FREE TAPATALK APP

Texas · 7th March 2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is open to the idea of reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

In an interview with the newspaper published on its website, Obama said that some of the U.S. success in Iraq involved reaching out to Islamic fundamentalists who had been alienated by the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq.

"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region," he said. "But the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090307/..._afghanistan_2

What is a "moderate"Taliban element?

Tsukasa Buddha · 7th March 2009, 08:41 PM

That *****, and only sending 17,000 more troops too. He's an insane pacifist Nazi appeaser, I say!

Texas · 7th March 2009, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

That *****, and only sending 17,000 more troops too. He's an insane pacifist Nazi appeaser, I say!

So can you define a moderate taliban?

jj · 7th March 2009, 09:12 PM

What's a "moderate taliban"?

WildCat · 7th March 2009, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090307/..._afghanistan_2

What is a "moderate"Taliban element?

They just throw acid on teachers at girl's schools instead of beheading them?

UnrepentantSinner · 7th March 2009, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

What is a "moderate"Taliban element?

Apparently, based on experiences in Iraq, it's someone who is turned off by al Queda's actions and willing to talk to us.

Perhaps there are none, but if there are, it can't hurt to talk to them.

Texas · 7th March 2009, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Apparently, based on experiences in Iraq, it's someone who is turned off by al Queda's actions and willing to talk to us.

Perhaps there are none, but if there are, it can't hurt to talk to them.

So because they may be against Al Qaeda they are moderates? The Taliban, by definition, are the most extreme Isalmists on earth. Show me a "moderate" Talibani and it will be a headless corpse.

UserGoogol · 7th March 2009, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

So because they may be against Al Qaeda they are moderates? The Taliban, by definition, are the most extreme Isalmists on earth. Show me a "moderate" Talibani and it will be a headless corpse.

Moderate is an inherently relative term. A moderate in 19th century American debate on slavery might have argued on behalf of sending freed blacks to Africa, which is a rather extremist stance nowadays. Also, they don't actually quote administration officials using the word moderate, so it's entirely possible the Obama administration doesn't even use that word and was only talking about "breakaway elements" in the Taliban instead. It seems pedantic and petty to focus on that word instead of addressing the actual question as to whether this is a sound strategy.

And on that note, it sounds plausible enough to my layman's ears. We certainly wouldn't want to hand complete control of the government back to the Taliban, but if we can find some people who would be willing to work with us for modest concessions, that certainly would be nice, so it doesn't seem like a bad idea to be on the lookout for such persuadables.

Texas · 7th March 2009, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

Moderate is an inherently relative term. A moderate in 19th century American debate on slavery might have argued on behalf of sending freed blacks to Africa, which is a rather extremist stance nowadays. Also, they don't actually quote administration officials using the word moderate, so it's entirely possible the Obama administration doesn't even use that word and was only talking about "breakaway elements" in the Taliban instead. It seems pedantic and petty to focus on that word instead of addressing the actual question as to whether this is a sound strategy.

It sounds plausible enough to my layman's ears. We certainly wouldn't want to hand complete control of the government back to the Taliban except as a very last resort, but if we can find some people who would be willing to work with us for modest concessions, that certainly would be nice, so it doesn't seem like a bad idea to be on the lookout for such persuadables.

This is nothing like the Anbar Awakening in Iraq. There its was Iraqis fighting Al Qaeda foreign troops with our support. The Taliban are Afghani and any Al Qaeda left are fighting side by side with them The moment a so called Talibani moderate is caught cooperating with the US that person is dead at the hands of the Taliban itself. You are also forgetting that if we start cozying up to the Taliban then groups like the Northern Alliance will turn against us in a New York minute. Having said that what "moderate" concessions would you propose?

jj · 7th March 2009, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

The Taliban are Afghani

Uh, you want to check on that? Yes, they more or less invaded (not in the overt sense) Afghanistan, and took it over, but that's not making them Afghani, now, is it?

Yes, reactionary elements in Afghanistan joined them, but where did they come from initially, now?

Texas · 7th March 2009, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Uh, you want to check on that? Yes, they more or less invaded (not in the overt sense) Afghanistan, and took it over, but that's not making them Afghani, now, is it?

Yes, reactionary elements in Afghanistan joined them, but where did they come from initially, now?

They are Afghani that were schooled in Pakistani Madrases. Maybe you can define a "moderate" Talibani. No one else seems to want to try.

Travis · 7th March 2009, 11:24 PM

Perhaps a moderate Taliban individual would believe in many of the tenets of radical Islam while rejecting the brutal way they were implemented by Mullah Omar and may also disapprove of terrorism as a way to further their faith. Surely not every single person in the Taliban is as murderous and blood thirsty as the most radical.

That said I think something like this should only be tried with great caution. Not only do we risk alienating the Northern Alliance but who's to say these people might not be double agents?

Texas · 7th March 2009, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Perhaps a moderate Taliban individual would believe in many of the tenets of radical Islam while rejecting the brutal way they were implemented by Mullah Omar and may also disapprove of terrorism as a way to further their faith. Surely not every single person in the Taliban is as murderous and blood thirsty as the most radical.

That said I think something like this should only be tried with great caution. Not only do we risk alienating the Northern Alliance but who's to say these people might not be double agents?

I don't see how you can believe in the tenets of radical Islam especially Shira law and be against the brutality that is inherent in it. The Taliban is by its very nature radical and murderous so how can you be Taliban and not be Murderous and blood thirsty? It seems to be like saying some skunks don't stink. This appears to be an acknowledgement that Obama does not see any way to civilise the country, a stance I agree with, BUT at least have the moral courage to say that and not risk any more NATO troops. It would be far better to provide aid to the Northern Alliance and let them fight it out with the Taliban. If the NA is left to fight the Taliban on its terms and not under NATO ROE it could very well win the day. The NATO allies are already telling him that they have no intention of providing more troops and the 30,000 that he says he will send is like putting a drop of water in the ocean.

leftysergeant · 8th March 2009, 12:10 AM

Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires and will always be so.

There is no possible military victory in the country.

This does not preclude success in a forceful diplomatic campaign. Negotiate a peace tha leaves Afghanistan stable, denies al Qaeda a base of operations, and then get the hell out.

We need to deal with both the NA and Taliban. They are going to have to work this out between themselves.

Forget Karzai. He has never been much more than Mayor of Kabul anyway.

But we are, sooner or later, going to have to deal with someone. Simple facts of the situation mean that that has to include the Taliban.

UnrepentantSinner · 8th March 2009, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Texas

So....

Don't put words in the mouths of others. It's impolite and not a good way of making a point.

gumboot · 8th March 2009, 03:01 AM

The Taliban have never been supporters of wholesale violence - in fact it was disgust at the wholesale sadistic violence carried out by the Mujahideen warlords that caused the creation of the Taliban in the first place.

Dr Adequate · 8th March 2009, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by Texas

What is a "moderate"Taliban element?

Those who might be persuaded to lay down their weapons.

Dr Adequate · 8th March 2009, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Texas

I don't see how you can believe in the tenets of radical Islam especially Shira law and be against the brutality that is inherent in it. The Taliban is by its very nature radical and murderous so how can you be Taliban and not be Murderous and blood thirsty?

Well, perhaps the nearest American analogy is the KKK. Yes, they're revolting, but if they confine their effort to free speech and the ballot box, then they are, at least provisionally, not opposing democracy. Maybe they would like to impose what they believe to be God's law by, for example, executing gay people for breaking a rule in Leviticus, but so long as they are prepared to advance this goal through democratic rather than violent means, then we put up with them.

This is a fairly loose analogy, so please don't get this thread bogged down in the details of the differences between the two groups.

Oliver · 8th March 2009, 06:55 AM

Why not taking Iran's help again to overthrow the Taliban?

WildCat · 8th March 2009, 07:27 AM

Well, look at how well negotiating with "moderate" Taliban factions has worked for Pakistan in the Swat valley!

linusrichard · 8th March 2009, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Texas

So because they may be against Al Qaeda they are moderates? The Taliban, by definition, are the most extreme Isalmists on earth.

Of course not. The Taliban are some of the most extreme Islamists on earth, but not by definition. This might seem like a pedantic point, but it gets to the source of your confusion. The Taliban are a political party. If you think the Taliban are defined by extremism, then yes, "moderate Taliban" looks like a contradiction in terms. But if you recognize that the Taliban are only described by extremism, you can see that it is at least theoretically possible that there might be (relatively) moderate elements within the Taliban. I'm not saying those moderate elements exist, but it's not as impossible as you suggest. I submit that Barack Obama has access to much better information on the question than you or I do. If they do exist, I don't see anything wrong with playing them against the more extreme elements of the Taliban. Do you? I mean - getting past the question of whether "moderate Taliban" can exist and does exist - if they do exist, do you see anything wrong with using them against the "extreme Taliban"?

UnrepentantSinner · 8th March 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Well, look at how well negotiating with "moderate" Taliban factions has worked for Pakistan in the Swat valley!

Sounds like the sort of folks we shouldn't be talking to in Afghanistan then. Your point?

WildCat · 8th March 2009, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Sounds like the sort of folks we shouldn't be talking to in Afghanistan then. Your point?

The Taliban (and the Afghan tribes in general) have a history of negotiating in bad faith. Or using cease-fires solely to consolidate their positions.

As the saying goes "you can rent an Afghani, but you can't buy one".

Cicero · 8th March 2009, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Well, perhaps the nearest American analogy is the KKK. Yes, they're revolting, but if they confine their effort to free speech and the ballot box, then they are, at least provisionally, not opposing democracy. Maybe they would like to impose what they believe to be God's law by, for example, executing gay people for breaking a rule in Leviticus, but so long as they are prepared to advance this goal through democratic rather than violent means, then we put up with them.

This is a fairly loose analogy, so please don't get this thread bogged down in the details of the differences between the two groups.

Are you cereal? 70% of California's African Americans, 49% Asians, and 53% Latinos voted for Prop 8. They exercised their democratic rights, yet blacks were targeted by gay activists who must have been auditioning for the KKK role in the remake of "Birth of A Nation."

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDi...9?diaryId=8077

Alt+F4 · 8th March 2009, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Texas

What is a "moderate"Taliban element?

They are the ones that only gouge out the eyes of girls who learn to read as opposed to the "extreme" Taliban who moved immediately to stoning.

Pardalis · 8th March 2009, 11:29 AM

Negotiating with the Taliban as a whole wouldn't work of course, but there has been negotiations with factions and tribal leaders ever since the invasion, like here that have given good results. Tribal leaders don't necessarily agree with the Taliban, they've joined them mostly out of opportunism and maybe sometimes necessity, and when you remove the need or appeal to affiliate with them, then they could move to our side. If you pull out of the Taliban enough tribal leaders, then the Taliban will break appart.

There's also Viagra, as a means to make friends...

UnrepentantSinner · 8th March 2009, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The Taliban (and the Afghan tribes in general) have a history of negotiating in bad faith. Or using cease-fires solely to consolidate their positions.

Like the Sunni insurgents in Iraq that we talked to?

Not to be too flippant, but my point is there are people we can talk to and there are people we cannot. Let's talk to those we can - even if it doesn't work out, the talking can't hurt too much - and let's bomb the crap out of those we cannot.

Originally Posted by WildCat

As the saying goes "you can rent an Afghani, but you can't buy one".

Really? You have some etymology for that saying or is it something coined for the War On Terror^TM? To me it sounds far to reminiscent of "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims", especially ironic in light of the recent terror attack in Northern Ireland.

But that's just me letting reality get in the way of platitudes and sound bites...

Dr Adequate · 8th March 2009, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Are you cereal? 70% of California's African Americans, 49% Asians, and 53% Latinos voted for Prop 8. They exercised their democratic rights, yet blacks were targeted by gay activists who must have been auditioning for the KKK role in the remake of "Birth of A Nation."

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDi...9?diaryId=8077

Uh ... am I wrong in thinking that certain elements of the KKK would like to apply, let us say, biblical values, to gay people?

If you are not denying that, then I am at a loss to know what you are talking about, or how it relates to my point in any way, or whether you might be off your head.

Toke · 8th March 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

So because they may be against Al Qaeda they are moderates? The Taliban, by definition, are the most extreme Isalmists on earth. Show me a "moderate" Talibani and it will be a headless corpse.

What about the ones invited to texas to discus pipelines?
It is perfectly possible to make deals with people you don´t agree with.

Besides the situation in afganistan does not leave that many other options.

jj · 8th March 2009, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

They are Afghani that were schooled in Pakistani Madrases. Maybe you can define a "moderate" Talibani. No one else seems to want to try.

I didn't use the term "moderate" taliban. Please, ask someone else to solve your problems for you this time.

Oh, and SOME of them are Afghani.

jj · 8th March 2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Uh ... am I wrong in thinking that certain elements of the KKK would like to apply, let us say, biblical values, to gay people?

If you are not denying that, then I am at a loss to know what you are talking about, or how it relates to my point in any way, or whether you might be off your head.

It's because everything's back to the idea that one of your correspondents there must have his nose into everyone's bedrooms and kitchens, and tell everyone who to touch and where.

Much like the Taliban or KKK, in fact, despite the illicit use of the KKK moniker for people who are opposed to discrimination.

It's part of the new, hardline right-wing nutter squad, it's simple, lie as much as possible, be as divisive as possible, and do one's best to incite revolution.

That's what they are really on about at this point, you know. I'm not sure if it's the non-whiteness of the president, or the fact that their baby Bush failed to find a successor to continue the push to second world status, or what...

gumboot · 8th March 2009, 05:50 PM

Perhaps it's worth remembering who the Taliban are, and who they are not. "Taliban" means students, and the actual Taliban are students of Pakistani Deobandi Madrassahs who rallied the Afghani people against the violent and cruel Mujahideen warlords who seized Afghanistan after defeating the Soviets.

The Taliban are Muslim Fundamentalists, and cannot be construed as "moderate" by any standard. However, as happens, many non-Taliban have at various times aligned themselves with the Taliban, for various reasons.

Most people make the mistake of collectively calling the Taliban and their allies/supporters by the same label.

I would imagine that the "moderate Taliban" are not Taliban at all, but non-Taliban currently aligned with or supporting the Taliban. These people are probably aligned out of a sense of opportunity or survival, and can be pretty easily turned to our side by convincing them that the ISAF and the Afghani government offers a better chance of opportunity and survival.

Pretty much what Pardalis said.

WildCat · 8th March 2009, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Really? You have some etymology for that saying or is it something coined for the War On Terror^TM? To me it sounds far to reminiscent of "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims", especially ironic in light of the recent terror attack in Northern Ireland.

But that's just me letting reality get in the way of platitudes and sound bites...

Actually I first heard that saying back when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. You can pay off tribal leaders and they will fight for you for a while. Until someone else pays them to fight against you. Did you follow that war? There was enough switching of sides to make you dizzy.

Cicero · 8th March 2009, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Uh ... am I wrong in thinking that certain elements of the KKK would like to apply, let us say, biblical values, to gay people?

If you are not denying that, then I am at a loss to know what you are talking about, or how it relates to my point in any way, or whether you might be off your head.

What values did the racial epithet spouting gay activists apply to the minorities that voted for Prop 8? The gays that emulate the KKK racist beliefs are not sufficiently Klanish because they lack the Christianity component?

Of course, you believe that calling a person an Uncle Tom is not a racist remark. Is the location of your head not known for sunlight?

UnrepentantSinner · 8th March 2009, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Actually I first heard that saying back when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. You can pay off tribal leaders and they will fight for you for a while. Until someone else pays them to fight against you.

Must have slid under my radar at the time and I was a big Mujahadeen fan...

Originally Posted by WildCat

Did you follow that war? There was enough switching of sides to make you dizzy.

...yes, primarily through the pages of Soldier of Fortune magazine. Unfortunately it concentrated on old warriors taking out BMPs with Enfields, and how to take down Hinds with Stingers.

Dr Adequate · 8th March 2009, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

What values did the racial epithet spouting gay activists apply to the minorities that voted for Prop 8? The gays that emulate the KKK racist beliefs are not sufficiently Klanish because they lack the Christianity component?

Of course, you believe that calling a person an Uncle Tom is not a racist remark. Is the location of your head not known for sunlight?

You appear to be rambling about something of great interest to you, but of no relevance to my post, or, quite possibly, anything else.

WildCat · 8th March 2009, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Must have slid under my radar at the time and I was a big Mujahadeen fan...

Just to show I didn't make it up:

Quote:

There are plenty of precedents for this in Afghanistan - and in fact the Soviet army had some success with this tactic in the 1980s - but Gen Petraeus will need to remember the old frontier saying that you can rent an Afghan but not buy him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7619769.stm

Must have been coined by the British back when they occupied the place.

Allen773 · 8th March 2009, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

You appear to be rambling about something of great interest to you, but of no relevance to my post, or, quite possibly, anything else.

Cicero is a right-wing hack. Did you expect otherwise?

7th March 2009, 08:00 PM	#1
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Obama mulls reaching out to moderate Taliban Quote: NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is open to the idea of reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban, The New York Times reported on Saturday. In an interview with the newspaper published on its website, Obama said that some of the U.S. success in Iraq involved reaching out to Islamic fundamentalists who had been alienated by the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq. "There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region," he said. "But the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090307/..._afghanistan_2 What is a "moderate"Taliban element?
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

7th March 2009, 08:41 PM	#2
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 10,037	That *****, and only sending 17,000 more troops too. He's an insane pacifist Nazi appeaser, I say!
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

7th March 2009, 08:51 PM	#3
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha That *****, and only sending 17,000 more troops too. He's an insane pacifist Nazi appeaser, I say! So can you define a moderate taliban?
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

7th March 2009, 09:12 PM	#4
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,728	What's a "moderate taliban"?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

7th March 2009, 10:21 PM	#6
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by Texas What is a "moderate"Taliban element? Apparently, based on experiences in Iraq, it's someone who is turned off by al Queda's actions and willing to talk to us. Perhaps there are none, but if there are, it can't hurt to talk to them.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

7th March 2009, 09:12 PM	#5
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,471	Originally Posted by Texas http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090307/..._afghanistan_2 What is a "moderate"Taliban element? They just throw acid on teachers at girl's schools instead of beheading them?

7th March 2009, 10:32 PM	#7
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Apparently, based on experiences in Iraq, it's someone who is turned off by al Queda's actions and willing to talk to us. Perhaps there are none, but if there are, it can't hurt to talk to them. So because they may be against Al Qaeda they are moderates? The Taliban, by definition, are the most extreme Isalmists on earth. Show me a "moderate" Talibani and it will be a headless corpse.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

7th March 2009, 10:49 PM	#8
UserGoogol Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,074	Originally Posted by Texas So because they may be against Al Qaeda they are moderates? The Taliban, by definition, are the most extreme Isalmists on earth. Show me a "moderate" Talibani and it will be a headless corpse. Moderate is an inherently relative term. A moderate in 19th century American debate on slavery might have argued on behalf of sending freed blacks to Africa, which is a rather extremist stance nowadays. Also, they don't actually quote administration officials using the word moderate, so it's entirely possible the Obama administration doesn't even use that word and was only talking about "breakaway elements" in the Taliban instead. It seems pedantic and petty to focus on that word instead of addressing the actual question as to whether this is a sound strategy. And on that note, it sounds plausible enough to my layman's ears. We certainly wouldn't want to hand complete control of the government back to the Taliban, but if we can find some people who would be willing to work with us for modest concessions, that certainly would be nice, so it doesn't seem like a bad idea to be on the lookout for such persuadables.
	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's Razor

7th March 2009, 11:01 PM	#9
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by UserGoogol Moderate is an inherently relative term. A moderate in 19th century American debate on slavery might have argued on behalf of sending freed blacks to Africa, which is a rather extremist stance nowadays. Also, they don't actually quote administration officials using the word moderate, so it's entirely possible the Obama administration doesn't even use that word and was only talking about "breakaway elements" in the Taliban instead. It seems pedantic and petty to focus on that word instead of addressing the actual question as to whether this is a sound strategy. It sounds plausible enough to my layman's ears. We certainly wouldn't want to hand complete control of the government back to the Taliban except as a very last resort, but if we can find some people who would be willing to work with us for modest concessions, that certainly would be nice, so it doesn't seem like a bad idea to be on the lookout for such persuadables. This is nothing like the Anbar Awakening in Iraq. There its was Iraqis fighting Al Qaeda foreign troops with our support. The Taliban are Afghani and any Al Qaeda left are fighting side by side with them The moment a so called Talibani moderate is caught cooperating with the US that person is dead at the hands of the Taliban itself. You are also forgetting that if we start cozying up to the Taliban then groups like the Northern Alliance will turn against us in a New York minute. Having said that what "moderate" concessions would you propose?
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

7th March 2009, 11:11 PM	#10
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,728	Originally Posted by Texas The Taliban are Afghani Uh, you want to check on that? Yes, they more or less invaded (not in the overt sense) Afghanistan, and took it over, but that's not making them Afghani, now, is it? Yes, reactionary elements in Afghanistan joined them, but where did they come from initially, now?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

7th March 2009, 11:17 PM	#11
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by jj Uh, you want to check on that? Yes, they more or less invaded (not in the overt sense) Afghanistan, and took it over, but that's not making them Afghani, now, is it? Yes, reactionary elements in Afghanistan joined them, but where did they come from initially, now? They are Afghani that were schooled in Pakistani Madrases. Maybe you can define a "moderate" Talibani. No one else seems to want to try.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

7th March 2009, 11:24 PM	#12
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,106	Perhaps a moderate Taliban individual would believe in many of the tenets of radical Islam while rejecting the brutal way they were implemented by Mullah Omar and may also disapprove of terrorism as a way to further their faith. Surely not every single person in the Taliban is as murderous and blood thirsty as the most radical. That said I think something like this should only be tried with great caution. Not only do we risk alienating the Northern Alliance but who's to say these people might not be double agents?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

7th March 2009, 11:46 PM	#13
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by Travis Perhaps a moderate Taliban individual would believe in many of the tenets of radical Islam while rejecting the brutal way they were implemented by Mullah Omar and may also disapprove of terrorism as a way to further their faith. Surely not every single person in the Taliban is as murderous and blood thirsty as the most radical. That said I think something like this should only be tried with great caution. Not only do we risk alienating the Northern Alliance but who's to say these people might not be double agents? I don't see how you can believe in the tenets of radical Islam especially Shira law and be against the brutality that is inherent in it. The Taliban is by its very nature radical and murderous so how can you be Taliban and not be Murderous and blood thirsty? It seems to be like saying some skunks don't stink. This appears to be an acknowledgement that Obama does not see any way to civilise the country, a stance I agree with, BUT at least have the moral courage to say that and not risk any more NATO troops. It would be far better to provide aid to the Northern Alliance and let them fight it out with the Taliban. If the NA is left to fight the Taliban on its terms and not under NATO ROE it could very well win the day. The NATO allies are already telling him that they have no intention of providing more troops and the 30,000 that he says he will send is like putting a drop of water in the ocean.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

8th March 2009, 12:10 AM	#14
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,614	Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires and will always be so. There is no possible military victory in the country. This does not preclude success in a forceful diplomatic campaign. Negotiate a peace tha leaves Afghanistan stable, denies al Qaeda a base of operations, and then get the hell out. We need to deal with both the NA and Taliban. They are going to have to work this out between themselves. Forget Karzai. He has never been much more than Mayor of Kabul anyway. But we are, sooner or later, going to have to deal with someone. Simple facts of the situation mean that that has to include the Taliban.

8th March 2009, 12:41 AM	#15
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by Texas So.... Don't put words in the mouths of others. It's impolite and not a good way of making a point.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

8th March 2009, 03:01 AM	#16
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	The Taliban have never been supporters of wholesale violence - in fact it was disgust at the wholesale sadistic violence carried out by the Mujahideen warlords that caused the creation of the Taliban in the first place.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

8th March 2009, 03:04 AM	#17
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Texas What is a "moderate"Taliban element? Those who might be persuaded to lay down their weapons.

8th March 2009, 03:37 AM	#18
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Texas I don't see how you can believe in the tenets of radical Islam especially Shira law and be against the brutality that is inherent in it. The Taliban is by its very nature radical and murderous so how can you be Taliban and not be Murderous and blood thirsty? Well, perhaps the nearest American analogy is the KKK. Yes, they're revolting, but if they confine their effort to free speech and the ballot box, then they are, at least provisionally, not opposing democracy. Maybe they would like to impose what they believe to be God's law by, for example, executing gay people for breaking a rule in Leviticus, but so long as they are prepared to advance this goal through democratic rather than violent means, then we put up with them. This is a fairly loose analogy, so please don't get this thread bogged down in the details of the differences between the two groups.

8th March 2009, 06:55 AM	#19
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Why not taking Iran's help again to overthrow the Taliban?
	__________________

8th March 2009, 07:27 AM	#20
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,471	Well, look at how well negotiating with "moderate" Taliban factions has worked for Pakistan in the Swat valley!

8th March 2009, 07:36 AM	#21
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,668	Originally Posted by Texas So because they may be against Al Qaeda they are moderates? The Taliban, by definition, are the most extreme Isalmists on earth. Of course not. The Taliban are some of the most extreme Islamists on earth, but not by definition. This might seem like a pedantic point, but it gets to the source of your confusion. The Taliban are a political party. If you think the Taliban are defined by extremism, then yes, "moderate Taliban" looks like a contradiction in terms. But if you recognize that the Taliban are only described by extremism, you can see that it is at least theoretically possible that there might be (relatively) moderate elements within the Taliban. I'm not saying those moderate elements exist, but it's not as impossible as you suggest. I submit that Barack Obama has access to much better information on the question than you or I do. If they do exist, I don't see anything wrong with playing them against the more extreme elements of the Taliban. Do you? I mean - getting past the question of whether "moderate Taliban" can exist and does exist - if they do exist, do you see anything wrong with using them against the "extreme Taliban"?

8th March 2009, 10:45 AM	#22
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by WildCat Well, look at how well negotiating with "moderate" Taliban factions has worked for Pakistan in the Swat valley! Sounds like the sort of folks we shouldn't be talking to in Afghanistan then. Your point?
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

8th March 2009, 11:10 AM	#23
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,471	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Sounds like the sort of folks we shouldn't be talking to in Afghanistan then. Your point? The Taliban (and the Afghan tribes in general) have a history of negotiating in bad faith. Or using cease-fires solely to consolidate their positions. As the saying goes "you can rent an Afghani, but you can't buy one".

8th March 2009, 11:12 AM	#24
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Well, perhaps the nearest American analogy is the KKK. Yes, they're revolting, but if they confine their effort to free speech and the ballot box, then they are, at least provisionally, not opposing democracy. Maybe they would like to impose what they believe to be God's law by, for example, executing gay people for breaking a rule in Leviticus, but so long as they are prepared to advance this goal through democratic rather than violent means, then we put up with them. This is a fairly loose analogy, so please don't get this thread bogged down in the details of the differences between the two groups. Are you cereal? 70% of California's African Americans, 49% Asians, and 53% Latinos voted for Prop 8. They exercised their democratic rights, yet blacks were targeted by gay activists who must have been auditioning for the KKK role in the remake of "Birth of A Nation." http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDi...9?diaryId=8077
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861

8th March 2009, 11:16 AM	#25
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,804	Originally Posted by Texas What is a "moderate"Taliban element? They are the ones that only gouge out the eyes of girls who learn to read as opposed to the "extreme" Taliban who moved immediately to stoning.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

8th March 2009, 11:29 AM	#26
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Negotiating with the Taliban as a whole wouldn't work of course, but there has been negotiations with factions and tribal leaders ever since the invasion, like here that have given good results. Tribal leaders don't necessarily agree with the Taliban, they've joined them mostly out of opportunism and maybe sometimes necessity, and when you remove the need or appeal to affiliate with them, then they could move to our side. If you pull out of the Taliban enough tribal leaders, then the Taliban will break appart. There's also Viagra, as a means to make friends...

8th March 2009, 12:31 PM	#27
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by WildCat The Taliban (and the Afghan tribes in general) have a history of negotiating in bad faith. Or using cease-fires solely to consolidate their positions. Like the Sunni insurgents in Iraq that we talked to? Not to be too flippant, but my point is there are people we can talk to and there are people we cannot. Let's talk to those we can - even if it doesn't work out, the talking can't hurt too much - and let's bomb the crap out of those we cannot. Originally Posted by WildCat As the saying goes "you can rent an Afghani, but you can't buy one". Really? You have some etymology for that saying or is it something coined for the War On Terror^TM? To me it sounds far to reminiscent of "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims", especially ironic in light of the recent terror attack in Northern Ireland. But that's just me letting reality get in the way of platitudes and sound bites...
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

8th March 2009, 12:55 PM	#28
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Cicero Are you cereal? 70% of California's African Americans, 49% Asians, and 53% Latinos voted for Prop 8. They exercised their democratic rights, yet blacks were targeted by gay activists who must have been auditioning for the KKK role in the remake of "Birth of A Nation." http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDi...9?diaryId=8077 Uh ... am I wrong in thinking that certain elements of the KKK would like to apply, let us say, biblical values, to gay people? If you are not denying that, then I am at a loss to know what you are talking about, or how it relates to my point in any way, or whether you might be off your head.

8th March 2009, 01:19 PM	#29
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,619	Originally Posted by Texas So because they may be against Al Qaeda they are moderates? The Taliban, by definition, are the most extreme Isalmists on earth. Show me a "moderate" Talibani and it will be a headless corpse. What about the ones invited to texas to discus pipelines? It is perfectly possible to make deals with people you don´t agree with. Besides the situation in afganistan does not leave that many other options.
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

8th March 2009, 05:05 PM	#30
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,728	Originally Posted by Texas They are Afghani that were schooled in Pakistani Madrases. Maybe you can define a "moderate" Talibani. No one else seems to want to try. I didn't use the term "moderate" taliban. Please, ask someone else to solve your problems for you this time. Oh, and SOME of them are Afghani.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

8th March 2009, 05:09 PM	#31
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,728	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Uh ... am I wrong in thinking that certain elements of the KKK would like to apply, let us say, biblical values, to gay people? If you are not denying that, then I am at a loss to know what you are talking about, or how it relates to my point in any way, or whether you might be off your head. It's because everything's back to the idea that one of your correspondents there must have his nose into everyone's bedrooms and kitchens, and tell everyone who to touch and where. Much like the Taliban or KKK, in fact, despite the illicit use of the KKK moniker for people who are opposed to discrimination. It's part of the new, hardline right-wing nutter squad, it's simple, lie as much as possible, be as divisive as possible, and do one's best to incite revolution. That's what they are really on about at this point, you know. I'm not sure if it's the non-whiteness of the president, or the fact that their baby Bush failed to find a successor to continue the push to second world status, or what...
	__________________ The Power to Quit

8th March 2009, 05:50 PM	#32
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Perhaps it's worth remembering who the Taliban are, and who they are not. "Taliban" means students, and the actual Taliban are students of Pakistani Deobandi Madrassahs who rallied the Afghani people against the violent and cruel Mujahideen warlords who seized Afghanistan after defeating the Soviets. The Taliban are Muslim Fundamentalists, and cannot be construed as "moderate" by any standard. However, as happens, many non-Taliban have at various times aligned themselves with the Taliban, for various reasons. Most people make the mistake of collectively calling the Taliban and their allies/supporters by the same label. I would imagine that the "moderate Taliban" are not Taliban at all, but non-Taliban currently aligned with or supporting the Taliban. These people are probably aligned out of a sense of opportunity or survival, and can be pretty easily turned to our side by convincing them that the ISAF and the Afghani government offers a better chance of opportunity and survival. Pretty much what Pardalis said.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

8th March 2009, 05:59 PM	#33
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,471	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Really? You have some etymology for that saying or is it something coined for the War On Terror^TM? To me it sounds far to reminiscent of "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims", especially ironic in light of the recent terror attack in Northern Ireland. But that's just me letting reality get in the way of platitudes and sound bites... Actually I first heard that saying back when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. You can pay off tribal leaders and they will fight for you for a while. Until someone else pays them to fight against you. Did you follow that war? There was enough switching of sides to make you dizzy.

8th March 2009, 07:19 PM	#34
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Uh ... am I wrong in thinking that certain elements of the KKK would like to apply, let us say, biblical values, to gay people? If you are not denying that, then I am at a loss to know what you are talking about, or how it relates to my point in any way, or whether you might be off your head. What values did the racial epithet spouting gay activists apply to the minorities that voted for Prop 8? The gays that emulate the KKK racist beliefs are not sufficiently Klanish because they lack the Christianity component? Of course, you believe that calling a person an Uncle Tom is not a racist remark. Is the location of your head not known for sunlight?
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861

8th March 2009, 08:50 PM	#35
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by WildCat Actually I first heard that saying back when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. You can pay off tribal leaders and they will fight for you for a while. Until someone else pays them to fight against you. Must have slid under my radar at the time and I was a big Mujahadeen fan... Originally Posted by WildCat Did you follow that war? There was enough switching of sides to make you dizzy. ...yes, primarily through the pages of Soldier of Fortune magazine. Unfortunately it concentrated on old warriors taking out BMPs with Enfields, and how to take down Hinds with Stingers.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.