Not sure what your point is. Bombings are frequent in Afghanistan and Talibans occasionally claim them nowadays. Used to be more frequent, at least until they were negotiating US departure.
One's terrorism is another's freedom fighter has long been a cliche, and at least by some metrics, and to some people, Talibans are definitely checking off the marks on the terrorism qualifiers. You might also want to check back past history, before they were ousted in 2001. They were not nice people.
As to what "attacking it positively" may mean, you really need to be a little clearer than that. 20 years of NATO policing has not solved the issue militarily so claiming that nothing was tried is rather silly.
Reality is, Afghanistan has been an expensive sideshow for the last 10-15 years, with little prospect of winning. Being mired in it has forced the US to spend untold money developing counter insurgency tactics and weaponry that aren't especially suitable to winning a war against peer enemies in a high tech context. It's been a distraction and the fact that would have been better to have subdued and neutralized the Taliban does not mean that was easily done, as you seem to imply.
Counterinsurgency wars are notoriously hard to win, especially on foreign territory. The best example of that happening is still Malaysia, oh, 60 years ago.
China probably has interest in having the region somewhat stable, not exporting Islamic insurgencies and on top of that is on cordial terms with Pakistan, who initiated the Taliban and may or may not yet support them. Even Biden's administration is stating that Chinese influence may not be unwelcome in stabilizing the country. The US decision to negotiate with them, and not labelling them terrorists, is one of expediency and not necessarily a bad one, but it only sheds limited light on whether they can be considered terrorists or not, as James K points out.