politicians, liars or idiots?

further to my previous post and exactly my concern about telling Afghans that murder in the name of God is unjustifiable because you felt offended. today i noticed in the news that everybody rushes to blame Pastor Jones, he might be insane and extreme but he is not responsible for the murders. the murderers are responsible for the murders, I wonder if US senators, UN Afghan chief, US chief commander in Afghanistan truly believes in what they are saying in which case they are idiots or they clearly see that Taliban are benefiting from this in which case they are lying hypocrites.

The UN Chief's envoy to Afghanistan, Staffan De Mistura, strongly criticised the Florida pastor for burning a copy of the Koran. Staffan De Mistura blamed the violence on the Florida pastor, describing the burning of the holy Koran as "insane and totally desprecable gesture by one person".

I don't think we should be blaming any Afghans, we should blame the one who burnt the Koran, he said addressing a news conference in Kabul on Saturday. Freedom of speech does not mean to offend culture, religion and traditions, he added.

then I tuned to US politicians and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and other lawmakers on Sunday joined Gen. David Petraeus in condemning the Quran burning staged by a Florida pastor and the resulting violence in Afghanistan.

one clear beneficiary has emerged from the wave of deadly riots that swept Afghanistan after members of a Florida evangelical church burned a copy of the Quran: the Taliban.

it is not rocket science to realise that the concern of western politicians and Aid workers in kabul is not the truth but the politics of the riots. i followed the news again and noticed that according to Afghan and Western officials, taliban have exploited the ongoing tumult, using the riots as cover for attacks against Western and government targets and reaping propaganda benefits by allying themselves with popular fury over the desecration of the Muslim holy book.
Lindsey Graham, (R., S.C.), US senator said on “Face the Nation” that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy"

Lindsey's comment sums it up for me. western diplomats perceive each Afghan as Fascist fanatic who they can not reason with but rather to trick. I have to admit that this would bother me less than the naivety some aid workers show in kabul by truly believing that the murders were not members of the riot. it just show how misguided they are which is fine but it bothers me because they introduce themselves as experts.

from: anonymous

it's "racist" to expect Muslims to abide by the concept of personal responsibility.

Why do Afghans believe that it is their moral obligation to commit murder, even to annihilate innocent people in God's name? What aspects of their scriptures and traditions tend to support such violence? What ethical principles--religious and non-religious--can we affirm in response to those ideas and the atrocities that they engender?

in Afghanistan violence happens on daily basis and at least a dozen people die in political unrest, tribal conflict, petty crimes and domestic violence everyday. however religious violence can take on a particularly intense and ruthless character, if the objects of that violence are seen as blaspheming or insulting God, as the enemies of God or God's way narrowly conceived. The problem of indiscriminate religious violence is particularly difficult to eliminate from within because it's deeply rooted in the scriptures and traditions. The same religious traditions that affirm God to be compassionate, merciful, and just, also include more disturbing claims that promote religious hatred and intolerance, and sadly have provided a rationale for aggression. We need to face these things head-on. Questioning the moral justification of mazar sharif killings leads, moreover, to troubling questions about traditions, culture, morality and ethics of Afghans.

i am very saddened by the murders that took place in mazar yet not surprised at the action of my fellow Afghans. however, the question above is not for my fellow Afghans as expecting them to question deep rooted traditions and culture would be similar to ask moon to find another orbiting space instead of earth. i am absolutely appalled by the actions of Mazar murders but i am also disgusted at the reaction of the world. people who value freedom and understand that no religious principle or any other rational can justify murder need to speak against this despicable action. instead westeners and their institutions tend to blame Paster Jones. all day today i am hearing from westeners that Afghans went nuts because afghans are deeply traditionally and conservative. i take an insult to that, it means that we, as afghans, are not treated like human beings by not being held accountable to our actions. free people of the world, stop appeasing the fanatics and stand for what you beleive in.

from: anonymous

murder in mazar sharif

as a human being I'm deeply ashamed, as an Afghan I am not surprised. Generations of people being fed utter non sense and fused within their "moral" fiber to lash out with extreme violence and disregard the consequences against any who dare to speak ill would naturally lead to to this unfortunate conclusion. The psychopathic inversion of truth for falsehood where these actions are not only the expected norm but are also praise worthy from the people around them resembles a parasitic cancer. In a lot of ways these people wish the world to accept them and at the same time to gain said acceptance they will pursue these actions, because when what you preach is vile in nature acceptance will not and cannot come through hearts and minds, but might come through fear, brutality, and violence. This is the hand they must play because the only other option is to opt out and choose the enlightenment. This sort of behavior is a fractal example of the larger mentality. Deeply held beliefs even by the 'moderates' would not condemn this. It is my opinion based on sitting and conversing with many from a wide spectrum of Islamic believers that the moderates feel although these actions are not great they are also not the worse thing that could happen. The worse that could happen is that no one cares deeply enough anymore to react in any way. Sort of like a person who sadistically loves another who is wired poorly enough to fly into deadly rage because of jealousy. It is ironic and amazing that these groups would sit on a high horse, criticize without mercy let alone insightful well reasoned reflection on all the flaws that other systems represent but would immediately resort to violence when the shoe is on the other foot. They have three positions (a double pull double throw switch), criticize others and preach to join a clearly flawed cause, fly into rage, or sit silently and accept both the previous options. On behalf of the rational, the reasonable, the descent, the nobel, the kind, and the respectful community of Afghan and global free thinkers, I offer my condolences to the families of the slain as well as to humanity for what has happened.

from anonymous

Legal Plundering

The late economist, historian and libertarian philosopher, Murray Rothbard, was right on the mark when he wrote:

"The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one...production and exchange, he called the 'economic means.' The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others.

"This is the method which Oppenheimer termed 'the political means' to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the 'natural' path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it.

"The 'political means' siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer's incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply."

The sooner the people "overthrow" the political means and reestablish the economic means of acquiring wealth, the sooner we will be rid of political corruption, high taxes, runaway government spending and onerous regulations. Until that day arrives, expect more bribes, shakedowns, and "waste, fraud and abuse."

the international community is struggling to find a way to stifle corruption in Afghanistan but too high stakes to take an objective look into the issue and the answer is very clear. less money for government and humanitarian organisations who are not answerable to redistribute through corrupt entities they have established. solution number one for the situation is; limiting government to a few well defined functions would liberate Afghans from self-serving, incompetent, and dishonest public officials. solution number two is making developmental organisations answerable. none of the Aid organisations such as IRD, UN agencies, ARD, Chomonics, and dozens others which receives more than 200 million dollar each every year to spend on developing afghanistan could be held accountable. the most transparent of all is UNDP which has over half a century experience in development and governance in over 160 countries. in theory they have a transparency and audit office http://www.undp.org/about/transparencydocs/OAI_Investigation_Guidelines_ENG. i know of a series of corruption cases in the UNDP and it was brought to their attention yet they have done little to look into it. all these developmental organisations are dealing with sums of money that they never want to give up and any serious look into their conduct might compromise the flow of money.

We need to end "legal plunder," as Frederic Bastiat called for more than 150 years ago. He wrote: See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

the institutions of the state and the structures of large international development organisations are plundering tool for a few Afghans to benefit at the expense of others in the society.