Ronn Blankenship wrote:
> At 08:22 PM 5/22/01 +0300, you wrote:
>>> Well, here's a lovely return to 1930's Germany.
>>> http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2001/05/22/taliban/index.html
>>> Seems that the Muslim majority party in Afghanistan is going to require
>>> label on the clothing of Hindus, identifying themselves as such. Sound
>>> familiar?
>> Interestingly, it's also been said (by the BBC reporter who was there) that
>> this may be to exempt Hindus and Sikhs from the strictest interpretation of
>> muslim law.
> Un-huh.
> And if anyone truly believes that making members of a minority group wear
> labels identifying themselves as such is actually intended for their
> benefit, I know where there's a bridge for sale . . .
which bridge would that be, and could i get you to paint it first? i
do think it is possible that the Taliban decision-maker who ordered
this could really believe that the ruling is for the benefit of the
Hindus and Sikhs - although that does not provide any guarantee that
it actually is to their benefit.... (after all, some slave-holders in
the antebellum southeastern U.S. genuinely believed that slavery was
good for the slave. very few slaves fully agreed with them though.)
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
