Re: FW: Afghans Celebrate Victory With Dance, Clean Shaves

[Jeff wrote:]
>This article will be bad news for those
>of you who would prefer to see the
>Afghan people starving, tortured,
>murdered and oppressed by the Taliban

Wow! I must've missed a whole _bunch_ of posts! All the ones I saw
were from people who thought the end of Taliban rule was a great thing.
Since you, Jeff, are fond of asking for specific references, how about
providing some?

Of course, the people who were killed by the bombs weren't there to
celebrate. Do we know (and do we care) how many that is? Oh, and the
people who were driven into refugee status, they weren't there; they're
out there somewhere on the highway, or waiting at the border of
Pakistan. Do we know (and do we care) how many that is?

Me, I'm glad the Taliban is on the run. Too damn bad we can't bring
back the statues they destroyed, not to mention the lives they destroyed
or set way back! I'm still holding my breath to see whether the
Northern Alliance keeps from degenerating into their old ways. Perhaps,
as Paul E and Johnny assure us, the U.S. will keep that tendency in
check. Time will tell.

[Jeff:]
>& believe the US to be a meddling
>imperialist state that has no business
>being over there

The U.S. _is_ a meddling imperialist state, though I have never claimed
that we have _no_ business being there. Bin Laden probably _is_ guilty
and most certainly _is_ being sheltered by the Taliban. If you have any
confusion about the positions taken in past posts, I can help out with
specific references.

If you wish to challenge the general assertion that the U.S. is a
meddling imperialist state, I invite you to respond to my post regarding
Bolivia. Please tell us what _you_ would do. And, as long as we're
on the subject, please tell us your answer to John Starrett's original
question: if you were president, how would you handle things? I'm eager
to know.

[Jeff:]
>(BTW, do you even
>know what an empire is?? I thought
>taxes and an emperor with absolute power
>were required...)

Since I don't believe I have ever used the word "empire", I'll take a
pass on debating its precise definition.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> Oh, and the
> people who were driven into refugee status, they weren't there;
they're
> out there somewhere on the highway, or waiting at the border of
> Pakistan. Do we know (and do we care) how many that is?

There is no sign of the 1.5 million refugees the UN was expecting to
head for Pakistan. The refugee camps are empty, though it is
estimated that about 125,000 are in or near Pakistan. Way too many,
in any case.

> I'm still holding my breath to see whether the
> Northern Alliance keeps from degenerating into their old ways.
Perhaps,
> as Paul E and Johnny assure us, the U.S. will keep that tendency in
> check.

That's not what I was suggesting at all. I was suggesting that the
international coalition will make sure that the Northern Alliance and
their ethnic groups will be represented by only a fairly small part
of the new government of Afghanistan. Let's hope that's true.

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> This article will be bad news for those
> of you who would prefer to see the
> Afghan people starving, tortured,
> murdered and oppressed by the Taliban
<snip>

I am unfamiliar with these people. Could you perhaps point them out?
Oh. You mean the pacifists. Have you ever considered being a
substitute host for Rush? You have his style down pretty well.

John Starrett

--- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> > This article will be bad news for those
> > of you who would prefer to see the
> > Afghan people starving, tortured,
> > murdered and oppressed by the Taliban
> <snip>
>
> I am unfamiliar with these people.

Completely agreed, John. I'll add my voice to this as well: for the
most part, the discussions on this list have attempted to use
intelligence and respect when voicing dissenting or differing views.
I haven't seen anyone express the 'preferences' that Jeff makes note
of, and given that, the comment comes across as ... I don't know
what. It certainly doesn't put Jeff's perspective in a better light.

So I'll ask Jeff: why, when posting information or an alternative
viewpoint, do you feel a need to misrepresent those that might
disagree with you?

Jon

> I'm still holding my breath to see whether the
> Northern Alliance keeps from degenerating into their old ways.
Perhaps,
> as Paul E and Johnny assure us, the U.S. will keep that tendency in
> check.

Paul said:

That's not what I was suggesting at all. I was suggesting that the
international coalition will make sure that the Northern Alliance and
their ethnic groups will be represented by only a fairly small part
of the new government of Afghanistan. Let's hope that's true.

Now Johnny says: Please let me, and others on the list, speak for themselves.

Our words are as clear as we can make them. Misunderstanding a person's position is not the time to attribute things that were never said or implied.

Johnny Reinhard

[I wrote:]
>>>I'm still holding my breath to see whether the Northern Alliance
>>>keeps from degenerating into their old ways. Perhaps, as Paul E and
>>>Johnny assure us, the U.S. will keep that tendency in check.

[Paul E:]
>>That's not what I was suggesting at all. I was suggesting that the
>>international coalition will make sure that the Northern Alliance and
>>their ethnic groups will be represented by only a fairly small part
>>of the new government of Afghanistan. Let's hope that's true.

[Johnny:]
>Now Johnny says: Please let me, and others on the list, speak for
>themselves.

>Our words are as clear as we can make them. Misunderstanding a
>person's position is not the time to attribute things that were never
>said or implied.

Are you griping at Paul, or at me? I'm basing my summary of my
understanding of your position on your words in

/metatuning/topicId_1060.html#1060

[JdL:]
>>Afghanistan falling from Taliban hands may or may not be an
>>improvement. I'm sure you are aware of the lousy past histories of
>>the factions in the Northern Alliance. The U.S. didn't even want them
>>to take Kabul, but they did. Now what?

[Johnny:]
>Don't live in the past. People were not "living" under the Taliban.
>That is not life.

Riiiight. You _are_ aware, are you not, that the members of the
Northern Alliance, when they held Kabul a few years ago, killed 50,000
people (fifty thousand!) in a few short years of internecine fighting?
I expressed concerns that this might renew; you dismissed those
concerns. How have I misunderstood you?

Perhaps you might consider that it would be helpful, when/if you feel
that your position has been misunderstood or misrepresented, to provide
some additional actual clues of what your true position _is_.

BTW, on the issue of settlements, I _did_ just come across a passage
from one of your posts which _does_ speak firmly against them. Sorry
I missed that before. (you are free to quote yourself directly, you
know! ;-> ).

Communication is an inexact art. Everything that any of us reads has
to be understood in terms we ourselves are familiar with, and there is
a lot of trial and error when any of us says, "So, what you're saying
is ... ". Misunderstandings are corrected by vigilance and effort. I
do want all of my mistakes (and I make many, no doubt) to be corrected.
I don't think it helps, however, simply to pull an outraged attitude,
especially if it's not accompanied with any clues that would help
correct whatever has been misunderstood.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > I'm still holding my breath to see whether the
> > Northern Alliance keeps from degenerating into their old ways.
> Perhaps,
> > as Paul E and Johnny assure us, the U.S. will keep that tendency
in
> > check.
>
> Paul said:
>
> That's not what I was suggesting at all. I was suggesting that the
> international coalition will make sure that the Northern Alliance
and
> their ethnic groups will be represented by only a fairly small part
> of the new government of Afghanistan. Let's hope that's true.
>
>
> Now Johnny says: Please let me, and others on the list, speak for
themselves.
>
> Our words are as clear as we can make them. Misunderstanding a
person's position is not the time to attribute things that were never
said or implied.
>
> Johnny Reinhard

Thanks Johnny, this is exactly what I was feeling.

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> Communication is an inexact art. Everything that any of us reads
has
> to be understood in terms we ourselves are familiar with,

John deL, perhaps you're a bit too quick to automatically do this,
rather than making an attempt to understand someone's position on it
own terms. That's my honest impression from what I've seen on this
list. You make big leaps and seem to see others' views in black and
white even while warning against the same. (Just being honest, I love
you man!)

> and there is
> a lot of trial and error when any of us says, "So, what you're
saying
> is ... ".

Let's shoot for more trial, less error (that is, don't attempt base a
long monologue on a perceived element of someone's position that
wasn't explicitly stated -- this has been a problem for many people,
myself surely included, even on the main tuning list).

> I don't think it helps, however, simply to pull an outraged
attitude,
> especially if it's not accompanied with any clues that would help
> correct whatever has been misunderstood.

The diatribes that purport to counter position x of person y, even if
y never explicitly said x, can be outrageous. Cease the behavior and
the outrage will cease (sound familiar :)?).

Dear John deL,

I wrote,

> this has been a problem for many people,
> myself surely included, even on the main tuning list).

By which I mean I've been guilty of this myself -- I don't mean that
you've caused me this problem on the main tuning list!

[JdL:]
>>Afghanistan falling from Taliban hands may or may not be an
>>improvement. I'm sure you are aware of the lousy past histories of
>>the factions in the Northern Alliance. The U.S. didn't even want them
>>to take Kabul, but they did. Now what?

[Johnny:]
>Don't live in the past. People were not "living" under the Taliban.
>That is not life.

Right now, I'm really tired. Just performed a good show in Toronto and early tomorrow we fly to Winnepeg.

I'm sorry I can't was poetic as would love to do. Still, I don't see how you (John) can draw the conclusions you do. On the surface (and yes, I'm aware of past history in the region regarding the bloodshed of the mujahadeen of the Northern Alliance), things are not as bad as has been suggested.

1. Food can indeed get through before winter because of the removal of the Taliban.

2. Women have a chance to use their minds again. They need to be considered as an "ethnic" group since that is the way they were treated by the Taliban.

3. The whole world wants to improve conditions in Afghanistan rapidly.

4. That there is music again is probably a minor point in relationship to the above.

5. The ability for terrorists to plan has been deeply impaired. Fears of future terrorism would be there regardless. However, the ability to plan (Atef is dead now) has been circumvented.

I'm sure there are more. Also, the new government in Afghanistan is to be developed by all Afghan parties. The fact that there is a history of vicious enmity in Afghanistan is no assurance that it will always be so.

Johnny Reinhard

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
<snip>
> Perhaps things are not perfect (will they ever be?
> unlikely!) but they are considerably better than they
> were even a short time ago and now there is new hope
> for many people who can now live their lives. This is a
> good thing and I am amazed that not everyone sees this,
> particularly in light of the points you just made.
>
> - Jeff

Things do look much brighter for the Afghanis. I haven't been here
every day, but I would be surprised to hear someone say the Afghanis
are no better off. Let's hope things keep getting better.

John Starrett