Article

2007-09-30 Fifth Column

CounterTerrorismBlog: Are the Taliban "The Enemy" or Not?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2007-09-30 13:46|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 Great catch, 3dc! Jeffrey Imm nails this issue dead on. Truly, a "must read".

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai offered "to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.

Got that? Not "arrest" but "meet" with one of our most wanted enemies who bears direct responsibility for the 9-11 atrocity. Weren't we offering a $10 MILLION reward for this terrorist maggot?

This echoes comments this week by the UK Defense Minister that "the Taliban will need to be involved in the peace process".

This constitutes tacit acceptance of terrorism as a political tool.

In February 2007, the Afghanistan parliament granted immunity to the Taliban's Mullah Omar and other Mujahideen for 25 years worth of activities.

Which is more than enough reason to disband the current Afghan government and replace it with our own military dictatorship. Karzai has shown himself willing to countenance terrorism and shari'a law. Both of which are wholly unacceptable outcomes of America liberating his country.

But isn't the Taliban "the enemy" of the United States of America?

Only for those with a brain.

And if the Taliban are "the enemy", how can Americans accept the Taliban or the Taliban ideology in any political organization of an "ally" nation, let alone ones that American taxpayers provide millions of dollars to?

We can't and anyone who says we can is part of the traitor elite that are lulling our world into complacency over the threat of Islam.

Where is the outrage from American political leadership on this? Why is there no outrage among American political leaders at offers to "legitimize" the same Taliban that helped Al Qaeda in its Jihadist camps to kill 3,000 Americans?

Need I make it any more clear why I continue to be so outraged?

As previously discussed, the lack of clarity in identifying the enemy in this war is precisely what allows such disturbing realpolitik considerations.

Just as with how Bush continues to spew his Kool-Aid about Islam being the Religion of Peace [spit].

What do such "peace at any cost" negotiations with an enemy of the United States mean to Jihadists in justifying the use of political terrorism?

In what should be a criminal act, it legitimizes terrorism as a political tool.

If the Taliban regain political power in Afghanistan, does American leadership agree that we should lose the Afghanistan war to end the fighting? Isn't that what, in other words, we call "surrender"? Or has our ambiguity about the identity of the enemy gotten so dense that American leadership can now rationalize the Taliban itself?

The mere existence of shari'a law in Afghanistan's constitution is positive proof that the Taliban never entriely lost their grip.

Earlier this month, Karzai called for peace talks with the Taliban, but the Taliban rejected such talks until "foreign troops" leave Afghanistan. This is a demand that Karzai has rejected on the basis: "[i]t should be very clear until all our roads are paved, until we have good electricity and good water, and also until we have a better Afghan national army and national police, I don't want any foreigners to leave Afghanistan". Is Karzai saying that he just doesn't want western aid to stop, as it did for Hamas?

This is nothing short of ruthless parasitism. Either Karzai lives up to his signature on the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), or he must be removed from office. He is demonstrating the exact same duplicity as Musharraf and the results promise to be no different.

President Musharraf reflected that as "Taliban are a part of Afghan society", and "all of them are not diehard militants and fanatics"

Only another Muslim could reach such a conclusion.

Realpolitik negotiators may believe that there is a "bad Taliban" and a "good Taliban".

Which shows the worth of Realpolitik in fighting Islam. The concept of negotiated peace only works with sincere participants. Muslims will never qualify in that respect. If the Palestinians and Musharraf have not taught us this, then Karzai's betrayal had damn well better.

In Presidents Karzai and Musharraf's views, the "bad Taliban" is violent, and the "good Taliban" is well, just simply "fundamentalist" in their Islamist view of the world.

None of which precludes their continued use of terrorism or enforcement of shari'a law. Ergo, ZERO net change from the previous tyranny of Islamic theocracy.

Realpolitik negotiators may believe that bringing the Taliban into a "democratic" political process will end the conflict and fighting in Afghanistan.

Which only demonstrates the bankruptcy of Realpolitik in dealing with Islam.

Did bringing Hezbollah into the Lebanon government end fighting in Lebanon?

Did Hamas' election to the Palestinian government bring peace to the Palestinian territories?

Did the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic government in Iran bring peace to Iran and its relations with the world?

Has the growing influence of Islamist political and other groups in Pakistan brought stability and peace to Pakistan?

Will there ever be any peaceful coexistence with Islam?

Yet NATO, UN, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the US are all tolerating the idea of peace talks with the Taliban to bring them back into political power in the Afghanistan government.

All of which represents a fundamental betrayal of humanity for the sake of totally sham "progress" in fighting global terrorism.

We have already seen what the Taliban did when they held political power in Afghanistan. Our national homeland was physically attacked and thousands of Americans died as a result.

It is already revolting how American democrats can ignore this. That Bush has somehow deemed this an acceptable solution is outright malfeasance of office.

We know who and what the Taliban are and what they plan to do if they regain power. Yet still, American leadership is not denouncing talks to allow the Taliban to return to Afghanistan government power.

They have become the traitor elite.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-30 15:17|| 2007-09-30 15:17|| Front Page Top

#2 "In February 2007, the Afghanistan parliament granted immunity to the Taliban's Mullah Omar and other Mujahideen for 25 years worth of activities." This never appeared on Rantburg, did it?
With any luck, the Taliban will either kill Karzai or take him hostage, although with many of his supporters, or maybe he'll be killed trying to escape them. Sheesh.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-09-30 15:21|| 2007-09-30 15:21|| Front Page Top

#3 In February 2007, the Afghanistan parliament granted immunity to the Taliban's Mullah Omar and other Mujahideen for 25 years worth of activities

But not for new activities since then. An important point in Islamic law IIUC.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-30 15:30|| 2007-09-30 15:30|| Front Page Top

#4 I think much of the problem lies in exactly what a "Taliban" is. Is a Taliban:

1) A Pushtun?
2) A member of the old government?
3) A religious conservative?
4) Someone who rejects the Afghan government and calls for its overthrow?
5) Any armed militia or individual who attacks foreigners or works for a warlord?
6) An armed tribalist who smuggles across the border?
7) Anyone who calls themself a Taliban?

Any particular one of these groups may or may not be called Taliban and fought. Much of the NATO and Afghan Army fighting is reactive, for this very reason.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-30 15:49|| 2007-09-30 15:49|| Front Page Top

#5 What's next?

Omar becomes foreign minister of a unity government?

Will he be received as a diplomatic guest in NYC, attend UN functions, visit Ground Zero under the protection of the secret service, maybe together with Bin Laden as his UN ambassador?

The truth is that neither the American nor the European political class is even remotely serious about this war...

Posted by Omavimp Lumumba8651 2007-09-30 16:31|| 2007-09-30 16:31|| Front Page Top

#6 "The truth is that neither the American nor the European political class is even remotely serious ~~about this war...~~ about anything but where their next champagne and caviar soirée (and photo-op) is coming from."

There - fixed that for ya', #5 OL.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2007-09-30 17:51|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2007-09-30 17:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Anyone in the Taliban closely linked to Osama + ZAWI, etal. can and should be considered an enemy of America, TALIBAN or other.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-09-30 23:02|| 2007-09-30 23:02|| Front Page Top

23:52 Eric Jablow
23:38 twobyfour
23:34 OldSpook
23:33 gromgoru
23:32 OldSpook
23:31 OldSpook
23:30 OldSpook
23:27 twobyfour
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:14 Zenster
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:05 Jan
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:59 Zenster
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:52 Old Patriot
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:46 Red Dawg
22:29 Seafarious
22:19 McZoid
22:15 Zenster
22:07 Zenster