US Senate majority leader says Taliban cannot be defeated

[killjoy]

I would say most of the Taliban are not terrorists.

All cases of attacks that killed civilians that I remember reading also involved NATO soldiers. Does civilian collateral damage count as terrorism? That's a slippery slope for state warfare then.

Yes well it's been well established how selective your memory can be.

May 16, 2006 Reuters Foundation By Tahir Atmar

Afghan schoolgirls attacked, six wounded

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan - Suspected Taliban insurgents tossed a crude bomb into an Afghan girls' classroom, wounding a teacher and five students, a headmaster and police said on Tuesday. Taliban have launched numerous attacks on schools as part of an intensified insurgency that has produced some of the worst levels of violence since the end of Taliban rule in 2001. Headmaster Gul Mohammad said a small bomb was thrown through a window into a girls' class at his school, in the Chamtol district of the northern province of Balkh, on Monday.

A teacher was seriously wounded and five girls were slightly hurt with burns in the attack, he said. Another school in the district was burned down early on Tuesday after its guards were beaten up, police said. "The Taliban are behind this," said district police chief Mohammad Hashim, referring to both attacks. The militants attack schools as symbols of the Western-backed government and foreign influence. Seven children were killed when a rocket hit a school in an eastern town last month. The Taliban were ousted by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 after refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. But nearly five years later, their insurgency shows no sign of ending. Violence has surged in recent months and more than 500 people have been killed this year.

The unrest comes as NATO members are sending reinforcements to boost their peacekeeping force from 9,000 to 16,000. With about 23,000 troops, the United States now has its largest force in Afghanistan since its military involvement began in October 2001. The United States had been hoping to trim its Afghan force to 16,500 by early this year. Elsewhere on Tuesday, U.S.-led forces killed four militants in an air strike in Uruzgan province in the volatile south, the U.S. military said. "The extremists were responsible for launching numerous attacks against civilians and the Afghan National Army," the U.S. military said in a statement. In other violence, Taliban raided two police posts near the Pakistani border, killing two policemen and wounding six. A government office in the same area was attacked and a woman in a nearby house was wounded, a Khost provincial police spokesman said. Security forces later captured 13 suspected Taliban, including some who were burying a body, he said.

In the southern province of Helmand, where British forces are in charge of security, police found the beheaded bodies of two government workers who had gone missing last week. In Ghazni province, just south of the Kabul, a man had his hands blown off and was blinded when a mine he was planting exploded. His target was believed to have been a U.S.-funded road project, a provincial security official said. (Additional reporting by Yousuf Azimy and Kamal Sadaat)

December 19, 2005 From: www.feminist.org/news

Afghan Man Killed by Taliban for Teaching Girls

Armed men reportedly shot and killed a male secondary school teacher in Afghanistan for teaching girls. Reuters reports that the man, identified by the name Laghmani, was dragged from his classroom and executed at the school gates. ³He had received many warning letters from the Taliban to stop teaching, but he continued to do so happily and honestly ­ he liked to teach boys and girls,² Abdul Rahman Sabir, police chief in the Helmund province, told Reuters. In a separate attack presumed to be carried out by the Taliban, gunmen shot and killed an 18-year-old male student and a guard at another secondary school in the Helmund province, according to Reuters. The gunmen opened fire on teachers at the school and demanded that the schools be shut down or they would be killed, Reuters reports. The Taliban had banned all education of girls from kindergarten on up. Now Taliban supporters and militias, since the fall of the Taliban, have destroyed over 40 girls¹ schools. ³The Feminist Majority has been urging an expansion of international peacekeeping troops since the fall of the Taliban,² said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. ³The Bush administration speaks of democracy in Afghanistan, women¹s rights, and a Marshall Plan, but the US has simply not been delivering.²

August 24, 2005

GIRLS' SCHOOL TORCHED IN EASTERN AFGHAN PROVINCE

Pajhwok Afghan News website (in English) Kabul, Afghanistan

Unidentified armed men set ablaze a girls' school in the Alingar District of the eastern Laghman Province overnight, officials said. Laghman Education Department Director Aseerud Din Hotak said the perpetrators sprinkled petrol and set the building alight.

Eight rooms of the Kand-i-Rajai Girls' Middle School were completely destroyed, said the official. Speaking to Pajhwok Afghan News, Hotak described the unidentified miscreants as enemies of the country. However, he stopped short of naming any individual or group involved in the incident.

About 400 students were studying in the school. Mohammad Nasim, an eyewitness, told this scribe they had found pamphlets in the surrounding of the torched building warning the people not to send their daughters to schools. If failed to comply, they would face the consequences.

When contacted, Laghman Governor Shah Mohammad Safi confirmed the incident.

There are six high and 20 middle schools for boys. Besides 58 schools including 32 primary schools for girls with an enrolment of 58,000 students.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900S...nt&RSS20=02

http://www.w4wafghan.ca/fundraising/breaki...oolTorched.html

Yeah that doesn't sound like terrorism at all. You guys are idiots. Really no other word for it. An open mind and 30 seconds research would show you all you need to know but you're all to dishonest or stupid for that. Take your pick.

The responses to this are going to keep me on the edge of my seat. I really can't wait to see what people come up with next. What bizarre rationales will we use to smother this story? "Oh well they didn't know those girls were in the school", "Oh well you know: a school can be a military target too.", or how about the ol' "Oh this is just the CIA dressed as Taliban to give those nice guys a bad name"

.

[B. Max]

Maybe we better have a look at Frist's e-mail too. Some one should tell Frist that we've already been down the appeaser road and it led to 911.

[bradco]

I would say most of the Taliban are not terrorists.

All cases of attacks that killed civilians that I remember reading also involved NATO soldiers. Does civilian collateral damage count as terrorism? That's a slippery slope for state warfare then.

Yes well it's been well established how selective your memory can be.

May 16, 2006 Reuters Foundation By Tahir Atmar

Afghan schoolgirls attacked, six wounded

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan - Suspected Taliban insurgents tossed a crude bomb into an Afghan girls' classroom, wounding a teacher and five students, a headmaster and police said on Tuesday. Taliban have launched numerous attacks on schools as part of an intensified insurgency that has produced some of the worst levels of violence since the end of Taliban rule in 2001. Headmaster Gul Mohammad said a small bomb was thrown through a window into a girls' class at his school, in the Chamtol district of the northern province of Balkh, on Monday.

A teacher was seriously wounded and five girls were slightly hurt with burns in the attack, he said. Another school in the district was burned down early on Tuesday after its guards were beaten up, police said. "The Taliban are behind this," said district police chief Mohammad Hashim, referring to both attacks. The militants attack schools as symbols of the Western-backed government and foreign influence. Seven children were killed when a rocket hit a school in an eastern town last month. The Taliban were ousted by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 after refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. But nearly five years later, their insurgency shows no sign of ending. Violence has surged in recent months and more than 500 people have been killed this year.

The unrest comes as NATO members are sending reinforcements to boost their peacekeeping force from 9,000 to 16,000. With about 23,000 troops, the United States now has its largest force in Afghanistan since its military involvement began in October 2001. The United States had been hoping to trim its Afghan force to 16,500 by early this year. Elsewhere on Tuesday, U.S.-led forces killed four militants in an air strike in Uruzgan province in the volatile south, the U.S. military said. "The extremists were responsible for launching numerous attacks against civilians and the Afghan National Army," the U.S. military said in a statement. In other violence, Taliban raided two police posts near the Pakistani border, killing two policemen and wounding six. A government office in the same area was attacked and a woman in a nearby house was wounded, a Khost provincial police spokesman said. Security forces later captured 13 suspected Taliban, including some who were burying a body, he said.

In the southern province of Helmand, where British forces are in charge of security, police found the beheaded bodies of two government workers who had gone missing last week. In Ghazni province, just south of the Kabul, a man had his hands blown off and was blinded when a mine he was planting exploded. His target was believed to have been a U.S.-funded road project, a provincial security official said. (Additional reporting by Yousuf Azimy and Kamal Sadaat)

December 19, 2005 From: www.feminist.org/news

Afghan Man Killed by Taliban for Teaching Girls

Armed men reportedly shot and killed a male secondary school teacher in Afghanistan for teaching girls. Reuters reports that the man, identified by the name Laghmani, was dragged from his classroom and executed at the school gates. ³He had received many warning letters from the Taliban to stop teaching, but he continued to do so happily and honestly ­ he liked to teach boys and girls,² Abdul Rahman Sabir, police chief in the Helmund province, told Reuters. In a separate attack presumed to be carried out by the Taliban, gunmen shot and killed an 18-year-old male student and a guard at another secondary school in the Helmund province, according to Reuters. The gunmen opened fire on teachers at the school and demanded that the schools be shut down or they would be killed, Reuters reports. The Taliban had banned all education of girls from kindergarten on up. Now Taliban supporters and militias, since the fall of the Taliban, have destroyed over 40 girls¹ schools. ³The Feminist Majority has been urging an expansion of international peacekeeping troops since the fall of the Taliban,² said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. ³The Bush administration speaks of democracy in Afghanistan, women¹s rights, and a Marshall Plan, but the US has simply not been delivering.²

August 24, 2005

GIRLS' SCHOOL TORCHED IN EASTERN AFGHAN PROVINCE

Pajhwok Afghan News website (in English) Kabul, Afghanistan

Unidentified armed men set ablaze a girls' school in the Alingar District of the eastern Laghman Province overnight, officials said. Laghman Education Department Director Aseerud Din Hotak said the perpetrators sprinkled petrol and set the building alight.

Eight rooms of the Kand-i-Rajai Girls' Middle School were completely destroyed, said the official. Speaking to Pajhwok Afghan News, Hotak described the unidentified miscreants as enemies of the country. However, he stopped short of naming any individual or group involved in the incident.

About 400 students were studying in the school. Mohammad Nasim, an eyewitness, told this scribe they had found pamphlets in the surrounding of the torched building warning the people not to send their daughters to schools. If failed to comply, they would face the consequences.

When contacted, Laghman Governor Shah Mohammad Safi confirmed the incident.

There are six high and 20 middle schools for boys. Besides 58 schools including 32 primary schools for girls with an enrolment of 58,000 students.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900S...nt&RSS20=02

http://www.w4wafghan.ca/fundraising/breaki...oolTorched.html

Yeah that doesn't sound like terrorism at all. You guys are idiots. Really no other word for it. An open mind and 30 seconds research would show you all you need to know but you're all to dishonest or stupid for that. Take your pick.

The responses to this are going to keep me on the edge of my seat. I really can't wait to see what people come up with next. What bizarre rationales will we use to smother this story? "Oh well they didn't know those girls were in the school", "Oh well you know: a school can be a military target too.", or how about the ol' "Oh this is just the CIA dressed as Taliban to give those nice guys a bad name"

.

No those are clearly acts of terrorism, I agree. As I said anything that is directly targeting civilians should be considered terrorism. Thanks for the examples. I can admit when Im wrong.

No need to be so nasty by the way. Before your post I clearly stated "If you provide an example where the civilians are the clear target than I will agree"...thats hardly sitting here with a clsosed mind or denying anything

I stand by my argument that there is still a need to clarify and use properly the term terrorist though. Too automatically lump anyone who fights against the "west" as a terrorist is wrong. Some attacks by the Taliban, as listed by Killjoy, are terrorist attacks. But not all of them are. When the Taliban target military personnel it shouldnt be considered terrorism but a lot of people jump to refering to them as terrorist attacks. Thats my main point....in both Iraq and Afghansitan attacks are defined as terrorist attacks which are NOT and should not be called terrorist attacks. Im just saying that people need an open mind and realize that the people our military fights in a war aren't automatically terrorists. To brand anyone a terrorist bastardizes the word and renders it meaningless so that we cant distinguish between soldiers attacking other military personnel and bastards attacking schools. Once this occurs the word is nothing more than a tool used for rhetoric and propaganda. I could make a longer argument but Id rather refer people to Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language, since I could never put it as good as him the importance of "language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought."

[Wilber]

I stand by my argument that there is still a need to clarify and use properly the term terrorist though. Too automatically lump anyone who fights against the "west" as a terrorist is wrong. Some attacks by the Taliban, as listed by Killjoy, are terrorist attacks. But not all of them are. When the Taliban target military personnel it shouldnt be considered terrorism but a lot of people jump to refering to them as terrorist attacks. Im just saying that people need an open mind and realize that the people our military fights in a war aren't automatically terrorists. To brand anyone a terrorist bastardizes the word and renders it meaningless so that we cant distinguish between soldiers attacking other military personnel and bastards attacking schools. Once this occurs the word is nothing more than a tool used for rhetoric and propaganda. I could make a longer argument but Id rather refer people to Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language, since I could never put it as good as him the importance of "language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought."

Unfortunately when they don't wear uniforms or fight as a regular army it is difficult if not impossible to tell the difference. If the Taliban claim responsibility for actions that are unquestionably "terrorist", they must accept the fact they will all wear that label unless those who are not do something convincing to distance themselves from those acts.

[bradco]

I stand by my argument that there is still a need to clarify and use properly the term terrorist though. Too automatically lump anyone who fights against the "west" as a terrorist is wrong. Some attacks by the Taliban, as listed by Killjoy, are terrorist attacks. But not all of them are. When the Taliban target military personnel it shouldnt be considered terrorism but a lot of people jump to refering to them as terrorist attacks. Im just saying that people need an open mind and realize that the people our military fights in a war aren't automatically terrorists. To brand anyone a terrorist bastardizes the word and renders it meaningless so that we cant distinguish between soldiers attacking other military personnel and bastards attacking schools. Once this occurs the word is nothing more than a tool used for rhetoric and propaganda. I could make a longer argument but Id rather refer people to Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language, since I could never put it as good as him the importance of "language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought."

Unfortunately when they don't wear uniforms or fight as a regular army it is difficult if not impossible to tell the difference. If the Taliban claim responsibility for actions that are unquestionably "terrorist", they must accept the fact they will all wear that label unless those who are not do something convincing to distance themselves from those acts.

But the media and governments should not label and refer to specific attacks as terrorist attacks if they are committed against military personnel. To do otherwise is dishonest and in my opinion being done for political reasons.

[killjoy]

Bradco

No need to be so nasty by the way. Before your post I clearly stated "If you provide an example where the civilians are the clear target than I will agree"...thats hardly sitting here with a clsosed mind or denying anything

No i didn't need to be so nasty. I get grumpy after years of this stuff. Clearly I lumped you into a larger group that I identify and feel much more combative towards. Your measured response in the face of said hostility is respectable. I won't forget it.

.

[gerryhatrick]

The Taliban are guilty of terrorism when they attack social institutions they don't tolerate.

The vast majority of Taliban actions are not terrorism though.

So what is an intelligent policy against them? Destroy them all?

Who's "stupid"?

They will need to be dealt with politically, because they are likely to be indiscernable from the population and after enough warfare ensues the population will invariably become resentful of the outsiders who they will view as the common denominator for violence and death.

Simple stuff.

[killjoy]

So what is an intelligent policy against them? Destroy them all?

Yeah sure. That's the plan alright gerry.

Simple stuff.

'specially when you over-simplify.

.

[gerryhatrick]

No need to be so nasty by the way.

As you can see bradco the poster is so consumed with anger against anyone who they think doubts the wisdom of the current Afghanistan policy that they cannot differentiate who they've been attacking.

I would submit that there is a need for people like that to be nasty to people like me who offer contrary information to their dearly held opinions.

[Wilber]

But the media and governments should not label and refer to specific attacks as terrorist attacks if they are committed against military personnel. To do otherwise is dishonest and in my opinion being done for political reasons.

Does it really matter? Did the fact the actions of the SS and Gestapo were not typical of those of the average Wehrmacht soldier make the defeat of NAZI Germany any less necessary? You are trying to apply western niceties to somewhere they have no business. Just because people who carry out terrorist acts also engage in what might be considered legitimate warfare doesn't make them any less terrorists.

[Canuck E Stan]

They will need to be dealt with politically, because THEY are likely to be indiscernable from THE POPULATION and after enough warfare ensues THE POPULATION will invariably become resentful of the outsiders who THEY will view as the common denominator for violence and death.

Simple stuff.

Who are "they" and who are "the population"?

I bet it isn't the women and children that are subjected to abuse, mutilation,starvation, and death by "they" and "the population".

Simple stuff coming from a very simple mind.

[kimmy]

Still no lucid response from the war cheerleaders here.

Just more emotional indignation.

Bill Frist = Jack Layton!

Ok, a couple of thoughts.

First, since when is Bill Frist an authority on anything? American liberals consider Frist to be an idiot of the first order. Are you citing his opinion now because you think his opinion is valuable, or just that it conveniently agrees with your own?

Secondly, what concessions are you (or Jack Layton, or Bill Frist) prepared to make to the Taliban to bring them into Afghan politics? You've seen evidence in this thread of what the Taliban like to do when they're not fighting for their lives. Certainly we know what the Taliban did when they had control of that country. So, what concessions do you think should be made to them?

-k

{head of Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs killed for educating girls in Afghanistan.}

[gc1765]

But the media and governments should not label and refer to specific attacks as terrorist attacks if they are committed against military personnel. To do otherwise is dishonest and in my opinion being done for political reasons.

Does it really matter? Did the fact the actions of the SS and Gestapo were not typical of those of the average Wehrmacht soldier make the defeat of NAZI Germany any less necessary? You are trying to apply western niceties to somewhere they have no business. Just because people who carry out terrorist acts also engage in what might be considered legitimate warfare doesn't make them any less terrorists.

I think there's a difference between an unprovoked terrorist attack (like 9/11 or blowing up schools), the imperialist nazis and those who are 'defending' their country. If a country is attacked by another nation, that country will usually try to defend itself. In the case of afghanistan, they are 'defending' themselves using guerilla warfare. I certainly don't agree with their tactics, but there is a difference between attacking someone who attacked you first and attacking someone unprovoked. I still think it's 'wrong' for the taliban or whoever to attack western troops but not as 'wrong' as bin laden attacking america or someone attacking a school. Now, I don't actually know who in afghanistan is commiting these 'terrorist' attacks. If they are the same people attacking schools then they are terrorists. But if they are only attacking military targets, then I would call them insurgents or 'guerilla warriors'. Same with Iraq.

[bradco]

But the media and governments should not label and refer to specific attacks as terrorist attacks if they are committed against military personnel. To do otherwise is dishonest and in my opinion being done for political reasons.

Does it really matter? Did the fact the actions of the SS and Gestapo were not typical of those of the average Wehrmacht soldier make the defeat of NAZI Germany any less necessary? You are trying to apply western niceties to somewhere they have no business. Just because people who carry out terrorist acts also engage in what might be considered legitimate warfare doesn't make them any less terrorists.

Im not arguing that it doesnt make them less terrorists. My argument for distinguishing between their terrorist acts and their "legitimate" (although largely illegal) warfare is to not confuse certain acts and use words for political pruposes. When someone brands something terrorism it carries a lot with it by conjuring up visions of 9/11 and the emotional baggage we all have from that horrible event. When theres no clear distinction between legitimate warfare and terrorism it is a lot easier for certain western politicans to mobilize opinion behind a mission through playing to peoples emotions.

[gerryhatrick]

Still no lucid response from the war cheerleaders here.

Just more emotional indignation.

Bill Frist = Jack Layton!

Ok, a couple of thoughts.

First, since when is Bill Frist an authority on anything? American liberals consider Frist to be an idiot of the first order. Are you citing his opinion now because you think his opinion is valuable, or just that it conveniently agrees with your own?

One reason for citing it is because he's a rightwing hawk. It's not rocket science.

FOX News thinks it's worthy news, as does all the other networks. Now, you can say something dismissive about the media or recognize that when the Republican Senate Majority Leader says something of this nature it's news.

Secondly, what concessions are you (or Jack Layton, or Bill Frist) prepared to make to the Taliban to bring them into Afghan politics?

Why would you attribute what Bill Frist or what Jack Layton says to myself? I bring you the news. You deal with it. Badly, it appears.

[Wilber]

Im not arguing that it doesnt make them less terrorists. My argument for distinguishing between their terrorist acts and their "legitimate" (although largely illegal) warfare is to not confuse certain acts and use words for political pruposes. When someone brands something terrorism it carries a lot with it by conjuring up visions of 9/11 and the emotional baggage we all have from that horrible event. When theres no clear distinction between legitimate warfare and terrorism it is a lot easier for certain western politicans to mobilize opinion behind a mission through playing to peoples emotions.

Why should we distinguish between their terrorist acts and their so called "legitimate" warfare? They don't. The Taliban takes responsibility whether terrorist or "legitimate" therefore they deserve the title. They terrorized their own people when they formed its government and they are still doing it. A particular act may be acceptable in terms of warfare but it was still carried out by terrorists. When those children who were receiving candy from Canadian troops were killed by a suicide bomber, they were the target just as much as the troops. There was a definite message being sent to Afghanis that if you or your children associate with Canadians, we will kill you. That is a terrorist act by any definition.

If a baker likes to work on cars during his time off, that doesn't make him an auto mechanic. Should Carl Roberts IV be thought and spoken of as a milk truck driver or the man who just shot 10 school girls in cold blood?

[gerryhatrick]

Why should we distinguish between their terrorist acts and their so called "legitimate" warfare?

Your right. We should just do what Bush does and call all our enemies "terrorists".

That way, people will stay confused. For a while.

[Wilber]

Why should we distinguish between their terrorist acts and their so called "legitimate" warfare?

Your right. We should just do what Bush does and call all our enemies "terrorists".

That way, people will stay confused. For a while.

Who's talking about labeling all our enemies terrorists? If you carry out terrorist acts you are still a terrorist no matter what you do on your good guy days off from being a terrorist. It's the people who try to separate the two and act like it is two different people with two different motives who are confused.

[M.Dancer]

Why should we distinguish between their terrorist acts and their so called "legitimate" warfare?

Your right. We should just do what Bush does and call all our enemies "terrorists".

That way, people will stay confused. For a while.

If a terrorist plants a bomb in a market one day, and attacks a military target the next, he's still a terrorist.

[gerryhatrick]

Why should we distinguish between their terrorist acts and their so called "legitimate" warfare?

Your right. We should just do what Bush does and call all our enemies "terrorists".

That way, people will stay confused. For a while.

If a terrorist plants a bomb in a market one day, and attacks a military target the next, he's still a terrorist.

I agree. But what is your contention?

Are you making a statement about the Taliban, or the Iraq insurgency? If there are hundreds of attacks a week in Iraq and the vast majority of them are against US troops (which is the case) then can we paint all the US enemies as terrorists?

The word is losing it's meaning because it's been used as a broad brush to often.

[kimmy]

Secondly, what concessions are you (or Jack Layton, or Bill Frist) prepared to make to the Taliban to bring them into Afghan politics?

Why would you attribute what Bill Frist or what Jack Layton says to myself? I bring you the news. You deal with it. Badly, it appears.

Negotiating with the Taliban is a position you've been lobbying for for weeks. That's why I ask that of you as well as of Layton and Frist. You support the idea of negotiating with the Taliban, so I think it's completely fair of me to ask how much you're willing to concede in these negotiations.

So how about, instead of dodging the question, tell us how much you're willing to barter when we negotiate with them.

-k

[gerryhatrick]

Secondly, what concessions are you (or Jack Layton, or Bill Frist) prepared to make to the Taliban to bring them into Afghan politics?

Why would you attribute what Bill Frist or what Jack Layton says to myself? I bring you the news. You deal with it. Badly, it appears.

Negotiating with the Taliban is a position you've been lobbying for for weeks.

I have never lobbied for that. You're spewing utter nonsense.

And it appears negotiations with the Taliban are happening anyway.

How does that make you feel? Have you been one of the fools lumping all the Taliban into the terrible "terrorist" heading that must either be killed or captured?

[watching&waiting]

The only negotiations with the Taliban are those done with the Afghan government. There are none done thru Nato or any of its member states. This has been the case since day one. It is the case in most wars of today and there is nothing that should make it any different now. Yes there are some moderate Taliban leaders, who may well be brought over to the government side, and if these leaders have say 200 men under them, maybe it would be a good thing. Most want government jobs etc for their return, and for now I think that would not be out of the question, but again it is not my call. For evey leader that can be swayed it would be like another 200 people out of the enemy forces, and maybe even 200 more for the government side. It seems that now we are seeing the mercenary types and those who sougth position and power, Not the hard line its our way or death type taliban.

[kimmy]

I have never lobbied for that. You're spewing utter nonsense.

The fact that you make a new thread each time somebody (Jack Layton, Bill Frist, and now allegedly Gen. Hillier) mentions negotiating with the Taliban gave me the impression that you're cheerleading for the idea. If not, I certainly apologize.

Very well then, clarify your position for me:

Do you, or do you not support the idea of negotiating with the Taliban?

And it appears negotiations with the Taliban are happening anyway.

How does that make you feel? Have you been one of the fools lumping all the Taliban into the terrible "terrorist" heading that must either be killed or captured?

I addressed this in your more recent thread. Click here for details.

-k

[gerryhatrick]

Do you, or do you not support the idea of negotiating with the Taliban?

I think we're witnessing another round of Bush rhetoric concerning the Taliban and how they're all terrorists. I think they're moderates if you're speaking about terrorism, but hardline in terms of governing their people.

Big time human rights abusers.

But on balance...what's preferable: a drawn out insurgency such as Iraq that ends up creating more resentment and terrorism....or some form of peace.

It's intelligent to have a place at the table, to know at least who you are fighting and to be able to communicate with them.

So, do I support "negotiations" with them? If that means nothing more than talking to them, yes I do. Where it leads I can't comment on.

The policy of the Bush administration - which Harper seems bent on following lockstep - of never talking to your enemies has been foolish at best.