Excuse me, I specifically said the Taliban "and their guests," such as Bin Laden and the other people in Afghanistan who were spreading their messianic creed. Jesus, you people are so provincial. :) You really have no clue about the links between Afghanistan and Chechnya and the radical Islamists in Central Asia like the Islaminc Movement of Uzbekistan. It's all "US empire, US empire, US empire," as if the US were the center of the universe and people in Uzbekistan and Russia and China were just addenda.
--- On Sun, 6/7/09, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> From: Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo
> To: "LBO-Talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 7:52 PM
> I hold no brief for the Taliban,
> Chris, but I've seen no evidence that
> they're an "imperialistic creed" with "a huge
> infrastructure devoted to
> preparing cadres to go abroad to kill the infidel". Can you
> produce any?
> They don't have the resources. They're drawn from
> impoverished Pashtun hill
> tribes who rebelled against the Soviet- and later
> Western-supported central
> government in Kabul. It's to be expected that any state
> which provides
> sanctuary to a political movement launching attacks from
> it's territory is
> subject to reprisal from more powerful ones, which is why
> the Taliban regime
> which briefly held power was overthrown by the US after
> 9/11. No one is
> disputing that they indirectly endangered US interests by
> hosting Al Qaeda,
> which they reportedly came to regret, but they are simply
> were and are not
> as you describe them.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Doss" <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo
>
>
> >
> >
> > The Taliban weren't just widely vilified in the West.
> They were (are)
> > widely vilified everywhere. Iran had a friggin'
> Maginot line on the
> > border. With artillery pieces.
> >
> > You people are acting like the Taliban (and more
> importantly, the people
> > they were hosting, probably mostly in exchange for
> money, of which the
> > Taliban had little) just hung around in Afghanistan
> blowing up statues of
> > the Buddha. They did not. It's an extremely messianic
> and, er,
> > imperialistic creed. There was a huge infrastructure
> there devoted to
> > preparing, er, cadres to go abroad (in a region of the
> world with open
> > borders) and 1) spread/dictate the Word 2) build the
> Caliphate and 3) kill
> > the infidel. Which is precisely what they did in
> western China and Central
> > Asia and the North Caucasus.
> >
> > Of course the Taliban endangered US interests, such as
> the interest in not
> > having planes being rammed into large towers full of
> people.
> >
> > --- On Sun, 6/7/09, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
> >> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in
> Cairo
> >> To: "LBO-Talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> >> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 6:32 PM
> >> The Taliban never posed and continue
> >> to pose no direct threat to US
> >> interests.
> >>
> >> Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was invaded because
> it was
> >> identified as the
> >> sanctuary for the Bin Laden terror apparatus, and
> therefore
> >> the most obvious
> >> state target for the Bush administration, under
> intense
> >> pressure by the
> >> terror-stricken and vengeful US population and
> itself
> >> driven to respond the
> >> organizers of the assault on the WTC and Pentagon.
> The
> >> administration would
> >> have undoubtedly have preferred to tie the 9/11
> attackers
> >> to Saddam's Iraq,
> >> which the neocons had targeted even before taking
> office,
> >> and it spent the
> >> next two years manufacturing that link, but the
> invasion of
> >> Afghanistan and
> >> overthrow of the Taliban, widely vilified in the
> West, was
> >> not in
> >> contradiction to that objective, and was seen, in
> fact, as
> >> a useful proving
> >> ground for that later exercise.
> >>
> >> Currently, the US strategy in the
> Pashtun-controlled areas
> >> of Pakistan and
> >> Afghanistan seems to be the same as in Iraq: a
> temporary
> >> "surge" of US
> >> troops and money to split the insurgents, quell
> the local
> >> uprisings, and
> >> integrate the "moderates" into strengthened
> central
> >> governments and armies
> >> capable of maintaining order and serving US energy
> and
> >> other strategic
> >> interests in those regions.
> >>
> >> Those balls are all still very much up in the
> air.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Chris Doss" <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> >> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 4:52 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in
> Cairo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmmm, what danger might a messianic group of
> cultists that
> >> harbors people
> >> who organize massive terror attacks pose to
> neighboring
> >> populations. I
> >> wonder.
> >>
> >> --- On Sun, 6/7/09, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > From: SA <s11131978 at gmail.com>
> >> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO
> in Cairo
> >> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> >> > Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 4:41 PM
> >> > Michael Smith wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > One would like to hear more about the
> danger that
> >> the
> >> > Taliban posed to Russia, Iran, China and so
> forth.
> >> > > [...]
> >> > > Which brings us back to the Unitary
> Hegemon
> >> problem.
> >> > Did the US as such -- assuming there is such
> a thing,
> >> > possessing the capacity for action -- then
> act against
> >> its
> >> > own interests? Or at random, without regard
> for its
> >> > interests? Or did one gang of elite gangsters
> have an
> >> > interest that the other gangs didn't share,
> and was
> >> that
> >> > gang able to take the Marines out for a
> joyride,
> >> either
> >> > because they Bogarted the other gangs or
> because the
> >> other
> >> > gangs didn't much care?
> >> > > The third hypothesis seems the most
> likely to me,
> >> but
> >> > it's all conjecture. I'd like to see a
> coherent
> >> account that
> >> > gives *any* intelligible and credible
> explanation for
> >> the
> >> > Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. I would
> greet it like
> >> a
> >> > long-lost brother.
> >> > > The idea that the rag-tag Taliban was a
> "threat"
> >> to
> >> > every great power in the world doesn't ring
> true for
> >> me,
> >> > alas.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>