affections of the local "Taliban commander." From a gloss of neutrality, she imparts the impression that they are merely permissive, but watchful governors and fighters for "God and country" against, what they view as, a morally repugnant occupier.I find she has done her job within a neutral way without making any kind of judgement and that's what makes the difference, she lets the freedom to the viewer to get his own opinion of what he is watching and it's interesting to see the talibans under another perspective and attempt to understand the reasons behind their fight.

Peiper_76
11-20-2007, 05:19 PM
I find she has done her job within a neutral way without making any kind of judgement and that's what makes the difference, she lets the freedom to the viewer to get his own opinion of what he is watching and it's interesting to see the talibans under another perspective and attempt to understand the reasons behind their fight.

I doubt that your relativism would stand under serious scrutiny.

thunderbird84
11-20-2007, 05:23 PM
I doubt that your relativism would stand under serious scrutiny.
It's simply a matter of opinion, you don't have to be assigned to a side to get a judgement.

Merfeller
11-20-2007, 05:24 PM
Same ****, different mouth as far as I'm concerned. The Taliban are so far gone it's not worth hearing "their side." That reporter can be as ambitious as she wants to be, but she'll never be seen as a person by that man and his kind. That alone should make the western audience shun his opinion.

thunderbird84
11-20-2007, 05:29 PM
That reporter can be as ambitious as she wants to be, but she'll never be seen as a person by that man and his kind. That alone should make the western audience shun his opinion.Probably, nonethless, she deserves to be applauded for making something quite unusual and rather courageous.
I know that France24 is far from being the favorite News TV channel of US, but that doesn't have to be a sort of barrier.

Merfeller
11-20-2007, 05:41 PM
Probably, nonethless, she deserves to be applauded for making something quite unusual and rather courageous.
I know that France24 is far from being the favorite News TV channel of US citizens, but that doesn't have to be a sort of barrier.

Of course you're right. She's a true reporter in the sense that she goes out and gets her own story instead of relying on wire services. She should be admired for it. My point was that I could care less about the opinions of the Taliban commander since his world view is so antiquated. Nevertheless, her reportage is quite good and ambitious.

Don't get me started on the favorite news channels of US citizens...:-(

Peiper_76
11-20-2007, 05:48 PM
It's simply a matter of opinion, you don't have to be assigned to a side to get a judgement.

You are confusing the inclusion of the facts, as responsible and objective reporting, with "assigning a side." Referencing the atrocities committed by the "Taliban" does not constitute "passing judgement." The "Taliban" does not exist within a vacuum. This interview is not inclusive; it is one-sided. It does not contextualize the "Taliban" with historical facts. If one were to form an opinion, solely from the information in this interview, as you suggest, it would be a grossly ignorant opinion.

Also, given your statement, I am curious: what "perspective" and "reasoning" could you possibly discover in their message of brutality, misogyny, religious intolerance, and ethnic hatred, explicit in their policies, that would make "their fight" remotely "interesting?"

khukuri
11-20-2007, 05:49 PM
I doubt that your relativism would stand under serious scrutiny.

You talk as if there is no image on the taliban already. People know what the Taliban are and we already heard a ton about them. All the things you mentioned are known and have been reported quite a lot. Its not like her report is the only one, you have to see the media image and the general reporting on the taliban to relate this piece. If now lets say this was 10 years ago when for most people taliban were still unknown then here report would have been very bias, or lets its a case were someone is forming theyre own opinion on the matter for the first time using this piece, the yes it can be biased.

She simply reported what she saw and were told without altering it to much... that was it. She stated that really clearly and even doubted when the teacher said they were fine. Her reporting is some of the unbiased Ive ever seen.
I dont need fox news to tell me everytime how evil something is, I can think for my self please.


The "Taliban" does not exist within a vacuum. This interview is not inclusive; it is one-sided. It does not contextualize the "Taliban" with historical facts. If one were to form an opinion, solely from the information in this interview, as you suggest, it would be a grossly ignorant opinion.

She did for example when they went into the school she mentioned what the taliban done to other schools.

simple jumper
11-20-2007, 05:49 PM
"There are two broad categories of Taliban fighters today, we are told. There are local fighters, who are appointed by commanders close to Mullah Omar, the reclusive, one-eyed Taliban chief. Local fighters live and fight in their native provinces. The second type of Taliban, the kind of men Abu Tayeb commands, are authorized to fight anywhere in the country. Abu Tayeb is said to report to Mansour Dadullah, one of Mullah Omar's top deputies."

Anyone knwo how to spell the 2nd type? Could be of use fora term paper I'm working on...

thunderbird84
11-20-2007, 06:11 PM
You are confusing the inclusion of the facts, as responsible and objective reporting, with "assigning a side." Referencing the atrocities committed by the "Taliban" does not constitute "passing judgement."
Taliban rules and laws based on Shariaa aren't that different from those adopted by some countries which are not bothered at all by the US of A, they are even supported financially and logistically.

The "Taliban" does not exist within a vacuum. This interview is not inclusive; it is one-sided. It does not contextualize the "Taliban" with historical facts. If one were to form an opinion, solely from the information in this interview, as you suggest, it would be a grossly ignorant opinion.
I don't think that the interview was aiming at showing any kind of historical facts, it's simply about a bunch of talibans explaining their reasons to fight and showing their current way to survive.

Also, given your statement, I am curious: what "perspective" and "reasoning" could you possibly discover in their message of brutality, misogyny, religious intolerance, and ethnic hatred, explicit in their policies
I seriously doubt that you say the same thing if you don't know who are the talibans, you would have probably just compared'em to another fanatical wahabi group.

that would make "their fight" remotely "interesting?"
It's interesting because it doesn't come with the usual informations we have been used to see since ages.

afreu
11-20-2007, 06:46 PM
In the face of what the "Taliban" is and what they are responsible for, I despise this reporter for her bias. An objective reporter would not have omitted the context within which the "Taliban" exists. They would not have allowed the "Taliban" members to make unqualified and uncontextualized statements. The purpose of the reporter is to remind the audience of the context, to accent any hypocrisy, to provide a check for the factuality of statements made, not to vocally swoon over the affections of the local "Taliban commander."

You could blame a bunch of journalists who reported about the Iraq war as embedded journalists for the same thing.

Peiper_76
11-20-2007, 07:05 PM
Taliban rules and laws based on Shariaa aren't that different from those adopted by some countries which are not bothered at all by the US of A, they are even supported financially and logistically.

Firstly, all Muslim societies have their version of sharia law. To state that the "Taliban" based their society on sharia law, is next to meaningless. An analog would be: "European governments are based on a democratic government." Your statement contains no pertinent information.

Second, "the Taliban understanding of Islam, ... is heavily influenced by Pashtunwali the Pashtun customary law. In fact, there is no basis in the Qur'an for many positions held by the Taliban, including the oppression of women's rights and the rectitude of growing opium because it is used by infidel kafirs." (Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Feb., 2002)

Third, what does the United States and whom they choose to support, have to do with the argument? Personally, I resent the insinuation, from you and other posters in this thread, that the fact of my nationality ought to poison the validity of my argument.



It's interesting because it doesn't come with the usual informations we have been used to see since ages.

I conceed to your desire to legitimate a truly contemptuous ideology with your interest; enjoy your company.

khukuri
11-20-2007, 08:09 PM
Firstly, all Muslim societies have their version of sharia law. To state that the "Taliban" based their society on sharia law, is next to meaningless. An analog would be: "European governments are based on a democratic government." Your statement contains no pertinent information.

Second, "the Taliban understanding of Islam, ... is heavily influenced by Pashtunwali the Pashtun customary law. In fact, there is no basis in the Qur'an for many positions held by the Taliban, including the oppression of women's rights and the rectitude of growing opium because it is used by infidel kafirs." (Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Feb., 2002)


I give you cred for your knowledge, as someone coming from muslim background that is. Not many on this board that understand todays ****ed up islamic soceity in the right way...

thunderbird84
11-20-2007, 09:43 PM
Firstly, all Muslim societies have their version of sharia law. To state that the "Taliban" based their society on sharia law, is next to meaningless. An analog would be: "European governments are based on a democratic government." Your statement contains no pertinent information.
Second, "the Taliban understanding of Islam, ... is heavily influenced by Pashtunwali the Pashtun customary law. In fact, there is no basis in the Qur'an for many positions held by the Taliban, including the oppression of women's rights and the rectitude of growing opium because it is used by infidel kafirs." (Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Feb., 2002)
You are not wrong, but the talibans islam, even being slightly different, is fundamentally inherited from shariaa laws.

Third, what does the United States and whom they choose to support, have to do with the argument? Personally, I resent the insinuation, from you and other posters in this thread, that the fact of my nationality ought to poison the validity of my argument.Don't take it as a personal offense since it is not the case.
But the point is about the hypocrisy of labelling talibans as being those who beat women, behead people and close their minds, while such practices seem not that much different from those applied by some authorities the US of A actually support and prefer to publicly ignore.
(Makes sense that they have some valid reasons to keep on supporting'em when you look at the reasons behind, heh).
As you stated, of course that every country's islam is slightly different from each other, taking in consideration its historical branches and reform movements.
But please show me how emprisoning gays, cutting hands of thieves or restricting the freedom of speech is different from what talibans were used to do when they were in power? considering that saudis shariaa's concept is more or less the same in terms of punishment.

One last thing you should not forget, is that the US were not expecting to attack and disable the taliban's government if talibans would have cooperated and delivered Ben Laden to the US authorities.
So please, stop with the sick hypocrisy and face the reality.

astro
11-20-2007, 10:02 PM
Try and keep it real guys. Your discussion is proving to be one of the BETTER examples of how "internet debating" should occur - so take a breath before each reply and avoid personal insults, as it's proving..... interesting.

Go on...

Peiper_76
11-21-2007, 03:20 AM
So please, stop with the sick hypocrisy and face the reality.


There is no hypocrisy in my argument. My original focus was on, what I perceived as, the lack of objectivity exhibited by the reporter in the video interview linked in this thread.

Instead, you seem to be under the impression that my objection is content specific to the "Taliban." You assume that I would have no objections if the reporter had conducted the same interview, with an "equally" reprehensible ideology as the "Taliban," but one that was an "ally" with the United States (assumption from my nationality?). I have neither stated this, nor have I implied it. In fact, the two occasions where I directly commented on the "Taliban" were in response to your comments. The first as an aside, questioning your need to understand the "perspective" and "reasoning" behind "their fight." The second as a correction to your misapplication of the term "sharia."

Your accusation of hypocrisy is unfounded. I will chalk this miscommunication up as the result of a language barrier.

andreen
11-21-2007, 07:15 AM
After I have seen this videon I wood say that the group are more likely to (as they themselves say) muhadjeddin "religious warriors". A very few of the "original" Taliban warriors from start of the war in 2001 are still inte the country or standing. The groups that are in news to day refered to as Taliban are mostly groups of muhadjeddin "religious warriors" that se themselves performing a Jihad "a holy war" The situation in Afghanistan to day are more starting to resemble the situation under the war with the Soviet union. Different groups of muhadjeddin, over nation borders support each other. To say that the war in Afghanistan is about Taliban is way to simplified.

So a better name for this report would have been:
Meeting a muhadjeddin Commander.

Bongo
11-21-2007, 11:15 AM
[quote=Peiper_76;2886313]You are confusing the inclusion of the facts, as responsible and objective reporting, with "assigning a side." Referencing the atrocities committed by the "Taliban" does not constitute "passing judgement." The "Taliban" does not exist within a vacuum. This interview is not inclusive; it is one-sided. It does not contextualize the "Taliban" with historical facts. If one were to form an opinion, solely from the information in this interview, as you suggest, it would be a grossly ignorant opinion.

I dont belive you can have a interview free of opinion, but free of bias. the french reporter has that. Also is she reprorting on the Taliban in that region, on current time. It is not ment to be a objektive free conclusion on the taliban of Afghanistan, but its showing the current Taliban of that area.

Also, I wouldent be surprised if these are recently joined in the Taliban. They seemed kinda goofy. That they are sencere I dont doubt but you cant be sure that the men were "real deal" or just putting on a show.