The latest as of 3:15pm EST Is that the leading elders (clerics) of the Islamic regime in Afghanistan are going to decide whether or not to hand over Bin-Laden.
Apparently Bin-Laden was residing with the very same elders when he first arrived(in afghan.) They are strict Muslims, they adhere to the ‘TRUE’ rules of Islam. I wonder what is going to come from this?
What is the most logical step for them?
If they give Biny over they may save some civilian lives. If they don’t they will surly not save any muslim lives. Also Biny probably won’t go anyway.
The fact that the Afghan gov’t went to the Clerics to decide what they are going to do brings up some very legitimate philosophical questions as well.
Can/will the elders see the acts as acts of Pure Terrorism and not representitive of Muslims? Or will they see the acts as provoked and there for justified? Granted muslims have had a bad rap when it comes to fighting wars. They are always having spit’in contests with everyone. If they wanted to portray a peacful religion they would value human lives… Any thoughts…
Well, clerics do get 8-sided hit dice, and they can wear armor and carry shields, and their THAC0s are second only to fighters. Plus, they get to cast cure light wounds on your party members, and can turn undead.
So, having it be all up to the clerics is a pretty good choice, if you only get to pick one character class.
Smart move if you ask me. If the clerics refuse to turn over OBL the Taliban can claim that they WANTED to turn him over but that the religious elders… who obviously know better than anyone… wouldn’t let them.
If the Taliban manage to somehow pit the US against the entire Isamic World then they win since our beef isn’t with islamics in general… just one particular person.
Well, the clerics are islamic equivalents of shamans. And going to them can be likened to going to elders. I am sure people reading this understand the juxtaposition. I do not think they are the leaders of the Taliban though. But I am sure the Taliban put a lot of stock in what they say. Bin Laden lived with these clerics when he first moved to Afghan.
However, if they are abiding by indiscriminate human wisdom, they may say new york and washington are enough. They know that if they don’t give him over, they are essentialy saying we know innocent civilians are going to die, so be it. I am trying to keep an open mind, but like a lot of Americans I do not know very much about Bin laden and his fundementalist faction. I may be wrong. Anyone who can shed more light … please do.
…the Taliban is trying very hard to portray what’s coming as ‘America vs. Islam’. I’d like to see Bush do a public address specifically to talk about this. I’d like to see him stress that our issue is not with Islam, but with murderers. I’d like to hear him say that, although a majority of Americans are Christian, the government is not, but respects Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and indeed any religion as being an issue of a citizen’s private concience, and that our purposes are in no way an attack on Islam. But I think he’s too deep in the pockets of the Christian Right for that last one. But it would be good to at least try to not let the Taliban set the tone of this thing unanswered.
I heard on the BBC this morning that they had received notice that the Clerics have said ‘Jihad against the USA will continue’. This was later denied so I’m a little confused.
If a Jihad has been (or will be) declared against the US, doesn’t that give us a better reason to go to war against the country proper? Without the official declaration of Jihad, the enemy was more or less disassociated and “officially” unaligned with any particular country. Now that the Taliban has (or will) officially throw its weight behind a Jihad, doesn’t that pull out all the stops for us lining up our crosshairs on Afganistan?
IOW, they declare [a holy] war against us, therefore we now have something to go to war against, and a place (other than caves in the wastelend) to bomb the beejays out of, if need be.
Sorry, all I meant was that declaring war against Afghanistan as opposed to opening hostilities against the Taliban, for me at least, have vaguely different connotations.
It doesn’t matter. If you look over the list of embassies and consulates at the State Department, you’ll note that we don’t maintain one in Afghanistan. We don’t even keep any diplomatic officials in Afghanistan. We don’t recognize any government there; we cleared out all of our diplomats from Kabul in 1989. As far as we’re concerned, they are not a country with a legitimate government with which to conduct diplomacy.
Well, you since I imagine they use the Arabic alphabet, it could be transliterated either way. But “Taliban” seems to be the standard.
Remember how every network used to have a different way to spell “Khadafi”? The Arabic alphabet doesn’t have an exact one-to-one correspondence to the Latin alphabet.
Well the fact of the matter is, the U.S. is waging war against the terrorist’s not the Afghan-nationals. If an Afghan-national happened to be a terrorist, then they automatically have a big bulls eye painted across there chest. Terrorist is the optimal word here. We are not fighting a war against the Muslims, we are going to fight a very ‘private’ war against the Militant factions, who like to kill innocent people in the world. That is who we are going to target.
All over the internet and on the news, ‘they’ are saying that they will not have media coverage of the strikes all over the world. this is going to be a very private war. Unlike Iraq, where there was a CNN correspondant in a damn hotel to film that one. Nope this is going to be different. We are going to be like a silent Dragon that comes from no where and everywhere at the same time…
CNN is reporting that it may take another day for all of the clerics to arrive at the meeting site; that the meeting might take several days; and that all 600 clerics have to be in agreement.
Many of the clerics have already publicly voiced their unwavering support for bin Laden and not turning him over.
I hope the U.S. doesn’t hold off on its activities one extra minute, waiting for a response from this exercise in futility.
My understanding is that the Pakistanis view this “we must ask the clerics” rhetoric as merely a delaying tactic, and I assume they would know. (This according to this morning’s New York Times.)
The Taliban has also said they want evidence of bin Laden’s involvement. Not an explanation, but documentary evidence – though what that would constitute, I don’t know. Then the documents must be submitted to a committe of clerics for inspection and they will decide whether to accept them or not. Then the clerics must deliberate on the issue, a process with an open-ended time frame and no time set for its conclusion.