# Re-educating The Taleban

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-educating-the-taleban/89827>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 26, 2001, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-educating-the-taleban/89827 "2001-10-26T18:18:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-educating-the-taleban/89827/61 "2001-11-01T15:42:25Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by leander \*  
> Since **Colounsbury** continues to bring up the issue, I feel I must address his ongoing ignorance.

Oh good. I’m honored.

> [@](#):
>
> First, what is a Moucharraf? Is that a type of cheese? The name is Musharraf. Your spelling is as bad as your grammar. Hey, mine ain’t perfect, but for someone who actually walks around thinking they are an intellectual giant, it is particularly sad (as others have pointed out).

Well, I have been reading a lot of French language sources lately and unconsciously fell into their transliteration from the arabic/urdu script. A fault of mine as I frequently deal with North Africa. No big deal, if one has a command of more than English. The ch is of course sh in French etc.

So, again leander, if you’re going to pretend that I’m ignorant, then you’re going to have dig a little deeper.

> [@](#):
>
> My point, in re Pakistani situation, was it is not nearly as bad as you say. I’ll try to explain this slowly:
> 
> The media, both American and British, tends to sensationalise the news. Perhaps you didn’t realise this, though it’s not a new phenomenon. Leaders tend to downplay a crisis in order to appease the masses. The truth, I imagine, is somewhere inbetween.

I’m well-schooled in the appropriate use of the media. I also have an on the ground-sense, given long experience in the MENA region, of the problems, political and social facing someone like Moucharraf (just to expose you to other spellings for the novelty value).

Sensationalize? Hardly sensationalism.

> [@](#):
>
> However, since you seem to love my White House quote, perhaps you will enjoy this one as well:
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _From Reuters_ (10/26):  
> > With rallies so far proving smaller than predicted, Musharraf says most Pakistanis support the country’s withdrawal of support for the Taliban and its revived friendship with America.

Now, first in re the rallies, yes, I’ve read similar reports. I’ve also read a stream of reports on unrest beyond the manifestations and of manifestations in areas key to use of Pakistan as a base. I’lll add demonstrations are not the whole thing in terms of understanding. Of course, my comments were directed toward the actual scenario I was discussion, invasion of Afghanistan.

Now, yes, of course Moucharraf says what he say. Is he going to say “Well, most Pakistanis don’t support my policy.” You will note the careful construction, withdrawal of suport, revived friendship with America.

Nothing in there about the bombing. About invasion of Afghanistan.

Second of course, if you reread my comments you will note that they are directed towards Moucharraf’s vulnerability within the army and security forces structure as well as to the issue of mass unrest.

> [@](#):
>
> Now, since you seem to think you know everything about the region (and pretty much everything else), then I’m sure you are aware of the instability which has become part and parcel of their daily lives. Are they sitting on a nuclear powder keg which will definitely explode, bringing the world to an end. No. Is it a tense, precarious and unstable situation? Of course. I never argued otherwise; what I did say was that the situation is not the beginning of Armageddon, as you seem to imply. It is not, in my opinion, as terrible as you say.

Shrug. What I seem to imply by your readings and what I said based on a whole stream of qualifications are two entirely different things.

> [@](#):
>
> As to your continued problems with geography, I’d love to see a cite where someone actually addresses the issue of crossing Russian airspace. Did the troops and equipment we now have in place travel your proposed route? Since you seem to think all other routes are out (and you spend quite a bit of time blathering on about it), I would really like to know how all these guys got there? And that was a pathetic and cheap shot about all Americans…but you’re displaying more and more of your true self here.

Did they? I would say yes, they did. As have the bombers. Take a look at the air routes. Tamerlane has captured the rest of this well enough.

(Pathetic, cheap shot? You mean the bit about poor geographical knowledge. Hah, any honest American will admit it.)

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > (1) Fact. Invasion of Afghanistan in the short term does not break up already present threats. Ergo, the FBI and CIA’s substantial efforts and alerts for near term threats.
> 
> We weren’t talking about “short term threats” and you know it. Your original quote was simply, “Invading Afghanistan…does nothing to break up al-Qaeda in the USA.” This is unfounded and ignorant. Stop qualifying every erroneous thing you say in a feeble attempt to sound correct. You ain’t - deal with it.

Feeble attempt to sound correct? I added a small adjectival qualifier to clarify a hastily written statement. I stand by the whole discussion.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > (2) Bad paraphrase and out of context: For a substantial invasion and occupation, Pakistan is indeed the best and only effective choice. Launching from hard to supply bases along the narrow border of Ouzbekistan into the mountainous zone to the south without the ability to invade southern Afghanistan would be incredibly stupid. As for Pakistani stability and allowing such an invasion, see today (or yesterday’s?) demand by Moucharraf to stop bombing and find a political solution. Also learn a bit about current and past problems in Pakistan and read up the links provided for critical assessments of the situation and potential risks. Try not to base your understanding on White House press conferences.
> 
> I love all your red herrings. But seriously, the quotes weren’t taken out of context. I think that’s pretty obvious. You said one thing, it was wrong; you were corrected, didn’t like being corrected; you tried to distract from that, didn’t work; life sucks. Get over it.

Pretty obvious? Red herrings? I don’t do deal in those kind of fish. You, however, seem to be unable to master joined up reading insofar as the context of a statement gives it its meaning. If you wish to pretend that taking a phrase out of context and juxtaposing it with another phrase discussing a different idea is good argumentation, well I little for you, newbie.

So I repeat, you’ve come into this conversation misunderstanding the OP, arguing on points which were not being argued (Taleban leadership vs Taleban in grosso modo), confusing the issue of occupation and ground forces build-up with naval and air forces etc. And you want to claim I’ve been wrong?

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > (3) Fact. (although the GIA I would place somewhat more distant on further reflection.)
> 
> This is my favorite - you state it as fact and then backpedal in the next sentence. Beautiful.

Backpedal? Eh, I reflected on my understanding of the GIA and qualified my statement. Rapidly written things on a message board don’t contain all the qualifiers I’d like. If that’s “backpedeling” then so be it, call me a backpeddeler. No skin of my nose.

On the other hand the overall issue of al-Qaeda structure and history and relationship with groups like al-gamaa al-islamiya, the fact that none of these organizations have clear boundries or membership --it’s not like one get a fucking party card-- and the degree to which they all reflect a degree of fluidity leads me to stand by my original statement, as rhetorical as it was.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > (4) Yes, rather enough said.
> 
> This one’s nice, too. Correcting my English brought giggles of irony out again.

Eh? The point was on the concept that 3 divisions on the ground represents a massive military buildup. Ah, yes, but you had imported a _different_ idea. Apples and oranges.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > (5) Sensitive, aren’t we?
> 
> No, just annoyed at arrogant, sophomoric ignorance.

Yeah, I feel for you. Sensitive.

> [@](#):
>
> Your attitude makes it very hard to listen to anything of substance you may actually have to say. And when you are wrong you really must put that fragile ego away and live with being a flawed human being.

Hahah. Now this is amusing. Fragile ego and all that. Flawed human being, well ain’t we all.

> [@](#):
>
> Oh, and in re the other thread (“It is helpful when clarifying to get it right”), please show me how I didn’t get it right. Please.

I already did. Your obsession with trivialities rather than substance.

> [@](#):
>
> It is beneath us all. And I hope, despite my own silly rants, that in the future we can debate and disagree without all the bullshit.

Given your inability to argue what is _actually_ said and argued as opposed to your straw men, I seriously doubt that, newbie.

> [@](#):
>
> But you’re still wrong.

MMMM. Thanks for the insightful and mature analysis. I’m sure your weighty experience will do us all a great deal of good. I’d go on and try to teach you about the applicability of I-Law to this thing but since you seemed to have understood my amigo London about as well as you did me, I guess this is fruitless.

Now, Zenster I think I answered your request elsewhere in re the Taleban leadership.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-educating-the-taleban/89827/62 "2001-11-01T19:33:53Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \*  
> Look, Zenster, why the relentless “revenge on the Taliban” motif? 😕 Chill, dude. They’re just religious extremists, not Evil Incarnate. They’re Fundies, not Satanic minions.

I have no idea whether the Taliban are on good terms with Satan or not. But, it is [clear](http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0110300250oct30.story) that the longer this conflict drags on the more innocent civilians the Taliban will kill.

> [@](#):
>
> **Chicago Tribune** Several Afghan exiles using the phone links in Uzbekistan said that Taliban troops have rounded up hundreds of civilians in surrounding villages that were temporarily occupied in an offensive by the Northern Alliance two weeks ago. They said an unknown number of men from the communities of Marmul and Shodiyon were executed for welcoming the opposition forces.

To me, this behavior is a good working definition of “evil,” albeit maybe not “incarnate.” Clearly this constitutes a war crime, and is probably only the tip of the iceberg.  
As for the OP, the most important concern is to depose the Taliban. Even the much-maligned (perhaps justifiably) Northern Alliance seems to be a better option than the Taliban. I have little hope regarding changing Taliban minds without resorting to “O’Brien” like torture methods a la Orwell’s 1984.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-educating-the-taleban/89827.md?page=3)