Taliban Target Pro-Western 14-year-old girl

I don't think that's the right question. I think we should be asking what kind of danger the Taliban presents to its people and to the region, and possibly to the world. If it's a large enough threat, is there a number of civilian casualties high enough to dissuade you from eliminating them? I mean, I think something like half a million German citizens died in the bombings of WWII. Millions of people died overall. Would you say that those numbers were too high a cost to be rid of Hitler? Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn, but I don't think you'd say that. So the question, again, becomes just how much of a threat the Taliban is.

And why not? I mean, certainly those aren't our only tools, but military force is a necessity for winning a war, no?

That would certainly be a big help, but what exactly are they helping us do? They're helping us round up or kill jihadists. At the end of the day, we're still killing bad guys. Those jihadists don't just throw their hands up and say "Oh well, back to the steel mill, I guess!" They find a new headquarters to base their attacks from, and we start all over again--unless our armed forces can go about rounding them up in the meantime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everyone here knows that prior to our helping promote Religious Fanaticism in OUR fight against the *gasp* secular Communists, Afghanistan was actually a relatively peaceful place to visit. Even considering the abuse they endured under English rule. In the 1920s they had a short lived period of progressive prosperity (which was upset by the local superstitious idiots). By the 1960s Kabul was part of the "Hippie Trail" and it was somewhat prosperous. Sure, the countryside was and is still backwards - but, without our military intervention, in all likelihood, they'be somewhat like their northern 'Islamic" neighbors.

So, we played a HUGE part in the present f*cked up situation.

There is no solution, we just have to leave and lead by example. Which actually means changing ourselves, which would also mean introspection. And by the God damn Gods we sure as hell are not going to do THAT anytime to soon. So, expect more of the same for a LONG time to come.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People are growing weary of war. It comes to an end soon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Asguard, et al,

Oh WOW! Where does this come from?

(SARCASM)

Yes, I can see how so much better The Taliban are in comparison to us. They are so much more humane.

(COMMENT)

We, as a nation, are not perfect; agreed. Having said that, I can say that when we make mistakes, we have a tendency to air them and correct them. I don't see that in the Administration exhibited by The Taliban.

I do agree that we (the US) should step away from Afghanistan and let them choose their own destiny; even if it means falling back into Taliban hands.

As for GITMO and Abu Ghraib, I can say that in comparison to the Iraqis and Taliban, at our worst, we are better than their best. We are not throwing acid on little girls, or cutting peoples heads off. We are not shooting women in the back of the head for minor crimes.

I could make a long list, but I don't think it matters.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

@Balerion how many people do you personally know who have served or are serving in either Iraq or Afghanistan?

 

That could work in our favor. If the people turn against the Taliban then they might be able to drive them out to a location that we can exterminate them from without undesired casualties.

 

The numbers for drone strikes are actually far, far, far better than the civilian casualty numbers for the military alternatives - sending in the actual troops, be they American or Pakistani. We'd be talking about tens of thousands of civilian casualties - minimum - and the displacement of probably millions more.

If we're counting civilian casualties, lets note that the Taliban is responsible for at least an order of magnitude more of them than the drone campaign is - and that a lot of the Taliban's civilian casualties are intentional, and not "collateral damage."

But this is all barking up the wrong tree. There is no military solution that "exterminates the Taliban." That's a problem for Pakistani society to solve (or not - can't say that anyone has much confidence in the ability of Pakistan's society or institutions to fix much of anything, or even remain intact in the long run). Military options can be used to manage the problems that the Taliban presents, and possibly support a larger social change in Pakistan that would eliminate their ability to operate meaningfully, but not to do away with them wholesale.

 

Crunchy Cat, et al,

Yes, many people are thinking along this line. But it may not be the right line. Western thinking and concepts don't always conform to the way the people of this region think.

(COMMENT)

Insurgencies and anti-occupation activities don't live in a vacuum. These forces need secure recovery areas and support from (otherwise) non-engaged populations and local citizenry. The Taliban needs safe havens, food stuffs, monetary and political support to pursue anti-government and anti-occupation activities; as well as, sources of personnel, materiel, and intelligence on occupation and government forces operating in various regions.

Government and Occupation forces need to separate The Taliban from the indigenous population and citizenry, and any infrastructure that may benefit The Taliban conducting operations.

Please see GEN Allen's comments pertaining to the Green-on-Blue attacks.

• Reference: 60 Minutes: "Insider attacks" kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7423828n September 30, 2012

Also note President Karzai's admission about that Terrorism has INCREASED after a decade of US intervention. The US strategy has not been successful. And after 10 years, there is a question as to whether it can be turned around.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Re te thread title.
Not Pro-Western, Pro Female Education.
There is education for women outside of the West.
Sorry if I'm repeating something said earlier.

The Taliban may come to regret not killing this brave young woman more surely.
She is gaining World respect, and may have an important future.

As for the Poll.................................

 

Best way to protect herself would just be to convert to Christianity. Why, then she wouldn't be under the auspices of Salafists! No?

 

Let us hope she makes a full recovery. What about the poll?

 

There is no excuse for what was done to this girl. These murderers should be captured and imprisoned for life. Given the state of Afghanistan it won`t happen. There is no excuse for what happened to Rachel Corey. Those murderers should be imprisoned for life. Given the state of Israel it won`t happen.

All religious and idealogical extremism and violence should condemned.

 

The incident in question occurred in Pakistan.

 

It’s going to be long maybe even bloody uphill battle for these students/women that is for damn sure. Sad and tragic yes,but all things worth doing require a sacrifice. :shrug:

 

the poll options are not gruesome enough so i pass

 

(Insert Title Here)

I think the question is dynamic. From the outset, despite our just cause in Afghanistan, we have managed to—if you'll please pardon the phrase—"create terrorists":

Inside the dingy sitting room of a mud-brick house in the poor desert province of Marib, we're greeted by a wall of children whose father, Saleh Qaid Toayman, was killed in a strike on Oct. 14, 2011.

One of the boys, Azzedine, was there when the strike hit. He says he and his father and his brother were grazing camels in an area known to be controlled by al-Qaida. Night fell. The men slept outside a mosque. The first strike hit their car. Azzedine ran one way, his father and brother ran the other way.

Then came a second strike.

"I heard a huge explosion. But I stayed where I was, hidden under a tire. I did not move until the morning. Then, when I woke up, I was scared. I went to see my father and my brother. They were scattered into pieces."

Azzedine says his father fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s with men who would later join al-Qaida. The family says the father recently renounced ties with the group. They say he was even at one time on the payroll of Yemeni intelligence.

"If they wanted to arrest him — or even kill him — they knew where he lived," one relative says. "Why did they have to kill him like this?"

Now Saleh's sons have just one thing on their minds — revenge. Azzedine and the others say they want to fight against those who killed their father, namely against America.

In fact, they say Saleh's eldest son has already joined the al-Qaida-linked group, Ansar al Sharia. Hanging on the wall of the sitting room is the group's signature black banner. The family says the group bought them a new car, to replace the one destroyed by the airstrike. They say the group even pays them a monthly salary.

Another son is sitting to my right. He stares at me, hard. His name is Osama. He pulls out a crumpled piece of paper that he keeps in his pocket. He nudges me, urging me to look.

It's a picture of an American plane.

(McEvers)​

This has been going on for years.

As to how much of a threat the Taliban is? Well, how do we get them fast enough, and cleanly enough, that we don't inspire yet another generation of new enemies? How many rounds? How long?

Don't get me wrong; this atrocious, cowardly hit has my bloodlust running as hot as it has in years. But as I said, I have no idea what to do.

I suppose it depends on how one defines justice.

In Benghazi, they didn't round anybody up. They simply drove them out, saying, "No more!" That can be the start of something big. The people of Benghazi respected Ambassador Stevens. They liked him. They were horrified by what happened. And outraged. So thirty thousand of them streamed out into the streets, and then they turned on the bad guys, and chased them the hell out of town.

If local sympathy for the extremists dries up, if there is no decent harvest of new fighters, the extremist cause will starve.

And that might be the only way through, the only road that leads to a just peace.

In Mali, the extremists are down to buying child soldiers. While absolutely disgusting, it is also a perversely hopeful sign, because it means they're not getting enough adult fighters to fill out the ranks.

Yeah, a lot of innocent people are going to die on the long trek. But this is also the tale of human frailty and sorrow. We have fought wars through our entire history, and have yet to find genuine peace.

If we want to gamble on killing fewer people with our bombs and bullets than will die on that long trek to peace and justice, we need to recognize the odds. And right now, those odds are really, really bad.
____________________

Notes:

McEvers, Kelly. "Yemen Airstrikes Punish Militants, And Civilians". All Things Considered. July 6, 2012. NPR.org. October 11, 2012. http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156367047/yemen-airstrikes-punish-militants-and-civilians

British Broadcasting Corporation. "Mali Islamists 'buying child soldiers, imposing Sharia'". BBC News. October 10, 2012. BBC.co.uk. October 11, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19905905

 

Naturally. But there were terrorists being created before the war, so that argument is a non-starter. If you want to argue effectiveness, ask yourself what you'd rather have: a bunch of aimless and angry kids, or a bunch of aimless and angry kids with a working infrastructure that enables them to focus that energy. Now, are there alternative solutions to ridding the region of terrorists? I'm sure. I don't know what they are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm just saying that war isn't ineffective.

Sorry for the late edit, but I feel like it should be noted that while our actions can bring locals to the side of the enemy, we also accomplish the opposite. I remember watching an interview with Hitchens, who was long a supporter of the Kurdish resistance, and often talked of how while embedded with them he noticed a picture of George HW Bush on the dashboard of one of their jeeps. They saw him as a hero, a friend to their cause. That's just one example of how fighting for the freedom of a people can actually win those people to the cause. Sure, some are going to be angry, but others are going to be grateful.

I don't know if inspiring enemies is something we should be concerned with. The concern should be--as long as we're already at war--eliminating the infrastructure that allows them to operate with impunity, and then foster an environment that prevents such elements from gaining a foothold. The air strikes are tricky because they accomplish a goal while also taking a step back in terms of winning hearts and minds, but how else are we supposed to take out the terrorists when they're holed up in civilian homes? I hate to say something like this, but if the goal is to take them out--which I'm not saying I agree with--then civilian casualties are necessary. It's an ugly fact of war, but it's a fact nonetheless. I appreciate that you don't want to breed, so to speak, a new generation of Al-Qaeda, but what is an Al-Qaeda that has no place to go? That has no influence on a government? I think clearing them out, installing a government, training their security forces and military, and getting out can be an effective measure against these terrorist groups.

I hear you. While I do think that what we're doing now can work, I didn't agree that it should have been our first resort, and I don't doubt there were cleaner, more diplomatic approaches to the solution. But I don't know that we could have attempted to change the foundation of the region without some level of warfare.

How do you define it?

They also turned on the rebel brigades that were responsible for freeing them from Gaddafi in the first place, so relying on violent protests is a shaky proposition at best. Not to mention that it's unreliable. And I would argue that these people, while a bit too loose in their actions, were inspired and informed by the Arab Spring, which I'm not sure is possible without the Iraq War. As much as I disagreed with it, could you honestly see a scenario in which Arabs rise up en mass as they did (and still are) that doesn't include a free Iraq as the guiding light? I at least don't think it would have happened yet, at any rate.

Until the next drought, or the next event that makes the impoverished masses amenable to the anti-semitic and anti-Western rhetoric these clowns use as recruiting tools. Point is, unless something fundamental changes, then you're always going to have the potential for more of the disenfranchised to take up arms against the Jews or Americans or whatever. Okay, so maybe today Benghazi ousts the militia. Maybe tomorrow they decide that the militia makes a good point. There's no mechanism--yet--to ensure that these guys don't come back in at some point. Relying on the anger of the people isn't enough.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a just peace," but I doubt it would result in any sort of lasting peace. Anger is fleeting. There needs to be fundamental change for there to be lasting peace. Democracy, or some other mechanism that empowers the people so that they have some kind of control over their own lives, is the only way that these jihadists permanently lose their influence. Otherwise, they just have to wait it out.

It's the opposite of a hopeful sign. The group doing this seized control of Northern Mali from the rebels who had originally won the land in a coup, so it's not as if these guys are on their last legs. They've just won a major victory, and are now taking steps to entrench themselves. They're not just buying children, they're also buying wives, executing people, using amputation as a punishment, and have successfully installed Sharia. This is a worst-case scenario. The children they train are going to grow up to be dead-eye, battle hardened killers, should these people be allowed to stay in power. And since they've abolished taxes, they're sure to win over plenty of support as time goes on.

Point is, even when the group is small and the locals are terrified of them, what they lack in recruiting capacity, they'll make up for buy purchasing what they need, and literally breeding an army. The only way to prevent this from happening is stabilizing these places to the point where militias can't defeat them.

Well, by any means it wasn't going to be a short trip. It's been, what, ten years since the first war began? The Arab Spring began last year. We're really only at the beginning of this process.

I don't know that I agree with your assessment.

 

My bad, error due to the residue of `69.

 

This poll does not offer as an option the stupid and self-defeating policy of the US government. Whatever Americans vote for here, it's not what your government is doing.

This is what the US government is doing -

• Pay billions of dollars a year to the Pakistani state in respect of their Islamic Extremists

This military aid is the most perverse and harmful to US national security because the Pakistani military via its military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) trains, arms and supplies the Taliban who are killing US and allied soldiers in Afghanistan.

This 2-hour video is of a British TV programme which explains in great detail the role of the Pakistani state via the ISI (Inter-services intelligence) has in supporting the Taliban's war against our forces in Afghanistan.

VIDEO: BBC Documentary - "SECRET PAKISTAN - Double Cross / Backlash" (2 hours)

[video=youtube;6_SkNUorWhc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_SkNUorWhc[/video]

RECOMMENDED VIDEO - 2 HOURS WELL SPENT!

The USA thoughtlessly throwing vast amounts of cash at poor countries like Pakistan is precisely what is encouraging the Pakistani state and other poor countries to sustain Islamic extremist terrorism because Pakistan thinks that if they had no Islamic extremist terrorists to cause problems for the world then they would not get their corrupt hands on the aid money to spend on making more nuclear weapons and other things that the Pakistani military elite want.

It's not just Pakistan but also Egypt and a host of other countries know that the best way to get their state bankrolled by the USA's aid money is to invest some time and effort in covertly organising Islamic extremist terrorists in their country and in other countries. Then the country puts on a "good cop, bad cop" routine for the USA's pleasure asking for cash to deal with the very terrorist problem they have created.

So the USA is paying for and encouraging terrorism which undermines its own national security yet thinking to itself it needs to pay up "for" national security whereas it is really acting against its own national security.

It's politics - it's all about being popular yet very stupid. I never quite got the hang of that skill myself.

 

um hm.
And once more, a thread is derailed from actual discussion because some pinhead thinks that deflecting attention from one point to another is a valid argument.
Look, Jello-boy. This thread is about the Taliban and their atrocities, and should never devolve into not "America does it too". Yet you always do it. Your "contribution" is only ever to lay blame and point fingers.
So fucking tired of your stupidity, Asguard. You're an Australian, and yet you're more American than most of the people on this board. You should know better. You should do better. You should be better. But you are not.

A 14 year old girl who has displayed far more courage and intellect than you will ever have has been shot in the head, and the first thing that jumps into your mind is "America started it". Know what you are?
You're the other girl in the bus who pointed her out.

I suggest, sincerely, that you go look up the word "insipid". For the simple reason that I'd have this girl in Australia. I'd trade you for her in a heartbeat, because we need far more of her and far less of the likes of you, due to you being insipid and her being a man.