Intersections

A blog interested in exploring the news, a debate team studying climate change, a technological platform used to explore ethics... that is what I call an intersection too terrific not to write about.

Here it the fast breaking news as I understand it... Someone hacked into a climate change research center and stole 1000 emails and more than 2000 other documents. and posted them on a Russian file-sharing site. The interesting part is that they seem on the few that I have read to indicate that there is significant evidence that the peer review process has been interfered with. Additionally, it appears that scientists suffer from the same stress as teenagers when not in the in crowd. So, you say, who cares?? The truth is that peer review is a critically important part of the sharing of scientific information.

Peer review? The basics are that in science before you can publish, your colleagues get the chance to look at your work. In academia,it is publish or perish so the scientists are heavily motivated to be able to publish. If it is hard to publish articles that are in conflict with the idea that man causes global warming, then, the literature and the world of science can not work properly. Science is not a consensus business so the peer review process is supposed to reflect quality of work, not to be a all in or out business.

So, the release of these stolen emails is very interesting. Excerpts were printed in the Wall Street Journal and on numerous websites. Of course it is important not to over interpret these out of context emails. And of course, it was bad that they are stolen... So, do we discount the facts because of the way they were gathered?

Some in the news business have been reluctant to run this story because of the way the information was obtained. As with all correspondence, these emails are hard to evaluate out of context.

It would be tragic if a breakdown in scientific ethics slows the research on this critical issue. Personally, I have thought for some time that global warming was not the correct banner under which to consider what impact man has on the earth, and in what ways we can best be stewards of the beautiful amazing earth.

For today, I can marvel at how what you say in secret, you should be ready to say in public.

Love the internet.... it keeps us all a bit more honest.

ADDING STABILITY TO U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIP

         The relationship between the U.S and Russia is an increasingly stable partnership. Progressively, the stakes we have in each other’s economic prosperity would add ballast, giving us the ability to advance through political struggles.

         Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev had their 3^rd bilateral meeting in the last four months on Sunday, November 15. The recently announced U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission will have to direct tensions surrounding Iran policy, the stop-and-go nature of World Trade Organization accession talks, and other controversial geopolitical matters.

 Preceding the Obama-Medvedev meetings, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Moscow last month, both Russia and the U.S. seemed more agreeable to engage commercially. Last week in his state-of-the-nation address, Medvedev called for economic modernization.

Despite the differences between the two nations, the commission already has designated areas of common interest, including building a strong commercial relationship. To put the economic relationship in perspective Russia accounts for only about 1% of Americas overall trade, compared with 14% for China and 2% for the Netherlands.  The next few years offer a chance to expand two-way trade and establish a meaningful commercial partnership. 

         Increasing the commercial relationship between the U.S and Russia will stabilize the two nations allowing us to withstand political and economical complications.

         

Talented Estonia

In my pre-debate tournament frenzy of stress and poor time management I have been trying to find an interesting and pertinent topic involving Eastern Europe to write about. I've had ideas and even though I'd do a whole historical analysis but it's Tuesday morning *cough cough* and before our last class I want to write on a more lighthearted topic that we can all relate to.

I came across this article about how unique Estonians are when compared to individuals from other nations. I would never have googled this per se but when I found it on a Baltic news site I figured it might spark a little interest amidst otherwise depressing political subjects. An article by Toomas Hobemagi (say that three times fast) says that "this nation has tens of theatres, concert halls and universities, hundreds of libraries, museums, choirs, dance groups, thousands of poets, musicians and other artists, etc, etc."

When looking at Estonia per capita people wonder how in the world they have published so many works of literature in such a short time. Estonians seem to have a particular aptitude for the arts and, as this article says, nearly everyone has an interesting hobby. From botany to inventors to yogis, Hobemagi speculates that this is due to a fear of the mundane. Everyone wants to be an individual so they try to adopt unique interests and hone their skills.

I thought this was really interesting in a social sense because what we often hear implied about Eastern Europeans is that they are harsh, hardworking people who love futbol and war and nothing else. Here is the link to the article:

http://balticbusinessnews.com/article/2009/11/17/Estonians_a_gifted_nation_with_a_twist

Communism+democracy=?

I have been trying to think of  a good article to write on for the past few day and I have finaly selected a topic that definitely needs attention. 

Now to sum up the topic I only need to say two words, China and Obama. As most of you people out there should know the president of the U.S.A has been on a tour of the Asian countries such as China and Japan. On the 16th he met with the leader of China Hu Jintao to discuss the economy and the environment as well as giving an address to university students where he talked about Internet censorship. If you were not aware of this the people of China are blocked from certain parts of the internet such as Twitter and FaceBook. It is called "The Great Fire Wall." during the presidents address he stated that we should ally ourselves with the upcoming super power rather then fighting the changes. 

This is a great point in time where we can see that there can be some form of prosperity in either a Democracy or a communism, but the question that keeps running through my head is if the two forms of government can function under each others arm. I find that in the world we live in all boundaries have been broken. We are all so connected that our differences seem to become less and less and the ideas and practices that we do on a daily basis are more like our friends all the way in China, but there are still the people that are trying to control every aspect of our lives, and a good question is what will happen to the people that would rather be alone?

Another question is if our government is genuinely trying to create a relationship with China or are we just trying to hang with the highest bidders? If this trip is for creating a friend out of our past enemy then lets hope that the President does a good job. With China's population of 1,325,639,982 it seems very important that we have a good friendship with 1/6 of the world's population.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120450377

Canada

I thought this article to be very interesting , especially since we were talking about twitter last week.

Twitter, Canadian election law clash in latest contest

By Jordan Fabian -

Twitter has caused a political stir in America's neighbor to the north.

Some in Canada are questioning whether Twitter updates journalists posted about early returns from Monday's special elections violated Canadian election law. According to Reuters Canada, a section of the Canada Elections Act bans the dispersal of elections results before the last polling stations officially close.

The law is designed to prevent the results from the east from affecting the votes of western voters who might still be voting because of time differences.

Some are beginning to question the applicability of the law in the age of Twitter.

Here are some excerpts from the news agency's story:

One journalist even sent a Twitter message saying "Oh dear. Have just realized I may have been violating law because of my poor understanding of Twitter". Elections Canada did nothing.

It is little wonder that critics use terms like absurd and archaic to describe a provision that, in large part, comes from an era before the Internet was born.

That said, television and radio stations can broadcast regional results as long as the signal is contained within that region. But this fails to take into account that a voter out West with the right kind of satellite dish can access an eastern station broadcasting results.

And of course, posting data on the Internet is easy.

It is no surprise therefore that the rule has failed to prevent a string of breaches, some deliberate and some accidental, in federal elections over the last decade.

"Elections Canada is still stuck in this dark age, they're trying to be Big Brother," said Peter Coleman, president of the National Citizens Coalition, a right-leaning lobby group advocating the end of the restriction.

"Technology has changed so much that they can't stop this stuff from going on anyway ... I think it's an archaic law and it should just disappear," he told Reuters on Tuesday.

An Elections Canada spokesman declined to say whether the law still made sense. The agency reports to Parliament through the office of Jay Hill, who directs the government's day to day business in the legislature.

~Lady Liberty

Canadian Bacon

Canadian Bacon is a type of bacon invented in the 1880's that is very different from regular bacon. People in America think they know what it is when they order it on pizza, but are really misinformed. Canadian bacon is a type of backed bacon that is coated in cornmeal. In Canada, you can not buy Canadian Bacon, unless you want to be ripped off. Real Canadian Bacon is very rare and mostly only Canada's politicians get to regularly get it shipped to them. In my opinion, real Canadian Bacon sounds very disturbing and I hope to never try it in my lifetime.[Even if I went to Canada].

Overview of the Russian economy and international relations

Before I start commenting on Russian politics, and the rights and wrongs of their philosophy, I thought it might be helpful to have an overview of two very important issues that need to be considered when discussing Russia.

Starting off with the Russian Economy. With a GDP per capita at less then 1/3 of the United States GDP the economic situation in Russia is certainly not ideal. However, why is the GDP so much lower? One theory to explain this phenomenon is Corruption. The CIA fact book for 2010 states "Corruption, lack of trust in institutions, and more recently, exchange rate uncertainty and the global economic crisis to dampen domestic and foreign investor sentiment. " Corruption can certainly become an issue if it infiltrates every part of the economy. Of course there are issues of economic freedom too, but until Corruption becomes reduced, Russia's economy will suffer severely

The next issue to be considered is International Relations. Russia has a history of hostile comments, policies, and relationships. Winston Churchill once said "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest." This quote gives light to a subject that is delicate in international politics. Throughout history, Russian governments have given no indication of a pattern for the policies or mindsets it enacts. Every administration sets new standards for freedom, and international relations. However, one trend can be seen. Russia always makes policies that are best for... Russia. This seems self explanatory right? Don't all countries make policies in their own best interest? Yes, to a certain point. However, most countries have other countries interests in mind, more of a cooperative international community. But Russia's sole interest seems to be the good of the Russian government. Whether that includes its people, and the international community or not.

These two issues are crucial in understanding relations, and ideological differences between the US and Russia. Next week I'll try to post some more specific information!

Reagan and the Berlin wall

With the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the tape of Ronald Reagan's famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate is likely to be played and replayed. "Mr. Gorbachev," he declared, "tear down this wall!"

But how significant was the speech, really? How important was its seemingly defiant tone in reuniting Berlin and "winning" the Cold War?

To many American conservatives, the answer to those questions is simple: Reagan stared down the Soviet Union. And the Berlin Wall speech stands as the dramatic symbol of Reagan's challenge and triumph.

But those who say this ignore the actual history and context of the speech. In fact, Reagan's address served the purpose of shoring up public support as he moved to upgrade American relations with the Soviet Union. It was Reagan's diplomacy with Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, bitterly opposed at the time by his conservative former supporters, that did the most to create the climate in which the Cold War could end.

By the time Reagan delivered his Berlin Wall speech, in June 1987, he had already held two summits with Gorbachev and was moving toward two more. He was in negotiations for the arms-control treaty he signed later that year. In fact, during Reagan's second term, he met five times with Gorbachev, more than any other American president had met a Soviet leader during the Cold War.

When Reagan won Senate ratification of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, it was the first arms-control treaty with the Soviets to win approval in 15 years. At a 1988 summit in Moscow, Reagan backed away from his famous remark five years earlier that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire." He told reporters: "That was another time, another era."

Reagan's conciliatory policies toward the Soviets provoked anguished and increasingly bitter denunciations from the right wing.

Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus branded Reagan "a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda." Conservative columnist George Will pounded away at Reagan for having changed. "Four years ago, many people considered Reagan a keeper of the Cold War flame," he wrote in 1988. "Time flies. For conservatives, Ronald Reagan's foreign policy has produced much surprise, but little delight." Even Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush -- when he ran for president in 1988 -- suggested that Reagan had gone too far in his diplomacy with the Soviet leader.

The Berlin Wall speech produced an intense fight within the Reagan administration. The speech was drafted by a young White House speechwriter, Peter Robinson, and was cleared by Reagan's domestic advisors. Reagan's foreign policy advisors balked at the "Mr. Gorbachev" line. They worried that it might undermine Gorbachev's political position in Moscow, making him the target of hard-line elements within the Soviet leadership and weakening his ability to reach out to the West.

Reagan decided to leave the line in, judging rightly that Gorbachev could handle it. The speech served as a strong reaffirmation of the value of freedom and a reminder that, even as Cold War tensions eased, the United States would not accept the continuing division of Berlin, Germany or Europe.

Many Americans now assume the key part of Reagan's speech was the idea of tearing down the wall. Ironically, that was nothing new. It was almost boilerplate for American leaders to say the Berlin Wall should come down. Reagan himself had said in Washington, a year earlier, "I would like to see the wall come down today, and I call upon those responsible to dismantle it."

But it was quite a change for a U.S. president to directly appeal to "Mr. Gorbachev" to tear it down. That was new.

Reagan delivered the speech on the occasion of Berlin's 750th anniversary. He was on a stopover in West Berlin that lasted only a few hours. What he said got the attention not so much of Gorbachev but of East German Communist Party leader Erich Honecker. Officially, the Berlin Wall was, after all, East Germany's wall.

Needless to say, Honecker wasn't about to tear down the wall. (He declared at the beginning of 1989 that the wall "will still exist in 50 or even 100 years.") But still, he would have liked Reagan to ask him, not Gorbachev, to do so. By addressing the words to Gorbachev, Reagan was reminding everyone of the reality that East Germany couldn't exist without Soviet support. In fact, Honecker, who would be forced to resign just before the wall fell, was increasingly convinced throughout the mid- and late-1980s that the Americans and Soviets were conspiring against him. (They weren't.)

Some conservatives now argue that the Reagan-Gorbachev diplomacy was irrelevant to the unraveling of Soviet power. They credit his much more hard-line defense buildup and his Strategic Defense Initiative, hallmarks of his first term in office, with determining the outcome of the Cold War and forcing Gorbachev to capitulate.

Such arguments gloss over an important distinction. It was one thing for Gorbachev to decide that the Soviet Union could not compete with the United States in military terms. It was another for him to abandon the Cold War entirely, refusing to do anything to stop the changes that swept through Eastern Europe in 1989, culminating with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November.

The Soviet Union was, as the historian Stephen Kotkin put it, "lethargically stable." Even if it couldn't keep matching American military power, it still could have tried to preserve the essentials of what it had. It possessed more than enough nuclear weapons to fend off the West.

On the night of Nov. 9, 1989, as East Germans began streaming across the wall, Honecker's successor, Egon Krenz, tried to call Gorbachev to ask what he should do. Gorbachev didn't take the call, and he didn't intervene. He wanted an entirely new relationship with the United States and Western Europe. Reagan's diplomacy with Gorbachev had quite a bit to do with that.

After he left office in January 1989, Reagan pressed the new Bush administration for still better relations with Gorbachev. At a speech in Europe in June 1989, he said the new president should "take the risk that the Soviets are serious in their efforts to reach genuine arms reductions with the West."

When the Berlin Wall came down five months later, everyone remembered Reagan's impassioned, confrontational "tear down this wall" speech. Few recalled that Reagan's actual policies, bitterly contested at the time, were aimed at courting Gorbachev, building up his stature and doing business with him.
Information from: Los Angeles Times

"John of Gaunt"

Questions:

What branch of Islam predominates in Pakistan? What is the connection between the branch or sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Does this affect Pakistan’s relation with India, Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda?

 

Answers:

         Sunni is the predominate branch of religion in Pakistan. The connection between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is that they share the same dominant branch of religion: the Sunni. It is the largest denomination of Islam. 

India and Pakistan’s relationship would probably be strained despite the fact that Islam is the second most practiced religion in India. The main branch of Islam in India is Sulfis. Pakistan’s ties would not be as strong with India when compared to Saudi Arabia, because Sunni views differ from Sulfis beliefs.

Afghanistan and Pakistan’s relationship would be strengthened if anything because they share the same Islamic religion, Sunni.

Al-Qaeda and Pakistan’s relationship would be affected in a more negative aspect because even though they have the same basic Islamic beliefs, the Al-Qaeda have branched off from the Sunni belief to Salafi, a more extreme Islamic religion.

 

By: Hannah McGennis

Water, Water Anywhere?

There has recently been much discussion concerning Israel’s policy of the distribution of water from the Mountain Aquifer.

Amnesty International, a human rights advocacy group, recently released a report entitled Troubled Waters- Palestinians denied fair access to water. In this report they claim that Israel is not giving the Palestinians of the West Bank their fair share of the water supply. They report that Israelis receive 80% of the water, while Palestinians only receive 20%. Gaza’s only freshwater source is the Coastal Aquifer. Up to 95% of this water is claimed to be unfit for consumption. Also, water reservoirs and other water networks were damaged during the war in Gaza. Amnesty firmly believes that Israel should allot more water to the Palestinians.

However, Israel is having major water shortages as well. Also, the Israel Foreign Ministry has denied Amnesty’s claims. They responded that “Israel has fulfilled all its obligations…regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity. The Palestinians have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement… Israel has offered to supply Palestinians with desalinated water, but this offer is systematically rejected due to political motivations.” Israel claims that the Amnesty report is “biased and incorrect.” They have also stated that the water gap is not nearly as large as Amnesty claims.

Whatever the case may be, it is certainly true that the Palestinians need more and better water. It is essential that the Palestinian government address this issue and work to find a solution.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1795194

Maps:http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/water_israel_palestine.pdf
http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

This article looks at Sharia Law with an eye to its effect on all societies. Interdependence may define the times. If you are in a rush, just read the underlined parts.

What is the difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

The Taliban is a religious based group that obtained the governing position in Afghanistan during the Afghan civil war and retained this position from 1996-2001. During this time the Taliban's goal was to create the worlds most pure Islamic state. Their main base of law was a strict interpretation of the Islamic law banning television, music, and the Internet. Under the Taliban women wore burqas and most of their freedoms where prohibited such as working for pay and not having tight curfew hours. The Taliban also sheltered Al-Qaeda during their time governing Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda is an Islamic militant organization that seeks to end foreign influence in Muslim countries and to create a perfect Islamic form of government throughout the world. Al-Qaeda was Established in 1988 by Osama bin laden to combat the Soviet Union in the Afghan Soviet war. Al-Qaeda is also internationally known as a terrorist organization through their suicide attacks and coordinated bombings.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are similar in their striving for an Islamic middle east and their hatred towards infidels (An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion :Online Dictionary), but different in the fact that one ruled a country and is more politically active while the other gains power by being a subversive terrorist organization.

1)WHAT IS THE ISI?
2)HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THE PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT?
3)HOW DOES THE ISI INTERFACE WITH THE ISLAMIC MILITIA OF PAKISTAN?

1)The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) is Pakistan's largest intelligence group. It was created to strengthen their current military in 1947 during the first Indo-Pak War.

2) I found the relationship between the ISI and the Pakistani government very interesting. There are instances when the ISI has gone against governmental policy. There are also instances when the ISI can and does influence policies and politicians. So the relationship sounds very strong, if it can go against the government but still have a very strong influence. Some of the examples I found was that: it is believed that the elections of 1990 were rigged by the ISI. (in favor of Islami Jamhoori Ittehad [IJI party]) Lt. Gul, head of the ISI at the time, denied this fact. The ISI also interfered with the politics of Karachi. (financial capital of Pakistan) The ISI was also accused of assassinating Shahnawaz Bhutto. (PPP [Pakistan People's Party]) However no proof has been found against the ISI. The ISI was also involved in a massive corruption scandal dubbed the Mehran bank scandal or Mehrangate. In which large sums of money were given to the ISI, this was against government policy as such banking which involves government institutions can only be done through state-owned financial institutions. The ISI's director at the time, Habib, was arrested and the scandal was made public.

3)I could not find how the ISI interfaced with the Islamic militia of Pakistan, only that they did interface with them.

~Emilie

What is the role of the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups in Pakistan?

In "Held by the Taliban", the NY Times video we were assigned this week, David Rohde, the reporter kidnapped by Taliban leaders, says that during his captivity, he "realized that the hard-line Islamic state that the U.S. had toppled in 2001 exists. It simply shifted a few miles east, over the border into Pakistan."

The government of Pakistan is at war with the Taliban. However, the extremists maintain control of many regions and some cities, mostly in the tribal areas. The government is trying to fight the uprising, but from what I can tell, the situation is rather similar to that in Afghanistan. Though there may not necessarily be as complex of a "shadow government" as there is in Afghanistan, the Taliban still consolidate and maintain their power and pose an enormous threat to the government and the people. Some of the places in Pakistan are used as bases to prepare for attacks in Afghanistan, as well.

Al-Qaeda also maintains sanctuaries in the country.

Democracy Now!

This is Mrs. Hoyle - so don't hunt Kalo down for this! 

Following is a link to video/audio for the program Democracy Now! which aired last week featuring a young Afghani woman, Malalai Joya. Joya was the youngest person ever to be elected to the parliament in Afghanistan in 2005, but was suspended in 2007 and has since been forced to stay constantly in hiding in order to stay alive. She has written the story of her experience called - "A Woman Among Warlords" and considers herself a committed activist for democracy in her country. She doesn't intend to leave Afghanistan, as so many people have had to do in order to either 1)stay alive 2)maintain their livelihood 3)keep their families together 4)speak their minds. Malalai Joya is only in her mid 20's. She is young, intelligent and incredibly outspoken. The program includes a clip of her forcing her way to the front of the speaker's box and making a statement on behalf of the "young people of Afghanistan" - it was after her bold statements that she was booted out. Malalai is vehemently opposed to American intervention in Afghanistan. She succinctly and strongly explains her opposition to American troops being in her country - just as she vehemently opposes the tyranny and misogynistic rule of the tribal warlords who have historical hold of Afghanistan's politics and only benefit from the current chaos because it allows them to stay in power. Listening to her, it becomes apparent that she does not equate American military presence with promotion of democracy in Afghanistan. She sees it as harmful and believes the U.S. needs to leave and make amends for the destruction it has been complicit in.

Whether or not her argument is militarily/strategically compatible with our mainstream understanding of Afghanistan's position - it is extremely important that the quick glimpses given to us in the media don't allow us to imagine that because America is a democracy, therefore American military presence in a foreign area will spread democracy. That is flawed logic. Any news source, in order to be timely and engaging must present us with generalizations - sometimes dramatic generalizations. It is our responsibility to think past the news, outside of the news. We must listen, and think about real individual people - even if they seem strange to us, remembering all the time that WE are strange to them! Malalai Joya is certainly someone worth listening to. I hope you all get to hear her story.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/28/a_woman_among_warlords_afghan_democracy

The Kerry-Lugar Bill

What is the Kerry-Lugar bill ?
The Kerry-Lugar bill is essentially a nonmilitary aid package granted to Pakistan by the U.S. in view of its precarious economic condition due to its indulgence in the "War on Terror" as a front line allied state.
This bill grants Pakistan 7.5 billion dollars over the period of five years (1.5 billion annually) and comes along with stringent conditions on how to distribute and invest this money.
The conditions along with this bill come in the shape of military as well as economic checks which have instigated a lot of debate in this country and agitated its bloggers as well.
Note: I think the bill has now been revised to eliminate a lot of the conditions.
What is the response to the Kerry-Lugar bill in Pakistan and the U.S. ?
Well, from what I've seen so far, Pakistan is pretty divided in their response. Some view it as an insult, while others claim it is "fair payment" for all the services they have performed for the U.S.
In the U.S., on the other hand, the response I've seen is overwhelmingly negative toward the bill. Many people are opposed to our government spending still more money it doesn't have, especially for a foreign country.
~Lady Liberty~

Education is thought of as one of the fundamental parts of life in America, however, in other parts of the world this is not so. For instance, in Pakistan, the best education that exists happens inside the walls of the seclusive Madrassahs. The word madrassah is derived from the word "wazn " and "mafʻal" , translating to mean "a place where learning/teaching is done" Currently, Pakistani public schools suffer from no funding, horrible attendance, and non educated teachers. Because of this, parents have begun to turn towards sending their children to a Madrasah. Currently, with 50000 Madrasahs in the country, parents can easily find a school, and drop their children off forever. What most americans fail to grasp, is the concept that these children, although well educated in the Koran, virtually nothing else gets taught. Many believe that the numerous madrassahs in Pakistan contribute to the success of the Taliban. Although the schools themselves to not endorse the Taliban publicly, they teach a world-view that makes militancy possible A researcher named Salman Abid that lives in Punjab stated " The mindset wants to stop music, girls schools, and festivals... Their message is that this is not the real life, Real life comes later- after death" If one were to walk around every day with the mind set that they were not really living, it certainly makes it plausible to volunteer for battle, terrorism, and criminal acts. Looking from the mindset of these people, does it not seem reasonable to be the perpetrator of a car bomb, or other criminal act, when nothing is being lost, and eternal life is being gained?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/world/asia/04schools.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Picture: http://img7.travelblog.org/Photos/100965/429780/f/4183485-Ulugbek-Madrassa--Bukhara-1.jpg

Information taken from Wikipedia, and NY times

The Taliban was formed during the Afghan Soviet war (1979-89). The Taliban are also known as a group of Mujahideen (Holy Warriors or Freedom Fighters)... Well any way they were formed on a regional basis but not united until in 1994 when Pakistan hired a group of Taliban warriors to protect a convoy going from Pakistan to Central Asia. Through this action the Taliban proved to be an effective force and later went on to take both the City of Kandahar and Kabul in 1996. The Taliban went on to rule Afghanistan until 2001 when the U.S. & Afghani opposition forces booted them out of office after the Sep 11th terror attacks. Since then Taliban has had major funding and influence by the Pakistani government. In one year alone the Taliban gained 30million dollars from Pakistan in 2002.

I got most of my information from this site: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html I(ts pretty good reading...