Eco-Terrorists: The Taliban Goes Green With Tree Planting Message

440px-pinus_roxburghii_tree440px-taliban-torkham-2001Until now, I thought “eco-terrorist” was an industry spin.  However, the   leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hibatullah Akhundzada, has gone all green. It appears that when his followers are not throwing acid in the faces of girls seeking to be educated or blowing up mosques and markets, they should be planting trees.  It is the Taliban version of Greenpeace without the peace part.

Akhundzada ordered both civilians and fighters to “plant one or several fruit or non-fruit trees for the beautification of Earth and the benefit of almighty Allah’s creations.”  What is so striking of course if that the Taliban has left its beautifying mark on the country in the form of massacres and car bombings done in the name of Almighty Allah.

Akhundzada took over the organization in May and  insisted that “[t]ree plantation plays an important role in environmental protection, economic development and beautification of earth . . . Planting trees and agriculture are considered actions which hold both worldly good and benefit as well as immense rewards in the hereafter.”


By the way, before this message, the Taliban’s most concerted horticultural efforts were directed at growing opium as part of its huge narcotics operation — a source of money that does not appear to trouble their clerics.




18 thoughts on “Eco-Terrorists: The Taliban Goes Green With Tree Planting Message”

  1. ” glassy eyed weed smokers” seriously?? How bout the 4000+ vets who showed up to form a human chain (which caused Obama to back down cause the optics of them being fired on wouldn’t have been good PR). Or the white people whose land was seized for the project under imminent domain? are they all “terrorists”?

    The water protectors are just that.

    UPDATE 1-North Dakota spill sixth largest pipeline leak in 2016 – data

    1. I began my comment with a quote defining terrorism. There is no carve out in the definition for people and political causes you find sympathetic – whether they are veterans, people dispossessed of their land by imminent domain, water protectors, glassy eyed weed smokers, bongo bangers or chanters.

      Professor Turley says “eco-terrorism” is industry spin. I point out that the conduct of the squatters seems to meet, or comes close to meeting, the definition of terrorism: engaging in vandalism; property damage; and causing economic harm to the developer for forcing a delay in its development to advance a political agenda.

      My question remains unanswered. Why is it unfair to refer to their conduct as “eco-terrorism”?

  2. ter·ror·ism

    “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

    The Dakota Pipeline squatters unlawfully vandalized civilian property; unlawfully caused economic harm to the civilian property owner by delaying the lawful development of the property; and they left behind the equivalent of what authorities estimate will be a total of 480 rollout dumpsters of garbage and filth to be cleaned up at taxpayer expense of $1 million. Those are the costs to civilians and taxpayers so glassy eyed weed smokers can camp out for a few months, bang their bongos, and chant about how much they love protecting water and the environment. The irony is that the filth and garbage they left behind could contaminate the Standing Rock tribe’s drinking water if it floods, so the North Dakota governor declared the area an environmental catastrophe to expedite the clean up of their filth.

    The chanting, squatting, vandalism, disruption, and economic harm was a form of intimidation to advance ecological political goals through the political process. Seems like it meets the definition of terrorism to me.

    Please explain why “eco-terrorism” is not an fair description for their conduct.

  3. Isn’t this called “green washing” by the public relations folks? Like all the oil companies who “invest” in the environment? =)

  4. They are appealing to their loyal audience on the Left, who after all, have devoted so much effort in support of terrorists…labelling extreme vetting and the temporary travel ban on terrorist nations racist and all. How nice of them to throw them a bone.

  5. This is just counter-messaging. For every person you blow up or maim, you have to plant a tree. Or they could be copying the Jews who plant trees all the time.

  6. This sounds like yet another Muslim ripoff from the Jews, like the prohibition of pork and circumcision. So now they ripoff the Jewish tradition of planting trees in Israel. Funny thing, though. The Muslims never seem to be able to ripoff the Jewish tradition of winning nobel prizes in science, medicine, and economics. But that requires work and dedication to humanity, which doesn’t fit in with their agenda of making lives miserable and unbearable for everyone wherever they are.

  7. Will the western world governments allow it? Will they stop selling weapons to both sides as a way to perpetuate war and their own outrageous profits? I doubt it. I have very little hope.

Comments are closed.