As the Pakistan military mobilises...

5 posts / 0 new

Last post

Wed, 2009-10-21 16:20

Noah_Scape

So here it goes again:

First the USA drones kill some Taliban leaders in their hiding places in Pakistan's nether regions

Then the Taliban has to react, so they bomb Pakistani cities;

Then the Pakistan army/airforce pummels the entire nether region in a punishing retaliation.

It has happened before, many times, just like this in various parts of the world.

What I have been wondering is:

"wasn't better when the Taliban were left alone in the nether regions?"

As in, "Did the US drones just stir everything up?"

Maybe you know where I am going - how about a HOMELAND FOR THE TALIBAN?

I have heard the argument against leaving any Taliban alive, in that they will just keep bombing.

I have my doubts if that is necessarily true because we have never given them the chance to just live in an area set aside for them and their Sharia Law. They are real people, there are millions of them who want to live like that - don't they have a right to choose to do that?

The Taliban have been a handy excuse to go to war for the USA. So we never get to hear what the Taliban really want.

I would offer them a chunk of Pakistan, Wajeeristan, and Afghanistan in a move of appeasment, and just see how they behave. Live and let live.

Wed, 2009-10-21 22:32

Fidel

Noah_Scape wrote:
The Taliban have been a handy excuse to go to war for the USA. So we never get to hear what the Taliban really want.

Noah, don't you find that odd? By comparison with the Paris peace talks between the US and NVA, it almost appears the Yanks have learned a lesson in public relations and war. And I say almost because it was the NVA who published Washington's unfair demands of the Vietnamese before the doctor and madman escalated the bombing in the early 1970's. The NVA capitalised on those unfair demands by publishing those demands for all the world to read at that time.

And we know from various sources that the Brits and CIA have had backchannel talks with Washington's former proxies in Kabul from 1996-2001, the Taliban. They've been meeting in high brow hotels in Islamabad and Lahore, like it was between the once compatible allies in the 90's. So why have the Taliban been keeping mum's the word on the particulars of these backchannel talks with their former bosses in the CIA and MI6?

Thu, 2009-10-22 11:47

Frmrsldr

Noah_Scape wrote:

So here it goes again:

First the USA drones kill some Taliban leaders in their hiding places in Pakistan's nether regions

Then the Taliban has to react, so they bomb Pakistani cities;

Then the Pakistan army/airforce pummels the entire nether region in a punishing retaliation.

It has happened before, many times, just like this in various parts of the world.

What I have been wondering is:

"wasn't better when the Taliban were left alone in the nether regions?"

As in, "Did the US drones just stir everything up?"

Maybe you know where I am going - how about a HOMELAND FOR THE TALIBAN?

I have heard the argument against leaving any Taliban alive, in that they will just keep bombing.

I have my doubts if that is necessarily true because we have never given them the chance to just live in an area set aside for them and their Sharia Law. They are real people, there are millions of them who want to live like that - don't they have a right to choose to do that?

The Taliban have been a handy excuse to go to war for the USA. So we never get to hear what the Taliban really want.

I would offer them a chunk of Pakistan, Wajeeristan, and Afghanistan in a move of appeasment, and just see how they behave. Live and let live.

There is talk of a "Pashtunistan".

Thu, 2009-10-22 13:21

NDPP

Be careful of this term 'Taliban'. It is overused, frequently inaccurate, and used to demonize any and all resistance to the invasion, occupation and despoilation of Indigenous territory by the foreign predators

Fri, 2009-10-23 02:28

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Be careful of this term 'Taliban'. It is overused, frequently inaccurate, and used to demonize any and all resistance to the invasion, occupation and despoilation of Indigenous territory by the foreign predators

Insurgents share a name, but pursue different goals:

Scott Shane wrote:

The Afghan Taliban, whose group is by far the older of the two forces, have been led by Mullah Muhammad Omar since he founded the movement in 1994. They seek to regain the power they held over most of Afghanistan before being ousted by the American invasion of 2001.

In an interview this week, speaking on the condition of anonymity, an Afghan Taliban commander expressed sympathy for the Pakistani Taliban, but said, "There will not be any support from us." He said the Afghan Taliban "don't have any interest in fighting against other countries."

"Our aim was, and is, to get the occupation forces out and not to get into a fight with a Muslim army," the commander added.

Before 9/11, the Afghan Taliban hosted Osama bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Qaeda, but the groups are now separated geographically, their leaders under pressure from intensive manhunts. On jihadist Web sites, analysts have detected recent tensions between Al Qaeda, whose proclaimed goals are global, and the Afghan Taliban, which have recently claimed that their interests lie solely in Afghanistan.

Mr. Dorronsoro, the French scholar, said the Afghan Taliban were a "genuine national movement" incorporating not only a broad network of fighters, but also a shadow government-in-waiting in many provinces.

By comparison, he said, the Pakistani Taliban were a far looser coalition, united mainly by their enmity toward the Pakistani government. They emerged formally only in 2007 as a separate force led by Baitullah Mehsud under the name Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or Students' Movement of Pakistan.

After Mr. Mehsud was killed by an American missile in August, a fellow tribesman, Hakimullah Mehsud, took over after a period of jockeying for power in Pakistan's tribal areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/asia/23taliban.html?_r&ref=world