When it comes to a concise analysis of the situation in Afghanistan, who better fpr the BBC to turn to than….Paddy Ashdown! Argh! I listened to he whose eyes never quite open being interviewed earlier this morning and it became clear that the reason the BBC like Ashdown is because he, like them, believes a military victory is not enough to defeat the Taliban. It appears we will need to talk directly to them and help win– yip — their hearts and minds.
MORE HEARTS AND MINDS.
Bookmark the permalink.
“the notion that Islamo-nutter terrorists aren’t proper Muslims, but merely using that ideology for PR purposes.”
More to the point,if Islam is the Religion of Peace why would it be advantageous for murderous terrorists to use it for a cover? I realise this one slid out of Gus’s brain and slithered down his leg,but it is a stark contradiction even from that dubious source.
David Preiser (USA) at 4.20
No, the IRA agreed to a ceasefire, thats how the threat ended, it was not because the military crushed them.
Gus Haynes | 19.02.09 – 5:26 pm |
No, the IRA agreed to a ceasefire, thats how the threat ended, it was not because the military crushed them.
I meant that Afghanistan and the Talban were being presented as analogous to Northern Ireland and the IRA. It’s a false comparison, but the BBC keeps trying to make the point, on several different occasions, for months now. David Vance has made previous posts on this, and others have commented here as well.
Well there are some comparions to be made about the battle against terrorism, but yes of course there are big differences in the cases too. Still, I don’t think we should ignore the fact that the N. Ireland episode showed that by talking to the terrorists peace was eventually achieved. No, I am not saying unconditional talk with Al Qaeda, and no I do not think it will necessarily work. But it is an option, and the lesson showed us that Thatcher’s approach of putting the terrorists to one side and utterly refusing to talk with them is ultimately not necessarily the best strategy.
Remember it was Major rather than Blair who managed to convinve the IRA to call a cesaefire.
“Still, I don’t think we should ignore the fact that the N. Ireland episode showed that by talking to the terrorists peace was eventually achieved.”
It wasn’t talks it was giving the IRA what it wanted.
Terror worked for the IRA and it is working for the Islamo fascists.
Yes Garden Trash, the IRAs tactics worked.
N.ireland 20 or 30 years ago was a war site, today it is peaceful, with its own devolved government, and (before the global economic crisis) investment was pouring in. which creates jobs and wealth.and there are no longer bombings, or sectarian killings. there is no longer an army needed to guarantee the peace.
so yes, the IRAs tactics worked, and N. Ireland is all the better for it. no we cannot apply exactly the same parameters to al qaeda, but we can consider talks/ceasefire of some kind.
Gus Haynes | 19.02.09 – 5:57 pm |
The whole notion of talking to the Taliban in the same way that Major talked to the IRA is a joke. The (at the time) hypothetical IRA-inclusive government wasn’t going to allow Opus Dei to set up training camps outside of Londonderry to train Catholic terrorists to murder thousands of Londoners. Nor were they going to burn down all Protestant churches, forbidding anything other than Irish Catholic worship in public. There is no Afghani analogue for Ian Paisley or Unionists. The reasons for the Troubles in Northern Ireland were significantly different from the reasons the Taliban were removed from power in Afghanistan. The IRA were never in power in the first place, and the Taliban are not fighting for the restoration of Afghani rule in Afghanistan. As I say, it’s a joke.
This isn’t about engaging in dialogue with people who have remotely the same goals, are in the same situation as Northern Ireland, or about anything that would result in remotely the same kind of government. To even try to make the NI/IRA analogy denies this reality. Talk about “dialogue” and “hearts and minds” all you want; that’s fine. But there’s no valid reason to bring up Northern Ireland when discussing Afghanistan.
I never said we should talk to the Taleban. The taleban are not attacking Britain, or America. Al Qaeda have done, and whilst they are protected by the Taleban (and share an ideology) they are two distinct bodies. So get that straight first of all.
I think there MAY be cause to negotiate with Al-Qaeda, not the taleban. The taleban have not attacked Britian. Yes they are killing our troops, but our troops invaded the country they rule. I don’t know if you made a mistake, or if you are trying to suggest I wish to talk with the taleban, but I have never heard anyone suggest we talk with the taleban.
“N.ireland 20 or 30 years ago was a war site, today it is peaceful, with its own devolved government,”
And IRA gangsters run the Province where there are still beatings and intimidation.
Gus Haynes | 19.02.09 – 7:44 pm |
I never said we should talk to the Taleban. The taleban are not attacking Britain, or America. Al Qaeda have done, and whilst they are protected by the Taleban (and share an ideology) they are two distinct bodies. So get that straight first of all.
I didn’t mean to imply that you were saying that. I was talking about the BBC Narrative on the two situations. I was also trying to say that dialogue and “hearts and minds” can be discussed in regards to Afghanistan without bringing up NI. What happened there was an entirely different kind of dialogue than anything that could ever happen in Afghanistan, so the term needs to be redefined for this discussion.
I think there MAY be cause to negotiate with Al-Qaeda, not the taleban. The taleban have not attacked Britian. Yes they are killing our troops, but our troops invaded the country they rule. I don’t know if you made a mistake, or if you are trying to suggest I wish to talk with the taleban, but I have never heard anyone suggest we talk with the taleban.
I’ve heard it brought up on the BBC, as have others. The Taliban and Al Qaeda get conflated in these discussions, I think. There are reasons for that, but it doesn’t work for all discussions. In this case, though, I would have thought that Al Qaeda is the real danger, and should never, ever be involved in the Afghan government, and the only dialogue that should be held with them as far as I’m concerned is about their total surrender. It was Al Qaeda-inspired Islamo-nutters who did the 7/7 bombings, and they weren’t angry about the Taliban not having any government power. Al Qaeda members or affiliates have also killed British troops in Iraq, which was not an Al Qaeda country either.
I’m hoping that you’re the one who is in fact confusing Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Otherwise, I’m going to have a real hard time understanding how you might see dialogue with the former but not the latter.