Here
and
Now

opinions

Taliban changed, but still a potent threat

7 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

7 Comments
Login to comment

So basically, the local people support then and if there were elections they would win.

Seems like we in the west who preach tolerance need to learn some tolerance ourselves.

The Afghans have their own culture, and apparently they're willing to stand up and fight for it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

According the history of my time, after the Americans and NATO left, the Taliban slowly reverted back to the old ways of no music, no internet, and all burquas. They bothered no one outside of Afghanistan, except for certain willing tribes in Pakistan, just as before. But whether they were more careful of who they had as house guests or whether no al-Quaida wannabees came knocking is not for certain.

The whole episode is viewed here in the future as being as pointless, destructive and shameful as U.S. involvement in the Vietnamese Civil War.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This would be the Taliban that the CIA basically set up in business, right?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are the Taliban really insurgents? They live there, don't they? When the U.S. pulls out completely, look for the Taliban to try to retake the reigns of the government. And given their ruthlessness, they probably will prevail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Edojin - you make an excellent point.

Who are the insurgents?

Surely the Americans!

I mean, whose country is it?

It's Afghanistan, isn't it? It's not an American colony, is it?

Who are the terrorists?

By which I mean those who use fear for political aims?

Again, the Americans.

But I thought America was the land of the free?

Right!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the land of the free" is America as defined in that song, not Adghanistan. I'm not sure it applies here.

But I'm not sure about the "insurgent" term. I think the idea is that the Taliban wouldn't submit to the rule of either Afghanistan or Pakistan. I'm aware it's a loaded word now and I don't like it myself, as it's a neo-con invention, and they were heavy on the doublespeak.

But to claim the US is an insurgent force against the Taliban, who do not rule Afghanistan, or that the US are fighting against the Afghan government seems to be a stretch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thomas, my point is this.

The US invaded Afghanistan for no clear reason. "Getting Bin Laden" is often cited as the cause, as he was apparently behind the 9/11 tragedy in New York. Yet there was no proof of this and, when they did have the opportunity to bring him to trial, when they invaded Pakistan, they killed him and dumped the body at sea.

That this is done in the name of Freedom strikes me as particularly weird.

I agree with you that Afghanistan is not ruled by the Taliban, but I think they have more right to be there than the US armed forces.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites