Is the Taliban a Cancer? (Part 1 of 2)
By Dan Tow • Jun 3rd, 2009 • Category: Politics, Worth A Second Look • 22 CommentsAs far as I know, I do not have cancer, but over two years ago, cancer struck to the heart of my family, and it profoundly affects our daily lives, today. I don’t want this blog to be about me, however, and I must protect the privacy of others, so I won’t go into personal details, here. This is my most heartfelt blog, yet, however, and I hope I can convey some useful though hard-won lessons that cancer has taught, so that they may be learned without close personal experience of the real thing. I beg pardon that this is long and in two parts, but I could not find a way to convey these lessons fully in a short, single blog. Today, I will discuss general principles and some examples, and in the next part I will draw some conclusions, with particular focus on how to fight a national cancer.
The role played by some political movements within nations is much like the role of cancer within the human body. While there are important differences, too, the lessons of cancer can be useful, I think, in fighting national cancers. I don’t pretend to understand the Pakistani Taliban as well as Pakistanis must, so I will not answer the question posed in the title, but I hope you will share your opinion on the question in your comments.
I will begin with a high-level description of what science has learned about cancer: Human cells carry out detailed, complex programs according to the instructions stored in our DNA within each cell’s nucleus. The different types of cells, kidney, bone, skin, et cetera, have very different jobs within the body, so they follow different instructions within the DNA. The body can survive perfectly well if any single cell dies – no cell is irreplaceable, but every cell is potentially dangerous if it abandons its proper role and follows programming destructive to the body. Most cells can divide to replace similar cells that die nearby, or to repair nearby injury, but in full-grown humans this is a slow and highly constrained process – just enough cell division to keep the body in a stable state, avoiding unnecessary change to the body as a whole. Normal human cells follow very constrained programs, and these programs include a sort of self-monitoring that detects damage to the DNA and that even triggers self-destruction of the cell to protect the body from damage from “rogue” cells following bad programs. Although cells do not think or have emotions, healthy cells act as though they “care” more for the health of the body as a whole than for their own health and their own direct descendents.
Now, if DNA is nothing more than the “ideas” by which a cell lives its life, ideas designed by evolution (or, if you prefer, by the Creator) to protect the health of the body as a whole, then a cancer cell is nothing more than a human cell with a particularly dangerous bad idea! A cancer cell is simply a human cell with a tiny fraction of its DNA altered so that its programming leads it to abandon its proper role within the “society” of human cells. Although cancer cells lack feelings and conscious goals, they behave as though they no longer “care” for the health of the body as a whole, or for their original roles as a liver cells, bone cells, or whatever, but only “care,” fanatically for a dangerous new goal – the goal of dividing as often as possible, and spreading as widely as possible through the body, protecting themselves from attacks that the body and modern medicine bring against them. Cancer is very hard to defeat for two reasons:
-
Cancer is a native of the body, with DNA almost identical to the DNA of healthy cells around it, so it is very hard for the human immune system or medicine to recognize cancer cells as distinct from healthy cells and to halt or kill the cancer without doing enormous damage at the same time to healthy cells surrounding it.
-
Cancer does not “play by the rules.” It will do anything it can to protect its own near-term survival and to spread as widely and quickly as possible, however damaging that may be to the body as a whole, even while that dooms the cancer in the end, as the death of the body ultimately destroys the cancer as well. Cancer is utterly without moral concern for the consequences of its actions, and utterly without the wisdom to foresee that it will ultimately destroy itself when it destroys the body.
Like cells in the body, individual humans in society have useful roles to play. In a well-regulated system of free enterprise, overall, what is useful and profitable for the individual is also useful for society as a whole – the interests of the individual and of the group are harmonious. Thus, without coercion, and without the rigid sort of DNA programming that leads cells to cooperate for the good of the body, a well-regulated society acts roughly like a single healthy body, with the parts working well together, and with only moderate internal conflict. However, if a series of really bad (yet somehow appealing!) ideas take root within a part of a society, then that part of society can “go rogue,” utterly abandoning society’s rules, seeking only the spread of its ideas and power regardless of injury and destruction to innocent individuals and to the rest of society.
Just as cancer cells abandon the programming of healthy DNA, following the perverse programming of their mutated DNA, acting as if their only short-term concern is their own growth and spread, and behaving utterly without sensible regard for the long term, twisted groups of individuals can abandon all normal moral constraints in their fanatical devotion to the advance of twisted but seductive ideas. Twisted but seductive ideas can spread as fast as a cancer, especially with an army of fanatical supporters who will ruthlessly attack their opposition without regard to damage done. Just as the DNA of cancer cells is only slightly different from the DNA of healthy human cells, the twisted ideas of cancerous groups are typically perversions of popular and attractive ideas already rooted in the mainstream society, and this cloak of normal appearance (a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”) makes these ideas as hard to stop as a cancer within a body.
Most countries have serious problems and injustices, and some have very serious problems, and cancerous groups can sound particularly noble and attractive when they focus attention on the people’s reasonable dissatisfactions with their current government. The key, here, is to recognize that just because there are problems, even very serious problems, does not mean that any alternative at all will automatically be an improvement! In fact, most countries that fall victim to a national cancer are a mess, before they fall victim, but that mess grows far, far worse when the cancerous group takes over!
There are many examples of groups that I think behaved like cancers within their nations, with single-minded attention to destructive ideas. Just to name a few, the “Shining Path” rebels in Peru were vicious, indiscriminate agents of destruction for decades, with no agenda that would have brought anything but misery to Peru, if they had succeeded. In 1920s Germany, the Nazis began as a tiny fringe group that no one took seriously. Playing to popular prejudices, they stroked their followers’ egos with promises of future glory, and they suppressed their opponents with a campaign of terror, and with endless, empty promises that if the opponents just conceded to them one more thing, the danger the Nazis posed could be managed and contained. Only with the death of 7-million in the Third Reich, alone, almost 9% of the total population, and 72-million deaths worldwide in World War II, altogether, and endless misery for the survivors, was the Nazi cancer finally stamped out. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge even more thoroughly destroyed their own nation from within, with the deaths of over 20% of the population, through perverse and fanatical devotion to an especially extreme sort of communism.
The US has not, I think, been immune to this sort of national cancer. The slaveholders in power in the southern states prior to the US Civil war grew increasingly threatened as the nation drifted toward a balance of power favoring the non-slave states, although there was no immediate threat that slavery would be ended. The newly elected, openly anti-slavery Abraham Lincoln was the final threat that they could not abide, even while Lincoln himself saw no possibility that the US constitution would enable him to end slavery. With Lincoln’s election, the slaveholders abandoned all pretense of working within the constitutional rules that all the states had agreed to follow, and violently rebelled from the national government, even before Lincoln’s term as president began. When his term as President began, Lincoln (unlike his worthless predecessor, whom Lincoln considered a traitor for failing to take decisive action to stop the rebellion early when it might have been much easier to stop) saw no choice but to fight. Like all US presidents, Lincoln began his presidency with a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the US; the rebellion of the Southern states was utterly unconstitutional and Lincoln felt that his duty demanded that he keep the nation whole at any cost.
The Southern cause was promoted with noble-sounding ideas that appealed to the best natures of those who fought for the South – defense of the homeland from a “foreign” power, “States Rights” (an abstraction that apparently had far more appeal than the rights of African-Americans to be free of their chains, to not be sold, whipped, and even murdered, to not have their families split up for sale by their owners, to not be raped by their owners), duty to their “cause,” self-sacrifice for their cause. These noble-sounding but subtly twisted ideas were so appealing that even today there is great sympathy in the US, and continuing admiration for the Southern fighters, and I fully expect there will be angry comments to this article from Americans vehemently defending the South. I think these comments will miss my real point, however, even while they help me make my point! The individual Southerners who fought for the South did have some admirable qualities. I am sure that they genuinely believed in their cause. I understand that they fought for their cause when it was clear that this fight would demand enormous personal sacrifice, even death, even long after it became clear that the cause was likely lost. They loved duty and honor and that they thought that God was on their side and wished for them to fight. If they had happened to be following a good idea, they would have been the best, noblest fighters any noble cause could ask for! None of these facts make the cause that they fought for correct, however, as noble as some of their ideas sound even today! The US Civil War brought over 600,000 deaths, between the two sides, and endless misery, and the provocations of the North were nothing to the misery the South brought, on itself, and on the North, with its rebellion. The only good things that the war brought were the end of US slavery (a very good thing, well worth the cost of the war, even as high as that cost was!) and the strengthening of the Federal government, both results the very opposite of what the South intended to achieve with rebellion. (The war was necessary to ending slavery because only while the southern states in rebellion temporarily lacked a vote on the matter could the northern states make the necessary constitutional changes to end slavery!)
However good or bad the ideas that triggered former national cancers may seem today, at the time all of these ideas sounded good to many and held wide appeal – that is exactly what made them so dangerous! Stupid, obviously wrong, obviously evil ideas do not make a national cancer, as such ideas will never spread. In just the same way, a human cell that is so altered that it is obviously broken will be rejected by our immune system, and the dangerous cancer cells look all too normal to our immune system! Likewise, simply being wrong does not make something a cancer – human cells mutate, developing “wrong” DNA all the time without triggering cancer – they are only cancer when the mutation specifically triggers a spreading, dangerous attack on the body. Similarly, nations are full of people with wrong ideas. To be cancerous, however, the groups with these wrong ideas must include all of these characteristics:
-
Ambition for worldly power: A cancerous group wants power, power over the whole nation or at least over a major part of the nation. A new religion may be wrong, for example, and it may have ambition to spread, but if it seeks only influence over its followers, without political power over non-followers, it does not qualify as a national cancer.
-
Ruthlessness: A cancerous group will employ violence to further its goals, operating outside of the law, outside of the checks and balances of government. All political movements have ambition for power, and most have wrong ideas, but they only qualify as cancerous when they operate outside of the rules and violently pursue their goals. A few cancerous groups begin without violence when they are small, intending to avoid violent conflict until they grew large enough to survive violent conflict. Groups that claim intent to achieve their goals non-violently deserve the chance to operate within the political system. Of course, opposing groups are free to battle them as hard as they wish, non-violently, on the battlefield of ideas, if they suspect a group will bring harm to the nation, especially if they think a group will turn violent when it grows large enough! I strongly disagree with the set of ideas behind most American political parties, but as long as they operate peacefully within the rules of the American political system, they are not a cancer, even while I may regret when they take power from my preferred party and while they implement ideas that I don’t like. Likewise, they may not reasonably call my political party a cancer so long as it plays by the rules!
-
The potential to spread: Crazy, violent, ambitious people exist everywhere, and some can gather small groups of followers who like their crazy ideas, but if these ideas hold no appeal to the vast majority, the groups will not likely grow large. I do not suggest that criminal, violent groups should be ignored, just because they are small, but tiny groups with no potential to grow are a smaller threat, more like a wart on the nation than a cancer. Note, however, what I said above about how much easier a cancer is to stop early, when it is small – most Germans apparently viewed the Nazis as a harmless fringe group with no potential to grow large, when they began, and by the time they recognized their mistake it was far too late to stop the Nazis before they did utterly devastating damage!
In Part 2 I will discuss the hard-won lessons that I believe human cancer can teach us regarding how to fight against and how to cope with national cancers. I would suggest postponing your comments about how to best fight the Taliban, if you believe it should be fought, for Part 2, which I promise will be published very soon!
For today, I would be very interested in your opinions regarding whether the Pakistani Taliban qualifies as a national cancer? Is it a sort of “sheep in wolves clothing,” spreading itself through some false madrassas, and some unholy, false, self-proclaimed mullahs who teach terrorism, not religion, cloaking itself in holy-sounding words about reverence for Islamic principles, traditions, and law, while in fact pursuing altogether un-Islamic goals of enforced ignorance (especially for girls) and violent suppression of freedom, and attempting to concentrate power in the hands of a few ignorant thugs? (Yes, I know, that was a leading question, based on my limited view through the western press! Feel free to disagree, though!) Does the Taliban have the potential to grow and spread? Are its methods illegitimate? What are its true goals? Are its (true) goals dangerous?
Trackback URL
|
|
|
[...] posted here: Is the Taliban a Cancer? (Part 1 of 2) | The Pakistani Spectator Tags: a-campaign-, dna, followers, Healthy, nazis [...]
Beeru, Yeh itna lamba parhe ga kon ???
how much time did you take to draft such a post , furthermore , please tell me that aur kia kia Shughal hain ap k , is k illawa ?????????
Can someone help me with a translation of Papu Shaitan’s comment? It appears to be addressed to me, the author, but I don’t know the language.
Dan
its better for you not to understand it .This message is only for those who knows his language.
So hope for more good comments .
Dan
I will surely reply you for your last line queries as per my knowledge but not at this moment after working hours.
i am too waiting for your reply Mi Amor…………Contigo estar
Well, this is what I was told by a US friend. Like all the other disasters Bush left behind, there is no good and painless solution to this one. It is clear that Pres. Obama. has chosen one of the most difficult options. Although all my instincts warn against a deeper military involvement in Afghanistan, the immediate need for additional troops to enhance the safety of those who are already there is clear, and I’m encouraged by Obama’s focus on a limited, defined objective, however difficult and expensive (both in lives and treasure) it may be to achieve. Had it been the objective of the Bush administration rather than the war of choice in Iraq, we might now be withdrawing our troops from our only war.
Unlike the Bush fools who preceded him and his administration, O thinks long and hard before acting. He has been thinking about Pakistan for years, as was evident in the primary campaign. He has no tolerance for incompetence, wastefulness and corruption. On balance, this seems to be the right approach and likely to be the least costly to the nation in the long-run, if not to him in the political short-run. I’m willing to wait and see how it goes, confident that O. will adjust or change course if this one goes irretrievably sour.
whether the Pakistani Taliban qualifies as a national cancer?
Cancel is not regional or national, it’s for the whole country. If today it is in Swat, it will be in Lahore tomorow, and then Karachi and then in the world.
Is it a sort of “sheep in wolves clothing,” spreading itself through some false madrassas, and some unholy, false, self-proclaimed mullahs who teach terrorism, not religion, cloaking itself in holy-sounding words about reverence for Islamic principles, traditions, and law, while in fact pursuing altogether un-Islamic goals of enforced ignorance (especially for girls) and violent suppression of freedom, and attempting to concentrate power in the hands of a few ignorant thugs? (Yes, I know, that was a leading question, based on my limited view through the western press! Feel free to disagree, though!)
Illiterate Mullahs are surely there but they are just tools in the hands of much bigger international powers. These mullahs have already been killed in swat, but now the real terrorists from across the borders are the ones who are still lurking and thier handlers are still there.
Does the Taliban have the potential to grow and spread? Are its methods illegitimate? What are its true goals? Are its (true) goals dangerous?
Taliban can only grow and spread with the help of either Russia or America. They cannot grow at their own or even they cannot spread with the help of India or Afghanistan.
very long post. though there are some interesting observations but unfortunately without any desire to offend the writer, I must make this very clear that 99% of the written material here is repetition. And I feel very Bored and Sad to read the same thing again and again.
ANyone having independent and fresh views and perspective on the subject???
Dan, I meant to present the same post precisely so that readers shall be able to devote their precious time in going throught your post because everyone will not have as much time as your post may be read except those who have posted comment # 4 & 7
Or simply call me at my # 9221- 4209211 & let me know the meaning of your post so that i will comment over your post
Best regard
Devil
hi Dan,
TALIBAN is NOT cancer as per your dfenition as it is not the “native of the body”.
It is created from outside by CIA of USA with active support of SAUDI ARABIA and ofcourse Pakistan ISI (Gen Zia was the fulcrum) from amongst Afghanistan refugees to throw out Soviet Union from Afghanistan.It did succeed in this mission and so it cannot be called Cancer of USA.
Taliban was allowed to take over and rule Afghanistan from kabul.It was supported financially and materially by Saudi arabia, its poodle UAE and manpower of Pakistan .
YOU CAN CALL IT CANCER ONLY IF YOU CLUB SAUDI ARABIA,UAE,PAKISTAN,AFGHANISTAN AS ONE UNIT. Even today pakistan is actively supporting Taliban under Mullah Omar and Saudi arabia and UAE play host to them often.
baitullah mehsud,Mullah Fazluallah,haqqani,heketmayer etc all control some militia. Whom you call cancer?
a brilliant think piece.although i do not agree with the whole article but i must say the analysis of the world movements is just great.taliban issue is far more complicated than concieved. and the question posed by writer even more complicated. any how its nice to see such a great piece of writing after a long time.
Regarding foreign involvement behind the origins of the Taliban, and behind its continued operations:
Well, cancer often has an external cause, cigarette smoke, chemicals, radiation, whatever. If we want to talk prevention, then let’s talk about those foreign causes and how to prevent them from getting the cancer started. If the cancer is already *there*, if it is now a group with some internal momentum, and some internal ability to grow without further external help, then it must be fought as a cancer - stopping smoking accomplishes little once you *have* lung cancer. If it is a sort of hybrid thing, with some internal strength, but also strengthened from outside by continued support, such as by foreign-funded recruiting stations mascerading as madrassas, then let’s talk specifics about how to fight the hybrid thing. For example, if foreign-funded recruiting stations mascerading as madrassas are part of the continuing problem, today, how might these be stopped without interfering with legitimate madrassas doing good works and without violating the principles of freedom of religion? Whatever foreign involvement there was originally, and there is, today, it is evident that the foreign powers, either government or non-government powers lack the resources or the wish to place a major foreign army within your borders - they won’t put enough individuals in Pakistan to overthrow your government without internal help, so let’s talk about how to keep the few foreign agents out and how to *deny them that internal help*, and not just shrug our shoulders at the hopelessness of it all because the real bad guys are foreigners.
More later…
Dan
Talibans are not cancers as these are caused by abnormalities in the genetic material of the transformed cells. These abnormalities may be due to the effects of carcinogens,
factors in one’s body or Din its surrounding. They are some how product of technices of process simulation of a model-based representation of chemical, physical, biological, and other technical processes designed by war lords or nations who want to be ruled like super powers.
I think design /creation of taliban was started after seeing the success of Islamic revolution in 1979
The revolution was unique for the surprise it created throughout the world as it was massively popular which overthrew a regime heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services as an unique idea of — an Islamic Republic .
So typical monarchy of UAE and saudi felt lot of danger that this type of movement could grow towards their side and then taken away their family dynasty.US are all time friend of these rich monarchs due to oil rich terrain so it was not difficult for to brain wash these weak but extremely brutal characters to convince them to start hidden war against this shia movement ,a some how
like danger alarm for their unaccountable family rule.
So the war was immediately started in 1980s on Iraq Iran border to shake the foundation of islamic foundation
In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government.
During the war, Iraq was regarded by the West (and specifically the United States) as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support of Iraq took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment and satellite intelligence to Iraq. While there was direct combat between Iran and the United States, it is not universally agreed that the fighting between the U.S. and Iran was specifically to benefit Iraq, or for separate, although occurring at the same time, issues between the U.S. and Iran.
Iraq’s main financial backers were the oil-rich Persian Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia ($30.9 billion), Kuwait ($8.2 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($8 billion).
Along with this it was the United States that also played the Kurdish card on the same pattern as we saw support to specific groups with all military support to fight against anti US forces in any part of region.
There are very similarities between kurd and Pakistani talibans.Both live in the mountainous region and their number historically has been hard to calculate and estimates have continued to increase. The region they inhabit has been referred not refer to a non political designation. Both historically have always been a stateless people and considered as best soldiers due to their natural illogical skills
The term “Kurd or taliban” was a generic one used to denote nomads, and non-Arabs in particular. In Kurdish, the term “Kurd” means “warrior” or “ferocious fighter.So seeing their geographical and biological background these areas are best hunt ground for producing soldiers against anti US forces.The areas where they grow are usually deprived areas due to negligence of political forces or intentions of dictators under US funding and support to these Islamic autocrats.
So we also saw same kind of funding toward various rebel groups within Chechnya fighting the Russians, each with different political, economic or ideological motivations Some of these derive from a desire for revenge for past Russian military and political action in the region, . Adding in Chechnya’s military culture, unemployment and poverty, it is easy to see why the cycle of violence and hatred common to regional conflicts ensue extremism in the region again funding of CIA and wahabi groups were obvious in such localized war game.
So it was basically Russian war in Afghanistan that has started taliban ,a process simulation designed in CIA and for practical and dynamic simulation, our soil was selected under wolves of our army generals who are publicly recognized as sheep of nation.So I reverse your term as taliban producers are our military generals who are our real wolves clothing in sheep.These wolves hired services of religious clerics under US ,saudi and drug money and that ultimately generated a flood of monsters in our soil as uncontrolled chain reaction of this design of human breed.
The motto of such leaderless resistances are always war , war and win over the dead bodies so no peace or dialogue options are left for reconciliation with them. Kurds were treated with chemical gas, chechniyans were treated with full force of military without any human sympathy by a super power and now in our side operation rahe rasit is continuation of genocide of these breeds for complete eradication.
Religion is just trivial factor but surely strong driving force to gather such groups for typical mind set people.It works effectively and on this basis it is spread on large scale population who are illiterate and deprived of state facilities.
Its true goals are surely to weaken the anti US sentiments in strong areas against specific community as we Muslim consider these talibans as the deadliest threat to Islam.
Mode of actions of talibans are suicidal bombing, harassment , kidnapping,brutal ways of killings, forced concept on general public and they applied all actions to common people without affecting the elite class so on mass level it produces catastrophic affects on one’s culture, life style and source of incomes.
Radheyshyam33-SHAITAN, if, as you say, this ground has already been thoroughly covered many times before, do you mean that in Pakistan the Taliban is *already* widely seen in Pakistan, based on much repetition, specifically as a *cancer*, something that out to be fought using lessons that apply to cancer? I had no doubt that I would not be the first to suggest that the Taliban might be a bad thing - my hope was that my “cancer angle” might be a relatively fresh take on *what sort* of bad thing it is, at least fresh enough to be useful to *some* of the readers. If you agree with the idea, then presumably you would agree that the subject is serious enough, and victory is important enough, that even the smallest contribution, even something new to *some* of the readers, would be worth a few pages. Even if the idea of Taliban as a cancer is old news, I hope that Part 2, coming very soon, will have some useful, relatively original insights about how to *fight* a cancer, and deal with its consequences, from my own personal family experience.
dr jawwad, Thanks very much - I’m glad you liked it. Feel free to discuss, too, the areas where you feel my analysis misses the full, complex truth, here - I am eager to learn more from all of you who are so much closer to the problem.
I wish I could distribute this article to every person in Pakistan. What I will do, I will translate in Urdu and give it to many people around me.
What a correlation, sir. I am impressed. Yes, Taliban are like cancer cells, they don’t foresee that if Pakistan perishes, they perish too. They are like all of us, very hard to identify and very hard to eliminate and so collateral damage is imminent.
You have done extremely intelligent correlation. You are genius sir. Unlike, very unlike other Americans, you are trying to identify the root cause, and I must say that you know the problem more than many Pakistanis do. Barack Obama also tries to understand things out here. Can you please, please please send this article to him and to Richard Holbrooke and to Mrs. Clinton and yes to our own President?
Oracle, you are very kind. I hope I have some understanding of cancer, hard-won, and perhaps some insight into how national movements can be cancer-like, with some specific historical examples. To be frank, I was not sure that the Taliban, specifically, fit the mold, though I suspected it might - for that judgment I count on the superior detailed knowledge of those of you who are closer to that specific problem, and more aware of the details. As for *current* American leaders, I suspect that their understanding of the *general* nature of the problem is pretty good, already, but where foreign leaders and citizens could use a lot of help would be regarding *specific* ways that they might help, ways that would have the support of Pakistani leadership and people. If Americans try to “help” in ways that do not have your active and widespread support, the effort might very likely backfire, drawing sympathy to the enemy, rather than harming them. In Part 2, (coming *very* soon!), I suggest some *general* strategies for fighting a national cancer, and I invite you and other readers to suggest *specific* things that the US or others might do to help, things that might have the support of the people. If there are any such specific suggestions, from the Pakistani people, *those* are probably what I should send to Obama, Clinton, and Holbrooke!
i have no sympathies with Talibans — However some time i think that if 9/11 had not been happened these Talibans would have not been portrayed as such as they are today.
i have no sympathies with Talibans — However some time i think that if 9/11 had not been happened these Talibans would have not been portrayed as such as they are today.
Who created and supported Talibans and why. . Such like questions also need to be impartialy discussed
Oh, also, Oracle, thank you so much for offering to translate and distribute the article more widely! Perhaps TPS would also be interested in publishing a translation? If these ideas, in any language, “go viral” and spread widely, from person to person and through the media, perhaps they might offer some immunity to the cancerous spread of the Taliban’s ideas?! I realize there are long odds against my little article becoming the seed to make that kind of a difference, but I can hope, and even if the odds against are a million to one, I’d consider the time very well spent, considering the *colossal* stakes involved!