al-Qaeda and Taliban

[Charles Brown]

Dennis:
This is really dumb, even for you Charles. The US war against Vietnam was
nothing like what is happening in Afghanistan --not even like what happened
with the Red Army in Afghanistan (which killed a million-plus). The NLF and
North Vietnamese, for all their deplorable Stalinist traits, were
nevertheless strictly radical nationalists and secular. They simply wanted
foreign domination of their country to end. Once the US was kicked out, the
Vietnamese didn't try to keep the war going; quite the opposite (they have
been among the most forgiving people I've ever seen, especially when you
consider the devastation they endured).

^^^^^

CB: This is a pretty nice thing for you to say about those Viet Namese Communists.

^^^^^^^

 Can't say the same about the Taliban
and al-Qaeda. If you can't see the difference here, then you deserve that
glass case you undoubtedly reside in.

^^^^^^^

CB: I always thought Ann Arbor was more of an Ivory Tower than Detroit when I lived in A-squared all those years. 

I don't know whether you pay much attention to what I say on this list, but if so , you won't be surprised that I am with the Viet Namese in this comparison with the Taliban and al-Qaeda , who are anti-Communists and were allies of the Americans ( at least al-Qaeda's founders were). The Taliban and al-Qaeda are politically reactionary. 

However, the issue here is nuclear warfare, and I don't think that T and Q are suicidal just because they are reactionaries.  So, blurting out that T and Q would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons and would be indifferent to nuclear retaliation and annihilation of their own peoples is an irresponsible thing to say in the current very dangerous circumstances. I mean it is dangerous in the sense that it might contribute to the American people tolerating a nuclear attack by the U.S.