The TRUTH about The Taliban : It is a political movement build by United States
Tuesday, September 08, 2009 Posted by Sam Sall
Tags:
Cold War,
Muslim world,
People and Society,
politics,
United States,
USA
Is the Taliban the place where the law of God is applied as it was revealed to our prophet peace be up on him?!.Is it an Islamic movement? . No off course. Taliban is a political movement not a religious one that was supported by the Western countries, led by the U.S..the US originally trained and armed the faction in Afghanistan - even “long before the USSR sent in troops” - which now constitutes the “leaders of Afghanistan”.The record illustrates the existence of an ongoing relationship between the United States and the Taliban.
The Afghani Civil War and USA
In contrary to the conventional wisdom, the United States appears to have begun operations in Afghanistan before the full-fledged Soviet invasion. Former National Security Adviser under the Carter Administration, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has admitted that an American operation to infiltrate Afghanistan was launched long before Russia sent in its troops on 27 December 1979. Agence France Press reported that: “Despite formal denials, the United States launched a covert operation to bolster anti-Communist guerrillas in Afghanistan at least six months before the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country, according to a former top US official.”
the US appears to have been attempting to foster and manipulate unrest amongst various Afghan factions to destabilize the already unpopular Communist regime and bring the country under US sphere of influence. This included the recruitment of local leaders and warlords to form mercenary rebel groups, who would wage war against the Soviet-backed government, to institute a new regime under American control.
In December 1979, Russia intervened to reinforce its domination over Afghanistan, since the the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA)was, according to Brzezenski’s testimony, being destabilized by a US operation to infiltrate Afghanistan that had commenced at a much earlier date. The US had therefore evidently also wished to bring this strategic region under its own hegemony.
Afghan analyst Dr. Noor Ali observes of the ensuing US policy: “Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union in late December 1979, hundreds of high ranking Afghan politicians and technocrats as well as army officers including generals entered into Pakistan with the hope of organizing the needed resistance to oppose the invader in order to liberate Afghanistan. Unfortunately and regrettably the US Government in collusion with Pakistan’s leaders took abusive advantage of the opportunity so as to exploit it fully and by all manner of means to their own and exclusive illegitimate benefits and objectives, which had been threefold: (i) to rule out the creation of any responsible and independent Afghan organization among Afghans, interacting directly with Washington, to support Afghan resistance, (ii) to repulse the Red Army by using exclusively the blood of Afghans, and (iii) to make of Afghanistan a satellite if not an integrated part of Pakistan in return for Pakistani leaders’ services, but in complete disregard to Afghan people’s sovereignty and sacrifices.”
The overall result was a brutal civil war manipulated by the two superpowers that drove 6 million Afghan people from their homes.
By 1991-92, the US and the USSR finally reached an agreement that neither would continue to supply aid to any faction in Afghanistan.
However, the numerous militant factions previously funded and armed by the US have been vying for supremacy. One of the armed Afghan factions funded by the CIA during this war was the Taliban, an apparently Islamic movement from the exterior .
the Taliban did not exist prior to October 1994, but were members of other factions operated independently without a centralized command center.
Development specialist Dr. J. W. Smith, founder and Director of Research for the California-based Institute for Economic Democracy, summarizes the humanitarian catastrophe of Afghanistan, commenting on Brzezinski’s admission of the US operation in the country: “Afghanistan was also a US destabilization. In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor... admitted that covert US intervention began long before the USSR sent in troops… Take note of what was ‘an excellent idea’: A country rapidly developing and moving towards modernization was politically and economically shattered, almost 2 million Afghans were killed, the most violent and anti-American of the groups supported by the CIA are now the leaders of Afghanistan, these religious fundamentalists set human rights back centuries to the extent they are even an embarrassment to neighboring Muslim fundamentalists, and both Muslim and non-Muslim governments within the region fear destabilization through Taleban fundamentalism.”
The fact is that both the US and USSR bear responsibility for having attempted to control Afghanistan, thereby shattering the country in the process.
Taliban in the ruling seat
Taliban has been ruling Afghanistan with an iron fist.Crescent International rightly observes, “criticism of the Taliban, whether it comes from non-Muslims or Muslims, is often heavily overlaid with prejudices or political interests.”
Is the Taliban An Islamic Movement?!
A full negation of the concept that the Taliban is an Islamic movement would require an extensive discussion of Islamic principles based on authoritative scholars and sources, compared to the documented facts of Taliban policy. Unfortunately this important issue falls beyond the scope of this article, and so cannot be tackled here with the necessary depth.
As pointed out by former US Congressman Paul Findley – Chairman Emeritus of the Washington-based Council for National Interest and Chairman of the Illinois-based Human Relations Commission - the Taliban “calls itself ‘Islamic’, but its regulations directly violate some of the most cherished principles of the Islamic faith.” Indeed, most Muslim scholars do not ratify or condone Taliban-like repression or atrocities.The Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Star, reports that “Islamic scholars in neighboring Pakistan say the Taliban’s laws reflect tribal traditions more than Islamic tenets.”
Abdullahi An-Na’im, a Muslim and US-based legal scholar, challenges the Taliban claims that their edicts come from the Qu’ran. He writes, “Unless Muslims [condemn these policies and practices] from an Islamic point of view as well, the Taliban will get away with their false claim that these heinous crimes against humanity are dictated by Islam as a religion.”
The Associated Press further reports the little known but important fact that while the “Taliban have imposed their harsh brand of Islamic Laws on the 90 per cent of Afghanistan they rule” in actual fact, “Islamic scholars elsewhere say that the Taliban’s laws are based more on tribal traditions than the Koran, Islam’s holy book.”
American journalist Robin Travis points out that “The Taliban has clearly manipulated the Qu’ran to serve its own purposes in causing abuse and hardships on women.”
The Muslim Women’s League concurs with this analysis, observing that the “Taliban’s insistence on secluding women from public life is a political maneuver disguised as ‘Islamic’ law.… The Qur’an and the examples of the first Muslim society give the Muslim Women’s League a voice to state that the current manipulation of women to serve geo-political interests, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, is both unIslamic and inhumane.”
Of course, the repression of women in Afghanistan is not something that was solely introduced by the Taliban, but had existed long before the concrete existence of this faction. Nevertheless, Taliban rule certainly led to the exacerbation of this repression.
US Taliban Alliance
AI reports that even though the “United States has denied any links with the Taleban”, according to then US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel Afghanistan was a “crucible of strategic interest” during the Cold War, though she denied any US influence or support of factions in Afghanistan today, dismissing any possible ongoing strategic interests. However, former Department of Defense official Elie Krakowski, who worked on the Afghan issue in the 1980s, points out that Afghanistan remains important to this day because it “is the crossroads between what Halford MacKinder called the world’s Heartland and the Indian sub continent. It owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself.
It is no secret, that the United States, has been supporting the Taliban in their war for control of Afghanistan for some time. The US has never openly acknowledged this connection, but it has been confirmed by both intelligence sources and charitable institutions in Pakistan.
William O. Beeman, an anthropologist specialising in the Middle East at Brown University who has conducted extensive research into Islamic Central Asia observes that the US-backed Taliban “are a brutal fundamentalist group that has conducted a cultural scorched-earth policy” in Afghanistan.... So why would the US support them?” Beeman concludes that the answer to this question “has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity - but only with the economics of oil. To the north of Afghanistan is one of the world’s wealthiest oil fields, on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian Sea in republics formed since the breakup of the Soviet Union.” As Beeman notes: “The US government has such antipathy to Iran that it is willing to do anything to prevent this.” The alternative route is one that passes through Afghanistan and Pakistan, which “would require securing the agreement of the powers-that-be in Afghanistan” - the Taliban. Apart from the oil stakes, Afghanistan remains a strategic region for the US in another related respect. The establishment of a strong client state in the country would strengthen US influence in this crucial region.
Strategic interests therefore seem to have motivated what the Guardian referred to as “the generally approving line that US officials take towards the Taleban.” CNN reported that the “United States wants good ties [with the Taliban] but can’t openly seek them while women are being repressed” - hence they can be sought covertly.
US Policy reallocates it position Against the Taliban
The change in US policy in Afghanistan from pro-Taliban to anti-Taliban, has not brought with it any change in the tragic condition of the Afghan people, primarily because the policy shift is once more rooted in America’s own attempt to secure its strategic and economic interests. Since the Taliban no longer plays a suitably subservient role, US policy has grown increasingly hostile to the faction. The shift has also, unfortunately, occurred without public discussion, without consultation with Congress and without even informing those who are likely to make foreign policy in the next administration.
When the US embassy blasts in east Africa attributed to Bin Laden , “the US engineered a punishing ban of war-ravaged Afghanistan at a time when many of its 18 million people are starving and homeless ,” observes the Toronto Sun.. They Failed to affect the Taliban, and devastate the Afghan population even more.
The London Guardian reports that “When the UN imposed sanctions a year ago on the Taliban because of their refusal to hand over bin Laden, the suffering in Afghanistan increased.
The fact that the US has been backing a UN resolution strengthening sanctions against foreign military aid to the Taliban , without including an embargo on the other armed factions in the country, confirms clearly that the shift in policy has no humanitarian basis behind it.
We thus see a clear example of how human rights, democracy and egalitarian social development are directly opposed by deliberate Western policies to further the economic interests of Western corporate elites. In this case, a faction whose policies of brutal repression are extensively documented and well known was being covertly supported at the expense of the Afghan people in the name of US strategic and corporate interests.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c9614b7a-c584-49b4-b9d7-60d49bf7acc1)
The Afghani Civil War and USA
In contrary to the conventional wisdom, the United States appears to have begun operations in Afghanistan before the full-fledged Soviet invasion. Former National Security Adviser under the Carter Administration, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has admitted that an American operation to infiltrate Afghanistan was launched long before Russia sent in its troops on 27 December 1979. Agence France Press reported that: “Despite formal denials, the United States launched a covert operation to bolster anti-Communist guerrillas in Afghanistan at least six months before the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country, according to a former top US official.”
the US appears to have been attempting to foster and manipulate unrest amongst various Afghan factions to destabilize the already unpopular Communist regime and bring the country under US sphere of influence. This included the recruitment of local leaders and warlords to form mercenary rebel groups, who would wage war against the Soviet-backed government, to institute a new regime under American control.
In December 1979, Russia intervened to reinforce its domination over Afghanistan, since the the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA)was, according to Brzezenski’s testimony, being destabilized by a US operation to infiltrate Afghanistan that had commenced at a much earlier date. The US had therefore evidently also wished to bring this strategic region under its own hegemony.
Afghan analyst Dr. Noor Ali observes of the ensuing US policy: “Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union in late December 1979, hundreds of high ranking Afghan politicians and technocrats as well as army officers including generals entered into Pakistan with the hope of organizing the needed resistance to oppose the invader in order to liberate Afghanistan. Unfortunately and regrettably the US Government in collusion with Pakistan’s leaders took abusive advantage of the opportunity so as to exploit it fully and by all manner of means to their own and exclusive illegitimate benefits and objectives, which had been threefold: (i) to rule out the creation of any responsible and independent Afghan organization among Afghans, interacting directly with Washington, to support Afghan resistance, (ii) to repulse the Red Army by using exclusively the blood of Afghans, and (iii) to make of Afghanistan a satellite if not an integrated part of Pakistan in return for Pakistani leaders’ services, but in complete disregard to Afghan people’s sovereignty and sacrifices.”
The overall result was a brutal civil war manipulated by the two superpowers that drove 6 million Afghan people from their homes.
By 1991-92, the US and the USSR finally reached an agreement that neither would continue to supply aid to any faction in Afghanistan.
However, the numerous militant factions previously funded and armed by the US have been vying for supremacy. One of the armed Afghan factions funded by the CIA during this war was the Taliban, an apparently Islamic movement from the exterior .
the Taliban did not exist prior to October 1994, but were members of other factions operated independently without a centralized command center.
Development specialist Dr. J. W. Smith, founder and Director of Research for the California-based Institute for Economic Democracy, summarizes the humanitarian catastrophe of Afghanistan, commenting on Brzezinski’s admission of the US operation in the country: “Afghanistan was also a US destabilization. In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor... admitted that covert US intervention began long before the USSR sent in troops… Take note of what was ‘an excellent idea’: A country rapidly developing and moving towards modernization was politically and economically shattered, almost 2 million Afghans were killed, the most violent and anti-American of the groups supported by the CIA are now the leaders of Afghanistan, these religious fundamentalists set human rights back centuries to the extent they are even an embarrassment to neighboring Muslim fundamentalists, and both Muslim and non-Muslim governments within the region fear destabilization through Taleban fundamentalism.”
The fact is that both the US and USSR bear responsibility for having attempted to control Afghanistan, thereby shattering the country in the process.
Taliban in the ruling seat
Taliban has been ruling Afghanistan with an iron fist.Crescent International rightly observes, “criticism of the Taliban, whether it comes from non-Muslims or Muslims, is often heavily overlaid with prejudices or political interests.”
Is the Taliban An Islamic Movement?!
A full negation of the concept that the Taliban is an Islamic movement would require an extensive discussion of Islamic principles based on authoritative scholars and sources, compared to the documented facts of Taliban policy. Unfortunately this important issue falls beyond the scope of this article, and so cannot be tackled here with the necessary depth.
As pointed out by former US Congressman Paul Findley – Chairman Emeritus of the Washington-based Council for National Interest and Chairman of the Illinois-based Human Relations Commission - the Taliban “calls itself ‘Islamic’, but its regulations directly violate some of the most cherished principles of the Islamic faith.” Indeed, most Muslim scholars do not ratify or condone Taliban-like repression or atrocities.The Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Star, reports that “Islamic scholars in neighboring Pakistan say the Taliban’s laws reflect tribal traditions more than Islamic tenets.”
Abdullahi An-Na’im, a Muslim and US-based legal scholar, challenges the Taliban claims that their edicts come from the Qu’ran. He writes, “Unless Muslims [condemn these policies and practices] from an Islamic point of view as well, the Taliban will get away with their false claim that these heinous crimes against humanity are dictated by Islam as a religion.”
The Associated Press further reports the little known but important fact that while the “Taliban have imposed their harsh brand of Islamic Laws on the 90 per cent of Afghanistan they rule” in actual fact, “Islamic scholars elsewhere say that the Taliban’s laws are based more on tribal traditions than the Koran, Islam’s holy book.”
American journalist Robin Travis points out that “The Taliban has clearly manipulated the Qu’ran to serve its own purposes in causing abuse and hardships on women.”
The Muslim Women’s League concurs with this analysis, observing that the “Taliban’s insistence on secluding women from public life is a political maneuver disguised as ‘Islamic’ law.… The Qur’an and the examples of the first Muslim society give the Muslim Women’s League a voice to state that the current manipulation of women to serve geo-political interests, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, is both unIslamic and inhumane.”
Of course, the repression of women in Afghanistan is not something that was solely introduced by the Taliban, but had existed long before the concrete existence of this faction. Nevertheless, Taliban rule certainly led to the exacerbation of this repression.
US Taliban Alliance
AI reports that even though the “United States has denied any links with the Taleban”, according to then US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel Afghanistan was a “crucible of strategic interest” during the Cold War, though she denied any US influence or support of factions in Afghanistan today, dismissing any possible ongoing strategic interests. However, former Department of Defense official Elie Krakowski, who worked on the Afghan issue in the 1980s, points out that Afghanistan remains important to this day because it “is the crossroads between what Halford MacKinder called the world’s Heartland and the Indian sub continent. It owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself.
It is no secret, that the United States, has been supporting the Taliban in their war for control of Afghanistan for some time. The US has never openly acknowledged this connection, but it has been confirmed by both intelligence sources and charitable institutions in Pakistan.
William O. Beeman, an anthropologist specialising in the Middle East at Brown University who has conducted extensive research into Islamic Central Asia observes that the US-backed Taliban “are a brutal fundamentalist group that has conducted a cultural scorched-earth policy” in Afghanistan.... So why would the US support them?” Beeman concludes that the answer to this question “has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity - but only with the economics of oil. To the north of Afghanistan is one of the world’s wealthiest oil fields, on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian Sea in republics formed since the breakup of the Soviet Union.” As Beeman notes: “The US government has such antipathy to Iran that it is willing to do anything to prevent this.” The alternative route is one that passes through Afghanistan and Pakistan, which “would require securing the agreement of the powers-that-be in Afghanistan” - the Taliban. Apart from the oil stakes, Afghanistan remains a strategic region for the US in another related respect. The establishment of a strong client state in the country would strengthen US influence in this crucial region.
Strategic interests therefore seem to have motivated what the Guardian referred to as “the generally approving line that US officials take towards the Taleban.” CNN reported that the “United States wants good ties [with the Taliban] but can’t openly seek them while women are being repressed” - hence they can be sought covertly.
US Policy reallocates it position Against the Taliban
The change in US policy in Afghanistan from pro-Taliban to anti-Taliban, has not brought with it any change in the tragic condition of the Afghan people, primarily because the policy shift is once more rooted in America’s own attempt to secure its strategic and economic interests. Since the Taliban no longer plays a suitably subservient role, US policy has grown increasingly hostile to the faction. The shift has also, unfortunately, occurred without public discussion, without consultation with Congress and without even informing those who are likely to make foreign policy in the next administration.
When the US embassy blasts in east Africa attributed to Bin Laden , “the US engineered a punishing ban of war-ravaged Afghanistan at a time when many of its 18 million people are starving and homeless ,” observes the Toronto Sun.. They Failed to affect the Taliban, and devastate the Afghan population even more.
The London Guardian reports that “When the UN imposed sanctions a year ago on the Taliban because of their refusal to hand over bin Laden, the suffering in Afghanistan increased.
The fact that the US has been backing a UN resolution strengthening sanctions against foreign military aid to the Taliban , without including an embargo on the other armed factions in the country, confirms clearly that the shift in policy has no humanitarian basis behind it.
We thus see a clear example of how human rights, democracy and egalitarian social development are directly opposed by deliberate Western policies to further the economic interests of Western corporate elites. In this case, a faction whose policies of brutal repression are extensively documented and well known was being covertly supported at the expense of the Afghan people in the name of US strategic and corporate interests.
