The New York Times’ reputation isn’t super-awesome … they need something major to revive it. An opinion piece from a Taliban official should definitely do the trick!
… is it weird that the New York Times published an op-ed by a Taliban officer?
"We did not choose our war with the foreign coalition led by the United States. We were forced to defend ourselves."
this feels like a leaflet flyover. pic.twitter.com/yf3MAXmP6D
— 𝚒'𝚖 𝚊 𝚑𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚠𝚊𝚢 𝚝𝚜𝚊𝚛 (@BecketAdams) February 20, 2020
New York Times peddling pro-Taliban propaganda … sure, why not?
he's just a *deputy*, Becket pic.twitter.com/fQD2o1dRjj
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) February 20, 2020
See? No big deal. They’re just trying to get a different perspective on the Taliban, that’s all.
👏🏻 Normalize 👏🏻 Taliban 👏🏻 voices 👏🏻
— hair by les porter (@porteryoker) February 20, 2020
The Taliban just wants peace, guys. Just like all of us do.
I just love the “Mr. Haqqani is deputy leader of the Taliban” line. Super casual way to say this guy chops heads off people, stones women to death, and kills women for learning to read.
— David Orlich (@DavidOrlich) February 20, 2020
Before you’re too hard on the New York Times, know that they’re apparently not alone in giving air to Taliban voices:
npr too https://t.co/tCyxMDftki
— ducks like milk (@duckslikemilk) February 20, 2020
They were touting the new and improved Taliban in @MorningEdition on @NPR this morning. They interviewed a Taliban executioner, and talked about how executions won’t happen in stadiums under Taliban 2.0.
— Lying Dogface Pony Soldier (@bubbala1111) February 20, 2020
Oh OK. Cool cool.
The Taliban absolutely chose the war.
They were the leaders of Afghanistan who invited AQ to setup shop in exchange for Saudi cash and after the attacks denied the US lawful entry to remove AQ, choosing to fight alongside AQ.
People upset by Facebook ads are letting this run?
— mitrebox (@mitrebox) February 20, 2020
Well, yeah. Memes are way more dangerous than the Taliban, you know.