--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > Hillary backs reconciliation talks with Taliban "if they are willing > to abandon violence" >
It's causing a lot of confusion in the allied troops fighting the Taliban too. We all rush out here to help america and then 4 years later they start doing deals without telling anyone! Do we keep bombing them or not? How do we know who's friendly. Is anyone really kidding themselves there is going to be a worthwhile solution to this. Does anyone ever learn the mistakes of history. This whole thing is a monumental disaster. Pakistan, rather than having to fight them, has given a piece of it's own territory to the taliban so they can practise sharia law on the inhabitants. How is that going to do anything other than spread their disease all over Pakistan. And every western bomb creates more fighters ready to die for the cause. And in a country we gave the nuclear bomb. > So apparently, if they are willing to abandon violence and pursue > their goal of implementing Islamic law by other means, that is just > fine with her. Here is yet another demonstration of the danger of > misdiagnosis of the global jihad threat: the problem is not the means > the Taliban use, the problem is their goal. The Taliban are not bad > because they are violent -- after all, so are the forces that oppose > them. However, as far as the President and the Secretary of State are > concerned, that is the only problem with them. If they try to > accomplish their goals at the ballot box rather than with guns and > bombs, Obama and Clinton would welcome them as partners. The fact > that the Taliban want to impose a law upon Afghanistan that would > subjugate women and non-Muslims as inferiors, denied equality of > rights with Muslim men, and extinguish freedom of speech and freedom > of conscience, means nothing to them. > > And why should it? Karzai's Afghanistan is already a Sharia state, > according to the Afghan Constitution. > > "US backs reconciliation with non-violent Taliban," from AFP, March > 31 (thanks to JE): > > US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday backed Afghanistan's > plans to hold reconciliation talks with members of the Taliban or > past Al-Qaeda supporters who reject violence. > "We must ... support efforts by the government of Afghanistan to > separate the extremists of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban from those who > joined their ranks not out of conviction, but out of desperation," > she said. > "They should be offered an honourable form of reconciliation and > reintegration into a peaceful society, if they are willing to abandon > violence, break with Al-Qaeda, and support the constitution."... > > > Why not? The Afghan Constitution declares that Sharia is the highest > law of the land. > > > > Esp. interesting since the Afghan president just signed allow > legalizing rape. Hillary to you have a letter from Bill?: > > > > It will be forever ignored or denied by those who insist that Islam > is a Religion of Peace, but in reality there is no Misunderstanding > of Islam going on here. Every provision of this law as stated in this > article, including the rule that women cannot refuse sex to their > husbands at any time or for any reason, is part of traditional > Islamic law. And so this new law is yet another indication of how the > overtures to the Taliban from official Washington are out of focus. > Will the U.S. stand up for these women and defend them? Absolutely > not, because they are being victimized by Sharia, to which Washington > has no apparent objection, and because they are not being blown up in > terrorist attacks. The passing of a law in a non-violent manner -- > what's the problem? It's democracy at work! > > "Hamid Karzai signs law 'legalising rape in marriage,'" by Ben Farmer > in the Telegraph, March 31 (thanks to Leal): > > President Hamid Karzai has signed a law the UN says legalises rape in > marriage and prevents women from leaving the house without permission. > The law, which has not been publicly released, is believed to state > women can only seek work, education or doctor's appointments with > their husband's permission. > Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under > the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women. > Opponents of the legislation governing the personal lives of > Afghanistan's Shia minority have said it is "worse than during the > Taliban". > Mr Karzai has been accused of electioneering at the expense of > women's rights by signing the law to appeal to crucial Shia swing > voters in this year's presidential poll. > While the Afghan constitution guarantees equal rights for women, it > also allows the Shia community, thought to represent 10 per cent of > the population, the right to settle family law cases according to > Shia law. > The Shiite Personal Status Law contains provisions on marriage, > divorce, inheritance, rights of movement and bankruptcy. > The bill passed both houses of the Afghan parliament, but was so > contentious that the United Nations and women's rights campaigners > have so far been unable to see a copy of the approved bill.... >
