DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on June 12, 2010, 12:35:13 AM
-
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/06/public_remains_unfriendly_on_a.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/06/public_remains_unfriendly_on_a.html)
It's not really news that Democrats have already turned against the war, but what I found interesting that just since April, support for the war among Republicans has dropped from 69% to 62%.
Of course, lack of public enthusiasm has never been sufficient reason for the American "democracy" to walk away from war, but it certainly will contribute to the final abandonment of Afghanistan when the costs mount, the Treasury becomes sufficiently depleted and the number of American casualties, particularly the seriously wounded, begins to take an economic toll that can no longer be swept under the rug.
-
Perhaps the drop in Republican support has more to do with how it is being waged now and by whom than the principles behind the war.
-
Well assessed, Bt
-
<<Perhaps the drop in Republican support has more to do with how it is being waged now and by whom than the principles behind the war.>>
What is it about Obama's waging of the war that is driving the drop in Republican support?
-
<<Perhaps the drop in Republican support has more to do with how it is being waged now and by whom than the principles behind the war.>>
What is it about Obama's waging of the war that is driving the drop in Republican support?
MT everything Obama touches turns to shit, why wouldn't the war too?
-
What is it about Obama's waging of the war that is driving the drop in Republican support?
Indecision
-
BINGO. The mixed messages are pathologic, at this point
-
"Indecision"
What indecision?
-
It took Obama quite a while to decide how many troops to send to Afghanistan for the surge.
-
But the decision was made and the troops are there.
-
Meanwhile Karzai snuggles up to the Taliban because he doubts NATO and the US resolve.
-
It's up to Karzai to make his government legitimate, not us. If he feels he can't do that without making deals with the Taliban there isn't a thing we can do about it in the final analysis. We aren't there to make Afghanistan safe for Karzai. We're there to make Afghanistan and the Pakistani border region safe for America. Frankly no one cares what Afghanistan looks like as long as they aren't traing terrorist to attack us there. So far we've killed a shit load of Al Qaeda in the past year or two and a not insignificant number of Taliban leadership. It's their leadership we're after not the soldiers. The soldiers are in it for a paycheck, no more.
-
<<It took Obama quite a while to decide how many troops to send to Afghanistan for the surge.>>
But the 7% drop in Republican support was measured starting from April, by which time the surge numbers had already been decided for quite some time.
-
The Taliban advantage , you don't get tired of being threatened.
-
<<The Taliban advantage , you don't get tired of being threatened.>>
Sorry to be so dense, but how would this relate to a 7% drop in Republican support for the war since April of this year?
-
<<The Taliban advantage , you don't get tired of being threatened.>>
Sorry to be so dense, but how would this relate to a 7% drop in Republican support for the war since April of this year?
Our military effort requires the support of the people.
The Taliban doesn't.
-
OK, thank you. I would never have gotten that meaning on my own, I was concentrated on threats felt by the American public and threats felt by the Taliban. I never considered threats to the Afghan people themselves. Don't know why I missed that.
While I'm not sure that all opposition to the foreign troops is necessarily Taliban, are you saying that the Taliban doesn't have much whole-hearted, non-coerced support in Afghanistan, and if so, what do you base that opinion on?
-
OK, thank you. I would never have gotten that meaning on my own, I was concentrated on threats felt by the American public and threats felt by the Taliban. I never considered threats to the Afghan people themselves. Don't know why I missed that.
While I'm not sure that all opposition to the foreign troops is necessarily Taliban, are you saying that the Taliban doesn't have much whole-hearted, non-coerced support in Afghanistan, and if so, what do you base that opinion on?
That they use threats , what elese ?
-
are you saying that the Taliban doesn't have much whole-hearted, non-coerced support in Afghanistan,
and if so, what do you base that opinion on?
Michael I assuming women make up roughly have the Afghan population...do you think most women support
forbidding Afghan girls going to school?...support barring women from working outside the home?....support women
being prohibited from leaving their home without a male relative?.... support punishing women that leave the house
without a male relative by being beaten and/or shot?...Do Afghan women support the Taliban barring women wearing
fingernail polish to the point that if they are caught wearing fingernail polish they risk having their fingertips chopped off?
-
<<That they [the Taliban] use threats , what elese ?>>
Have you ever heard of a resistance force that did not need to use threats?
Both the French Resistance and the anti-Fascist Italian Resistance used death threats against collaborators, usually to good effect. The French Resistance would leave funeral wreaths on the doors or doorsteps of collaborators or their parents, or sometimes sent tiny wooden coffins to the homes.
IMHO, the use of threats is more of an indicator that there are collaborators among the population, not necessarily that the entire population is against the resistance forces. Normally, one could assume an inverse relationship between the severity of the punishment threatened and the popular support enjoyed by the issuer of the threat, but in Afghanistan, horrific punishments are a tradition of long standing, and all sides would probably issue blood-curdling threats routinely. See the Kipling poem, The Ballad of the King's Mercy. A mere threat to kill someone and burn his house down would look like the work of a pathetic little wimp, not of someone to be feared.
-
So American threats are weighed against Taliban threats and found wanting?
-
<<Michael I assuming women make up roughly have the Afghan population...do you think most women support
forbidding Afghan girls going to school?...support barring women from working outside the home?....support women
being prohibited from leaving their home without a male relative?.... support punishing women that leave the house
without a male relative by being beaten and/or shot?...Do Afghan women support the Taliban barring women wearing
fingernail polish to the point that if they are caught wearing fingernail polish they risk having their fingertips chopped off? >>
What you are forgetting, CU4, is that most Afghan women live in the countryside and are the products of a very conservative, traditional society. I'm sure that there are plenty of women who want to be liberated, plenty (especially among the older women) who don't, who like the old ways (which most Americans can't even describe) and that the female population is probably divided, mostly on generational lines as to how much liberation they think is right for women and girls. I'm also sure that a likely majority of conservative, traditional Afghan men in the countryside do NOT want to see all the "reforms" and "women's lib" that Western infidel foreigners are so keen to bring to the Afghans, at gunpoint if necessary. Overall, I don't see how those in favour of reformed women's rights are in any kind of majority, simply because the women are divided and the men would probably on the whole, be in favour of keeping women under what we would consider to be medieval restrictions.
Under Communist rule, women in the capital were totally liberated. They attended university, wore miniskirts and makeup, went bareheaded and were treated as the equals of males in all respects, as good Communist theory demands. NONE of these reforms for women seemed to endear the Communists or their Red Army defenders to the general population, and the foreign infidels were ultimately driven out. It seems to me that there has to be something more in the mix than women's rights to win the general population - - or the gun-bearing portion thereof - - over to the side of the foreign invading infidel army. So far in history, no foreign invading infidel army seems to have figured out what that something is, and my guess is that it just does not exist.
-
<<So American threats are weighed against Taliban threats and found wanting?>>
Obviously there are more than threats to be factored in here. Hatred of invading foreign armies, for one thing. Revenge for civilian dead for another.
-
<<So American threats are weighed against Taliban threats and found wanting?>>
Obviously there are more than threats to be factored in here. Hatred of invading foreign armies, for one thing. Revenge for civilian dead for another.
It is mostly threats , made...
and threats fullfilled.
-
<<It is mostly threats , made...
<<and threats fullfilled.>
Really? The sources I've read that account for the success of the Taliban seem to dwell on the fact that they have delivered a justice system that is swift and incorruptible, as opposed to the government courts that are infinitely bribeable and drag on forever. The Afghan public seemed to appreciate that.
I am sure that threats also play a role in any resistance movement's success.
-
The Taliban: Heroic resistance fighters. Deliverers of incorruptible justice.
Excuse MT, he smokes dried reindeer dung to avoid reality.
-
I don't smoke anything these days, certainly nothing that would help me characterize America's army of mercenaries as heroic fighters for the freedom of the third world.
We've just seen some of those fucking ass-hole thugs in action in the New Baghdad massacre, thanks to Wiki Leaks and how soon we forget. It's a big game to those gutless wonders laughing and joking from the safety of their helicopter as they gun down innocent civilians in the streets. The Army, BTW, is not prosecuting any of those Nazi thugs, but they are sure as bitchin hell going after the poor bugger who leaked the tapes. They like their heroic fighters portrayed as BSB would like them to be seen, not as they really are.
I don't romanticize either side in this conflict and never did. But the pretensions of the Americans to moral superiority in all of their neocolonial wars of unprovoked aggression are really nauseating.
-
Nazies. Mercenaries. Neocolonial wars. Unprovoked aggression. Blah blah blah.
What a stupid johnny one note asshole you are. You couldn't get any further away from a neocolonial war of unprovoked aggression then our presence in Afghanistan.
-
It seems to me that the President is following the advice of McChrystal and other generals. The public gets tired of everything. They got tired of Afghanistan once the Russians left and that is when the Taliban took over. I hardly think that the tiredness of the public should be the determining factor here. Most of the public could not find Afghanistan on a map.
Karzai will have to make his government legitimate. The US cannot do this for him.
-
Well, sorry to show such consistency in my views on U.S. aggression. Sorry to use the comparisons that best apply, when I am sure you would like a little more sycophantic flattery when I try to characterize those low-life losers. Unfortunately, reality (this time in the form of a Wiki-Leak) does tend to get in the way of your need for adulation.
Hey, how about this - - I could vary the routine. Describe the U.S. military in one post as heroic defenders of the freedom and liberty of the planet, in the next post as hapless but well-meaning buffoons and in the next post as Nazi-like thugs. (Shit, that charge of "johnny-one-note" really stung!)
Well, you are right to some limited extent - - of all of your country's many pointless wars of unprovoked aggression, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan alone does at least have a plausible shred of pretext of casus belli (long since exhausted, BTW) so I probably should have to backtrack somewhat from my charge of "unprovoked aggression." Although even that was handled in such a way as to reduce American credibility considerably - - when the U.S. demanded that OBL be handed over to them, the Afghans had insisted that the U.S. first produce evidence of his wrongdoing, something that every self-respecting sovereign nation normally does, and the U.S. attacked without even trying to comply with the request, rendering their actual pretext for the war somewhat suspect, IMHO.
Anyway, we're going to have this problem any time I comment on U.S. military intervention and its instruments. I calls it the way I sees it. Tell me, how would YOU describe those fucking scumbags?
-
Tee is right, it is likely that many Afghan women consider the traditional Muslim role of women to be perfectly normal. In Somalia. female circumcisions are always performed by women exclusively. The idea that everyone thinks the way one thinks here is erroneous.
Afghan culture will be mostly determined by Afghans. It will probably take a long time before it resembles Western culture, if ever.
-
<<The idea that everyone thinks the way one thinks here is erroneous.>>
This seems to be one of the commonest misconceptions that Americans hold. If WE like something it must be good for everyone. WE like democratically elected (well, kind of, in theory anyway) representative government, so it MUST be good for the whole fucking world and if anyone doesn't like it, anywhere on this fucking planet, well, we'll just kill him and everyone else like him till there's no one left alive who will disagree with us. It's the most outrageously arrogant POV imaginable, only possible when combined with extreme ignorance.
Of course the guys who really run the "Republic" have no such bullshit illusions. They know God-damned well there is no real democracy (because they subvert it and piss all over it every fucking day) and they certainly don't give a shit WHAT is good for any Third World country anywhere on earth, except if it possesses natural resources or strategic locations, then they want to control them. The whole "this is good for them" shit is just a handy catch-phrase to enlist the morons in support of whatever aggression they are currently embarked on. It's a lot easier when the morons are with you than against you.
-
Even taking just a fraction of the above garbage as true, it'd be taken as opposed to those who advocate anything & everything communist. If not, be prepared to be liquidated. Yea, so much the better & less "arrogant"
anyone want to guess where that rated in the sarcasm meter?
-
This seems to be one of the commonest misconceptions that Americans hold. If WE like something it must be good for everyone. WE like democratically elected (well, kind of, in theory anyway) representative government, so it MUST be good for the whole fucking world and if anyone doesn't like it, anywhere on this fucking planet, well, we'll just kill him and everyone else like him till there's no one left alive who will disagree with us. It's the most outrageously arrogant POV imaginable, only possible when combined with extreme ignorance.
Yup. Right up there with "line 'em up against the wall" if they don't want to help the "revolution."
-
<<Yup. Right up there with "line 'em up against the wall" if they don't want to help the "revolution.">>
The perennial American cop-out - - "Think WE'RE bad? Well, (Commies [ ] Nazis [ ] Islamofascists [ ] "terrorists" [ ]
Iranians [ ] North Koreans [ ] - - take your pick) are one helluva lot worse!!!
Ah, well, I should've expected it. What else they gonna say?
-
"American cop-out..."
Why MT, you wouldn't suggest that ALL Americans are they same would you? That would be like saying ALL jews are smelly little nazi kikes.
-
<<Why MT, you wouldn't suggest that ALL Americans are they same would you? That would be like saying ALL jews are smelly little nazi kikes. >>
Your imagination must be working overtime, BSB. Whatever gave you the idea that I was suggesting all Americans are the same? When Americans DO cop out, the cop-out example that I gave struck me as the typical one. You certainly seem to have learned some vivid descriptive language, though. What branch of the German-American Bund would that have come from? Or did you first read it in your personally autographed copy of Mein Kampf?
May I, BTW, congratulate you on coming up with a totally original cop-out of your own?
-
The perennial American cop-out - - "Think WE'RE bad? Well, (Commies [ ] Nazis [ ] Islamofascists [ ] "terrorists" [ ]
Iranians [ ] North Koreans [ ] - - take your pick) are one helluva lot worse!!!
Ah, well, I should've expected it. What else they gonna say?
You might have expected it, but that was not what I said.
-
Ha ha, why MT with my long history of fair play in here? Voting for Bush in 2000 then not supporting his invasion of Iraq. Supporting McCain for years, putting my money where my mouth was, then voting for Obama? Being a life long Republican, but backing a womans right to abortion, not supporting the death penalty, and supporting gay rights like marriage etc? With all those facts you aren't really suggesting I'm some kind of bigoted German are you?
And gee, MT, you aren't some kind of bigoted Kike (((((are you)))))? Good Buddha, I certainly hope not. You wouldn't lump all Americans together, or everyone from Georgia, or every American soldier, (((((would you)))))? You aren't just some asshole troll flitting around throwing insults left and right for no reason other then the fact that you're a jerk, ARE YOU?
BTW, what do you think of smelly nazi kikes that suck off of societies tit all the while bitching like a little girl?
-
"The idea that everyone thinks the way one thinks here is erroneous"
XO on the other hand why is it places like Cuba & North Korea who
obviously "don't think like we do here" have to put up walls or
threats on people's lives if they try to leave? Ok so people
can "think different" ...thats cool...if for example Tee, BSB,
XO really decided they didn't like it here...hell...they're free to go...
they don't have to worry about Castro, the Taliban, or the "Great Leader"
putting a bullet in their head for trying to leave and go someplace else.
btw: BSB your obvious "kike insult" directed at Michael Tee is really beneath you & lame.
-
"Tee, BSB,
XO really decided they didn't like it here...hell...they're free to go.."
What planet are you on? Tee is Canadian. As for me leaving? If they start throwing people out for a lack of patriotism you'll be gone long before me.
-
I think Cu4 is trying to imply a level of freedom, for anyone that chooses to want to leave, who are American, and don't like it here. I don't think there's any sense of any one being thrown out, in his post. Quite the contrary, when it comes to the regimes Cu4 was referring to
Perhaps you took exception to being lumped together with Tee & Xo. That I can understand the type of response to Cu4, then
-
Thank you SIRS....thats why I wrote "FOR EXAMPLE"
and wanted to use people as the example from different opinions.
-
I know. You made it pretty clear 8)
-
Plus I thought it was implied I meant they "could leave freedom/democracy/western society/thought"
ya know the way we think......so it does not matter that Tee is in Canada.
-
No, BT, I certainly don't think you're some kind of bigoted German. I think you're some kind of fucking nut-case who could have made his dumb and irrelevant point (that I'm unfairly lumping together all Americans) in any number of ways but for reasons best known to yourself chose to set a reverse example by substituting anti-Semitic slurs in place of perceived anti-American slurs. As I say, you found your own form of cop-out to avoid dealing with the issues raised, fooling, as usual, exactly nobody.
-
No, BT, I certainly don't think you're some kind of bigoted German. I think you're some kind of fucking nut-case
Michael I think you mean BSB?
-
"No, BT, ....."
Ha, you certainly don't lump us all together now, DO YOU?
-
<<Michael I think you mean BSB?>>
Oooops, right, that was MY mistake. Sorry everyone. Although BSB was certainly quick enough to catch the underlying Freudian reason for it.
-
<<It is mostly threats , made...
<<and threats fullfilled.>
Really? The sources I've read that account for the success of the Taliban seem to dwell on the fact that they have delivered a justice system that is swift and incorruptible, as opposed to the government courts that are infinitely bribeable and drag on forever. The Afghan public seemed to appreciate that.
I am sure that threats also play a role in any resistance movement's success.
That was a big selling point for the KKK as well , can you object to them?
-
<<That was a big selling point for the KKK as well . . . >>
Sorry, but are you referring to the Klan's threats or its so-called system of justice?
-
<<That was a big selling point for the KKK as well . . . >>
Sorry, but are you referring to the Klan's threats or its so-called system of justice?
Both of course , the KKK and the Taliban havre several things in common , but most of all are the things that made them appealing to the local people.
-
I'd say that what made the KKK appealing to the local people was simply that they kept the blacks in their place and that their threats appealed to nobody but served the obvious function of suppressing any local opposition.
I'd say that the Taliban's appeal is a little broader and a lot more honourable - - they are fulfilling a long local tradition of resisting foreign invaders to the death AND they have brought justice (albeit rough, crude and violent justice) to a community long starved of justice. Furthermore they are defending the old ways against the new (much to the chagrin of America's feminists.) As far as threats go, their threats serve the same obvious function of the Klan's. Here's a difference, though - - the victims of the Klan's threats were often the most honourable, courageous and incorruptible men of the community, whereas the victims of Taliban threats are probably seen as collaborators and traitors in their own communities and in many cases were acting, not on principle but simply out of self-interest, having been bought off by the invaders.
-
I'd say that what made the KKK appealing to the local people was simply that they kept the blacks in their place and that their threats appealed to nobody but served the obvious function of suppressing any local opposition.
I'd say that the Taliban's appeal is a little broader and a lot more honourable - - they are fulfilling a long local tradition of resisting foreign invaders to the death AND they have brought justice (albeit rough, crude and violent justice) to a community long starved of justice. Furthermore they are defending the old ways against the new (much to the chagrin of America's feminists.) As far as threats go, their threats serve the same obvious function of the Klan's. Here's a difference, though - - the victims of the Klan's threats were often the most honourable, courageous and incorruptible men of the community, whereas the victims of Taliban threats are probably seen as collaborators and traitors in their own communities and in many cases were acting, not on principle but simply out of self-interest, having been bought off by the invaders.
Why more honor?
Each of those things was a feature of the KKK just as well.
-
<<Why more honor?>>
That was just a little snide humor on my part. What's really "honourable" about murdering women for not covering their heads? What's "honourable" about throwing acid in the face of a schoolgirl for wanting to go to school?
What I meant was that some Taliban victims were traitors and collaborators, whereas some of the KKK's victims were courageous newspaper editors, people who defended the rights of black citizens, etc.
-
I'd say that the Taliban's appeal is a little broader and a lot more honourable - - they are fulfilling a long local tradition of resisting foreign invaders to the death
The history of the Taliban is rife with Pakistani interference and support. In that sense the Taliban are invaders in their own land.
Which is why Talibani leadership is no different than Karzai leadership. Either way someone else is pulling the strings.
-
<<The history of the Taliban is rife with Pakistani interference and support. In that sense the Taliban are invaders in their own land.>>
That's a helluva stretch and I don't buy one bit of it. They're native-born Afghan Pashtun Muslims. They speak the language of their neighbours, and share blood ties and home ties with them. They've got their own agenda for their own people.
Karzai is the servant of alien infidels and could not exist for 24 hours without their protection. Even his personal bodyguards are Americans.
<<Which is why Talibani leadership is no different than Karzai leadership. Either way someone else is pulling the strings. >>
Bullshit. One gets some foreign support from their own kith and kin, the other is subsidized, armed and empowered by foreign infidels from America. Your suggestion is ludicrous.
-
That's a helluva stretch and I don't buy one bit of it.
Do your homework and learn something.
-
<<Why more honor?>>
That was just a little snide humor on my part. What's really "honourable" about murdering women for not covering their heads? What's "honourable" about throwing acid in the face of a schoolgirl for wanting to go to school?
What I meant was that some Taliban victims were traitors and collaborators, whereas some of the KKK's victims were courageous newspaper editors, people who defended the rights of black citizens, etc.
Some KKK victims were carpetbaggers too.
It isn't a much diffrent appeal , I don't want to say that driving off an occasional carpetbagger justifies any of their less savory habits.
The Taliban are beastly to their own people their best clam to fame in the past was that they could defeat some rivals that were even worse.
The People of Afganistan have an oppurtunity to live without them , I hope thay can.
-
<<Some KKK victims were carpetbaggers too.>>
Yeah, well the "carpetbaggers" in Afghanistan are the "contractors" and they'll get theirs too.
<<It isn't a much diffrent appeal , I don't want to say that driving off an occasional carpetbagger justifies any of their less savory habits.>>
Who gives a shit what happens to a mercenary?
<<The Taliban are beastly to their own people their best clam to fame in the past was that they could defeat some rivals that were even worse.>>
They play by the local rules. They never heard of the Geneva Conventions and they don't give a shit. Home turf, home rules. Worse yet are the Americans, who know all about the Geneva Conventions, and just write 'em off as "quaint and old-fashioned."
<<The People of Afganistan have an oppurtunity to live without them , I hope thay can. >>
plane, it is THEIR fucking problem, not yours.
-
<<Some KKK victims were carpetbaggers too.>>
Yeah, well the "carpetbaggers" in Afghanistan are the "contractors" and they'll get theirs too.
<<It isn't a much diffrent appeal , I don't want to say that driving off an occasional carpetbagger justifies any of their less savory habits.>>
Who gives a shit what happens to a mercenary?
<<The Taliban are beastly to their own people their best clam to fame in the past was that they could defeat some rivals that were even worse.>>
They play by the local rules. They never heard of the Geneva Conventions and they don't give a shit. Home turf, home rules. Worse yet are the Americans, who know all about the Geneva Conventions, and just write 'em off as "quaint and old-fashioned."
<<The People of Afganistan have an oppurtunity to live without them , I hope thay can. >>
plane, it is THEIR fucking problem, not yours.
As a Canadian the KKK is mostly not any concern of yours , but if someday a sept of the KKK were to burn down down town Ottowa. And the local KKK here were hideing the culprits from both the RCMP and the FBI , I know you would encourage me to support the KKK because I am a local of the same class as they. If I hid one of the Ottowa bomber plotters or planted a bomb to destroy a vengefull Canadian ,I would only be looking after my own and I know you would understand.
Right?
-
<<As a Canadian the KKK is mostly not any concern of yours . . . >>
I'm a human being first and a Canadian second, so the KKK is very much a concern of mine. I just don't happen to think I have the right to invade your country to help you deal with them. The KKK is your problem to deal with but it does not mean I'm not concerned about them.
<< . . . but if someday a sept of the KKK were to burn down down town Ottowa. And the local KKK here were hideing the culprits from both the RCMP and the FBI , I know you would encourage me to support the KKK because I am a local of the same class as they. >>
No, I'd request the FBI to go find the KKK and hold them, and then I'd ask your government if you'd mind turning over those KKK they're holding to me, because they committed a crime on my soil. And I'd expect your government to turn them over to me if I were able to produce proof of what they'd done here.
<<If I hid one of the Ottowa bomber plotters or planted a bomb to destroy a vengefull Canadian ,I would only be looking after my own and I know you would understand.>>
First of all if you hid one of the bombers, I'd be very pissed off about it and I'd expect the FBI to find him and hold him. And you couldn't plant a bomb to destroy a vengeful Canadian because there wouldn't be any vengeful Canadians going into Georgia after these guys.
Moreover, if I'd been subsidizing a bunch of gangsters for years to steal land from your KKK guy's family and lock them up in a huge outdoor concentration camp, I might find that my misconduct has raised some very solid suspicions among your FBI that I might not want or be able to provide a fair trial to the KKK guy, which could screw up my extradition request.
<<Right? >>
Sure - - right as corrected.
-
Even as corrected you don't want the KKK to get away with hiding the culprits from justice.
You don't have any reason to like the Taliban more than you have to like the KKK .
-
<<You don't have any reason to like the Taliban more than you have to like the KKK .>>
I don't like either one, true, but the KKK are right here and the Taliban are thousands of miles away. When you fight the Taliban, you are killing thousands of innocents at the same time, when you fight the KKK, you are only catching KKK and you're not even killing them.
Furthermore, the fight against the KKK is carried on by good guys and the fight against the Taliban is carried on by imperialist aggressors. War criminals. I'm against the Taliban, sure, but I'm also against the American war criminals who are fighting them.