[Tipacanoe]

http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm

[Mulderator]

Talk to the Taliban?

No thanks--I'm not ready to have my head cut off just yet!

Perhaps we can send Tipecanoe and a contingent of liberals to Afghanistan to have a talk with the Taliban!

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Perhaps we can send Tipecanoe and a contingent of liberals to Afghanistan to have a talk with the Taliban!

Mulder, it isn't so bad. I skimmed through the article. The author makes claims that seem believable enough, but doesn't cite sources.

I remember in late '01, when the Blame America First crowd was wondering 'why they hate us so much' having a conversation with one of my roommates.

At this time, Jesse Jackson was making noise about going over to Afghanistan. I remember telling my roommate sarcastically that we should just send Louis Farakhan over to proudly proclaim to the Afghanis, "Keel Whitey!"

This was way back in the days before Louis became a cosmonaut

[Tipacanoe]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1144446612409

[Tipacanoe]

Media still quiet on Afghanistan facts
Big picture lost to jingo journalism

Apr. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM
ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

It was a year ago March that an ex-military friend shipped out to Kabul as a private contractor to help shut down Camp Julien and relocate Task Force Afghanistan to Kandahar.

Canada was jumping from the proverbial frying pan to the fire. I wondered if I had slept through the national debate on the shift in the mission.

But no: As we now know, there was virtually no debate at all.

Then, nobody seemed to care.

Canada's media and political leaders have declared their support for the role our troops are playing in Afghanistan. But polls suggest that citizens are not so rah-rah. A Decima Research survey released on Sunday shows that we are split: 46 per cent of the respondents say that sending troops was a good idea while 45 per cent disagree.

Which is why last night's Parliamentary debate was not much more than political posturing.

On Sunday, my colleague Haroon Siddiqui raised many questions about Afghanistan, questions to which Canadians deserve answers from politicians.

But Canadians also deserve more from the media that accepted the Ottawa line, whether it came from the Paul Martin Liberals or the Stephen Harper Conservatives, on the war.

Not the mission. "The war."

As the Nation's Christian Parenti wrote from the field: "Taliban attacks are up; their tactics have become more aggressive and nihilistic. They have detonated at least 23 suicide bombs in the past six months, killing foreign and Afghan troops, a Canadian diplomat, local police and in some cases crowds of civilians. Kidnapping is on the rise. American contractors are being targeted. Some 200 schools have been burned or closed down. And Lieut. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the senior American military officer here, expects the violence to get worse over the spring and summer."

In his March 27 report, Parenti detailed Afghanistan's failed economy, the drug trade and how the U.S. is "slashing its funding for reconstruction from a peak of $1 billion in 2004 to a mere $615 million this year. And thanks to the military's recruitment problems, the United States is drawing down its troops from 19,000 to 16,000. In short, despite (President George W.) Bush's feel-good rhetoric, the United States is giving every impression that it is slowly abandoning sideshow Afghanistan."

Which leaves guess-which-country, along with Europe, holding the bag? Are Canadians getting a true idea of how very big and dirty that bag is?

Not from most of their media.

True, we have many brave journalists humping their computers and cameras along with the troops right now. (I count many of them among my friends.) But their grunt's-eye view, though colourful, does not deliver the big picture.

For example, how aware are most taxpayers that they have contributed millions to putting warlords and drug smugglers in power? Human Rights Watch estimates that 60 per cent of the members of the new Jirga have warlord connections.

Last week, the Sun's Eric Margolis wrote that, "The public is getting distorted news from Afghanistan because the North American media has substituted jingoism and flag-waving for reporting of hard news.

"Afghanistan's complexity and lethal tribal politics have been marketed to the public by government and media as a selfless crusade to defeat the `terrorist' Taliban, implant democracy, and liberate Afghan women. Afghanistan is part of the `world-wide struggle against terrorism,' we are told.

"None of this is true."

Too many of us, in the absence of serious and in-depth analysis, are coming to the wrong conclusions about this mess. Conclusions such as that women there are significantly better off and that the country is being "rebuilt'' — or that Canada is a beacon of civility.

According to Human Rights Watch, Canada has been "trying to undermine critical international protections" and "sought to dilute a new treaty outlawing enforced disappearances."

By not reporting these facts, media are betraying the people on the ground, troops and journalists included.

Bad enough we're now doing the United States' dirty work.

We don't also have to sugar-coat it American-style.

[DublHelix]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Mulder, it isn't so bad. I skimmed through the article. The author makes claims that seem believable enough, but doesn't cite sources.

I remember in late '01, when the Blame America First crowd was wondering 'why they hate us so much' having a conversation with one of my roommates.

At this time, Jesse Jackson was making noise about going over to Afghanistan. I remember telling my roommate sarcastically that we should just send Louis Farakhan over to proudly proclaim to the Afghanis, "Keel Whitey!"

This was way back in the days before Louis became a cosmonaut

BF,

Just one brief p.o.v from me as an Englishman ... We here in the uk are plagued by heroin as you are there in the u.s. Not sure where yours comes from ( I have read that its primarily the so called Golden Triangle ... ie Burma, Laos, Thailand) Yet for us Brits, the source is Afghanistan, through Iran, and thence through Turkey. London, like NY has areas synonymous with particular ethnic groups - jews, japanese, indians, etc ... and part of north london has a large turkish community who, like the sicilians in new york, maintain close ties with 'the old country.'

Throughout the time the taliban were in power, they were (according to their interpretation) applying 'God's Law' here on earth. Yet they turned a blind eye to opium poppy growth ... as long as it was for export. Only growers / dealers who were distributing inside the country, were punished. That is NOT what the Qur'an advocates. So how devout were they ?

In fact, I was living in a house share here in london back in 2000, with an afghan guy a bit younger than me. He was conscripted by the government the years Ivan pulled out, and spent several years fighting to support the Najibullah regime left in place once Gorbachev called time on the whole escapade.

He and his siblings had to leave 'like ... yesterday' as the Taliban captured an army personnel depot with files on serving soldiers. As a matter of fact, his brother is just now establishing himself as a competent surgeon here in London, and both his sisters, who were prevented from working, driving, or even going out unescorted ... are safely ensconced in jobs in a country where women are free to work.

The leaders of the Taliban ... such as 'Blind' Mohammed Omar ( who in fact is only blind in one eye ... if that) ... left strict orders to the defenders of their crumbling regime - namely 'fight and martyr yourself ... we're *ahem* heading for the hills.'

[Tipacanoe]

There are moderate Taliban leaders. Find them, talk to them.

[DublHelix]

Tipacanoe,

Just my p.o.v as stated above ... but anyway :

The Taliban are yesterday's news.

The idea of a moderate member of the Taliban is a red herring ... there may be some who 'take a more pragmatic view' ie they want to regain power, and will suddenly be willing to negotiate with those whose views are diametrically opposed to their own - purely for selfish reasons. Once back in a position of influence, they would revert back. FWIW, taliban 'warlords' are active in the maintenance of the afghan tradition of indenture, whereby poor farmers are required to grow opium, an promise their daughters in marriage.

All thse people should be swept aside, and killed.

[Tipacanoe]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350060724

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Tipacanoe

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1144446612409

Ouch!

[lighthouse]

The big **** up with Afghanistan is how when - as DH puts it - 'Ivan pulled out' the CIA/other agencies didn't use their contacts there in an effort to put the country back together after the years of conflict. This wouldn't have been beyond their capability but they didn't. The goings on there afterwards must have been obvious to anyone in the intel community and the consequences no less so. The rest we all know about.

As far as the drugs issue is concerned, that's the philosophy of every dealer on the planet - applied to an entire country, and is the worst hypocrissy imaginable. A cynical war drug that reduces populations to not much more than Pharmacies and entire communities abroad to gang riddled fiefdoms. The Taliban are a menace, but one that was allowed to establish itself in a decade of very many lost political opportunities. A country in the post-war chaos of the 90s was ripe for a government like that and because no effort was made to develop something rather more friendly and a lot less dangerous to global stabilty the Talibans ascendance to power was completely unhindered.

Liberal Talibanese? Isn't that something of a contradiction in terms?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by lighthouse

The big **** up with Afghanistan is how when - as DH puts it - 'Ivan pulled out' the CIA/other agencies didn't use their contacts there in an effort to put the country back together after the years of conflict. This wouldn't have been beyond their capability but they didn't. The goings on there afterwards must have been obvious to anyone in the intel community and the consequences no less so. The rest we all know about.

As far as the drugs issue is concerned, that's the philosophy of every dealer on the planet - applied to an entire country, and is the worst hypocrissy imaginable. A cynical war drug that reduces populations to not much more than Pharmacies and entire communities abroad to gang riddled fiefdoms. The Taliban are a menace, but one that was allowed to establish itself in a decade of very many lost political opportunities. A country in the post-war chaos of the 90s was ripe for a government like that and because no effort was made to develop something rather more friendly and a lot less dangerous to global stabilty the Talibans ascendance to power was completely unhindered.

Liberal Talibanese? Isn't that something of a contradiction in terms?

That would be like a "Caring Conservative"!

[lighthouse]

I don't align it to any political adjective Bassetman, just common sense............ although a policy that advocates an aid programme to a country with no commercial gains attached to it is a left wing policy surely?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by lighthouse

I don't align it to any political adjective Bassetman, just common sense............ although a policy that advocates an aid programme to a country with no commercial gains attached to it is a left wing policy surely?

[linskyjack]

We did talk to the Taliban--in fact we were talking with them shortly before 9/11. The result, they refused to throw Bin Laden out---No, I say we kill the Taliban, talk isn't feasable with theocratic Nazis.