--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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...
Sorry, but I think that's pure after-the-fact spin designed to counteract the bad PR they got for destroying the statues. It doesn't even make any sense. The Taliban is smarter than that. *All* the other statements I've read from Taliban officials said it was part of a campaign to rid Afghanistan of any trace of religions other than Islam. No mention of hunger or poverty or a need for funds.
