Taliban say they pose no threat to the West

Do you agree that the withdrawal of foreign troops was the only solution to the conflict

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091007/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_taliban_anniversary

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.
...
"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

"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."
...
Washington was using the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq as part of its expansionist goals in the Middle East, central and southeast Asia, it said.
...
Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a spokesman for the Taliban, said the withdrawal of foreign troops was the only solution to a conflict that has grown in intensity and has pushed some European nations to refuse to send their soldiers into battle zones or to speak about a timetable to withdraw from the country.
 
#2
KGB_resident said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091007/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_taliban_anniversary

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.
...
"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

"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."
...
Washington was using the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq as part of its expansionist goals in the Middle East, central and southeast Asia, it said.
...
Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a spokesman for the Taliban, said the withdrawal of foreign troops was the only solution to a conflict that has grown in intensity and has pushed some European nations to refuse to send their soldiers into battle zones or to speak about a timetable to withdraw from the country.
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).
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
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.
 
#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
Sun_Too said:
(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).
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
Biped said:
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.
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.

MsG
 
#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
lgnd-bev said:
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...
I think theres a long way to go - but i think its heading the right direction.
 
#12
Bugsy said:
Biped said:
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.
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.

MsG
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.
 
#16
thegimp said:
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.
Afghanistan is not the Taleban's country. The Taleban come from Pashutun areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan (plus a smattering of Taleb walts from other countries), and there are vast areas of Afghanistan which never have been, and probably never will be, 'Taleban Country'.

So no, we can't :(
 
#17
Generalissimo said:
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.
Fairy nuff, mucker. If you'd like to offer up any evidence at all for your opinion, I'd be more than happy to read it, particularly the part which demonstrates that Affers would "be a home to Islamic extremists of every denomination".

In you own time. Off you go.

MsG
 
#18
Oyibo said:
Bugsy said:
Biped said:
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.
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.

MsG
There were some in Chechnya, but I don't suppose we can really call that a Western Country.
I think some of the Mujahideen fought in Bosnia as well.
 
#19
llech said:
Does this sound like trying to put out peace feelers to anyone else? If so then isaf really are starting to hurt Terry.
Peace feelers????

They're 'winning' and offering western capitals a chance to pull out and leave them the spoils of war.

Have you no idea what this is all about?
 
#20
Bugsy said:
Generalissimo said:
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.
Fairy nuff, mucker. If you'd like to offer up any evidence at all for your opinion, I'd be more than happy to read it, particularly the part which demonstrates that Affers would "be a home to Islamic extremists of every denomination".

In you own time. Off you go.

MsG
There are two problems that might create a haven for terrorists: While the Taleban never exported their violence, they have certainly allowed international terrorists refuge. They might well do so again. Secondly, the Taleban are not confined to Afghanistan - most of the original Taleban were educated in Madrassas in Pakistan. (Taleban is is the plural for Taleb - a student at a Madrassa.).

I would have little confidence that the Taleban - if they were allowed to crack-on - would not harbour international terrorists, and I have no confidence whatsoever that Pakistan is going to get its shit together in the areas in which the Taleban train and operate.

Oh, and they happen to be rather unpleasant to those that don't 'toe the line'.

Apart from that, yeah, why not? Leave 'em to it.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top