Results 1 to 20 of 99
Why Are the Taliban Better then Americans
Why are the Talibans better then the American liberators of Afghanistan? You seem to support them only because you want them to defeat American imperialists. But that's idiotic as then you'd have to support the CSA, Nazi Germany, and other unsavory governments. Maybe you ought to decide objectively who'll be better for freedom and the human condition rather then just say "The Taliban'll kick US ass and that's awesome!"
2+2=4
You're operating on the assumption that the American invasion of Afghanistan has anything to do with liberating anybody. This is not an assumption we share on Revleft. In fact, I wonder where you get your assumption from? The stated reason for invading Afghanistan was to capture Bin Laden and bring him to account.
I think your assumption is based on the venal self-justification of failed and corrupt American politicians.
"Events have their own logic, even when human beings do not." - Rosa Luxemburg
"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin
Well it was a secondary effect and as long as something happens I don't care why it happens.
2+2=4
I don't assume that the invasion of Afghanistan was intended to liberate the Afghans. It was intended to destroy Al Qaeda training camps and depose Taliban chiefs.
But as to your question, the Taliban are medieval, misogynistic, violent, clerics. (Did I mention they are assholes?) The western coalition has been killing Taliban fighters, and has surely killed many innocent civilians, but they have also been helping the citizenry build and protect voting booths and schools. http://www.spiritofamerica.net/site
Such schools will, or would be, open to everyone, including girls. The girls might even have grown up to study Marxism as well as finance, chemistry, medicine, law and paleontology.
Of course, it's a losing proposition. We're leaving soon and the Taliban "men" will likely be destroying schools and voting booths and brutalizing women and little girls as they did before.
I don't see much liberating going on. The Taliban haven't gone anywhere have they? The invasion just added one more problem to an already appalling situation.
Who are you talking to?
i dont know much folks around here who actually support the taliban, perhaps some hardcore marxist leninist but i dont think they are numerous enough to actually mean something.
the us strategy in afghanistan always sucked, these folks dosnt seem to realize that the only viable force able to destroy the taleban are the afghan themselves.
Personally i dont see any reason to support neither side, and by doing that i think i show a great deal of logical coherence.
supporting one side or another is not logical in that case, both side are opportunists, trying to get what they want by killing peoples, accidently and other time not so accidently, both side use intimidations.
of course, there is a slightly better side, but there is no guarantee they are gonna do their job until its fully done, they might just pack their stuff and go for political reason and leave the afghan in their own shit like they used to do with multiples countries they tried to help.
if you cant fully commit just dont fucking go.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Who?
I certainly haven't said that. I don't support either side.
The defeat of the revolutionary movement was not, as Stalinists always complain, due to its lack of unity. It was defeated because the civil war within its ranks was not worked out with enough force. The crippling effects of the systematic confusion between hostis and enemy are self-evident, whether it be the tragedy of the Soviet Union or the groupuscular comedy.
formerly Species Being
Being anti-US invasion of Afghanistan is not being pro-Taliban.
Fuck the Taliban, may their leaders all die. But the focus of the US in Afghanistan is not to defeat the Taliban, but to create a safe foothold for themselves.
If the Taliban could be isolated to one region where they would torment the people of it day and night, but never pose a threat to the US and its interests, the US would not go near setting a foot in the Taliban territory. They would treat it like a bee hive.
1) THEY AREN'T and 2) the Americans are not the "liberators" of Afghanistan.
"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further.... And one fine morning----
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.82
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.88
No one supports the Taliban here (apart from maybe a few Maoist nutcases), but niether do we support the Americans.
Keep in mind, had it not been for the Americans the Taliban would'nt be in power.
To the United States freedom, democracy and the human condition has never been an issue, the United States has and would overthrow a democratic government and install a tyrannical one as fast as they would the other way around if it served their intrests. THAT is what we are against.
We are also for autonomy, in other words countries choosing their own path, but that does'nt mean we support the taliban.
Then I suppose you also supported the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan too.
Btw, keep in mind, the United States PUT the taliban in power. Saying the US is a positive force in the world is like saying someone who punches you in the face and then gives you an ice packed is helping you out.
First off, these days 'taliban' is a propaganda smear and a catch all term for anyone who opposes the current afghan regime. To say that the rebels the US is fighting are the previous regime is patently false - the afghan resistance is extremely diverse.
Why do many westerners support the rebels? Maybe because the afghans do (how else could they still be a threat to US domination, considerning US technological superiority). We could play god and decide who we think would be best, or we could have an ounce of respect, let the afghans decide and respect and support their decision.
Of course, we see foreign affairs in terms of a global struggle against imperialism, rather than isolated events. A defeat (or more difficult victory) for the united states will discourage future imperialism. It will aid the development of anti-interventionist sentiment in the US population, making future interventions more difficult. A victory against the US won by any third world army will inspire others. Thus it is quite plausible that the defeat of the US by a third world regime which imposed worse on its population that the US would have done, would be for the best because of its impact on other struggles. Of course in the context of afghanistan, this is academic because the people prefer the rebels.
This does not entail support for the nazis because they were an imperialist power with capabilities comparable to the US. Isnt this stuff obvious?
I don't think you understood him properly. Technically, the Nazis were anti-imperialist as they opposed the Versailles treaty and other acts of imperialism post WW1. We all know they went on to practice imperialism but that is irrelevant.
To the OP, I do not support the Taliban. I don't buy this crap about genuine freedom fighters within the Taliban. Yes, there are some, however, we all know who the hierarchy are and what their agenda is/was. So I sympathize with some members of the Taliban who have suffered from the US invasion but other than that I abhor them.
Btw, OIers, have you heard of disaster capitalism? There is some sound evidence which outlines why our soldiers are over there so forget about voting booths and schools. The US leaders and corporate fatcats have benefited greatly from the 'War on Terror'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
Like hell it is. We care about what happens in practice, not technicalities. The nazis had the capability to practice imperialism on a global scale, the afghan rebels don't.
Do you seriously suppose the afghan rebels have a unified command structure?
No its not, perhaps the media might do that sometimes, but we arn't talking about that, we are talking about the actual Taliban.
What was bad about the Nazis was not only their imperialism, it was also the oppression of germans and murder of german people.
Sure, but we are talking about peoples lives here, the Afghan people are the ones that are important, I think the United States should have never interviened, ever, I think the US should leave Afghanistan, but I don't want the taliban to win, I don't want Afghanistan to have to suffer the Taliban again.
That being said I personally doubt that the Taliban would get back in power if hte Americans left.
Not EVERY army that fights imperialists are positive.
Are we? Show me a leftist who specifically supports the previous afghan regime to the exclusion of all the rest of the afghan resistance. Many leftists suport the afghan resistance, and this is strawmanned as support for the previous regime. The conflation of the two is extremely counterfactual.
The manichian view that afghan resistance = taliban is the work of the US/UK governments as well as the media. It is sad that so many leftists fall for it.Originally Posted by Madeline Bunting - The Guardian
Of course. But Nazi Germanys ability to engage in worldwide imperialism meant it merited an analysis and treatment different to a third world dicatorship which poses little threat to anyone outside its borders.
We are always talking about peoples lives.
Last edited by leninwasarightwingnutcase; 2nd September 2009 at 15:02. Reason: clarity
The Taleban are not better. They are a reactionary cult and Pashtun nationalist group. But that they are crazy doesn't motivate the presence of the international forces. You should have left in 2005, after Karzai was reelected the first time. Then it was quite calm. Now, it is deteriorating. And the more soldiers USA & friends sends in, the more violence you will see. That country is uncontrollable. Not even Alexander managed to entirely subjugate it.
As for the USSR invasion the Mujahadeen consisted of both Taliban type extremnists and moderates like the Northern Alliance.
The majority of Afghans do NOT support the Taliban indeed they are glad at the US for overthrowing them. Therefore the Afghan invasion is something the Afghans have supported. Also you want more people to die just so that the US can be humbled, that's disgusting.
2+2=4
I agree, that was'nt my point though.
And? Resistance against the United States is not only the Taliban this time either. That does'nt justify anything.
let me ask you something Richard Nixon, why the double standard?
It is a ridiculous thing to claim that the US invasion has helped anyone but the large western weapon factories. I find no reason to take such assumptions seriously, nor any argument based upon it.
