Random AI thread

[mrbazoun]

I want to start the ball rolling with this: The Taliban has implemented a government in the Swat Valley region of Pakistan which has done more good than harm, freeing the people of the region from "an ancient fuedal rule" (Thomas Alitzer, in Slavoj Zizek's First as Tragedy, Then as Farce pg.7) which has created a huge economic boost to the region. Whilst the Taliban have been responsible for many Allied deaths in the Iraq/Afganhistan wars, it os important to remember that there are divisions within the group that we Westerners call "The Taliban" and that we must recognise the fualt of individuals and sub-groups, rather than the group as a whole. I have previously compared it to the IRA, where the Provisional IRA have carried out attacks not condoned by the Real IRA and vice versa (although I realise in both cases, neither group has demonstrated "acceptable" behaviour by Western standards. What are your views on the Taliban as 1) A terrorist orginisation. 2) A political orginisation. and 3) a military force.?
Do you think their actions are legitimate, as a whole or when divided?

Has the Taliban committed any real terrorist attacks? And by real I mean situations across national boundaries where they claimed responsibility. I believe they terrorize their own people and Pakistan frequently, so in my opinion they are terrorists. As a political organization, they are absolute monsters. If you think Afghans have benefited from the Taliban because there is no "feudal rule," then I would ask you if a brutal theocracy is any better. However, when the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan, there was absolutely no opium production. Now with the US presence, Afghanistan has taken its place again as the world's largest producer of heroin. So maybe some would see this as a positive aspect of the Taliban, but I think the Afghans should cultivate the opium poppy because it is way more profitable than any other crop they could potentially grow. As a military force, their actions resisting the US are legitimate. Regarding other aspects of their military, I am no expert, but I am guessing there have been too many atrocities and religiously motivated be-headings and stonings to be legitimate in the slightest. Their military doctrine is probably based heavily on extreme Islam, which is perverted and 'justifies' all kinds of horrendous acts.