Afghan Taliban say they pose no threat to the West

[denem]

Source: Reuters

KABUL (Reuters) - The Afghan Taliban pose no threat to the West but will continue their fight against occupying foreign forces, they said on Wednesday, the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that removed them from power.

U.S.-led forces with the help of Afghan groups overthrew the Taliban government during a five week battle which started on October 7, 2001, after the militants refused to hand over al Qaeda leaders wanted by Washington for the September 11 attacks on America.

"We had and have no plan of harming countries of the world, including those in Europe ... our goal is the independence of the country and the building of an Islamic state," the Taliban said in a statement on the group's website www.shahamat.org.

"Still, if you (NATO and U.S. troops) want to colonize the country of proud and pious Afghans under the baseless pretext of a war on terror, then you should know that our patience will only increase and that we are ready for a long war."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5961UI20091007?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11621

---

Whatever else, the Taliban are media savvy and well informed about the current Washington policy debate. The reference to proud nationalism, enduring patience, and being prepared for a long war, are amongst the critical mistakes all cited by Robert McNamara, in assessing North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

[BobRossi]

1. I have no problem with that.

We should get the hell out of their country immediatly, but if they sould aid in anyway any person or group of people that are intent on doing harm to the U.S. we should bomb them back to the stone age.

[harmonicon]

3. isn't there a double standard in that way of thinking though?

The Taliban are/were in power because of US aid; military aid in their war with the Soviets, and economic aid thereafter. Do you think we should only fix the mistakes that the US made from Reagan onwards when they apply domestically? We've been fucking up Afghanistan for a long time, and just dropping the ball now isn't helping. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think brushing it under the carpet should be an option.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Brushing what under the carpet?

Let's be clear here, what is the problem you're trying to solve?

[harmonicon]

7. The problem is that we fucked up Afghanistan

The Taliban would not exist if it were not for the US. The damage caused by US training, arms, and funds to that country in the 80's and 90's is what we're now fighting against. Sure, we weren't the only party to play a hand in fucking it up, but that doesn't mean we have no responsibility there. In my opinion it could have, and should have, been sorted out under Clinton, but if you recall the one time he bombed an Al Qaeda training camp there he was accused of doing so because he had the audacity to get some semen on a woman's dress.

[cali]

58. it's far more complicated than that- and it's likely the Taliban would have existed without U.S.

intervention.

[harmonicon]

62. ok, fine, but we aren't dealing with "what ifs" are we?

May they have existed without the US? Fuck, maybe. Maybe without US intervention they'd be a healthy functioning democracy with a market economy that was the envy of all of central Asia. I don't think the country should make policy based on what might have happened if we hadn't fucked shit straight up, but based on what happened and what we know we did before that happened.

[EFerrari]

4. Then should Venezuela bomb Florida because we don't turn over the terrorist

Posada Carriles? He downed a planeful of people, too.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

9. OK

While I don't think any of us agree with the Carriles situation, that doesn't change the situation in Afghanistan.

[EFerrari]

13. Before we go about "changing the situation", we might ask ourselves

if we have ever "changed a situation" for the better in this way.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

17. ?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

21. Reply to What, Exactly?

Reply to what, exactly? An extremely vague statement about our supposed failures, that failed to cite any examples whatsoever? Perhaps you'd like to jump on and make the case for him or her?

[No Elephants]

27. LOL. EFerrari needs no one to make a case for "him or her."

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

32. Peeps.

Then why is it you're unable to go into specifics?

[TheWatcher]

36. What specifics have you gone into that are worth commenting or debating on?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

31. Then I Await His/Her Clarification

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[alfredo]

59. Yeah, when we got out of Vietnam.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

8. Taliban PR

The problem is, they were bombed back into the Stone Age by the Soviet Union. There's little to no infrastructure to cripple through bombing campaigns. If we withdraw and they continue to provide a safe haven for international terrorists, we have no real recourse other than another ground invasion, which puts us right back where we are today. Sigh.

With that said, the Taliban are getting hit on two sides by both our military and the Pakistani military. Have you ever thought that they might be engaging in a bit of PR? That they're trying to play you?

[denem]

22. "Whatever else, the Taliban are media savvy" - the OP

[mike_c]

2. America out of Afghanistan NOW!

eom

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

10. OK, But...

before we do that, just what do you think the rammifications of a withdrawal would be? I'm just curious here.

[Flaneur]

5. The Taliban are not nice folks, but they're not our problem, either.

Let the Afghans sort that stuff out. We live on the other side of the planet.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

11. They're Not Our Problem?

They're our problem when they provide safe haven for the terrorists who blow us up on our way to work.

[mike_c]

12. sounds to me like you need to watch less TeeVee....

Look, this has all been discussed here in great detail. I'm on my way to the office, so I won't go through it all again. Let's just say that if you think Afghanistan had anything at all to do with 9/11, or that the Taliban did not try to negotiate a way to rid themselves of OBL in the weeks following 9/11, you need to broaden your information sources beyond the cable news channels.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

18. Sounds to me like you need to spend less time at the office

Quite frankly, it did have something to do with 9-11. It was sheltering the leaders of the organization behind the attacks. As far as negotiating a way to get rid of bin Laden, I can think of a number of easy ways they could have been rid of him off the top of my head.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

20. ThePeeper

Could you please discuss this issue without harking back to Bush at every turn?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

30. Alright, Peeper.

It was less a question than an assertion, one that provided absolutely no examples with which to back it up. But since you're so insistent on pursuing this, I'll play along. Is Germany worse off today than it was under Hitler? Is Italy worse off today than it was under Mussolini? Is Asia worse off with Tojo out of the picture? This idea that the U.S. has done nothing but evil around the globe is insanity. Since you're so interested in this conversation, I await your prompt reply.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

38. You Were So Eager to Respond to Every Post Except This One. Hmf.

[TheWatcher]

40. I did reposnd to it, Diaper Dan.

You just have too short of an attention span to notice, apparently.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

42. Again, ThePeeper

EFerr's post, the one you repeatedly asked to me to respond to despite it's vagueness, specifically stated: "Before we go about 'changing the situation', we might ask ourselves if we have ever 'changed a situation' for the better in this way."

I interpretted this as a condemnation of war as a whole, though, if you'll recall, I did ask for clarification on it - something you refused to provide and something I take it Eferr has not had the chance to provide yet. If I interpretted it incorrectly, this is yet another opportunity for either YOU or you pal to clarify. Or am I asking too much?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

48. Oh Peeper.

As I've already stated, it's an extremely vague statement which could benefit from some specific examples.

Is the situation in Afghanistan better? That depends on what measure you're using. Al-Qaeda is severely disrupted, it's training camps are closed, and it's funding is drying up - that's all positive. Is the population as a whole better off? I'd have to say no. Major problems still exist with regard to poverty, lack of infrastructure, lack of education, and security.

Is Iraq better? In some respects yes and in some respects no. Major problems still exist there with regard to infrastructure and poverty as well, but the insurgency is waning and the people seem to have embraced the opportunity of democratic governance.

This idea that the Taliban had nothing to do with al-Qaeda is idiotic. The Taliban were not directly implicated in the 9-11 attacks, but their willingness to provide safe haven to the organization helped them to flourish.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

55. You're Not Offering Much, Peeper

You disagree with the assessments that al-Qaeda's leadership is in disarray? If so, why? As I stated, Afghanistan has numerous problems, of which reliance on poppy production is certainly one, however, there are some bright spots, as I noted.

With regard to Iraq, I agree, we never should have invaded in the first place. I was actively involved in anti-war efforts throughout the build to and the early years of the war. Nonetheless, my opposition to the war as a whole does not mean absolutely nothing good has come out of it. Again, I noted some positive developments in my other post.

But I really would like to thank you for continuing to prove my point - you use these accusations of Bush lover, or Fox News lover, of Hannity fan merely as a tool to try and shut people up. You don't seem able to discuss these issues in much depth, and seem to think posting a smily is a substitute for an informed, clearly articulated opinion - it isn't.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[wuushew]

15. bullcrap

your odds of dying in a terrorist attack are less than being eaten by a shark. How many cops and customs agents can a trillion dollars buy? Quite a few.

The world created by not being in Afghanistan is self-evidently better to most rational people. Also feeding more bodies into the meat grinder is just increasing the number of broken families, orphans and future mental health care case loads.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

24. Hey, Peeper.

I encourage you to present a valid argument for a change.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

23. Seriously?

Let me make sure I understand your position, if the "odds of dying in a terrorist attack are less than being eaten by a shark" we simply shouldn't respond to terrorist attacks? Explain yourself here.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

35. I am a Democrat

Since when does being a Democrat equal opposing all wars out of hand?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

46. Well, Nice to Meet You Mr. Connery

I am a Democrat, actually. My Congressman, whose campaign I donated to, is Tim Walz. My Senators, both of whose campaigns I donated to, are Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. The reason I bristle when you bring up Bush is because you bring it up as a distraction, as a cheap way of attacking each and ever person who disagrees with you rather than engage them in an intelligent fashion. It's a cop out on your part, and a transparent one at that.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

50. K, Peeps

In certain contexts, it would be very appropriate to bring Bush into the conversation, for instance, in discussing who formulated the policies which got us to where we are today. But that isn't how you choose to use him in discussions, is it? What you choose to do is attack anyone who disagrees with you as a Bush supporter. It's pretty clearly an effort to shut up anyone with an opinion you find unpopular. I suppose it's easier to resort to cheap tactics like this rather than discuss the merits of the Afghan War on their own, but as I said, it's extremely transparent.

[TheWatcher]

53. Since there are no Merits of the Afghan war to discuss. It's a moot point

Your arguments aren't unpopular, they are complete bullshit with no basis in reality.

Have fun Diaper Dan.

I'm done with you. :hi:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

56. Really?

None whatsoever? Not even "Hey, we should go after the leaders of al-Qaeda!" or "Hey, it IS a bad thing to throw acid in girls' faces because they dared to go to school!" ? It seems you're unwilling to discuss this in a rational manner. God only knows why.

[No Elephants]

25. The only people who bombed us on our way to work died on 9/11/01. All but one of them

were Saudi. The other was Egyptian. None were Afghani. And, they were all Al Qaeda, not Taliban.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

37. It's an Established Fact

that the Taliban sheltered al-Qaeda.

[TheWatcher]

41. ESTABLISHED by WHOM?

Bush? The bought and paid for Media? Whom?

Produce something other than the smell of your own bullshit.

The established facts are in the post you responded to.

You have offered NOTHING in the way of facts so far.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

44. Let Me Get This Straight

You sincerely do not believe that the Taliban were providing safe haven for al-Qaeda inside Afghanistan? And here I thought this was one of those undisputed facts.

You're asking me to produce evidence, yet at the same time, discounting all government and media sources. Interesting tactic. Since you're unwilling to accept sources that the majority of humanity would, at the very least, consider, tell me...what sources are acceptable to you?

[TheWatcher]

47. If it's such an undisputed fact, how come you cannot even provide ONE single credible source for the

information?

Bush's Government is not a credible source. Fox News is not a credible source.

"Since you're unwilling to accept sources that the majority of humanity would, at the very least, consider, tell me...what sources are acceptable to you?"

Most of the rest of the WORLD knows we were full of shit about Afghanistan AND Iraq.

Here's one for you: DO you dispute THIS established fact that you seem to be deathly afraid to address:

All but one of the 9/11 Hijackerswere Saudi. The other was Egyptian. None were Afghani. And, they were all Al Qaeda, not Taliban.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

52. Here

While I'm sure you'll find some way to dismiss this source anyway, here you go. I'm on my way out the door for work shortly, so this is one of many you could find by doing a simple Google search - though you really shouldn't have to. This is common knowledge to anyone familiar with this issue.

"The attack was in retaliation for Mullah Omar harboring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in the years before the 9/11 attacks."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/mullah-omar-afghan-taliban-leader-emerges/story?id=8300416

[TheWatcher]

54. More Propaganda Copy/Paste.

What a waste of time.

Have fun at the 7/11 Dan.

:rofl:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

57. Delusions.

You requested a source. I provided one. You danced around it. I figured you know. You're not about to let those pesky facts get in the way of your delusions.

[denem]

61. Umm Mullah Omar, was related to Bin Laden by marriage.

Here's the BBC's summary:

Mullah Mohammed Omar, the spiritual and political leader of the Taleban, has been accused of harbouring Osama Bin Laden and other members of the al-Qaeda network.

Mullah Omar has vigorously defended Bin Laden against allegations that he masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

He has argued that Bin Laden was not capable of such an act and accused the US of trying to cover up its own intelligence failures.

The Taleban leader has said that the attacks on the US were a "sad event", but that they were launched to avenge the "cruelty" of American foreign policy.

http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/investigating_al_qaeda/html/people/accomplices.stm

[Odin2005]

64. The conspiracist illogic is strong with this one.

[Odin2005]

63. Denounce Al-Qaida and start treating women like human beings, then come back to us.