What ever she wrote is her point of view, but please dont compare Tariq Bin Zayad and Musa bin Nasieer with that Usama guy...
I think this belongs in Politics, and not here.
Osama Bin-Laden is a terrorist. He sympathizes with Taliban Rule, and anyone sympathetic to Taliban’s treatment of women is wrong. Taliban should hand Mr. Bin-Laden over to USA, so he can be tried for embassy bombings and the justice is served.
In terms of the news article, Ms. Rahman has no idea what she is talking about. She would fail a high schools exam if she submitted this essay of hers. She is looking at geopolitical conflicts through emotional and cultural archetype. Her explanation of foreign debts and loans to Islamic nations by the west exposes her lack of knowledge about the issues of the day.
This should probably be moved to Politics. Just cause Osama Bin Ladin is a Muslim, doesn't mean posts about him should be included in the religion section. He's more involved in political issues than religious theology....
Osama Bin-Laden is a terrorist.
Says who? He is innocent until proven guilty isn't he? Looks like the American public (ie NY Ahmadi is a good representation) has already tried him and convicted him. Why on earth should he be tried in a country which is ready to lynch him. There would be no due process in the US. Saying justice would be served is ridiculous. How bout the bombings of Afghanistan and the Sudan by the US. Shouldn't Clinton have to be tried for his violations of international law - he too is a terrorist by this logic. Maybe he should be extradited to Afghanistan and tried under the Taliban...I wonder if he'd get a fair trial...
and anyone sympathetic to Taliban’s > treatment of women is wrong.
It always comes back to that contentious issue about women. What is always ignored is the fact that women were being gang raped before the Taliban came to power. Rape was a valid weapon of war. The Taliban were created to curb such abuses. They did curb them, through draconian policies. Hopefully they will change their stance on women...but at least they've provided some semblance of peace in Afghanistan and a sense of hope and protection for the marginalized.
She is looking at geopolitical conflicts >through emotional and cultural archetype.
I can't read urdu...but hey so are you...re-read your post, your the one to talk about getting emotional.
Her explanation of foreign debts and loans >to Islamic nations by the west exposes her >lack of knowledge about the issues of the >day.
If she's talking about World Bank and IMF structural loans, she's right on the money. Its an accepted fact that these institutions have helped alter the economies of the developing world (not just Islamic), creating exporting countries, specializing in commodities used in the west, by westerners. Specializing in cash crops (in the case of Bolivia in cocaine). Now the experts are moving into eastern Europe, they've already destroyed the economy in Russia, Pakistan is a basket case, Africa's been raped. These issues are all discussed in a variety of books...there is an entire discourse dedicated to the impact of these institutions on the economics of the devoloping world and what is now being termed - the globalization of poverty.
Achtung ;)
This is been moved to the politics section
Achtung
I agree with the last bit of your observation. Indeed there have been great negative effects of the huge multinational organizations such as the World Bank. having worked directly on a couple of projects, i can only say the money that is spent does not do all the good it is claimed to ... Simply put building flying elephants may be the greatest wonder of the world, but it does little to really affect the life of the people that these institutions are supposed to be working for. There is the precieved concept that cause these institutions have such higly qualified workers , they are always doing the right thing. This might be true in some cases, but definately not always. And there is a huge amount of politics involved in these setups unfortunately.