• Skullgrid@lemmy.world
    2611·
    2 months ago

    AFAIK the taliban (which I think is different to al queda) aren’t into terrorism since they , you know, got exactly what they wanted.

    it’s more ISIL/DAESH or whatever, and they fight against ISIL. because fuck it, things aren’t weird enough

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.worldEnglish
      184·
      2 months ago

      The Taliban is trying to pivot towards legitimacy and governance while not dropping their worst fundamentalist tendencies, and their enemies are worse than them.

      The US military never should have set foot there. Things are far worse for it, which was hard to believe possible, and it’s hard to see how anything gets better.

        • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
          4·
          2 months ago

          Well at least we made the shareholders of some military contractors richer that’s gotta count for something

        • Microw@lemm.ee
          71·
          2 months ago

          The Taliban definitely still use violence to achieve their aims. It’s state terrorism or oppression now.

        • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
          32·
          2 months ago

          Right, my comment was more about, once a terrorist always a terrorist, like once your murder someone, your forever a murderer instead of stopping being a murderer cause you haven’t killed in a decade,

          • lime!@feddit.nuEnglish
            21·
            2 months ago

            well the taliban weren’t terrorists until they stopped fighting the soviets. one of the 80’s Bond films is even dedicated to “the brave freedom fighters of Afghanistan”. contrary to doing a single murder, doing many for political gain turns your status from objective to subjective.

        • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          2 months ago

          Plus:

          • Every terrorist believes their cause is just and they’re freedom fighters.

          • Every victor gets to write the history books… Hence why the objectively-terrorist actions of bombing Dresden, Berlin, 90+ Japanese cities + the nukes, etc. during WWII, wasn’t defined as terrorism but doing what needed to be done for the greater good.

      • breadsmasher@lemmy.worldEnglish
        77·
        2 months ago

        American “revolutionaries”, separating from the british empire to form their own country would be, by today’s standards, terrorists.

        America funded bin laden during the soviet invasion and saw him as a freedom fighter. Once he turned on the USA he was seen as a terrorist.

        Its all perspective and propaganda

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    52·
    2 months ago

    Cannot help but remember that the insurgence of ISIS is due to USA going there to “fight terrorism”. So what is funny here is Russia “helping to fight terrorism”. They just want to control the region by making a deal with a new, politically isolated government and perhaps also use it as leverage in world politics.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    74·
    2 months ago

    Can I get a tankie to make this headline make sense via a string of loosely-controlled racist jabs and assumptions free of any sort of evidence or conceptual truths please?

  • NIB@lemmy.world
    52·
    2 months ago

    ISIS-K is behind the terrorist attacks in Russia. ISIS-K also wants to overthrow the Taliban and take over Aghanistan(and parts of Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. Kyrgystan and Pakistan).

    Literally all the countries in the world are fighting or oppose ISIS. The US has probably worked with the Taliban and has hit ISIS-K inside Afghanistan. And it might not be official but if you want to hit terrorists, you need to cooperate with the Taliban because the US has basically no presence in Afghanistan atm.

    Obviously for Russia it is even more important to cooperate with the Taliban, considering that ISIS-K hit Russia.