Ron Paul knows even less about the history of our enemies than he does about their proper treatment under the Constitution. He actually interrupted Monday night’s Republican candidates’ debate so he could interject the following:
I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. So Taliban are people who want — their main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It’s the al-Qaeda — you can’t mix the two. The al-Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says, “We don’t want foreigners.” We need to understand that, or we can’t resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come.
Advertisement
Everything in this statement is wrong. Everything. Let’s start with the most basic point. The Taliban most certainly were not “our allies when we were fighting the Russians.” How could they have been, considering that the Taliban did not exist at the time of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?
I won’t belabor the point that it was not the United States but the Afghan mujahadeen, with the help of non-Afghan Muslims (mostly Arab), who did the actual fighting against the Soviets. We did, after all, fuel the anti-Soviet jihad with billions of dollars in materiel and other assistance — through our intermediary, Pakistani intelligence, with the Saudis matching our aid dollar-for-dollar. Presumably, this is what Representative Paul was talking about. Nevertheless, while a number of the Taliban’s eventual founders were veterans of the anti-Soviet jihad, the fact is that the Taliban was not established as an organization until 1994. That is five years after the Soviet Union skulked out of Afghanistan and three years after it collapsed.
Paul’s claim that the Taliban is just opposed to foreign interference in Afghanistan is patently absurd. To begin with, the Taliban’s creation was a direct result not of foreign invasion but of Afghanistan’s internecine tribal warfare after the Soviets left and the Americans lost interest. Its unabashed goal was to crush Afghan factions that impeded its establishment of a retrograde sharia state.
Moreover, the Taliban craves foreign interference, without which it would never have come to power. A Pashtun movement driven by Islamic scholars and spearheaded by Mullah Mohammed Omar in Kandahar, the Taliban owes its existence to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These Muslim nations, two of the only three nations in the world to recognize the Taliban-led government in Kabul, nurtured, armed, and financed the Taliban in its origin. They did so precisely because the Taliban was an effective ally in their machinations against regional rivals — India for the Pakistanis and Iran for the Saudis. The alliance was also grounded in the Taliban’s espousal of Deobandism, an uncompromising construction of Islam propagated in Afghan madrassas built by the Saudis’ Muslim World League in conjunction with Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s supremacist Islamic movement.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the Taliban willingly gave al-Qaeda safe haven, knowing full well that bin Laden’s network was engaged in a global jihad that targeted the United States as its primary enemy. Al-Qaeda struck American interests several times while it had sanctuary from the Taliban, attacking American embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole in Yemen before orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. By quite consciously accommodating and protecting an international terrorist organization that was at war with the United States, the Taliban joined al-Qaeda and became an enemy of the United States. It was thus every bit as much a part of al-Qaeda’s attacks on the U.S. as was al-Qaeda itself. That is not only how war works, it is a straightforward application of the criminal-law principles that Representative Paul claims to like so much — a conspirator and an aider-and-abettor is responsible for the actions of his confederates.
You are one heck of a piece of work, McCarthy. How do you stay employed? Your appearance here is a stain on the name of National Review.
As a victim of the bombing which you covered up, I am personally offended that anyone would give you a platform to inject your warmongering venom into the body politic.
After that "waterboarding is not torture" claim, how can anyone take anything you say as anything but outright propaganda? Now you're posing as an expert of the Taliban, shamelessly putting our soldiers at risk and beggaring the nation with your failed imperial goals.
You say this because you know it's not you who is going to fight it, nor anyone you know, and you plan to have today's newborn children foot the bill for your misadventures.
How many soldiers, how many innocents must die so that you can refuse to admit that becoming the evil empire ourselves was the wrong idea all along?
Fantastic comment. Couldn't agree more! This article lacks reason and morality. Instead, the author looks at a huge mistake of a situation microscopically trying to denounce the only man in government that is trying to save lives and not sell off the unborn. Peace and prosperity, not war and poverty.
I'm going to assume that was a joke. If so, clever.
But you never can tell. Are you seriously suggesting it is possible to take a shot at anyone for not knowing "how to spell" a word that is both in a foreign language and normally rendered in foreign scripts, and which by definition can have no standard indisputable spelling when in English in the Latin alphabet?
Compare Qaddafi/Qadhafi/Gadhafi/Khadaffi/Khadaffy/Daffy Duck etc.
In fairness, he also misspelled "material" as "materiel." I know that "material" comes from Latin, so we can probably blame the Italians at some point, but this is, quite honestly, a horribly edited article. And yes, it makes me think less of the intellect of a person when they try to make an intellectual critique of a candidate but cannot even be bothered to use spell check.
This is actually pretty funny. The first troll's only critique is directed at the spelling of a word that logically has no "correct" English spelling equivalent due to the difference of languages and alphabets. Of course, this was already noted.
The second troll attempts to critique the article based on the spelling of the word "materiel". I am not sure which is worse, moronically alledging that there is only one correct spelliing of an Arabic word, or not realizing than "materiel" is a different word that "material". There is a material difference.
Parents, please, don't let your home schooled children access the comments sections on the internet without adult supervision. Its either that or it is completely unfair that their votes count as much as mine.
"Dragonslav : 01/19 /12 18:37
This is actually pretty funny [agreed]. The first troll's only critique is directed at the
spelling of a word that logically has no "correct " English spelling equivalent [should be comma]
due to the difference of languages and alphabets. Of course, this was already
noted.
The second troll [
Ron Paul and his supporters are political allies of the Taliban. They share the foreign policy goals of Iran. They welcome the support of neo-Nazis. They believe in 9-11 and that Jews control the government.
Obamacare saved America. Gary Johnson thinks we should have a king. Newt Gingrich killed a guy, but Rae Carruth went to prison for it, and both blamed Teddy Kennedy.
This game of putting malarkey into print is fun, innit, Ronnie?
I'll take a stab at answering for him. McCarthy must have covered up the first WTC bombing since he was involved as a prosecutor during the trial of Shiek whatshisname. We all know what liars and criminals attorneys are. I'm an attorney so I feel I can say that.
I lived in Battery Park City at the time - does that make me a victim also. I've never really been a victime in the sense of victim of injustice so this will be a first for me.
The '93 bombing is what I have in mind as well, but I was hoping I'd get him to explain how/why McCarthy covered up the bombing. I suspect it would be that the people really behind the bombing are the CIA, "banksters", Mossad, Zionists/(Joos), NWO, Salvation Army or the Muppets...anyone but the jihadists.
Mr McCarthy is absolutely on target. Ron Paul also called Wiki Leaks traitor Manning "…a hero..". Paul and his misguided followers are just out of touch with the facts, especially those involving world affairs. Every Executive level Administration can redefine torture to suit their political agenda. Fact is that sprinkling water on an enemy combatant's head is not torture, but capturing an innocent civilian and beheading them is. I would water board the entire Taliban if it would bring back a single innocent American who was murdered on 9/11/2001 or anytime after. Continue to spew your anti American venom, American Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen have spilled there blood for your rights.