Quote: Originally Posted by Johnnny
The Taliban stuck by the side of Al-queda when coalition forces invaded Afganistan... They went down with them and this is already a proven fact.... Id have rather had the northern alliance of tribes who fought Al-queda and the taliban come out on top after the soviets left. At least they werent all that crazy and into Bin Ladenism.... The Taliban has stuck it out this far, they wont change no matter what.....
The US and its allies including Canada attacked the Taliban first. They responded to our violence with violence. The Taliban didn't give a rat's ass about the US and its problems with al Qaeda one way or the other. OBL and his cadre weren't their primary concern. They were nearly 100% focused inward on the civil war and defeating the Alliance. The Alliance got more favorable western press coverage, because that's the way the Bush regime played one side against the other. All sides in that conflict are more or less equally crazy and none were known as defenders of Women's Suffrage, religious tolerance or equal rights.
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnnnyThe taliban sheltered Al-queda, the taliban were very strict in their interpretation of sharia law... The northern alliance fought them.... What am i getting wroong? Im not saying their saints, but its obvious the taliban came out on top and its obvious by there actions who they are. The taliban along with the people of Al-queda they shelter are the ones bombing markets full of people. And im pretty sure the base of the Northern Alliance is far more diverse than the people of the Taliban.. Unless you would like to change my opinion with some facts i recommend you go run off and find someone else to lecture to about what they do and dont know.
"Sheltered" is a weasel word. OBL was hiding out in the Taliban controlled part of Afghanistan. Technically they were "guests" as per Pashtun culture, which inferred certain obligations in both directions. The Taliban were obliged to protect their guests from harm. Their guests are obliged not to create problems for their host. When OBL's problems became the Taliban's problems, OBL would have had to leave sooner or later. I'm being an arm chair general, but I think the US played their cards poorly. A little more finesse and patience could have resulted in the Taliban looking the other way and/or providing covert intel regarding OBL's location and resources.
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyWhat are you getting wrong? Start with the idea that Al-qaeda, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance are the same people, depending on the time of day or the weather.
Once you have that figured out, go from there.
Yes they share similar philosophy regarding religion, women's rights, and ethical code.
--
However they mostly argue and fight amongst themselves. They aren't exactly a unified cooperative bunch. Once NATO leaves Afghanistan, they will go back to fighting amongst themselves. An argument could be made that the general lawlessness and lack of central control creates an environment where organizations like OBL's coalition can survive or even thrive. But that problem would have been better solved by helping the strongest side win in exchange for looking the other way regarding OBL. I am well aware of the problems Afghan women face regarding education and other freedoms, but neither side is better than the other in this regard. At least the Taliban did try to eliminate the opium trade...
...in July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season...
--
Again, I'm not saying I support the Taliban. I don't like any sides in that conflict. I suggesting a more pragmatic approach would have achieved better results at less cost.
