Famous Afghan woman evacuated

[AlanKlein]

Germany post WWII, the Marshall plan really helped them rebuild.

Not only Germany but Western Europe. Getting them back on their own feet helped keep the Soviets from expanding communism and totalitarianism into Western Europe from Eastern Europe.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Not only Germany but Western Europe. Getting them back on their own feet helped keep the Soviets from expanding communism and totalitarianism into Western Europe from Eastern Europe.

 

Is true Sir.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

What monster did we create? We helped free Afghanistan from Russian occupation. After gaining freedom, they stabbed us in the back on 9-11 and supported Bin Laden. That's disgraceful of them and totally smacks of ingratitude.

 

So now we walked away again leaving them in the lurch. All those Afghans that helped us over twenty years maintaining freedom for women there like Gulla and others now have to face the Taliban's retribution. So now we stabbed our allies in the back. So now we're acting disgracefully.

 

Yeah, I didn't really like the way we walked away. I think we worked hard to make it right after the initial cluster, but it could have been much smoother and better for those that were helping us. We did end up getting a lot out, but we had lots of good intel as to whom are friends were and could have planned that part much better.

 

But really? I think the Taliban are pretty monstrous. it's obvious that what became the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the mutations afterwards, including ISIS were initially created by us. We motivated them, funded them, armed them to the hilt and then aimed them at the Soviets. We didn't care one wit about creating freedom in Afghanistan. For the U.S. it was purely real politik to hurt the Soviets. In fact, Afghanistan under the Soviets was a far better place then it was under the Taliban. We encouraged funded and armed the whole mujahideen movement and then, when we achieved our goal of getting the Soviets out, we walked away and watched thousands of American armed and trained Islamic warriors filter back into the Arab world and hand them to the Wahabis and Salafists. We weren't fighting for freedom, we were fighting for domination over the Soviets, at the time, our perceived existential rival. BTW, Magnum Photo Magnum Photos | Iconic images, authentic visual storytelling Magnum Photos has a lot of photographic work from different viewpoints in Afghanistan.

[steve_gallimore1]

Stepping back towards photography, some might be interested in the work of another National Geographic photographer; Reza Deghati?

 

REZA Photography

Edited December 1, 2021 by steve_gallimore|1

[AlanKlein]

Yeah, I didn't really like the way we walked away. I think we worked hard to make it right after the initial cluster, but it could have been much smoother and better for those that were helping us. We did end up getting a lot out, but we had lots of good intel as to whom are friends were and could have planned that part much better.

 

But really? I think the Taliban are pretty monstrous. it's obvious that what became the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the mutations afterwards, including ISIS were initially created by us. We motivated them, funded them, armed them to the hilt and then aimed them at the Soviets. We didn't care one wit about creating freedom in Afghanistan. For the U.S. it was purely real politik to hurt the Soviets. In fact, Afghanistan under the Soviets was a far better place then it was under the Taliban. We encouraged funded and armed the whole mujahideen movement and then, when we achieved our goal of getting the Soviets out, we walked away and watched thousands of American armed and trained Islamic warriors filter back into the Arab world and hand them to the Wahabis and Salafists. We weren't fighting for freedom, we were fighting for domination over the Soviets, at the time, our perceived existential rival. BTW, Magnum Photo Magnum Photos | Iconic images, authentic visual storytelling Magnum Photos has a lot of photographic work from different viewpoints in Afghanistan.

So to make up for our lack of involvement after the Soviet era, we worked hard for twenty years the second time after 9-11 to give them freedom, and what happened? They weren't interested in it in the end. They threw their guns down and accepted Taliban control. Maybe they wanted to keep their women covered all along. Maybe it's not our business trying to change others people's cultures and beliefs.

 

We were probably right to walk away the first time during the Soviet era. We should have done it after the initial stages after 9-11; just walked away with a warning to not support terrorists or we'll be back. Instead, we got involved and lost lots of blood and treasure for nothing. The Taliban and terrorists are back again in charge.

[Robin Smith]

As an aside the Afghans were in ages past significant players in both Iran/Persia and India (they kicked the Mughul emperor out on at least one occasion). The British got the asses kicked severely once and stalemated from then on, so the Russians and the US are not the only ones. A tragedy nevertheless, and from the US perspective a thoroughly bipartisan defeat, but I think it fair to say there was no stomach by Americans/NATO for more gold to be spent there, despite all the criticism and wailing. Obama gave them a strong hint that they could/would win by saying US troops would leave, a decision reversed, and Trump basically just set up the timetable and agreed to leave with only verbal agreements that had no teeth whatsoever, as he was as eager to leave as the rest of us. So the pro-western Afghans were shafted, just like the South Vietnamese. A tragedy, but one we could see coming. Refugees should be swiftly granted asylum in Western (or at least NATO) countries.

[AlanKlein]

Stepping back towards photography, some might be interested in the work of another National Geographic photographer; Reza Deghati?

 

REZA Photography

Very nice. What is it about "street" shots in foreign lands that become so attractive?

[Robin Smith]

Because we generally don't go there. The appeal of the "exotic".

[samstevens]

In this case, it’s more than the appeal of the exotic. It’s that perfected National Geographic-y sense of “beauty.” For all the emotionally-distanced humanity those photos show, the people may as well be plants. One thing for sure, the sharp, “piercing” eyes of the first girl shows the McCurry influence on future photographers. There’s a precision of technique and objectivity of perspective to these photos that I find more mathematical than humanistic.

[c_watson1]

Stepping back towards photography, some might be interested in the work of another National Geographic photographer; Reza Deghati?

 

REZA Photography

 

Nice try Steve but the all-too-frequent OT undertow drowns another thread on PN.

[AlanKlein]

Because we generally don't go there. The appeal of the "exotic".

Then they should find our "boring" street shots here also exotic.

[peter_fowler]

I believe the European conflict ( 2nd WW) was not simply an "American" involvement .

Hence my mention of Japan . Just kinda clarifying my earlier remark .

[Robin Smith]

all-too-frequent OT undertow drowns another thread on PN.

 

Who would have thought that commenting on Afghanistan would be considered OT in a thread about the only Afghan person most Americans have seen (together with Malala). There is more to life than photography and there are certainly all sorts of germane discussions to be had about McCurry's famous image, which cannot be understood without attempting to understand the country itself. I am reminded of the apocryphal trade magazine that famously reported "earthquake in Iran 10,000 killed. Middle East sales remain steady".

 

Then they should find our "boring" street shots here also exotic.

 

They probably do - the lifestyles of the West photographed by the masters of street photography.

 

I do agree with Sam that Nat Geo does have a strong concept of "the beautiful aesthetic". I have no problem with that as I share it myself. It is open to criticism that it is unrealistic, superficial, imperialistic/colonialistic, racist, romantic, orientalist and so on. So one takes each shot as one finds it and judges it accordingly. It would be a mistake to think that people in the places where these sorts of shots are taken are truly any more informed about, say, the US than we are about them. Most people find all sorts of things to say about photographs whether the photographer meant it or not when taking them.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Robin Smith

[q.g._de_bakker]

Who would have thought that commenting on Afghanistan would be considered OT in a thread about the only Afghan person most Americans have seen (together with Malala). There is more to life than photography and there are certainly all sorts of germane discussions to be had about McCurry's famous image, which cannot be understood without attempting to understand the country itself.

 

Malala is not from Afghanistan.

 

Yes, there is more to life than photography. But this is PHOTO.net.

 

'Understanding the country itself' is just a lame excuse for off topic venting of political views.

[Allen Herbert]

"at Geo does have a strong concept of "the beautiful aesthetic". Robin

 

Perhaps they are trying to show, that among the horrors of war, there is a beauty in just ordinary folk, who are being murdered, In the name of politics and greed.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Allen Herbert

[samstevens]

'Understanding the country itself' is just a lame excuse for off topic venting of political views.

Which leads one to wonder how off topic it is to come into a thread one hasn’t yet participated in, a thread about the photo of the Afghan girl, to vent about the off topic posts of others. Seems to be a bit self defeating. :rolleyes:

[c_watson1]

Which leads one to wonder how off topic it is to come into a thread one hasn’t yet participated in, a thread about the photo of the Afghan girl, to vent about the off topic posts of others. Seems to be a bit self defeating. :rolleyes:

 

Seriously, FredG??? From the OT Meister himself?

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

So to make up for our lack of involvement after the Soviet era, we worked hard for twenty years the second time after 9-11 to give them freedom, and what happened? They weren't interested in it in the end. They threw their guns down and accepted Taliban control. Maybe they wanted to keep their women covered all along. Maybe it's not our business trying to change others people's cultures and beliefs.

 

We were probably right to walk away the first time during the Soviet era. We should have done it after the initial stages after 9-11; just walked away with a warning to not support terrorists or we'll be back. Instead, we got involved and lost lots of blood and treasure for nothing. The Taliban and terrorists are back again in charge.

In the words of the sage Nitza (from Charlie's War", we'll see :)

[Robin Smith]

Correct. My confusion is that it was the Pakistani Taliban who shot her. You "won" that one. QG has a blinkered view of photography if all we can discuss are Zeiss lenses and Hasselblads. Many of us would consider that lame in the context of the history of photography. Edited December 3, 2021 by Robin Smith

[q.g._de_bakker]

Your confusion, Robin, is that you think that venting your personal perspective on international politics and history as seen above have anything to do with photography.

This is off topic, low quality bar talk.

[samstevens]

A lot of photography, especially Afghan girl, is inherently and intentionally political. That a photo may stimulate political discussion IS related to photography, because the purpose of political photos is often to generate ideas and discussion. The meek among us want to ignore what photography stimulates in favor of being able to discuss gear or other things more important to them. There are plenty of outlets on PN for discussing gear and other photo-related matters and those outlets get plenty of hits. If an occasional political discussion arises in Casual Conversations, related to a photo, I would think those not interested would simply avoid the discussion but not attempt to silence others. If a moderator feels the discussion has somehow crossed a line, a moderator might act. It's not up to fellow members to silence other members. Thankfully, it doesn't seem like Robin is inclined to be silenced.

[q.g._de_bakker]

That a photo may be political, Sam, does not mean that talk about politics is photographic.

The above, even the OP, has nothing to do with photography.

 

That you like talking politics, and find there are already plenty places to discus photography, does not mean that a photography forum is the place to talk politics.

 

That you think that this nonsense should be tolerated here is something you might want to suggest to moderators.

 

It is not up to you either, Sam, to say what i may or may not say about what you are saying.

 

That you like to incite fellow members, i.e. Robin, to continue this is typical Sam behaviour.

Edited December 3, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker