Two female MPs brawl in Afghan parliament

The fact that two FEMALE MP's were able to speak out and one of them was a former army general says a lot about how we have helped improve the lives of people in Afghanistan over the last 10-years. We have enabled women to be considered human beings; and we should thank our brave young men and women in Afghanistan for enabling this.

Two female MPs brawl in Afghan parliament

From Matiullah Mati, CNN
July 5, 2011 12:09 p.m. EDT
  • One member of parliament throws her shoe, attacks the other, who fights back
  • The argument begins over recent rocket attacks from Pakistan

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Two female members of the Afghanistan Parliament got into a physical fight Tuesday following a discussion of rocket attacks from Pakistan.

General Nazifa Zaki, a former army general, threw her shoe at fellow MP Hamida Ahmadzai, video from parliament showed.

The video, posted online by, shows Zaki leave her seat to head toward Ahmadzai, who throws a water bottle at Zaki when she gets close.

Zaki punches Ahmadzai, and the two begin to tussle.

Arian Yoon, another female member of parliament, said Zaki punched Ahmadzai in the face.

Other members of parliament quickly broke the fight up.

What began as a discussion took a turn for the worse when one of the coalitions in parliament, including members who are accused of fraud, wanted to summon President Hamid Karzai about the rocket and artillery attacks from Pakistan.

Ahmadzai called for two of the country's vice presidents to be summoned.

That's when Zaki attacked, Yoon told CNN.

The Pakistani government has denied responsibility for recent deadly rocket attacks in Afghanistan.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said the attacks were not carried out by the Pakistani army, according to a statement from Karzai's office following his meeting Zardari.

Views: 116

Comment by Albert Bakker on July 6, 2011 at 1:27am

Yes, much has been accomplished in 10 years: two women slapping each other in Karzai's happy place.

If is now thanks to all that improvement only but a slightly worse place to be a woman than say Congo.

Comment by Sassan K. on July 6, 2011 at 1:35am

Again, it is no surprise that you are the first one to come on here and voice your opinion that you don't see it as a matter of fact that two women parliament members (one who was a former army general) feel that they have rights and a voice of opinion is not a step in the right direction; nothing could convince you otherwise. Again, you have voiced the Taliban as "regular Afghans fighting a crusader enemy" (paraphrasing). The Taliban must be horrified that women are starting to have the rights to speak up their grievances.

And you consistently post in regards to one fringe group with ulterior motives that supposedly "speak for Afghan" women when you/they fail to see things in perspective. No one is saying things in Afghanistan are "perfect" for women; one is simply showing the fact that the liberation of Afghanistan has opened the doors for women in education, employment, and other areas while Afghan girls are now able to go to school. Failure to see that makes one a moral coward.

Comment by Albert Bakker on July 6, 2011 at 2:00am

Yes that is "paraphrasing" it to say the least. But you better buy or lend or otherwise get a hold of that book a suggested to you.

You calling RAWA one fringe group with ulterior motives is quite ridiculous and really sad for someone pretending to recognize the importance, nay centrality, of women's rights.

I just put up an assessment of 213 experts to your personal opinion, but I suppose this probably is just me "failing to see things in perspective" you were after all not saying things are perfect for women in Afghanistan. It is just that I, a Jihadi, ISI agent, personal friend of Osama bin Laden, this and a that (I'm sorry I forgot much of it) and now a moral coward for failing to see the great strives forward.

By the way you are right that there are more girls going to school, but it is still a big disaster and doesn't get the priority it deserves I think - and that goes for boys too.

Will it be a deal breaker in the US-Taliban negotiations? I doubt it.

Comment by Sassan K. on July 6, 2011 at 2:37am

Again, the fact remains that you believe and have stated that the Taliban are "fellow Afghans" and are simply "defending their country". For you to refer to the Taliban in such a light when in fact they are the enemy of the Afghan people clearly demonstrates your sick mindset. You do not care one bit for the rights of women as how could one who has justified the Taliban regime do so? Therefore, you will make all and any excuses when the lives improve for Afghan women.

Again, things are not perfect for Afghan women but failure to see improvement clearly exhibits your mentality. No one is saying the lives for Afghan women are "good" or even "fair". For Afghanistan to be one of the worst place for women is not disputed; but imagine how much worse it was under the Taliban.

Comment by Albert Bakker on July 6, 2011 at 6:24am

What I said was a bit more complicated, as even the Taliban is a very complicated and dynamical and very fragmented structure. But on top of that what we identify in our media as and consequently call Taliban isn't always part of the Taliban, not as either the Omar faction, or other more local/ tribal factions understands it or the groups themselves involved understand it.  If you do not correctly understand this, if your intel sucks balls and you decide to not care, because they're all a bunch of unwashed retarded medieval hillbillies on sandals anyway, then your strategies to combat them is going to fail. You have to discriminate and be smart, you have to know thine enemy. Alas for clarity's sake there is no such thing as "the Afghan people" vs a foreign Taliban. There are Afghans, Pashtuns from Pakistan, tribal FATA warriors, other Pakistani hanafi, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Chinese, Yemeni, Egyptians, Saudi and what not, but the Taliban is and remains a Pashtun Afghan organization.

I'm not going to fight with you over who cares most or least about women's rights, that to me seems absurdly childish. You are clearly an enthusiastic idealist, which is totally fine. But sometimes there comes a moment to take of your rosy glasses and take a look at the harsh reality if only just to be smart about furthering your cause.

Comment by Sassan K. on July 6, 2011 at 7:37am

Uh huh, now an apologist for the Taliban. Quite fascinating.

And talking about an idealist and someone who doesn't see the world in realistic ways?? Someone who thinks Islam is not a more dangerous threat than Christianity? Someone who consistently blames the west and America for the terror perpetrated in the Middle East rather than the Islamic culture itself? Someone who is wearing an evil and blind dark lens of glasses based on evil idealism and hatred for the west; when in fact the west has progressed humanity through science and reason. You think you know so much about the Middle East and people's feelings when in contrast, you have no clue about the realities on the ground. History is great - but history without perspective is naive. As you are one who advocates the west pulls out of Afghanistan immediately - you would surely welcome the aftermath chaos which would result for the Afghans similar in ways that resulted after we left and neglected Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan war.

Comment by Albert Bakker on July 6, 2011 at 10:59am
- sigh -
Comment by Arcus on July 6, 2011 at 11:21am

If one enter negotiations the first thing one need is a list of desired outcomes and potential compromises to reach those outcomes.The Taliban's demands are generally restrictions to secular democracy in favor of fundamentalist theocracy. In addition, Iran would probably not allow a Taliban resurgence on it's borders as it's main enemy is not America, but Sunni Islam.

What specifically would you compromise and how would you ensure the Shia-Sunni conflict does not escalate?

Comment by Michael Klein on July 6, 2011 at 11:31am

Well, it seems quite obvious...


There are(and were) several factions who battle(and battled) over afghanistan and also battle(and battled) foreign intruders. They get conveniently all named taliban because it's easier, but nobody cares about their internal division. The pre 2001 taliban government only controlled part of know, there was a civil war going on after the soviets left.


Any resistance in afghanistan gets simply called taliban, regardless of them actually being part of the original taliban or their motives.


The different groups just stopped going to war which each other because NATO forces are there. Any progress made while they stay is irrelevant because they probably start fight for domination again after we left.

Comment by Sassan K. on July 6, 2011 at 11:43am
Any forms of Taliban are inherently the enemy of the Afghan people.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service