Taliban using Iran jammers to stop people watching critical news, says TV boss
Taliban using Iran jammers to stop people watching critical news, says TV boss
Popular channel’s boss Harun Najafizada tells The Independent Taliban purchased an extremely expensive jammer with the intention of using it against AITV
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're viewing a single thread.
That sucks, but I don't think the West, nor China and very not Russia are willing to waste hundreds of thousands of soldiers lives for everything to be exactly the same again in 20 years. Afghanistan actively rejects civilisation.
Or maybe the two decades-long invasions did extreme damage and brought insane brutality to a poor population?
When America was in control, we set up a strong central bank system to help stabilize the country. Afghans filled the bank with their savings, these funds were outside of the control of the Taliban. The middle class, the opposition to the Taliban, were growing. Then as the US left, we looted every penny. Overnight thousands were bankrupted, leading to economic depression and a huge gain for the Taliban.
Civilization actively rejects Afghanistan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In 1916 France and the UK create the Sykes-Picot secret agreement with agreement of Russia and Italy to divide the middle east in a way so they would never be able to pose any threat and could be easily manipulated into their spheres of influence, by cutting through areas of ethnic and religious affiliations.
108 years later on Lemmy "Afghanistan actively rejects civilization". It's just unfair to say such a thing when so many civilizations have contributed so much to ensure Afghanistan would never be able to be politically and economically stable.
If anything, everyone should stop sending soldiers to Afghanistan and simply support them humanitarily throughout the long road of recovery ahead of them from what has been done to them for the last 100 years. Ideally, France and the UK should be bearing the brunt of the cost of that humanitarian effort, but in practice, it's difficult to pin the blame on modern day France and UK of their forefathers' sins.
In 1916 France and the UK create the Sykes-Picot secret agreement with agreement of Russia and Italy to divide the middle east in a way so they would never be able to pose any threat and could be easily manipulated into their spheres of influence, by cutting through areas of ethnic and religious affiliations.
Sykes-Picot didn't concern Afghanistan in the least.
108 years later on Lemmy “Afghanistan actively rejects civilization”. It’s just unfair to say such a thing when so many civilizations have contributed so much to ensure Afghanistan would never be able to be politically and economically stable.
In this much, there's agreement - Afghanistan has never had a foundation that could be regarded as politically or economically stable, and the constant attempts to convert it into a politically or economically stable state have been utterly unsuccessful because of the actual conditions of the country.
You're correct, my apologies. I was confusing my Middle Eastern history. In my comment, where it reads that the French and British are to blame for the divisions through ethnic and religious lines, it should be the Russians and the British, during their sphere of influence games, which eventually coalesced Afghanistan's borders into the Durand line, with further meddling by the Soviets later on. But the whole comment still maintains pretty much the same sentiment. Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out my mistake and helping me remember it correctly. I will try to do better to reinforce my weaknesses in history knowledge.
I may be misunderstanding the point on your last paragraph, but i wouldn't consider it is an inherent quality of the country, culture or people that prevents stability within the country, but the countless meddling with its affairs by different countries. None of these countries (including the US) have meaningfully attempted to change anything in the country with the purpose to make it more stable. Instead, the changes that have been attempted have been more towards making the country more useful/pliable to the sphere of influence of the country that is occupying/influencing it for purposes other than the country's best interests.
That may be a nature of its geographical location and the importance it had throughout history, but nevertheless i sure hope we will arrive at some point in the future where the country will be able to stabilize and stand on its own and it will never be through the means of the establishment of a puppet government. I believe it's precisely by leaving it alone and providing humanitarian aid that the country will find stability, as previously said.
Is your argument that multiple empires have tried bombing Afghanistan into being a civilized country, but by golly, they want to be savages?
Do you maybe want to, and I'm just brainstorming here, play that out in your head a few more times and rethink your response?
„They hate us for our freedom!“ eh?
> say they reject civilisation > Ignore the resistance movements and organisations actively fighting Taliban rule > Ignore the independent media organisations being crushed by the Taliban for speaking out against the Taliban > Ignore the people fleeing Afghanistan every day because of the Taliban. > Ignores the geopolitical fuckery that gave rise to the modern state of Afghanistan. > Ignores that the Taliban was formed from the Mujahedeen, an organisation funded by the US to fight the Soviets.Yes, clearly the Afghani people are savages who cannot be redeemed. There's no external factors for the clusterfuck that is the Taliban. Anyone who says otherwise is a liberal hippy. /s