3 ms·

By their political aims already having been met in 2000. They already controlled Afghanistan. They control it again. The US went on a war with a group that was

By their political aims already having been met in 2000. They already controlled Afghanistan. They control it again. The US went on a war with a group that was hoping for political aims. It was very clear about that, and then eventually went on a 10-20 year war with the Taliban anyway. Here is Vice President Joe Biden affirming that in 2011. Their domestic policy in Afghanistan is not terrorism, while their external policy needs to be reconciled. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-that-the-taliban-per-se-is-not-our-enemy https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-afghanistan-decision-foreign-policy-process/2021/04/18/e45e3fec-a05d-11eb-a774-7b47ceb36ee8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-afgha... Try to find a source you happen to respect that says the same thing. Subsequently President Trump continued direct negotiations with them, which never broke our "not negotiating with terrorists policy" because............. I think you're starting to get it. With now President Biden fulfilling the pullout deadline that Trump negotiated, giving their country back to them because turns out there was ... a ... group trying to fulfill a political aim - something I've avoided saying as to not dilute and distract from my point. The US campaign against the Taliban required demonizing them as terrorists under the definition of terrorists which is simply inaccurate, this observation has nothing to do with their human rights record it has to do with political aims that they hadn't already have achieved, the US was required to leverage its media and general islamophobia that allowed for the public to not distinguish between distinct groups. This was successful, while on the ground the people that mattered had to treat them separately for diplomacy, which continues to this day with an outcome that isn't surprising at all when understanding why we shouldn't have attempted marginalizing the Taliban to begin with. Now they have Afghanistan back, the way it was before we got involved. I'm not sure if any of this information is new to you, but ultimately this is purely semantics. The human rights record isn't a factor.

kodah 5y ago
Another interesting take. 2011 is when I was in Afghanistan and I can attest that both Joe Biden and Barack Obama lied to the American people about the progress in the war during that time because they ultimately wanted out. Let me juxtapose my experience with Mr Biden's words: > "We are in a position where if Afghanistan ceased and desisted from being a haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America and their allies, that's good enough. That's good enough. We're not there yet. To be clear, the Taliban is the only force we were fighting in Helmand and Nimroz provinces. > Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. The only thing I can think of during that time that this correlates to is the fact that they wanted out so bad they were willing to make peace with the Taliban. The Taliban's guerilla techniques and crafty use of IEDs and VBIEDs were having a huge impact on US troops and were dessimating the local population. To the extent that the Taliban figured out that if they just bombed places we went that local populaces would blame us for attracting the Taliban to their area. > If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us." This is almost a complete reverse course in what he had just said. Basically, the Taliban is not a threat until they are. He's basically trying to coax the people guilty of a series of heinous war crimes that they can also be regarded as a political entity. I'm reminded of the whitewashing of the IRA, who shouldn't have been a political party either. Human rights has everything to do with their connection to the word "terrorism".
- vmception 5y ago
  Its just not our place to bother with organizations already in power. And I’m glad this is the not an “edgy” take anymore. Due to a third party, we went in to deal with the third party and used the opportunity to oust the first party. We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants, colloquially calling them terrorists. That’s kinda messed up. It also didn’t work.
  - kodah 5y ago
    Promoting American isolationism isn't an edgy take, it's pretty age old. Nationalists have done it for quite some time with varying degrees of success. It's also why we didn't join WWII until we were attacked. What's an edgy take here is your clear lack of understanding between the Taliban and the Afghan populace, the history of Afghanistan, and your ignorance to the definition of terrorism. To correct some of the misinformation you're echoing: > Due to a third party, we went in to deal with the third party and used the opportunity to oust the first party. First, your speech is really confusing. If you could just directly mention who you're talking about then it'd be easier to track. I'm assuming "third party" here is the Taliban, who started a violent civil war in 94. [1] > We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants It never was their state. The Taliban fought with the Mujahideen, whom are also terrorists, to unseat a democratic government. [1] > We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants, colloquially calling them terrorists I'm going to assume in good faith that you did not know that at the time Al Qaeda was partnered with the Taliban [2]. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are bent on localized islamic states, while ISIL had global motivations, which is why they were partnered. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%931996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%9... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afgh...
    - vmception 5y ago
      I weigh the scope creep of the US negatively. I'm aware they partnered and that the US was initially making sure that Al Queda could not use Taliban resources. If this is something you are passionate about, somebody else should have attempted to deal with the Taliban, which is the future we are currently in.

kodah 5y ago

Another interesting take. 2011 is when I was in Afghanistan and I can attest that both Joe Biden and Barack Obama lied to the American people about the progress in the war during that time because they ultimately wanted out. Let me juxtapose my experience with Mr Biden's words: > "We are in a position where if Afghanistan ceased and desisted from being a haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America and their allies, that's good enough. That's good enough. We're not there yet. To be clear, the Taliban is the only force we were fighting in Helmand and Nimroz provinces. > Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. The only thing I can think of during that time that this correlates to is the fact that they wanted out so bad they were willing to make peace with the Taliban. The Taliban's guerilla techniques and crafty use of IEDs and VBIEDs were having a huge impact on US troops and were dessimating the local population. To the extent that the Taliban figured out that if they just bombed places we went that local populaces would blame us for attracting the Taliban to their area. > If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us." This is almost a complete reverse course in what he had just said. Basically, the Taliban is not a threat until they are. He's basically trying to coax the people guilty of a series of heinous war crimes that they can also be regarded as a political entity. I'm reminded of the whitewashing of the IRA, who shouldn't have been a political party either. Human rights has everything to do with their connection to the word "terrorism".

vmception 5y ago
Its just not our place to bother with organizations already in power. And I’m glad this is the not an “edgy” take anymore. Due to a third party, we went in to deal with the third party and used the opportunity to oust the first party. We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants, colloquially calling them terrorists. That’s kinda messed up. It also didn’t work.
- kodah 5y ago
  Promoting American isolationism isn't an edgy take, it's pretty age old. Nationalists have done it for quite some time with varying degrees of success. It's also why we didn't join WWII until we were attacked. What's an edgy take here is your clear lack of understanding between the Taliban and the Afghan populace, the history of Afghanistan, and your ignorance to the definition of terrorism. To correct some of the misinformation you're echoing: > Due to a third party, we went in to deal with the third party and used the opportunity to oust the first party. First, your speech is really confusing. If you could just directly mention who you're talking about then it'd be easier to track. I'm assuming "third party" here is the Taliban, who started a violent civil war in 94. [1] > We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants It never was their state. The Taliban fought with the Mujahideen, whom are also terrorists, to unseat a democratic government. [1] > We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants, colloquially calling them terrorists I'm going to assume in good faith that you did not know that at the time Al Qaeda was partnered with the Taliban [2]. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are bent on localized islamic states, while ISIL had global motivations, which is why they were partnered. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%931996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%9... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afgh...
  - vmception 5y ago
    I weigh the scope creep of the US negatively. I'm aware they partnered and that the US was initially making sure that Al Queda could not use Taliban resources. If this is something you are passionate about, somebody else should have attempted to deal with the Taliban, which is the future we are currently in.