Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

Arch Enemy said:

Just a dabble from me.

The problem that we are facing right now in the status of al-Qa'ida and their intention is two-fold:

1) al-Qa'ida has never been a central paradigm, there has always been two "al-Qa'ida"s. The first being Qa'ida al-Jihad, which is the international terrorist structure that is responsible for 9/11 (among other things). The second being al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan, which can only be described as foreigners, with Qa'ida al-Jihad training, fighting along-side the Taliban. This al-Qa'ida never cared about international terrorism, these were the mujahadeen fighters who, following the fall of the Soviet Union, were wanting to push North out of Afghanistan and into Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

2) al-Qa'ida since the 2001 US led invasion has splintered dramatically where the only real resemblance of the al-Qa'ida-Taliban Brigade (055) is the "Shadow Army". al-Qa'ida to the Taliban (both big and little "t') are those who are foreigners (central Asian, west Asian, Arabic, and maybe some slavs thrown in the mix) fighting as allies to certain Taliban tribes.

True, al-Qa'ida is not in Afghanistan, but the al-Qa'ida (notice, not Qa'ida al-Jihad) is going to be within the militaristic motivations of the Taliban (big "t") regime, and wish to re-extend it's power into Afghanistan.

The momentum, at this time, appears to be pushing the Taliban (big "t") into Pakistan, but I think that is because of the Pakistani Army. They really don't need to do much except eliminate the voices of opposition within the Pakistani Army.

An interesting conflict to watch is how the United States is going to work now that Kharzi is firmly willingly to give the Taliban partial control of Afghanistan.

sorry, I diverted a bit.

Click to expand...

awesome post, friend, i learned

i hear you on the decentralized condition of aq, bigtime

you and i recall "aq in iraq" which existed so separately from whatever kinda central organization could ever hypothetically exist amongst a collection of cells

aq seems, in the big picture, so amateur

but amateurs can be so terribly deadly when all they do is target little girls and their grammas

i wonder if obama intends to read miranda rights to whomever is captured in obama's war, prior to setting em up for lance ito's courtroom circus

you and i recall "aq in iraq" was marginalized by the almost miraculous sunni flip in troubled anbar

that is, aq in iraq killed so many innocents they pushed mainstream sunnis into OUR camp

(of course, there were other inducements)

my point---i hear you, friend

and i learned a lot i did not know

thanks!

cliff

I just have to ask just where the foundation of trust is, when the Taliban's religion, (which they adhere to probably more than any other sect in that particular religion,) preaches that is is acceptable to lie and decieve the "infidels" if it advances their causes. The very core of their ideology teaches them it is acceptable to be deceptive and murderous to people like us.

Any relationship with the Taliban can best be built only on shifting sand. I agree with what a poster here said, earlier on. No negotiations. No nothing. They should have only one option for survival. Lay down your arms, stop the drug trade, quit harboring and supporting terrorism and archic barbarism (upon their own people as well) or die.

The Taliban and the Taliban ideology must be erradicated. There is no place in mankind for such a dangerous cancer.

other said:

Much different version of liberalism you're talking about there. The colonists who joined the patriot cause in the 18th century were, by no means, adherence to an ideology even resembling modern "liberalism."

Sometimes I wish people wouldn't even use the word anymore, it's been made practically meaningless.

Click to expand...

It is not meaningless! It should be the word we use to describe a corrupt mind. If a movement that calls itself Liberal, has distorted the word into a corrupt entity, then it should become a word used to describe a corrupt mind.

Progressives are Progressives. Conservatives are Conservatives. Independent thinkers like me are Progressive Conservatives. Liberals are Liberals.

PeopleforFreedom said:

It is not meaningless! It should be the word we use to describe a corrupt mind. If a movement that calls itself Liberal, has distorted the word into a corrupt entity, then it should become a word used to describe a corrupt mind.

Progressives are Progressives. Conservatives are Conservatives. Independent thinkers like me are Progressive Conservatives. Liberals are Liberals.

Click to expand...

I prefer not to parse words and just call ideologies by what they are, not what they presume to call themselves.. not that I disagree with you otherwise, as far as I can tell.

PeopleforFreedom said:

It is not meaningless! It should be the word we use to describe a corrupt mind. If a movement that calls itself Liberal, has distorted the word into a corrupt entity, then it should become a word used to describe a corrupt mind.

Progressives are Progressives. Conservatives are Conservatives. Independent thinkers like me are Progressive Conservatives. Liberals are Liberals.

Click to expand...

I can agree to a point. However, that being said, I would put the neo-conservative movement, the Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Palin types in our society, on the same level of corruption, as an entity, as the liberals you speak of. Whacko is whacko no matter what team they claim they play for.

And when you address some one as a "liberal" with all the connotations you infer, it is just about as fair, to use the same "corrupt entity" inference when you refer to someone as "conservative." Which is not fair at all.

To me, a REAL conservative, is much like Barry Goldwater and by today's standards, according to the "conservative right" :roll: he is VERY liberal.

To me, the form of the word "liberal" is "liberty" (or something like that. :3oops There is nothing wrong with liberty. I sure do love mine (God bless the USA!) Although I live my life pretty conservatively, I have no desire to deny liberty to anyone else. If one finds themself on the side of dictating morals and pushing their OWN definition of liberty, denying others their right to THEIR definition of liberty, then they join the side of the Limbaughnuts and are far worse to our nation than any tree-hugging liberal I have ever met.

One more thing, from one progressive conservative to another, welcome to Debate Politics.

PeopleforFreedom said:

It is not meaningless! It should be the word we use to describe a corrupt mind. If a movement that calls itself Liberal, has distorted the word into a corrupt entity, then it should become a word used to describe a corrupt mind.

Progressives are Progressives. Conservatives are Conservatives. Independent thinkers like me are Progressive Conservatives. Liberals are Liberals.

Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism]Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Redefinition of liberalism from laissez-faire form to interventionist form

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2009)
The cause(s) of the shift in liberalism in the United States "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism" has been a subject of study among scholars.[42]
Some attribute this shift to the greed and envy of the working class, who resented the wealth and power of the captains of industry. They point to the extension of the voting franchise in most democracies in the 19th century, and claimed these newly enfranchised citizens often voted to benefit themselves, instead of voting to benefit the upper class. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals called for laws against child labor, laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety, a [[minimum wage|a living wage, and old age pensions. The laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development.
Others see the rise of social liberalism as due to the extreme poverty of the working class, frequent unemployment caused by cyclic depressions, and the growing power of the rich to establish monopolies, called at the time cartels, and to influence legislation with "campaign contributions" or outright bribes.
Thus, in the 19th century, social liberalism largely replaced "classical liberalism." In 1911, L. T. Hobhouse published Liberalism, which outlines a "new liberalism" which includes qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy, and the collective right to equality in dealings, what he called "just consent". So different from classical liberalism did Hayek see Hobhouse's book that he commented that it would have been more accurately titled Socialism instead.[43] (Hobhouse called his beliefs "liberal socialism".)
The form of liberalism that arose in the second half of the 20th Century, calling itself "conservatism", professes to echo the views of the classical liberals, and rejects the ideas of the social liberals.

Click to expand...

The Prof said:

you and i recall "aq in iraq" which existed so separately from whatever kinda central organization could ever hypothetically exist amongst a collection of cells

Click to expand...

al-Qa'ida in Iraq (well now they've shifted toward Syria to regroup) is actually more like Qa'ida al-Jihad in Iraq (the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, side of the organization). It was set up by Usama and al-Zawahiri to use the thug known as Zarqawi to collapse on the US troops-- It was an intelligent move because it was able to absorb the radical elements of the Sunni insurgency who were absolutely pissed at the US invasion; little did Usama know US forces are much stronger and much more likeable than the thug, Zarqawi (may he burn in hell).

A.Q. in Iraq was formerly known as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (the group of "unity/oneness" in Jihad -- roughly). This is interesting because it reminds me of "Muwahiddun" which means "Unity/Monotheism" and is a euphemism for Wahabism.

aq seems, in the big picture, so amateur

but amateurs can be so terribly deadly when all they do is target little girls and their grammas

Click to expand...

For a while, after the Soviet-Union's loss in Afghanistan, the A.Q. and E.I.J elements tried to dethrone the autocratic regimes in the Middle East (Algeria, is a good study of this, and funny because they speak French). Yet they failed, and they failed miserably. They didn't take into consideration that the chaos they would cause by killing innocent would unite the alienated (neither radical, nor stately) against them.
Following their failure in the Middle-East the A.Q. E.I.J unity took place (to form al-Qa'ida al-Jihad, or Qa'ida al-Jihad) and realized that they could not unite Sunni Muslims without a P.R. person. Then they changed their policy from the "near enemy" (autocracies in the Middle-East) to "far enemies" (the United States and the Western paradigm).
It was much easier for the network to create these "cells" throughout the Middle-East when their target was an evil across the seas. Just have to find the youthful who are influenced by the evils they've seen come from United States' influence on the M.E. (whether it's true or not is another issue).

you and i recall "aq in iraq" was marginalized by the almost miraculous sunni flip in troubled anbar

that is, aq in iraq killed so many innocents they pushed mainstream sunnis into OUR camp

Click to expand...

You'll get nowhere with a policy of killing innocents. That is why Qa'ida al-Jihad will fail wherever it is.

and i learned a lot i did not know

thanks!

cliff

Click to expand...

No Problem!

Captain America said:

I just have to ask just where the foundation of trust is, when the Taliban's religion, (which they adhere to probably more than any other sect in that particular religion,) preaches that is is acceptable to lie and decieve the "infidels" if it advances their causes. The very core of their ideology teaches them it is acceptable to be deceptive and murderous to people like us.

Click to expand...

Grouping the "Taliban" into one kettle is a horrible mistake. The Taliban elements that plowed into Afghanistan in 1997ish, basically Mullah Umar, was possessed by a horrible lie from Bin-Ladens lips, this lie was that he could run a Government.
The horrendous decrees that came from the Taliban regime, as rulers of Afghanistan, were because they had very little capability to actually rule and had to find every avenue to keep their rule-- They banned kite-flying and Tennis for Christ's sake. Their foreign policy was weak. It's of interest to note that when the Umar took power in Afghanistan he started to apply treatment to the women in Afghanistan, probably because they were non-Pashtuns, that doesn't resemble anything like his home (or Pashtun areas of Afghanistan, including the South)
Mullah Umar is, more than likely, on the move and I have little trust in sources that say he is still in the F.A.T.A. I think that his enclave of Taliban, who trusted the foreigners (al-Qa'ida) and who brought suffering to the taliban and the Taliban are beginning to lose influence within the FATA.

A group like Hizb'Allah was able to provoke a stronger Nation-State and get away with it (as far as public support is concerned) because they have the resources to do it. Mullah Umar could not provide the infrastructure to the ailing tribal elements within FATA and on the fringes of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Taliban and the Taliban ideology must be erradicated. There is no place in mankind for such a dangerous cancer.

Click to expand...

It's hard to pin-point what the ideology is.

Thanks for that most informative post Arch Enemy. :2wave:

Captain America said:

I can agree to a point. However, that being said, I would put the neo-conservative movement, the Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Palin types in our society, on the same level of corruption, as an entity, as the liberals you speak of. Whacko is whacko no matter what team they claim they play for.

And when you address some one as a "liberal" with all the connotations you infer, it is just about as fair, to use the same "corrupt entity" inference when you refer to someone as "conservative." Which is not fair at all.

To me, a REAL conservative, is much like Barry Goldwater and by today's standards, according to the "conservative right" :roll: he is VERY liberal.

To me, the form of the word "liberal" is "liberty" (or something like that. :3oops There is nothing wrong with liberty. I sure do love mine (God bless the USA!) Although I live my life pretty conservatively, I have no desire to deny liberty to anyone else. If one finds themself on the side of dictating morals and pushing their OWN definition of liberty, denying others their right to THEIR definition of liberty, then they join the side of the Limbaughnuts and are far worse to our nation than any tree-hugging liberal I have ever met.

One more thing, from one progressive conservative to another, welcome to Debate Politics.

Click to expand...

This is where you are so wrong!! As a Progressive I watched those Conservatives you mentioned, and I rarely, very rarely seen them expressing "lies and hatred". They expressed an anger at the "lies and Hatred" of the Liberal movement, and this can be annoying at times. Are they supposed to just except Liberalism, or fight back? Because Conservatives fight for moratity, freedom and law of the land, does not make them nuts.

It amazes me how utterly illogical all you said in this post. I could write a 1,000 word post on how many things you misrepresented here. The bottom line is Progressives want to advance the human condition, and Conservatives say we must watch our step because it is the human condition to get out of control. This is what has made America Great. This is what the "Progressive Conservative" founding fathers had in mind in the beginning.

Liberals only support corrupt thinking, for that is what they are.

Liberty is Liberty. Liberal mind is a mind with out a sense of morality or decency.

Wow! I just can not get over how Libertarian minds can think that Laws and Moral thinking that says we are humans and have faults, that must be kept in check, is a bad thing expressed by Nuts.

PeopleforFreedom said:

This is where you are so wrong!! As a Progressive I watched those Conservatives you mentioned, and I rarely, very rarely seen them expressing "lies and hatred". They expressed an anger at the "lies and Hatred" of the Liberal movement, and this can be annoying at times. Are they supposed to just except Liberalism, or fight back? Because Conservatives fight for moratity, freedom and law of the land, does not make them nuts.

It amazes me how utterly illogical all you said in this post. I could write a 1,000 word post on how many things you misrepresented here. The bottom line is Progressives want to advance the human condition, and Conservatives say we must watch our step because it is the human condition to get out of control. This is what has made America Great. This is what the "Progressive Conservative" founding fathers had in mind in the beginning.

Liberals only support corrupt thinking, for that is what they are.

Liberty is Liberty. Liberal mind is a mind with out a sense of morality or decency.

Wow! I just can not get over how Libertarian minds can think that Laws and Moral thinking that says we are humans and have faults, that must be kept in check, is a bad thing expressed by Nuts.

Click to expand...

Whatever dude. You can call yourself progressive all you want. But I think I can already tell from whence ye came.

Have a great day.

reefedjib said:

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

That is very nice. But it has nothing to do with the movement of "lies and hatred" that makes up Liberalism today. Progressives are those that fight for the advancement of the human condition. Liberals are those that use Progressive ideals for power and money. There is a big difference between those that truly care about the human condition and those who just use causes for Power and Money.

Big government will lead to tyranny, this is an absolute fact. It is through big government that the Liberal movement seeks absolute power, and they will achieve this by using the Ideals of Progressives. The only hope left is for Progressives to stand up and join Conservatives in dismantling the Liberal movement before it can create a second class China.

Captain America said:

Whatever dude. You can call yourself progressive all you want. But I think I can already tell from whence ye came.

Have a great day.

Click to expand...

Liberals!:roll:

Joe1991 said:

That's quite a bit of wishful thinking mixed in with a heavy dose of pixie dust. Most of the current fighting is political in nature. Religious extremists, Iraqi nationalists, Shia Sunnis, kurds, etc; all those factions have one thing keeping them in check, our military. Iraq is in sixth place on the "Failed States Index" above even Afghanistan.

And as hopeful as we'd all like to be, no one has any idea what will happen once we pull our finger out of the dike.

Click to expand...

Fact: Violence has steadily declined.

Fact: The Iraqis have had multiple elections.

Fact: The Iraqis are assuming more of their security responsibilities.

If these trends continue then it's mathematically impossible for Iraq not to meet my definition of a model country, i.e., a functional democracy that is friendly towards civilized nations.

75Greeno said:

it is not the west we are conserned with it is there

Click to expand...

Im not the least bit concerned about "there".

Ethereal said:

Fact: Violence has steadily declined.

Fact: The Iraqis have had multiple elections.

Fact: The Iraqis are assuming more of their security responsibilities.

If these trends continue then it's mathematically impossible for Iraq not to meet my definition of a model country, i.e., a functional democracy that is friendly towards civilized nations.

Click to expand...

Those are some very encouraging facts you mention.

But I have a hunch that as soon as we are gone, Iraq will implode upon itself and a long overdue Iraqi civil war will soon follow.

We can lead a horse to water.....

Myself, I am so convinced this will come to pass, (unless the US decides to stay there forever,) that I see no reason for postponing the inevitable with American lives and treasures.

But that's just me.

PeopleforFreedom said:

Liberals!:roll:

Click to expand...

Neo-cons. :roll:


:rofl

"Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn'

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

EnigmaO01,


Where did you go? You promised me proof!


I accept your concession. :2razz:

Click to expand...

You wish. I have a life. I don't spend all day on the computer.

You responded just the way I expected. Your responses were very lacking and you did the usual cop out in attacking sources. Kind of disappointing really. :roll:

Arch Enemy said:

al-Qa'ida in Iraq (well now they've shifted toward Syria to regroup) is actually more like Qa'ida al-Jihad in Iraq (the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, side of the organization). It was set up by Usama and al-Zawahiri to use the thug known as Zarqawi to collapse on the US troops-- It was an intelligent move because it was able to absorb the radical elements of the Sunni insurgency who were absolutely pissed at the US invasion; little did Usama know US forces are much stronger and much more likeable than the thug, Zarqawi (may he burn in hell).

A.Q. in Iraq was formerly known as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (the group of "unity/oneness" in Jihad -- roughly). This is interesting because it reminds me of "Muwahiddun" which means "Unity/Monotheism" and is a euphemism for Wahabism.



For a while, after the Soviet-Union's loss in Afghanistan, the A.Q. and E.I.J elements tried to dethrone the autocratic regimes in the Middle East (Algeria, is a good study of this, and funny because they speak French). Yet they failed, and they failed miserably. They didn't take into consideration that the chaos they would cause by killing innocent would unite the alienated (neither radical, nor stately) against them.
Following their failure in the Middle-East the A.Q. E.I.J unity took place (to form al-Qa'ida al-Jihad, or Qa'ida al-Jihad) and realized that they could not unite Sunni Muslims without a P.R. person. Then they changed their policy from the "near enemy" (autocracies in the Middle-East) to "far enemies" (the United States and the Western paradigm).
It was much easier for the network to create these "cells" throughout the Middle-East when their target was an evil across the seas. Just have to find the youthful who are influenced by the evils they've seen come from United States' influence on the M.E. (whether it's true or not is another issue).



You'll get nowhere with a policy of killing innocents. That is why Qa'ida al-Jihad will fail wherever it is.



No Problem!


Grouping the "Taliban" into one kettle is a horrible mistake. The Taliban elements that plowed into Afghanistan in 1997ish, basically Mullah Umar, was possessed by a horrible lie from Bin-Ladens lips, this lie was that he could run a Government.
The horrendous decrees that came from the Taliban regime, as rulers of Afghanistan, were because they had very little capability to actually rule and had to find every avenue to keep their rule-- They banned kite-flying and Tennis for Christ's sake. Their foreign policy was weak. It's of interest to note that when the Umar took power in Afghanistan he started to apply treatment to the women in Afghanistan, probably because they were non-Pashtuns, that doesn't resemble anything like his home (or Pashtun areas of Afghanistan, including the South)
Mullah Umar is, more than likely, on the move and I have little trust in sources that say he is still in the F.A.T.A. I think that his enclave of Taliban, who trusted the foreigners (al-Qa'ida) and who brought suffering to the taliban and the Taliban are beginning to lose influence within the FATA.

A group like Hizb'Allah was able to provoke a stronger Nation-State and get away with it (as far as public support is concerned) because they have the resources to do it. Mullah Umar could not provide the infrastructure to the ailing tribal elements within FATA and on the fringes of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.



It's hard to pin-point what the ideology is.

Click to expand...

wow, not only do you know what you're talking about, you explain it very well

much obliged!

i understood every word and (naturally) learned tons

i have nothing to add, i'm just listening

except, maybe, a little observation---for people who are sposed to be so fundamentally faith driven, the folks you describe sure are practical

i'd be very interested to know how you acquired such depth here, but i wouldn't want to pry

oh, and...

it appears to me that

1. we've really put pakistan in a spot

2. the ulitmate success of obama's plan for obama's war is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on both the will and the ability of zardari to do some of the heaviest lifting

he's bhutto's widower, if i recall

finally

3. dick durbin, whip, illinois ear of obama, when pressed on fns today about his support or not of obama's afghan plan, answered---i understand the president's position, i'm skeptical that 30K troops will make a difference

but you will fund it, chris wallace (60 minutes mike's son) premised

durbin---well, i'm gonna meet with the president...

me: it will be funded, with republican support, but there will be a lot of cya grousing from dupes like durbin

reefedjib said:

The invasion wasn't illegal. Prove it if you feel otherwise.

Click to expand...

Are you serious? This is common knowledge to anyone that kept up with the situation.

The invasion of a nation can only be legal under the charter of the UN if the invasion had been sanctioned by a vote of the UN Security Council. That didn't happen since the U.S. and Great Britian withdrew their resolution on May 17, 2003. This was done because they knew the majority of members would not vote for it.

Got it?

And furthermore Bush could have waited until verification that there were no WMD's but he chose not to. I want my war! I want my war! :roll:

EnigmaO01 said:

Are you serious? This is common knowledge to anyone that kept up with the situation.

The invasion of a nation can only be legal under the charter of the UN if the invasion had been sanctioned by a vote of the UN Security Council. That didn't happen since the U.S. and Great Britian withdrew their resolution on May 17, 2003. This was done because they knew the majority of members would not vote for it.

Got it?

And furthermore Bush could have waited until verification that there were no WMD's but he chose not to. I want my war! I want my war! :roll:

Click to expand...

Who said anything about it being legal under the charter of the UN? It does not apply.

EnigmaO01 said:

You wish. I have a life. I don't spend all day on the computer.

Click to expand...

Bro, I was billing $250 an hour all morning. yeah I'm the "loser" :lamo

You responded just the way I expected. Your responses were very lacking and you did the usual cop out in attacking sources. Kind of disappointing really. :roll:

Click to expand...

Uhm FAIL as usual, in less than 50 posts you played all your cards....I posted Palin in her own words and you tucked tail, "moderate" :lamo

EnigmaO01 said:

Are you serious? This is common knowledge to anyone that kept up with the situation.

The invasion of a nation can only be legal under the charter of the UN if the invasion had been sanctioned by a vote of the UN Security Council. That didn't happen since the U.S. and Great Britian withdrew their resolution on May 17, 2003. This was done because they knew the majority of members would not vote for it.

Got it?

And furthermore Bush could have waited until verification that there were no WMD's but he chose not to. I want my war! I want my war! :roll:

Click to expand...

uhm the US is not under any authority of the UN.... Your far left failure is all yours....

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Bro, I was billing $250 an hour all morning. yeah I'm the "loser" :lamo





Uhm FAIL as usual, in less than 50 posts you played all your cards....I posted Palin in her own words and you tucked tail, "moderate" :lamo

Click to expand...

Wait! You mean he is not a moderate?? Why, that's an enigma...