* Peace in our time alert: from the Democracy under sharia department:
Afghan President invites Taliban leader to join peace talks, ministry
Karzai even went to the extent of inviting the renegade leader, who is one of the most wanted persons on Washington’s terrorist list, to join his ministry.Â Â
* Â Najibullah, one of Karzai’s predecessors installed in Kabul by the Russians, ended up Â hanging from aÂ CraneÂ with his dick in his mouth. Karzai would be well advised to kiss the feet of his American masters every day that he’s alive.
Baitullah Mehsood passes away Â Updated at: 0107 PST, Â Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Â PESHAWAR; The head of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsood has passed away here. He was suffering from high blood pressure and kidney disease, according to Geo News.
* Â Update: The dementi came instantly: apparently he’s still alive…
Afghan President Hamid Karzai made a fresh appeal to Taliban supremo Mullah Mohammed Omar to join peace negotiations, guaranteeing immunity from foreign forces.Â
His call, as a part of repeated efforts to find a breakthrough in his fight against terrorism in the country came on the first day of Eid ul-Fitr, the religious holiday that comes at the end of the Muslim month of fasting, or Ramadan.
Karzai, who often insisted that negotiating with the militants would not include Mullah Omar, changed his stance during a press conference held in his presidential palace Tuesday.Â
He even went to the extent of inviting the renegade leader, who is one of the most wanted persons on Washington’s terrorist list, to join his ministry.Â
“Come to your own homeland, and construct your country,” Karzai said. “Don’t be afraid of foreigners; we will stand in front of them so that they don’t hurt you,” he added, referring to around 70,000 international troops deployed in Afghanistan.
LONDON (Reuters) – Taliban leader Mullah Omar on Monday urged U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan to withdraw or face a similar defeat to occupying Soviet troops a generation ago.
In a rare message, posted on militant websites and monitored by the U.S.-based SITE intelligence group, Omar offered a bargain to the U.S.-led forces that drove the Taliban from power in 2001 but are now fighting a fierce insurgency by the Islamist militia.
“Reconsider your wrong decision of wrong occupation, and seek a safe exit to withdraw your forces,” said the message, which the Taliban said came from Omar.
“If you leave our lands, we can arrange for you a reasonable opportunity for your departure,” he said, adding that the Taliban posed no harm to anyone in the world.
If the occupation persisted, “you will be defeated in all parts of the world … like the former Soviet Union,” Omar said.
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up a Marxist government against mujahideen fighters, but was ground down by guerrilla warfare and withdrew in 1988-89.
Omar’s apparently conciliatory remarks were reminiscent of statements by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in which he has offered to spare Western countries from attacks if they cease what he calls a war against Muslims. Western governments have always dismissed such offers out of hand.
|Â Â Â
UnitedÂ StatesÂ ActionÂ
|057. Are the Taliban “The Enemy” or Not?
September 29, 2007
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/09/are_the_taliban_the_enemy.phpÂ Â Â
Are the Taliban “The Enemy” or Not?
By Jeffrey Imm
Once again, another national leader of an American “ally” in the “war on terror” has offered to help theÂ TalibanÂ regain political power.Â AP has reportedÂ that Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai offered “to meet personally with Taliban leaderÂ Mullah OmarÂ for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.”Â AP reportsÂ that Karzai stated: “If a group of Taliban or a number of Taliban come to me and say, ‘President, we want a department in this or in that ministry or we want a position as deputy minister … and we don’t want to fight anymore … If there will be a demand and a request like that to me, I will accept it because I want conflicts and fighting to end in Afghanistan.” This echoesÂ comments this weekÂ by the UK Defense Minister that “the Taliban will need to be involved in the peace process”.
In February 2007, the Afghanistan parliament granted immunity to the Taliban’sÂ Mullah OmarÂ and other Mujahideen for 25 years worth of activities. Now Afghan President Karzai wants to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks to allow the Taliban to join the Afghanistan government. (There is no word if the U.S. State Department would continue to offerÂ $10 millionÂ for the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, although he is no longer on theirÂ main pageÂ of wanted terrorists.) Taliban leader Mullah Omar was reputed to have signedlast year’s Taliban peace truceÂ with Pakistan.
But isn’t theÂ TalibanÂ “the enemy” of the United States of America?
If not, what exactly does theÂ Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)Â call for? TheÂ AUMFÂ called for war against “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations”, which surely included theÂ Taliban. Furthermore, there areÂ 171 clustered references to the TalibanÂ in the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission. What more exactly does the United States need to view the Taliban as “the enemy”? Based on the AUMF, how can the Taliban be any less of an enemy to the United States, than Al Qaeda itself?
And if the Taliban are “the enemy”, how can Americans accept the Taliban or the Taliban ideology in any political organization of an “ally” nation, let alone ones that American taxpayers provide millions of dollars to? Where is theÂ outrageÂ from American political leadership on this? Why is thereÂ no outrageÂ among American political leaders at offers to “legitimize” the same Taliban that helped Al Qaeda in its Jihadist camps to kill 3,000 Americans? AsÂ previously discussed, the lack of clarity in identifying the enemy in this war is precisely what allows such disturbing realpolitik considerations.
What do such “peace at any cost” negotiations with an enemy of the United States mean to Jihadists in justifying the use of political terrorism? If the Taliban regain political power in Afghanistan, does American leadership agree that we should lose the Afghanistan war to end the fighting? Isn’t that what, in other words, we callÂ “surrender“? Or has our ambiguity about the identity of the enemy gotten so dense that American leadership can now rationalize the Taliban itself?
Earlier this month, Karzai called for peace talks with the Taliban, but the Taliban rejected such talks until “foreign troops” leave Afghanistan. This is a demand that Karzai has rejectedÂ on the basis: “[i]t should be very clear until all our roads are paved, until we have good electricity and good water, and also until we have a better Afghan national army and national police, I don’t want any foreigners to leave Afghanistan”. Is Karzai saying that he just doesn’t want western aid to stop, as it did for Hamas?
Karzai’s offer for political empowerment to theÂ TalibanÂ in Afghanistan comes asÂ UPIÂ and theÂ Daily TelegraphÂ report that the Taliban has publicly released its “Constitution of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, which provides insight into what the Taliban would do if indeed such political empowerment was realized. TheÂ Daily Telegraph reportsÂ that the “23-page document envisages a country where women would remain veiled and uneducated, ‘un-Islamic thought’ would be banned and human rights would be ignored if ‘contrary with the teachings of Islam’ “, where “violators will be punished according to sharia”, and that stipulates that all other constitutions are void. Furthermore, the Taliban constitution has called for “good relations” with those countries supporting AfghanistanÂ “during jihad”. I think we can make an educated guess that the Taliban would not consider such countries to include the United States.
Is this the legal system with “its roots in Islamic law” that the UK Defense Minister wasÂ stating this weekÂ would be a solution to fighting in Afghanistan?
This follows theÂ August offerÂ by Pakistan President Musharraf to help the Taliban become a mainstream political organization. At the August 12 jirga meeting, President MusharrafÂ reflectedÂ that as “Taliban are a part of Afghan society”, and “all of them are not diehard militants and fanatics”, that reaching the Taliban and pro-Taliban population required “a more comprehensive political and development approach”. President Bush wasÂ reportedÂ to have congratulated Pakistan President Musharraf on his efforts at the jirga.
Realpolitik negotiators may believe that there is a “bad Taliban” and a “good Taliban”. In Presidents Karzai and Musharraf’s views, the “bad Taliban” is violent, and the “good Taliban” is well, just simply “fundamentalist” in their Islamist view of the world. Does America agree with that assessment? Because that is the direction that war in Afghanistan is going based on these outreach efforts to bring the Taliban into the political mainstream. Realpolitik negotiators may believe that bringing the Taliban into a “democratic” political process will end the conflict and fighting in Afghanistan.
Did bringing Hezbollah into the Lebanon government end fighting in Lebanon?
Yet NATO, UN, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the US are all tolerating the idea of peace talks with the Taliban to bring them back into political power in the Afghanistan government. Americans don’t even have to compare this to Islamist Iran as an analogy. We have already seen what the Taliban did when they held political power in Afghanistan. Our national homeland was physically attacked and thousands of AmericansÂ diedÂ as a result. On this near anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, how could we forget that? What next – will we be negotiating a political “mainstream” party for Al Qaeda?
Moreover, with their latest constitution, the Taliban has told us specifically what they plan to do, if they do get back into power. We know who and what the Taliban are and what they plan to do if they regain power. Yet still, American leadership is not denouncing talks to allow the Taliban to return to Afghanistan government power.
If so, this begs the obvious question, whatÂ areÂ we fighting for?
U.S. State Department Poster: “Wanted – Mullah Omar – Up to $10 Million Reward”Â — “Although Operation Enduring Freedom removed the Taliban regime from power, Mullah Omar remains at large and represents a continuing threat to America and her allies”.
U.S. State Department Updated List of Wanted TerroristsÂ – not including Mullah Omar