--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > Interesting piece in the NY Times on proposals to > > > reconstruct the giant 1,500-year-old Buddhas in > > > Afghanistan destroyed by the Taliban in 2001: > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/wqwhd > > > > Ironically, the Taliban destroyed the statues in protest for > > all the money going to protect the statues rather than to feed > > the hungry of Afghanistan... > > Not sure that's really the case. Everything the Taliban > itself said publicly about its decision had to do with > wanting to remove all traces of religions other than Islam > from Afghanistan, in particular statues, because Islam > forbids "graven images" of humans or animals. > > If the Taliban had wanted to make a protest, you'd think > they would have done their best to broadcast it. For that > matter, they might well have been able to extort funds > from the preservation-minded in return for keeping the > statues intact, if money had been the issue. > > (Not that it wasn't an issue, just not for the Taliban.) > > Where did you read this??
Iin an interview with the woman who was the Taliban's semi-official representative to the USA. She said that the Taliban didn't understand the concept of funds that were ear- marked for other purposes: They thought that if they destroyed the statues, people would give the money for food, instead... > > > The hungry remain, and will remain, but the statues, at least, > > will be repaired... > > If they hadn't destroyed the statues, they wouldn't > *need* to be repaired, at least not on the same scale. >
