You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #13: Not really. We supported the enemies of the Taliban, mostly. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Not really. We supported the enemies of the Taliban, mostly.
The Taliban was a home grown movement of Pashtu fighters--students if the rumors are to be believed. They began organizing as a response to the corrupt warlords who were no more than gangs. Those gangs were the ones we created--they were the remnants of the mujahadeen that we supported against the Soviets.

The first Taliban battle was against one of these local warlords who had kidnapped and raped a couple of local girls. Mullah Umar and 30 others attacked and executed him, and became heroes amongst the Pashtu, and more people joined and they overthrew more of these gangs, until they were the dominant force in Afghanistan, within a couple of years. They were the only group who seemed to be fighting for any centralized law, rather than simply grabbing power for personal gain, and so a lot of people trusted them.

On the other hand, they were uneducated and tribal, and brought the tribal customs of the Pashtu to the rest of Afghanistan. That include the misogynistic attitudes--burkas, not allowing women to work or be seen, etc. Also, Umar never established any form of federal government, so it was all run by command, and often by just gangs interpreting the law, and some of the worst atrocities happened when these local gangs bullied a town.

Umar befriended Usama bin Laden, and so Al-Qaiada became part of the equation, and they two groups became mutually supportive. We did play a role in Usama's development. And no doubt some of the people who sided with the Taliban and Al-Qaiada were part of the old mujahadeen. But we didn't really create either group. Our foreign policy pissed them both off, and that may have triggered some of the Taliban's staunch rejection of western attitudes.

What our leaders are calling the Taliban these days is really more of a mass insurgency, where everyone who hates us is grouping against us. There is no telling how much like the old Taliban they will become. Right now they are just trying to terrorize anyone who befriends us. Maybe they are executing women in the street for adultery--that's not uncommon in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, or a lot of other Muslim nations. And maybe some people just know that's a hot button to push with us. Or maybe both.

However it goes, whether it's true or not, we are hearing about it because it serves someone's purpose for us to hear about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC