Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:12:03 +1000
From: "-AT-ndy" <andy-AT-xchange.anarki.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: Taliban apologetics (bullshit)


cwright wrote:

> There is nothing progressive about defending the Taliban.  But do you think it
> does not matter who wins and who loses?

Well... I tend to think that it's poor and working class people who always end
up losing, regardless of which side (ie., state) ultimately 'wins'.

> Think about the consequences of US victory.  Will it have the same impact as
> the Taliban winning?

Before I can really answer this question, I'd have to know more about what you
consider to be their respective aims. Does victory for the US mean complete
destruction of the Taliban (and what exactly would that look like?), or would it
be satisfied with being able to establish a new regime in Afghanistan composed
of both segments of the Taliban and segments of the Northern Alliance, with King
What's-his-name as figurehead? To put it another way: does the US seek to
completely destroy the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda, or would it be content with
murdering bin-Laden and most if not all of his followers in Afghanistan?

As far as a Taliban victory is concerned... my impression is that this would
consist of them being able to retain control over a portion of the country
outside of the major cities at the cessation of the US onslaught. Expecting a
Taliban victory to consist of much more than this seems unrealistic (to me
anyway). Either way, it seems to me that the prospects for a very large
proportion of the Afghani population who remain imprisoned inside their country
isn't good, and that many many will die either by being killed outright or by
dying of exposure, starvation and/or malnutrition. Of course, I hope I'm very
wrong about this.

> I am not saying support the Taliban or call for defense of the Taliban.  That
> is an abnegation of our responsibility to the Afghani people.  But I think our
> first responsibility is the defeat of the US.

Um, well, I think we actually agree on this. Well, insofar as Australia may be
considered the 52nd state of the United States anyway... Speaking of which, did
anyone else see that footage of the Taliban regime's reaction to the news that
Australia would be sending (something like) 1,500 armed services personnel to
help the US in their (/our) 'war on terrorism'? The spokesman for the Taliban
was shown cracking a joke about the US 'not really needing any help from
Australia' as far as making war not love is concerned, and the press pool
actually burst out laughing. (This was taken as an insult by some of the tabloid
news services over here.)

> It it about what we do and what we take responsibility for.  Empire or not, it
> is THIS STATE doing the murder.  Only after having said that can we say, "And
> we oppose the Taliban and support X."  However, if we fail to say that as
> well, then who here will take us seriously?  Or in Afghanistan?  If we take
> the position of "Rally round the Taliban" we may as bugger ourselves.  It is
> messy at best.

It seems to me that revolutionaries opposed to the war need to declare that
their opposition to the US war effort is not based on support for the Taliban,
but a concern for the Afghani people, who are victims of both the US and the
Taliban...

Could (and maybe even will) say more, but really gotta go...

-AT-ndy.



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---