Header Image (book)


Monday, June 6, 2011

Direct Talks With The Taliban?

Are you kidding me? See THIS over at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS.


  1. Yep! My post today is very similar ..

  2. If Obama actually does this... I don't know what to say.

    He is definitely our enemy.

  3. Hi AOW.
    There were rumors of this going on already two months ago , so i can't say i'm surprised i'm at the point that news like this is to be 'natural' for this regime.Anything normal has become something from the past, allies are ennemies ennemies arefriendsone of these days you'll hear he will be having talks with Ahmadinejad, judging from his weekly calls with Erdogan and Erdogan having meetings last week with Iranian Generals.They're destroying America from the inside .

  4. I made this comment to the conservatives on fire blog...

    Yes Afghanistan is the “Graveyard of Empires” for a very simple reason. The location is difficult, harsh and remote, tribalism rules and tribal loyalities rule everything else. You can rule the people in the plains around Kabul but as soon as you involve the tribes in the mountains you are screwed. The tribes will only develop themselves and the interference of outsiders have created the Taliban because smart degenerate Mullahs in the past were willing to usurp their own beliefs to fit into that tribal behaviour and bingo, many of the tribles are now Taliban affiliated and supported.

    What readers here do not realise is that the Taliban is an ideology like Al Qaeda and they do not represent Afghanistan as a whole but they are recognised within Afghanistan as being part of the tribal system. Throughout history, any slightest hint of attacking the “tribal system” will cause the ruling groups within the tribes to instantly stick to each other regardless of what they represent.

    So when you have a comment above like “showing the Islamic world…..” it is illogical in the scheme of Afghanistan, nonesense when it comes ot the actual “Islamic world” and simply does not make sense even as a phrase. Similary, “those Islamic Savages” is not even correct as written by the author here. They are savage, sure, they are the Taliban, and in the end only the Taliban claim that they are Islamic or representative of it. Even hard-core wahhabists like Al Qaeda are constantly infighting with the Taliban because of their mix of tribalism with their own skewered version of Islam – which is ironic because the Wahhabists do enough skewering.

    What should be also remembered here is that blaiming Obama and Cameron is naive, as it was Bush and Blair that started the process and put the rules of what would have to happen later on. To a great degree, Obama and Cameron have their hands tied – pulling the plug in one go also does not work and would show the world that these two countries (the US and Britain) cannot keep their commitments and any agreements with them anywhere else are questioned.

    Regardless of your opinions folks, the international community including the US and Britain are committed and recognise the current government in Kabul and if your happy to abandon it simply does not work, especially considering that it was a US and British led coaltion plus many more nations that kicked out the Taliban.

    It does make it very much like Vietnam in the sense that military action will not work, the solution is what they are trying to do, as in meeting with the “Tribes” – it is the media and you lot that call them Taliban and weeding out the hard-core and then giving some value to those that do not or are willing not to support the Taliban movement. In the end, the mistake is assuming that tribes in Afghanistan are really Taliban and only a fool will assume that they can win or have even a remote success in that country without accepting that the tribes will no matter what be part of Afghanistan’s future.

  5. We can stay and accomplish nothing or we can negotiate.

  6. Obama the ultimate betrayer of America.

    I don't know what to say to this. Something is just not kosher.

  7. "I didn't see this, I didn't see this, I didn't see this.I didn't see this......I didn't....."

    God help us all. America used to be powerful and people stayed away and didn't threaten because they knew we were AMERICA. But, now with the wimp in charge, we need to TALK and maybe we need to send tweets, too? gad

  8. He is stupid to the point of being dangerous-and beyond.

  9. Damien,
    Ugh. Blogger pushed your comment into its spam folder. I published your comment here on my web site as soon as I saw your comment in comment notification.

    You make excellent points about tribes.

    I would add this: Moslem tribes, tribes usually sworn enemies, will put aside their tribal differences and temporarily unite in the face of outside opponents -- or even in the face of outsiders who are not enemies of any of the tribes.

  10. Wow. I didn't think it was possible, but Obama's an even bigger putz than I originally thought.

  11. Duck mentioned negotiation.

    Well, negotiation with tribal cultures -- the West has tried to do so many times and not only with Moslem tribes -- is noted for the failure of that negotiation. Just look back at the failed negotiations with the American Indian tribes! Sure, there is blame to lay at the feet of various American Presidents; but the fact remains that the Indians broke those treaties, too, particularly if a new chief gained power.

    And to look at this matter in a different way, the West must take into account the Moslem idea of hudna:

    Hudna (هدنة) is an Arabic term meaning a temporary "truce" or "armistice" as well as "calm" or "quiet", coming from a verbal root meaning "calm". It is sometimes translated as "cease-fire". In the Lisan al-Arab (Ibn al-Manzur's definitive dictionary of classical Arabic, dating to the 14th century) it is defined as follows:

    "hadana: he grew quiet. hadina: he quieted (transitive or intransitive). haadana: he made peace with. The noun from each of these is hudna."

    A particularly famous early hudna was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe.

    According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

    Google-search "hudna" to learn more.

  12. I would not put much value into 14th century words such as "hudna" which is usually brought up by either western scholars or some of the self-proclaimed anti-jihadists.

    The reason for avoiding them is the proof in the pudding - this term "hudna" is basically ignorned by everyone except those that have an agenda - the two groups above.

    If we were to take every bit of history and old text literally and attribute it then Muslims will have no cell phones and fite with bows, scimitars and spears, they do not.

    It is like the word "taqqiya" that somehow allows Muslims to lie, so they say when the only people who ever use that word are the same group above - it was a small reference in the Koran that said if your life was threatened, or that of your family, it is understandable if you lie.

    The reality is that there is no difference between Muslim or any other tribe - tribal values are important to them as much as the freedoms, democratic and social values that we hold dear.

    The response I wrote above was also about the issue that the forces in Afghanistan and the Administration are not "negotiating with the Taliban", they are in fact negotiating with various Tribes to see whom are really following tribal lines or political-Taliban lines to break them apart and then deal with the Tribes to alienate the Taliban system.


  13. Demien,
    I would not put much value into 14th century words such as "hudna" which is usually brought up by either western scholars or some of the self-proclaimed anti-jihadists.

    You might want to look at THIS (Arafat, 1994):

    ...I see this agreement [with Israel] as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca. Arafat further drew out the comparison, noting that although Muhammad had been criticized for this diplomacy by one of his leading companions (and a future caliph), ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the prophet had been right to insist on the agreement, for it helped him defeat the Quraysh and take over their city of Mecca. In a similar spirit, we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem....

    As for taqiyya, consult IQ al Rassooli, a regular guest on The Gathering Storm Radio Show. IQ is our scheduled guest this Friday, June 10. You are welcome to phone in or send me an email with any questions you have about taqiyya; I will ask IQ those questions on the air.

    I do agree with you about tribalism superseding other values.

    But I don't agree with you that Islam has modernized to the point of tossing aside certain tenets of Islam.

  14. Damien,
    Do certain Western scholars and anti-jihadists have an agenda. Maybe -- and certainly many make a living by exposing the whitewash of Islam. On the other hand, IMO, truth telling should be judged for what is actually is -- not by any monies garnered during that truth telling.

    The West has, for so long, tried to deny the threat that Islam poses to Western civilization.

    Are Muslims nice people? Sure. I've had a Muslim neighbor, so I know how nice Muslims can be. But I also watched this neighbor become "revived" once he started attending the Falls Church mosque Dar al Hijrah. Eventually, he packed up and returned to the Middle East; one of his regular visitors those last few years he was here was arrested for money laundering for terrorist groups.

  15. Negotiate with who...the area is controlled by group of tribes...which is why a surge in this country would have less of an effect than in Iraq which had some form of centralized government...

    As to Ducky's comment...we told you Obama would snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in killing Osama....

    Instead of negootiating or staying for no reason...declare we were after Osama, we killed him, Mission accomplished...we are leaving.....let the critics say what they will and annouce an immediately draw down...

    or dance around wondering what to do next because you have no experience and no idea what you are doing and then negotiate with terrorists....

    Obama the one termer

  16. Blogginator,
    Instead of negootiating or staying for no reason...declare we were after Osama, we killed him, Mission accomplished...

    That's my position. I can see no point in spending more blood and treasure in an attempt to change hearts and minds. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years!

  17. Always on Watch,

    Your comments are understandable but I also think equally explainable.

    Yasser Arafat was a politician and militant leader. What do all politicians and militants do, they target the base and core emotive elements that are important to the target population. For most Muslims it will be their faith and thus he will quote Islamic texts and doctrines to the hilt. Saddam Hussein was about as irreligous as possible but from the beginnings of the First Gulf War he claimed God on his side and said his only goal was Israel and he one over the support of Palestinians.

    I can tell you out of vast experience that if you travel the Muslim world, faith is important but except for some large illiterate populations - they do not consider these archaic items.

    My comments about scholars and self-proclaimed anti-jihadists having agendas though generalized for my part stands. Scholars that come up with these conclusions almost to a person are basing their studies for a purpose and not based on the reality on the ground (ie they are obviously wrong). Many are Evangelists in an attempt to prove Islam wrong or they are their to sell books based on Islam being a popular topic. The anti-Jihadists are either egoistic people who want to see their names up in lights or represent an interest group like the Settler Movement in Israel. Daniel Greenfield and Daniel Pipes are perfect examples of the latter and hate-bloggers like Robert Spencer and Pamela Gellar are of the former. There is a lot of money to be made and that should not be forgotten.

    As for comments about Islam, for me it happens that the scum on this planet at present are amongst the Muslims and that is just the time. It was before others and that should not be forgotten, it was only since 1978 that the radicals, the birth of terrorism as we see it now has come into playing. In reality Muslims are as like anyone else, no worse or no better and they are suffering badly both in their world and within their faith. Remember some cold hard facts that should never be forgotten but is avoided by these "agendas". In the end, the worst massacres and deprevations in modern history were not by Muslilms - holocaust, Rawanda, Srebrenica, Stalin's purges, Mao's purges, Pol Pot and so on. Add that if we believe these people, then all 56 Muslim countries are trash-heaps when not one country except Somalia supported Bin Laden, the rest outlawed Al Qaeda, only 13 are ultra-orthodox, less than half actually have Sharia legal systems and the rest are secular and those that do have it, again only less have it as the principle system and the rest are family courts and subject to a secular appeal court.

    Just to update, I am a British barrister (lawyer) and live in Gibraltar. I worked in two Muslim countries as part of the UN I have an MA in the Judicial Processes in the MENA Region - middle east and north africa - Half my clients are Moroccans of which I also travel to that country regularly.


    Damien Charles QC

  18. I will add another comment of which I am certain you will not agree with. Al Rassooli regardless of the quality of the person as an individual is someone with a clear agenda and thus will push one line and frankly speaking it is tainted to no-end. Considering that it cannot even say Islam but Mohammedean Islam says it all, let alone his profiting from a book and the total lack of recognition by either academia or the main-stream community. He lives off of the fringe.

    A second point, I never said the Muslim world is tossing away one of its tennants, because the original quote you gave is a minor tennant open to interpretation and is very much interpreted in many differing ways.

    Islam does not pose a threat, that in my view is a naive thought that is racked with giving in to the power of gossip and nationalist exploitation. Yes there is a war by jihaddists, they are almost entirely from three sects - hard-core Wahhabists like OBL, salafism - an offshout of Wahhabists and Talibanism which is an ugly mix of ancient tribalism and those bits of wahhabism that suited them. None of these represent the Muslim world either statistically or politically.

  19. Damien,
    Obviously, you and I are in disagreement on several points. Indeed, I surmise that you would classify me as a "hate blogger." Suit yourself on that matter.

    In any case, we'll see how "all this" plays out over the next few years. Time will tell which view of Islam turns out to be the realistic one.

    And, no, I'm not angry -- or even irritated -- by this discussion.

  20. Always on Watch,

    the most important thing is to be able to have that chance and right to disagree and I commend you for that. I am not sure I would call you a "hate blogger" I ahve yet to fully understand and read your own comments and in many aspects I understand the fears and concerns people have - they are justified in many, many ways. I blame those that profit from it and those before us who failed to communicate what is really happening out there and some of that blame has to also be upon the Muslims themselves.

    Yes time will tell but I also believe that the present and the way we handle it also has influences.

    For me, that we can talk and discuss, express our opinions without angst is important and appreciated, this is the third well produced site that I expressed my personal and professional experience and in both other cases the blog owner simply erased my existance rather than allow expression and freedom of speech which they also considered themselves protectors of.

    Cheers and be assured I will not be "trolling" your site, just commenting in those areas I have my opinion.

    Damien Charles

  21. Bunkerville,

    Iran is not very welcome in Afghanistan as Shia Islam is rather at extreme odds with much of the ugly mix of Wahhabist Sunni extremism and pagan tribal customs of that the Talliban follow.

    Historically the Persians are the traditional enemies and tribal groups on the Iran/Afghan border are actually in conflict with the Iranian authorities and back insurgents inside Iran.


  22. Eventually you're going to have to, what Afghanistan needs is one of those old colonial types to tear is down and rebuild it in their own image. Mind you, it's a hard sell because it's really a craphole that doesn't produce anything of value to anyone.

    What America is doing now is just rebuilding it in the image of islamic savages. That'll never succeed because they don't want to better their lives, they love their war mongering prophet more than their children.

  23. Must be a relative. Thugs are thugs! They support one another!

  24. Damien,
    Another of your comments got caught in Blogger's spam folder. Who knows why.

    Anyways, I just found that comment of yours and published it. Sorry for the delay in publication: sick cat (See the post above this one.

  25. The silly notion that we can negotiate with these animals and simply talk them into not killing us is further evidence that Obama is a stupid moron.

  26. I'd say OK if they only talk about the Taliban's unconditional surrender, but we know Obama is too big a coward to except that.

  27. I just had a thought.....put down your drink or you will be snorting your coffee....here it goes..

    Remember Libya. Remember when the Obama said he would resolve this quickly and show the World how to dispose of a dictator quickly???


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective