# What Future Role Should the Taleban Have? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 16, 2001, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647 "2001-10-16T03:48:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/1 "2001-10-16T03:48:26Z")
I say none whatsoever. Simply, they must be isolated from the mainstream of world politics and allowed to wither in confinement or receive direct execution. I can no longer perceive them as being shrouded in the least whit of religious sanctity. Whatever shred of Theological credibility they once might have possessed was blown away with the smoke and flames in New York. Their complicity in that atrocity has earned them a death sentence as swiftly as bin Laden has earned his. I have extreme difficulty in seeing where the Taleban can be allowed to continue purveying their vile brand of violence and misogyny. That they should have the least chance to contaminate the thinking of another generation of Muslim youth is an unacceptable prospect. It will be difficult enough to limit the spread of their lunatic Theocracy, but all the more difficult if we do not contain those that we might capture during this campaign. The threat they pose to world peace and global stability make it imperative that they be interred or executed sooner than later. I fully comprehend that there are also many Taleban outside of Afghanistan, and I can only hope that there is some way of suppressing them as well. How to root out this incipient evil all the way back to their wellspring in the Wahabbist clerics of Saudi Arabia is another matter entirely. Nonetheless, a start has to be made somewhere and start we must. Please detail any other potential solutions to how the Taleban with their vitriolic psychopathology can be assimilated into modern society. I am entirely unable to. The risk of censure we might endure for their suppression appears to be far less than the potential for further Taleban sponsored terrorism against the United States and other Western nations. What choice is there? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/2 "2001-10-16T03:49:24Z")
Fertilizer, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/3 "2001-10-16T03:58:14Z")
It’s my understanding that the taleban are a somewhat disparate and varied group. Just as many members of the Nazi party remained free and even prospered in postwar Germany, there undoubtedly will be members of the taleban who will survive the next few years and possibly find positions of authority. But why on earth would anyone think the taleban as a group should remin intact or in any authority at all? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/4 "2001-10-16T04:02:07Z")
Heh. I was about to say, “To be an example to others.” But, seriously, I do have to take exception to this. > [@](#): > > How to root out this incipient evil all the way back to their wellspring in the Wahabbist clerics of Saudi Arabia is another matter entirely. Nonetheless, a start has to be made somewhere and start we must. Sure, maybe you’d say it’s an asshole religion, but hey, it’s _their_ asshole religion, you know? They’re just Fundamentalists, Zenster. Islam isn’t the only world religion that has extremely conservative segments–how about Hasidic Jews, not to mention our own home-grown Fundies? I’m not talking about Robertson & Falwell, I mean the Duck on the Street. 😉 It hardly seems fair to single out Islamic Fundamentalism for extermination. So they’re obnoxious, well, so are all spittle-spraying extremists and fanatics. Give them some little corner of the world to practice their religion in, make sure they don’t have any bullets for their guns, and ignore them. And who knows? They might come up with something interesting. After all, look at the nice job the Mormons did with Utah. [sub]ow, ow, I’m JOKING, okay?[/sub] 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/5 "2001-10-16T18:39:35Z")
Heh. Joking or not, **Duck** , let’s make sure we’re on the same page here. - Our asshole fundies do not commit enormous suicidal acts of violence against civilians, nor have they caused hundreds of millions of dollars worth of material damage lately, unless you include the tax dollars lost as a result of donations to the 700 Club. - Our asshole fundies have not walked straight into the deterrence provisions of America’s nuclear, chemical, and biological policy, which virtually guarantees a civilization-ending response on America’s part. [shinguard] **No, we do not know yet that the anthrax has been spread by these particular assholes.** **If it has** [/shinguard], however, they have virtually guaranteed their own destruction and the destruction of anyone who protects them or defends their actions. Allah help the Taliban–and America–if we can show documented proof that they were informed of and complicit in this anthrax campaign, because the _required_ response–a fifty-year-old promise–is “overwhelming.” That would basically mean that the Taliban just handed over the keys to the most beat up shitbox on the lot–a 2001 ragtop–and America has to fix it. Unless America’s policy explicitly changes, the first step in fixing things will be to execute the former owner. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/6 "2001-10-16T21:28:26Z")
With out making any declarations of what we should or shouldn’t do on this issue ( because I don’t have all the facts and haven’t made up my mind yet ), I will note that the Taliban leadership was partially purged of “moderates” a little while back. My understanding is that they were squeezed out, rather than actually liquidated. Just what “moderate” means in this context, I have no idea. But it might just be possible to deal with some of those people. Maybe. Certainly some representative of the more religiously conservative Pashtun people will have to be included in any coalition government if there is to be any long-term stability. _shrug_ Just an idle thought. I’ll also agree with **DDG** on the Wahhabi point. Saudi Arabia has always been very conservative country, but has never had a reputation as a well-spring of terrorism. Economic prosperity probably has something to do with that. Probably certain features of Bedouin culture that have bern preserved in the modern state play a role as well. Whatever the reason, SA and Wahhabism have not been a source of trouble until just recently. Certainly the vast, vast majority of Muslim terrorists, both historically and today, are not Wahhabi. So I’m not entirely comfortable making them the boogeymen. I’m not crazy about the Wahhabi faith. Not at all. I would like nothing better than to see it reform itself to shed some of its more disturbing traditions ( especially as regards women ). And I think its reactionary and puritannical nature probably does lend itself a little more easily to fanaticism than some other sects. But I’m not inclined to tar all of its adherents with the brush of terrorism and associated evils. Most Wahhabis aren’t muderers. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/7 "2001-10-17T02:27:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tamerlane \* > …And I think its reactionary and puritannical nature probably does lend itself a little more easily to fanaticism than some other sects. But I’m not inclined to tar all of its adherents with the brush of terrorism and associated evils. Most Wahhabis aren’t muderers. > > - Tamerlane \*\* Thank you for the clarification **Tamerlane**. Lately, I’m having a really difficult time distinguishing between fanatical and terrorist mentalities. Especially when the two of them in question maintain hyper-repressive mentalities about women. The well established connection between the Wahabbist clerics and the Taleban are a little more than I am willing to bear right now. It is no surprise to me that a majority of those who perpetrated the atrocity in New York were of Saudi origin. To me that speaks volumes about the dangers of Wahabbist fanaticism. The intolerance exhibited by the Taleban is so easily transposed onto the theologically rigid mind set of the Wahabbists that it becomes rather hard to separate them from each other. The world will be a far better place when such intransigent mentalities are done with and gone forever. Islam and its perception by the world is not being done any favors by these zealots (to make a mixed reference). As to a “moderate” Taleban faction, I fail to see where only half-killing a married woman for being in the company of a man who is not her husband is any sort of moderation (to make a weak joke). ---
**Author:** ![Philosophocles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Philosophocles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philosophocles)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/8 "2001-10-17T03:54:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by waterj2 \* > \*\*Fertilizer, perhaps? \*\* Perhaps after they’re fed to the dogs. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/9 "2001-10-17T09:54:01Z")
**Zenster** : > [@](#): > > Lately, I’m having a really difficult time distinguishing between fanatical and terrorist mentalities. Especially when the two of them in question maintain hyper-repressive mentalities about women. The well established connection between the Wahabbist clerics and the Taleban are a little more than I am willing to bear right now. It is no surprise to me that a majority of those who perpetrated the atrocity in New York were of Saudi origin. To me that speaks volumes about the dangers of Wahabbist fanaticism. Sure. But it is violent fanaticism that is the danger, not just Wahhabi fanaticism. And not the fanaticism of the intensely devout, but peaceful. Again, most Muslim terrorists, even probably most members of al-Qaeda, aren’t Wahhabi. Some of the worst elements of that organization seem to be Algerian and Egyptian in origin, not Saudi ( bin Laden aside ). Wahhabism is very rare in the Muslim world and Islamic militancy is, in comparison, relatively common. The two are not synonomous. Wahhabism does = puritannical, to some extent. So does Orthodox Judaism in my book. But puritannical does not necessarily = fanatical. I just said it may be _easier_ for the Wahhabi faith, with its very rigid code of behavior, to fall into that pattern. But most Saudi citizens are not potential terrorists, just as most Orthodox Jews aren’t. They’re just people, some of whom are doubtless not all that devout beyond surface appearances, just like people everywhere. > [@](#): > > The intolerance exhibited by the Taleban is so easily transposed onto the theologically rigid mind set of the Wahabbists that it becomes rather hard to separate them from each other. I respectfully disagree 🙂 . The Saudi and UAE governments for example, whatever their faults, are not the Taliban. > [@](#): > > The world will be a far better place when such intransigent mentalities are done with and gone forever. Islam and its perception by the world is not being done any favors by these zealots (to make a mixed reference). Well, I certainly agree here. But short of genocide on the Arabian penninsula, I’m afraid slow evolution towards more tolerance is as much as we can hope for in terms of Wahhabism per se ( if that was what you were referring to ). The same can probably be said for the conservative and parochial Islam of many Pashtun in Afghanistan ( as opposed to the teensy minority of the Taliban ). > [@](#): > > As to a “moderate” Taleban faction, I fail to see where only half-killing a married woman for being in the company of a man who is not her husband is any sort of moderation (to make a weak joke). You may very well be right. Like I said, it was just an idle thought and I have no idea what “moderate” means in this context. Might be worth looking into, though. Always worth exploring options. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/10 "2001-10-18T06:16:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tamerlane \* > …Wahhabism is very rare in the Muslim world and Islamic militancy is, in comparison, relatively common. The two are not synonomous. Thanks, **Tamerlane**. Excellent point. > [@](#): > > Wahhabism does = puritannical, to some extent. So does Orthodox Judaism in my book. But puritannical does not necessarily = fanatical. I just said it may be _easier_ for the Wahhabi faith, with its very rigid code of behavior, to fall into that pattern… > [@](#): > > I respectfully disagree 🙂 . The Saudi and UAE governments for example, whatever their faults, are not the Taliban. I know this and am not attempting to lump them theistically. I’m just fed up with this sort of hidebound thinking. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Zenster > The world will be a far better place when such intransigent mentalities are done with and gone forever. Islam and its perception by the world is not being done any favors by these zealots (to make a mixed reference). > [@](#): > > Well, I certainly agree here. But short of genocide on the Arabian penninsula, I’m afraid slow evolution towards more tolerance is as much as we can hope for in terms of Wahhabism per se ( if that was what you were referring to )…My point entirely. > > > [@](#): > > > > As to a “moderate” Taleban faction, I fail to see where only half-killing a married woman for being in the company of a man who is not her husband is any sort of moderation (to make a weak joke). > > You may very well be right. Like I said, it was just an idle thought and I have no idea what “moderate” means in this context. Might be worth looking into, though. Always worth exploring options. > > - Tamerlane \*\* I am so in despair of how fanatical the Taleban are that I have basically given up. Your tolerance is commendable but I just find them so poisonous that I cannot devote much time to thinking about it. Moderation of the Taleban is much like a nuclear reactor. Yes, it might be able to be moderated but the real core of it is so lethal and poisonous there may be no benefit to it. The toxic aspects may be enescapable and too dangerous to expose the real world to. As always, thank you for your well balanced input, **Tamerlane**. I always look forward to your replies in my threads. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-future-role-should-the-taleban-have/87647/11 "2001-10-18T06:56:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philosophocles \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by waterj2 \* > > \*\*Fertilizer, perhaps? \*\* > > Perhaps after they’re fed to the dogs. \*\* In small chunks.