Taliban say they pose no threat to the West

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Oct 7, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091007/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_taliban_anniversary

  2. Does this sound like trying to put out peace feelers to anyone else? If so then isaf really are starting to hurt Terry.
  3. (box of caveats - no, I do not agree with what they say, no, I do not like what they're doing, etc)

    But, you've got to hand it to them - they are rather better at Strategic Communication/Info Ops/Propaganda then our side. It helps of course to know what you want and to have a plan for getting it...

    Edited to add: Ilech, on the contrary, they're reinforcing the success they are having in various capitals of the West, ref to the polls quoted in other threads earlier today, and the inevitable ensuing discussions about "strategy", troop levels and timetables for withdrawals (victory achieved etc).
  4. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    If the Taliban can assure the West that they will no longer harbour those who would bring destruction to the West, then they might have a point. Considering that they can do no such thing, and they harboured Osama, then they've got two hopes of us using that as a pretext for bailing out.
  5. Oh oh oh, its all coming back to me now - yes, I can see it clearly, I remember the day when the horrible West invaded that harmless idyllic place which was minding its own business, busy creating heaven on earth... I am ashamed... and deeply sorry. Let's just apologize, wish them luck and go home.
  6. Well if they say that, then it is OK and we'll all be home for tea!
  7. Oh right we're the bad guys now...

    What a load of shite.

    If these maniacs got officially into power the world but be much worse off than it is now.
  8. Ok fair point, however wasnt it mentioned sometime back about taliban laying doen arms and re-joining their society ? Or am i just putting 2+2 and getting 5?
  9. Right. I can just imagine all the Muslim terrorist nutters shrugging their shoulders resignedly and saying: "Well, as long as they're in Affers, we'll just have to go home". Like there are no other countries where they can congregate, Somalia being a good example.

    No Muslim loony grabbed in any Western country was ever from Affers, and in contrast to popular opinion, the Taleban don't control the whole country. There's no way they could give such an absurd assurance.

    I'm not trying to defend them in any way, but the Taleban have never shown any inclination whatsoever to attack nations in Europe, or indeed anywhere else.

  10. ohhh yeah Now that the nutters have said that they wont do anything to the west, lets all just pull out our troops out and pretend it never happend...
  11. I think theres a long way to go - but i think its heading the right direction.
  12. There were some in Chechnya, but I don't suppose we can really call that a Western Country.

    I think the difficulty lies to a large extent with defining who the Taleban are: In the days when they were in control of Kabul and most of the south, they were comprised of both Afghans and Pakistanis, and the Taleban was reportedly stated as a movement in Pakistani Madrassas (some allege on the orders of Benazir Bhutto's ISI). In short, they were not a solely Afghan organisation.

    They did harbour Osama bin Laden, and it's probably not surprising they did so - he had trained in Pakistan and fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, so he had much in common (although all the Afghanis I knew said they hated Arabs). Additionally, the Pashtun have a tradition of giving refuge when it is unconditionally asked for.

    I am hard pushed to think of an example of the Taleban attacking Western countries, so in that respect Bugsy, you're right.

    However, they were a shower of shite, and largely despised, and as already pointed out, they never controlled the whole country, and mostly sat south of the Hindu Kush. (The North had its own bunch of cnuts to deal with - you may remember them as our allies). So I have no problems with confronting Terry with force.

    The $64m dollar question is what would become of the country if NATO troops pulled out? I believe the region would become a haven for muslim terrorists. The Taleban couldn't control the country before, and they would not be able to in the future. They certainly would not control Baluchistan where part of the problem lies.

    For those reasons, my vote is firmly against pulling troops out until there is an environment which is not a haven for terrorists.
  13. I may be dreadfully naive but can we not just agree to leave them to do what ever they want with their country as long as they don't start diddling in the training/exportation of islamic jihadists, whatever their flavour

    Obviously we can then save up all of our military might and give them a post 9/11 style pasting if there is so much as a sniff of naughtyness
  14. Are Terry (in thier current form) getting just as bit bored of fighting in someone else's back garden as we are then?

    Jolly good. Provided they feck of back to Pakistan / Iran / Somalia / Chechnya etc and leave everyone in peace then we can do one as well....

    Until the Afghan government cock things up again, (I'd give it several weeks), the tribal regions carry on doing thier own thing as per - not really giving a toss who is in charge as long as they have guns and bring order, the major towns then become power vacuums, some bright spark emerges with a radical idea of how all countries should be run, and have a pop at a global superpower from the sanctuary of thier cave at the same time, for not conforming to their flea infested lifeless ideals. Then we'll be back for round three / four / whatever everyone has lost count.
  15. No.

    Perhaps the Taliban themselves are not overtly dangerous to the west yet afghanistan would be a home for islamic extremists of every denomination, and many of those groups pose a very real threat to the west, such as Al-Qaeda. This seems to be them trying to influence Obamas decision - i.e 'we aren't dangerous at all, we'll disappear due to the current troop levels eventually anyway, no need to raise them'

    If they popped out and said 'our objective is to kill every western baby' then it would be difficult for Obama not to order a troops rise.

    Smoke and mirrors.