babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Should The Left Call for Taliban Victory?

131 replies [Last post]

Comments

Polunatic2
Offline
Joined: Mar 12 2006

What the US did in Iraq should have little bearing on whether or not the Taliban ought to receive international support. Some barrels have more than one rotten apple. 


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Support from the left is irrelevant.  The Taliban have existed, and will continue to exist with or without it, just as they will persevere despite the baleful efforts of white western colonialism.  Let Afghan citizens condemn their brutal excesses in whichever manner they see fit, while we focus on matters closer at hand, the business of slaughter and hegemony undertaken by our own so called representatives.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Polunatic2 wrote:

What the US did in Iraq should have little bearing on whether or not the Taliban ought to receive international support. Some barrels have more than one rotten apple. 

Perhaps, but certainly the moral justifications for invading Afghanistan, from those who support the war or who support saving Afghanis from Afghanis with the use of bombs and guns, ought to apply the same moral justifications equally to other nations. And if you read up, you will see I was replying to a contention that the Taliban are a whole other breed of evil for having destroyed cultural artifacts.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

Ghislaine wrote:

I am with FM, sanizadeh, Al-Q, Michelle, etc. I am horrified anyone here would wish any success on those who pour acid on girls attempting to attend school. That is just one small example. I support withdrawal and did not support going there in the first place, but rooting for the Taliban? Seriously?!!!?

Cueball wrote:

 

Whateve evil may have been done in the name of the Taliban does not trump the evil of empire.

Whatever evil may have been done in the name of the empire does not trump the evil done in the name of Taliban.

 

Yes it does. This all started out with empire, lets not forget. In anycase, the Taliban are not doing imperialism, we are, and whatever they are doing is their business, what is being done on my behalf is my business.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

I think, Cueball, we can oppose both imperialism and the Taliban. We can oppose imperialism by opposing the war and those who promote it, and we can oppose the Taliban by asking organizations such as RAWA what we can do as a nation, in terms of trade, diplomacy, education, and culture, to support them and Afgan society. It may not be our place to tell Afghans how to govern their own state, but it is our place to listen to the voices of Afghanis seeking real political and economic freedom and to assist them in the ways of their choosing less the application of organized violence.


Polunatic2
Offline
Joined: Mar 12 2006

I'm reminded of a debate that took place in the mid-80s during the height of the contra war in Nicaragua and other US interventions in Central America. It was called the "Contadora Accord". Progressive organizations in Latin America, including the Sandinistas and the FSLN of El  Salvador, from whom we were taking our cues in setting priorities, were suggesting that the international solidarity movement support this peace initiative. Most of us did and we tried to put pressure on the Canadian government.

There were also dissenting voices who argued that the solidarity movement had no business supporting this peace accord, even if our allies were asking us to do so because "they had a gun to their heads". It's really easy to come up with the battle cry "to the last drop of THEIR blood". 


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

It is also easy to always find a reason to object no matter the cause or the voice making the plea because the blood is seldom our own.


genstrike
Offline
Joined: May 1 2008

Frustrated Mess wrote:

It is also easy to always find a reason to object no matter the cause or the voice making the plea because the blood is seldom our own.

Just to be clear, those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal aren't the ones calling for more bloodshed.  We're calling for an end to the war, and an immediate end to our imperialist role in it.  The equivalent analogy to Nicaragua would be calling for an immediate end to US support of and withdrawal of the Contras, which would have ended the conflict pretty much immediately.

If anything, by calling for a continued occupation by blue-helmets or a continued occupation until a peace treaty and "exit strategy" can be devised so as to diplomatically secure imperialist interests, it is the people calling for negotiations or UN occupations instead of immediate withdrawal who are calling for a prolonging of the conflict "till the last drop of THEIR blood"

And if I remember correctly, in the last poll 60% of Afghans supported an immediate withdrawal of NATO forces.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Cueball wrote:
 

Yes it does. This all started out with empire, lets not forget. In anycase, the Taliban are not doing imperialism, we are, and whatever they are doing is their business, what is being done on my behalf is my business.

That's right, Taliban are theocratic feudalists and US proxies in Kabul from 1996 to 2001. Taliban diplomat Abdul Hakim Mojahed maintained a diplomatic office in Queens, New York and met regularly in Islamabad with US official Christina Rocca who worked both for the state dept and CIA.

Washington D.C. based investigative news reporter and syndicated columnist, Wayne Madsen wrote: 

Quote:
According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar, Rahmatullah Hashami, even came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader. The Village Voice reported that Hashami, on behalf of the Taliban, offered the Bush administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration refused. Meanwhile, Spozhmai Maiwandi, the director of the Voice of America's Pashtun service, jokingly nicknamed "Kandahar Rose" by her colleagues, aired favorable reports on the Taliban, including a controversial interview with Mullah Omar.

Mullah Omar was passed US spy satellite information on Soviet troop movements giving him the upper hand during the "civil" war. Imagine that Southern US confederates received helpful information and weapons from foreign countries, and enough to have won the American civil war.

Leading up to and after 2001 as far as anyone knows, the CIA/Pakistani ISI training camps continued churning out international terrorists for destabilization agendas in Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Dagestan, China etc. This is everyone's business and especially the United Nations. Imagine that there was a UN in 1938, and this is Chamberlain or Daladier telling the world that Germany churning out troops/terrorists for sending to Czechoslovakia and Poland is none of anyone's business. International Mac-Paps didnt think Spain was all Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini's business.

Sovereignty and right to self determination is UN business, and Jack Layton and others are absolutely correct that Canada should take a leading UN role to initiate diplomatic solutions and end the 30 year war in Afghanistan. Because Canada's Chamberlains and Daladiers in our two old line parties have done nothing but appease herr Bushler and are now appeasing the current cosmetic leadership in Warshington. Ottawa's do-nothings do nothing but appeasement of the US military and US-led NATO is not respecting Afghanistan's sovereignty, and neither are surrounding countries Pakistan etc respecting Afghan soveriegnty. This isnt just about the Taliban and Afghan people. This is a situation that cries out for a UN mediated solution leading to foreign troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Because NATO isnt going to decide to do this all on their own,


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

genstrike wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

It is also easy to always find a reason to object no matter the cause or the voice making the plea because the blood is seldom our own.

Just to be clear, those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal aren't the ones calling for more bloodshed.  We're calling for an end to the war, and an immediate end to our imperialist role in it.  The equivalent analogy to Nicaragua would be calling for an immediate end to US support of and withdrawal of the Contras, which would have ended the conflict pretty much immediately.

If anything, by calling for a continued occupation by blue-helmets or a continued occupation until a peace treaty and "exit strategy" can be devised so as to diplomatically secure imperialist interests, it is the people calling for negotiations or UN occupations instead of immediate withdrawal who are calling for a prolonging of the conflict "till the last drop of THEIR blood"

And if I remember correctly, in the last poll 60% of Afghans supported an immediate withdrawal of NATO forces.

I'm not quite sure why it seems you are disagreeing with me when it seems we are in agreement. Is there some sort of funky communication thing taking place, or what?

 


genstrike
Offline
Joined: May 1 2008

Frustrated Mess wrote:
I'm not quite sure why it seems you are disagreeing with me when it seems we are in agreement. Is there some sort of funky communication thing taking place, or what?

I don't know what's going on either, but I think we're on at least adjoining pages Wink


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Slumberjack wrote:

Support from the left is irrelevant.  The Taliban have existed, and will continue to exist with or without it, just as they will persevere despite the baleful efforts of white western colonialism.  Let Afghan citizens condemn their brutal excesses in whichever manner they see fit, while we focus on matters closer at hand, the business of slaughter and hegemony undertaken by our own so called representatives.

Typically succinct and principled. Thanks, SJ.

 


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

Frustrated Mess wrote:


The report continues, "During their presence in Babylon, the MNF-I [Multi-National Forces] and contractors employed by them, mainly KBR, directly caused major damage to the city by digging, cutting, scraping, and leveling. Key structures that were damaged include the Ishtar Gate and the Processional Way."

There's a difference between causing damage through neglect and wilful destruction. KBR weren't trying to destroy Babylonian structures, they just didn't care enough not to.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Sure, just like Bush's executive death squads and SAS didnt intend to murder hundreds of academics, scientists, and politicians etc in Iraq. Many of Afghanistan's academic and cultural base fled the country and largest cities reduced to rubble during the 1990's and US bombing raids, and so the slate is a lot cleaner in Afghanistan so as to rebuild from virtually nothing. And after 30 years of war, Afghan expats have said Kabul is in worse shape now than during PDPA rule. At least in the 1980's there were traffic lights on bustling city streets and women training to be teachers, doctors, and engineers


Jingles
Offline
Joined: Nov 13 2002

Quote:
There's a difference between causing damage through neglect and wilful destruction. KBR weren't trying to destroy Babylonian structures, they just didn't care enough not to.

The fact that the US invaded Iraq in order to conquer it and wipe out its past is entirely beyond mere neglect. I think that the US's very much wilful destruction and despoiling of the cultural heritage of Mesopotamia is far more egregious than the Taliban blowing up a couple of statues. I would equate the Taliban's actions to that of Henry VIII's dealings with the church. 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

The Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan occurred in the 1980's, whereas Henry's destruction of monasteries, nunneries and abbeys occurred in the 16th century. And both historical events had nothing to do with democracy.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Jingles wrote:

Quote:
There's a difference between causing damage through neglect and wilful destruction. KBR weren't trying to destroy Babylonian structures, they just didn't care enough not to.

The fact that the US invaded Iraq in order to conquer it and wipe out its past is entirely beyond mere neglect. I think that the US's very much wilful destruction and despoiling of the cultural heritage of Mesopotamia is far more egregious than the Taliban blowing up a couple of statues. I would equate the Taliban's actions to that of Henry VIII's dealings with the church. 

Thank you for getting that for me.

Quote:

One million books, 10 million documents, and 14,000 archaeological artifacts have been lost in the U.S.-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq – the biggest cultural disaster since the descendants of Genghis Khan destroyed Baghdad in 1258, Venezuelan writer Fernando Báez told IPS.

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/marquez.php?articleid=4859

If Iran did this. the corporate press would have not have let up on what a war crime it was until US bombs were smashing into Tehran. As the US is responsible for this massive crime against all humanity, into the memory hole it goes. Probably hardly an American knows it even happened.

 


SparkyOne
Offline
Joined: Jul 24 2009

KBR

Garbge!

I was on a flight and I had a very informitive conversation with an African American fellow who laughed and joked about how KBR stood for Keeping Brothers Rich.

 

He said that KBR goes to cities where they are closin plants and factories and recruits people.  Choice is either unemployment or greebbacks, working in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a sub company (or whatever) of Haliburton and they own everything. He said that in the kitechen in Afghanistan if you sign in then KBR charges the US government $33.   You an have a 5 course meal he said or an apple and a coke.  Apple and a cost, price tag $33.   I was shocked to hear that.  He said he felt like they targeted African Americans too but didn't explain why.


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

Kellog Brown and Root sparkyone are worth an internet search in their own right.


Ze
Offline
Joined: Nov 14 2008

"The Taliban have existed, and will continue to exist with or without it" -- see, I dunno, they seem to have been created by a foreign government (Pakistan) and backed by US "War on Drugs money" for a while ... just another gang of right-wing killers. 


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

remind wrote:

Kellog Brown and Root sparkyone are worth an internet search in their own right.

Also, see the DVD documentary "Iraq For Sale. The War Profiteers", or go to http://www.iraqforsale.org


marzo
Offline
Joined: Feb 14 2006

Ghislaine wrote:

I am with FM, sanizadeh, Al-Q, Michelle, etc. I am horrified anyone here would wish any success on those who pour acid on girls attempting to attend school. That is just one small example. I support withdrawal and did not support going there in the first place, but rooting for the Taliban? Seriously?!!!?

Cueball wrote:

 

Whateve evil may have been done in the name of the Taliban does not trump the evil of empire.

I agree completely with these statements. The title of this thread is obscene, ridiculous, and shows an irrational prejudice.  It is repugnant and disgusting that someone would sympathize with the brutal misogynist, insanely superstitious Taliban in the name of "anti-imperialism" or "anti-racism".


SparkyOne
Offline
Joined: Jul 24 2009

Taliban thowing acid on girls sounds like a fake story by NATO to try and win over people.

I highly doubt Taliban are throwing acid on girls because the Afghans would instantly turn against them. Who is going to support someone throwing acid on thir kids.  I call BS.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

War What War?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/08/20/war-what-war/

"Not too long ago, with a different President in the White House, th eleft was obsessed with America's wars. Now they're not even watching...

if left "support" doesn't actually translate into any action at all, as is usually the case, then withdrawal of same  or calling for victory doesn't mean much - not likely to see anyone putting together a modern day equivalent of the Mac Paps to go kill NATO nazis in AFghanistan? Or anywhere else for that matter. A bit of 'babble' is likely as good as it gets..


genstrike
Offline
Joined: May 1 2008

SparkyOne wrote:

Taliban thowing acid on girls sounds like a fake story by NATO to try and win over people.

I highly doubt Taliban are throwing acid on girls because the Afghans would instantly turn against them. Who is going to support someone throwing acid on thir kids.  I call BS.

That is because we have a flawed conception of the "Taliban" in the west.  We call anyone resisting occupation "Taliban", partially out of ignorance and partially because it makes for good propaganda to paint the entire Afghan resistance as the work of evil far-right theocrats.


Ze
Offline
Joined: Nov 14 2008

RAWA has reported the acid story, but from pro-Karzai as well as from pro-Taliban men. I believe they're considered a reliable source here? 


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

genstrike wrote:

SparkyOne wrote:

Taliban thowing acid on girls sounds like a fake story by NATO to try and win over people.

I highly doubt Taliban are throwing acid on girls because the Afghans would instantly turn against them. Who is going to support someone throwing acid on thir kids.  I call BS.

That is because we have a flawed conception of the "Taliban" in the west.  We call anyone resisting occupation "Taliban", partially out of ignorance and partially because it makes for good propaganda to paint the entire Afghan resistance as the work of evil far-right theocrats.

That's true. But it is also true that the Mujahdin (sp?) financed by the US to fight against Soviet occupation also engaged in atrocities committed against teachers providing education to girls. The reality is that in Afghanistan there are violent men who view efforts to educate girls as attacks on Afghan culture and the role of males. However, in acknowleding that, it must also be acknowledged that 1) these acts weren't offensive enough to even report when these violent men were fighting the Soviets, and 2) many of these violent men are part of the current, NATO imposed and backed, Afghanistan government.

It is why in Afghanistan, we ought to be taking our cues from RAWA and not from men with guns.


martin dufresne
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2005

Will popular hostility to the Occupation of Afghanistan help swing the Canadian government away from a continuing involvement?

Public Opinion in U.S. Turns Against Afghan War

By Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen
Washington Post, Thursday, August 20, 2009

 

A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. (...)

Digby comments on Hullabaloo, an essay relayed by AlterNet:

The Afghanistan issue has crept to the sidelines of the national debate, but thousands of families are still directly affected. People still die; 6 more Americans fell today, and August 2009 could be the deadliest month in Afghanistan of the entire war. The President calls it a "war of necessity" and "fundamental to the defense of our people" but cannot credibly articulate what that actually means. Juan Cole identifies three main points that Obama makes about the war, which seem fine in isolation, but not in practice:

1. "This strategy recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan."

2. "This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war-that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance."

3. "And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies." These three are praiseworthy points in themselves, but the question is how they work together. I couldn't catch the significance of al-Qaeda's move to northwest Pakistan for US military operations in Afghanistan itself. I agree that the key to success in Afghanistan is diplomacy, development and governance, but worry that the major emphasis being is put on sending more troops there and on highly kinetic military operations? And I'm not sure that the Taliban can be effectively disrupted by military means; why isn't diplomacy being mentioned in this third part?"

I'd expand on this critique. The goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda has almost no place in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, where many Al Qaeda leaders are now stationed. Gen. Petraeus admitted back in May that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan - we're fighting a home-grown Taliban insurgency more nationalist than religious extremist in nature. You could make the argument that a Taliban able to take over the country could usher in Al Qaeda safe havens, but the Taliban insurgents are small in number, and have been unable to gain acceptance in anything other than the Pashtun areas.(...)

 


Neocynic
Offline
Joined: Sep 4 2006

josh wrote:

NATO Nazis?  Very apt comparison.

And yeah, the Taliban are real sweethearts.  Defenders of women's rights and Buddhist cultural heritage.  Or any heritage not their own.  Where's the beard police when you need them?

 

 

Get with the program, people.  They are called "NATOZIS".


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

and for their silent collaborators here at home: "NOT - SEES!"


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments