UN reports can be wrong because they are saying so they will fulfill their promises they should see if Taliban break any promise than the UN should make a report against them.
If they promise they will do that and stand with the other countries so all should give them a chance to grow.
Consider this hypothetical sequence of events:
1. A man who went on a killing spree with an assault rifle is released from jail.
2. He says 'Please can I have an assault rifle. I promise I won't kill anyone this time'.
Which of the below would you choose as point 3?
3. Refuse to give him the gun, or...
3. Give him the gun, and if he breaks his word and kills people, we'll complain about it afterwards.
This is the problem with taking the Taliban at their word. You can't just make everything right again afterwards.
the U.S mission was not to bring peace to the middle east. it was toprevent middle east terror from invading the U.S
the US went in to the middle east to deal with al-queda. where the U.S only seen the talibans failure as them not extraditing al-queda and not handing osama bin laden to the U.S.
later they found out that osama was actually in pakistan.
so U.S mission was not to do much with afghanistan 'peace process' as a couple years later the U.S moved out its main mission from afghanistan to other middle east countries as their 'war on terror' was needed elsewhere
the US pretty much had no big problems with the taliban. and instead was just using 'taliban' as a mouth piece for media as their reason to spend so much money.
there were ~2350 U.S troop losses .. but yea when a guy with a gun meets another guy with a gun. expect losses.
when you compare troop losses of the U.S to the troop losses of other countries (60,000) the U.S has not had much 'damage' to its defenses.
what america finally realised is that the taliban were not much of a threat. compared to al-queda. the taliban were around way before america invaded and would be around much longer. so america done a deal with the taliban to allow the taliban to take over unrestricted as long as they join the U.S effort to not let al-queda gain ground.
(this is factual details that has been public for over a year. trump signed off on it. its public knowledge)
as for charlee-tims account of the the BBC report on the womans experience of taliban treatment.
taking the report and asserting come calm, composed common sense logic.
media present taliban as extremists that if they just see a woman walking alone they would kill her in the streets..
yet reading her account.
a woman with no bullet proof vest and no chainmail jacket.. walked upto a taliban and got asked why is she alone. and guess what.. she was let through and survived without even a whip or shot(logical conclusion)
as for the 'they fired bullets into the air' well the queue for the airport is hundreds of thousands of people long. if the taliban were to rip off a dozen bullets into the air every time they seen a woman. they'd be out of bullets within the ahour
again she may have felt petrified due to how the past has propagandised things. where she may have heard horrific stories on the news. but her actual experience just a few days ago. was not an experience of actual terrorism or torture. so it seems the taliban have actually softened up compared to the stories portrayed over the last 20 years
(common sense) if the worsed interview they can find is a woman being asked why is she alone... it kinda sends a message that the real experience is not as bad as the one portrayed by headlines and propaganda
im not siding or fanning the taliban. i beleive there needs to be a proper organised election with proper experienced and willing candidates and a formation of a true government that wants peace..
.. but when media shout out terrorism and torture and unsanctioned take overs.... that is not really whats actually happening when you sit back and actually process the real things being said
the U.S agreed to let the taliban take over.
