The world calls the taliban a monster – and lets them get away with it. It laments the suffering of women – and protects their tormentors through passivity. And Pakistan is currently the only power standing up to them.
Pakistani fighter jets bombed military installations in Kabul. Image: Pakistan Army
On Thursday night, the conflict between Pakistan and the taliban government in Afghanistan crossed a new threshold. Pakistani fighter jets bombed targets deep inside Afghan territory, including military facilities in Kabul and positions in the provinces of Kandahar and Paktia. These were no longer limited border strikes, yet coordinated air raids within the country – a military escalation that renders the previous narrative of “incidents” obsolete.
Islamabad described the attacks as a response to prior taliban attacks on Pakistani military posts and continued terrorist attacks by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which Pakistan accuses of finding safe havens in Afghanistan. The taliban government denied the allegations and reported clashes and losses on the Pakistani side. Regardless of conflicting accounts, it is clear: both sides are now openly employing military force – from the air and on the ground.
This raises the question conspicuously avoided internationally: Is this a war? From an international law perspective, there has been no formal declaration of war, no UN notification, and no classic mobilization. Politically, however, Pakistan has deliberately left the gray zone. Defense Minister Khawaja Asif stated unambiguously:
“Our patience is at an end. Now there is open war between us and you.”
These words do not replace a legal declaration of war, yet they mark a turning point. Airstrikes on the capital of a neighboring state, targeted attacks on military infrastructure, and ongoing clashes meet the factual criteria of an international armed conflict. Calling it war or not does not change the reality.
And as fighting intensifies, the international community responds with familiar reflexes. The United Nations, the United States, China, Russia, and the EU express “deep concern,” urge “restraint,” and call for “dialogue.” No side is supported; no responsibility is assumed. What is presented as diplomatic balance is, in Truth, political convenience.
This restraint would already be problematic – were it not for the glaring hypocrisy with which these same actors have condemned taliban rule for years. The latest Afghan laws, which effectively ban women from education, work, public life, and legal rights – even stripping them of bodily integrity – are rightly labeled internationally as systematic disenfranchisement and gender apartheid. Statements, resolutions, and special reports follow weekly. Consequences, however, do not.
The taliban regime is condemned morally – and politically stabilized through inaction. Its barbarity is acknowledged – and simultaneously shielded from real pressure. Rights for women are demanded – yet there is no willingness to support the only actor actively challenging this regime militarily.
Pakistan does not act out of idealism. It is a matter of national security, counterterrorism, and sovereignty. Objectively, Pakistan is currently the only power opposing and confronting the taliban. Diplomacy without pressure has failed in Afghanistan. Sanctions without enforcement are meaningless and only provoke the taliban to pass more brutal laws, without opposition. Appeals to a regime based on violence and religious coercion are illusions.
This is not to glorify war. Yet it is to acknowledge an uncomfortable Truth: neutrality in this situation is not a moral stance, yet an excuse. Those who allow the taliban to survive politically are complicit in their daily crimes – especially against Afghan women.
The world calls the taliban a monster – and lets them operate freely. It deplores the suffering of women – while protecting their oppressors through passivity. If the international community is serious about its own values, it must stop restraining Pakistan and begin taking a firm stance against the taliban regime. Everything else is aid by omission, omission offense, complicity by omission, passive complicity, conscious acquiescence, failure to protect, contribution by tolerance – in short: inhuman.
God sees.
>>-> Afghanistan Legalizes Beating of Women
>>-> When the pearl of democracy wants to be like Afghanistan
By Okay Altinisik | 27-2-2026, 12:53:18
Why It Might Have Been Better for Israel to Fight Iran Alone—just like Gideon
An army that is too large might create the impression that victory was due solely to its own strength rather than to God.
From Friend to Betrayer: What Israel Thinks of Trump’s Peace Deal with the Shiite Terror Regime
Instead, the agreement is viewed as a lifeline for a long-standing archenemy—coming only a few months upon him rescuing Hamas.
The Hebron Agreement — Are Jews Even Allowed to Inherit Anymore?
For the Aboriginal, the indigenous in Nicaragua, the Māori, descent is accepted as a legal basis. Only for Jews, it seems, does this principle not apply.
Does the Iran war distract from Epstein — or Epstein from the Catholic Church?
Three scandals. Three powers. And who benefits from the fact that we never keep track of all three at the same time? Every time new documents were released, the news cycle escalated elsewhere.
Discover more from Austrians
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.