“Un-Islamic” Radio Station Burned to the Ground Near Kabul

Another story out of Afghanistan reinforces the view that the Taliban and extremists are reasserting their authority –even in or near the capitol. Radio Zafar near Kabul was burned to the ground for being “un-Islamic” due to its programming and “morally corrupt” practices — which appears to include the hiring of women and playing of music.

There are increasing questions about our investment of lives and treasure in the fight in Afghanistan as religious extremists reassert their control over areas. Indeed, the U.S. government has been yielding to such elements to preserve peace. However, if we “win” the war by reinstating the same fanatics, it is hard to see the great moral or strategic victory. Recently, a journalist was sentenced to death for downloading material deemed “blasphemy” of the prophet — again it dealt with the treatment of women, here.

For the full story, click here.

12 thoughts on ““Un-Islamic” Radio Station Burned to the Ground Near Kabul”

  1. Another fine example of what one of our posters calls the “nutty, dangerous, and demeaning” crowd being victimized by their moral superiors — the religious crowd. Wonderful thing religion.

  2. They thought they were getting a three-fer. A public avenging of 911. Securing an important client-state’s west border. Hemming in an adversary state on three sides.

    Seemed like a no-brainer at the time.

  3. From what I understand, the Taliban never really lost influence in Afghanistan, it just went underground. Now maybe it’s just coming back up again.

    I agree with those who said it’s impossible to get a firm hold in that country, and why Bush keeps sending our troops on such high-risk missions is beyond me. Maybe HE should put on the armor and go on duty in these war zones, since he’s so convinced he’s in the “right.” Of course, we all know he won’t!

  4. Niblet,

    I was thinking along the lines of active, overseas service.

    But back to Iraq and Afghanistan, two entirely different problems with two likely outcomes. Pardon please my armchair theorizing:

    Afghanistan first: Niblet, I tell you that Afghanistan can always be conquered. It just can’t be held! The Martians could come down and conquer every living country and Afghanistan would be the one they couldn’t hold! Everybody has taken a shot at ruling them from Alexander the Great, to the Moghuls to the Mongols, to the Maharattas to the British to the Russians to the USA. None have succeeded, those hill tribes and clans are tougher than old leather and we are not going to do any better than all the other “superpowers” did in their time. Look, even the Afghani’s can’t rule Afghanistan. So best to declare victory and pack up, before we get run out.

    Iraq. Now that’s too complex for anybody to figure out, because there are too many players on the sidelines that have vital interests there. It won’t even come close to being another Afghanistan in that it CAN be pacified and ruled, its just whether we want to ante up the cost of doing so. My bet is that we will up to a strategic point and then bail out. A really brutal Clausewitzian calculus is going on right now (i.e. fatalities are being written off as the cost of a kind of strategic liability limitation) and that upsets my humanitarian side.

  5. Nibbles, why am I getting the strong impression that you’ve never had a run-in with a Taliban militant with an RPG? I don’t know the last time I saw such a brazen chickenhawk–you seem to have absolutely no respect for the lives of our soldiers to shrug off the very real threat posed by militants.

    Try to understand that our soldiers fight and die in Afghanistan, and just because you don’t pay any attention to the scope of their sacrifice and discount the very real risks they face doesn’t make you more of a patriot. It just makes you look like a cocky fool. Come to think of it, perhaps this explains your affinity for the administration–birds of a feather, and all that.

  6. uh, mespo, I have seen enough of your pushy know it all posts to peg you properly.

  7. deeply, uh, GW Bush’s “messes” are in the eye of the beholder and my eyes don’t see any.

  8. deeply, uh Ronald Reagan served three year in the Army Air Corp, starting about 1942.

  9. niblet:

    Just a reminder. Those who oppose you do not hate you or your kids who volunteered or the nation. Most us us have served or have loved ones who have or are now serving. You are not special in that regard. We just disagree, and your overly emotional rantings and presumptions make you look wild-eyed and crazed. It is still a democracy, and insulting others does nothing to bolster your position. Likewise it does not harm the recipient in any meaningful way. It just says a lot about you!

  10. Niblet,

    Wow, and I thought I was a lavish over-generalizer!

    Come on. Eisenhower was a liberal. Kennedy was a liberal. Nixon was more a liberal than a conservative (yes, young’uns, hard as that is to believe).

    All handled national security just fine and all were veterans

    Reagan was a conservative, no service: only war Grenada. Bush II is a conservative, no active duty service; only war Iraq/Afghanistan and huge messes. Don’t ask me. Ask the veterans and the 2-, 3-, and 4-star generals who have spoken out.

    Believe me. Please believe me. We don’t have a chance of creating a stable democracy in Afghanistan and never did. Britain tried and they were far abler than we.

  11. Mr. Turley, For 6 years every winter we read of a “looming massive spring offensive because we have dropped our guard in Afganistan.”

    Every Spring our soldiers and airforce kill them easily. Hundreds of them at a time as they march nearly barefoot out of the mountains from neighboring Pakistan.

    Why do you lefties keep relentlessly spouting this Spring offensive garbage?

    A radio station gets burned and you are ready to say “because a radio station was burned, the war is lost”.

    No wonder liberals can’t be trusted with national security. You are all cut & runners,whiners, and complainers, and YES I have two sons in the service, one in the US Marines and one in the US Air Force and I don’t want your thank you’s for their service, that would be an insult because I know 1) you do not pray for their safety and 2) you would not mean any well wishes.

Comments are closed.