3 ms·

>Here's what I'm wondering: when did it become fashionable to stick up for the Taliban? When there are two groups of killers involved in a conflict recognizing

>Here's what I'm wondering: when did it become fashionable to stick up for the Taliban? When there are two groups of killers involved in a conflict recognizing the killing of one group doesn't mean one is excusing the killing of the other group. If you are familiar with the history of the Taliban you are likely aware of the role the US played in their rise to power (http://nyti.ms/ddOTcu http://nyti.ms/ddOTcu). The Taliban would likely not exist without the support of the US. The US didn't nurture the Taliban for the good of the people nor are they attempting to control Afghanistan for the good of the people.

tptacek 16y ago
I don't understand why it matters that the US helped bring the Taliban to power. Help me understand why our culpability in the rise of the Taliban doesn't make us more obligated to eradicate them. Please understand, I think that this article we're all commenting on is all the way at the crazytown other end of the spectrum on this issue. The notion that the US should be allowed to kidnap people in friendly countries and haul them back to the US for military trials is also repellent.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >Help me understand why our culpability in the rise of the Taliban doesn't make us more obligated to eradicate them. If I could believe that eradicating the abuses of the Taliban is in some way part of the mission I might agree, but I fail to see any reason to believe that whatever regime the US installs post-Taliban will be any different.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > I don't understand why it matters that the US helped bring the Taliban to power. For one, I think they would be better off had the Soviet Union succeeded invading it. They would have some industry, mining operation, separation between religion and state and so on. It's not like the Taleban ever were "freedom fighters". The Soviet Union would get rid of the Taleban for free. It's, in fact, the kind of poor judgment that minimized the threat the Taleban presented and made it worth to defeat the soviets by any means possible that worries me. Had the Taleban been properly groomed and supported (and "westernized") after driving the Soviets out, the world would be a far better place now.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    My understanding: it's largely a myth that the Taliban is the direct creation of the US government. The Taliban are themselves a direct and overt reaction to the warlordism and banditry that followed the Communist puppet regime in Afghanistan. They were formed to remove the status quo that American support for the Mujahideen created. I understand some of the power politics involved in, for instance, disfavoring Massoud and arming Hekmatyar and how decisions (and, more importantly, negligence) in handling that stuff hurt the west in the long run. Still, though. It's a drastic oversimplification to say that the US created the Taliban. It also seems pretty irresponsible to suggest that the world would have been better off if the Soviets had succeeded in surpressing Afghanistan. It very well might have been worse.

tptacek 16y ago

I don't understand why it matters that the US helped bring the Taliban to power. Help me understand why our culpability in the rise of the Taliban doesn't make us more obligated to eradicate them. Please understand, I think that this article we're all commenting on is all the way at the crazytown other end of the spectrum on this issue. The notion that the US should be allowed to kidnap people in friendly countries and haul them back to the US for military trials is also repellent.

mcantelon 16y ago
>Help me understand why our culpability in the rise of the Taliban doesn't make us more obligated to eradicate them. If I could believe that eradicating the abuses of the Taliban is in some way part of the mission I might agree, but I fail to see any reason to believe that whatever regime the US installs post-Taliban will be any different.
rbanffy 16y ago
> I don't understand why it matters that the US helped bring the Taliban to power. For one, I think they would be better off had the Soviet Union succeeded invading it. They would have some industry, mining operation, separation between religion and state and so on. It's not like the Taleban ever were "freedom fighters". The Soviet Union would get rid of the Taleban for free. It's, in fact, the kind of poor judgment that minimized the threat the Taleban presented and made it worth to defeat the soviets by any means possible that worries me. Had the Taleban been properly groomed and supported (and "westernized") after driving the Soviets out, the world would be a far better place now.
- tptacek 16y ago
  My understanding: it's largely a myth that the Taliban is the direct creation of the US government. The Taliban are themselves a direct and overt reaction to the warlordism and banditry that followed the Communist puppet regime in Afghanistan. They were formed to remove the status quo that American support for the Mujahideen created. I understand some of the power politics involved in, for instance, disfavoring Massoud and arming Hekmatyar and how decisions (and, more importantly, negligence) in handling that stuff hurt the west in the long run. Still, though. It's a drastic oversimplification to say that the US created the Taliban. It also seems pretty irresponsible to suggest that the world would have been better off if the Soviets had succeeded in surpressing Afghanistan. It very well might have been worse.