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
Prestige on Credit? Already 19 Deaths from Hunger in the British Commonwealth
Great Britain is said to have lured developing countries with, as has now been shown, empty promises, to project greatness.
Turkey’s “Sultans of the Net” Are World Champions: Hope (for a New Government) Is Half the Battle
An opposition that is suddenly no longer coerced and bullied by the state, and national team players who prevail against the best in the world…
Earthquake in Venezuela: Are Sanctions to Blame for the High Missing and Death Tolls?
A look at past disasters shows a recurring pattern: the number of casualties depends less on the strength of an earthquake alone and more on the resilience of buildings, thus, the role of international sanctions should be critically examined.
A Black Day for American Fundamental Rights
For conservatives, this represents a return to judicial restraint and to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. For liberals and civil rights advocates, it signifies the gradual dismantling of the legal protections intended to shield individuals from the state and corporations. Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say: “The America we know no longer exists.”