|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
191710
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Aunties in South Asia are known for their love, gossip and watchful eye. They are important actors in kinship circles, social fabrics and transgressive possibilities. As a murat/queer person, I always featured in aunties’ gossip and remained under their watchful eye whether I danced, flirted with their sons or crossed boundaries. In discussions of queerness, we oftentimes forget those Muslim Afghan aunties who risk their lives and become armour for queer and trans kids and adults. Through the autoethnography of three Muslim Afghan aunties who each bestowed upon me a gift—a doll, sex education and heels—I situate aunties as central to queer world-making and survival in times of war (and, more broadly, states of emergency and conflict), and I argue that war inadvertently gives aunties the agency to rebel against the heteronormative and masculinist culture of war and create queer worlds for their kinship circles and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160231
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
From 2004 to 2007, the Anglo–American alliance was at the heart of counter-narcotics policy-making in Afghanistan. Despite agreement on the broader direction of strategy, one issue generated significant diplomatic conflict: aerial eradication. The debate over its introduction was extremely controversial within both the Anglo–American alliance and the wider George W. Bush Administration, pitting the State Department and its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs against the Pentagon and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Both the Pentagon and British bitterly opposed its introduction fearing it would alienate the rural community and ultimately damage the coalition’s hearts and minds campaign. This analysis provides unique coverage of the fraught policy-making process, paying particular attention to how the British opposed aerial eradication, which included conspiring with the Pentagon in an attempt to defeat the policy. This area of the debate is particularly under-researched, yet is significant as Britain was, after all, the G8 lead nation on counter-narcotics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
109144
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A 2008 poll of 430 Ottawa Muslims found predominantly negative views of the U.S. war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. This poll also assessed approval of Western powers (U.S., Canada, Israel, United Nations) and challengers of Western power (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, government of Iran). Surprisingly, attitudes of Ottawa Muslims toward militant Muslim groups were unrelated to their attitudes toward Western governments. Discussion suggests that this pattern, if confirmed in other Muslim polls, would mean that the war of ideas against radical Islam must address not one target but two: favorable opinions of militants and unfavorable opinions of the U.S. Muslims who come to like the West more may not like Muslim militants any less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
068265
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|