Taliban publicly execute woman near Kabul: officials

[happyslug]

10. I see everyone is missing the real point of this execution, who is in charge

This execution has NOTHING to do with religion or crime, but WHO punish criminals. In any country, the power to punish criminals is the first and most important role of Government. Government also gets to decide WHAT is a crime (we can debate adultery as a crime, but BOTH our allies in Kabul AND the Taliban believe it is a capital offense, thus this women being killed is NOT in dispute in Afghanistan).

The dispute between our allies in Afghanistan AND the Taliban is WHO does the execution? The Taliban by doing the execution AND that execution meeting approval of the people, means the Taliban not the government in Kabul has popular support, even that close to Kabul. It is the Taliban that the people of Afghanistan look to enforce the law and resolve local disputes, NOT the Government in Kabul. That is what makes this execution so important, NOT that it was for Adultery, but that the people looked to and approved of the Taliban enforcing the law and that the people did NOT even think that the Government in Kabul would enforce ANY law.

As I have said before in the type of P artisan war we are fighting in Afghanistan WHO does such execution is part of the war. As I wrote above, NO ONE IN AFGHANISTAN disputes that this woman should have been killed (Both sides agree on that point, if through many on this board does not), the issue is WHO should have done it. The Taliban by doing it are saying they are in charge, even in areas under the overall control of the Government of Kabul.

In simple terms, we have lost the war over the people of Afghanistan, they do NOT want the US in or to stay, they are ready, willing and able to accept Taliban rule. The US thus has four choices:
1. Delay pulling out so that any pull out does NOT occur in this term of office, thus the country does NOT fall to the Taliban under who is President today (This is what happened in Vietnam, the US stayed in, even after the war was lost, for no President ever wanted to admit the US had lost the war).

2. Pull out and admit defeat

3. Send in Colonialists, These would be Roman type Colonialists, i.e. take the best land in Afghanistan and settle old soldiers in those areas and give them those lands as they own. These would be a group who will fight all the other locals for they right to live on the land is from the US, thus not recognized by the Locals and those rights would be lost if the US ever pulls out. Gives the US a set of locals that are pro-US.

4. Kill everyone in the country (i.e. Genocide)

Once you look at the above, and accept genocide is NOT acceptable and today's soldiers do NOT want to live the rest of their lives in Afghanistan, we are stuck with either one or two, keep deferring defeat so blame can be on the successor not who is in charge today. The other is to accept that fact the war is lost. Number 2 is unacceptable, thus we see number one being embraced but only unofficially (as what happened in Vietnam).

Thus we are seeing the same things that occurred in Vietnam, most of the people of Vietnam supported the Viet Cong, but a Communist Vietnam was unacceptable to the US. The war was lost even before the US went in, but we had to go in to prevent Vietnam from falling. Until Congress finally stepped in and stopped US forces in Vietnam in 1973, the US kept throwing in more and more money and troops (US peak service was in 1968, but US forces stayed in Vietnam as advisers till the fall of Saigon in 1975).

In Afghanistan the US are still trying keep the present government of Kabul as the legal government of Afghanistan, the problem is most of the people of Afghanistan are looking at the Taliban as their legitimate Government. The Taliban are acting more and more as the Government of Afghanistan, this killing is just the latest example of that.

My point is that this video is showing who is in CHARGE in Afghanistan and it is looking more and more that is the Taliban.