In an interview published in the French newspaper Le Figaro on Monday, the French foreign minister, Bernard Koucher, took the idea further, saying the West should accept a pro-Taliban leadership if Afghans choose such an administration in elections set for next August.
Most conservatives are skeptical that there are such things as a moderate Taliban.
Varadarajan volunteers the somewhat disconcerting fact that the Taliban has offices in Queens, NY.
Perhaps they still occupy the office they held during the Clinton administration when they were lobbying the UN:
The Taliban has been unpopular with women's groups, human rights organizations and many governments and international organizations for its efforts to impose its puritan vision of society on Afghans, and it has been reviled even by the Iranians for giving Islam an out-of-date image, if not a bad name. It has not been able to budge either the General Assembly credentials committee, which decides who holds U.N. seats, or the powerful governments behind it, most of all the United States.
UPDATE
Even the Taliban themselves have no idea what so called "moderate" Taliban means:
"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?"
Judging from the user name & comments that s/he an Obot, sammehwhoreface
don't see what peace talks that happened in 1938 have to do with anything going on now, really. Surely if something can be solved peacefully, then that is the best route to go down? There were a number of issues surrounding the Munich agreement, you seem to take a worringly simplistic view of it.
The subtle nuance of negotiating with Nazis and their modern heirs...
Posts
No comments :
Post a Comment