'The Taliban Are Terrorists' - hardly

[fastpat]

The brilliant Eric Margolis writes the truth for Canadians to read. Americans should read it too.

'The Taliban Are Terrorists'

by Eric Margolis

As Canadian casualties mount in Afghanistan, it's important to correct three major falsehoods being promoted by the ill-informed, flag-waving media.

1. Taliban are terrorists. In 1989, at the end of Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy, civil war, and crime. Rape was endemic. A village prayer leader, Mullah Omar, armed a group of religious students (talibs). He set about fighting banditry, rape and drug dealing, imposing order based on traditional tribal and religious law.

Taliban were not 9/11-style terrorists, but a religious, anti-Communist movement drawn from the Pushtun tribe.

Most of the Taliban's energies went to fighting Afghan Communists. Iran, India and Russia openly backed the Communists - rechristened, Northern Alliance.

Most of the so-called terrorist camps in Afghanistan were in fact bases used by Muslim volunteers who had come to fight Communists there and in Central Asia.

The Taliban shut down production of opium and heroin. But its backwards leaders proved themselves to be harsh and incompetent. Female education was temporarily banned because Communists had infiltrated the nation in the 1970's through the school system. The Taliban oppressed minority Hazaras, and blew up Buddhist idols.

But Washington gave millions in aid to the Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. once considered using them and Osama bin Laden's 300 al-Qaida followers to stir revolt in China's western Muslim regions, and in Russian-dominated Central Asia. The U.S. cut off aid after the Taliban refused to give a key strategic pipeline deal to a U.S. oil firm.

The Taliban's leaders knew nothing of 9/11, a plot actually hatched in Germany. When the U.S. demanded bin Laden be handed over, the Taliban refused: He was a guest and national hero, wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle. The Taliban offered to send bin Laden to an international tribunal once the U.S. presented evidence of his involvement. Washington refused and invaded, blaming the Taliban for 9/11.

Unable to withstand U.S. power, Mullah Omar ordered his men to blend back into the Pushtun population and wage low-grade guerrilla war against the invaders. Other movements, like Hizbi-Islami, joined in battling foreign occupation. Canada unwisely chose to pick a fight with fierce tribesmen whose only desire is to end foreign occupation and be left alone.

2. Canada is defending -democracy- in Afghanistan. This is pure propaganda. The U.S. installed the puppet Karzai regime in Kabul, then held an election even more rigged than the ones run by the Soviets. The U.S. spends hundreds of millions to bribe Afghan warlords, most of whom are up to their turbans in drug dealing. Since the Taliban's overthrow, opium production is up 90%. The U.S.-NATO ruled narco-state Afghanistan now produces most of the world's heroin. Karazi's regime would collapse the moment foreign troops leave.

Besides drug lords, the U.S., Canada and NATO are also in league with resurgent Communists - who, with the Soviets, killed 1.5 million Afghans and tortured tens of thousands. The Uzbeks - now U.S. and Canadian allies - are more vicious and brutal than Taliban, and deeply involved in drug trading.

3. Canada is defending women's rights. Laughable nonsense. The Taliban, demonized by western propaganda, mistreated its females no worse than other Afghans. Women are mistreated across South Asia. In India, brides are burned and people hanged for marrying below their caste. An estimated 10 million female fetuses were aborted in India since 1985, according to the leading medical journal Lancet.

Canadian troops are not social workers and won't change local customs. Only naive fools think they could. American and Canadian journalists who rushed to Afghanistan see none of this because they stay safely -embedded- with occupation forces. They get the usual cook's tour and cheery assessments, and are fed PR handouts. Cheerleading for war and flag-waving may sell papers, but it is not responsible journalism.

April 3, 2006

Eric Margolis [send him mail margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.

Copyright - 2006 Eric Margolis
Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis22.html

[Mulhollanddose]

You are such a tool.

[Mulhollanddose]

[TheMentat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You are such a tool.

OOOhhh good one!

While the second "falsehood" is debatable, the article makes some good points in the other two.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You are such a tool.

So which of the three points Margolis asserts do you dispute, and what makes you dispute them?

[Mulhollanddose]

"Margolis stands out among his colleagues by presenting outlandish conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality."

HonestReportingCanada

Margolis has long been an Islamic terrorist apologist and anti-semite.

[TheMentat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
"Margolis stands out among his colleagues by presenting outlandish conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality."

HonestReportingCanada

Margolis has long been an Islamic terrorist apologist and anti-semite.

Another ad-hominem from the ad-hominemeister...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Try to address the arguments presented...

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
So which of the three points Margolis asserts do you dispute, and what makes you dispute them?

It is all misleading propaganda intended to confuse the issues. What is his point, you tell me?...Other than conflating things like who and what the Taliban were, and where exactly 9-11 was plotted (clearly Afghanistan), the spew seems to aim at administering another cut at America, in order to further bleed support for the war...This does nothing but aid communists and terrorists.

What is his point, Patsy?...What are his allegiances?

[Z-man]

Ok, let's connect the dots, shall we?

1. On 9-11-2001, the US was attacked - planes were flown into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and another was downed in PA. OR will Margolis start saying that all that didn't really happen?

2. Folks KNOWN to be tied to the Al Queda terrorist group (Atta and company) were on these flights. Coincidence? I think not.

3. By his own admittance (IIRC), Bin Laden has admitted he and his terrorist group was responsible for the attacks on 9-11.

4. Bin Laden and his AlQueda terrorist group has close ties with the Taliban.

Seems these dots are pretty simple to connect, no? Or is there something I'm missing?

Another point: let's just say that the Taliban was created to help Afganistan out of it's civil unrest. Though the start may have been honorable, it certainly evolved... much like the Christian crusades...

-Z.

[Moneyguy1]

Z...

Looks like a pretty fair assessmernt. How, in Heaven's name, does one separate one brand of "zealot" from another? Centuries separate the Taliban from the Crusades, but were't both a form of extremism?

Yes..It offends my sense of humanity to treat females with such diffidence, and I would say that things have to change in order for that part of the world be considered "civilized". Not only for the reason of equality, but also they do not so much want to be "left alone", but they will not be happy until we all require a prayer rug.

It will take generations, if ever, to bring that portion of the world, kicking and screaming, out of their patriarchical way of thinking.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Z-man
Ok, let's connect the dots, shall we?

1. On 9-11-2001, the US was attacked - planes were flown into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and another was downed in PA. OR will Margolis start saying that all that didn't really happen?

I didn't see where Margolis asserted that the attacks on 9/11/2001 never occured, where did you see that? Oh, wait, you didn't, Okay then.

2. Folks KNOWN to be tied to the Al Queda terrorist group (Atta and company) were on these flights. Coincidence? I think not.

The US government says they were, and in fact seemed to know quite a lot about who the people were quite quickly, dispite the fact that few is any recognizable bodies were recovered. This has never seen significant public investigation by disinterested third parties.

3. By his own admittance (IIRC), Bin Laden has admitted he and his terrorist group was responsible for the attacks on 9-11.

Bin Laden claimed responsibility for planning the attacks, that's correct. Did or did not the Taliban offer them up to a disinterested third party for investigation and trial?

4. Bin Laden and his AlQueda terrorist group has close ties with the Taliban.

So did the US government.

Seems these dots are pretty simple to connect, no? Or is there something I'm missing?

There appears to be quite a lot you're missing, or just don't understand. Margolis' article explains quite a bit, perhaps you should read it again.

Another point: let's just say that the Taliban was created to help Afganistan out of it's civil unrest. Though the start may have been honorable, it certainly evolved... much like the Christian crusades...-Z.

I believe Margolis stated that in the article. The plain fact is that the US government should have been forced to stand back and the Taliban should have given Bin Laden up for trial in the Hague.

This is an international criminal matter, not a military matter.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Centuries separate the Taliban from the Crusades, but were't both a form of extremism?

The Christian "Crusaders", although infiltrated by disparate groups with varying intentions, were an answer to Muslim conquest...In both cases the problem was the same...Muslim fundamentalism.

[pbs911]

Without a table of authorities demonstrating such opinionated allegations as fact, the article are without merit and lacks a punctilio of any credibility.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by pbs911
Without a table of authorities demonstrating such opinionated allegations as fact, the article are without merit and lacks a punctilio of any credibility.

Since the evidence suppporting it is ubiquitous, the article is credible in my view.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

pat, even I'm saying this is bull****, yes, we did give them weapons, but saying they arent terrorists? please.

go form some original opinions...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Jared Fenton
pat, even I'm saying this is bull****, yes, we did give them weapons, but saying they arent terrorists? please.

go form some original opinions...

You know that the Taliban came to America? When did they do that?

Was it before or after Bush signed the last check over to them?

[Moneyguy1]

So I take it that Christian fundamentalism is non existent? Now and in the past?

And the Knights Templar did not have a less than Holy agenda?

Yes..The Crusaders were and still are an answer to Muslim conquest...providing for them a rallying point and a target for hate over the centuries. The fact that ME leaders were "offended" when GWB initially referred to the war as a "Crusade".

Present day situations can be traced back centuries as to the effect those events are still having.

[Z-man]

What I'm trying to say about the Christian crusades is this: it started as a 'righteous' idea that quickly turned into an unecessary bloodbath.

Similarly, the Taliban may have started with righteous ideals, but they have turned their focus elsewhere - supporting terrorists groups whose main agenda is to annihilate the United States. Hardly a righteous ideal, IMHO. (But it is righteous in theirs, I suppose.)

And no, Fast Pat - Margolis didn't say that 9-11 didn't happen - but what may be his next announcement. (Perhaps you missed my tone of sarcasm when I posted before).

Anyway, it's been a rough day - if you can stomach it - read my work rant.

-Z-man.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
So I take it that Christian fundamentalism is non existent? Now and in the past?

And the Knights Templar did not have a less than Holy agenda?

Yes..The Crusaders were and still are an answer to Muslim conquest...providing for them a rallying point and a target for hate over the centuries. The fact that ME leaders were "offended" when GWB initially referred to the war as a "Crusade".

Present day situations can be traced back centuries as to the effect those events are still having.

To a poinbt I'm in agreement. I'd like nothing better than to rearm the Serbs, and then stand back while they rid part of their homeland of muslim invaders from Albania.

There should be almost no muslims in Serbia at all, and wouldn't be if not for the egalitarian communists that plagued that part of europe courtesy of Roosevelt, Churchill, and their friend Stalin.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Z-man
What I'm trying to say about the Christian crusades is this: it started as a 'righteous' idea that quickly turned into an unecessary bloodbath.

Similarly, the Taliban may have started with righteous ideals, but they have turned their focus elsewhere - supporting terrorists groups whose main agenda is to annihilate the United States. Hardly a righteous ideal, IMHO. (But it is righteous in theirs, I suppose.)

Al Queda's goal isn't the annililation of America. Where did you get that notion from? Their goal, stated over and over again, is to cause enough pain to America and Americans that they will withdrawn from the middle east altogether.

And no, Fast Pat - Margolis didn't say that 9-11 didn't happen - but what may be his next announcement. (Perhaps you missed my tone of sarcasm when I posted before).

Anyway, it's been a rough day - if you can stomach it - read my work rant.

-Z-man.

I'll take a look.