The Taliban are Afghanis who were encouraged by the CIA under the Carter administration to become Mujahideen, guerrilla warriors engaged in a jihad against the Soviet Union that had a puppet dictator installed in Afghanistan. The Carter administration, through Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security advisor, told the Taliban that God was on their side. The US financed and trained the Taliban who ousted the Soviet regime from Afghanistan.
As for al Qaeda, it is much more so an on-going witting CIA tool.
The important thing to understand about the relationship between the Taliban and al Qaeda is that the Taliban, while being sharia followers (the Qur'an is their constitutional law), has said that it told al Qaeda that it could not engage in terrorist activities. In addition, the Taliban had warned the US of the impending 9-11 attacks. The Taliban had also cut way back on the global heroin supply that was coming out of Afghanistan.
Their treatment of women and girls was harsh and strict as called for under their traditional interpretation of the Qur'an. However, they were equally strict concerning all forms of things seen as illegal under that interpretation. This is not to excuse their treatment of females. It is only to say that their focus was sharia, tribal, parochial, and provincial. They were not driven by a global vision of Islam.
Enter David Hicks. As of Saturday, February 03, 2007, David Hicks has been held by the US at GuantÃ¡namo Bay, Cuba, for more than five years without a trial. He is an Australian who went to Afghanistan in his mid twenties in January 2001. He was captured by the Northern Alliance and sold to the US.
It is important here to remember that the US then allowed a convoy of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to drive out of Afghanistan into Pakistan. The US also airlifted al Qaeda to Pakistan. This is documented as indisputable.
Now, David Hicks is back in the news, because he is once again to face charges before a military commission as an unlawful combatant even though the US government is not alleging he engaged the US in combat. He is being charged with having trained with the Mujahideen and al Qaeda.
Also, it is critical to remember that the Taliban had not been involved in the planning or execution of 9-11, but rather that the Bush administration, with malice aforethought, used the entire thing as a false-flag pretext for imperial expansion in the Middle East to dominate the regions oil and drug trade and to subjugate the people and force open their markets to ruin the little people, the little vendors and farmers, etc.
The actions of the Empire deliberately steered others to attack the US on US soil. They were facilitated and encouraged and egged on by elements in ultimate control of the US government.
Therefore, any trial of David Hicks in the name of the US is utterly hypocritical if George W. Bush and his courtiers are not likewise tried for their numerous, evident high crimes.
We don't advocate coercive trials and punishments but rather mental/spiritual help all the way around. David Hicks, the Taliban, the former Soviets, al Qaeda, the neocons, and all others who do not renounce greed, violence, depravity, and all forms of selfishness, are misguided and need to see and follow the light pouring out of the strait gate from the narrow way.
The Marxists were, and are, wrong. The jihadists are wrong. Sharia is wrong. However, so is capitalism. Also, that the elitists pit group against group, one after another, in a long chain stretching back to the beginning, is every bit as wrong.
Had the US left Mohammed Mosaddegh in power in Iran and left Jacobo Arbenz in power in Guatemala and had never engaged in all the cloak and dagger activities but rather had reached out to help the common people in both countries and every country, this world would have been long since saved. The spirit of such reaching out and help and assistance, giving and sharing, would have seen to the correction of all the global pollution, global warming, war, and all the rest of global and human suffering.
It's obvious. It's time to transform what the conservatives call human nature.
Think about the trillions of dollars that have been wasted on weapons and war. Think about what would have resulted if all the effort that has gone into militarism had gone toward good causes. Would any human being on earth be wanting for anything?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)