What 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.
The Taliban is not America's enemy
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
What 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.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
- Rudyard Kipling, "The Young British Soldier", 1895
Empires change; the stupidity continues.
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
- Rudyard Kipling, "The Young British Soldier", 1895
Empires change; the stupidity continues.
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.
"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.
Yes they share similar philosophy regarding religion, women's rights, and ethical code.
Pashtunwali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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...
Opium production in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Do you really think that nobody sees through those hypocritical disclaimers of yours???:roll:
Probably because the US government has continually lied for as long as I remember about many things to justify their aggressive actions. The Taliban is an insignificant entity and only became a threat when attacked. Why does saying the US lied mean that anybody supports the Taliban? Nobody does support their actions since invasion but it is understandable. You would do the same thing if anybody invaded Canada. We all would.
They became a threat, when they allowed their country to be a base of operations for a multitude of extremist groups.
Why is it a theocratic gov't, and lets not forget how you feel about theocracy and extreme religious types Cliffy, isn't scrutinized like how you scrutinize Christians?
Not likely. If Canada's gov't started supporting terrorist groups, and allowing Canada to be used as a base of operations for terrorist activity. I would likely aid the US in a regime change here.
The Taliban are like the PLO, the FLQ, the Red Brigades, or the IRA. They are or were only interested in attacking the govt of Afghanistan, Israel, Canada, Italy or the UK respectively. They may be crazy but they are extremely focussed. Their attacks are not random, or even against the USA, as none have ever attacked the USA, Canada, Japan, India, Australia, NIgeria, South Africa, Brazil, Argentian, Bolivia, Angola or 150 other countries.
Yes there is international terrorism like al-Quada, but they are uncommon, not the norm. The assertion to start this thread is generally correct.
Yes there is international terrorism like al-Quada, but they are uncommon, not the norm. The assertion to start this thread is generally correct.
The Taliban only controlled a part of Afghanistan. I was aware of their theocratic rule of terror long before the invasion. I supported the UN in trying to take them out. But the US decision was not based on human rights violations, or the reign of terror perpetrated by the Taliban. As far as I'm concerned, the Taliban was a terrorist group but they restricted their acts of terror to their own people. I doubt very much it had anything to do with al Quida either.
As for how I feel about Christianity or my scrutiny of them, it has more to do with the inconsistencies in translation and interpretation of the bible and those that use it to justify hatred toward other religions and groups, in other words, the hypocrisy of people like Alley and MHZ. I have nothing against the teaching of Jesus. I do have a problem with those who condemn all those who don't follow their particular brand of belief. All, as far as I can remember, of my comments were aimed at a particular person and what they said and not against the religion in general. If it was a general remark about crimes against humanity that Christians have perpetrated t was in response to finger pointing at Muslims. On that count I feel they are equally guilty. It really has nothing to do with either religion, just those who use the religion to hate and perpetrate acts of hate.
I was going to post something intelligent in response to CB's mind numbing brain pablum, but Cliffy already did.
FYI: The total territory controlled by all Alliance factions was less than that controlled by the Pakistan backed Taliban. Therefore the Taliban had the most legitimate claim to represent the Afghan people...
Also the Taliban would have had to have told a lot of lies to be less reliable than the Americans. BTW, how's the search for Iraq's WMD stockpiles coming?
FYI: The total territory controlled by all Alliance factions was less than that controlled by the Pakistan backed Taliban. Therefore the Taliban had the most legitimate claim to represent the Afghan people...
Also the Taliban would have had to have told a lot of lies to be less reliable than the Americans. BTW, how's the search for Iraq's WMD stockpiles coming?
Huh? lol
Like the 90% part? The Northern Alliance controlled only a slice of the norther border lands.
That is all.
Legitimate claim - they were just better at killing. Of course supported by Pakistan. Guess you should revisit what legitimate means.
Much like the blather below.
I am a non-violent pacifist secular humanist. If everyone shared my philosophy there would be no violence, war or crime.
And what has that got to do with the BS reasons the US and the coalition of the stupid invaded Afghanistan?Yeah... the Taliban only controlled a part...
Good grief
Maybe all that media isn't reporting this because it's not a big deal. Joe Biden says stupid **** all the time. That ain't news. That's Wednesday.