| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Yet the Saudi king, Karzai, and reportedly even Bush want Mullah Omar to receive asylum in Saudi Arabia in order to "speed up plans for a reconciliation process."
"Australian army chief says peace not close with Taliban," from the Military-World, November 22 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):
The chief of the Australian Defence Force says he does not think a political settlement with the Taliban insurgents is close in Afghanistan.Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston says the threat to Australian troops in Afghanistan remains high, but he says the soldiers and and their Dutch partners have made good progress in disrupting the Taliban in Oruzgan province.
Overall, he says the coalition forces in Afghanistan are denying terrorists the opportunity to use the nation to launch attacks like September 11 or the Bali Bombings.
But he says they are still able to operate from the tribal areas of Pakistan.
The defence chief says, in his view, it is too early to start peace talks with the Taliban and says negotiations should only happen after the insurgents promise to give up their weapons.
Posted by Raymond at November 22, 2008 12:59 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"should only happen after the insurgents promise to give up their weapons."
The chief of the Australian Defence Force doesn't have any knowledge of the enemy at all.
As Churchill said "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."
Posted by: Armoured Passionfruit![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 22, 2008 1:45 PM
Armoured Passionfruit wrote:
"should only happen after the insurgents promise to give up their weapons."
The chief of the Australian Defence Force doesn't have any knowledge of the enemy at all.
As Churchill said "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."
...................
Hey, even he isn't quite as clueless as Bush etal, who don't even consider such elementary prerequisites to be of importance at all.
On what basis--either strategic or ideological--is there any reason to believe that the Taliban is going to negotiate in good faith with entities they consider Infidel and apostate puppets of Infidels?
I think most parties--the US, especially--think this is all about power, and so "power-sharing" is the solution. Certainly, power for the Taliban *is* a big issue, but it hardly the only one. The idea that the Taliban would be content to hold influence in a "democratic" government is, I beleive, entirely naive. Even more than power for its own sake, the key to the Taliban is ideology--specifically, the most extreme interpretation of "pure Islam" in the world today. The Taliban's Islam is so "pure", in fact, that its regime outdid the Wahabbi fanaticism of Saudi Arabia, and the Shi'ite Mullahcracy of Iran.
So--what would a "negotiation" with the Taliban--the Taliban, for God's sake--look like? Afghanistan is already a Shari'ah state, which threatens death for apostates, and clearly this is not "Islamic" enough for the Taliban. So--would you only have stoning for women in certain provinces? Only on Fridays? What?
And, why should the Taliban negotiate at all? They seem quite happily entrenched on the Afghan/Pakistani border, and are making great inroads against both those countries' half-hearted attempts to reign them in. I wouldn't be surprised if the Taliban assumes they will be back in Kabul in a few years, once the US and its Western allies have been pressured to pull out, and Karzai's weak and corrupt government falls--using that soccer stadium for what they consider its proper purpose--killing their fellow Muslims in savage public exhibitions.
Posted by: gravenimage at November 22, 2008 2:13 PM
There can be no lasting peace with Muslims as long as the seeds for their cause remains fertile in the Koran.
Posted by: Spot on at November 22, 2008 3:03 PM
The only effective means of negotiation with these scumbags comes from the barrel of a gun or the belly of a B-52.
Posted by: Alaskan at November 22, 2008 5:45 PM
How on earth do we persuade Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston to read one or more of the following: Robert Spencer's 'Onward Muslim Soldiers' and 'The Truth About Muhammad'; S K Malik's 'The Quranic Concept of War'; Majid Khadduri's 'War and Peace in the Law of Islam'; Winston Churchill's 'The Malakand Field Force'; or even Bassam Tibi?
How do we convince him of what Joseph Schacht knew: "the basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war: they must be converted, or subjugated, or killed"?
Then he'd know that Infidels certainly cannot have any lasting peace (peace as we think of it) with Islam; and a little more study, a study of even a little of the historically recorded internecine warfare of the Ummah, would also show him that the 'internal struggle' of Jihad, in the form of clan warfare and wholesale Civil War, is endemic to Islam because of its all-or-nothing, slay-or-be-slain zero-sum Dominance/ Submission Victor/Vanquished mentality, which knows nothing whatever of compromise, or reciprocity.
Then Angus Houston would know that any attempt to create in Afghanistan, out of a population saturated with Islam, any facsimile of a civil society, is utterly futile - one might as well try to teach murderous Kilkenny Cats to sleep in the same basket and eat nicely from the same dish.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 22, 2008 5:51 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)