Because the Taliban clearly don't give a shit about the people of Afghanistan
The war on terror is largely about winning the hearts and minds of people in terrorist hot spots around the world.
But as Raphael Alexander points out, the Taliban in Afghanistan need to win hearts and minds too -- although they're going about it in an entirely different manner.
Today, the Taliban targeted a convoy of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan with a car bomb. While wounding several Canadian soldiers, they killed 38 Afghan civilians.
This attack comes one day after a Taliban suicide bomber killed 80 when he detonated himself at a dog fight just outside of Kandahar city.
While today's attack seems to uncover a lack of cooperation between NATO forces and Afghan security operating in the area -- Kandahar Governor Asadullah Khalid claims that he warned NATO about the known suicide bomb plot and asked them to steer clear of the area -- one thing becomes immediately apparent.
The Taliban doesn't give a flying fuck about the people of Afghanistan. The startling regularity with which they attack their own people is only one more reason to remain in Afghanistan and ensure they don't return to power.
An Islamic extremist's belief that cavorting with Westerners is spiritual pain worse than death is one thing entirely: but if the Taliban cared about the people of Afghanistan, they wouldn't put them at risk unnecessarily, and sure as hell wouldn't attack them directly.
The two attacks -- claiming 118 civilian lives between the two of them -- does underscore a key difference in the battle for hearts and minds in Afghanistan: our NATO forces have to win their respect and loyalty. The Taliban will settle for fear.
The Taliban don't merely harbour terrorists when they're in power -- they are terrorists when they aren't. It's one of the most important reasons why they must be defeated.
It's another reason why we fight.
Monday, February 18, 2008
10 comments:
Post your comments, and join the discussion!
Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.
All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree.
ReplyDeleteWhat we really need is a rotation of front-line duties so NATO can maintain a continuous offensive.
In case you hadn't noticed, when we take the fight to the Taliban, we tend to win. When they bring the fight to us, they tend to win.
We need to take the fight to them whenever and wherever we can. It's as simple as that.
You say --The Taliban don't merely harbour terrorists when they're in power -- they are terrorists when they aren't. It's one of the most important reasons why they must be defeated.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to have moral outrage against the Taliban (and I'm not against that idea) then what about some outrage against this:
The National Security Archive has released a treasure-trove of declassified documents that provide explosive new information on CIA and U.S. military collaboration with far-right narco traffickers and paramilitary gangs in Colombia.
.... In Argentina for example, during the "dirty war" that followed the 1976 neofascist coup d'etat by the Argentine military, the CIA directly collaborated with Propaganda Due (P2) Nazis connected with José López Rega's notorious Triple A (Argentine Anticommunist Alliance) death squad in the transcontinental snatch-and-kill program known as Operation Condor.
Modeled after the CIA's Phoenix Program in Southeast Asia and NATO's European-wide Operation Gladio, Operation Condor was a cross-border alliance amongst the military elites of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Its reach was global and Condor operatives carried out murders, bombings and "disappearances" of tens of thousands of left-wing activists deemed "terrorists."
Or the US support for the killing of Columbian union officials. Or, more recently, the US support for Sudan's killings in Darfur. Or, perhaps the US could just hand over the terrorist bomber Luis Posada Carriles.
The US is still practising and supporting terrorism on a wide scale. The US State Department considers the Iranian Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) a terrorist organization. No American can deal with it, US banks must freeze its assets, and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime. Yet Michael Ware reported through CNN (6/4/07) that the US military regularly escorted MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base camp, Camp Ashraf. Iraq's national security minister, Shirwan al-Wa'eli, gave the MEK six months to leave Iraq but the deadline came and went.
When Pres.Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University (Sep 2007) he said this: "We don't need to resort to terrorism. We've been victims of terrorism, ourselves...Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups. All this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully, that same terrorist group [the MEK] now, today, in your country, is operating under the support of the US administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely, and their camps in Iraq are supported by the US government."
As William Odom, Director of NSA under Ronald Reagan said: "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation."
So, by all means, let's maintain our rage against those nasty Taliban terrorist supporters. Haven't they heard -- we own the franchise.
You may want to double-check your facts. The United States has been anything but supportive of the slaughter in Darfur. In fact, the United States has been pushing a peacekeeping plan that the Khartoum regime has repeatedly rejected.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, do you really believe Mahmoud Ahmedinejad about who is or isn't a terrorist in Iran?
Tres naive.
Besides, do you think this really excuses Taliban attacks on Afghan civilians? On the very same people they would govern?
Wake up.
You say -- And frankly, do you really believe Mahmoud Ahmedinejad about who is or isn't a terrorist in Iran?
ReplyDeleteObviously not, now that you've pointed it out to me. After all, Ahmedinejad's lips were moving, right? So he must be lying, that's a given (how could any mother spawn such a monster?) So I will ignore the fact that the MEK is a listed terrorist organization. I will expunge from my memory the CNN report from Michael Ware claiming that the US military regularly escorted MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base camp, Camp Ashraf. His report never happened, his lips weren't moving and Iraq's national security minister, Shirwan al-Wa'eli, did not give the MEK six months to get out of Iraq. Gotcha.
On April 15, 2003, the US Army did NOT sign a cease-fire permitting the MEK to keep its weapons and use them against Iranian regime infiltrators in Iraq and the US State Department was NOT outraged over this deal brokered by the Pentagon. And the US did NOT refuse to hand over MEK leaders to Iran in exchange for five top al Qaeda leaders. Reports from CIA officials that the MEK had commenced CIA-backed bombings in Iran as of June of 2005 are also all completely untrue. Gotcha.
You said it precisely: if Mahmoud Ahmaedinejad's lips are moving, he's probably lying.
ReplyDeleteYou really want to go to the wall in defense of mr "we do not have homosexuals in Iran"?
What a joke. Wake up.
"You really want to go to the wall in defense of mr "Iraq must come clean on its weapons of mass destruction"?"
ReplyDeleteNo. And unlike you and mr Ahmadinejad, I don't.
See the difference?
No. And unlike you and mr Ahmadinejad, I don't.
ReplyDelete"I don't" what???
I can't follow what you're saying here (other than the fact that you feel very, very angry about Ahmadinejad and would like everyone else to be similarly, irrationally, outraged.
What's your point?
The point here is that one of us is an apologist for tyranny, and one of us isn't.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't get much clearer than that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYep, I sure did delete your comment. And so long as you keep behaving like a two-year-old, I'll keep deleting your comments.
ReplyDeleteAre you starting to get it?