What the Pakistani Taliban Want

[TalibanSwatter]

DAWN

Irfan Husain

Often, I am asked by readers or friends abroad what the Taliban want. Why, they ask, are they slaughtering hundreds of innocent people wherever they can? What is their purpose? What is their agenda?

The short answer is power. Other excuses for their murderous excesses are a fig-leaf: demands for the Sharia and the expulsion of foreign forces from the region are no more than window-dressing.

These terrorists realise that they cannot achieve power through peaceful, democratic means as they have no support. Even relatively moderate Islamic parties have been repeatedly trounced at the polls in Pakistan. So extremists reject democracy as it does not give them access to power.

Established religious parties in Pakistan have exploited the repeated bouts of army rule to further their agenda. So far, they have been remarkably successful. But while jihadi groups might cut secret deals with intelligence agencies, even our army is reluctant to enter into open, formal agreements with them.

This leaves only the path of terrorism open to them. Pakistani extremists watched enviously as the Afghan Taliban under Mullah Omar were propelled to power with help from our army. Seeking to replicate this success, they have mounted a sustained campaign of destabilisation against the government.

Another thing Islamic extremists oppose vehemently wherever they are operating is modern, scientific education. Educated only in the scriptures, they have little understanding of the physical and social sciences. While they may have many operatives who are highly educated, the top ideologues are seminary-trained zealots. Although they use Islamic rhetoric and rationalisations, their true goal is to seize and wield absolute power.

In Nigeria, an obscure Muslim sect recently launched a deadly campaign under the banner of ‘Boko Haram’, meaning that modern education was haram, or sinful. Hundreds died as they went on a rampage before being ruthlessly crushed. Nevertheless, their primitive credo lives on.

In Pakistan, the Taliban and their murderous partners have destroyed hundreds of schools. They have focused on girls’ schools, issuing threats to those they haven’t yet demolished. Underneath their theocratic justifications for their violent opposition to rational education lies the knowledge that they are not equipped to compete in the modern world. They are thus locked in a battle to tear down a system that marginalises them, and to force everybody else to obey their diktat since, according to them, only they are qualified to interpret the scriptures.

Their apologists — and they are legion in our ruling classes as well as our media — demand that we must negotiate with them. What they do not say is how this should be done. How do you talk to ruthless killers who saw off their victims’ heads and gleefully post the videos of their acts on the Internet? Or force young boys to gun down tied and blindfolded prisoners? Or flog young girls screaming for mercy?

Hakeemullah Mehsud of the Pakistani Taliban and his cohorts want nothing short of absolute power. The only thing they are willing to discuss are the terms of surrender of the Pakistan government. If we cede territory to them — as we did earlier in Swat — we are consigning our citizens to the kind of nightmare the people of Swat had to undergo.

The first thing Fazlullah did when he was handed Swat was to shut down the schools that had not been blown up earlier. Barber shops and video shops were ordered to follow suit. All forms of entertainment were effectively banned. Is this the kind of life we wish to condemn our countrymen to?

Remember that we have a model of this kind of barbaric society: under the Afghan Taliban, our neighbour was rapidly pushed back to the dark ages. Women were flogged for the crime of showing an inch of their ankles as they walked wearing all-enveloping shrouds. Male doctors could not attend to them, even in life-threatening cases. They were not allowed to leave their homes to work, and girls were forbidden from going to school.

Those urging the government to negotiate with the Pakistani Taliban need to be clear whether they want their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to lead the lives their Afghan counterparts had to not so long ago. To the Taliban, these are non-negotiable conditions to their stated desire to impose their version of the Sharia on the rest of us.

Largely due to the shrill voices that have crowded out reason from media debate, there is a lot of confusion and ambiguity about what the Taliban want, and how far the government should go in meeting their demands. Some argue that their excesses are the result of the western presence in Afghanistan, and our government’s military anti-Taliban operations in the tribal areas. How the extremists hold school-going children responsible for these policies, and destroy schools is something their apologists in the media have failed to explain.

What sustains this mindset is the steady inroads madressahs have made in Pakistan during and since the Zia era. The decades since the 1980s have witnessed a rapid erosion of modern, secular values. The voices of reason have been muted, and we are caught in the grip of a mindless anti-West hysteria that pushes even moderates into the Taliban camp.

As the threat of the Taliban looms larger over Pakistan, schools in Karachi and Lahore have come to resemble armed camps. The fear of terrorist attacks unsettles children and parents alike. Ever the enemies of education, the Taliban will stop at nothing in their quest for power.

How should the government respond to this deadly threat? The voices of appeasement clamour for concessions. But the Taliban have repeatedly said they will halt their campaign of terror only when their version of the 'Sharia' has been imposed, the army withdraws from the tribal areas, and the Americans cease their drone attacks.

Even if the first two demands are conceded, it is unlikely the Americans will stop using the only weapon that is proving effective in this conflict. Should our army actually pull out, it is more than probable that American troops will partially replace them in fighting the Taliban on our side of the border. There is no way they will allow the jihadis in Fata to target them without retaliating.

So much as I wish it were otherwise, I fear a military solution is the only one currently available. Negotiating from a position of weakness is a sure recipe for disaster.

 

[footmarks]

DAWN

Irfan Husain

Often, I am asked by readers or friends abroad what the Taliban want. Why, they ask, are they slaughtering hundreds of innocent people wherever they can? What is their purpose? What is their agenda?

The short answer is power. Other excuses for their murderous excesses are a fig-leaf: demands for the Sharia and the expulsion of foreign forces from the region are no more than window-dressing.

These terrorists realise that they cannot achieve power through peaceful, democratic means as they have no support. Even relatively moderate Islamic parties have been repeatedly trounced at the polls in Pakistan. So extremists reject democracy as it does not give them access to power.

Established religious parties in Pakistan have exploited the repeated bouts of army rule to further their agenda. So far, they have been remarkably successful. But while jihadi groups might cut secret deals with intelligence agencies, even our army is reluctant to enter into open, formal agreements with them.

This leaves only the path of terrorism open to them. Pakistani extremists watched enviously as the Afghan Taliban under Mullah Omar were propelled to power with help from our army. Seeking to replicate this success, they have mounted a sustained campaign of destabilisation against the government.

Another thing Islamic extremists oppose vehemently wherever they are operating is modern, scientific education. Educated only in the scriptures, they have little understanding of the physical and social sciences. While they may have many operatives who are highly educated, the top ideologues are seminary-trained zealots. Although they use Islamic rhetoric and rationalisations, their true goal is to seize and wield absolute power.

In Nigeria, an obscure Muslim sect recently launched a deadly campaign under the banner of ‘Boko Haram’, meaning that modern education was haram, or sinful. Hundreds died as they went on a rampage before being ruthlessly crushed. Nevertheless, their primitive credo lives on.

In Pakistan, the Taliban and their murderous partners have destroyed hundreds of schools. They have focused on girls’ schools, issuing threats to those they haven’t yet demolished. Underneath their theocratic justifications for their violent opposition to rational education lies the knowledge that they are not equipped to compete in the modern world. They are thus locked in a battle to tear down a system that marginalises them, and to force everybody else to obey their diktat since, according to them, only they are qualified to interpret the scriptures.

Their apologists — and they are legion in our ruling classes as well as our media — demand that we must negotiate with them. What they do not say is how this should be done. How do you talk to ruthless killers who saw off their victims’ heads and gleefully post the videos of their acts on the Internet? Or force young boys to gun down tied and blindfolded prisoners? Or flog young girls screaming for mercy?

Hakeemullah Mehsud of the Pakistani Taliban and his cohorts want nothing short of absolute power. The only thing they are willing to discuss are the terms of surrender of the Pakistan government. If we cede territory to them — as we did earlier in Swat — we are consigning our citizens to the kind of nightmare the people of Swat had to undergo.

The first thing Fazlullah did when he was handed Swat was to shut down the schools that had not been blown up earlier. Barber shops and video shops were ordered to follow suit. All forms of entertainment were effectively banned. Is this the kind of life we wish to condemn our countrymen to?

Remember that we have a model of this kind of barbaric society: under the Afghan Taliban, our neighbour was rapidly pushed back to the dark ages. Women were flogged for the crime of showing an inch of their ankles as they walked wearing all-enveloping shrouds. Male doctors could not attend to them, even in life-threatening cases. They were not allowed to leave their homes to work, and girls were forbidden from going to school.

Those urging the government to negotiate with the Pakistani Taliban need to be clear whether they want their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to lead the lives their Afghan counterparts had to not so long ago. To the Taliban, these are non-negotiable conditions to their stated desire to impose their version of the Sharia on the rest of us.

Largely due to the shrill voices that have crowded out reason from media debate, there is a lot of confusion and ambiguity about what the Taliban want, and how far the government should go in meeting their demands. Some argue that their excesses are the result of the western presence in Afghanistan, and our government’s military anti-Taliban operations in the tribal areas. How the extremists hold school-going children responsible for these policies, and destroy schools is something their apologists in the media have failed to explain.

What sustains this mindset is the steady inroads madressahs have made in Pakistan during and since the Zia era. The decades since the 1980s have witnessed a rapid erosion of modern, secular values. The voices of reason have been muted, and we are caught in the grip of a mindless anti-West hysteria that pushes even moderates into the Taliban camp.

As the threat of the Taliban looms larger over Pakistan, schools in Karachi and Lahore have come to resemble armed camps. The fear of terrorist attacks unsettles children and parents alike. Ever the enemies of education, the Taliban will stop at nothing in their quest for power.

How should the government respond to this deadly threat? The voices of appeasement clamour for concessions. But the Taliban have repeatedly said they will halt their campaign of terror only when their version of the 'Sharia' has been imposed, the army withdraws from the tribal areas, and the Americans cease their drone attacks.

Even if the first two demands are conceded, it is unlikely the Americans will stop using the only weapon that is proving effective in this conflict. Should our army actually pull out, it is more than probable that American troops will partially replace them in fighting the Taliban on our side of the border. There is no way they will allow the jihadis in Fata to target them without retaliating.

So much as I wish it were otherwise, I fear a military solution is the only one currently available. Negotiating from a position of weakness is a sure recipe for disaster.

Thanx bro for posting this nice article written in right perspective.
Coming to the topic, IMO no one have much choices when you are dealing with such radical fundamentalists hungry for power. Its in best interest for all humans that such terrorists are kept away from any kind of power position. Pakistan is doing a great cause by fighting to eliminate these rouge elements. My well wishes are with PA, may they succeed in wiping out taliban from this earth for once and for all.

 

[waraich66]

Pakistani Talaban dont have roots in country neither they could defeat 7 lac Pakistani army.Any negotiation with them is out of question but if present corrupt government system continue for two or three years , there is danger of insurgency in Punjab ,Balouchistan and Sindh as well.

Real problem in Pakistan is corrupt leadership and bad local government system which is totally failed to resolve problems of people, which is major root cause of terrorism ,insurgency and civil war in Swat and FATA.

Mushraf regime designed a very good local government system which could be implemented all over the Pakistan, in last decade in Karachi lot of development projects completed which is a good example .

Terrorism or insurgency in Pakistan is due to failure of GOP .Army alone could not restore peace or fight against insurgence.

Balouchistan,FATA,Cholistan and Interior Sindh are all totally ignored regions of Pakistan where basic health,education and justice facilities are not available.

From last sixty years only few handred families have 95% wealth of country and lower middle class is badly crushed , poverty and hunger has already crossed the danger zone .Pakistan is economically serviving on IMF and world bank aids and funds,which are further increasing inflation and cause of devaluation of currency.

Bottom line is that we need totally new system of government at local government level, which have capability to provide basic health ,education ,food and shelter,justice to poor majority of country . I think shariah law is the only system which has this capability where the direction of flow of resources is towards poor majority. not towards rich minority.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Pakistani Talaban dont have roots in country neither they could defeat 7 lac Pakistani army.Any negotiation with them is out of question but if present corrupt government system continue for two or three years , there is danger of insurgency in Punjab ,Balouchistan and Sindh as well.

Real problem in Pakistan is corrupt leadership and bad local government system which is totally failed to resolve problems of people, which is major root cause of terrorism ,insurgency and civil war in Swat and FATA.

Mushraf regime designed a very good local government system which could be implemented all over the Pakistan, in last decade in Karachi lot of development projects completed which is a good example .

Terrorism or insurgency in Pakistan is due to failure of GOP .Army alone could not restore peace or fight against insurgence.

Balouchistan,FATA,Cholistan and Interior Sindh are all totally ignored regions of Pakistan where basic health,education and justice facilities are not available.

From last sixty years only few handred families have 95% wealth of country and lower middle class is badly crushed , poverty and hunger has already crossed the danger zone .Pakistan is economically serviving on IMF and world bank aids and funds,which are further increasing inflation and cause of devaluation of currency.

Bottom line is that we need totally new system of government at local government level, which have capability to provide basic health ,education ,food and shelter,justice to poor majority of country . I think shariah law is the only system which has this capability where the direction of flow of resources is towards poor majority. not towards rich minority.

Real problem in Pakistan is corrupt leadership and bad local government system which is totally failed to resolve problems of people, which is major root cause of terrorism ,insurgency and civil war in Swat and FATA.
You are 100% right. We should solve those problems. Even for instance by chance whatever you wanna say TTP take overs Pakistan Army...but do you really think that Pakistani people will accept it?
U.S. gov is not that stupid when they say talibans are trying to invade Pakistan...their arrow is pointing out somewhere else.

 

[PWFI]

I think the better titel is " what india want" and you will understand what These "FASSADI" want, don't call them talibans plese!
These guys are motherfuckers who blast in mosque.....
Talibans=freedome fighters! muslims!

Hope people understand

 

[Desert Fox]

I think the better titel is " what india want" and you will understand what These "FASSADI" want, don't call them talibans plese!
These guys are motherfuckers who blast in mosque.....
Talibans=freedome fighters! muslims!

Hope people understand

i agree with you, these miscreants have nothing to do with original Afghan Taliban movement!

i came across this thread in which a ORIGINAL Afghan Taliban diplomat was interviewed before the 2001 invasion:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/43309-interview-taliban.html

Now compare what he say's in his interview to what these TTP miscreants say, and you'll see a very very big difference!

 

[RiazHaq]

Here is a BBC report about Taliban's brazen Kabul attacks and how the Afghan Taliban deliberately avoided civilian casualties, unlike the Pakistani Taliban:

The Taliban, we learned later, having failed to storm the government buildings they had at first targeted, sought shelter elsewhere.

At least four went into a crowded shopping centre.

If their intention had been to kill as many people as possible, it would have been achievable there.

But they didn't. They ordered everyone - shoppers and shopkeepers alike - out. Soon the building was on fire.

The Taliban fighters died amid the flames, most of them in a volley of gunfire, while the last man alive blew himself up.

The number of civilians who died was - given the scale of what was happening - surprisingly low.

From Pakistan, we learned, a Taliban spokesman had called a news agency, while the attack was still under way, to announce that 20 of its militants were involved.

The public relations management was as vital to the perpetrators as the co-ordination of the attack itself.

This care, this determination to avoid civilian deaths is now part of the conflict in Afghanistan.

It is something the Taliban shares with its Nato enemies.

BBC News - Taliban intensifies Afghan PR campaign

Haq's Musings: Pakistan's Intelligence Failures Amidst Daily Carnage

 

[S-2]

The BBC has also reported in its latest Afghan survey that the Afghan taliban presence in Afghanistan is somewhat or strongly desired by 10% of afghans. See question #17 of the poll-

ABC/BBC/ARD 2010 Afghanistan Survey- Where Things Stand

Couple those findings with the latest data released by UNAMA regarding civilian casualties in Afghanistan-

UNAMA Calls For Safety First As Afghan Casualties Rise By 14%- Jan. 13, 2010

"The UN mission recorded 2,412 civilian casualties during 2009, up by 14 per cent from 2008 when the mission recorded 2,118 civilian deaths. Of the 2,412 deaths reported last year, 1,630 (67%) were attributed to anti-Government elements while 596 (25%) were attributed to pro-Government forces. The remaining 186 deaths (8%) could not be attributed to any of the conflicting parties as they died as a result of cross fire or by unexploded ordinance."

The afghan taliban killed innocent civilians in Afghanistan last year at a rate nearly 3:1 to ISAF. Their belated regard for afghans in this raid ended inside of four hours with their missions uniformly unsuccessful. Compare that to Mumbai and I'd call that a clear victory for the Afghan security forces.

Thanks.

 

[Desert Fox]

Truth about Taliban & Buddha statues

Taliban Ambassador Speech in the USA

Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi is the roving Ambassador from Afghanistan who recently visited the US. He has been active in giving lectures on the real situation regarding the Taliban in Afghanistan throughout central and Southern California. The following is the transcribed lecture given by Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi at the University Of Southern California on March 10, 2001:

Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi

Respected Brothers/Sisters In Islam, Assallaamu Alaykum Wa Rahamtullaahi Wa Barakaatuhu

Allah says: "O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done." (Qur`an 49:6)

I was just coming from [a meeting with] a group of scholars, and the first thing we started there was the statues. And the first thing we started here was also the statues. It s very unfortunate how little we see and how little we know. And it really confuses me, if people really know that little or not. Nobody has seen the problems of Afghanistan; nobody saw their problems before. And the only thing that represents Afghanistan today are the statues.

The problem of Afghanistan was not new. As you know that Afghanistan is called, The Crossroads of Asia. So, we are suffering because of our geo-strategic location. We have suffered in the 18th century, 19th century, and we are still suffering in this century.

We have not attacked the British. We have not attacked the Russians. It was them who attacked us. So the problems in Afghanistan you see is not our creation. That reflects the image of the world. If you don t like the image in the mirror, do not break the mirror; break your face.

The problems in Afghanistan started in 1979. Afghanistan was a peaceful country and it was doing its own job. The Russians, along with their 140,000 troops attacked Afghanistan in the December of 1979, just 21 years ago, stayed there for a decade, killed one and a half million people, maimed one million more people, and six million out of the eighteen million people migrated because of the Russian brutalities. Even today, our children are dying because of the landmines that they planted for us. And nobody knows about this.

After the Russians left during the Russian occupation, on the other side, the American government, the British government, the French, the Chinese, and all of the rest, supported the counter-revolutionaries called the Mujahideen; 7 parties only in Pakistan and 8 parties in Iran who fought the Russian occupation. And after the Russians left, these parties went into Afghanistan. All of them had different ideologies, a lot of weapon. And instead of having a single administration, they fought in Afghanistan. The destruction that they brought was worse than the destruction the Russians brought. 63,000 people were only killed in the capital, Kabul. Seeing all this chaos, and the complete destruction of our country, and I don't have to forget that after the Soviets left, another million people migrated because of the lawlessness that existed in Afghanistan 7 million people.

So seeing this destruction and lawlessness, a group of students called the Taliban, Taliban is the plural word of students in our language; it may be two students in Arabic, but in our language it means students so a group of students started a movement called the Movement of Students. It first started in a village in the southern province of Afghanistan, called Kandahar. It happened when a war-lord, or a commander abducted two minor girls, raped them, and the parents of those girls went to a school and asked the teacher of the school to help them. The teacher of that school, along with his 53 students, finding only 16 guns, went and attacked the base of that commander. After releasing those two girls, they hanged that commander, and so many of their [the commander's] people were also hanged. This story was told everywhere; and this was called the terrorist story of the Taliban, or the Students. BBC also quoted this story. Seeing or hearing this story, many other students joined this movement and started disarming the rest of the warlords, who were worse than these. I will not prolong this story so far, this same students' movement controls 95% of the country; they captured the capital, including the four major cities. And only a bunch of those warlords are remaining in the northern corridor of Afghanistan.

So our achievements are as follows. We are in a government for only five years, and the following things that we have done, and many of you may not know:

1. The first thing we have done is re-unify the fragmented country. Afghanistan was formerly fragmented into five parts. The first thing we havedone is to reunify that country. The United Nations, the United States, everybody was confused as to how to reunify that country, and nobody could do it. First thing we have done is to reunify that country.

2. Second thing we have done, which everybody failed to do, was disarming a population. After dealing [with] the war of the Russians, and the Americans I would say, every Afghan got a Kalashnikov, and even sophisticated weapons such as stinger missiles, and they even got fighter planes and fighter helicopters. So disarming these people was impossible. The United Nations in 1992 passed an appeal asking for 3 billion dollars to re-purchase that arms, to start a process of repurchasing those arms. And suddenly, because of its impracticalibility, that plan never materialized, and everybody forgot about Afghanistan. So the second thing we have done is to disarm 95% of that country. 3. And the third thing that we have done is to establish a single administration under Afghanistan, which did not exist for 10 years. 4. And the fourth achievement that we have that is surprising to everybody is that we have eradicated 75% of all worlds Opium cultivation. Afghanistan produced 75% of all worlds Opium. The drug, you know that Opium? The Narcotics business? And last year we issued an edict asking the people to stop growing Opium, and this year, the United Nations Drug Control Program, UNDCP, and their head, [Mr.] Barnard F., proudly announced that there was 0% of Opium cultivation. Not at all. And this was not good news for UN itself because many of them lost their jobs. In the UNDCP, 700 so called experts were working there and they got their salaries and they never went into Afghanistan. So when we issued this edict, I know that they were not happy. And this year they lost their jobs. And this was our fourth achievement. 5. The fifth achievement that we have, but it's a little controversial, some of our friends will not know is the restoration of Human rights. Now, YOU may think that is a violation of Human Rights, but from OUR perspective that is the restoration of Human Rights. Because usually [among] the fundamental rights of a human being is the right to Live. Before us, nobody could live peacefully in Afghanistan. So the first thing we have done, begun [to give] to the people is a secure and peaceful life. The second major thing that we have restored is to give them free and fair justice; you don t have to buy justice, unlike here. You will have justice freely. And you have criticized us for violating women's rights; now, who knows what happened before us. Only some symbolic schools, or symbolic posts were given to some women in the ministry, and that was called the restoration of women's rights. I can see some Afghans living here, and they will agree with me, that in the rural areas of Afghanistan, women were used as animals. They were SOLD actually. The first thing we have done is to give the self-determination to women, and it happened not in the history of Afghanistan. Throughout the history of Afghanistan, during all the so-called civilized kings or whatever, they didn't give this right to women, so women were sold. ! They didn't have the right to select their husbands, or to reject their husbands. First thing we have done is to let them choose their future. And you will know that throughout south Asia, women are killed under the title of honor killings. It happens when a woman's relation is detected with a man, whether or not the relation was sexual, they're both killed. But now this is not happening in our country. And the third thing that happened only in Afghanistan, was women were exchanged as gifts; this was not something religious; this was something cultural. When two tribal tribes were fighting among themselves, then in order to get their tribal issue reconciliated, they would exchange women, and then [they] would make, or announce reconciliation. And this has been stopped. If we [had to give] fundamental rights of woman, we had to start from zero; we couldn't jump in the middle. Now you've asked me about the rights of women s education and the rights of women's work. Unlike what is said here, women do work in Afghanistan. You're right that until 1997 I mean, in 1996 when we captured the capitol Kabul, we did ask women to stay home. It didn't mean that we wanted them to stay at home forever, but nobody listened to us. We said that there is no law, and there is no order, and have to stay at home. They were raped before us, everyday. So, after we disarmed the people, and after we brought law and order, and now women are working. You are right that women are not working in the ministry of defense, like here. We don t want our women to be fighter pilot, or to be used as objects of decoration for advertisements. But they do work. They work in the Ministry of Health, Interior, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Affairs, and so on. So, and we don t have any problem with women's education. We have said that we want education, and we will have education whether or not we are under anybody's pressure, because that is part of our belief. We are ordered to do that. When we say that there should be segregated schools, it does not mean that we don't want our women to be educated. It is true that we are against co-education; but it is not true that we are against women's education. We do have schools even now, but the problem is the resources. We cannot expand these programs. Before our government there were numerous curriculums that were going on; there were curriculums which preached the king for the kings, and there were curriculums which preached for the communists, and there were curriculums from all these seven parties [the previously mentioned]. So, the Students were confused as to what to study, and the first we have done today is to unify that curriculum, and that's going on. But we are criticized, and we say that instead of criticism, if you just help us once, that will make a difference. Because criticism will not make a difference. If you [talk?] criticism from New York, thousands of miles away, we don t care. But if you come there and help us, we do care. So actually there are more girls students studying in the faculty of medical sciences than boys are. This is not me who is saying this, it is the United Nations who has announced this. Recently we reopened the faculty of medical science in all major cities of Afghanistan and in Kandahar, there are more girl students than boys. ! But they are segregated. And the Swedish committees have also established schools for girls. I know they are not enough, but that s what we can do. So, that is what I say that we have restored. I don't say we are 100% perfect, and nobody will say that they are 100% perfect. We do have shortcomings, and we do need to amend our policies. But we can't do everything overnight. 6. And the sixth problem, that we are is it sixth or seventh? Seventh I think the seventh problem that we are accused of is Terrorism, or the existence of terrorists in Afghanistan. And for Americans terrorism or terrorist means only bin Laden. Now you will not know that Afghanistan, or bin Laden was in Afghanistan 17 years before even we existed. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, fought the Soviet Union, and Mr. Ronald Reagan, the president of America in that time, and Dick, Mr. Dick Chaney called such people freedom fighters or the Heroes of Independence, because they were fighting for their cause. So Osama bin Laden was one of those guys who was instigated by such media reports, so in that provocation by these countries to go to Afghanistan and fight the Soviets there. And now when the Soviet Union is fragmented, such people were not needed anymore, and they were transformed into terrorists from heroes to terrorists. So exactly like Mr. Yassir Arafat was transformed from a terrorist to a hero. So we don t know as to what is the definition of Terrorism. We do regret that the terrorists were actually horrific acts and they were terrorist acts. But if they are terrorist acts, what is the difference between those terrorist acts and the attacks on Afghanistan when in 1998 attacks, cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan. Neither of the two were declared and both of them killed civilians. So we are confused as to what is the definition of Terrorism. If it means killing civilians blindly, both of them killed civilians blindly. And the fact is, I m not going to be offensive or rude, or rude about this, I m going to be frank. And I think it's sometimes honest to be rude. If the United States says that it has acted for its defense, lets see. The United States government tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial. In 1998, they just sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and they announced that they were trying to kill Osama bin Laden. We didn't know Osama bin Laden then. I didn't know him; he was just a simple man. So we were all shocked. I was one of those men who was sitting at home at night, I was called for an immediate council meeting and we all were told the United States have attacked Afghanistan. With 75 cruise missiles and trying to kill one man. And they missed that man; killed 19 other students and never apologized for those killings. So what would you do if you were in our status; if we were to go and send 75 cruise missiles into the United States and say that we were going to kill a man that we thought not believed that we thought was responsible for our embassy, and we missed that man, and we killed 19 other Americans what would the United States do? An instant declaration of war. But we were polite. We didn't declare war. We had a lot of problems at home; we didn't want further problem. And since then, we are very open-minded on this issue. We have said, that if really this man is involved in the Kenya/Tanzania acts, if anybody can give us proof or evidence about his involvement in these horrific acts, we will punish him. Nobody gave us evidence. a. We put him on trial for 45 days and nobody gave us any kind of evidence. The fact is that the United States told us they did not believe in our judicial system. We were surprised as to what kind of judicial system they have?! They showed us as to what they are doing to the people they just tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial, even if one of us is a criminal here, the police is not going to blow his house, he must go to a court first. So, that was rejected. Our first proposal, despite all these things, was rejected. They said they will not believe in our judicial system, and we must give him to New York. b. The second proposal that we gave after the rejection of this first proposal we gave was, we are ready to accept an international monitoring group to come into Afghanistan and monitor this man s activities in Afghanistan. So that he does nothing. Even that he has no telecommunications [--]. That proposal was also rejected. c. And the third proposal we gave, six months ago, was that we were ready, that we were ready to try or accept a third Islamic country’s decision, or the trial of [--] in a third Islamic country, with consent of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that was also rejected.

So we don’t know, as to what is the problem behind. If bin Laden was the only issue, we are still very open minded, and for the fourth time, I'm here, with a letter from my leadership that I m going to submit to the state department hoping that they will resolve the problem. But I don t think so [that] they ll solve the problem. Because we think, and I personally think now that maybe the United States is looking for a Boogy Man always. Remember what Gorbachev said? He said, that he s going to do the worst thing ever to the United States. And everybody thought that he s going to blow the United States with nuclear weapon. But he said, I'm going to remove their enemy. And then he fragmented Soviet Union. And he was right. After he fragmented Soviet Union, a lot of people lost their jobs in the Pentagon, in the CIA, and the FBI, because they were not needed anymore. So we think that maybe these guys are looking for a Boogy Man now. Maybe they want to justify their annual budget, maybe they want to make their citizens feel that they are still needed to defend them. Afghanistan is not a terrorist state; we cannot even make a needle. How are we going to be a terrorist state? How are we going to be a threat to the world? If the world terrorism is really derived from the word terror, then there are countries making weapons of mass destruction, countries making nuclear weapons, forest deforestation, soil, air, and water pollution they are terrorist states; we are not. We cannot even make a needle; how are we going to be a threat to the world? So as I said in the beginning, the situation in Afghanistan is not our creation. The situation in Afghanistan reflects the world's image. If you don t like the image in the mirror, do not break the mirror; break your face.

Now, we are under sanctions. And the sanctions have caused a lot of problems, despite that we are going under so many problems, the 23 years of continuous war, the total destruction of our infrastructure, and the problem of refugees, and the problem of land mines in our agricultural lands, all of a sudden the United Nations, with the provocation of Russia, is imposing sanctions on Afghanistan. And the sanctions have been approved; we are under sanctions. Several hundred children died a month ago, here it is (holds up pamphlet). Seven hundred children died because of malnutrition and the severe cold weather. Nobody even talked about that. Everybody knows about the statues. For us, we are surprised, that the world is destroying our future with economic sanctions, then they have no right to worry about our past. Everybody is saying that they are destroying their heritage they don t have any right to talk about that. They are destroying the future of our children with economic sanctions, how are they going to justify talking about our past? I know it's not rational and logical to blow the statues for, for retaliation of economic sanctions. But this is how it is. I called, after this announcements, I called my headquarters, and I found out, I was really confused, I asked them, why are they going to blow the statues, and I talked to the head of the council of scholars of people, who had actually decided this, he told me that UNESCO and NGO from Sweden, or from one of these Scandinavian countries Norway, Sweden, one of these they had actually come, with a project of rebuilding the face of these statues, which have worn by rain. So the council of people had told them to spend that money in saving the lives of these children, instead of spending that money to [restore these] statues. And these guys said that, No, this money is only for the statues. And the people were really pissed off. They said that, If you don t care about our children, we are going to blow those statues. [Person from the Audience yells, Takbeer! ] [Audience responds, Allahu Akbar! ]

I don't say that he s right or wrong, the decision is yours. Think of yourself. If you are in such a problem, what would you do? If your children are dying in front of your eyes, and you are under sanctions, and then the same people who have imposed sanctions and are coming and building statues here? What will you do? So, I talked to my headquarters today, and they said that the statues have not been blown so far. But the people are so angry. They are really angry, they want to blow them. And there is Kofi Annan is going, you know Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of United Nations? He went to [--], to Pakistan, and he said he s going to meet our representative there. This man never bothered to enter, to talk about these children, he never bothered himself to talk about six million refugees, and he never talked about [the] poverty of Afghanistan. He only goes to that region because of these statues. And the OIC is also, they've also sent a mission to go to Kabul and talk about those statues. So we'e really confused. That the world is really caring about the statues, and then they don t care about human beings. I don t say we have to retaliate in blowing the statues; we have not done that. But if we were to destroy those statues! , we would have destroyed them three years before now, because we captured those areas three years before now. We didn't want to blow them. And now the situation has come, and it's not our decision. This is the decision of the scholars and the people. And that is the decision has been approved by the Supreme Court. We cannot reject this decision. So these guys are there, the OIC and some, even I think some ministers from different countries are there to save the lives of these statutes. I think they will not be blown because of the concerns of these people. But it is really, really ridiculous. These people do not care about children, about people who are dying there, about the foreign interference that still exists, they only care about the statues. And I m sure they don t care about our heritage. They don't care about our heritage; they only care about their picnic site one time. Maybe they'll have a good picnic site there, seeing those statues. They don't care about our heritage, I' m sure. If they were to care about our past, they wouldn't destroy our future. And I'm sure these sanctions which are imposed on our government will never change us, because for us, our ideology is everything. To try to change our ideology with economic sanctions will never work. It may work in the United States, where the economy is everything, but for us, our ideology is everything. [--] And we believe that it is better to die for something than to live for nothing. We are still open-minded. We are still, we have still opened our doors for negotiations, but our offices are closed everywhere our office was closed in New York a week ago. They are trying to shut our offices in other countries, trying to isolate us, and they don't know that isolation is counter-productive. Because they don't have experts; the only experts they have are those people who speak English. They don t even speak the language. Those experts who are advising the sanctions, or the sanction committee have not even been to Afghanistan. And they are setting benchmarks for us to achieve.

I'm prolonging this speech, I'm sorry, because I have been repeating it everywhere, so I may have left some thing in it, and I will let you ask me questions.

[Applause from Audience]

Important Note: What follows are some of the answers to some of the questions that were asked during the Question and Answer session. Most of the questions were not included due to the poor recording. Apologies for the inconvenience Br. Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi:

Q. [A questioner asks about the statement he heard on the radio from the Afghan former minister (Mutawakkil) confirming that the statues have been destroyed, and further adds, Does that mean the statues of Hindus and Sikhs will also be destroyed? He further asked that since the destruction of the statues was done in retaliation, Was it really saving the children? (it was asked in a provocative manner)]

A. Thank you very much and unfortunately again, the first question is the statues. So the statues as I told you, have not been destroyed so far. And I have contacted my headquarters there, and if they were destroyed, then people would not bother going there; as I told you Kofi Annan is there, OIC is there, and our foreign minister is there. And for us, as he [the questioner] said that Mutawakkil has said that [that the statues have been destroyed], I don't think he has said that they are destroyed. He said that [that the statues have not been destroyed]. And I don't reject this. They raised an edict which says these [the statues] should be blown. And we are not against Buddhists; absolutely wrong. We are not against any religion. There are Hindus living in Afghanistan; there are different religions. There is one man who is a Jew living in Afghanistan.

[Audience laughs]

So we are not against any religion. And there is no Buddhist in Afghanistan, this I can say. In our religion, if anything, you can leave anything until it is not harmful to you. If these Buddhas were not harmful to us, so far. But now when the money is going to Buddhas reconstruction, and the children are dying next door, we think it's harmful now. Not we think, the people think. And I told you that this decision is taken by the council of scholars and the council of people. And has been approved by the Supreme Court. And the media is saying everywhere that it is an edict by our leadership. Have you ever seen our leadership on TV? Have you ever seen or heard him (Mullah Umar) on international radio? He has never been on radio, so it's absolutely wrong that we issued an edict. I do agree that there is an edict, but by the council of people and the scholars, and has been approved by the Supreme Court, but has not been implemented so far. Is it enough? You know, really, I am asked so much about these statues that I have a headache now. If I go back to Afghanistan, I will blow them. [Audience laughs]

Q2. [Questioner asks about the infighting between Mujahideens now. He asks, in the past we knew that there was one common enemy (the Russians)and it was easy to support the Mujahideen but now it's the groups of Mujahideens fighting between each other. How do you explain this?]

A2. They [the different Mujahideen groups] killed so many people, and there were so many problem. And that's why we started our movement. It's all in these people. They didn't fight for Shariah, or they didn't fight for Afghanistan, they only fought for their future post in power. So we, as I told you that, we finished that. And only now, we have one opposition headed by Ahmed Shah Masood. And we don t have much problems with him. We had talks with his representative in Ashkabad in Ramadhaan this year, and I was there. So, we say that he failed in bringing about a constitution, a unified government; he could not even unify the capital, Kabul. So we did all these things. So we asked him, despite that he controls nothing, except 5% in the mountains, and we have said we are still open-minded. We agree that he should have a post, because he has fought the Russians. And in `98, we agreed on a joint government; actually, I was also there, so we agreed in giving them three ministries and accepting their judicial system merging with our judicial system, and giving them three or four district or provincial governors or something like that. And they agreed on that. Our, on our part, we asked them to give us their weapons, because the problem in Afghanistan is not political differences. The problem in Afghanistan is the weapons.

Everybody has had weapons, and now if they are fighting us, it is not because of our very much ideological differences; it's because of weapons. There were a lot of weapons before, and you know, the Afghans will know that so many times they tried to have one government and then after a week or so, they fought, because all of them got different defense ministries, and they would fight. So now we have said that the problems in Afghanistan is not the political problem; it is the arms which exist. We are, we will accept them to be in our government if he accepts to give his arms to the Ministers of Defense. We have no problem however.

Q3 [A questioner asked, As Salaamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuh. Brother, Afghanistan is now supposed to be a Muslim country, Insha Allah. And these statues are just like the statues in Makkah, when Rasoolillah (saws) came to Makkah, and it was the very first thing that he did was to destroy the statues. What is taking us so long? Why aren they destroyed already? Audience laughs, some say Takbeer]

A3. So, I don t know what to say. We don t have any Buddhists as I told you; we have to look at the problems of the Muslim minorities in some countries. So we do not want to create problems for them, that’s why we are still waiting, and we hope that we will resolve this problem.
____________________________________________________

Ever since i listened this guys interview and read this lecture of his, my views and thoughts about the Afghan Taliban has changed ever since!

 

[Desert Fox]

The BBC has also reported in its latest Afghan survey that the Afghan taliban presence in Afghanistan is somewhat or strongly desired by 10% of afghans. See question #17 of the poll-

ABC/BBC/ARD 2010 Afghanistan Survey- Where Things Stand

Couple those findings with the latest data released by UNAMA regarding civilian casualties in Afghanistan-

UNAMA Calls For Safety First As Afghan Casualties Rise By 14%- Jan. 13, 2010

"The UN mission recorded 2,412 civilian casualties during 2009, up by 14 per cent from 2008 when the mission recorded 2,118 civilian deaths. Of the 2,412 deaths reported last year, 1,630 (67%) were attributed to anti-Government elements while 596 (25%) were attributed to pro-Government forces. The remaining 186 deaths (8%) could not be attributed to any of the conflicting parties as they died as a result of cross fire or by unexploded ordinance."

The afghan taliban killed innocent civilians in Afghanistan last year at a rate nearly 3:1 to ISAF. Their belated regard for afghans in this raid ended inside of four hours with their missions uniformly unsuccessful. Compare that to Mumbai and I'd call that a clear victory for the Afghan security forces.

Thanks.

the ground reality is completely different my friend! America is not winning the war! Your economy is suffering and your people becoming jobless! Your countrymen are beginning to live in tents on the outskirts of major American cities! But yet you people want to push on a war that has not benefited you or your country in any way?

There was a interview of Mullah Mohammad Omar with BBC in which Mullah Omar himself said that Taliban don't need chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to defeat America, only God will destroy America! And this interview took place way back in 2001, back in the first weeks of the invasion of Afghanistan!

 

[S-2]

I'm really impressed by his courage and dignity.

"Those urging the government to negotiate with the Pakistani Taliban need to be clear whether they want their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to lead the lives their Afghan counterparts had to not so long ago."

I've said the exactly the same here many times.

For more by this excellent columnist, google Irfan Husain HOWLING AT THE MOON-DAWN. His commentary on Ms. Farhat Taj's recent op-ed about drone attacks published in the DAILY TIMES is illuminating.

Bright man. Pakistan needs more like him.

Thanks.

 

[Ahmad]

self delete.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Very, very few who post and read at this Forum would want themselves or their families to actually live under the laws and political system that the Taliban brought to Afghanistan. Some, unfortunately, romanticize them, nonetheless. The reality is that the "World" would have left the Afghanis alone in their misery or nirvana, you pick, had they NOT given shelter and protection to al Qaeda. At the end of the day, the Taliban's Pakhtunkhwa, their inability to put the interests of ordinary Afghanis above the interests of their guests, Saudi foreigner Osama bin Laden and Egyptian foreigner Ayman Zawahiri, has led to all of this death and destruction across the World. Death and destruction in Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, London, Madrid, Bali, and all over Pakistan and Afghanistan has flowed from the Afghan Taliban's misguided Pakhtunkhwa. They deserve no sympathy or admiration. They do not deserve to return to power.

 

[Desert Fox]

Very, very few who post and read at this Forum would want themselves nor their families to actually live under the laws and political system that the Taliban brought to Afghanistan. Some, unfortunately, romanticize them, nonetheless. The reality is that the "World" would have let the Afghanis alone in their misery or nirvana, you pick, had they NOT given shelter and protection to al Qaeda. At the end of the day, the Taliban's Pakhtunkhwa, their inability to put the interests of ordinary Afghanis above the interests of their guests, Saudi foreigner Osama bin Laden and Egyptian foreigner Ayman Zawahiri, has led to all of this death and destruction across the World. Death and destruction in Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, London, Madrid, Bali, and all over Pakistan and Afghanistan has flowed from the Afghan Taliban's misguided Pakhtunkhwa. They deserve no sympathy or admiration. They do not deserve to return to power.

Lol, it surprises me how ignorant you people are!

When Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, crime rate was low to an extent that crime didn't even exist anymore! And i'm not talking about just any country, i'm talking about Afghanistan, a country plagued by war for more than 30 years!

When Taliban were in power, poppy and heroin production was completely halted!

Taliban gave women the right to have their own businesses, Taliban let women get education in schools! Taliban was the only government in the history of Afghanistan to allow computers in school's and university!

Taliban were much better than the corrupt karzai and the northern alliance thugs your guys placed into power!

Concerning Osama and Al-CIAda, watch the whole interview of Taliban envoy!

This is the second time i'm posting the link for the video in this thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/43309-interview-taliban.html

 

[TruthSeeker]

When Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, crime rate was low to an extent that crime didn't even exist anymore!

When Taliban were in power, poppy and heroin production was completely halted!

Taliban gave women the right to have their own businesses, Taliban let women get education in schools! Taliban was the only government in the history of Afghanistan to allow computers in school's and university!

Taliban were much better than the corrupt karzai and the northern alliance thugs your guys placed into power!

Mr. SilentNinja, would you like to live in country that was run like the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan? I bet not. The only thing that is true about what you said in your post above was that crime was low. This one "accomplishment" was also a hallmark of Nazi Germany, Maoist China and Stalin's Russia. Private crime is always low in an inhumane, brutal dictatorship! BFD. No, you would never have the life your are now leading if you were subjected to the rule of Mullah Omar. It is the height of hypocrisy and condescension to want that for your neighbors, the Afghanis.