Question that perplexes me

[sdmsanjose]

quote by Proscribe
Why the Taliban is considered an enemy of America?

The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan and allowed Al-Qaida to train there prior to 9-11. When America asked them after 9-11 to turn over OBL and his terrorists the Taliban refused. We told them that we would take military action and the Taliban basically said, bring it on. The U.S. routed the Taliban from being rulers in Afghanistan so they went to the mountains and other areas to regroup

Why is America continue to target them? . . .

As Jim99 said “…If the Taliban control the country they will be able to provide a protected operating base for OSB and his organization. Provide a Taliban run country and provide a country to develop and train fighters, starting in the crib”

I also think there are other reasons. One is that we do not want the Taliban or other groups with like mind to gain ground in being part of the Pakistan government. Pakistan with a government like the Talban would be a LOT more dangerous than Al-Qaida as Pakistan has LOTS of NUKES!

Making a decision concerning military operations in Afghanistan is a very difficult one. If we pull out of Afghanistan and get hit again in the U.S. with another 9-11 type hit, then the American people would never forgive the U.S. Government. If a Taliban type government got started in Pakistan we would really have something to fear. A terrorist with a Nuke could take out 10-100 times more Americans than 9-11. Can you imagine most of NYC looking like Hiroshima?

I think that the terrorist (al-Qaida) that were powerful enough to do another 9-11 have been hurt badly. If that was not the case then we would have been hit again. It seems that Al-Qaida is not a good enough reason to stay in Afghanistan; they have been severely wounded. The Taliban gaining power in the government of Afghanistan is probably not a real huge threat. A Taliban type government in Pakistan is a HUGE issue and is probably more than just scare talk.

Keeping Pakistan from becoming an al-Qaida type state is the top foreign policy issue that the U.S. has at this time IMO. My personal opinion is that the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is more about Pakistan than the Taliban or al-Qaida.

 

[Montalban]

Karzai - wasn't he a business ally of the Bush family? I know the bin Ladens were

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

That is very recent. Fundamentalism is not synonymous with terrorism, except amongst those who rely on reading a very limited range of sources... such as newspapers.

Oh, I completely grant you that fundamentalism is not synonymous with terrorism. To me (and to most of the academic community concerning themselves with such phenomena), it's more of an analogue to "radicalism", pertaining to movements that idolize a glorious (but mostly fictitious) past of doctrinal purity.

In the case of Islam, it's mostly Wahabism that's to blame.

Al Wahab basically found that the Islamic "golden age" of religious tolerance and scientific progress was in fact a doctrinal corruption, and that TRUE Muslims ought to re-create a fictional past where women were treated like refuse and all that pesky progress never happened.

And the weirdest part of it all? That kind of fundamentalism has mostly blossomed during the last couple of decades. Older Saudis can still remember a time when men and women weren't segregated, and things in general were far less uptight than they are today.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well . . the average citizen/civilian doesn't know the truth about why the American government continues to pursue the Taliban and Al-Qaeda some years later.

And what is that truth?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[muhammadan]

I urge you all to read the book by Abdul Salam Zaeef titled, "My Life with the Taliban" (2010, Columbia University Press). It tells you much about the other side of the issue by a former Afghan ambassador to Pakistan and tells you the reason that Taliban refused to hand over OBL to the US. It also tells you (contrary to popular and blinding belief) that the Taliban and the Afghans were not responsible for the attacks on America on 9/11; in fact, the Taliban condemned the attacks - before Bush even suggested invading Afghanistan.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote of Muhammadan
I urge you all to read the book by Abdul Salam Zaeef titled, "My Life with the Taliban" (2010, Columbia University Press). It tells you much about the other side of the issue by a former Afghan ambassador to Pakistan and tells you the reason that Taliban refused to hand over OBL to the US. It also tells you (contrary to popular and blinding belief) that the Taliban and the Afghans were not responsible for the attacks on America on 9/11; in fact, the Taliban condemned the attacks - before Bush even suggested invading Afghanistan.

I read somewhere that the reason that the Taliban refused to hand over OBL was because of visitor-guest customs. The Taliban believe that if you are a guest of their country it is their duty to protect you, am I wrong?

I never believed that the Taliban were directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks. However, the Taliban must have known that OSB and his gang were training and plotting against the U.S. all the time they were in Afghanistan. I don’t think that the normal everyday guy in Afghanistan had any knowledge or interest in the 9-11 attacks.

I hope that we Make peace with the Afghans and that we make some kind of verifiable agreement with the Taliban. I think that the al-Qaida group has been severely wounded and are not capable of pulling off another 9-11 so I am for doing whatever has to be done so that our troops will no longer be killed and we do not have to kill any more Afghans.

I don’t know about other Americans but I have no beef with the Afghans. If the Taliban will not allow Terrorist that want to kill Americans to train in their Afghan country then lets stop having war with each other.

 

[Montalban]

I urge you all to read the book by Abdul Salam Zaeef titled, "My Life with the Taliban" (2010, Columbia University Press). It tells you much about the other side of the issue by a former Afghan ambassador to Pakistan and tells you the reason that Taliban refused to hand over OBL to the US. It also tells you (contrary to popular and blinding belief) that the Taliban and the Afghans were not responsible for the attacks on America on 9/11; in fact, the Taliban condemned the attacks - before Bush even suggested invading Afghanistan.

I love fiction

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Oh yeah, the Taliban are quite peaceable and fun-loving folks. The hippies of the muslims world.
Which is probably why they treat women like refuse, continue to attack female teachers and their schools with acid (not the fun-loving, lsd kind), flogged child brides for trying to escape forced marriages, or torture and execute pregnant widows for "adultery".

Yeah, clearly, these people are the good guys.

Honestly, if muslims around the world cannot speak up against such atrocities, and clearly distance themselves from such dangerous fanatics, then I feel that some of the harshest critics of Islam might actually be right when they claim that Islam is utterly incompatible with a society founded upon human rights and civil liberties.

 

[Montalban]

I thought Osama claimed to have done this deed. That was what he was proud of

 

[jgarden]

Why is the Taliban considered an enemy of America?

Why is America continue to target them? . . .

Big oil and the American government have been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for over a century. It was just a matter of time before certain Arab/Islamic groups reciprocated!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Big oil and the American government have been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for over a century. It was just a matter of time before certain Arab/Islamic groups reciprocated!

It's true that "Western" colonialist/imperialist politics contributed to the birth of islamic fundamentalism, as the peoples of the Middle East felt that they needed to defend their cultural identity against foreign influences by becoming more and more radical in their conception of what constituted a TRUE muslim.
At various points of history, certain countries even encouraged them in this in order to weaken one of their rivals: Germany, for example, sought to undermine the British Empire by sponsoring Islamists in the early 20th century. Lawrence of Arabia contributed to an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire. And the United States funded Afghan terrorists/guerillas (including what was to become Al Qaeda) in order to strike at the USSR.

Or remember the Iran-Contra-affair, where Ronald Reagan secretly sold weapons to the Ayatollah so that he could kill more Iraqis, while the US simultaneously supplied Saddam Hussein with WMDs and considered him an ally.

None of that, however, justifies Islamist terror. At best, it explains (some of) it. But it's still an atrocity.

 

[Jerry Horse]

Why is the Taliban considered an enemy of America?

The Taliban should be considered an enemy of anyone who supports rights for all individuals, regardless of religion or sex. The Taliban were known human rights abusers, particularly towards women and Christians.

 

[Montalban]

Big oil and the American government have been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for over a century. It was just a matter of time before certain Arab/Islamic groups reciprocated!

Islamic terror pre-dates Western colonialism

 

[Nooj]

The Taliban should be considered an enemy of anyone who supports rights for all individuals, regardless of religion or sex. The Taliban were known human rights abusers, particularly towards women and Christians.

The Taliban are still human rights abusers. They attack innocent people.

But does that mean America should be fighting everywhere there are human rights abuses?

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

Why is the Taliban considered an enemy of America?

Why is America continue to target them? . . .

There's this place called "lower Manhatten" you might like to take a walk around some time.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The Taliban are still human rights abusers. They attack innocent people.

But does that mean America should be fighting everywhere there are human rights abuses?

That's the crucial question - and if you ask me, the answer is: no.

Not because we shouldn't feel obligated to help people against such abuses, but because military interventions are pretty much counter-productive when it comes to such considerations.

Cases in point: Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's not much good that can be said about Saddam Hussein's regime, but one thing's for sure: religious conflicts were not much of an issue. Sunnis and Shias were living right next door to each other, and even the Christian minority was not persecuted on account of their religious affiliations.
It was a nasty dictatorship, but not a theocracy, nor a country torn apart by religious animosities.
So, what happened after the US "liberated" Iraq? A ghastly tyrant was removed from office, but that didn't lead to liberty and peace for all. Quite the contrary. Iraqi Christians are worse off than ever, conflicts between Sunni and Shiah are escalating, and Islamism experiences a new popularity in a country that was comparatively secular as far as Middle Eastern countries go.

Our continued military presence in Afghanistan is similarly ambivalent: we've installed a comparatively benign government - corrupt, yes, but pretty benign compared to the Taliban. But that government cannot persist on its own, and it is the very presence of "Western" troops that promotes new extremism. The ranks of the Taliban swell as more and more people rally against the "foreign invaders and their puppet government".

Remember "Red Dawn", that crappy action movie about American guerillas fighting against the evil commies who've invaded the United States? That's how most Taliban or Al Quaeda recruits probably feel: they're "fighting the good fight" against an evil invader with superior military equipment.


At the root of all of these troubles is the one thing the neo-cons never quite seemed to grasp: you cannot promote liberty and human rights at gun point. Nor can you eliminate terrorism with military invasions.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

At the root of all of these troubles is the one thing the neo-cons never quite seemed to grasp: you cannot promote liberty and human rights at gun point. Nor can you eliminate terrorism with military invasions.

Of course you can. The British defeated terrorists on 3 continents through military force. The so called "coalition" simply isn't trying hard enough.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Of course you can. The British defeated terrorists on 3 continents through military force. The so called "coalition" simply isn't trying hard enough.

What are you talking about? 19th century colonialism?

That's like comparing the Napoleonic wars to WW1, or more precisely: like comparing military operations to efforts at combating organized crime.

This is the globalized age. Terrorism is a form of organized crime that doesn't care one bit about state lines or national boundaries. Battling Al Quaeda by invading Afghanistan made about as much sense as invading Sicily to eliminate the Mafia.
Even if the "Coalition" had caught Osama bin Laden on day one, that would hardly have stopped the syndicate. It's not like some sovereign state built around an infrastructure with an administration that can be clearly traced and rendered ineffectual by lopping off the head.
Personally, I'd suspect that eliminating Bin Laden would have made the ranks of the terrorists swell even more rapidly, having just given them a martyr - a symbol to rally them and make them re-double their efforts.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

What are you talking about? 19th century colonialism?

That's like comparing the Napoleonic wars to WW1, or more precisely: like comparing military operations to efforts at combating organized crime.

This is the globalized age. Terrorism is a form of organized crime that doesn't care one bit about state lines or national boundaries. Battling Al Quaeda by invading Afghanistan made about as much sense as invading Sicily to eliminate the Mafia.
Even if the "Coalition" had caught Osama bin Laden on day one, that would hardly have stopped the syndicate. It's not like some sovereign state built around an infrastructure with an administration that can be clearly traced and rendered ineffectual by lopping off the head.
Personally, I'd suspect that eliminating Bin Laden would have made the ranks of the terrorists swell even more rapidly, having just given them a martyr - a symbol to rally them and make them re-double their efforts.

I was thinking of 2 19th century examples, but the 3rd is purely 20th century. Who won in Northern Ireland? (Hint, not the terrorists)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I was thinking of 2 19th century examples, but the 3rd is purely 20th century. Who won in Northern Ireland? (Hint, not the terrorists)

The conflict in Northern Ireland wasn't won by strength of arms, but through a long peace process built around political processes and a decisive, poignant LACK of military interventions. That particular case actually bolsters my argument.