This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 03:48 pm what do you people think? i think that the fanatics over there shouldn't be destroying those temples. islam coexisted with non muslims for the past millenium and half peacefully. i could be wrong , and i would like to know your positions on this , especially those that can make an "ifta" on this matter. peace n love
|
| | Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 04:09 pm the idiots could have sold the stupid temples and used the money to feed their starving children
|
| | Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 04:30 pm Salama... Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Taleban, I agreed, tries not to please a man, but absolutely Allah. They are doing their best. And I wish them best, and may Allah {s.w.c.} protect them: Amiin!!! True, Islaam co-exists with other cultures and religions, and it respects them. However, there is no 'second' party in this particular case. Afkhanis people are 100-percent Muslims. And what should they respect if they are ALL Muslims. Relics and idols are offensive to Islam, and must not have a place where Shareeca adhered. I go for them. And I am sick for getting those 'moderate' Muslims replying, yet pretending to please Westerns, this is 'wrong.' Totally, as far as I can see there is no basis exist that has a conflict with Islaam. If they are talking about to preserve history, well why do I have to be proud when my fore-fathers worshipped idols. There is no pride with that. It is sick. So sick. They practised with their ignorant, but that was 'then,' and this is 'now.' History must not be the excuse with this idols. Nabi Ibraahim did it. Was he trying to safe his history when he demolished all but one of people's idols. Nabi Max'ed did it, too. And don't tell me it was in Makkah, because that will be an exceptional. Whether it is Makkah or not, idol should, and must, not have a place where the country is so surely a Muslim. It is not even 'pre-dominant' Muslim, it is 'the' Muslim state. No other people live there who aren't Muslims. And there is this Shareeca. And I'd seen people, including Muslims, Talebans follow a 'strict' version of Islaam. What? Isn't strict the best. Well, would they prefer, in order to please a man, to follow a 'moderate' of Islaam. As I said before, Talebans never tried to please any man, whether he belongs to those who call themselves 'moderate' Muslims or they are aliens. Talebans only thing they do try with their best is to please Allah {s.w.c.}. _____________________ Nabadeey!!
|
| | Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 06:01 pm miskiin ya macruuf Islam coexisted with idol worshipers long before you were born.History has its records and proves that point. These templessignify the culture of a particular society and shouldnt have to be demolished for the sake of principles which islam doesnt condone. They signy how human evolved over centuries ago. It shows us the lives lived by long ago generations. Islam doesnt condone such practice as the talibans did. indeed as the first writer said, they are fanatics if not lunatics
|
| | Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 09:04 pm Salama... Prof.: Cite your references where in the Quraan or Xadiis says that Islaam condones it. Before, I tried to explain that Islaam absolutely never advocates idols or trying to preserve anything that relates to idols--whether history loves it or not, without any citation. But now, I will, for your sake, cite the particular ayats, mainly, the framepoint of the Quraanka Kariimka. Here goes the synopsis of Nabi Ibraahim's version as the Quraan narrates: 57. "And by Allah, I have a plan for your idols - after ye go away and turn your backs".. 58. So he broke them to pieces, (all) but the biggest of them, that they might turn (and address themselves) to it. 59. They said, "Who has done this to our gods? He must indeed be some man of impiety!" 60. They said, "We heard a youth talk of them: He is called Ibraahim." 61. They said, "Then bring him before the eyes of the people, that they may bear witness." 62. They said, "Art thou the one that did this with our gods, O Ibraahim?" 63. He said: "Nay, this was done by - this is their biggest one! ask them, if they can speak intelligently!" 64. So they turned to themselves and said, "Surely ye are the ones in the wrong!" 65. Then were they confounded with shame: (they said), "Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!" {Suurad 21, the Prophets, verses 57-65} ___________________ Well, what would you say? Ibraahim could surely have thought to think about his history before he destroyed them, but Allah is above all. No compromise whatsoever. ___________________ And you wouldn't like to narrate the version of Nabi Max'ed, would you? ___________________ Nabadeey!!
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 12:03 am Bottom line: Almost ll of the scholars outside of Afghanistan have stated that the destruction was un-Islamic.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 02:20 am WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE WORRIED ABOUT THAT BUDHIST STATUES AND IAM WORRIED ABOUT THE SANCTION ON AFGHANISTAN THAT KILLS THOUSAND OF PEOPLE EVERY MONTH.WE MUSLIMS ARE IN DEEP SLEEP. IF COUNTRIES IN WESTREN EUROPE OR NORTH-AMERICA CARE ABOUT AFGHANISTAN LET THIS GOD DAMIT SANCTION LIFTED FROM AFGHANISTAN THOSE COUNTRIES DONT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH OR PEOPLE THEY ARE LAIRS. BUT I BELEIVE THOSE TEMPLES SHOULD BE DETROYED IF THERE ARE SOME PPL WHO STILL WORSHIPS THE STATUES. BUT IF ALL THE PPL IN AFGHANISTAN ARE MUSLIMS. LET THETEMPLE STAY BECAUSE IT IS PAT OF THEIR HISTORY. BROTHERS AND SISTERS THIS IS MY OPINION I COULD BE RIGHT OR WRONG. SALAMU ALEIKUM ALL.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 02:48 am C/Qadir Until the Taliban hand over UBL and stop trying to export their version of Islam to the border states to the north the heat will stay on. The US and Russia are both sick of Afghanistan in general and the Taliban in particular. Furthermore, no matter how you slice it or dice it, the destruction of the statues in Un-Islamic. The Qur'an specifically says that people must be allowed to practice their own faiths as they see fit. This would include Bhudism dude. To not allow people to practice their own faiths is un-Islamic. On the other hand, to destroy the statues if no one is worshipping them is also, if not un-Islamic, then simply a destruction of what little Afghan cultural history there is. Since most Islamic scholars outside of Afghanistan say this is un-Islamic, I fail to understand why Muslims continue to argue in favor a such a move. Are all Muslims ignorant of their own faith or what gives here?
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 05:09 am I don`t know whether Afganis are making an erroneous decistion or not to destroy a Budhist idols. But what i do know is this; what they do or don`t their country is no ones bussiness. UNs last decistion was a scare one- when UN told Afganis either you guys give up UBL or no recognition- after that Taliban regime in Afganistan are clevers and they are playing a good game here. Mad Mac, tell your bosses-State Departement- that they are making a mistake again and again interfering other countries bussiness: stop stop stop; and minne your bussiness. Today you are calling terrorist UBL, Saddam and Qadafi yesterday was Yasir and Assad stop these lies and minne your bussiness. And better to think american people their own problems which is American Corporates which owns almost all living things which moves on the United States soil. Oklahoma farmer doesn`t care UBL and idols destruction in Afganistan.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 05:38 am This is 13th century islam at its best - the statement made is islam or nothing else. Before it was islam or die. I don't condon the worship of idols but this is pure force! If the Buddist destroyed Mosques what would the cry be? Moslems have a hard time being around others who are not the same - brain washed! This is a good example of the true moslem and his true phobias. This to me explans why there are many moslems going to Western countries to live and not moslem ones. There is a narrow mentality among moslems that everyone must be on the same track or destroyed. That is why there is so much hate between the shites and sunnnis. This is a narrow-minded way of life. By the way, Afghanistan is not all moslems as many of you like to think. There are jews there and budhists too. That is the moslem mentality again thinking that everyone must accept islam. If you gave moslems freedom of choice they wouldnt chose islam at all - Why? Because when moslems get a chance to have freedom they act like everything else but a moslem. Case-in-point, check out the bars and night clubs in the western countries - see for yourself who frequent them. If they are moslems then why do you see so many of them in there? No! These moslems had a choice to drink and act like non-moslems no one force them. As I said, given the freedom moslems will be non-moslems. But they are afraid of the group of gang mentality of moslems. They dont want to have the pressure of saying "...hey I dont want to be a moslem anymore..." In other words no guts and no courage! You can be a moslem by name only but who are you fooling? Your behavior dictates who you are not what you were born into or forced to join. Peace and truth to all!
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 07:36 am Afghan Buddhas doomed: foreign minister KABUL, Afghanistan , 3/4/2001 (AFP) :: Afghanistan''s famous Bamiyan Buddhas appeared doomed Sunday as the Taliban militia ruled out any reversal of their "Islamic" edict ahead of talks with a special United Nations envoy. Minister of Information and Culture Mawlawi Qudratullah Jamal said the destruction of ancient statues was continuing throughout the country despite international appeals for their preservation. He said large portions of the two massive Buddha figures in central Bamiyan province, dating back more than 1,500 years, had already been destroyed, along with thousands of other statues throughout the country. "Work is in progress on them. They are massive if you see them closely," he said, dismissing international protests. Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakel confirmed to AFP the Bamiyan Buddhas would soon be destroyed as he prepared for talks with UNESCO special envoy Pierre Lafrance in the Taliban''s southern stronghold of Kandahar. "The edict will be implemented Inshallah (God willing)," Mutawakel said shortly before Lafrance''s arrival from neighbouring Pakistan. "We would like to see the UNESCO enovy. It is good that we can explain to him that what we are doing is an internal issue and we do not want to confront the world." The Islamic militia last week began destroying historic statues around the country to prevent idolatry, but Lafrance said Saturday that there was a "faint glimpse of hope" they could still be saved. He cited conflicting reports from Taliban officials about the extent of the destruction so far and the nature of the order from Taliban Supreme Leader Mulla Mohammad Omar which authorised the iconoclasm. Journalists have been barred from visiting Bamiyan, where the Taliban have recently engaged in heavy battles with armed opposition forces. Buddhism''s most prominent leader, the Dalai Lama, said he was "deeply concerned" about the Taliban''s attempts to erase Afghanistan''s pre-Islamic history. "I am deeply concerned about the possible destruction of the Bamiyan statues of the Buddha at a time when there is closer understanding and better harmony among different religions of the world," he was quoted as saying in the Times of India Sunday. "As a Buddhist, I feel it is unfortunate that objects of worship are targets of destruction." The Taliban fundamentalist militia are recognised only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and are not represented at the UN or the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Jamal said that while the action against the statues had nothing to do with the regime''s craving for international recognition, the UN would have more influence in Kandahar if it did not still recognise the ousted government. "We tell the United Nations to go and ask (ousted president Burhanuddin Rabbani) for the statues'' preservation, because they recognize him," he said. The Taliban (Islamic Students) captured the capital Kabul in 1996 and now control most of the country, which they are trying to turn into a pure Mohammadan state. Lafrance, the former French ambassador to Iran and Pakistan, on Saturday met the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad and expressed the world''s outrage. "Despite the fact that all my interlocutors wished me good luck and were supportive of my mission I hardly dare to be optimistic," he said after the meeting. A storm of international protest erupted last week when the Taliban said they had started rocketing the Bamiyan Buddhas, which stand 50 meters (165 feet) and 34.5 meters tall. Carved into a sandstone mountain near the provincial capital between the second and fifth centuries AD, the taller figure is the largest standing Buddha in the world. Anonymous Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 04:27 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Cares More for Buddhist Statues than Human Life Reported by: Hebah Abdalla 3/3/2001 :: Anyone who has been closely following the media reports coming out of Afghanistan this week can only come to one conclusion: that the world community cares more about ancient relics than it does human lives. This week, shortly after Taliban leaders announced their decision to destroy two Buddhist statues carved into a sandstone cliff in the central Bamiyan province, the international community lashed out with strong condemnation. Unsurprisingly, the United States was among the first to criticize Afghanistan''s ruling regime. Relations between the Taliban and the Americans deteriorated even further after the U.S. initiated latest round of sanctions on the war-torn nation. During a State Department briefing this week, US State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said the edict against the statues "directly contradicts one of Islam''s basic tenets -- tolerance for other religions". The United Nations sent a special envoy to meet with the Taliban foreign minister, warning their destruction would cause "international outrage". The European Union, along with several other industrialized nations urged the Taliban to reverse the decision. Shortly thereafter, a long list of countries joined the international uproar over the relics, including Malaysia, Germany, Russia, India, and Japan. Even Egypt''s spiritual leader, mufti Sheikh Nasr Farid Wassel, expressed "astonishment" at the Taliban''s decision, saying they had no negative impact on Muslims. Sri Lanka and India even offered to move and protect the statues if the Afghani government would agree. And without hesitation, the international media dutifully reported the outpouring of grief and anger over the threatened Buddhas, as one headline read, "Worldwide horror as Afghan Taliban begin smashing ancient statues". But there was no "worldwide horror" or "international outrage" when UN officials announced Friday that more than 260 people have died in displacement camps in northern Afghanistan where an additional 117,000 people are living in miserable conditions. There was no outpouring of grief for those refugees who mostly died of hunger and exposure to cold weather. Sadly, no one seemed to care that most of the deceased were children under the age of five, elderly men, and women who did not survive childbirth. And there were no invitations to house these refugees as conditions in these camps are expected to deteriorate. Perhaps the only consolation in all of this, is that these refugees may never know how much the world cared for two statues and how little it cared for them. Anonymous Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 04:42 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.afghan-network.net/news/ Chechen rebels see world "hypocrisy" Support for the Taleban campaign to destroy the Buddhist statues has come from a senior figure in the Chechen rebel movement - Yusuf Ibrahim, an influential editor at the Kavkaz-Tsentr news agency. The following are excerpts from his Kavkaz-Tsentr article on Saturday 3 March: The heathen world is upset. The so-called world community, which is personified by the Judeo-Christian heathen alliance, has kicked up a real fuss over the decision by the leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to destroy stone idols in its country. The world hypocritically laments for the stone idols and blesses the Kremlin crusade against the Muslims of Chechnya Yusuf Ibrahim Numerous international organisations and entire states have launched an unprecedented hullabaloo in the news and are accusing the Afghans of vandalism... So, the heathen alliance considers the actions of Muslims who are carrying out an elementary prescription of the shari'ah as "hostility towards values common to all mankind". The Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him), whose first action was to destroy idols and idolatry, is also a "vandal" and an "enemy" in the eyes of the heathens... Without shame or remorse over its own shamelesness, the world community is hypocritically lamenting the stone idols and simultaneously giving its blessing to the Kremlin gangs' crusade against the Muslims of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria... Human rights Neither hundreds of corpses nor concentration camps nor the Satanic mayhem of the Russian occupiers have had any impact on the "opinion" of the so-called human rights commissioner of the Council of Europe, Alvaro Gil-Robles who, after his ignoble and cowardly statements, can be taken for nothing other than an enemy. The international outcry over the fate of the stone statues and the joyous silence over the mass killings of Muslims in Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, the Philippines and other countries once again demonstrate the true essence of Kufr (lack of faith). Those Muslims who are still being deceived regarding the so-called world community must finally understand that there will be no peace, security and justice, while violence and true obscurantism prevail on the face of the Earth, as long as our entire religion and law fail to belong to our Creator, the Lord of the Worlds, the Great God (the Most High) who is the only One who sets laws and the only One worthy of worship. MAD MAC Monday, March 05, 2001 - 04:50 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOL Ahhh I see. So Muslim scholars who live outside of Afghanistan are all hypocrites (including those damn Iranians), US lackeys, swine who are holding back the real Islam. but fortunately we have the wise and far-sighted Afghanis, that shining light of civilization leading us to a new frontier. Yeah right. Why is it that when your Muslim scholars issue some edit or opinion that is anti-western you are only too quick to embrace it, but when they issue something that has the same position as the west, they are hypocrits. There is nothing to be gained by destorying what are essentially works of art. Nothing. Allah is not impressed. All the Afghanis have managed to do is give Islam yet another black eye. If Muslims leaders and scholars actions weren't so tragic it would be comical. ANON Monday, March 05, 2001 - 07:11 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "So Muslim scholars who live outside of Afghanistan are all hypocrites(including those damn Iranians), US lackeys, swine who are holding back the real Islam, but fortunately we have the wise and far-sighted Afghanis, that shining light of civilization leading us to a new frontier. Yeah right. " lol. not all muslim scholars outside or inside of afghanistan agree each other on this issue and not all of them are hypocrites. ;-) "Why is it that when your Muslim scholars issue some edit or opinion that is anti-western you are only too quick to embrace it, but when they issue something that has the same position as the west, they are hypocrits." i think you are talking about yourself. you said "It's just the hypocrits who call themselves Muslims that give Islam a bad name.". ;-) "There is nothing to be gained by destorying what are essentially works of art. Nothing." if it is nothing to be gained, why the outcry. it is just a work of art, right? ;-) "Allah is not impressed." He is not impressed with the idols, right? ;-) "All the Afghanis have managed to do is give Islam yet another black eye. If Muslims leaders and scholars actions weren't so tragic it would be comical." let me take the quote above and say what the chechen wrote: "The Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him), whose first action was to destroy idols and idolatry, is also a "vandal" and an "enemy" in the eyes of the heathens......." in other word, what he did to the idols in arabia gave islam another black eye, right?----wrong. ;-). mad mac, islam is going to flourish no matter what the kufars say and how much they wish for islam things that will not hurt. ;-) MAD MAC Monday, March 05, 2001 - 07:36 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asad The number of Islam scholars, quoted on CNN, that oppossed this destruction as un-Islamic, was in excess of 80%. now, of course this is just propaganda by the Zionist media I'm sure, but can we safely assume that it is a majority that believe it is un-Islamic?? Or do you contest that as well? As for the notion of Islam spreading, I don't care if it spreads or not. It's spreading won't affect me. I'm the only Macist in the world and I have always, and will continue, to march to the beat of my own drummer. I need no ones approval. I am simply pointing out how quickly the "Ummah" are dying to embrace this action in spite of the fact that at the very least it has a questionable basis in Islam and outrages many others (It doesn't outrage me. I have never been to Afghanistan and have no reason to go. So I wasn't going to see the stupid things anyway.). I believe the reason for this phenomenon is because Muslims feel compelled to stand on opposite sides of all Kufaars on all issues whenever possible. LogicS Monday, March 05, 2001 - 07:54 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAD MAC Would the have CARE this BUdhist IDiols......if America don,t Hate Afghanistan?? would it aatarect that much attention? if the world is that Caring place and want really protect all the image of Faiths.....why don,t they Care the real Human being? How many Children who is dying every Minute......in Afganitan and IRAQ? now is the times I realise How Western World are really Fools....AfGhanistan |Have no Country no Life......and u expect them to Care.....Stones??? what weird planet we r in. MAD MAC Monday, March 05, 2001 - 10:03 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LogicS Saxib you are missing the point. Pointing out one injustice does not in any way mitigate another. I am not a proponent of the sanctions against Iraq or Afghanistan, I do not believe sanctions, except in a very narrow set of circumstances, are effective. However, that in no way mitigates the destruction of the statues. Is it getting disproportionate coverage? Sure it is. Ask yourself why. The destruction is so sensless, and in a way it represents Islams "•••• you" to the world at large, that that in itself generates coverage. Speaking of which, doesn't this symbolic stoning of the devil represent a form of idolatry. I mean the idols have been errected to symbolize the devil - a sort of idolatry in reverse. I guess you can't exactly call it devil worship, because worship is not what's taking place, but it does smack of using an stone object to represent something - the basic principal of idolatry. Has this ever been addressed. I just read about the tragic deaths at the Haj. Always a danger when you get large crowds together. I hope the Saudi authorities are able to come to grips with this problem in the future - it seems to be casting a pall over the event the last decade plus. ANON Monday, March 05, 2001 - 10:42 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Asad The number of Islam scholars, quoted on CNN, that oppossed this destruction as un-Islamic, was in excess of 80%." majority is not always right, mad mac. ;-) "now, of course this is just propaganda by the Zionist media I'm sure" if you say so. ;-) "but can we safely assume that it is a majority that believe it is un-Islamic?? Or do you contest that as well?" again, what the majority believes is not always correct. ;-) "As for the notion of Islam spreading, I don't care if it spreads or not." do you think muslims care or believe when you say islam get yet black eye? ;-) "It's spreading won't affect me." your sayings or your disbelief about islam would not effect islam either. ;-) "I'm the only Macist in the world and I have always, and will continue, to march to the beat of my own drummer." i'm a muslim. ;-) "I need no ones approval." i don't accept no majority to tell me what is right or what is wrong and certainly i don't accept what a kufar tells me about islam. ;-) "I am simply pointing out how quickly the "Ummah" are dying to embrace this action in spite of the fact that at the very least it has a questionable basis in Islam and outrages many others (It doesn't outrage me." i told you kufars like you have plenty of excuses, but excuses would not work. ;-) "I have never been to Afghanistan and have no reason to go." same here. ;-) "So I wasn't going to see the stupid things anyway.)." lol. how is now an iconoclast-----calling the idol (bhuda) stupid? ;-) "I believe the reason for this phenomenon is because Muslims feel compelled to stand on opposite sides of all Kufaars on all issues whenever possible." islam will always stand on the opposite of all kufaars on things whenever possible, like it or not. when islam first came to arabia, the pagan arabs and the jewish in madina said the same things you are saying; they blamed islam, the prophet and muslims. there will always be conflicts between right and wrong-----haq vs badil-----islam vs non-islam. one of the very first things the prophet and his followers did when they entered makkah was destroy 360 idols. the prophet started doing this while reciting "And say: Truth (islamic monotheism or this Qur'an or jihad against polytheists) has come and batil (falsehood, i.e. satan or polytheism, etc.) has vanished. Surely! Badil is ever bound to vanish" 17:81. if the prophets and muslims could do what they did in makkah, why can't the afghanistans in afghan can't do it? ;-)
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 07:36 am Mad Mac, you said >the idols the Prophet ordered destroyed, those were pagan idols that had previously been worshipped by MUSLIMS, who no longer worshipped them< if this is the case, the idol the Taliban government ordering destroyed were pagan idols that had previously been worshipped by the MUSLIMS in afghanistian, who no longer worshipped them, people who conversted to ISLAM. If the Quran was not against those idols in MAKKA be destroyed, it is not against those idols in Afghanistian be destroyed. No bhudist lives there now. .@.LOL. Therefore, the Arab Islamic scholars outside of Afghanistan are the hypocrites.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 08:02 am Taliban: The World Needs the Iconoclasts Reported by: Khalid Baig, Current Affairs 3/5/2001 :: As expected, the Taliban decision to destroy statues from the Islamic State has created a big international uproar. The entire "civilized world", with the UN at its head, has been jumping up and down to condemn this "great crime against humanity." The world leaders have been shaking with anger. The Taliban have been warned by the UN of a "devastating reaction" if they harm the sacred stones. One pundit even suggested sending an army to rescue the beleaguered Buddhas. It is fascinating to see all these political and cultural champions get all worked up with "moral indignation." Through their pious pronouncements they try to persuade us that theirs is a principled stand. The only problem is that it is difficult to discern what that principle is. "No poor country has ever been sanctioned the way Afghanistan has." (UN Report) Is it their concern for humanity? Well, it is the same UN that has started the project of torturing and killing the people by the millions in the war-devastated Afghanistan by imposing sanctions against it. The scheme they are using --- depriving the little children of milk, the hungry of food and the sick of medicine --- has been perfected in Iraq where it has killed half a million people according to the estimates of the UN itself. The UN Security Council first imposed sanctions on Afghanistan in October 1999. They were tightened even more in December 2000, under strong pressure from the United States and Russia. According to a Global Policy Forum report, the new sanctions were imposed despite an August 2000 report from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which highlighted the "tangible negative effect" on Afghanistan''s populace of the existing sanctions. Another draft OCHA report has said that "no poor country has ever been sanctioned the way Afghanistan has." So much for their concern for humanity. Is it their concern for religious freedom? It is important to remember that the Taliban are not destroying any place of worship or anything belonging to a place of worship. And although it is not apparent from the heated condemnations, the Taliban are not doing anything illegal either. The stone artifacts belong to their country; no body else holds title to them. If one buys a home and it comes with some statues, he has a right to keep them, sell them, destroy them or throw them away. Similarly, whether or not others like it or agree with it, the Afghans have a right to do what they want with the mountains, stones, and statues in their country, as long as they do not cause a danger to anybody else. Things become more interesting if we begin to check the credentials of the anti-Taliban campaign itself on the issue of religious freedom. Consider India, a leader in the current crusade, where the same people are ruling today who had led frenzied mobs to destroy the historical Babri Mosque just eight years ago and had killed 2000 people in the ensuing protests. It is amazing that the butchers have been prompt to display righteous anger over this "medieval barbarism." Given that the record of our beloved "International Community" on humanity and religious freedom is rather appalling, let us look at something more plausible, like a concern for universal cultural heritage. The results are no better here. For one must ask where were our guardians of cultural heritage when mosques, libraries, schools, historic buildings, and museums ---many of them great historic monuments ---- were being destroyed in the Balkans. More than 1200 mosques were destroyed in Bosnia by the European fanatics known as Serbs. More than 200 were destroyed in Kosova. Of course, unlike the Taliban they also killed the Imams and the rest of the population with the historic monuments they were destroying. Of course they committed other crimes so grisly that their cultural vandalism appeared to be a non-issue in comparison. And of course, the guardians of cultural heritage, of religious freedom, and of humanity were happily strolling through their art galleries when the butchery was going on. So if there is a principle behind their "principled stand," we are unable to find it. In a rare case the Washington Post tried to find an answer to the question as to why Afghans must keep and preserve the statues: "These old buildings are Afghanistan''s identity. And when you lose your identity, you''ve lost your soul." The problem is these artifacts are NOT Afghanistan''s identity. And the assertion is nothing but unvarnished cultural imperialism. Afghanistan''s identity derives from the life and example of the Prophets. Prophet Ibrahim, alayhi-salam, destroyed the idols, even though his own father was the idol maker. He was threatened with the wrath of gods. (Today, his followers are being threatened with the wrath of the "International Community," which is the same thing). He did not care. And in the process he exposed the weakness of the idols and the wickedness of the idol-worshippers. Later on, in Makkah he said the prayer: "O my Lord! Make this city one of peace and security and preserve me and my sons from worshipping idols. O my Lord! They [the idols] have indeed led astray many among mankind." [Ibrahim 14:35-36] When the pagans later on filled the Ka''ba he had rebuilt with idols, Allah sent Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Again he destroyed all of the idols there, forever. He did not preserve them as cultural heritage. Rather, with every stroke of the hammer, he declared, "Truth has come and falsehood has vanished." Those who have hearts of stone are naturally showing their love for stones. This is the Islamic heritage. You clean your own life and your own house of the idols. You do not preserve them as your cultural heritage or as a cherished work of art. And in doing so you will liberate the world. So is there a principle behind the "International Community''s" stand? May be there is an underlying principle, but it is a sinister one. One "expert" summed up the mood of this commotion while talking to the Los Angeles Times. "I would send in the army, I really would," Pratapaditya Pal, a visiting curator to the US, said. "It is of course very difficult to compare [a statue] with a human life, but don''t forget that we [humans] can reproduce. These Buddhas . . . are destroyed forever." There it is. We are living in a world in which animals are more valuable than humans (In India, for example, men have been slaughtered over the issue of cow slaughter). And now even the stones are more valuable than the humans. And to top it off, those who have developed such inverted values are the self-declared champions of human dignity. And why not? Those who have hearts of stone are naturally showing their love for stones. This is a cruel, self-conceited, arrogant, wicked and ignorant world. It has incessantly talked about its love of art but the only art at work here is the art of propaganda. It needs someone who can expose that. It needs the iconoclasts who would refuse to continue the business as usual; who would challenge its hegemony and tyranny; and who would rid it of its cruelty, self-conceit, arrogance, and ignorance.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 08:11 am UN envoy fails to convince Taliban KABUL, 3/5/2001 (Jang Group) :: UNESCO special envoy Pierre Lafrance on Sunday failed to persuade Afghanistan''s Taliban to stop the demolition of the country''s pre-Islamic cultural heritage, a report said. Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakel said he had detailed discussions with Lafrance in the militia''s southern bastion of Kandahar but could see no reason to stop the destruction, the private Afghan Islamic Press reported. "I do not see any chance to change our decision and stop the demolition of these statues," he was quoted as saying after the talks. Lafrance, the former French ambassador to Iran and Pakistan, was sent on Friday from Europe on an emergency mission to persuade the Taliban to stop destroying the country''s precious statues. Mutawakel said the envoy presented him with a message from UNESCO chief Koichiro Matsuura demanding a halt to the destruction. "Words fail me to describe adequately my feelings of consternation and powerlessness as I see the reports of the irreversible damage that is being done to Afghanistan''s exceptional cultural heritage," Matsuura said last week. The Taliban officials said the destruction, designed to stop idolatry, was nearly complete despite an international outcry. "The edict will be implemented Inshallah," Mutawakel said. "We would like to see the UNESCO envoy. It is good that we can explain to him that what we are doing is an internal issue and we do not want to confront the world." Afghanistan''s most famous monuments are two statues of Buddha in central Bamiyan province, officials said. Kabul rejects Iran''s offer to buy statues Reported by: Rahimullah Yusufzai PESHAWAR, 3/5/2001 (Jang Group) :: Afghan Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil said his government had rejected Iranian offers to buy Afghanistan''s statues or to keep them in safe custody. Talking to The News from Kandahar, he said Behrami from Iran''s foreign ministry phoned him on Sunday to make the two offers. "I told him that the statues are not for sale. Besides, I said Afghanistan as an Islamic country would not like any other Muslim country, including Iran, to keep in safe custody what we Afghans consider un-Islamic and don''t want to retain ourselves. I said Afghanistan had some museums and if we wanted we could have kept these statues in safe custody there," he explained. Asked whether the Taliban have started destroying the statues, including the two giant Buddhas in Bamiyan, Mutawakil said he was unaware of the latest situation. When told that the Taliban information and culture minister Qudratullah Jamal was saying that the operation to destroy the Buddhas had started while Afghan ambassador in Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef, believes such an action hasn''t yet started, he felt the culture minister ought to be believed as the demolition work had been assigned to his ministry along with the minister for promotion of virtue and prevention of vice. "But I don''t know if the Buddhas have been destroyed or are still standing," he said. In reply to a question about Pakistan''s appeal to the Taliban to rescind their decision to destroy statues in response to international sentiment, the Afghan foreign minister said his government valued the well-meaning opinions of friendly and other nations. "But we have an Islamic system of government in Afghanistan and we want to take our own decisions in keeping with our faith," he argued. Reminded of the international outcry over the Taliban decision to obliterate the statues, Mutawakil maintained that this action was neither against any religion nor nation. "Our critics say the statues are the heritage of Afghanistan and the Afghan people. As it is our heritage we should be allowed to decide what to do with it. It is nobody else''s business," he asserted. When questioned as to why was this controversial decision taken at this stage, Mutawakil said the ministry of culture and museum officials had sought the advice of Taliban supreme leader Mulla Mohammad Omar regarding the statues. He said Mulla Omar placed the issue before a group of Ulema (religious scholars) who gave the "Fatwa" (decree) that the statues should be destroyed. He added: "We have taken several steps to protect Afghanistan''s cultural heritage by stopping illegal excavations, retrieving stolen artefacts and restoring museums. But we don''t want to keep statues in our museums or anywhere else as it is against Islam." Mutawakil said most of the statues and other artefacts were damaged and looted during the communist and Mujahideen rule and it goes to the credit of Taliban that they located and preserved a considerable number to preserve Afghanistan''s heritage. "I know that Peshawar is still full of artefacts looted from Afghanistan''s museums and we consider it a national loss," he added. The Afghan foreign minister dismissed reports that the Taliban decided to announce destruction of the statues to blackmail the international community to recognise their government and lift sanctions imposed on them by the UN Security Council for refusing to expel Osama bin Laden. He also described as rubbish an allegation that the Taliban were hoping to trade-off the statues for a hefty sum of money, especially from rich Buddhist countries like Japan. Afghan Buddhas doomed: Foreign Minister Reported by: Kyodo Japan KABUL, 3/5/2001 :: Taliban officials said on Sunday Afghanistan''s ancient Bamiyan Buddhas were nearly destroyed and ruled out any hope for their preservation ahead of talks with a special United Nations envoy. Minister of Information and Culture Mawlawi Qudratullah Jamal said the destruction of "un-Islamic" ancient statues was continuing throughout the country despite international appeals for their preservation. He said, large portions of the two massive Buddha figures in central Bamiyan province, dating back more than 1,500 years, had already been reduced to rubble, along with thousands of other statues throughout the country. Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakel confirmed to reporters the Bamiyan Buddhas would soon be destroyed as he prepared for talks with UNESCO special envoy Pierre Lafrance in the Taliban''s southern stronghold of Kandahar. "The edict will be implemented Inshallah (God willing)," Mutawakel said shortly before Lafrance''s arrival. "We would like to see the UNESCO envoy. It is good that we can explain to him that what we are doing is an internal issue and we do not want to confront the world." The Islamic militia last week began smashing statues around the country to prevent idolatry, but Lafrance said on Saturday there was a "faint glimpse of hope" they could still be saved. Journalists have been barred from visiting the Kabul Museum and Bamiyan province where the Taliban have recently engaged in heavy battles with armed opposition forces. Shortly after arriving in Kandahar Lafrance began meetings with officials including Mutawakel, UN sources in Kabul said. Buddhism''s most prominent leader, the Dalai Lama, said he was "deeply concerned" about the Taliban''s attempts to erase Afghanistan''s pre-Islamic history. The Group of Eight countries expressed "dismay and shock" at the destruction and urged Afghan leaders not to implement "this deeply tragic decision." The Taliban fundamentalist militia are recognised only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and are not represented at the UN or the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Afghanistan''s Taliban leader urges Muslims to unite over icons Reported by: Australian Broadcasting Corporation 3/5/2001 :: Afghanistan''s Taliban chief Mulla Mohammad Omar has urged the Muslim world to support the destruction of ancient Buddhist icons and unite behind his vision of Islam. He says the annihilation of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan will proceed despite international condemnation and protests from Islamic states. Mr Omar says the statues are only "one percent" of Afghanistan''s historical heritage. He dismissed the global outcry as a "drama" which should be transparent to Muslims with "common sense." Taliban officials have said the "work" on the statues is nearly complete, with more than two-thirds of the thousands of historic figures in the country already smashed. Afghan Clerics Urge Hard Line on Statues Reported by: The Los Angeles Times KABUL, Afghanistan, 3/5/2001 :: Afghan Islamic clerics on Monday urged the ruling Taliban''s supreme leader not to bow to international pressure and to push ahead with controversial plans to destroy historic statues. The call was echoed through loud speakers in most mosques in the Afghan capital Kabul on the occasion of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice. "They (non-Muslims) want to deviate us from our firm responsibility and we here request that the policy of smashing these idols to go ahead," said one cleric. Another said: "Let us show the world that Muslims are united in their beliefs and will not bow down to any pressure at any cost." The Taliban have vowed to destroy all statues in the country, including two massive ancient Buddhas in Bamiyan, towering 175 feet and 120 feet and carved into sandstone cliffs. The purist Islamic movement, which has been widely condemned for the plan, says it has smashed major statue collections in several parts of the country since last week when supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar issued a decree to destroy what he termed un-Islamic idols. The fate of the colossal Buddhas at Bamiyan, hewn out of the rock face 15 centuries ago, remains unknown. A Taliban source told Reuters on Sunday that they had yet to begin destroying the relics, although other officials have said the piece-by-piece demolition was already underway. Protests against the destruction have come from far and near. Leading industrialized countries, Muslim and Buddhist nations, and the United Nations have urged the Taliban to scrap the plan saying the statues are part of the world''s common historical and cultural heritage. An envoy of the Paris-based U.N. cultural agency UNESCO, Pierre Lafrance, said he had held "a very long discussion" with Afghan Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil in Kabul on Sunday. He told CNN he hoped to meet the Taliban''s Omar in a few days, after the Eid al-Adha festival. Many ordinary Afghans, including some Taliban officials, say that as the statues are no longer worshipped they should be preserved. But to the Taliban leadership the decree is absolute. "Any abolition of the decree would mean an irreparable loss to the dignity of Islam and its followers. When the world ignores us and keeps on isolating us under various pretexts, why should we listen to them," said one cleric. Other said scrapping the decree could cause a split within the Taliban ranks. Afghan Statues Outcry Grows; Taliban Leader Defiant NEW DELHI, India , 3/5/2001 (Reuter) :: Hindu hard-liners in India burned a copy of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, Monday as international outrage grew at the destruction by Afghanistan (news - web sites)''s Taliban rulers of historic statues in the name of Islam. As Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar defended his destruction order, a German minister compared the attack on the statues to the book-burning purges of the Nazis and an Afghan news agency said Japan had warned the drought and war-ravaged nation aid could be hit. But the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO (news - web sites) said talks with Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil led it to hope that all doors to saving the statues had not yet closed. The purist Islamic Taliban have vowed to destroy all statues in their country, including two massive and ancient Buddhas in Bamiyan, towering 175 feet and 120 feet and carved into sandstone cliffs. Iran urged the Organization of Islamic Conference, the world''s largest Islamic body, to take serious action to stop the Taliban, and Greece offered to buy statues left behind from the days of Alexander the Great''s conquests in Asia. More than 2,000 people turned out for a protest rally in Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, where Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, was born more than 2,600 years ago. Mainly Buddhist Thailand and predominantly Muslim Malaysia added their voices to a chorus of criticism. The European Union (news - web sites) denounced the start of the destruction of statues as ``an act of cultural barbarism and religious intolerance.'''' But a Kashmiri separatist group, based in Pakistan, expressed support for the Taliban stand. In a message quoted by the official Voice of Shariat radio, Mullah Omar dismissed criticism of his destruction call and said Afghan Muslims should be proud of smashing the statues. ``I ask the Muslim people of Afghanistan not to be afraid of the infidels'' pressure,'''' he added. ``I ask Afghans and world''s Muslims to use their sound wisdom... Do you prefer to be a breaker of idols or a seller of idols? The Taliban say they have smashed major statue collections in several parts of the country since last week when Omar first issued his decree to destroy the statues. The fate of the colossal Buddhas at Bamiyan, hewn out of the rock face at least 15 centuries ago, remains unknown. The United Nations (news - web sites) Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization said its special representative, Pierre Lafrance, had hinted at a solution to the plight of the two Buddhas after talks in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar with the Afghan foreign minister. ``All doors have not closed,'''' a statement quoted him as saying. ``Contacts are going on and new consultations of religious leaders are taking place in Afghanistan.'''' Lafrance, a French official sent by the Paris-based agency last week in a bid to save the priceless statues in central Afghanistan, confirmed that small Buddhist statues had been smashed in Ghazni and Herat. Afghanistan was a center of Buddhist culture before the arrival of Islam more than 1,200 years ago. About 200 right-wing Indian Hindus burned a copy of the Muslim holy book the Koran and tore up posters of Islamic shrines in the capital, New Delhi, to protest the Taliban action. ``Down with the Taliban. We will break Mecca and Medina,'''' shouted the protesters belonging to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), or World Hindu Council, outside U.N. offices in the city. Sorrow And Dismay The European Union, in a statement issued in Pakistan, expressed dismay that the destruction of statues had begun. ``The Presidency of the European Union strongly condemns this crime against the world''s common heritage and deeply regrets that it has taken place in the name of one of the world''s important religions,'''' the statement said. In Germany, the mass-circulation daily Bild quoted German Culture Minister Julian Nida-Ruemelin as likening the smashing of the statues to Nazis burning books considered un-German in 1933. ``I feel myself uncannily reminded of the book burning by the Nazis. This is about a piece of global cultural heritage which the rest of the world cannot be indifferent to,'''' he said. The head of anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, its internationally recognized president, condemned the Taliban campaign to destroy the country''s pre-Islamic heritage. ``We strongly condemn and oppose the Taliban''s anti-national and anti-cultural action,'''' Burhanuddin Rabbani said in a statement prepared in his remote northern headquarters. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has called for Muslim action to stop the Taliban destruction, state television said. ``Khatami condemned the destruction of cultural and civilization monuments in Afghanistan and criticized Taliban''s inhuman and violent behavior,'''' the television said. Khatami called on the OIC to ``take serious action to stop this group,'''' it added. The Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) said Japan''s ambassador to Pakistan, Sadaki Numata, had urged the Taliban not to destroy the statues, saying Japanese aid could be compromised if Buddhist statues were destroyed. ``Don''t break these statues because it is a religious issue in Japan where over 80 percent of people follow the Buddhist religion,'''' AIP quoted Numata as telling the Taliban representative in Islamabad. ``Your act might cause difficulties for aid to Afghanistan,'''' he added. Neighbor Pakistan, one of just three countries with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan''s legitimate rulers, has also called for a rethink. But Afghan Islamic clerics urged Omar not to bow to international pressure and to push ahead with the plan. Kashmiri militant organization Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, one of a number of groups Britain last week labeled as terrorist, voiced support for the Taliban stand. ``In an Islamic country there is no concept of idols and our holy prophet taught us to break the idols,'''' said a statement from the Pakistan-based group, which is fighting against Indian control in the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 09:14 am sheik, Professor, and Mad-Mac well said! Miskin, You seem to be obsessed with your version of religion, and disregarding others beliefs! Obviously, you don't recall a similar incident that took place in India, concerning the destruction of Ayodhia mosque, where Hindu fanatics completely destroyed a Muslim sanctuary claiming that it was built upon the birthplace of Ramu. The outrage was similar from all coners of the world and the Indian government was accordingly condemned for that! Therefore, it was everybody's business not only India's or moslems but to preserve world peace. Sometimes being short visioned obstructs us not to reason in a larger context. Sadly enough, you didn't care to evaluate the chain reaction this Afghani act may cause and reflect on moslems all over the world. Suppose they destroy that temple in Afghanistan, and as a chain reaction how if other Budhist fanatics carry out similar destruction on mosques and other Moslem sanctuaries in their respective countries. Or you'd rather ignore the fact that there are any mosques in Budhist countries, or worse you don't care! This act is undiplomatic if not unreligious, because we live in a global village and respect for others belief is a must not only preferred. For example; Spain a European country with a christian majority, has at the same time preserved many islamic santuaries and remnants as they are considered part of the Spanish historic treasure, would you rather have them destroy them? Similarly, you would've claimed Egypt to destroy its Pharoanic temples, or you'd claim Egyptian religious scholars are not that at all! Furthermore, how about the mosque you pray in wherever you're located in the west is destroyed, simply because your immigrant religion is not accepted in these predominantly christian countries that we live in! My friend, the world we live in is too complicated and far more integrated in a complex way than you ever think.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 11:32 am wallaahi brother saggitarius you amaze me. you are brilliant if not a somali einstein.i agree with you 100%on this one. when i heard the news about the destruction of the temples ,iwas ashamed of myself,because as you said i thought it was a political disaster,ifnot a religious one. i applaud you for the example of the ayodhya mosque,which was long been forgotten, that you gave in your message.another imminent threat is from the orthodox jews that want to destroy the masjid al aqsa on the grounds that it lies on a holly jews site. well muslims can't defend it ,militarilly and politically the jews could repute any objection by reffering to the afghan's destruction of the temple.i don't know bro what your accupation is ,but as any of your postig you never cease to amaze me . in any case peace n love and ciid mubaarak to you bro and to all somalis around the globe. by the way are you a proffesor or a graduate student saggi?
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 01:02 pm I LIKE THIS ARTICLE. As expected, the Taliban decision to destroy statues from the Islamic State has created a big international uproar. The entire "civilized world", with the UN at its head, has been jumping up and down to condemn this "great crime against humanity." The world leaders have been shaking with anger. The Taliban have been warned by the UN of a "devastating reaction" if they harm the sacred stones. One pundit even suggested sending an army to rescue the beleaguered Buddhas. It is fascinating to see all these political and cultural champions get all worked up with "moral indignation." Through their pious pronouncements they try to persuade us that theirs is a principled stand. The only problem is that it is difficult to discern what that principle is. "No poor country has ever been sanctioned the way Afghanistan has." (UN Report) Is it their concern for humanity? Well, it is the same UN that has started the project of torturing and killing the people by the millions in the war-devastated Afghanistan by imposing sanctions against it. The scheme they are using --- depriving the little children of milk, the hungry of food and the sick of medicine --- has been perfected in Iraq where it has killed half a million people according to the estimates of the UN itself. The UN Security Council first imposed sanctions on Afghanistan in October 1999. They were tightened even more in December 2000, under strong pressure from the United States and Russia. According to a Global Policy Forum report, the new sanctions were imposed despite an August 2000 report from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which highlighted the "tangible negative effect" on Afghanistan''s populace of the existing sanctions. Another draft OCHA report has said that "no poor country has ever been sanctioned the way Afghanistan has." So much for their concern for humanity. Is it their concern for religious freedom? It is important to remember that the Taliban are not destroying any place of worship or anything belonging to a place of worship. And although it is not apparent from the heated condemnations, the Taliban are not doing anything illegal either. The stone artifacts belong to their country; no body else holds title to them. If one buys a home and it comes with some statues, he has a right to keep them, sell them, destroy them or throw them away. Similarly, whether or not others like it or agree with it, the Afghans have a right to do what they want with the mountains, stones, and statues in their country, as long as they do not cause a danger to anybody else. Things become more interesting if we begin to check the credentials of the anti-Taliban campaign itself on the issue of religious freedom. Consider India, a leader in the current crusade, where the same people are ruling today who had led frenzied mobs to destroy the historical Babri Mosque just eight years ago and had killed 2000 people in the ensuing protests. It is amazing that the butchers have been prompt to display righteous anger over this "medieval barbarism." Given that the record of our beloved "International Community" on humanity and religious freedom is rather appalling, let us look at something more plausible, like a concern for universal cultural heritage. The results are no better here. For one must ask where were our guardians of cultural heritage when mosques, libraries, schools, historic buildings, and museums ---many of them great historic monuments ---- were being destroyed in the Balkans. More than 1200 mosques were destroyed in Bosnia by the European fanatics known as Serbs. More than 200 were destroyed in Kosova. Of course, unlike the Taliban they also killed the Imams and the rest of the population with the historic monuments they were destroying. Of course they committed other crimes so grisly that their cultural vandalism appeared to be a non-issue in comparison. And of course, the guardians of cultural heritage, of religious freedom, and of humanity were happily strolling through their art galleries when the butchery was going on. So if there is a principle behind their "principled stand," we are unable to find it. In a rare case the Washington Post tried to find an answer to the question as to why Afghans must keep and preserve the statues: "These old buildings are Afghanistan''s identity. And when you lose your identity, you''ve lost your soul." The problem is these artifacts are NOT Afghanistan''s identity. And the assertion is nothing but unvarnished cultural imperialism. Afghanistan''s identity derives from the life and example of the Prophets. Prophet Ibrahim, alayhi-salam, destroyed the idols, even though his own father was the idol maker. He was threatened with the wrath of gods. (Today, his followers are being threatened with the wrath of the "International Community," which is the same thing). He did not care. And in the process he exposed the weakness of the idols and the wickedness of the idol-worshippers. Later on, in Makkah he said the prayer: "O my Lord! Make this city one of peace and security and preserve me and my sons from worshipping idols. O my Lord! They [the idols] have indeed led astray many among mankind." [Ibrahim 14:35-36] When the pagans later on filled the Ka''ba he had rebuilt with idols, Allah sent Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Again he destroyed all of the idols there, forever. He did not preserve them as cultural heritage. Rather, with every stroke of the hammer, he declared, "Truth has come and falsehood has vanished." Those who have hearts of stone are naturally showing their love for stones. This is the Islamic heritage. You clean your own life and your own house of the idols. You do not preserve them as your cultural heritage or as a cherished work of art. And in doing so you will liberate the world. So is there a principle behind the "International Community''s" stand? May be there is an underlying principle, but it is a sinister one. One "expert" summed up the mood of this commotion while talking to the Los Angeles Times. "I would send in the army, I really would," Pratapaditya Pal, a visiting curator to the US, said. "It is of course very difficult to compare [a statue] with a human life, but don''t forget that we [humans] can reproduce. These Buddhas . . . are destroyed forever." There it is. We are living in a world in which animals are more valuable than humans (In India, for example, men have been slaughtered over the issue of cow slaughter). And now even the stones are more valuable than the humans. And to top it off, those who have developed such inverted values are the self-declared champions of human dignity. And why not? Those who have hearts of stone are naturally showing their love for stones. This is a cruel, self-conceited, arrogant, wicked and ignorant world. It has incessantly talked about its love of art but the only art at work here is the art of propaganda. It needs someone who can expose that. It needs the iconoclasts who would refuse to continue the business as usual; who would challenge its hegemony and tyranny; and who would rid it of its cruelty, self-conceit, arrogance, and ignorance.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 01:11 pm Mark Bowden, the author of the best-selling Black Hawk Down MBC: I read maybe 50 or 60 books a year for the Club, and Black Hawk Down is one of the best books I've come across in a long while. I wonder if that's because you're not a military man? You write with a certain degree of dispassion. Mark Bowden: I do. I've always felt that way about my work. I come at something with not a lot of personal experiences. It makes it more difficult on one hand; on the other hand, it's helpful. It helps me ask appropriately ignorant questions. Also, anybody from the military will relate to something like the Battle of Mogadishu with a certain amount of baggage. They'll try to explain away errors in judgment. Many of the military men are bitterly divided over what happened. Beyond that, the perspective I bring is one of respect and admiration for those who were involved. I am over and beyond passing judgment. MBC: You said the military was divided in different camps. Mark Bowden: After the battle, there were a lot of people blamed. People certainly blamed President Clinton and Les Aspin (Ed. note: Secretary of Defense at the time). It gets very complicated. But the objections were that they failed to approve of the force request made at the onset. There were no tanks or C-130 gunships up over the top of the city. There wasn't a sufficient reserve force. We hadn't anticipated the various ways that problems could develop. And as a result, the forces were trapped in the city overnight. Then down on the individual level, there were Delta soldiers who were very critical of the Ranger commanders. And down further, in the individual units, there were soldiers who were critical of other soldiers. And as you work your way into a story like this, you become aware of all these varying camps and points of view. From my perspective, all this was very secondary. MBC: And what was primary? Mark Bowden: To me, the most important thing was to tell the story accurately and well. I think that when we, as a country, send young men to places around the world to fight in our name and sometimes die, it's important that as a society we note and remember what they've done. This was an important historical incident. And it was typical of the kind of military engagements that we will have in the foreseeable future. There's a lot to be learned from it. I think the first step in learning something is to fully understand what happened. MBC: There's a point that you make toward the end of the book that despite the fact that 18 Americans died, all the equipment was shot up, there were so many wounded and there was this terrible mish-mash...the mission was basically successful. Mark Bowden: Absolutely! Without question. Their mission was to capture these two top lieutenants of Aidid (Ed. Note: Aidid was the clan leader believed to be behind much of the problems in Somalia), and they brought them, along with some 20 others who were also allied with the clan, back to the base. At tremendous cost, they succeeded in what they set out to do. Of course, the judgment that was made afterwards was that the cost was too high for what they accomplished. But interestingly, the military men involved accept the possibility of death and casualties with their job. And most the men who fought that day were proud of having accomplished their mission and were bitterly angry and disappointed when their mission in Somalia was called off. MBC: You mentioned General Garrison before. (Ed note: The officer in command of US troops during the missions.) Have you met him? Mark Bowden: I have. I met him briefly, although he declined to be interviewed for the story. MBC: That was my next question. Mark Bowden: I met him when I was interviewing another General, Wayne Downing, at a hotel in Virginia. He introduced me to General Garrison, who was very polite. And we sat around and made small talk for a while. But he declined to be interviewed in depth for the story. MBC: Do you think he caught too much blame? You incorporated his letter... Mark Bowden: I think he did. The mission that they undertook was a daring one. Which means that you take risks. It was similar to missions they had done prior to this day. And they came very close to pulling this one off. If they pulled it off, Garrison would have been regarded as a very bold leader. But because it didn't go as planned, and that's the way things work in the military, the judgment was that if you lost too many men, or if the mission didn't work out the way people want ... MBC: It happened on his watch. Mark Bowden: ...you bear the blame. I understand the way that works. He's been criticized on a lot of levels unfairly. And one of the standard things that you hear is, "Why did they go out on this mission in daylight? They were trained primarily to work at night." When, in fact, they had done six previous missions, and three of those missions had been in daytime, three at night. He was also criticized for not varying the task force tactics. The claim is that because they did the same template each time, the Somalis knew what to expect from them. It was said that the task force had become very predictable and vulnerable. But in fact, they varied their tactics on all six of those missions. Sometimes they went in by helicopter; sometimes they went in by truck. Sometimes they came out on choppers; sometimes they came out on trucks. It was all done very deliberately to avoid being predictable. When I hear these claims made, and I talk at military bases all over the country so I hear these accusations very frequently, I try to point out the truth. And I think the truth holds Garrison in good stead. The highest praise for him is that his men really respect him. MBC: How much damage did this do to his career? Mark Bowden: His career is over. MBC: Is he still in the military? Mark Bowden: No, he's not. He did spend a year or two at the John F. Kennedy School of Special Warfare down at Fort Bragg and then he retired. MBC: So he's also a casualty of the Battle of Mogadishu? Mark Bowden: His career was. MBC: When you were writing this book, what characters impressed you the most? Mark Bowden: There were so many. But in general, the character of the young American soldiers. I grew up in the Vietnam War era. And I tended to view the military as being made up of people who couldn't get into college. And because I had no military experience myself, I had a very cynical attitude toward military people. I always respected the military and the job that they do, but I didn't have that high opinion of the individual involved. From the very first interview with these Rangers at Fort Benning, my impression of military people did a 180o turnabout. These were articulate, intelligent, ambitious, impressive young men...to a man. These are the kind of people who will be running corporations, working as professionals, professors in universities. Rangers are the elite in the Army. And they are very, very impressive young men. And it was true, time and time again, when I talked to them, how honest they were and how articulate, how thoughtful...how deep they all were. Obviously, there were exceptions. But that was my overall impression. And that was a surprise to me. A good surprise. MBC: What was the average age of a Ranger at Mogadishu? Mark Bowden: Nineteen. MBC: And what was the average age of Delta force members? Mark Bowden: I think probably around 27 or 28, maybe even as high as 30. There are a few guys in Delta who are in their late 30s and 40s. A big difference. MBC: This book has a very visceral context. Is there a part of you that wishes you were with the Rangers that day? Mark Bowden: No. Well, certainly as a writer, if I had been there, and lived, I would have been able to do an even better job of telling the truth. I did go to Mogadishu. It was a very dangerous trip. But I felt it was important to spend some time there...to go to the places where the fighting took place. The book also tries to capture the Somali point of view, from the Somali perspective. MBC: The Somalis that you reference, the 14-year old boy who digs up a Kalashnikov and then runs to the battle, the man whose house is occupied, were these real people? Real names? Did you meet them? Mark Bowden: Oh yes. Absolutely. I met and interviewed them in Mogadishu. I went there to track down who fought against the American soldiers that day to understand why they were fighting against, from our perspective, the troops who were trying to do good in Somalia. One of the interesting things about this whole episode is that it stretched the definition of war. In the past, troops had always been employed to defend our borders. And then that definition was extended in The Cold War to defending our national interests. But we had no borders or national interests in Somalia. There were no natural resources there or strategic advantage by being allied to Somalia. We went over there to feed starving people; and to create a government there; and try and establish some sort of stability so the famine wouldn't return. And when our soldiers went there, it was to take down Mohammed Aidid, because as a warlord, he was interfering with the U.S. effort to create a stable government. From our perspective as Americans, this was a purely humanitarian, selfless act. We were sending our men over there to try to do good. And here they were being killed. And not just being killed, but humiliated. Their bodies were dragged through the streets. And I wanted to understand from the Somalis' perspective, how that could happen. How could they have viewed the situation so differently than we did in America? And I'm pleased to say, I hope that Black Hawk Down reflects that I was able to understand and explain why they felt the way they did and why they acted the way they did. It would not have been as good a book if I didn't address those central questions. To go back to your question about wanting to be there, I think that anybody who wants to be in combat has got a screw loose. The only part of me that wants to be there is the part that wants to tell a better story. I'm not a soldier. I don't have the instincts of a warrior. And at my age, I'm 47, I certainly have no illusions of ever becoming a soldier. But I certainly do feel for those guys out there. And yet, to a certain extent, emotionally, you wish you could have been there to help them in some way. On a realistic level, I'm glad I wasn't in Mogadishu. MBC: The members of The Military Book Club are a pretty diverse group. But on the average they take themselves seriously and they read and know a lot. If you had a lesson to teach these people from this book, what would that lesson be? Mark Bowden: One lesson would be how important it is to study what happened when troops were sent into combat. I was amazed to learn that there had been no serious post-mortem done of the whole episode. As I indicated in the epilogue, when I started working on this, I thought, for sure, there were probably detailed accounts and analysis of what happened in Mogadishu that had already been done within the military. I thought my main reportorial challenge would be to wrest this material from the ranks of the classified so that then I could do my own interviews and lay the human story on top of the official version of what happened. But in fact, none of those accounts had been done. I really think that's amazing. MBC: I thought you said at one point that this was one of the most documented events? Mark Bowden: It is. There's a difference between documenting something and studying it. There are about fifteen hours of video tape and all of the radio traffic during the battle was audio-taped, but I doubt anybody ever went back and listened to it all. MBC: Did you see or hear any of these tapes? Mark Bowden: Yes. I did. I viewed the video tapes and I listened to and I have the transcript of the audio tape, which is a transcript of the battle. There were also accounts written by individual soldiers that were selected by U.S. army historians that day after the fight; there were lists of injuries...but no one ever sat down in a systematic way and studied that and put it together the whole story. None of the soldiers involved. None of the officers. Nobody from intelligence. MBC: What would you say was the major reason for this walk-away? Mark Bowden: I'm not familiar enough with the military to answer from a bureaucratic standpoint, or if there just doesn't exist an agency to examine this material. But it was perceived as a failure. And no one wants to dwell on failure. I think that if the Army itself got involved in studying it, there's a chance that they would be doing it to lay blame. And I think there's a general aversion to doing that within an institution. All of the officers who were involved in this fight have friends and connections. MBC: They are all career professionals in a small peace-time army. Mark Bowden: If we go back and dissect what happened and apportion blame for the things that did go wrong, stressing again that this was perceived as a failure even though as a mission it was a success. That all adds into it. My opinion is that wasn't done because it was not part of the culture. And that's surprising. I used to cover professional football for The Philadelphia Inquirer. I wrote about the Eagles. Those NFL football teams dissect their performance after every single game. They study the performance of their opponents. And they figure out exactly why every single play either worked or didn't work. They try to make corrections because it's such a competitive environment. Here, in the military, where these engagements are literally life and death, it just shocked me that there wasn't this level of scrutiny given to what went on. And beyond that, as a society, it's so important to these soldiers especially the really young ones that this book be written. Because it validated for them what was the most terrifying experience of their lives, and in some ways the most noble. And yet, they came back to a country where no one even knew what happened to them. MBC: Other than the body being dragged through the streets. Mark Bowden: Yeah. And I think that it really is important what happened to all of them. Sort of like our cultural intelligence or sensitivity needs to understand these episodes and write them down, learn them and remember them. MBC: Have any of the Rangers who were there read Black Hawk Down? Mark Bowden: The story originally appeared as a thirty-part series in the The Philadelphia Inquirer. And it was up on the Internet. Hundreds of family members and soldiers who were participants read it in that form. Other than having been expanded on, they read the core story. Many of them were grateful that the story was coming out. Many made corrections, and they were incorporated in the final book version. They were always very helpful. MBC: Have there been any negative, don't-do-the-book kind of comments? Mark Bowden: Well, there's always been some inter-unit rivalry. And sometimes Delta soldiers were critical of some Rangers and how they were prepared for battle, There have been individual Rangers who perceived the book as an attack on them. But they are very few and far between. And no Ranger mentioned in the book criticized it. I was the keynote speaker at the 75th Ranger Regiment Rendezvous. And they presented me with a lovely wall clock, thanking me for writing Black Hawk Down. So the overwhelming response from Rangers has been positive. MBC: A side-bar question. You mentioned SEAL Team Six. Some of their members went out on the rescue missions. Did they do anything noteworthy? Mark Bowden: Oh, they distinguished themselves heroically. MBC: The reason I ask, SEAL Team's original commander was Richard Marcinko. I believe he was tasked with forming that team, and he's one of our most popular authors. Mark Bowden: There were only four of them. I don't know what awards they got for valor, but they deserved them. MBC: Were many medals given? Mark Bowden: Many were. The ones for the Special Ops units I wasn't able to find out. Among the Rangers, there were numerous awards including Medals of Honor. MBC: Has the book changed you in any way? Mark Bowden: Definitely. It made me so much more aware of the role of the military. It left me with a very deep admiration for the young men and their leaders who devote their lives to protecting this country the ones who do the dirty work that needs to be done. That was a part of my life that was there in the abstract. But I've met so many military men who made me a part of their whole culture, which I never really knew before. MBC: Will this story reach the big screen? Mark Bowden: I just finished the screenplay. It will be a major, big budget production. The producer did Enemy of the State and Armageddon. He doesn't do anything chintzy. MBC: What's your favorite part of the book? Mark Bowden: Gosh. The death of Jamie Smith was terrifying and poignant for me. And the downing and capture of the pilot of the helicopter. MBC: The scenes when the pilot was a prisoner and his captor was explaining how he was protecting him wow. Mark Bowden: I even liked writing about the lives the Rangers led in the hanger, what it was like for them there. MBC: Somebody taking down a fast-moving helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade, basically an anti-tank weapon, has to be an incredible stroke of luck. Mark Bowden: Not necessarily. They had a lot of RPGs. MBC: And the helicopters were flying low and they were orbiting. Mark Bowden: It would not be excessive to estimate that the Somalis fired 1,000 or more RPGs. Even a blind man could hit something shooting like that. MBC: What is American policy towards Somalia today, or is there an American policy? Mark Bowden: There is none that I'm aware of. There's no American involvement with Somalia. Travelers are advised not to go. MBC: Should our policy toward Somalia be simply neglect? Mark Bowden: I think so. I think America is in the process of learning how to act as the only leading military power in the world. And just because you can project power for short-term goals doesn't always make that the best policy. If it hadn't been for Somalia, we would probably have sent troops into Bosnia a lot sooner. It's important in our society to weigh the lives of our young men and women in accomplishing these kind of goals. If you can stop the horrors or a genocide or a famine, shouldn't you do it? But then on the other hand, my 19-year-old son is a Marine. And the idea of him being killed in some small African country on a humanitarian mission is revolting. MBC: What was you son's opinion of the book? Mark Bowden: Oh, he loved it. I made sure he read it in a very early draft. I felt it was important for someone going into the military to understand the nobility of commitment. It's been rare that the borders of the United States have been threatened. Yet we sent soldiers to fight in others lands because we felt it was the right thing to do. And nowadays, what with CNN, the tragedies of the world are thrust in our faces. And America always has to respond. Mark Bowden Interview by Corey Mesler, a bookseller at Burke's Book Store, Inc. in Memphis, TN, and a reviewer for The Commercial Appeal (Memphis). Q: At the end of Black Hawk Down you explain a little bit about what led you to this story. Can you begin with that, starting from square one-you were writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, right? MB: Yes. My original motivation to write was the New Journalism of the sixties. I was excited by their approach-dramatic reporting, intensive interviewing. I saw war as a topic ripe for that kind of treatment; war is powerful, dramatic, an important aspect of life, and the New Journalism seemed a way to document the reality of combat. I had finished up my last book-this was 1993, when the battle in Mogadishu happened-and I was fishing around, wondering, what am I going to do next? I became fascinated with the reports coming out of Somalia, especially the recounting of the first day's combat, when ninety-nine men were trapped overnight in that ancient city, pinned down and embattled. And I thought, ninety-nine was a doable number-one could interview ninety-nine people. The project began to take shape in my mind, although initially the book I had in mind seemed so ambitious I didn't do anything. Then, in 1996, two and a half years after the event, I was asked to profile Bill Clinton for the Inquirer. It turned out to be one of the most difficult assignments I had ever been given, he's so written about already and, I figured, I'm never going to get close to him. Then I read an account of a meeting Clinton had had with the families of the soldiers who were killed in Mogadishu and I saw an angle there. I wanted to pursue these families' impressions of the president and so I met with the father of Jamie Smith, who was killed in the battle. When I left Jim's house I said, "This is it." Here was my opportunity to write about war. Q: Black Hawk Down is the dramatic and painful reconstruction of one day's fighting in the city of Mogadishu, Somalia. Your approach, which is inspired, is to begin the narration at the start of the battle and end it twenty-four hours later with the cessation of the fighting. Any background information is seamlessly woven in. From how the story unfolds it appears that you believe this one day may have reverberating effects on all future wars for America. MB: This battle has already had tremendous implications for the United States and the world. Except for the much belated intervention in Yugoslavia and the recent bombings in Iraq, the Clinton administration has been stubbornly gun shy. I'm not saying this is wrong. The U.S. is the one military force left in the world. It's expected that we should get involved all over the place. The question is, how do we decide as a nation when to intervene? We're beset by all these tragic images because of the capabilities of global communication and we're inclined to step in. But there are consequences. My nineteen-year-old son is a Marine. Do I want to see my son killed in a little African village? These are difficult questions, as a parent, as a nation-if it's not my son, it's someone else's. I don't pretend to have answers, but Black Hawk Down does, I hope, what good books do: it frames the question. Q: The most compelling element of your very compelling account is the immediacy of it, the you-are-there breathlessness of the telling-how you let the soldiers tell it, actually-and you leave the "I" out until the end. I felt the panic and horror of that day-it literally gave me nightmares. Yet the book was assembled years after the fact. Can you talk a little bit about your method? MB: Well, obviously that's the goal. My goal was to write vividly and powerfully, like a novelist would. I had a tremendous amount of luck in getting to the men who were there. On the one hand I have an obligation as a truth-teller, to relate their stories, and, on the other hand, as a storyteller I want the story to resonate with detail-by-detail accuracy. The ideal situation occurred. Everyone I wanted to talk to I did. So I had all these different perspectives and it wasn't hard to decide how to tell the story. I lived with these accounts for about three years. With every new story, with every new interview, I'd add another layer of understanding. I was able to move beyond just quoting soldiers and offer something better, a seemingly omniscient narrative voice. I'm the only one who saw the battle from every perspective, from one hundred different vantage points. Traveling to Somalia and talking to the people there also improved my understanding. Originally I had the same mental images as the rest of America-the bodies of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. We went on this strictly humanitarian mission, remarkable in the history of U.S. interventions, and the end result were these horrendous pictures on CNN of American soldiers' corpses being dragged triumphantly through the streets. The central question became: What happened? Why did the Somalis turn on us? When I was a kid, I remember reading a war book called Samurai by Martin Caidin. On the cover there was a picture of an American plane going down in flames. It was so odd to me to have this perspective-to see us being defeated, and to learn about the passionate logic of our enemy. Ever since, I've felt no war story is complete without both sides' perspective. Q: To further that thought about your selfless style, you also leave out any philosophizing while you're letting the narrative have its head. This dispassionate voice, though it's obvious you have great respect for your subjects, is very effective. Was this approach difficult? MB: Any opinion I would have seems so unimportant. The first step, the way I see it, is to understand-that was my role. If I could get to new information and make the reader understand it, that was more important. Incidentally, I gave the manuscript to my son before he left to join the Marines. I wanted him to see what it could really be like. Q: I was intrigued, in the book, by the secretive Delta force guys, how mysterious they are-the "operators," "the dreaded D." They seem straight out of some Hollywood spy film. Even the Rangers seemed frightened of them. MB: They are frightening. Also dedicated and extremely professional. These guys are constantly out on missions. And there are some serious questions raised here. There are secretive actions going on all the time, which are important, historically, politically, without the knowledge of the general public. Q: Wasn't it difficult to get them to talk? Were there security issues? MB: Well, these D guys lead such incredibly exciting lives, which they are forbidden to talk about. I sensed they were dying to talk but they're not allowed to. Still, I managed to get some information from them. Q: You've titled your book Black Hawk Down, indicating perhaps that the unexpected downing of one of these elite fighting machine helicopters is what makes the story a story, what makes it unique. You say, "Most of the soldiers who rode in the birds regarded the downing of a Black Hawk as a one-in-a-million event." I saw the helicopter as a sort of symbol of the American military cockiness, which disintegrated into such a mess. MB: The truth is, the thing that differentiates American soldiers from any other soldiers is their technology. The lesson we must learn is that even though we have superior technology we are vulnerable. Basically this high-tech helicopter was brought down by a homemade grenade launcher. The Somalis were just lobbing them up there so that the sky was full of hand grenades and it was inevitable that some would hit. The downing of the chopper is what precipitated this battle. It was the critical event of this story, and, yes, it resonates symbolically. If the chopper hadn't gone down, the assault force would have returned to base with its prisoners and we probably never would have heard about the mission. The thing about storytelling is that you have to arrive at a mental understanding of what the story is about-regardless of whether you're working in nonfiction or fiction-and I've written a little fiction. You have to give it structure and, if you've done it right, it's magical. Themes emerge. Q: One of the soldiers, Nelson, says at one point, "It was hard to describe how he felt . . . it was like an epiphany. Close to death, he had never felt so completely alive." This seems an extraordinary reaction-it sounds Kierkegaardian. Is his take on combat common? MB: Not all of these guys were as articulate as Sean. All were good at telling what happened but relatively few were articulate enough to step back and talk about that moment and how they felt. It's not easy for them to do. My approach was to get each individual soldier to say what happened to him, not get into what his buddy said, or what happened over there. That forced them to focus on their own actions, minute by minute. Often this prompted them to reflect on how they felt, or what they were thinking. Curiously, in Somalia I ran into a cultural problem. Somalis are not as individualistic as Americans. We talk about ourselves readily. What happened to their family or their neighborhood or their clan is more important to them. It was difficult to get them to talk about their personal, individual observations. Q: There seems a sad and poignant irony between the cockiness of the soldiers at the beginning of the day and the later horror (which God knows they faced with exceptional bravery). Early in the book there is this description: "They held themselves to a higher standard than normal soldiers. With their buff bodies, distinct crewcuts . . . and their grunted 'hoo-ah' greeting, they saw themselves as the army at its gung-ho best." And then what follows is increasing confusion and terror. Was this an intended incongruity and do you see the book as moving from a fantasy of good intentions through hell into a new reality? MB: Absolutely. That's just simply the truth. That's what happened to these guys and what happened to America. Clausewitz writes about how easy it is to get a group of men to charge an enemy, but after they've been shot at it becomes very very hard to motivate them. The reality of war is its terrible randomness. Unlike in Hollywood, the bravest and smartest and most decent get killed right alongside the cowardly and inept. There's nothing fair about it. Those who survive come through feeling lucky and guilty. That's the nature of war. There was just this stark difference between how eager they were at first and the horrible scene that closes the book. Q: And, finally, personally, I took the book as a strong anti-war statement. My own feeling was "never my son." Am I just projecting my own admittedly peacenik philosophy onto your book, and how do you see Black Hawk Down next to, say, Johnny Got His Gun, or in film, Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket? MB: Traditionally, writing about war falls into one of two camps: beat-the-drum military prettifying of battle or a pacifist approach that tends to do the opposite. I hope this book falls right down the middle. Everyone hates war but war is a fact. We will not do away with war. Until we live in a world where everyone is born kind and agreeable, there will occasionally be a need for the use of force. It's very important to study episodes like what happened in Somalia, to look at them philosophically and practically. The fact that this battle has never been studied shocks me. We have to look at this and figure out what went wrong and what to do differently. Lives are at stake. As long as war exists we have to study it, and that's what Black Hawk Down attempts to do. http://www.75thrangers.org/blackhawk/mb_inter.htm
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 01:15 pm Hey they're making a movie based on that book! Someone posted it in the current forums, look under "Coming soon to a theatre near you".
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 01:24 pm Black Hawk Down: Inexperienced fighters put up a fierce battle When the American helicopters opened fire on Kassim Sheik Mohamoud's garage in southern Mogadishu, two of his employees were killed. Ismail Ahmed was a 30-year-old mechanic, and Ahmad Sheik was a 40-year-old accountant and one of Kassim's right-hand men. Somalian militiamen were hiding inside the garage compound, so Kassim knew they might be bombed. When the shooting started, the beefy businessman had quickly run to the Digfer Hospital to hide. He figured the Americans would not shoot at a hospital. He stayed there two hours. It sounded as if the whole city were exploding with gunfire. As dusk approached, his men brought him news of the two deaths, and because their Islamic faith called for them to bury the dead before sundown, Kassim left the hospital and returned to his garage to lead a burial detail. He set off for Trabuna Cemetery with three of his men and the bodies of Ismail Ahmed and Ahmad Sheik. Angry, grieving crowds Mogadishu was in turmoil. Buses had stopped running, and all of the major streets were blocked. American helicopters were shooting at anything that moved in the southern portion of the city, so many of the wounded could not be taken to hospitals. Wails of grief and anger rose from many homes, and angry crowds had formed in a broad ring around Cliff Wolcott's Black Hawk, the first of two helicopters that crashed. People swarmed through the streets, seeking vengeance. Hours earlier, Ali Hassan Mohamed had run to the front door of his family's hamburger and candy shop when the helicopters came down and the shooting started. He was a student, a tall and slender teenager with prominent cheekbones and a sparse goatee. He studied English and business in the mornings, and manned the store in the afternoons just up from the Olympic Hotel. The front door was diagonally across Hawlwadig Road from the house of Mohamed Hassan Awale, which was the target building where the Rangers were attacking. Peering out his doorway, Ali saw Rangers coming down on ropes. They were big men who wore body armor and strapped their weapons to their chests and painted their faces black and green to look more fierce. They were shooting as soon as they hit the ground. There were also Somalis shooting at them. Then a helicopter had come low and blasted streams of fire from a gun on its side. Ali's youngest brother, Abdulahi Hassan Mohamed, fell dead by the gate to the family's house, bleeding from the head. He was 15. Ali ran. People were scrambling everywhere. The streets were crowded with terrified women and children, and there were dead people and dead animals. Above was the din of the helicopters, and all around was the crisp popping of gunfire. Out in the streets were militiamen with megaphones. They were shouting, "Come out and defend your homes!" Ali belonged to a neighborhood militia organized to protect their shops from bandits. He ran up behind the Olympic Hotel and then doubled back up across Hawlwadig Road to the house of his friend Ahmed, where his AK-47 was hidden. Carrying the gun now, he ran back down behind the hotel, through all the chaos, and retraced his route back to his shop. Hiding behind the building, he fired his first shots at the Rangers on the corner. He was joined by some of his neighborhood friends, who were all carrying their weapons. When the first helicopter crashed, they moved north, ducking behind cars and buildings. None of them were experienced fighters. His friend Adan Warsawe was hit in the stomach and knocked flat on his back. Ali helped carry him to cover. He felt afraid but very angry. Who were these men spreading death? Word of big trouble Word that there was big trouble in the city had spread quickly through the Somalian staff at the U.S. Embassy compound in southwestern Mogadishu. Abdikarim Mohamud worked as a secretary for one of the American companies providing support services to the international military force under the United Nations command. Like most of his countrymen, Abdikarim had been hopeful about the United Nations when the humanitarian mission started. But when the Rangers came, the attacks began on his Habr Gidr clan and its leader, Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid, and every week there was a mounting toll of Somalian dead and injured. He saw it as an unwarranted assault on his country. On July 12, the day of the Abdi Qeybdid House attack, when missiles fired from U.S. helicopters had killed dozens of moderate clan leaders, he had seen victims of the bombing who were brought to the U.S. Embassy compound. The Somalian men, elders of Abdikarim's clan, were bloody and dazed and in need of a doctor. The Americans photographed them, interrogated them and put them in jail. Abdikarim kept his job but with an added purpose - he became the eyes and ears for his clan. He knew by the time the assault force took off that afternoon that the Americans were headed for the Bakara Market, and that after they fast-roped in they would not be able to come back out on helicopters. That meant the Americans would be sending a column of vehicles to take them out. Before the Rangers had even roped down to Hawlwadig Road, militiamen were preparing to erect ambushes and roadblocks on the streets around the market. All Somalian employees at the embassy compound were sent home early by their American employers. "Something has happened," Abdikarim was told. "You should go home." He lived with his family between the K-4 traffic circle, a heavily traveled intersection that was just north of the Ranger base and south of the Bakara Market. The fight was roiling when he left the embassy compound, but there were still buses running on Via Lenin. He could hear the sound of gunfire, and the sky was thick with helicopters speeding low over the rooftops. There were bullets cracking in the air over his head when he got home. He found his father at home with his two brothers and sister. They were all in the courtyard of their home with their backs against a concrete wall, which was the place they always went when bullets started to fly. It seemed to Abdikarim that there were a hundred helicopters in the sky. The shooting was continuous. Aidid's militia fought from hundreds of places in the densely populated neighborhood. Got used to shooting He found that he grew accustomed to the shooting after a while. At first he had crouched down and pressed himself against the wall, but after an hour or so he was restless and moving around the house, looking out windows. Then he ventured outside. Some of his neighbors told him the Rangers had captured Aidid. He needed to find out what was happening, so he ran up toward the market. He had relatives who lived just a few blocks from the market, and he was eager for news of them. With all the bullets and blasts, it was hard to believe anyone in the market area had not been hit. When he got close to the shooting, there was terrible confusion on the streets. There were dead people on the road - men, women, children. Abdikarim saw up the street an American soldier lying by the road, bleeding from the leg and trying to hide himself. When a woman ran out in front of Abdikarim, the American fired some shots in their direction. The woman was hit but got off the street. Abdikarim ran around a corner just as one of the Little Bird helicopters flew down the alley, firing. He pressed himself against a stone wall and saw bullets run down the alley, kicking up dust straight past him. He told himself that coming out to see had been a bad idea. After the helicopter had passed, a group of Somalian men with rifles came running down the alley, toward the corner where they could shoot at the American. Abdikarim ran to the house of a friend. They let him in, and he got on the floor with everyone else. There was shooting all that night, and they did not sleep at all. Burying the dead Kassim Sheik Mohamoud's little burial convoy got to the cemetery just before dusk. Sounds of gunfire crackled over the city. There were many people at the cemetery digging holes for the newly dead. As they carried the bodies of Ismail Ahmed and Ahmad Sheik, a helicopter swooped down at them and passed so close that they dropped the bodies and ran away. They hid behind a wall, and when the helicopter continued on, they returned and picked up the bodies. They carried them to a place on a hill, lay the bodies on the ground and began to dig. They dug until another helicopter buzzed down at them. In fright they ran. Kassim went back out at 3 a.m. with the men and finished the job. There were many others digging. Mogadishu had become a city of the dead. Black Hawk Down: 'There's a lot of fire' Circling in his helicopter over Mike Durant's downed Black Hawk, pilot Mike Goffena saw that Durant had been lucky. His helicopter had crashed not into one of the many stone buildings in central Mogadishu, but into a warren of flimsy, tin huts. The chopper hadn't hit anything hard enough to flip it over. A Black Hawk is built with shock absorbers to withstand a terrifically hard impact, so long as it lands in an upright position. And Durant's Super 64 Black Hawk was indeed upright. In other ways, Durant and his three crew members were less fortunate. The crash site was about a mile from the Delta commandos and Rangers on the ground near the downtown target site. Durant had been shot down while taking the place of Cliff Wolcott's Black Hawk, which had crashed only a few blocks from the American troops. The only airborne search-and-rescue team had already fast-roped down to Wolcott's bird, so there would be no easy way to reinforce Durant's crash site. If there had been an irremediable flaw in this mission, it was this lack of a second rescue force. Nobody had taken seriously the prospect of two helicopters going down. From above, Goffena could already see Somalis spilling into alleyways and footpaths, homing in on the newly downed bird. Goffena flew a low pass and caught a glimpse of Durant in the cockpit, pushing at a section of tin roof that had caved in around his legs. Goffena was relieved to see that his friend was alive. He flew close enough to catch the frustrated look on the face of Durant's co-pilot, Ray Frank. Ray had been in a tail-rotor crash like this one on a training mission several years before. It had broken his leg and crunched his back. To Goffena, the look on Frank's face down there said, I can't believe this has happened to me again! Then, in the back of the crumpled Black Hawk, Goffena saw movement. This told him that at least one of the crew chiefs, either Bill Cleveland or Tommy Field, was still alive. At this point, 4:45 p.m., command conditions were on overload. Most of the Rangers and Delta Force soldiers inserted at the target building were moving to the site of Wolcott's downed helicopter, where the air-rescue team had already roped in. The situation report from the command helicopter sounded beleaguered. "We are getting a lot of RPG fire. There's a lot of fire. We are going to try to get everyone consolidated at the northern site (Wolcott's crash) and then move to the southern site (Durant's crash)." In the back of Black Hawk Super 62, Goffena had, in addition to his two crew chiefs, three Delta commandos: snipers Randy Shughart, Gary Gordon and Brad Hallings. With Somalis closing in, he knew Durant's downed crew wouldn't last long. They were an air crew, not professional ground fighters like the D-boys (Delta Force soldiers). Goffena's crew gunners and the snipers were now picking off armed Somalis. Goffena would drop down low, and the wash of his propellers would force the thickening crowds back. But the men with RPGs were slower to take cover, and his snipers were picking them off. Goffena also noticed that every time he dropped down now, he was drawing more fire. He heard the ticking of bullets poking through the thin metal walls of the airframe. A couple of times he saw a glowing arc where a round would hit one of his rotor blades, which would spark and trace a bright line as the blade moved. Goffena's Black Hawk and other helicopter gunships were holding the crowds back. Goffena and the other circling pilots worked the radio, pleading for immediate help. They were repeatedly assured that a rescue by the hurriedly assembled ground convoy was imminent. But Goffena's air commander, realizing that it was taking too long to get the new column up and moving, approved Goffena's request to put two of his helicopter's three Delta commandos on the ground. The idea was for them to give first aid, set up a perimeter, and help Durant and his crew hold off the Somalis until the arrival of a rescue force. This was not a hopeless mission. One or two properly armed, well-trained soldiers could hold off an undisciplined enemy indefinitely. Shughart and Gordon were experts at killing and staying alive. They were career soldiers trained to get hard, ugly things done. Gordon had enlisted at 17; his wife and children lived near Fort Bragg, N.C. Shughart was an outdoorsman from western Pennsylvania who loved his Dodge truck and his hunting rifles. When the crew chief gave Gordon the word that he and Shughart were going in, Gordon grinned and gave an excited thumbs-up. Goffena made a low pass at a small clearing, using his rotor wash to knock down a fence and blow away debris. He held a hover at about five feet, and the two D-boys jumped. Shughart got tangled on the safety line connecting him to the chopper and had to be cut free. Gordon took a spill as he ran for cover. Shughart stood motioning with his hands, indicating confusion. They were crouched in a defensive posture in the open. Goffena dropped the copter down low and leaned out the window, pointing the way. A crew chief popped a small smoke marker out the side in the direction of Durant's helicopter. Shughart and Gordon ran to the smoke. The last thing the crew chiefs saw as the Black Hawk pulled away was both men signaling thumbs up. Mike Durant came to and felt something was wrong with his right leg. He had been knocked cold for at least several minutes. He was seated upright in his seat, leaning slightly to the right. The windshield of his Black Hawk was shattered, and there was something draped over him: a big sheet of tin. The helicopter seemed remarkably intact. The rotor blades had not flexed off. Durant's seat, which was mounted on shock absorbers, had collapsed down to the floor. It had broken in the full down position and was cocked to the right. He figured that was because they were spinning when they hit. The shocks had collapsed, and the spin had jerked the seat to the right. It must have been the combination of the jerk and the impact that had broken his femur. The big bone in his right leg had snapped in two on the edge of his seat. The Black Hawk had flattened a flimsy hut. No one had been inside, but in the next hut a 2-year-old girl, Howa Hassan, lay unconscious and bleeding. A hunk of flying metal had taken a deep gouge out of her forehead. Her mother, Bint Abraham Hassan, had been splashed with something hot, probably engine oil, and was severely burned on her face and legs. The dazed pilots checked themselves over. Ray Frank's left tibia was broken. Durant did some things he later could not explain. He removed his helmet and his gloves. Then he took off his watch. Before flying, he always took off his wedding ring because there was a danger it could catch on rivets or switches. He would pass the strap of his watch through the ring and keep it there during a flight. Now he removed the watch and took the ring off the strap, and set both on the dashboard. He picked up his weapon, an MP-5K, a little German automatic rifle that fired 9-mm rounds. The pilots called them "SPs," or "skinny-poppers," a reference to the nickname "skinny" the soldiers had bestowed on the wiry Somali militiamen. Frank was trying to explain what happened during the crash. "I couldn't get them all the way off," he told Durant, explaining his struggle to turn off the engines as the helicopter plummeted. Frank said he had reinjured his back. Durant's back hurt, too. They both figured they had crushed vertebrae. Durant could not pull himself out of the wreckage. He pushed the piece of tin roof away and decided to defend his position through the broken windshield. Two commandos show up Durant saw that Frank was about to push himself out. That was the last time he saw him. And just as Frank disappeared out the doorway, Shughart and Gordon, the Delta commandos, showed up. Durant was startled by their arrival. He didn't know either man well, but he recognized their faces. He knew they were D-boys. He felt an enormous sense of relief. He didn't know how long he had been unconscious, but it had evidently been long enough for a rescue team to arrive. His ordeal was over. He had been thinking about getting the radio operating, but now, with his rescuers at hand, there was no need. Shughart and Gordon were calm. They reached in and lifted Durant out of the craft gently, one taking his legs and the other grabbing his torso, as if they had all the time in the world. They set him down by a tree. He was not in great pain. Durant was in a perfect position to cover the whole right side of the aircraft with his rifle. Behind him the front of his aircraft was wedged tightly against a tin wall, closing off any easy approach from that side. He could see that his crew chiefs had taken the worst of the crash. They didn't have the shock absorbers in back. He watched them lift Bill Cleveland from the fuselage. He had blood all over his pants, and was talking but making no sense. Then Gordon and Shughart moved to the other side of the helicopter to help Tommy Field, the other crew chief. Durant couldn't see what was happening. He assumed they were attending to Field and setting up a perimeter, or looking for a way to get them out, or perhaps looking for a place where another helicopter could set down and load them up. No big rescue team near Somalis were starting to poke their heads around the corner on Durant's side of the copter. He squeezed off a round, and they dropped back. His weapon kept jamming, so he would eject the round, and the next time it would shoot properly. Then it would jam again. He could hear more shooting from the other side of the airframe. It still hadn't occurred to him that Shughart and Gordon were the entire rescue force. There was no big rescue team other than the emergency ground convoy, which was still forming at the airport base two miles away. Durant also did not know, none of them did, that only 110 yards or so away, pilots Keith Jones and Karl Maier were waiting. The same team that had set a Little Bird down near the first crash site to help Cliff Wolcott's downed crew had now set their helicopter down again to help Durant and his crew. Jones and Maier were aiming their weapons at alleyways leading to the clearing, expecting a crowd of Somalis to show up any second, and hoping that Shughart and Gordon would arrive with Durant and his crew. They were eager to load everybody up and hustle out of there. Goffena, circling overhead, had seen Shughart and Gordon lift Durant and then Cleveland and Field out of the fuselage. He knew they weren't going to be able to carry them to where Jones' Little Bird was waiting. He got on the radio and explained to Jones and Maier that the D-boys had set up a perimeter around Durant's Black Hawk. They had badly wounded crew members. They could not make it to the Little Bird. They were going to have to hang on until the ground force arrived. After waiting on the ground about five minutes, Maier and Jones reluct antly asked for permission to leave and refuel. The Little Bird was running low, and they were vulnerable. They lifted off, leaving the Americans at crash site two to their fate. Durant's Black Hawk had crashed in Wadigley, a crowded neighborhood just south of where Yousuf Dahir Mo'Alim lived on a street of rag huts and tin-roofed shanties. Mo'Alim was an armed bandit and gunman for hire, but on this day he had thrown his entire gang of 26 street fighters into the citywide effort to fight off the American invaders. The instant Durant's helicopter hit the ground, Mo'Alim saw everyone around him reverse direction. Moments before, the crowd on the streets and the fighters had been moving north, over to where the first helicopter had crashed. Now everyone was running south. Mo'Alim ran with them, a goateed veteran soldier waving his weapon and shouting. "Turn back! Stop! There are still men inside who can shoot!" Some listened to Mo'Alim, for he was known as a militia leader. Others ran on ahead. Ali Hussein, who managed a pharmacy near where the helicopter crashed, saw many of his neighbors grab guns and run toward the wreck. He caught the arm of his friend Cawale, who owned the Black Sea restaurant. Cawale had a rifle. Hussein grabbed him by both shoulders. "It's dangerous. Don't go!" he shouted at him. But there was the smell of blood and vengeance in the air. Cawale wrestled away from Hussein and joined the running crowd. Minutes later, as Mo'Alim and his men reached the second crash site, they saw Cawale sprawled dead in the dirt, just four paces in front of the helicopter. The ground all around was littered with the bodies of Somalis. As Mo'Alim had expected, the Americans around the crashed helicopter were still very capable of fighting. He tried to hold the crowd back, but they were angry and brazen. He wanted to find a way for his militiamen to get clear shots at the Americans, but it was difficult to approach the small clearing where the helicopter lay. The Americans had every approach covered with deadly automatic-weapons fire. Mo'Alim waited for more of his men to catch up so that they could mount a coordinated attack. Delta Force goes down Durant still thought things were under control. His leg was broken but didn't hurt. He was on his back, propped against a supply kit next to a small tree, using his weapon to keep back the occasional Somali who poked his head into the clearing. He could hear firing on the other side of the helicopter. He knew Ray Frank, his co-pilot, was hurt but alive. And somewhere were the two D-boys and his crew chief, Tommy Field. He wondered if Tommy was OK. He figured it was only a matter of time before the ground vehicles showed up to take them out. Then he heard one of the Delta guys - it was Gary Gordon - shout that he was hit. Just a quick shout of anger and pain. He didn't hear the voice again. The other Delta guy, Randy Shughart, came back around to Durant's side of the bird. "Are there weapons on board?" he asked. The crew chiefs carried M-16s. Durant told him where they were kept, and Shughart stepped into the craft, rummaged around and returned with both rifles. He handed Durant Gordon's weapon, a CAR-15 automatic rifle loaded and ready to fire. He didn't say what had happened to Gordon. "What's the support frequency on the survival radio?" Shughart asked. It was then, for the first time, that it dawned on Durant that they were stranded. He felt a twist of alarm in his gut. If Shughart was asking how to set up communications, it meant he and Gordon had come in on their own. They were the entire rescue team. And Gordon had just been shot! Durant explained standard procedure on the survival radio to Shughart. He said there was a channel Bravo, and he listened while Shughart called out. Shughart asked for immediate help, and was told that a reaction force was en route. Then Shughart took the weapons and moved back around to the other side of the helicopter. Durant felt panic closing in now. He had to keep the Somalis away. He could hear them talking behind a wall, so he fired in that direction. It startled him because he had been firing single shots, but this new weapon was set on burst. The voices behind the wall stopped. Then two Somalis tried to climb over the nose of the copter. He fired at them, and they jumped back. He didn't know whether he hit them. A man tried to climb over the wall, and Durant shot him. Another came crawling from around the corner with a weapon, and Durant shot him, too. Suddenly there was a mad fusillade on the other side of the helicopter that lasted for about two minutes. He heard Shughart shout in pain. The shooting stopped. High overhead in the surveillance helicopters, worried commanders were watching on video screens. Do you have video over crash site No. 2? Indigenous personnel moving around all over the crash site. Indigenous? That's affirmative, over. The radio fell silent. Time to die Terror washed over Durant like nothing he had ever felt. He could hear sounds of an angry mob. The crash had left the clearing littered with debris, and he heard a great shuffling sound as the Somalis pushed it away. There was no more shooting. The others must be dead. Durant knew what had happened to soldiers who had fallen into the hands of angry Somalis. They did gruesome, horrible things. The rumor around the hangar was that they'd played soccer with the heads of a couple of downed pilots earlier that summer. That was in store for him now. His second weapon was out of rounds. He still had a pistol strapped to his side, but he never even thought to reach for it. It was over. He was done. A Somali stepped around the nose of the helicopter. He seemed startled to find Durant lying there. The man shouted, and more Somalis came running. It was time to die. Durant placed the empty weapon across his chest, folded his hands over it, and turned his eyes to the sky. Black Hawk Down: Approaching darkness brings dread with it by Mark Bowden The Philadelphia Inquirer The company clerk, Spec. John Stebbins, ran into the street to get Pfc. Carlos Rodriguez, who had been shot in the groin and was howling in pain. Stebbins tried to drag him by his body armor, but Rodriguez was a tall, solid kid, and stubby Stebbins couldn't pull him. Rodriguez had both hands over his crotch, and blood was pumping out from between his fingers and flowing from his mouth. Stebbins reached around Rodriguez's waist and half-carried, half-dragged him off the street. Rodriguez's head dragged in the dirt. One of the Delta commandos ran over and helped haul Rodriguez into the courtyard of a house, where he was added to a rapidly expanding group of wounded men. A makeshift command post had been set up inside the house, which stood roughly a block from the wreck of pilot Cliff Wolcott's Black Hawk. Now, nearly three hours into the mission, the men feared they would be stuck at the house all night, cut off from other soldiers also pinned down at various locations near the wreck. Mission commanders had already radioed that it was too dangerous to try to land a helicopter and evacuate the wounded. It was dusk now, and the men gave up on the ground convoy that was supposed to meet them at the crash site. They knew the convoy was lost and badly mauled. They had seen the vehicles drive past just a few blocks west about an hour earlier. Everyone dreaded the approaching darkness. They were without their main technological advantage - their NODs (night optical devices), which allowed them to see in the darkness. The men had left them behind, assuming the midday mission would only take an hour. Most of them had left without their canteens, too, thinking they could do without water for an hour. Now the force faced the night thirsty, tired, bleeding, running low on ammunition, and in the dark. Medic gets the call Sgt. Tim Wilkinson was inside the wrecked Black Hawk, tending to the wounded, when he got a radio call. The men holed up in the building across the street desperately needed another medic. Rodriguez was in terrible shape. Wilkinson, who had roped down to the crash as part of a 15-man search-and-rescue team, gathered up his medical kit. Then he turned to his wounded fellow medic, Master Sgt. Scott Fales, and deadpanned an absurdly cinematic request. "Cover me," he said. Head down, legs pumping, he ran and ran, plowing across the wide road, bullets snapping all around him. He burst into the courtyard and saw two of the big Delta sergeants wrestling with Rodriguez, trying to get him under control. Wilkinson cut open Rodriguez's uniform and saw that a round had ripped through his buttock and bored straight into his pelvis, blowing off one testicle as it exited his upper thigh. Into the gaping wound Wilkinson stuffed wads of Curlex, loosely rolled gauze that expands as it soaks up blood. He slipped pneumatic pants over Rodriguez's legs and pumped them with air to apply more pressure to the wound. The bleeding stopped. He started an IV, then realized he was almost out of fluids. Fales had extra fluids at the crash site, but that meant another foray through the gunfire. Crouching and running at the same time, Wilkinson took off across the road again. He made it safely, and loaded up bags of fluids. With the bags cradled in his arms, he made yet another panicked dash across the road, the rounds screaming over his head. Wilkinson moved Rodriguez and the other wounded into a rear room. Then he turned to Capt. Scott Miller, the Delta ground commander. "Look, I've got a critical here," he said. "He needs to get out right now." Miller just gave the medic a look that said, "We're in a bad spot here, what can I say?" Conserve ammunition When the sun had slipped behind the buildings to the west, Stebbins was finally able to get a good look at the Somalis who had been firing at him from windows and doorways. He squeezed off rounds carefully, trying to conserve ammunition. His buddy, Pfc. Brian Heard, tapped him on the shoulder and shouted, "Steb, I just want you to know in case we don't get out of this, I think you're doing a great job." Stebbins was trying to figure out whether Heard was serious or just goofing when the ground around them shook. Heavy rounds were shattering the wall behind them, taking down their cover. Three more ear-shattering rounds hit the wall, and Stebbins was knocked backward. It was as if someone had yanked him from behind with a rope. He felt no pain, just a shortness of breath. "You OK, Stebby? You OK?" Heard asked. "I'm fine, Brian. Good to go." Stebbins stood up, infuriated, cursing at full throttle as he stepped back out into the alley and resumed firing at a window down the street. Four other Rangers joined in, shooting at the same window. There came a whoosh and a crackling explosion, and Stebbins and Heard screamed and disappeared in a ball of flame. Stebbins woke up flat on his back this time. He gasped for air and tasted dust and smoke. Up through the swirl he saw darkening blue sky and two clouds. Then Heard's face came swimming into view. "Stebby, you OK? You OK, Stebby?" "Yup, Brian. I'm OK. Just let me lie here for a couple seconds." As Stebbins gathered his thoughts, he heard a voice from behind him. One of the D-boys was looking down at him from a window. His voice sounded cool. "Where's this guy shooting from, man?" Stebbins pointed out the window. "All right, we've got it covered. Keep your heads down." From his window perch, the Delta marksman let go a round from his M203 grenade launcher, dropping it right into the targeted window. There was an enormous blast. Stebbins figured the round had detonated some kind of ammo, because there was a flash throughout the first floor. Black smoke poured from the window. The evening grew quiet. Stebbins saw lights flick on in the distance and was reminded that they were in the middle of a big city, and that in some parts of it life was proceeding normally. A voice shouted across the intersection that everyone was to retreat back to the building across from the crash site. One by one, the men on Stebbins' corner started sprinting across the intersection. The volume of fire had died down. Stebbins heard a whistling sound, and he turned to see what looked like a rock hurtling straight at him. It was going to hit his head. He ducked and turned his helmet toward the missile, and he was engulfed in fire and light. His eyes were closed, but he saw bright red when the grenade exploded. He felt searing flames. He smelled burned hair and dust and hot cordite, and he was tumbling, mixed up with Heard, until they both came to rest sitting upright and staring at each other. "Are you OK?" Heard asked after a long moment. "Yeah, but I don't have my weapon." Stebbins started to crawl back to his position, looking for his weapon. He found it in pieces. There was a barrel but no hand grip. He could feel dust up his nose and in his eyes, and he could taste it. He tasted blood, too. He figured he'd just cut his lip. He needed another weapon. He stood up and started running for the courtyard, figuring he'd grab a rifle from one of the wounded men. He kept falling down. His left leg and foot felt as if they were asleep. Some of the other men ran out and dragged him into the courtyard. Stebbins was covered with dirt and dust, his pants burned off, his leg bleeding. Wilkinson helped him into the back room where the other wounded were gathered. It was already dark there, and Stebbins smelled blood and sweat and urine. There were three Somalis huddled on a couch; the D-boys had handcuffed the man of the house and sat him down with his wife and child. Rodriguez was in the corner, moaning. The Somalis moved to the floor, and Wilkinson eased Stebbins down on the couch and started cutting off his left boot with a big pair of shears. "Hey, not my boots!" he complained. "What are you doing that for?" Wilkinson slid the boot off smoothly and slowly and removed the sock. Stebbins was shocked to see a golf ball-sized chunk of metal lodged in his foot. He realized for the first time that he'd been hit. He had noticed that his trousers looked blackened, and now, illuminated by the medic's white light, he saw that the blackened flaking patches along his leg were skin. He felt no pain, just numbness. The fire from the explosion had cauterized his wounds. One of the D-boys poked his head in the door and gestured toward the white light. "Hey, man, you've got to turn that white light out," he said. "It's dark out there now, and we've got to be tactful." Stebbins was amused by that word: "Tactful." But then he thought about it - tactful, tact, tactics - and it made perfect sense. Wilkinson turned off the white light and flicked on a red flashlight. "You're out of action," he said. "Listen, you're numb now, but it's going to go away. All I can give you is some Percocet." Wilkinson handed Stebbins a tablet and some iodized water in a cup. Wilkinson then handed him a rifle. "You can guard this window," he told him. "OK." "But as your health-care professional," Wilkinson added, "I feel I should warn you that narcotics and firearms don't mix." Stebbins just shook his head and smiled. Finally he was left to sit there alone on the couch, clutching his rifle, listening to Rodriguez moaning and sucking air and to the Somalian woman complaining with words he didn't understand that her husband's handcuffs were too tight. Stebbins realized he had to urinate badly. There was no place to go. So he just released the flow where he sat. He caught the woman's eye.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 02:43 pm Gooday Folks I agree 100% with them Allahe Akbar.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 04:01 pm the destruction was un-islamic and most of all un called for. Sagittarius: I didn't know that you couldn be such that deep. I am amazed and speechless. Thanks for that cool contribution and that insightfull posting. Alipapa
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 06:26 pm Reported by: KATHY GANNON KABUL, Afghanistan, 3/5/2001 (AP Wire) :: A week after ordering the destruction of pre-Islamic relics including two towering statues of Buddha _ the Taliban''s reclusive leader on Monday called their demolition a tribute to Islam and to ''''the brave Afghan nation." Mullah Mohammed Omar rebuffed international appeals to rescind his order, calling the outcry "noise." Another religious leader said the ruling Taliban militia would continue the demolition, and not consider offers by other countries to purchase the relics. There were conflicting reports of the extent of the damage to the statues. An eyewitness report said Taliban soldiers fired antiaircraft weapons at them. The Taliban''s Information and Culture Minister Qatradullah Jamal said the head and legs had been destroyed. The rest would be destroyed by Monday, he said, but it wasn''t certain whether the deadline had been met. The Taliban have refused to allow anyone to go to Bamiyan, in central Afghanistan, where the statues are located. "The non-Muslim world is united against the Taliban, but we will not be deterred. We will keep our Islamic way," Omar said in a statement carried by the Taliban''s Bakhtar news agency. "It has given praise to God that we have destroyed them." He did not address the disapproval of other Muslim nations, including the Taliban''s closest ally, Pakistan, which also pleaded for the preservation of the statues. At the heart of the outcry has been the fate of two giant statues of Buddha, measuring 175 and 120 feet tall, hewn from a cliff face in the third and fifth century. The taller of the two statues is believed to be the world''s tallest standing Buddha. Taliban leaders were not available Monday for comment on the demolition because of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, or fea st of sacrifice. A special UNESCO envoy sent from Paris to try to dissuade the Taliban said he met with the same intransigence during discussions with Taliban officials in southern Kandahar, the Taliban''s headquarters. "I can''t say that my mission was successful. ... I could not get the suspension of the order," Pierre Lafrance told The Associated Press in neighboring Pakistan. But Lafrance said he hasn''t given up hope. He plans to return to Afghanistan after the Islamic festival ends. However, he may be too late. At Kabul''s largest mosque, the deputy head of Afghanistan''s ruling council, Mullah Mohammed Hassan Akhund, told the faithful Monday that the order to destroy all statues was being carried out and no consideration would be given to offers from other countries to purchase the priceless relics. "Without any fear we are implementing the order. We are destroying the statues," he said. Besides the mammoth mountain carvings, there are thousands of fragments of Buddhist art in the Kabul Museum. But the most precious is a 2,000-year-old seated Bhodi Sattva, made of baked clay, said Carla Grissman, who spent several years in Afghanistan compiling an inventory of the museum collection. "We are praying that the Bhodi Sattva is not one of the things that has been destroyed," she said in a telephone interview from Britain, where she now lives. "It is one of the most beautiful, ethereal Buddha statues," she said. "It was in superb condition.: It would likely have been offensive to hardline Taliban, however, because it depicted a naked torso resplendent only in jewelry. The Kabul Museum, ravaged by relentless fighting between rival Islamic factions that preceded the Taliban takeover, was open for a short time last August. There were reports that several Taliban religious leaders saw the naked Buddha and slapped it several times across the shoulders and face, disgusted by the nakedness. Museum officials later put the Buddha in a glass case. The Taliban, who rule about 95 percent of Afghanistan, espouse a strict interpretation of Islam, which often runs contrary to interpretations by Muslim scholars elsewhere. Their opponents, led by ousted president Burhanuddin Rabbani, who ruled Kabul during the bitter factional feuding that destroyed much of the capital city, control the remaining 5 percent.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 06:43 pm Monday, 5 March, 2001, 10:02 GMT Taleban leader defends statue purge Bamiyan Buddhas: An "insult" to the Taleban The Taleban leader in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar, has defended his controversial order to destroy the country's Buddhist statues and called on Muslims around the world to back the move. It is unclear whether demolition has begun of the gigantic monuments in the central town of Bamiyan, which date back nearly 2,000 years. Now that we are destroying false idols, the world has made a false drama out of this. Taleban supreme leader Mullah Omar The Taleban ambassador in Islamabad said on Monday that destruction work had begun, but had been put on hold for a three-day Islamic festival. In a message quoted by official radio, Mullah Omar said the annihilation of the statues would proceed despite international condemnation and protests from Islamic states. International pressure He said people should be proud of smashing the statues. "I ask Afghans and the world's Muslims to use their sound wisdom... Is it appropriate to be influenced by the propaganda of the infidels?" Mullah Omar was quoted by Voice of the Shariat radio as saying. There have been protests against the Taleban move in India "Now that we are destroying false idols, the world has made a drama out of this. The Muslims of the world, particularly Afghan Muslims, should use their comman sense," he was quoted as saying. A special envoy from the United Nations cultural body, Unesco, is in Afghanistan trying to stop the destruction. According to the Taleban ambassador the statues have been one quarter destroyed by dynamite. Giant statue Access to the site in Bamiyan, which is home to two Buddhas towering 53m (175 feet) and 36.5m (120 feet) and carved into sandstone cliffs, has been denied. The authorities have also threatened to destroy thousands of other artefacts throughout the country. The UN special envoy Pierre LaFrance has already held talks with Taleban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad in the Afghan city of Kandahar. At Buddha's feet: A guide (bottom left) shows the statues' huge scale The Pakistan-based news agency, the Afghan Islamic Press, quoted Mr Mutawakil as saying he would convey the international community's concerns to Mullah Omar. But he described the issue of the statues as an internal matter which the world would eventually understand. Blow to mankind The Taleban have refused to yield to appeals from China, Iran, Pakistan and other countries for the statues to be spared. On Sunday, Mr Mutawakil rejected Iran's offer to buy the statues. "We do preserve our ancient heritage, but we cannot keep statues that are incompatible with our beliefs," the minister said. "One Muslim should not give another Muslim what he does not want to have," Afghan Islamic Press quoted him as saying.
|
| | Monday, March 05, 2001 - 07:27 pm Sheik and Alipapa, My only good point is, let's tolerate others as we are tolerated elsewhere. And I appreciate your good words.
|
| | Tuesday, March 06, 2001 - 10:13 am I agree with Saggtaries. But I think we should beir in mind the political position of Talaban. Besides, the West look for always a way of atttacking at Talaban. Anyways, In my opinion, while agreeing with Talaban that it is unislamic to peresrve this Budhist status in an Islamic land, and the fact that the Propet Mohamed and Ebrahem ( SAW) had not tolarated that Idol worshiping, I think Talaban should act diplomaticly. The Propet pbuh acted diplomaticly when he was like that position. Why not Talaban?
|
| | Tuesday, March 06, 2001 - 11:27 am Faaisa, the Prophet didn't compromise so why would the Muslims in Afghanistan compromise their practice of Islam?
|
| | Tuesday, March 06, 2001 - 11:30 am http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20010305/ts/mdf21501.html http://www.stringer.it/Stringer%20Photo/images/buddha10.jpg
|