It seems obvious to me that we should oppose both. The taliban apologist are of that ilk that have a hard time walking and chewing gum at the same time.
It seems to me that the Taliban apologists have a difficult time with the concept that somebody who attacks the US could be reactionary. I wonder what these people think of Tim McVeigh.
Or maybe they are romantic thirdworldists - a sort of racism - who think that anybody from the thirdworld who attacks the US is "OBJECTIVELY" (that's the word that allows them to justify support for butchers like Sadaam Hussein) progressive and anti-imperialist.
I also happen to think there are those on the Left who just enjoy seeing blood. On another list, one person started quantifying how many capitalists were in the WTC and trying to justify his terrorist apologetics based upon that. So, according to this thinking, it's not important the political implications of an action, what's important is how many capitalists we kill. It's sick, and I think people like that need to get out of politics and into therapy.
What's more dangerous is the fact that these vanguardist trotskyite/stalinist sectoids are presently in the lead of the peace movement in this country. In San Francisco this past weekend, we had a peace march that was much smaller than the previous one on September 29th. Perhaps it was due to poor organization, but I fear that already activists dont want to associate with the dominant theme put out by the vanguardsits: that we should oppose US aggression and attacks on civil rights and at the same time not condemn the terrorists, and the taliban. The Taliban apologist positions of the "Vanguard" is ridiculous and one that will repel or burn out new and not-so-new activists.
Thomas
===== "The tradition of all the dead generations
weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living"
-Karl Marx
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com