Monthly Archives: September 2021

The metaphorical elephant in the room today is the view that what happened before independence in 1947 wasnt Indias history. Indeed, the assumption by many over the decades since independence is that what happened before 1947 including the Second World War happened to another, far distant, country. This is because, so it is argued, pre-1947 India was undivided, and that it was part of the Raj. It is politically unbecoming to equate a sense of Indian-hood with what some theorists tells us was Indias slave status under colonialism.

As a Briton researching Indias role in the Second World War, Ive encountered this view repeatedly. But its hardly logical. In fact, it gives us particular problems when we look at the Second World War and Indias contribution to the vast human experience that reset the structure of the modern world.

The problem is that the post-colonial interpretation makes slaves of Indians. It argues that they had no personal control of their destiny because the government was in the hands of others. When the British declared war, India became an unwilling participant. This argument, simply stated, is that the top-down forces of colonial government, together with its systems, structures, cultures and attitudes, were deeply and inherently exploitative, such that it cannot properly be argued that colonial intentions were anything other than unfair and abusive. In this view, Indian men fought and strived against their will, even though they werent fully aware of it, as cultural coercion blinded them to the reality that they were fighting a British war against Britains enemies. The absurdity of this argument suggests, to give but one example, that Auchinlecks otherwise culture-challenging efforts in 1943 and 1944 to raise the pay of Indian Commissioned Officers to the levels of their British colleagues, was for the purpose of buying their loyalty rather than of giving them equality with their peers. Equally, it is seriously suggested in some quarters that the offer of money likewise persuaded millions of otherwise impoverished Indians to sign up for war work during the industrial expansion of India. Illiterate peasants knew no better than to take the financial bribes offered in exchange for their labour. It is argued that others were forced by convention and the belief that family and personal honour depended on a military career. Millions of men thus became mercenaries of the British, subject to intense and relentless propaganda which bound their minds and wills in an unprecedented and highly successful, coercive, manipulation.

I suggest that we recognise these assertions to be exaggerations and political point-scoring, to prove that the Raj was bad and that the Indians who willingly stood up against fascism and totalitarianism in the Second World War werent doing it for India, but because they were forced against their conscious will to do so. But I can find no evidence that 2.5 million men joined the Indian Army between 1939-45 as the result of a propaganda offensive by the British government which secured the partial allegiance or at least acquiescence of part of the population? The argument suggests that the reason, or at least part of it, for the recruitment of such large numbers to the Indian Army lay in subconscious coercion. Yet it does not explain why the men thus recruited were prepared to die for this compulsion, and why Indian soldiers were to win 22 of the 34 Victoria and George Crosses awarded, for example, during the Burma Campaign. It is rational to conclude that, instead, most Indians who joined the armed forces in such extraordinary numbers did so because they had weighed up the options and assessed the nature of the sacrifice, they were willing to make for the sake of the government of India, regardless of its political colour. In this sense, their decision was made on the basis of a conception of India much larger than the framework of politics as it existed within Indian polity at the time. The threat to their conception of what India was and could be therefore far outweighed the rights and wrongs in their minds of colonialism, if the issue or argument ever surfaced at all for the majority of young men making the choice to join up.

The truth is that reality trumped ideology in the face of the imminent and existential danger to the Indian state by the Japanese. Most Indians accepted that the Raj was, rightly or wrongly, or for the time being, the legally constituted Government of India. Like all governments everywhere, it had supporters and opponents. Few who opposed the government on nationalistic or self-governance grounds questioned its legitimacy, as that would have invalidated their own claim to be its successor in due course. Likewise, the Indian Army was Indias army, not Britains. As Professor Roger Beaumont observes it is most interesting to weigh the charges that the Raj built its army in India as an oppressive instrument against what one sees in how lovingly and energetically the Indians have retained the model. The evidence suggests instead that the theory of prosaic oppression and its common language of unconscious bias and systemic structures of power is a fabricated political construct that does not relate to what we know through the historical record of everyday human experience in colonial India especially in wartime the facts being squeezed to fit within a fixed and unbending theoretical model.

It was true that India did not have political independence, but in every other sense the freedom to make social, economic and political choices within this overall environment cannot be said to have been constrained by such oppression that human agency was so deviously manipulated to suit ruling British interests. Young Indian men and young Britons both joined the Indian Army for the same purpose in times of peace; for adventure, employment, the lure of military glory, the age-old attraction of the sword. Indians were no more victims of their polity than were Britons, both of whom were, of course, victims of the fascist militarism that dragged the world into a second great slaughter that century of world war. The tyranny to which some refer, if it relates to anything, can only do so to the prosaic constraints of ordinary civic society such as obeying the law, as can be seen during the Quit India protests in 1942 rather than that of an unbending and devious oppression.

Looking back at the imperial period through the lens of victimhood is therefore deeply problematic historically and philosophically. It ensures that we never see the 350 million Indians of the time as they saw themselves, collectively or individually a people in fact with acute political agency (as evidenced by the burgeoning nationalist movement), on a journey to self-rule. Likewise, it treats every Briton in India at the time, every level of power exercised and every action undertaken in response to a decision by London or Delhi as oppressive, and conversely fails to treat Indians fairly as individuals, denying to them the fact that they wielded real power. In imperial power relationships agency is never one-sided. The victimhood mantle ignores the reality that the actual power wielded by Indian political, social and economic agency in the 1920s and 1930s (combined with Japans pricking of the imperial bubble) enabled India to achieve independence in 1947. Our sense today, looking back, of the size of the nationalist protest against colonial rule has almost certainly exaggerated its impact on ordinary people. This is not to underestimate its ultimate importance, rather the noise it made at the time in terms of the influence it had on the behaviour of men considering joining the armed forces, and the impact it had on those who had already enlisted. History remembers the noisy minority, whose views tend to be over-represented in any analysis of the past, while generally neglecting those without a voice. Fortunately, nationalism and respect for the governments legitimate role in defending India (even a colonial one) were not mutually exclusive in 1942, or the ranks of the Armed Forces might have remained empty, and Indias door opened for the Japanese to march in. Perhaps it is precisely because the ranks of the army were so large between 1942 and 1945, that much effort is generated today in post-colonial studies in explaining away why these men joined in such numbers and with such alacrity.

India, therefore, has every right to recover the history of the pre-1947 period, for it was then that the foundations of modern India were established. The Japanese in Assam and Manipur in 1944 and in Burma in 1945 were defeated by an Army that was 87% Indian. Victory in Asia could never have taken place without Indians coming forward in large numbers, and of their own volition, to serve their country. It is this, which India and yes, Pakistan and Bangladesh as well can legitimately take great pride.

Lyman is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and author of more than a dozen books on World War II

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.

See the article here:

Why should Indians remember Indias sacrifice in World War II - THE WEEK

On Sept. 8, voters in the Banff-Airdrie riding had their first opportunity to hear candidates speak opposite each other in the lead-up to the Sept. 20 federal election.

On Sept. 8, voters in the Banff-Airdrie riding had their first opportunity to hear candidates speak opposite each other in the lead-up to the Sept. 20 federal election.

The Airdrie Public Library-hosted event featured five-minute stump speeches from each of the candidates, followed by the opportunity for attendees to mingle with and ask questions to those seeking their votes. The event did not include a debate or questions from the audience.

Of the nine candidates vying for votes in Banff-Airdrie, eight attended the librarys event. The only no-show was Conservative Party MP and incumbent candidate Blake Richards.

Kicking off proceedings was Green Party candidate Aidan Blum, a 24-year-old resident of Canmore. During his stump speech, Blum outlined his personal background and the sense of political disenfranchisement he felt that led him to get involved with the Green Party. He said there is too much toxicity in the political arena, and that parties are getting worse at being able to collaborate across party lines.

Much of Blums speech was devoted to the issue of climate change. He said there has been overwhelming evidence of climate change in western Canada this year, in the form of wildfires, extreme heat, and drought.

I think one of the most important things we can do is understand the crisis for what it is, and realize Alberta has a very legitimate and impressive opportunity to be a leader for positive change in the transition toward a green economy, instead of pulling ourselves back with countless governments that refuse to act on this crisis that will cost us far more if we do not act, he said.

Following Blum was Airdrie resident Tariq Elnaga, who is representing the western-focused Maverick Party. The newly formed party is notably only running candidates in conservative strongholds in western Canada.

Originally from the United Arab Emirates, Elnaga moved to Alberta after becoming enamoured with the ranching lifestyle while visiting the Calgary Stampede.

I love the west and the western way of life I live and breathe it every single day, he said. This part of the country was built on grit and perseverance. It was built on freedom, hard work, community, and on respect. The Maverick Party is an extension of those western values.

Elnaga touted the Maverick platform, which calls for more Albertan autonomy on decisions surrounding the provinces energy industry, including the approval of pipelines and the cancellation of a carbon tax.

He said the ideal outcome for the Maverick Party on Sept. 20 would be the election of a Conservative minority government that would seek to be propped up by a coalition of Maverick MPs.

The fact were not running any candidates in Quebec, Ontario or the Maritimes means we can focus exclusively on western issues and issues that matter to us as western Canadians, he said. We dont have to appease a voter that doesnt share or understand our values here in the west.

Liberal Party candidate David Gamble followed Elnaga. During his speech, Gamble spoke about his identity as an Alberta Liberal, rather than an Ottawa Liberal. The Calgary resident added this means he is not opposed to the provinces oil and gas sector.

It means Im progressive, it means I care about the oil and gas industry, it means I care about workers, it means I care about hospitals, it means I care about everyone, and I want to see everyone move forward, he said. Its not about left and right. Im a moderate and Im here to support all Albertans.

One of the more tense moments of the evening, resulting in some murmurs from the crowd, came when Gamble pointed out the division of candidates who were and were not wearing face-masks at the librarys event.

I want to point out we have 50 shades of conservatives here, he said. Clearly we needed an election, because there is a lot more division than you might think there is. You might have noticed half of the people at the front of this area are not wearing masks, and proudly so. Theyre probably also not vaccinated. I can assure you Im double-vaccinated, as I am protecting my children.

Derek Sloan, an independent candidate who was previously a Conservative MP in Ontario, followed Gamble. Sloan spent much of his time arguing how the current party system in parliament is corrupt.

You would think you have 338 voices in parliament, because there are 338 seats, he said. But you have roughly four different voices because the party leaders tell everyone else what to do. If you colour outside the lines, you get kicked out. Its a shame and its wrong.

MPs, as their first priority, should be representing their constituents and no one else. They should bring their voice to Ottawa instead of bringing Ottawas voice to you.

Sloan, who was ejected from the Conservative caucus last year, said he previously considered party leader Erin OToole a close colleague, but has since reneged on that relationship. He said OToole has flip-flopped on various campaign issues, including his stance on carbon taxation and gun control.

Hes clearly willing to say anything to get elected, and I frankly cant trust someone like that, Sloan said.

He claimed his ejection from the conservative party was premeditated by OToole, who was feeling threatened by Sloans influence on the conservative party base.

Above all, Sloan said he hopes to oust Richards from his Banff-Airdrie seat, as the four-term MP is OTooles party whip.

I can tell you for certain, many MPs are fighting more for their pensions than they are for Canadians, Sloan said. Theyre playing the game and theyre in the party system, where theyre told exactly what to do, and if they dont do it and play by the rules, theyre out. Thats not what Canadians need.

One of the more unorthodox candidates in Banff-Airdrie this election is independent Ron Voss, who is running in support of Albertas separation from Canada. If elected, Voss vows he will not go to Ottawa, and instead devote his MP salary to continuing Alberta's independence movement.

During his speech, Voss argued the current federal political system does not improve Albertas problems, and when Albertans put confidence in that system, the self-determination of Alberta fizzles out. He used former prime minister Stephen Harper as an example, arguing that electing a conservative party is not the solution to Albertas problems, as the party is always forced to cater to central Canada in order to stay in power.

Theres currently no better indication of that than Erin OToole embracing Justin Trudeaus net-zero emissions strategy, which means net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. What that means for Alberta is a net-zero oil and gas industry and net-zero jobs, he said.

I would presume Blake Richards, who is the whip for the [Conservative] party, would endorse the net-zero carbon plan. You want to send someone to Ottawa who wants to destroy Albertas oil and gas industry? I dont.

Following Voss was Peoples Party of Canada (PPC) candidate Nadine Wellwood, a Cochrane resident of 16 years. She said the libertarian-style PPC is the only party that is focused on individual liberties and freedoms, and is advocating for a smaller government.

Erin OToole, Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh all share the same socialist ideology, she said. All their policies equate to bigger government and less freedom. The PPC is the only party that offers anything different.

She cited the ratification of the bill of rights as one of the proudest moments in Canadas history, adding the document legitimizes Canadians civil liberties.

We have a bill of rights, a charter, and a constitution written specifically for times like these times of crisis, she said. These are our protections from the overreach of a power-hungry government. Whats the point of having laws at all if the government can, at their own convenience, simply ignore them?

Wellwood cited the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on personal liberties in her speech, arguing governmental responses to the crisis have been oppressive. She said the PPC is the only party that is staunchly against the idea of a vaccine passport, and that Canada is on the road to becoming a totalitarian state.

Ive had people tell me Ive simply confused temporary inconvenience for oppression, she said. Two weeks may have been inconvenient, but 19 months is oppression. Demanding people choose between their livelihoods and putting food on their table to feed their family or to take a vaccine is oppression.

Following Wellwood was NDP candidate Sarah Zagoda, from Airdrie. A political newcomer, Zagoda followed in Blums footsteps by citing the threat of climate change in her stump speech. She argued the NDP is the only party that has a viable approach to tackling the issue.

She brought up the Bow River glacier the source of drinking water for the Banff-Airdrie riding and how it is receding at an unsustainable rate, due to climate change. She said university studies indicate the glaciers in the Rockies could be depleted by as early as 2080.

This is an actual emergency and it will have devastating consequences in Alberta if we dont have [a plan], Zagoda said. We see the evidence everyday in the droughts, fires and air quality. We need leadership from a party that will take climate action seriously, and the NDP is that party.

Zagoda also claimed the NDPs other platform points, such as adding dental care under the universal health care umbrella and adding post-secondary education under public education, would make life more affordable for everyday Canadians.

The last candidate to speak at the event was independent Caroline ODriscoll. Having worked for 20 years as a teacher and lawyer, ODriscoll claimed there is a fundamental misunderstanding among most people about how government works, specifically the three branches of government the executive, legislative and judicial.

ODriscoll said if elected, she would use her experience as a lawyer to demand transparency and accountability from governmental leaders and institutions.

Im here to tell you I can be your voice, she said. I have proven success in advocating and demanding change. I stand for very simple principles that are fundamental to everyone sustainable, equitable and accountable solutions are a win-win for everybody.

The independent candidate ended her speech by arguing politics should not just be about visions and dreams, as is so often the case during campaign periods, but about making sure government is fulfilling its roles in the three branches.

It has to be about making sure our institutions are properly taking action on the laws that are made and that everyone is held to account, she said.

Other all-candidate events for the Banff-Airdrie riding include Chamber of Commerce-led forums in Cochrane on Sept. 14 and in Airdrie on Sept. 16. The Cochrane forum will be held at the RockPointe Church at 6:30 p.m., while the Airdrie event will be held at the Bert Church LIVE Theatre at 6:30 p.m.

See the original post here:

Banff-Airdrie candidates tout their ideas at library meet-and-greet - Airdrie Today

Every form of scientific socialism has adapted to the unique circumstances and material conditions of the country it has been in. In the USSR there was the soviet system, in China there is Mao Zedong thought and socialism with Chinese characteristics, in the Vietnam there is i Mi (innovate or renovate), the name given to economic reforms, and so on. Likewise, in the current-day United States there will be a form of socialism that will be adapted to its material conditions.

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) envisions this unique approach to socialism in the US as what it calls Bill of Rights Socialism. There have been excellent works on this, such as this piece by Roberta Wood and Dee Miles and this piece by Brad Crowder, and here I would like to start an investigation and development of the idea as well. My goal isnt to explore the subject too deeply on a philosophical or theoretical level, but to propose what a socialist-oriented economic Bill of Rights might look like not necessarily Bill of Rights Socialism in its entirety and express it on a level that could be used as an accessible, appealing mass political platform.

Crafting an Economic Bill of Rights

One of the core ideological foundations of U.S. culture and political consciousness is that of freedom, particularly those such as free speech, freedom of assembly, and others enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights and the ideas within it play a major role in American political discourse generally, and in the minds of many Americans they are the very foundations that allow for political discourse.

What I propose here is an economic Bill of Rights. In doing so, I draw from three sources in particular: Franklin D. Roosevelts Second Bill of Rights, W. E. B. Du Bois application for membership in the Communist Party, and the CPUSAs current Party Program.

The popular idea of an economic Bill of Rights traces back to Franklin D. Roosevelts Second Bill of Rights, if not further. In his State of the Union Address in 1944, he recommended a second Bill of Rights, saying the following:

This republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact, however, that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry, people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, or race or creed.

Among these are:

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Its unfortunate that weve yet to make good on any of these ideas, and many even seem beyond the scope of contemporary American political discourse. Nonetheless, drawing from this source not only grounds us in existing American politics and history but also provides a good list of demands that are still applicable today. While FDR wasnt a socialist, the rights listed in his Second Bill of Rights would arguably go a long way in freeing many Americans up from various hardships and allow for increased political activity and potentially involvement in the socialist movement.

From there, we then look to Du Bois application for membership in the Communist Party, written in 1961. In it, he discusses what the Communist Party would call for to make the United States truly democratic. He says:

The path of the American Communist Party is clear: It will provide the United States with a real third party and thus restore democracy to this land. It will call for:

These aims are not crimes. They are practiced increasingly over the world. No nation can call itself free which does not allow its citizens to work for these ends.

While Du Bois list is more explicitly socialist, we see similarities with FDRs Second Bill of Rights as well as in some of the popular demands of today. Du Bois list goes beyond reforms that a capitalist government might make (whether or not they actually uphold them) and actually demands the nationalization of natural resources and capital as well as the call for the end of exploitation of labor. Some of the demands, however, are more political than economic, and the goal at the moment is to craft a Bill of Rights specifically targeting economic issues.

Finally, we come to CPUSAs current Party Program. In it we find the following:

The anti-monopoly peoples coalition will put forward a program of public policies and government practices as the coalition grows and strengthens. A developed anti-monopoly program will build on the many struggles and issues already begun and won in the fight against the extreme right. As part of that coalition, the Communist Party will propose radical democratic demands aimed at curbing the political, economic, and ideological power of the monopolies. Unless they are already won at an earlier stage, our demands will include

Later on in the Party Program, we see an explicit outlining of what a Socialist Bill of Rights might look like:

Our vision is of a humane socialist USA, which can be achieved in part by enshrining more freedom and democracy in a Socialist Bill of Rights:

Here, between the political and economic demands, we see common themes once again. Spread out over the course of almost 80 years, we see certain economic demands arise over and over. Though each time these demands have been iterated slightly differently, theyve all been simple and easy to understand. Going back to the 1940s with FDRs Second Bill of Rights up through to Du Bois list of demands and then to the current CPUSA Party Program, we can see the need for a succinct yet comprehensive economic Bill of Rights, something that might be the foundation for making Bill of Rights Socialism a widespread, powerful movement in American politics.

What an economic Bill of Rights might look like

Between these three sources we have quite a number of potential rights and policy proposals that could constitute an economic or socialist Bill of Rights, but part of the appeal of the existing Bill of Rights is that it captures American political values in just 10 amendments. The number 10 is a round, satisfying number and has also been used to outline other key principles, such as the Ten Commandments and the Black Panther Partys Ten-Point Program. A short, succinct list can act as a rallying cry and can be remembered and repeated by its proponents.

While there are so many things that need to be addressed, we want to create something that even those less interested in politics can hear and agree with without having to remember an extensive platform.Drawing from the three aforementioned sources and adapting them to modern times to some degree, I recommend the following 10 amendments (or some variation of them):

Each of these would be followed by a clause similar to those found in a number of other amendments giving Congress the authority to enforce the amendments through legislation, such as, The Congress shall have the power and duty to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The wording of each would have to be honed by specialists, and its likely that certain changes and compromises might be made, but my hope is that this can be a starting point.

If we were to whittle the economic Bill of Rights down to slogans, we might see something like:

This economic Bill of Rights not only provides all Americans with key economic rights but has the potential to unite wider popular forces, oppressed groups, and potential allies within the country under a common cause. The economic Bill of Rights isnt socialism, nor will it inherently bring about socialism just through its passage, but the goal of this new Bill of Rights is to create a general platform that will benefit the masses and further enable a more thorough socialist revolution. In the struggle for such a Bill of Rights, we would have to create extensive alliances, work within our communities to create bodies of political engagement, and lay the groundwork for a more democratic system capable of defeating capitalism independent from existing political institutions.

Furthermore, if the passage of such an economic Bill of Rights were successful, the government would be legally bound to enforce it lest they openly delegitimize themselves. To fulfil their duty in upholding the newly amended Constitution, the government would have to move left, opening up new avenues for class struggle and the fight for political and economic democracy. There very likely would be a reactionary push by the ruling class to revoke these new rights and maintain their heavy-handed dominance over American society, but the people would be unlikely to accept such an attempt without fighting back.

Of course, just an economic Bill of Rights would still leave much to be desired, given the various other issues and forms of oppression seen in American society. We would likewise need a social or civil rights Bill of Rights to address these issues. As seen in both Du Bois application and the CPUSA Party Program, there are certain democratic and social guarantees beyond the economic that are needed to make the country truly free.

Bill of Rights Socialism and a socialist-oriented economic Bill of Rights wouldnt just be static things they would be ever-evolving processes. Only in a socialist society can any rights in an economic Bill of Rights be completely fulfilled, and the same goes for many of the values espoused in our current Bill of Rights. Socialism is the only path to the freedom that the United States claims to strive for, and its what we must fight for if we truly want to be free.

Original article was first posted on June 9, 2021, in M. P. Britts blog

Images: Top, Earthworm (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0); President Roosevelt giving State of the Union Speech where he outlines a Second Bill of Rights, Jan. 11, 1944 (public domain); Mural of W. E. B. Du Bois, Erik Anestad (CC BY 2.0); CPUSA banner; People before Profits banner, Backbone Campaign (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

Read the original here:

We need an economic bill of rights Communist Party USA - Communist Party USA

IDAHO FALLS As the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks approaches, many locals are reflecting on the 20-year war it sparked in Afghanistan, and more recently the chaos of withdrawing American troops and citizens.

Its being called Americas longest war and an estimated 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan, although some pundits and rescue groups say the number is much greater. Fox News reports President Biden has yet to respond to a group of 26 Republican senators demanding he provide the exact number of people still remaining in Afghanistan.

Amid the contentious political rivalry ensuing in the 10 days since the withdrawal was completed, some locals want to make sure the terror attacks that resulted in the war are not forgotten.

RELATED | Dont be stuck in Sept. 10

Pastor Tim Rupp in Idaho Falls is one of them, and he is helping to organize a memorial event this weekend in conjunction with 9/11. He tells EastIdahoNews.com he was disheartened by the recent loss of 13 U.S. military members in Kabul and how the withdrawal itself was carried out.

RELATED | He was going to be the best dad. Expectant father from Jackson killed in Kabul airport attack.

RELATED | Utah Marine killed in Afghanistan blast was a born leader, father says

Were keeping (those affected by this) in our prayers and those who are trying to negotiate and rescue our citizens and those who support our country, Rupp says.

Another local man distressed by the way the war ended is Mo Elabed, a Muslim living in eastern Idaho.

He says the world shouldnt be so quick to judge Islam because of the actions of the Taliban. Elabed says the Taliban are a terrorist organization whose beliefs stand in direct opposition to the religion he knows and loves.

Islam means peace, says Elabed. You cant depict the whole Muslim world based on the actions of the Taliban and the way they rule and operate. I dont agree with their views and ideology. I am against oppression. We dont oppress our women. I think its very important that they have their freedoms, equality and education.

RELATED | Finding Faith: The truth about Muslims, what they believe, and how theyre treated by locals

The U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. Al-Qaida orchestrated the attack while sheltering under Taliban rule. An ambitious U.S.-led effort to invest billions of dollars in Afghanistans future by implementing a Western-style government eventually allowed women, who had largely been confined to their homes, to have access to education and assume more prominent roles in public life.

In the weeks leading up to the American withdrawal, the Islamic extremist group quickly seized control of at least three cities and continued its takeover at a rapid pace. It is now the de facto government in Afghanistan. Elabed says all attempts to negotiate with the Taliban and give them credibility as a legitimate governing body is a serious mistake.

RELATED | US military begins final pullout amid Kabul terror threats, other civilian groups aid in rescue operations

He fears the accomplishments in Afghanistan resulting from U.S. involvement are now lost and says the Taliban takeover could have serious repercussions for years to come.

Weve spent 20 years over there trying to better their lives and add a modern way of living there. We made a lot of sacrifices for Afghanistan, and to see (how everything has played out in the last few weeks) is disappointing. It seems like the clocks are turning back, he says.

Elabed says 9/11 was a day we will never forget, not just for the tragic loss of American lives but also because of how Americans united in prayer and service to their fellowmen.

RELATED | Tragedy may endure for a night, but morning in America will always come

On the 20th anniversary of 9/11, Rupp is hoping to reignite those same feelings of unity in a memorial event focused on remembering that day and paying tribute to local military members and first responders.

On Saturday, the Bonneville County Sheriffs Office, Idaho Falls Police Department and the Idaho National Guard will be at Watersprings from 6 to 7 p.m. to meet and greet members of the community. A prayer service at 7 p.m. will include a posting of the colors and the Pledge of Allegiance, along with patriotic music and a video montage of the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

My youngest daughter is 20 years old. She was just an infant at the time. So, we just want to make sure we dont forget the attack on our country and we want to make sure we thank and honor our first responders and our military today that are continuing to keep us safe, Rupp says.

Rupp will provide a few remarks centered around the theme Why bad things happen to good people. Hell be focusing on verses 1 to 5 in Luke 13.

Pastor Ty Orr will conclude the event with a prayer.

See the original post here:

In the wake of chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan, locals want to make sure 9/11 is not forgotten - East Idaho News