Taliban leader: We have no faith in Obama

[Coventina]

Source: CNN

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Barack Obama's election as president of the United States won't see a change in American relations with the Taliban, a senior Taliban leader in Pakistan says.

"For us, the change of America's president -- we don't have any good faith in him," said Muslim Khan, a grizzled Taliban spokesman who is one of the most wanted men in Pakistan, in a rare interview with CNN. "If he does anything good, it will be for himself."

With an assault rifle on his lap, Khan answered 10 written questions, sharing his view on a range of topics from slavery to Obama's middle name -- Hussein.

(snip)

Khan said Obama's election may change conditions for black Americans.

"The black one knows how much the black people are discriminated against in America and Europe and other countries," he said. "For America's black people, it could be that there will be a change. That era is coming."



Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/14/pakistan.taliban.obama/

[amdezurik]

1. The taliban has no faith to give

[Bicoastal]

2. Seeing as, like myself, most people hate the Taliban intensely...

...I don't see how this is a bad thing, for Obama or for Afghanistan.

[amdezurik]

37. i am waiting for freeper types to claim this

as an aexample of obama being "anti-religion"

[YOY]

3. Just as stupid as FReepers.

Just as stupid to judge a man by the color of his skin and his middle name.

[deadmessengers]

4. Good.

Fuck the Taliban. These people need to fear President Obama, and it's going to be wonderful to see our military refocused on getting rid of them.

[High Plains]

7. Ooh, the Ugly American rears his head.

Maybe we should jsut get the fuck out of their country.

[Coventina]

8. What country belongs to the Taliban?

They are criminals and attacked the United States.

I don't agree with much of what the Bush administration has done, but I will never side with or defend the Taliban.

[EFerrari]

9. When did the Taliban attack the United States?

[Coventina]

14. This is an excellent link detailing their involvement

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/index.htm

[EFerrari]

19. That doc doesn't show the Taliban attacked the United States.

The Taliban are despicable thugs but they didn't attack us.

[Coventina]

20. Providing shelter and assistance to Bin Laden make them equally guilty. n/t

[EFerrari]

29. That's your moral judgement, not a fact. Btw, that is a good link

for running down the way Taliban / Pakistan / A Qaida relations worked.


Sometimes I wonder how much choice Taliban actually had in "hosting" bin Laden with the ISI puppeteering next door. Imho, it would be more accurate to say the ISI collaborated with bin Laden. They had much more power than Taliban did.

[Coventina]

38. Indeed, my moral judgement says that the helpers of murderers are guilty of murder.

I am very comfortable with that.

on edit: clarity

[EFerrari]

41. That's a vast oversimplification of what happened in pre 9/11 Afghanistan.

[treestar]

67. Too easy

The Taliban, or Afghanistan, made a bigger target.

The ones we should go after - al Qaeda - we did not, instead we go after their "associates." Because they are an easier target.

All that does is spread more hatred.

We should have gone over there only to capture bin Laden, not blame the people of Afghanistan because he was in their country.

[Coventina]

71. I'm not blaming the people of Afghanistan. They are the biggest victims

of this whole situation.

The Taliban are foreign invaders into Afghanistan from Pakistan, the vast majority of the people of Afghanistan don't want Taliban rule.

[merh]

62. The Taliban offered OBL to the USofA (GWB, et al) in Feb of 2001

and again in Sept and October of 2001. GWB ignored/rejected the first offer and rejected the 2nd offer because there were "strings" (they wanted evidence that OBL was involved in 9/11.) The third offer was made in October of 2001, after we began our assault on them in Afghanistant and this time the only strings were "we will give you OBL if you will stop the assault". Again, GWB rejected the offer, he didn't want OBL, he wanted war (he wanted to put his man as leader of Afghanistan so that the gas pipeline would happen and would enrich US interests).

The Taliban is an awful group, terrorists and thugs. But if you want to blame them for harboring OBL then you need to blame GWB for letting them continue to harbor him - he had the chance to have OBL 3 times in 2001. In Feb of 2001 OBL was an indicted felon on the USofA/FBI top ten most wanted list because of his involvement in the embassy bombings. Clinton's admin was able to get that indictment. Clinton's admin investigated things and turned it over to the grand jury, he sought out justice. There has yet to be a formal investigation into 9/11, no grand jury has been convened and no indictments returned that name OBL.

I don't expect Obama cares that the Taliban doesn't see much change, I don't see him trying to make a deal with them.

[Psephos]

80. History much?

Taliban offered to kill bin Laden or hand him over in 1998 to Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/index.html

[merh]

91. Excuse me - where in my post did I say those were the first offers

And learn some manners.

[Psephos]

96. Why did you omit those Clinton-era offers?

It seems at odds with the idea of full discussion.

Also, I wasn't intentionally being rude...sorry it seemed that way.

[ohio2007]

87. which "et al" did the Taliban offer up OBL ?

Wasn't OBL in an African hospital bed when 'the offer' was made ?

[merh]

92. that was july of 01

in Feb he was offered to the admin about the same time there 4 were being prosecuted for the bombings. (GWB et al is Bush and his admin)

[Pastiche423]

63. How do you know they provided shelter to OBL?

Furthermore, since OBL has not been charged w/a crime against the U.S. (he's not even on the FBI's Most Wanted list for 9/11), where's the crime?

[NutmegYankee]

98. The Taliban officially responded to the US that Bin Laden was their "Guest"

And they refused to turn him over.

[Pastiche423]

99. Our government told us that was what the Taliban said

The one condidtin was that the U.S. government show proof it was OBL. Since the U.S. had no proof then and still has no proof, they decided to bomb the fuck out of innocent people and their country.

Did you know that after that, Afghanistan had the largest evet bumper crop of poppies?

We're number! We're number! We're number! We saved the poppies! (And gained a pipeline at the same time!)

[NutmegYankee]

101. I don't do conspiracy theories.

:eyes:

[Pastiche423]

102. There's nothing conspiratorial about long known facts

[frylock]

77. two of the alleged hijackers lived in san diego..

should we start carpet bombing Clairemont?

[Coventina]

100. I don't advocate carpet bombing anyone.

Please show me where you think I did.

As far as the terrorists living in San Diego for a time, I would advocate for the criminal prosecution of anyone who knowingly assisted them with any criminal activities they were involved with.

[Bicoastal]

25. Their allies did--plus they've been attacking OUR ally via NATO (the Northern Alliance)

...since 1996.

[EFerrari]

28. We picked the other thugs in a fight, that's all. The Northern Alliance

is nothing to write home about.

[Bicoastal]

35. Our thugs don't side with Bin Laden and HIS thugs. nt

[EFerrari]

40. But that's more about Pakistan than bin Laden.

I have very little confidence that they wouldn't side with bin Laden, just as the Taliban did, if it meant getting support from Pakistan. If it worked the other way, and the NA was in power when bin Laden needed camps, do you think the Northern Alliance would have gone against the ISI? I find that hard to believe to tell you the truth.

[Psephos]

34. In criminal law, it's called being an accessory to murder, and is equally punishable

The legal concept is rock solid and has been respected for many centuries.

I'm a strong believer in applying civil and criminal law principles to the conduct of war. For the last eight years we've seen the opposite.

[Oregone]

47. Is the US an accessory to the crimes of Luis Posada Carriles?

Will you cheer on Cuba and fight with them when they invade the US?

Extradition isn't a process in which every country can makes blanket demands and expect them to be met. The US didn't play ball and essentially eliminated the Taliban's options of doing so. There is no black and white here.

[Psephos]

78. one subject at a time, please

The issue is whether or not the Taliban are accessories to a crime against the US, specifically, the murder of 3000 civilians. If you don't grant their complicity, then no problem, but also, no further discussion.

Meanwhile, you should start another thread for Cuba and Carilles. It deserves its own discussion. Throwing it in here is a diversion, and I don't respect such tactics.

[treestar]

68. That would not work

The American troops too would be "murderers."

If there's going to be a war, there's going to be killing that won't be punished as murder.

[Psephos]

79. as I see it, it doesn't work because too many say it won't work

we won't know until we try

Meanwhile, just because we can't solve every problem with an enlightened approach doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve some problems with an enlightened approach. Otherwise, might as well resign oneself to being a defeatist. Not my cuppa tea.



edit: typo

[treestar]

94. How can you apply civil and criminal legal principles in a war?

The very nature of war is that it is outside the realm of the civilized - pure force wins - only the winner can hope to enforce any state of law, and that at a point where they have flat out won and there is no fighting any more. War is a free for all.

[Psephos]

95. You're mistaken; there's a large body of international law governing war

The most publicized are those that determine war crimes.

But that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Here are a few links worth reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm

http://lawofwar.org/

[Oregone]

11. The Taliban didn't attack the US

Do you know what the Taliban is?

[Coventina]

12. Providing shelter and assistance to al-Qaeda makes them equally guilty

Usually people who assist in murders get charged with murder as well.

[reorg]

16. except when the Taliban asked the US to bring the charges

Bush never did.

[Coventina]

17. I'm not going to defend how the Bush admin. has handled things

as far as I'm concerned, they're co-conspirators.

[Oregone]

30. Look, if you can admit how badly Bush bungled things,

You should be able to entertain the idea that had he not, maybe the Taliban would of played ball. The problem was we didn't show up to play ball in the first place. There are many reasons a regime like the Taliban cannot cow to our every demand; it would undermine the entire illusion of their power and authority. Their variety of statesmanship requires that they needed to post some type of demands, appear to be shuffling their feet, and receive large amounts of compensation for any compliance at all, no matter how little.


You know, the last I checked, Luis Posada Carriles never got fast-tracked for extradition by the United States, eh?

[Coventina]

43. Sure, I can entertain the notion that things could possibly have been different.

In fact, I think "if only" all the time.

[Oregone]

23. Things aren't always as black and white as you may think

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/04/news/mn-84
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/01/ret.us.taliban/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/feb/22/rorymccarthy.julianborger
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB253/index.htm

The Taliban had showed a willingness to negotiate for Bin Laden's extradition as far back as 1998, when they warned Al Queda was going to target Washington. This went on until the US engaged in a missile strike on some embassies. Before and after 9/11, the Taliban was again actively negotiating with the US on this point. When Bin Laden was said to have planned 9/11, the Taliban requested proof prior to an extradition (which is very common), as well as a neutral court to try him in. In fact, there is nothing entirely abnormal about extradition negotiations and information exchanges.

Unfortunately, at the time, we had a colossal failure in charge: Bush.

=========

We've made clear what needs to be done with him, and it's time for them to act," a Bush administration official told CNN Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"It's not time for negotiations," the official said.

"There is ample proof that Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network were behind previous acts of terrorism and every indication is that they are responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/01/ret.us.taliban/

=========

The reality is that the US never engaged in an honest negotiation for the release of Bin Laden. The reasons are simple: America was attacked by an enemy without a state as a base of operation. America needed blood. Afghanistan became their surrogate country to fulfill America's bloodlust. Bush worked the confused country into a fury into a few weeks and we charged blindly into a conflict to collect the blood of women, children, and male goat farmers alike.

The Taliban is a terribly oppressive and ass-backwards regime. But no, they did not attack the USA.

[Gullvann]

24. The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda despite

several UN resolutions demanding that they close down their terror camps and hand over Osama bin Laden. All this before 911. After 911, they still had the chance to comply. They did not. IMHO Al Qaeda then had to be taken out militarily.

That said, I do not necessarily believe that the current war and occupation is even winnable. So a draw down might be the only sensible solution. At least as long as there is an endless supply of fighters and supplies coming over from Pakistan. The air war with many incidents of civilian mass casualties are not only tragic and in some cases perhaps even criminal, but also certain to be counterproductive to the nation building effort.

Ironically, in many respects Iraq seems like a more winnable war than the so called "good war" in Afghanistan.

[Oregone]

27. "Al Qaeda then had to be taken out militarily."

In retrospect, we should see that rather, Al Qaeda could not be taken out militarily. The military wasn't there to deal with Al Qaeda. It was there to kill Afghanis.

[Gullvann]

32. Perhaps. But, the training camps are not there anymore.

Before the attack, Several thousands people had gone through those camps and gone back to Europe etc.

Heck, I don't know.

Personally, I was arguing after 911 that the United States should "bomb" Afghanistan with food aid etc. Turn the other cheek and then some. Who knows whether that would have been a more effective strategy in the long run...

[Oregone]

45. Well the training camps and leadership still exist

*somewhere*...

They have to have infrastructure to handle all the new recruits this military action has brought, which has swelled their ranks. In the end, little to nothing was accomplished.

Bombing them with food aid is a far cry from reality, when we cut off UN food aid in the winter of 2001, letting civilians starve en masse.

It was a rush, a literal rush, for symbolic vengeance and to create an illusion of "justice" to the people. I was befuddled when this was happening. I looked at the TV after 9/11, and thought, now America will re-evaluate our global role. Now America will ask "why?". Now America will understand the irrational, cascading, reciprocal nature of international relations and strive to be a more neutral player. The next day, instead, there were cries of war, and cries for blood. My head was spinning in this parallel universe, but quickly the media informed everyone why even the Taliban should be hated and die, in our quest for revenge.

I always thought targeted strikes, global police action, covert ops was the way to approach this. We could of wiped them out quickly and silently. We wanted noise. Shock and Awe. It made us feel fuzzy inside. And when we saw the flag superimposed over the images of our troops surging to victory, our hearts triumphantly skipped a beat. It was a perfect war. But it was too short. We needed more and we grew thirstier. Here comes Iraq.

The meme is this war was just. It is politically correct to say, and Democrats can support it to bolster their foreign experience qualifications. In an emotionally charged and confused state, it was difficult for an average American to objectively judge the validity of the war in the first place. And by now, they have all but been convinced it was already determined to be the right and only course of action. In the end though, it accomplished nothing, but perhaps destabilized its nuclear neighbor, which will soon become a foreboding enemy.

[Gullvann]

53. With the benefit of hind sight, I have to say that I agree with

you. And, that post was very well written and pretty much spot on as far as I can tell.

I have to admit to be caught up in the early frenzy myself.

Al Qaeda and similar groups though seems to be somewhat on the decline?

But, from what I can gather that is mostly due to the actions of the terror groups themselves. When they started killing civilian Saudis, the Saudi's started to take another look at them. Same in Egypt, Morocco etc. And, off course in Anbar, Iraq, where Zarqawi's rule was so brutal that it even brought the Sunnis onto "our" side.


Anyhow, thanks for some good and thoughtful posts.

I hope you have a good weekend.

Cheers from Europe.

[ohio2007]

88. West Pakistan belongs to the Taliban

They have been fighting to establish a government there for years.
It's just that nobody cares to report on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/world/asia/15pstan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[cali]

10. defending the Taliban? How moronic.

I suppose you defend the stoning to death of children who have been raped as cultural diversity. Do some fucking reading about what life was like under the Taliban- particularly for women.

[reorg]

15. who defended the Taliban?

Since you seem to believe they attacked the US I suppose you will now go and volunteer to throw bombs at Afghan wedding parties.

[Bicoastal]

22. You really don't know your history, do you?

The Taliban attacked the Parliamentary (really a council of Elders)-Elected Government of Afghanistan and drove them into exile in 1996, occupied Kabul, and proceeded to rule the country with one of the worst human rights records on the planet. It's part of a ongoing complicated civil war in the country that's been in the works since 1978, but the point is that the current matchup is like this:

The Taliban attacks and is attacked by the Northern Alliance--they're more secular and way, WAY less Draconian than their rivals, as well as being what most countries (including us) believe to be the legal government of Afghanistan.

The Northern Alliance is supported by NATO.

We are a member of NATO.

When the Taliban wages war on the Northern Alliance, they're waging war on us. Throw in THEIR well-documented alliance with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda...and you understand why Barack Obama wants to "finish the job" in that country.

This is nothing like the US vs. Iraq. NOTHING.

[EFerrari]

31. Did you ever see Caravan of Death? The Northern Alliance are the ones

that left those prisoners to die in box cars in the desert. They've been sold to us as "less draconian" but they can go toe to toe with Taliban for brutality.

/ack! freep spelin!

[Bicoastal]

39. In World War 2, a Democratic President sided with Stalin over Hitler because of Japan.

Alliances are troubling, yes--but as long as the Taliban and Al Qaeda are in cahoots, we can't be neutral in this fight. It's how diplomacy works.

[EFerrari]

44. What interests me a little more is that the Taliban was between a rock

and a hard place. They couldn't give up bin Laden to the US because Pakistan wouldn't let them AND they couldn't leave him alone because they would be attacked. Pakistan is the hinge here. The Taliban is more or less a crime syndicate that got caught between two real powers.

Poor Afghanistan. Their choices seem to be mostly very bad.

[Bicoastal]

50. Crime syndicate, my ass.

Try a collective of religious zealots who want to live like the prophet did 1400 years ago and mercilessly trample anyone--especially women--in their way. Like Pol Pot, they wanted to "save" their countrymen by taking them back to the Dark Ages.

They weren't a crime syndicate when they took over the country by force in 1996--they were an army of fanatics.

[Oregone]

52. But it shouldn't be our business to take out "Armies of Fanatics"

That would be....tiresome. As well as counterproductive and predictably catastrophic. Their insane and backwards nature should be irrelevant to the idea of justifying attacks against them (but if it helps you sleep better at night...).

[Bicoastal]

57. No, we should capture them because they have a decades-old alliance with Al Qaeda & Bin Laden.

I just object to see them being compared to a mafia crime syndicate or something less dangerous than what they are--which is an army.

Crime syndicates largely work to serve their own means--armies force their will on nations. The fact the their will is so bloodly fanatical and violent is beside the point.

I really don't appreciate being talked down to. Once we get out of Iraq, we will still have plenty of scores to settle in the Middle East--especially in Afghanistan, against the Taliban and other professed Al Qaeda allies. Don't like it? Take it up with the guy you just voted for--this is his stated policy.

[Oregone]

58. Haha...you can't capture the Taliban

Basically you either have to kill them all, and everyone that joins their fight, or leave them the fuck alone. It would take too many Paddywagons to capture and haul them all. Maybe we can lure them into a big cage with cheese or beautiful virgins, but not likely.

And no, I don't like it (it's something I dislike the most about Obama). And no, I didn't vote for him. I don't live in the US anymore.

[Bicoastal]

60. We can sure as hell try to capture their leaders, though.

...and they should be tried for Crimes Against Humanity, beyond a doubt. Far more deserving of this than Saddam or his cohorts ever were.

Would that be the end of the Taliban? Probably not. But we must try--after all, if anyone knows the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden and the current Al Qaeda leadership, its these guys.

I think we can all agree that Iraq was a bogus cause. But to me, and to Barack Obama, this is a worthy cause for our soldiers for to be fighting for--bringing Al Qaeda and close Al Qaeda allies to justice.

[Oregone]

64. Screw your "worthy cause"

There is no such thing as "worthiness" or "justice". These are fictitious concepts that allow us the wrap our heads around the incomprehendable.

There is just action and reaction. Senseless and irrational reciprocance. Blind flailing creating cascading events. There is no off button for this machine. It just keep turning, and people keep dying. I have no illusion the world will ever be a better place than today. I have no illusion it ever was.

[Bicoastal]

65. And yet, I'll bet you'd want to see justice for Bush and Cheney, correct?

Or should we honor them for their service, as nothing they set in motion was really their fault--just part of an "incomprehendable" cycle?

Justice is justice, whether we're talking about a solitary murder of passion, a brutal religious regime that put hundreds to death, a terrorist attack that killed thousands, or a failed presidency that resulted in the needless deaths of millions. Accountability for people's lives MUST exist in the everyday plane of our universe.

[Oregone]

66. But there is no such thing as justice, and hence, I could never "desire" it.

You cannot desire that which does not exist. Ive come to this reconciliation. I now understand Bush and Cheney will walk away, they will sleep well, they will live high, they will die happy, and they will cease to exist. End of story. Any desire that I have or do not have regarding the matter is irrelevant, so why waste time on the matter?

You state:

"Accountability for people's lives MUST exist in the everyday plane of our universe."

That is false. Rather, it is the perception of accountability and justice existing in the universe that holds together most people's conception of reality, and without it, the fabric would unravel. It doesn't exist, but wishing and thinking it does helps people live through their lives. Unfortunately, trying to enact it often creates cascading events that destroys the lives of others for centuries to come. I have no desire anymore to see any domino pushed.

[Psephos]

84. Fideism defined by its negation...faith in the idea that justice itself has become faithless

"in so far as the word 'knowledge' has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings"
- Nietzsczhe, The Will to Power

Substitute the word "justice" for "knowledge, and it sounds like a decent description of your stated position.

Your actual position is different, although you've attempted to disguise it with words. Your actual position is that you feel Cheney and Bush walking free to sleep well in warm beds the rest of their lives is a rank injustice, an insult to actual justice, an affront. (Just as I do.)

But because you don't have power to remedy this injustice, you're trying to numb your outrage by claiming justice is an empty concept, a phantasm. If it doesn't exist, then it doesn't hurt when there is none.

Except that it does hurt when there is none.

Many people take the same view towards love. When they are hurt badly by a lover, they disconnect from emotional involvement with others, and disavow any further interest in being in love again...and bring a tenfold increase in misery to their lives.

Numbness is not the absence of pain...it's the deferment of pain. Someday that loan must be paid back with interest. We will have eternity to lie in our graves and not feel anything. We have this short now to feel, to take our lumps, to rue our foolishness, and then, slowly, spitting and pissing, to take up the rope again, and pull. Pulling defines us, not dropping the rope.

Consider a read of Camus. Either his essay "The Myth of Sisyphus," or one of his novels, The Stranger, or The Rebel. In each of these, Camus somehow defeats the madness of yearning for clarity and meaning in a world and social condition that offers neither.

(offered with best intentions)

[EFerrari]

54. They were creatures of the ISI and corrupt as hell from the beginning.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, BiCoastal. I just think you give them too much credit.

[Bicoastal]

59. So what you're saying is, we need to take Pakistan to task for their involvement?

I agree. The question is, how? They're a huge country, a NATO ally, and oh yeah, Bin Laden's approval rating (!) in that country is at 46%.

Obama's a smarter guy than I am if he knows a way out of this mess.

[EFerrari]

74. Smarter than me, too.

But, imho, the way to go is to give people what they need: jobs. Globalization has been found to be at the root of a lot of what we call fundamentalist discontent. When people can eat and feed their families, they have an investment. Right now, they have nothing.

[amdezurik]

42. they were in Chilie?

The Caravan of Death was a Chilean Army death squad that, following the Chilean coup of 1973, flew by helicopter from south to north of Chile between September 30 and October 22, 1973. During this foray, members of the squad ordered or personally carried out the execution of at least 75 individuals held in Army custody in these garrisons <1>. According to the NGO Memoria y Justicia, the squad killed 26 in the South and 71 in the North, making a total of 97 victims <2>. Augusto Pinochet was indicted in December 2002 in this case, but he died four years later without having being judged. The trial, however, is on-going as of September 2007, other militaries and a former military chaplain having been indicted in this case

I think you may be a trifle confused...

[EFerrari]

51. That's right. The title is Convoy of Death and meant to evoke that earlier film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasht-i-Leili_massacre

[amdezurik]

72. And did you read all of that entry?

Lot's of conflicting "evidence" and accounts. So trying to claim the taliban are all innocent victims is just nuts.

[EFerrari]

76. Are you kidding? Who is claiming the Taliban were innocent?

And yes, the Northern Alliance was responsible for this massacre.

[superduperfarleft]

104. Thank you.

It's amazing how many people seem to think that these events happened in a vacuum. Too many people in this thread have that whole "with us or against us" crap going on.

[superduperfarleft]

105. Robert Fisk has also written quite a bit about it.

The Northern Alliance are thugs as bad as the Taliban. Make alliances like this for short-term gain is what lead to 9/11 in the first place.

[EFerrari]

113. Our hands aren't clean either. There's evidence that some of our special forces were there.

What happens in Afghanistan apparently is supposed to stay there.

Until it doesn't, like on 9/11.

[ohio2007]

89. Hey, George Clooney plans to make a film on Bin Laden's driver.

what kind of 'truth' will he spin ?


George Clooney has snapped up film rights for book based on detention of Salim Hamdan.



http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/yemen/?id=27411

[TerribleLarryDingle]

49. Are you fucking kidding me?

:wtf:

[PittPoliSci]

82. it's not their country.

there is no reason to tolerate the taliban's particular brand of intolerance.

[NutmegYankee]

97. WTF!

Your defending the fucking Taliban? The group that took over 80% of Afghanistan and used the soccer field in Kabul to execute women who were raped and anyone accused of homosexuality? The assholes who forced women to completely cover up and stay at home unless with a male relative? The assholes who made everyone miserable with their horrible laws like banning all music?

And did I mention the Taliban came out of the movements in Pakistan, and Afghanistan isn't their country.


Once again - WTF!

[GaYellowDawg]

48. I agree. Fuck 'em.

They're a bunch of fundamentalist fanatics. They're as bad as the group that stoned the rape victim. There are some cultures that need to be eradicated. Not the people, mind you, but the culture.

[Gullvann]

55. How do you eradicate a culture?

Just asking...

[treestar]

69. apparently

by killing the people who practice it. :sarcasm:

Granted the Taliban represents a fundie Islamic culture, which treats women terribly, but we can't bomb them into submission. We only get them to fight for their medieval culture more viciously.

[Gullvann]

75. Killing everyone.

Perhaps not. Just kill most of them, and put the survivors in reservations...

It's a pickle alright.

My thinking is leaning towards a more hands off approach, even though it breaks my heart seeing children being stoned to death which just happened in Somalia.

In Somalia. Part of the reason that the fundies are getting the upperhand is the Ethopian invasion (with U.S. assistance) in the first place. Then again, the war lords are not much better themselves.

As much as we would want. We cannot forcefully drag the world into a progressive state by force.

[GaYellowDawg]

85. No, morons.

You don't eradicate a culture by killing. Besides being a completely appalling thought, it wouldn't work. You try that, and the population holds onto it that much harder.

You eradicate a culture this way:

1) creating laws against its worst excesses and vigorously enforcing them
2) giving material advantages to those who abandon the culture
2) compulsory education that weakens and devalues the culture while extolling new values
3) time; 2-3 generations

And yes, that's colonialism, and no, I don't give a shit that it is. I'm not afraid to say that the Taliban needs civilizing.

[treestar]

93. there is plenty of history to find out if it works

Mostly, the answer is no.

If we don't like their culture (and I don't) then we can lead by example and that is the way they will most likely modernize.

Take Saudi Arabia - there is a culture I cannot abide. The treatement of women, the totalitarian nature of the government - it's discrimination and the way it uses people - bombing them won't help, colonizing them won't help.

What might help, if we had character, we would just refuse to trade with them or buy their oil regardless of the economic effects upon us. Then we would give asylum (with other Western country) to any of their citizens who managed to get out of there. That shows the rest of the world we do not think their way of living is acceptable.

We either put them out of the UN and other such organizations, or we use every time these bodies meet to shame them for their ways.

[stray cat]

5. To most of us thats better than any endorsement

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

13. I doubt Prez-elect Obama has any faith in RW wacko extremist religious lunatics.

BTW, Mr. Khan, have you beaten any disobedient women today?

[tom_paine]

73. Well said and true, Zorra.

:toast:

[zehnkatzen]

18. First Chuck Norris, now the Taleban ...

Doesn't anyone have faith in Barack anymore?

Oh, yeah ... the majority of the US of A that actually voted for him

In the meantime, thanks for checking in with us Chuck, and Khan ... who cares what you think?

Oh, yes ... some reporter desperate to make a name for himself.

Probably works for WorldNetDaily on the side.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

21. That's fine. I'm pretty sure most Americans have no faith in the Taliban.

[babydollhead]

26. so are you saying fundamentalism is gathering into itself

I hope it winds and winds down into it's own hate and becomes a dot,smaller than a flea, a nothing, and goes away

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[LeftishBrit]

36. Most of the world: We have no faith in the Taliban.

[Ian David]

46. Isn't it amazing that even THAT guy can give a better interview than Sarah Palin? n/t

[Posteritatis]

56. Giving a lousy one in that neck of the woods is probably a bit more lethal (nt)

[treestar]

70. We ought to send Phailin over there as ambassador

It will drive them crazy and they'll cave in.

[undeterred]

61. But do they still have faith in Osama?

And by the way, where was his election advice tape this year? Did he forget about us? Or just didn't like either candidate?

[Skittles]

81. who is the Taliban to talk about f***ing discrimination

:puke:

[davidinalameda]

83. I'd be worried if they did have faith in him

these people are vile and I hope that Obama ratchets up the war against them

[and-justice-for-all]

86. They would say the same thing if McNuts won...nt

[goforit]

90. Mental illness runs deep with this group.

[superduperfarleft]

103. Wow, this thead is lots of fun.

KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!

Yeah, that's worked so well throughout American history. But I guess since they hate our freedom, it's okay to bomb their country back into the stone age. /sarcasm

And we wonder why things like 9/11 happen...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

106. I wouldn't want to be their friend but.......

isn't it time now to figure out what to do about them harboring terrorists?

[superduperfarleft]

107. Quit creating terrorists in the first place?

I don't know, I don't have a definitive answer. I think the West has so fucked the Middle East over the past few decades that there's not a lot of easy answers as to what needs to be done. The first thing, at least, would be to stop treating the region and the people that live there that have to suffer for our decisions as nothing more than a resource.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

108. much of it is about pipelines

[superduperfarleft]

109. Very true. n/t

[phrenzy]

110. KHAAAAAANNNN!!!!

Jesus Christ, "Muslim Khan"?

This guys name is straight out of some bad freeper version of a terrorist boogeyman.

BTW - wtf is with the "Taliban ain't that bad" sentiment in this thread? Whatever you think of Iraq, the Taliban WAS complicit in the planning and execution of 9/11.

Or is this a "truther" thing claiming the Taliban were innocent or we should have waited until they started helping us fight Al Qaeda?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

111. A. Q. Khan?

[Vidar]

112. In other news, Satan, Stalin & Hitler refuse to endorse Obama. Yet another mark in his favor.

[No Elephants]

114. Good one.

[Vidar]

116. Thanks. :)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

115. BREAKING Fox news: Taliban endorses Obama, give him fist jab. nt