Taliban: "Don’t accept the system of infidels called Democracy." And we negotiate with them?

Originally posted by jdub297
While I am sure that your beliefs and interpretations are sincere and well-founded, they do not coincide with those of a vast number of Muslim jihadists.

While you speak in platitudes and of lofty ambitions of the faithful, there is a hard, brutal reality that this administration refuses to face or confront. Every day, around the world, there are murders and kidnappings and terror visited on those who have no animosity to Islam or Muslims, merely because of where they are or where they were born. This is all done is (misguided?) reliance upon their faith, their mullahs, their Imams and their scripture.

We have no business "negotiating" with those who have sworn blood-oaths against us and our ways of life(secular or in faith), even if the bases of their motivation are "religious" (or sacrilegious).

It is folks with thinking like yours that only ensures we mankind will wage with Islam. There is a difference between Jihadists and muslims.

Majority of muslims are only just like the rest of us fellow humans, with only human desires and common grounds of goals in life for themselves and their next generations. This is nothing lofty, platitudinal, or even any issues with sincerity. It is only a reality ALL mankind shares and aspires towards, not just muslims.

The Jihadists are a minority, with little support, and are only acting outside of the muslim greater Community that the prophet had taught, and all which honest imams teach.

The Jihadists and hardliner clerics' only hope to get their way to power is by converting the ordinary muslims to their cause, and will succeed if the rest of humanity refuses to comprehend the true teachings of Islam, but instead to denigrate ALL muslims because of the unfounded fear of being converted, alienating them to look for support in the arms of Islam's apostates.

Islam is not evangelical. Your submission can only be based upon free will. In the 7th century, when the prophet taught, he DID NOT teach forceful conversions, but only by convincing others to adopt a civilised way of life. He had fought with those who wished his followers harm, and coversion then was the only way to ensure that the barbarian infidels truly ended their horrors.

However, he had never nor taught anyone to convert children of the book to Islam, and had even lived side by side with them. As for the claims that non-muslims were taxed heavily, it was only for that period as the jews then were the richest compared to the uneducated and illiterate new converts, and thus their funds were shared to build the new society in Arabia, a case of balancing and redistribution of wealth which is part of the centrality to Islam.

At latter years, his teachings had been misinterpretated, as is common whenever the divine Teacher of a religion leaves. Christianity too was not spared. But ultimately, the central tenets of moral and ethical guidelines are the same, for they came the same source - our common Creator, and thus our common grounds of common aims in life.

Therefore, if the ignorant continues only to alienate the muslim community, which shares the same common ground with the rest of mankind, the Jihadists and the persian apostate infidel Khamenei would have won, and greater bloodshed will be spilt, not just by this generation, but the next as well.

Only the truth can set us all free, not ignorances or manipulation of religion for personal glory and gain.

Once the jihadists - taleban, radical militants,Khamenei and his hizbollah butchers are isolated and shown in reality of what they really are, there will no support for them by the muslim majority, and no sane youth will join in their abominable causes. With them just a small pack, a few drones will exterminate them once and for all, if they refused to end their violence and face justice.

As for negotiating with the Taleban, there is no need to. My hopes for peace from them ended when they suicide bombed even peace envoy clerics. The Taleban are not muslims for sure, but only in the pay of someone else - proxies of either Pakistan or Iran or even both on part-time basis. If the west or afghanistan want peace - its the taleban's masters that are the ones to either talk to or whack them if they refuse talking.

Pakistan and Iran are the only 2 nations on Earth today that uses PROXIES to destablise, invade and wage war upon other nations for decades. Their cunning charade is only far too plain to see in daily events around the world today. They fooled not many. May they give it up and come clean, or it will only lead to their own doom as even more of their despicable doings are revealed.

reply to post by threewisemonkeys

The fact of the matter you negotiate with the enemy in every war. They are still their when its over unless you exerminate evey last one of them. Of course you hope to have the Taliban lay down its arms take a political settlement. That will not happen until you talk with them. This what happens during conflcts or they would never ever ever end. We would still be fighting the revolution.

You either did not take History, or you flunked it if you did.

To take your "revolution" example, the British and loyalists were forced to surrender unconditionally, despite their willingness to "negotiate." The Germans in WWI were forced to surrender, without condition. The Japanese in WWII were forced to surrender unconditionally.

Do you not even read what you post; or, do you just spout out nonsense that sounds good to you?
We "negotiated" with the North Koreans, and the war has never ended!

Originally posted by charles1952

I hate to think this way, but could all of this be simply to make Obama look successful?

Or

Maybe he was trying to Negotiate a Deal, so the Countless Troops killed, Billions Wasted, was Not for Nothing..

Vietnam ring a bell?

reply to post by Tw0Sides

Dear Tw0Sides,

Maybe he was trying to Negotiate a Deal, so the Countless Troops killed, Billions Wasted, was Not for Nothing..

You're right that he could possibly be thinking that, but it seems strange. What kind of a deal could he possibly make that would ensure that the Taliban would become peaceful after we left? It seems that any deal would be purely symbolic and entirely ineffective because it would be unenforceable.

The Taliban would declare victory, and they would be right.

That's why I think he's going for the symbolism and the favorable press coverage, instead of anything substantive.

And, please remember, that he called Afghanistan the "good war," the one we should be fighting.

With respect,
Charles1952