this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
146 points (97.4% liked)

World News

39025 readers
1720 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Taliban have allegedly purchased satellite jammers from Iran to disrupt the last remaining independent television channel reporting on the regime’s brutal crackdown on human rights.

Iran’s assistance helped the Taliban leaders acquire orbital jammers for the satellite stations of the Afghanistan International Television and shut down broadcast for more than a week, AITV’s executive editor Harun Najafizada told The Independent.

The channel is popular among Afghans for their critical coverage of the country’s hardline Islamist regime.

Taliban officials reportedly sent disruptive signals from a ground station within Afghanistan to the satellite, interfering with its broadcast. Hundreds of people in Afghanistan saw a blank screen from 5 September to 13 September before the channel shifted to a different satellite frequency.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Or maybe the two decades-long invasions did extreme damage and brought insane brutality to a poor population?

Would you like to elaborate on the situation of Afghanistan before 2001?

The middle class, the opposition to the Taliban, were growing.

Funny, then, that they didn't put up the least bit of a fight when the Taliban came knocking.

Not everything is down to economics.

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes not everything is down to ecominics, the bombs and bullets are probably a more significant factor. Being unable to feed your family is bad, burying your family is worse.

And yes, the middle class Afghanis can't put up a fight for many reasons, one of which is that they largely stopped existing. The moment they are locked out of their personal and business savings, they become poor desperate Afghanis.

Can you explain your disagreement or argument? I dont understand what you are getting at, and "elaborate on pre-2001 afghanistan" is a very broad topic.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes not everything is down to ecominics, the bombs and bullets are probably a more significant factor. Being unable to feed your family is bad, burying your family is worse.

And burying someone else's family for local disagreements is even worse.

And yes, the middle class Afghanis can’t put up a fight for many reasons, one of which is that they largely stopped existing. The moment they are locked out of their personal and business savings, they become poor desperate Afghanis.

Would you like to elaborate how the US freezing assets after the Taliban overran the country and seized control of its institutions stopped the Afghani middle class from putting up a fight against the Taliban from overrunning their country?

If the US hadn't frozen the assets, what would have happened is that the Taliban, then controlling the levers of government, would have had access to them. But even if we assume that wasn't an issue, what the fuck is the middle class supposed to do in the midst of a mass offensive by regional Islamist warlords? The development of a middle class is essential to democratic development, but it's not a wall against the use of all force - the middle class alone doesn't fight or lead wars. The middle class is glue; an ongoing war is a fucking sledgehammer. Feeding the Afghan middle class all the money in the world after the Taliban offensive started up wouldn't have changed that.

Can you explain your disagreement or argument? I dont understand what you are getting at, and “elaborate on pre-2001 afghanistan” is a very broad topic.

The two-decades of US occupation were not some outbreak of brutality which damaged Afghanistan. Afghanistan had been in far greater unbroken turmoil since the early 1970s, and the Taliban regime which preceded the US invasion (and, now, has resumed) is far more brutal. Even the Mujahideen government which preceded the Taliban was more brutal than the US-backed national government. Afghanistan's essential problems are not something that can be chalked up to "Bad things happened in the past five historical minutes".

This isn't a matter of happenstance - Afghanistan is simply not in a good position to become a functioning state - not culturally, not demographically, not economically. The ethnic conflicts are too deep and the imbalance of power too pronounced - every goddamn attempt at making a firm national government has utterly failed because the realities on the ground favor extreme decentralization of power, and not in a democratic sense - in a 'local elites and ethnic loyalties' sense.

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think we are in agreement on almost everything here.

The middle class can do nothing in the face of a regional offensive by Islamist warlords. When it gets to that point it's already too late.

My argument is in agreement with what you have said: a strong middle class is a bulwark against the formation and expansion of warlords.

As for the second issue, I fear my words were unclear here- when I referred to "two decades-long invasions" I was speaking of two separate invasions, each decades long. Namely the Soviet invasion in 1979 and the American invasion in 2001. The 2001 invasion was brutal and unjustified, but we can agree it was not the root cause of Afghanistan's problems.

One issue we may find disagreement on is the attempts at creating a firm national government. I am not aware of any serious attempts at such a thing since the 70s. Each government has been either a puppet government set up to suit foreign interests, or a reactionary warlord. It may be true that the peculiar circumstances of Afghanistan prevent it from having a firm national government, but that hypothesis goes untested in the face of overwhelming foreign meddling.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Oh, in that case, yeah, we are mostly in agreement. I would argue that both the Sovs and the Americans attempted to form a firm national government, that both the monarchy and the Afghan Republic preceding them also attempted it, and the Taliban has (twice now) in their own grotesque way attempted the same. The Mujahideen were more interested in just not falling apart into civil war again, a very 'symptomatic' government of the 'leave the locals to their affairs' attitude that Afghanistan governments struggle to fight.

I don't think I would say it's impossible or prevented completely, but I would say that it's... definitely not something that any one factor can fix or resolve. Whatever route Afghanistan takes to modernity, it will take... considerable overhaul, and that's something only the people of the region itself can make progress on.