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

Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

or....NUTZIES


marzo
Offline
Joined: Feb 14 2006

Pakistan has had nuclear weapons since the 1970s. Taliban militants are active in Pakistan and would love to gain control of the Pakistani government and its nuclear weapons.

Do you think this is a bad thing, a good thing, or does it not make any difference?

By the way, what do 'nazis' have to do with any of this? Do you actually believe that NATO resembles the nazis?


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

marzo wrote:

 Taliban militants are active in Pakistan and would love to gain control of the Pakistani government and its nuclear weapons.

 

I'm amazed they allowed you to divulge that here. How do you get in on their planning?


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001

 

Flippancy isn't called for, Unionist.  It's naivety like yours that allowed Ho Chi Min to grab half of Asia, like so many dominoes, back in the 70's.


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

'Taliban' has become much like 'Al Qaeda', simply a term for official enemy and the incarnation of all things evil, muslim and not to be supported. The simple fact is we're there with not a shred of moral or legal justification and the women of Afghanistan have never been worse off. NATO Nazis are there to secure energy corridors and consolidate some 'great game' geopolitics. Why is it that brown people have to do all the dying as they and only they resist our common enemies. Maybe if there was some real support against the western war crimes in progress, our concern for womens rights might have a bit more credibility. And I seem to remember the same usage of "barbaric" "heathen" demonization used to secure the west as well. Like the article says: ISLAMOPHOBIA...


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Tommy: Smile


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:
 And I seem to remember the same usage of "barbaric" "heathen" demonization used to secure the west as well. Like the article says: ISLAMOPHOBIA...

It all depends. Not all barbarians are considered equally useful to the vicious empire. According to former translator for the FBI, Sibel Edmonds, groups like al-Qa'eda have had common cause with US and Saudi, British and even Pakistani imperialists for some time. They've funded and trained terrorists for destabilization efforts in Chechnya Albania, and Kosovo to East Turkistan to Xinjiang province of China. Holy old jehad is said to have been harnessed by imperialists and redirected toward holy old anticommunist jehad in Asia and the Middle East.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6804537.ece

"'If Doctor Abdullah wins it will be a shame on all Pashtun people because he is a Tajik,' said Haji Abdullah, a pistol-toting young man who looked about 16 but whose voter registration card put him at 21. He insisted that he was old enough to vote, pointing out that he had voted in 2004. 'Maybe Afghanistan will be destroyed if he wins,' he added. 'Certainly there will be fighting.'"


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Here's something I don't think any of us at rabble (I know I didn't) consider:

"The fatal blunder of the United States in eliminating a ceremonial Afghan monarchy was Afghanistan's Diem Coup: afterwards, there was little posibility of establishing a legitimate, secular national government.

It doesn't matter who wins the August elections for president in Afghanistan: he will be illegitimate because he is elected. We have apparently learned nothing from Vietnam."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/20/saigon_2009


martin dufresne
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2005

More to the point: Should the Taliban Call the Left for Advice?

"Our operatives are standing by..."Wink

 


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Ghislaine wrote:

Wow Frmrsldr, thanks for that analysis of how Afghanis of various ethnicities are just inhrently violenct and cannot help from killing each other bsaed on race/ethnicity. Who knew an entire country acted and felt that way?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KH20Df01.html

How are you rabblers doing, are you able to keep up with the explanation so far? I know I was a little out of breath by the end.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I wonder why there isn't a Taliban party candidate running for President in the Afghan elections. Surely Mullah Omar would sweep to power if he was on the ballot? Instead, apparently Taliban militias are chopping off the fingers of people who who have ink their fingers from having voted.


martin dufresne
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2005

Watch your lip, Stockholm... The last Westerner who called Mullah Omar "Shirley" got a lot more than a finger chopped off!


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

In Maclean's Mag, August issue page 29, Michael Byers quotes survey conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org that says westerners are more likely to believe that Afghans desire NATO's presence in their country while 86% of Pakistanis believing Afghans want NATO to leave, 74% of Palestinians, and 67% of Egyptians believing the same. However, 56% of Americans believe Afghans desire the NATO military occupation and support Obama's troop surge, says Byers. Byers says Obama's strategy is supported at home but will have "significant problems implementing the strategy on the ground."


genstrike
Offline
Joined: May 1 2008

Stockholm wrote:

I wonder why there isn't a Taliban party candidate running for President in the Afghan elections. Surely Mullah Omar would sweep to power if he was on the ballot? Instead, apparently Taliban militias are chopping off the fingers of people who who have ink their fingers from having voted.

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the far-right theocrat types have little support in Afghanistan and are different from the Afghan resistance.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Neither the USA's former proxies, the Taliban, nor the USA's current proxy leftovers from the anticommunist jehad era of the 1980s now in government,  believe in democratic elections.

 

The Afghan, El Salvador, and Iraq Elections

U.S. managed elections, with the threat of violence, are called "democratic" by Edward S. Herman 2004

 


marzo
Offline
Joined: Feb 14 2006

Unionist wrote:

marzo wrote:

 Taliban militants are active in Pakistan and would love to gain control of the Pakistani government and its nuclear weapons.

 

I'm amazed they allowed you to divulge that here. How do you get in on their planning?

If you want to make fun of me that's up to you.  I admit that I don't study the war and politics of the region closely but I think that it is obvious from news of the region that the Taliban are active in Pakistan.

Some people seem to hold the belief that 'Taliban' and 'Al-Qaida' are not a real movement but some kind of bogeyman invented by imperialists and racists to further their agenda. I don't think so.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

marzo wrote:
If you want to make fun of me that's up to you.  I admit that I don't study the war and politics of the region closely but I think that it is obvious from news of the region that the Taliban are active in Pakistan.

Where did you pick up that theory about the Taliban wanting to get hold of nuclear weapons?

And if you believe the Taliban are a danger to Pakistan, what do you think we should do about that?

 


Ze
Offline
Joined: Nov 14 2008

Unionist wrote:

Where did you pick up that theory about the Taliban wanting to get hold of nuclear weapons?

 

Tariq Ali (The Clash of Fundamentalisms) is one of those who has written about this as a very real concern.

--

"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Ze wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Where did you pick up that theory about the Taliban wanting to get hold of nuclear weapons?

 

Tariq Ali (The Clash of Fundamentalisms) is one of those who has written about this as a very real concern.

 

What did he say?

Was he not all that concerned by the fact that Pakistan now has nuclear weapons? He thinks the ruling cliques there are more responsible than the Taliban? How about India? China? Russia? the U.K.? France? the U.S.?

How about Israel?

Show me what Tariq Ali said, please. And I'll form my own opinion as to whether it makes any sense. But I have to see it first.

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Seymour Hersh said something about American F-16 contracts to Pakistan in exchange for turning a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear weapons proliferation in the 1990's. As secretary of defence, Dick Cheney and others in the Pentagon had oodles of evidence that Pakistan was selling nuclear weapons technology to countries on America's shit list and did nothing about it.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Ze wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Where did you pick up that theory about the Taliban wanting to get hold of nuclear weapons?

 

Tariq Ali (The Clash of Fundamentalisms) is one of those who has written about this as a very real concern.

 

Must a a different Tariq Ali from this one (interviewed by Der Standard in May 2009):

Quote:

STANDARD: How would you evaluate the danger often invoked today that Pakistan is collapsing and its nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of extremists?

Tariq Ali: Much of that is alarmist rumor, with which Washington wants to put pressure on the Pakistani army.  The nuclear weapons are well guarded by the army.  There is no danger that extremists could seize them.  It would be only dangerous if there were a split in the Pakistani army -- which won't happen if the US doesn't further escalate the war in Pakistan.

What we are seeing is that the war in Afghanistan is going terribly awry and that the US believes that the solution for it is in Pakistan -- but the solution lies in Afghanistan itself, for which the NATO must find an exit strategy.  It's dangerous to expand the war on Pakistan.

STANDARD: For the US government, are the Taliban and Al Qaeda still more or less the same?  What do you think?

Ali: That's crazy -- completely wrong.  Al Qaeda today is a tiny group.  The Neo-Taliban in contrast embody the resistance against the occupation of Afghanistan, increasingly representing the Pashtun tribes as the Pashtun resistance.  The intelligence advisers of US President Barack Obama know that, too.  Yet, for public consumption, they lump them all together.  Besides, they have been negotiating with the Taliban for a year, but the Taliban don't want to be part of an Afghan government as long as Afghanistan is occupied.

[emphasis added]

Read the rest of the interview. Maybe Tariq Ali was saying something different years ago - show me - but he is capable of understanding that our enemy is imperialism, not the people of Afghanistan.

 


SparkyOne
Offline
Joined: Jul 24 2009

Why shouldn't the Taliban be allowed to have Nukes?

 

Russia has them, Germany, USA, France? North Korea?  LOTS of countries have the, and don't use them.

Do you really thnk someone in the Taliban would use a nuke if they had one?No way. At most they would take pictures with them crowding around it smiling. Kinda an ohgaboogabooga look what we have!

 

They would never actually use it.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

martin dufresne wrote:

More to the point: Should the Taliban Call the Left for Advice?

"Our operatives are standing by..."Wink

 

J'aime ca, Martin. Wink


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

SparkyOne wrote:

Why shouldn't the Taliban be allowed to have Nukes?

 

Russia has them, Germany, USA, France? North Korea?  LOTS of countries have the, and don't use them.

Do you really thnk someone in the Taliban would use a nuke if they had one?No way. At most they would take pictures with them crowding around it smiling. Kinda an ohgaboogabooga look what we have!

 

They would never actually use it.

 

Yea, let's give one to every family whenever they purchase a vehicle.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

 

marzo wrote:

Some people seem to hold the belief that 'Taliban' and 'Al-Qaida' are not a real movement but some kind of bogeyman invented by imperialists and racists to further their agenda. I don't think so.

Al-Qaeda is a bogeyman created by the Pentagon: The narrative goes like this; Osama Bin Laden is the head of Al-Qaeda. He (Osama)/they (Al-Qaeda) are responsible for 9/11. The hunt for Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda justifies the War in Afghanistan and the War of Terror and curtailing your and my rights for greater security. We are fighting an illegal aggressive war in Afghanistan to defend ourselves here at home, don't you know.

The Taliban, on the other hand, do exist: They were one of many mujahideen (insurgents) who fought the Russians in the Soviet Afghan War. They are one of many insurgent groups fighting against our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. They are Afghans, mostly Pashtun. When the Taliban was in power, they had one major ambition: to stay in power. Now that they are out of power, they want to get back into power.

Confusing the Taliban with "Al-Qaeda" is disinformation perpetrated by the Pentagon, Western governments and (Western) media to cause fear and confusion among people and to (hopefully) prolong support for the war.

The Taliban never had the means nor the desire to spread terror throughout the world or to destroy Western culture and civilization - of which they were largely unaware of and apathetic toward if they did know about it. They had/have no desire to meddle with other countries' affairs, just as they do not wish their internal affairs to be interfered with by other countries.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

SparkyOne wrote:

Why shouldn't the Taliban be allowed to have Nukes?

Russia has them, Germany, USA, France? North Korea?  LOTS of countries have the, and don't use them.

The U.S. murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians with nuclear weapons.

The Taliban (or any of the Afghan insurgents) have never attacked the U.S. or Canada or any NATO country.

But I guess maybe history wasn't your strongest subject at school?

 


Ze
Offline
Joined: Nov 14 2008

Of course he is, and does (far better than me). He has also expressed that the Taliban having nuclear weapons was not a prospect to be greeted with relish. That was before the US turned against its Taliban friends, back when leftists like Ali were criticizing the Taliban and the US government was still backing it through the Pakistani ISI and with direct payments for poppy eradication. Maybe at the time he saw the need to expose the Taliban as a regime that killed its people in the service of US imperialism, and now (obviously) he sees the need as less. 

This is not about the Taliban, but of some possible related interest: In The Clash of Fundamentalisms, Ali writes on p. 251 that 25 to 30% of Pakistan's army are "Islamists" and that this conjures a fear of "Islamist" control of nuclear arms. My reading of that book is that there's a need to resist both the fundamentalists in Washington and those "Islamists" he writes about. But he may well have changed his mind, people do that.

As an aside, I've certainly never said the people of Afghanistan are our enemy. Quite the reverse. I'd like to see Canadian troops out yesterday. I simply don't equate the words "resistance" and "Taliban." 


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Ze wrote:

 

As an aside, I've certainly never said the people of Afghanistan are our enemy. Quite the reverse. I'd like to see Canadian troops out yesterday. I simply don't equate the words "resistance" and "Taliban." 

Right on, you'd like to define the "resistance" not on the basis of who is resisting, but whether they are nice people or not. That's how the war against the Afghan people is justified and perpetuated. It was the same with the war against the people of Southeast Asia, because the communists were cutthroat murdering terrorists bent on world conquest - just like the Taliban.

 


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