If you make sweeping generalizations about an entire ethnic group, you might be a racist.
Broadly speaking, sure. I think the “Afghanis didn’t want Americans holding their nation at gunpoint for two decades” is empirically well-proven, though.
The rest of the shit is just ahistorical nonsense. The primary appeal of the Taliban is rooted in their opposition to the secular warlords and opium cartel bosses who were backed by the US in place of civilian government. Just like in Iran, after the takeover by the Shah, urban liberals were either ingested into the American murder machine or exterminated as disloyal opposition. What opposition was left fell to rural religious conservatives who spent the next generation resisting the occupation.
When the Taliban was suppressed they had schools for girls and nobody forced people at gunpoint to go to them.
When the Taliban was suppressed, a few major cities had schools for the families of occupying soldiers and civilian bureaucrats. And some of the Afghanis were permitted to attend, as an incentive to remain compliant. The women and girls in the rural backwaters weren’t invited to these schools. The young boys weren’t invited either. The country was plundered, the bulk of the population subjugated, and individuals who resisted were arrested, tortured, and executed.
The idea that Kandahar was transformed into Boston under US occupation is absolutely farcical. Poverty was endemic during most of the US occupation, percipitating multiple famines during the '00s and '10s. 36% of the country experienced extreme poverty under US occupation. One in five children died under the age of five years old.
How Taliban insurgents initially managed to win support in those early years was by rebuilding the domestic supply lines that the '02 invasion had flattened. Only after they’d revitalized the western provinces could they shepherd the manpower to repeal western forces. And, in the end, it was those who could supply the bread that made the rules.
Broadly speaking, sure. I think the “Afghanis didn’t want Americans holding their nation at gunpoint for two decades” is empirically well-proven, though.
The rest of the shit is just ahistorical nonsense. The primary appeal of the Taliban is rooted in their opposition to the secular warlords and opium cartel bosses who were backed by the US in place of civilian government. Just like in Iran, after the takeover by the Shah, urban liberals were either ingested into the American murder machine or exterminated as disloyal opposition. What opposition was left fell to rural religious conservatives who spent the next generation resisting the occupation.
When the Taliban was suppressed, a few major cities had schools for the families of occupying soldiers and civilian bureaucrats. And some of the Afghanis were permitted to attend, as an incentive to remain compliant. The women and girls in the rural backwaters weren’t invited to these schools. The young boys weren’t invited either. The country was plundered, the bulk of the population subjugated, and individuals who resisted were arrested, tortured, and executed.
The idea that Kandahar was transformed into Boston under US occupation is absolutely farcical. Poverty was endemic during most of the US occupation, percipitating multiple famines during the '00s and '10s. 36% of the country experienced extreme poverty under US occupation. One in five children died under the age of five years old.
How Taliban insurgents initially managed to win support in those early years was by rebuilding the domestic supply lines that the '02 invasion had flattened. Only after they’d revitalized the western provinces could they shepherd the manpower to repeal western forces. And, in the end, it was those who could supply the bread that made the rules.