by Yerusalyim 135 Replies latest social current
Yes, yes, taliban were/are a$$holes. Yet, it was because of american support that they prevailed against the ruskies. Links were forged, lots of weaponery was given, intelligence was shared. All this aid put the taliban into power in afghanistan. Cia supported taliban more than saddam did. This is all conveniently forgotten.
SS
direct your attention to the Taliban in Afghanistan...women murdered for showing too much ankle.
C'mon. Tighten it up on the definitions or go play with the slow kids. You can't start calling every ugly action, in every ugly corner of the world, terrorism.
The Taliban were a ruling religious party in Afghanistan. They were not "terrorist" per se, rather they allowed terrorist to operate in their territory and were unwilling to allow the coalition to attack/arrest those terrorist. It's great that they are gone, but, much as we all hate the way they (and all fundamentalist Islamic governments) treated women and their disdain for democracy, if they had not been harboring Al Quida, America would not have had any place going over there and kicking their ass.
"It's great that they are gone, but, much as we all hate the way they (and all fundamentalist Islamic governments) treated women and their disdain for democracy, if they had not Al Quida, America would not have had any place going over there and kicking their ass."
All fine and dandy, but you've bastardized the original intent. My response to the poster about the brutalization of women was in direct response to his challenging that terrorists are terrorists because they are "misunderstood." Because they've been oppressed and are simply lashing out because they know of no alternative to deal with their
oppression, vague as that "oppression" is. I pointed out a flaw in that argument: namely that the Taliban regime treated women brutally, murdered them, beat them, tortured them if they got out of line: "out of line" meant showing any part of their face or body at all. So, AGAIN, my point was this: rather than condemn such treatment of women as apalling and in violation of basic human rights, maybe we should try to "get at the source" of why the Taliban treats women that way in the first place. What have women done to encourage such behavior?
Totally ludicrous. That argument doesn't wash, any more than the argument to "try to understand" why terrorists terrorize does.
Actually Blacksheep, I was responding to the exchange between Yeru and PS.
I agree with you and Yeru that the particular terrorism that is most dangerous to the US is totally and completely a spawn of extreme fundamentalist Islam. And I don't know if you've pointed it out or not, but if you have I agree; Islam is far to soft on it's own extremist factions.
I don't think the "we're miserably poor" argument has much merit as to the cause of terrorism, especially the stuff directed at the west recently. I do however, know that an interesting thing happens when people, any people, are warm, well-fed, and engaged in productive things.
SS,
Study the history of Afghanistan a bit more, the Taliban were really no part of the action against the Soviets...that was the Mujahideen...the Taliban and the Muj's are different organizations. The Taliban were born in the refugee camps of Pakistan and didn't come into any type of power or influence until well after the Russians left..then, civil war created a vacuum that the Taliban filled....using (and this is for Six) terrorist tactics.
The issue the US has to face with the Taliban is that we deserted those groups in Afghanistan whom we originally supported...wonder who was president then...oh, I know...It was Clinton.
" I do however, know that an interesting thing happens when people, any people, are warm, well-fed, and engaged in productive things."
I agree with you to an extent. The irony here is that Osama bin Laden and his entire family were very, well fed; he had/has many wives and children. Not sure what his particular beef was. If he was simply standing up for his poor countrymen, maybe he could have shared some of his wealth with the "poor masses," before he resulted to killing innocent civilians...
Also, I still can't figure out the Northern Ireland problem. People there are not starving; they are not particularly deprived...but the furor and hatred, and resulting violence obviously runs very deep.
IMO, there is more to this senseless violence and terrorization than some Robin Hood feed the poor spirit.
Oops, dropped a word, should have read Osama and his family were "very wealthy."
Blacksheep
Bin ladin went to afghan to fight the soviets. He was an islamic idealist. He brought a lot of money to the resistance, and he helped the mujes' to organise.
Yeru
Ok. Was bin ladin fighting soviets in afghan before he got in w the taliban?
SS
"He was an islamic idealist."
Well, that's the most euphemistic term I've seen for him thus far. A terrorist who stops at nothing, including innocent men, women and children to make some point, is an "islamic idealist."
Regardless, what I was responding to was the idea that Islamofacism was led by people who are tired of being underpriviledged, they are hungry and cold....
Uhg...I hit the wrong key and it posted...
Regardless, I was answering the suggestion that the terrorists "terrorize" for a reason, that is they are hungry, deprived, cold, poor, etc. They've endured enough and they don't know what else to do to get people's attention.
That wasn't the case with bin Laden, wth masterminded 9/11, and now apparently 3/11.
I honestly struggle with people who someone sympathize with these terrorists. I was on another board some time back where people took issue with others labeling 9/11 terroists as "cowards." No, they are not cowards, because they died in the process of there terrorism. Okaay...not until I later heard they were simply apeing Bill Maher (who incidentially got yanked from his TV spot for that little observation) did I realize where they got that stupid idea.
Give up. Try as you might to defend these people, you'll just make yourself look very, very bad.
