I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings — Mullah Omar

That is the same as Genghis Khan's reasoning and the lifestyles are similar. What is not understood is building trade and industry can result in the wealth to have schools, hospitals, and feed everyone.

You could try making a thread about what's required for democracy, I think one can make an argument for culture being important but only way before the actual democracy has fallen. Most democracies don't even get off the ground, they start without the necessary legal institutions to defend them and fall into authoritarianism from the getgo. It's just impossible for civilians to investigate and redemy corruption, to
charge politicians with criminal activity, to prevent laws from being passed or repealed, at least as a long-term strategy.

In recent times, we've seen populations organise through social media to demand democracy, such as with the Arab Springs, but it did not result in any democracy, only chaos and anarchy after the authoritarians were deposed. The citizens can organise demonstrations and revolts, but they cannot manage a long-term democracy, that requires the necessary institutions and laws. — Judaka

You make an excellent point, most democracies including all the places the Allies have invaded, except Germany (formerly a Christian republic) and Japan, do not succeed and that is because the education that transmits a culture for democracy, must come first. When the Americans were Americanizing Japan, following WWII, Deming, an American took his democratic model of industry to Japan and taught the Japanism industrialist to use his model for industry. Had the US done the same in Afghanistan, the Taliban might have been kept out because the people would have experienced their own power, instead of leaving them to be as dependent as small children. But hell, not even in the US has replaced its autocratic industry with the democratic model. The US is very hypocritical when it claims to be spreading democracy. That just is not true!

How do you think a democracy happens without education and transmitting a culture for it?

I watched the link explaining the rise and fall of Islam and clearly when people start believing determinism and that they are God's/Allah's, favorite people, things turn sour. That has hurt Christian countries, the Islam empire, and the USSR communist. Insanity follows determinism and stops the healthy growth of an empire/nation. Especially when a leader uses religion for personal power and creating enemies that must be conquered.

Determinism- the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. — Oxford languages

You can not have a strong and healthy democracy with that belief.

Any Arab you happen to like? — Olivier5

It isn’t about liking or disliking anyone, it’s about seeing beyond propaganda.

If we look at the matter objectively, the following points become clear:

1. Cultural syncretism was started by Persia’s own rulers, the main center of it being at the city of Gundeshapur in Southwest Persia where under Persian King Khusraw I (531-579 AD), Christian, Pagan Greek, Persian Zoroastrian, Indian, and Chinese scholars came together to form an important seat of learning where research in astronomy, mathematics, and medicine was carried out.

Gundeshapur – Wikipedia

When the Arabs invaded and conquered Persia in 638 AD, their culture was not in any way superior to that of the Persians. Therefore, they made no contribution to the advancement of culture. On the contrary, as already stated, they were regarded as culturally inferior by the Persians.

The Abbasid Caliphate came into existence in 750 AD, following a revolution against the Arab Umayyad rulers. After the revolution, the Abbasids founded Baghdad as a seat of learning where they did no more than carry on what the Persians had started two centuries earlier.

2. The Arabs of Arabia had no architecture, arts, literature, science, medicine, philosophy, or anything else of note. No grand mosques, palaces, royal gardens and parks. They borrowed everything from the Byzantine Greeks and Persians. The earliest Arab Islamic monument, the Dome of the Rock that the Arabs built on Temple Mount in Jerusalem in 692, had its architecture and mosaic ornamentation copied from nearby Byzantine churches and palaces.

The Dome of the Rock’s structure and ornamentation are rooted in the Byzantine architectural tradition

- Dome of the Rock, History and Architecture – Britannica

Invading Persia and doing what the Persians had already been doing, does not constitute cultural improvement.

3. The only thing that remains is Arab language and script. But this was no improvement either as the Persians already had a language and script of their own! In fact, though forced to use Arabic in addition to Persian, the Persians have preserved their language to this day. And the script introduced by the Arabs was very similar to the existing Persian (Pahlavi) script, both of them having the same Aramaic origin.

4. Islamic rule in Arab-occupied territories was based on oppression and slavery:

In contrast to the earlier era, women in Abbasid society were absent from all arenas of the community's central affairs. Conquests had brought enormous wealth and large numbers of slaves to the Muslim elite. The majority of the slaves were women and children. In the wake of the conquests an elite man could potentially own a thousand slaves, and ordinary soldiers could have ten people serving them.
The marketing of human beings, particularly women, as objects for sexual use meant that elite men owned the vast majority of women they interacted with, and related to them as would masters to slaves …

- Abbasid Caliphate: Status of Women – Wikipedia

I don’t think the enslavement, rape, torture and murder of millions of innocent people should be romanticized and glorified.

British Empire? Yes, Egypt was a protectorate. Yet don't forget the French in the wider picture. But anyway, decolonization is a rather different matter. — ssu

Try to think a bit harder then. It is a well-known fact that there were major tensions between Hindus and Muslims in British India and that, for geostrategic (and cultural) reasons, the British have always sided with the Muslims.

As War Secretary Thomas Macaulay stated in the 1840’s “If our government does take a part [in the Muslim-Hindu conflict], there cannot be a doubt that Mahometanism is entitled to the preference”.

The All-India Muslim League was one of the instruments used by the British for their own purposes. The League started the Caliphate Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, and the Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan.

Along with the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, Jamaat-e-Islami was one of the original and most influential Islamist organisations, and the first of its kind to develop "an ideology based on the modern revolutionary conception of Islam …. After the partition of India, the organisation became the spearhead of the movement to transform Pakistan from a Muslim homeland into an Islamic state. "

Jamaat-e-Islami – Wikipedia

Jamaat-e Islami belongs to the same Deobandi sect operating in Pakistan’s Pashtun belt that controls most of Pakistan’s Islamic seminaries funded by Saudi Arabia and from which the Taliban was recruited by US, UK, and Pakistan ….

If you hate Arabs with a passion, as I think it's pretty obvious you do, you will never be able to see past your own propaganda, ensconced as you are in your own negative emotions and prevented by them to understand the issue at hand. Hence my question: are you able to like an Arab? Have you ever read from an Arabic author, for instance? If yes, that would show some capacity to open your mind. If not, it could well be that you are prejudiced against Arabs...

Try to think a bit harder then. It is a well-known fact that there were major tensions between Hindus and Muslims in British India and that, for geostrategic (and cultural) reasons, the British have always sided with the Muslims. — Apollodorus

India?

I think you are confusing the topic that we were discussing.

So, according to you Muslim Arabs never invaded the countries they invaded, conquered, enslaved and oppressed???

In that case, I wonder why there were so many uprisings against Arab rule?!

These uprisings already started during the Damascus-based Arab Caliphate of the Umayyads (661–751 AD).

694 AD Bashmurian Revolts, Egypt

718/722 Battle of Covadonga, Spain.

740 AD Berber Uprising in Morocco.

Berber Revolt - Wikipedia

750 AD Anti-Umayyad Revolution, Persia, resulting in the overthrow of Umayyad rule.

Rebellions against Arab domination and for religious freedom (including better treatment of women) continued during the early Abbasid era, e.g.:

Behafarid Revolt of Ustadh Sis (767 AD).

Khorramite Rebellion of Babak Khoramdin (816–837 AD).

Rebellion of Mazyar (833-839 AD).

Etc., etc.

But it looks like you prefer floggings, stoning, beheadings, limb amputations, forced conversions, and other progressive features of Islamic civilization. Maybe you should join the Taliban .... :grin:

I think you are confusing the topic that we were discussing. — ssu

The topic is "Afghanistan, Islam and national success". Perhaps you have forgotten.

Pakistan was part of British India and that was where the Muslim League, the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e Islami, and eventually, the Taliban started. No?

Maybe you should join the Taliban — Apollodorus

I've been wandering around with Afghan Mujaheddin for years, prior to the Taliban. Now, I know you probably meant it as an insult, but I don't take insults from racists very seriously.

How could that possibly be an "insult"? Sharia law was part of the "great civilization" you admire. Good for the emancipation of women and the promotion of liberal philosophy too .... :grin:

The topic is "Afghanistan, Islam and national success". Perhaps you have forgotten. — Apollodorus

No, yet Afghanistan is different from Pakistan. And wasn't part of British India. The influence that the British had until 1919 was limited.

Pakistan was part of British India and that was where the Muslim League, the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e Islami, and eventually, the Taliban started. No? — Apollodorus

This is incorrect. Muslim Brotherhood was started in Egypt.

Indeed, women would benefit from the implementation of shariah in Afghanistan. They'd be better off.

This is incorrect. Muslim Brotherhood was started in Egypt. — ssu

The Muslim League started the Caliphate Movement in 1919 to restore the Ottoman Caliphate and was of course in touch with Muslims from other countries, including Egypt.

Abul Ala Maududi was a leading Islamist ideologue who wrote al-Jihad fi al-Islam. (Jihad in Islam).

Maududi taught that the destruction of the lives and property of others was lamentable (part of the great sacrifice of jihad), but that Muslims must follow the Islamic principle that it is better to "suffer a lesser loss to save ourselves from a greater loss". Though in jihad "thousands" of lives may be lost, this cannot compare "to the calamity that may befall mankind as a result of the victory of evil over good and of aggressive atheism over the religion of God."

Abul A'la Maududi – Wikipedia

Maududi was a member of the Caliphate Movement and inspired the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928) and Jamaat-e Islami which he personally co-founded in 1941.

MB and JI were the largest Islamist organizations that gave birth to the modern Jihad movement:

Qutb [of MB] and Maududi [of JI] inspired a whole generation of Islamists, including Ayatollah Khomeini, who developed a Persian version of their works in the 1970s.
The works of al-Banna [of MB], Qutb and Maududi were also to become the main sources of reference for the Arabs who fought alongside the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s ...

Analysis: The roots of Jihad - BBC

But perhaps the news hasn't reached Finland yet .... :smile:

Have you ever read from an Arabic author, for instance? — Olivier5

As an aside, a few Arab authors are herewith highly recommended:

Yasmina Khadra is a Algerian author of (mainly) crime novels with a social and political slant. The Attack is pretty good, set in Israel & West Bank.

Amin Maalouf is a Lebanese author who writes in French. The Crusades through Arab Eyes, and Samarkand are probably his best known works. His Samarkand is a masterpiece of history-based fiction.

An excellent (well-known, consecrated, more literary) Moroccan writer is Tahar Ben Jelloun.

Evidently, literature Nobel prize winner Naguib Mahfouz has written at length about Egypt, à la John Dos Passos. Including about Islam, women, poverty, the whole gamut of social issues. Writing in Egypt and in Arabic, he tended to avoid directly political themes.

For the idealists among us, Kahlil Gibran is this Lebanese writer who penned The Prophet. I must confess to liking bits of it. Sometimes considered a philosopher although he himself rejected the title, according to Wikipedia.

Edward Said should be a familiar name. He was an American citizen born in Palestine, professor of literature at Columbia and well-known critique of what he called "orientalism", i.e. the western gaze on Arabs and other eastern folks.

The Muslim League started the Caliphate Movement in 1919 to restore the Ottoman Caliphate and was of course in touch with Muslims from other countries, including Egypt.

Abul Ala Maududi was a leading Islamist ideologue who wrote al-Jihad fi al-Islam. (Jihad in Islam). — Apollodorus

Still, generally the Muslim Brotherhood is viewed to be founded in Egypt by Hassan Al-Banna.

Maududi was a member of the Caliphate Movement and inspired the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928) and Jamaat-e Islami which he personally co-founded in 1941. — Apollodorus

There you said it yourself.

Still, generally the Muslim Brotherhood is viewed to be founded in Egypt by Hassan Al-Banna. — ssu

The Muslim Brotherhood may have been physically founded in Egypt. But I am talking about the ideology.

The ideology started in British India in the 1800’s with Muslim revivalist movements like Aligarh Movement and the Deobandi Movement.

Together with the All-India Muslim League they initiated the Caliphate Movement to restore the Islamic Caliphate. This was an international movement with members all over the Muslim world.

Muslim Brotherhood founders al-Banna and Qutb were in the Caliphate Movement.

Maududi who wrote Jihad in Islam in the early 1920's, founded Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan that spawned the Mujahedin movement in Afghanistan.

Zawahiri who was a follower of Qutb founded Islamic Jihad which teamed up with al-Qaeda in Sudan.

The Deobandis of Pakistan with Saudi funds ran the Islamic schools from which the Taliban were recruited.

So, it’s the Deobandis and Jamaat on the Pakistani side, with some involvement from the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic Jihad on the Egyptian side. Of course, they spawned other organizations through which they have supported the Taliban and international Jihad.

The reason democracy-building in Germany, Italy, Japan and SK was easier is because the legal and social infrastructure existed prior to the attempt. it's not because the West did a better job of convincing people of the merits of democracy. The second reason it was easier is that the democracy was established during peacetime, those nations had stopped resisting and weren't being attacked. Lastly, the existence of these nations wasn't controversial, there was one language, one culture, one identity (largely).

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were all cases of higher difficulty, in every sense. These nations lacked that legal and social infrastructure, corruption was rampant and war was endless. National unity was lacking, there were so many economic, social and political problems in each case.

When one looks at flawed democracies or dictatorships in South America, Africa, SEA and around the world, you see the population knows their government is corrupt and inadequate. But unless the accusation is highly specific, backed up with evidence and made by a government body with the power to inflict consequences, it doesn't mean much. I think Americans in particular, have a naive view about themselves, they think their democracy exists because the citizens want it more and are more willing to defend it. As I already said, with the Arab Springs, populations were willing to overthrow their governments, that is the highest level of resolve, to risk life and limb for democracy. The end result was chaos and anarchy because that's not really how democracies work, they don't survive based on the level of enthusiasm of their citizens. It's just American political campaigning, stroking the ego of voters to secure votes.

A big issue also is that all three wars, the US never really went in intending to do any nation-building. They ended up doing it as a result of necessity and did a pretty half-assed job. The key thing to do is to set up these institutions, to give the means to a country like Afghanistan to root out corruption because that clearly didn't happen, the Taliban was able to walk over Afghanistan as if it didn't even have a government.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/america-enabled-afghanistan-s-corruption-years-taliban-knew-it-ncna1277327

Judaka, I am in a bit of shock. I do not see the US as being free of corruption. I do not think our democracy is the best. And right now I wouldn't bet on it surviving another hundred years.

Our biggest disagreement seems to be different ideas about the importance of education. I don't think there can be good citizenship without education for that. I don't believe a democracy can exist for long without education for citizenship because if citizens are not educated to defend their democracy, they can not defend their democracy. For that reason, I believe the US is in big trouble because it stopped educating for good citizenship and now has the reactionary politics that put Hitler in power, and culture wars are tearing us apart. Our banking system continues to fail and when this happens we do not punish the wrongdoers, and our coins that once had value because of the metals in them, are no longer made with those valuable metals and therefore have no value. We are living with so many lies and extremely few of us could put our democracy back together if it did fall. Not enough of us know how to do that to make it a real possibility. And add to that, our industry is autocratic and people don't understand why that matters.

However, your explanation of people having no experience with democracy and no understanding of the necessary institutions seems obviously correct.

Didn't the thinking for our democracy begin in Athens and then Rome which became Italy and the place where the renascence began? I met a Serian professor who had a better understanding of democracy than anyone I have met in the US. Weren't German philosophers well educated in the Greek and Roman Classics before developing their own philosophy? The American Revolution began as an intellectual revolution and democracy can not be manifest without it. Except for Japan, that is a curiosity to me, unless we give Deming credit for the change.

The Muslim Brotherhood may have been physically founded in Egypt. But I am talking about the ideology.

The ideology started in British India in the 1800’s with Muslim revivalist movements like Aligarh Movement and the Deobandi Movement.

Together with the All-India Muslim League they initiated the Caliphate Movement to restore the Islamic Caliphate. This was an international movement with members all over the Muslim world.

Muslim Brotherhood founders al-Banna and Qutb were in the Caliphate Movement.

Maududi who wrote Jihad in Islam in the early 1920's, founded Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan that spawned the Mujahedin movement in Afghanistan.

Zawahiri who was a follower of Qutb founded Islamic Jihad which teamed up with al-Qaeda in Sudan.

The Deobandis of Pakistan with Saudi funds ran the Islamic schools from which the Taliban were recruited.

So, it’s the Deobandis and Jamaat on the Pakistani side, with some involvement from the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic Jihad on the Egyptian side. Of course, they spawned other organizations through which they have supported the Taliban and international Jihad. — Apollodorus

I watched the video about Islam and was overwhelmed with information! Your brain seems to handle information much better than mine so I am asking you to attempt to make all this information more comprehensive to me. Why all the different organizations? Do they have different justifications for existing? Do they have different stated purpose?

I don't know if I want to add this to the thread, but what is their moral imperative, and can it be blended with Christianity? Like right now the US can be seen as the moral enemy of all that is good and how important might this be in escalating the problem instead of leading to peace?

Especially after watching the video, I am a bit broken-hearted that the US did not use Islam for nation-building. I wonder if anyone thinks that would have succeeded?

The Muslim League started the Caliphate Movement in 1919 to restore the Ottoman Caliphate and was of course in touch with Muslims from other countries, including Egypt.

Abul Ala Maududi was a leading Islamist ideologue who wrote al-Jihad fi al-Islam. (Jihad in Islam).
— Apollodorus
Still, generally the Muslim Brotherhood is viewed to be founded in Egypt by Hassan Al-Banna.

Maududi was a member of the Caliphate Movement and inspired the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928) and Jamaat-e Islami which he personally co-founded in 1941.
— Apollodorus
There you said it yourself. — ssu

Okay, now we are getting down to the nitty grittty. The reality this link speaks of pisses me off and most certainly has moral and political implications regarding western political action and acts of war.

Initially, as a Pan-Islamic, religious, and social movement, it preached Islam in Egypt, taught the illiterate, and set up hospitals and business enterprises. It later advanced into the political arena, aiming to end British colonial control of Egypt. The movement's self-stated aim is the establishment of a state ruled by Sharia law–its most famous slogan worldwide being: "Islam is the solution". Charity is a major propellant to its work.[10] — Wikipedia

It is my understanding the stated purpose of communism and Islam in the physical, social, mental, and spiritual well-being of everyone in a civilized society and I am having a hard time understanding why the British and Americans are opposed to that?

why the British and Americans are opposed to that? — Athena

Last time I checked, the British and Americans were NOT opposed to Islam at all. Nor should they be, I agree.

Last time I checked, the British and Americans were NOT opposed to Islam at all. Nor should they be, I agree. — Olivier5

:lol: I laugh because I immediately disagree with what you said, and then when I try to explain that disagreement, my brain freezes. Have you experienced that? It is weird.

How about this, when you entered someone's home, you do not start taking what that person has. You should not disrespect that person and attempt to correct the way that person has decided how to do things. If that person is opposed to drinking alcoholic beverages, you do not sit in the living room and have a beer. If a person does not want you to talk about your religion in their home, you should not talk about your religion. If the person believes a woman should dress modestly, then that is how a woman should dress in that person's home. It is simply a matter of good morals and good manners. I do not believe the British and Americans have behaved with good manners.

I like your analogy to a person's home. The other day I was thinking about that, and the fact that in many neighborhoods there is that family. The parents, of course, ostensibly have sovereignty over their home and the teenagers that reside therein. Now, if they want to let the kids run wild in the house, that's fine. But when their kids start trashing the neighborhood, come over to my house and trash it, I have a right to redress. If I get no satisfaction, then, eventually, I will go over to their house, along with the majority of the neighborhood, kick their fucking door in, beat the shit out of them, kill the fucking kids and leave. But in deference to their right to run their house the way they want, I will not then hang around and try to teach them good parenting skills.

Oh, and while I want to tip my hat to cultural sensitivity, I won't stand idly by and watch them fuck little boys or cut the clitoris off little girls with a piece of broken Coke bottle (not Afghanistan, I know, I'm just making a point here). You see, while it is expected that I should be culturally sensitive, I also expect people to be sensitive to my culture. Part of my culture is killing monarchs, racists, slave owners, traitors, emperors, dictators and other vermin who abuse the innocent. I simply ask that others honor my culture. I don't' think that is a big ask. :grin:

when I try to explain that disagreement, my brain freeze — Athena

That could indicate the presence of a cliché. Something you took for granted without prior examination.

That could indicate the presence of a cliché. Something you took for granted without prior examination. — Olivier5

Thanks and what do you think about the point I made?

I like your analogy to a person's home. The other day I was thinking about that, and the fact that in many neighborhoods there is that family. The parents, of course, ostensibly have sovereignty over their home and the teenagers that reside therein. Now, if they want to let the kids run wild in the house, that's fine. But when their kids start trashing the neighborhood, come over to my house and trash it, I have a right to redress. If I get no satisfaction, then, eventually, I will go over to their house, along with the majority of the neighborhood, kick their fucking door in, beat the shit out of them, kill the fucking kids and leave. But in deference to their right to run their house the way they want, I will not then hang around and try to teach them parenting skills.

Oh, and while I want to tip my hat to cultural sensitivity, I won't stand idly by and watch them fuck little boys or cut the clitoris off little girls with a piece of broken Coke bottle (not Afghanistan, I know, I'm just making a point here). You see, while it is expected that I should be culturally sensitive, I also expect people to be sensitive to my culture. Part of my culture is killing monarchs, racists, slave owners, traitors, emperors, dictators and other vermin who abuse the innocent. I simply ask that others honor my culture. I don't' think that is a big ask. :grin: — James Riley

I had to check to be sure this is the thread on Afghanistan and not my thread about Patriarchy versus Matriarchy. I would say your idea of how to deal with people who are different is pretty patriarchal and I think that mentality is what caused the American effort to make a difference in Afghanistan to fail. I do not believe using violence to defend our sense of how the world should be is the way to have a better world. However, it is in complete agreement with what some Muslims are doing.

Every civilization is a mix of cultures, though, except the most primitive perhaps. — Olivier5

It is not like foreigners can just enter a country and impact that country culturally or politically. They may not even be able to assimilate because of prejudice against them. The US assured most foreigners would be assimilated by providing education for good citizenship. It was understood that by teaching the children American values the parents would learn. However, education for technology brought an end to transmitting a culture and preparing the young for citizenship. I think the new mentality has led to poor American judgment and failure.

However, it is in complete agreement with what some Muslims are doing. — Athena

Yeah, that patriarchy can cause problems. I just hope that when you go over to the neighbor's house and politely ask them to please keep their teens in check (and to please turn the kids over to authorities to answer for their acts), there is not some patriarchal SOB in his wife-beater, beer in hand, who tells you "Go fuck yourself, and deal with my teens when they are in your yard, not when they've skedaddled back to my house". Oh, and "Get off'n my land, you little . . .".

:wink:

The other thing is that Islam spread through military invasion and conquest which involved killing, raping, pillaging, enslaving, exploiting and suppressing the conquered populations. — Apollodorus

I have a big problem with that because it goes against the Koran. We can know when people make a law, be it a government law or a holy book law, when people are doing what they should not do or they are failing to do what they should do. We have proof in this thread that those terrible acts of war are not limited to what "those people" have done, but seems to be an instinctive behavior when "we" are dealing with "them" and males dominate.

I am very troubled by my sisters in Afghanistan fighting for a better reality and being deserted by the US. My sisters in Africa and South America are not getting as much support as they need for a better world. But I am hoping someday my sisters are united and strong and humanity does a better job of being civilized. We can use the Bible or the Koran for a better reality and I don't know if reason will ever be as effective as religion? Rule by reason requires too much thinking and people avoid it. Rule by reason does not have the emotional appeal that religions have.

Yeah, that patriarchy can cause problems. I just hope that when you go over to the neighbor's house and politely ask them to please keep their teens in check (and to please turn the kids over to authorities to answer for their acts), there is not some patriarchal SOB in his wife-beater, beer in hand, who tells you "Go fuck yourself, and deal with my teens when they are in your yard, not when they've skedaddled back to my house". Oh, and "Get off'n my land, you little . . .". — James Riley

Grandmothers learn quickly that if they want to make a difference, they better be very tactful and very careful about how they word themselves because we have no power over others and if we are seen as offensive, we find ourselves excommunicated from family. The point is, your way does not get good results. Not in Afghanistan, your neighborhood, or your family.