Apparently the Taliban aren't Terrorists...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grey Templar**

Say whut?

http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-not-terrorists-says-white-house-220922680.html

They act like terrorists, they regularly kill civilians like terrorists, but the White House does not consider the Afghan Taliban to be a terrorist group.
Related Stories

“They do carry out tactics that are akin to terrorism. They do pursue terror attacks in an effort to try to advance their agenda,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained today, but “they have a different classification.”

Semantics aside, the Taliban is suspected in multiple attacks over just the last 48 hours that have killed more than 30 people, including a suicide bombing attack on a funeral in Afghanistan today that killed 16 and wounded 39.
Even so, the White House does not call the Afghan Taliban a terrorist organization, Earnest explained, because they are “different than an organization like al Qaeda that has a much broader global aspiration to carry out acts of violence and acts of terror against Americans and American interests all around the globe.”

The issue has come up because the White House insisted on Wednesday that a prisoner exchange between Jordan and ISIS would be different than the prisoner exchange the United States made last year with the Taliban to gain the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

“Our policy is that we don't pay ransom. We don't give concessions to terrorist organizations,” Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Wednesday. “This is a longstanding policy that predates this administration. And it's also one that we've communicated to our friends and allies across the world.”

Schultz explained that the exchange the United States made with the Taliban -- releasing five Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in exchange for the release of Sgt. Bergdahl -- was consistent with that policy because the Taliban is an “armed insurgency” and not a terrorist organization.

But the Obama administration isn’t entirely consistent on this point.

On one hand, the Afghan Taliban are not on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (the Pakistan Taliban is on that last). On the other hand, the Taliban is on the Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, a classification that allows their assets to be frozen.

And even as Earnest was explaining why the Taliban are not terrorists, he slipped, calling them ... “terrorists.”

“We have not ruled out that there would be some situations in which U.S. service members would still carry out operations in self-defense against the Taliban or other terrorists who are operating in Afghanistan,” Earnest said.

**H.B.M.C.**

The head of BBC Arabic says the same thing about the Charlie Hebdo killers as well.

**dogma**

On the other hand, the Taliban is on the Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, a classification that allows their assets to be frozen.

No it isn't. In fact Bush specifically omitted it by way of EO 13268, which modified EO 13224 and EO 13129. There are members of the Taliban on that list, but the Taliban itself is not.

**Stonebeard**

That's about all I have to say on this.

**Peregrine**

And here's the key point:

Even so, the White House does not call the Afghan Taliban a terrorist organization, Earnest explained, because they are “different than an organization like al Qaeda that has a much broader global aspiration to carry out acts of violence and acts of terror against Americans and American interests all around the globe.”

Nobody is saying "the Taliban are wonderful nice people", they're just pointing out the entirely legitimate difference between a terrorist group that aims to attack the US and a domestic problem for Afghanistan (and whatever troops we send to help their government). It's entirely a legal technicality to let the current administration do what they want, and the next administration will probably re-classify them as whatever type of "bad people" is most convenient for their own policies.

**Bran Dawri**

Mmm, I picked up on that. So basically they're saying "terrorists are only terrorists if they intend to perform terrorist attacks on us. If they carry out terrorist attacks on others, that's OK."

**Hanskrampf**

Bran Dawri wrote:
Mmm, I picked up on that. So basically they're saying "terrorists are only terrorists if they intend to perform terrorist attacks on us. If they carry out terrorist attacks on others, that's OK."

No, they are saying they operate only locally and don't meet the definition of "terrorist", even if they carry out terrorist attacks sometimes. The Afghan Taliban are a milita.
But there is also the TTP, also commonly named Taliban (they operate in Pakistan), which are a terrorist organization.

**djones520**

Hanskrampf wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
Mmm, I picked up on that. So basically they're saying "terrorists are only terrorists if they intend to perform terrorist attacks on us. If they carry out terrorist attacks on others, that's OK."

No, they are saying they operate only locally and don't meet the definition of "terrorist", even if they carry out terrorist attacks sometimes. The Afghan Taliban are a milita.
But there is also the TTP, also commonly named Taliban (they operate in Pakistan), which are a terrorist organization.

You should take a look at the State Department terror list. Tell me how many of those organizations only act locally. Let me tell you, it's a lot.

**Wyrmalla**

So if you only commit acts of terrorism on a local scale rather than a global one then you aren't regarded as a terrorist? ...I don't get it. Classify them as terrorists but categorize them based on if they internationalize their acts, but don't go about changing the meaning of a word. Which yes on that note the word terrorism really has been abused quite a lot since the War on Terror, so I suppose its just become such a political tool that people feel free to change its meaning to suite their own perspective of it. It certainly beats it being used as a catch all term for "people we don't like/ need an excuse to pull on over on".

**Jihadin**

Admin is totally out of touch with reality.

**Ahtman**

Jihadin wrote:
Admin is totally out of touch with reality.

You do realize this encompasses multiple admins right?

**Jihadin**

All Admins work within a select time frame and in the same area

Edit

grammar

**Yodhrin**

Jihadin wrote:
Admin is totally out of touch with reality.

Are they? Or was this just another case of "we define things as whatever is most expedient for us" - saying "oh no, no, those guys who look like terrorists, act like terrorists, and carry out acts of terror aren't terrorists, because see, if they were, then we would have had to negotiate with terrorists when we got our guy released, and everyone knows that we don't negotiate with terrorists *wink wink nudge nudge*". Also, if you glance a few posts up, this isn't exactly a "Thanks, Obama." issue; no matter how buffoonish people perceive Bush to be, I'm sure somebody in his administration was smart enough to consider the possibility that the Taliban may end up capturing a few US soldiers and suggest they cover their arse like this.

**AlexHolker**

The issue has come up because the White House insisted on Wednesday that a prisoner exchange between Jordan and ISIS would be different than the prisoner exchange the United States made last year with the Taliban to gain the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Sure, it would be different. One suicide bomber for one fighter pilot? That's a bargain!

**SlaveToDorkness**

Most Ironically Named Press Secretary EVVVVVAAAAAAAH!

**sirlynchmob**

Of course you can't call groups that bomb funerals terrorists. To do so would rightly prove another country should be labeled terrorists. *spoiler* it's the US.

By todays definitions, the nazi's would have been considered terrorists during WWII, yet we still held prisoner exchanges with them. All wars acquire prisoners, and they are often exchanged while the war is still ongoing. Nothing new here, it's what is promised to the military, leave no man behind.

**Xenomancers**

Correct me if I am wrong...but the Taliban did crash 4 giant airplanes full of innocent people into sites in the USA ? Did they not do this? Have they...cleaned up their act or something? Now they only function locally? Jezz I can't wait till this nitwit is out of the white-house.

**djones520**

Xenomancers wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong...but the Taliban did crash 4 giant airplanes full of innocent people into sites in the USA ? Did they not do this? Have they...cleaned up their act or something? Now they only function locally? Jezz I can't wait till this nitwit is out of the white-house.

You are wrong. It was Al Qaeda that did that. The Taliban provided Al Qaeda shelter afterwards.

**LordofHats**

Taliban is not AQ. AQ launched the attacks. The Taliban were just their lands lords (who refused to give them up when the US Military came calling).

**Xenomancers**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Of course you can't call groups that bomb funerals terrorists. To do so would rightly prove another country should be labeled terrorists. *spoiler* it's the US.

By todays definitions, the nazi's would have been considered terrorists during WWII, yet we still held prisoner exchanges with them. All wars acquire prisoners, and they are often exchanged while the war is still ongoing. Nothing new here, it's what is promised to the military, leave no man behind.

The word terrorist hadn't really developed at this point. It's taken on a new meaning now. Plus - theres a difference between trading armies of pow for armies of pow and trading high ranking officals for a defector....theres a huge difference.

**whembly**

Xenomancers wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong...but the Taliban did crash 4 giant airplanes full of innocent people into sites in the USA ? Did they not do this? Have they...cleaned up their act or something? Now they only function locally? Jezz I can't wait till this nitwit is out of the white-house.

No... that's Al Queda.

The Taliban did give *support* by harboring Bin Ladin and others.

Right? (going from memory)

EDIT: ninja'ed by djones.

**Xenomancers**

djones520 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong...but the Taliban did crash 4 giant airplanes full of innocent people into sites in the USA ? Did they not do this? Have they...cleaned up their act or something? Now they only function locally? Jezz I can't wait till this nitwit is out of the white-house.

You are wrong. It was Al Qaeda that did that. The Taliban provided Al Qaeda shelter afterwards.

Hummm...I guess I see your point. Then again. Sheltering a terrorist makes you a terrorist IMO.

**LordofHats**

Xenomancers wrote: It's taken on a new meaning now.

Even now the word terrorist is really vague. Different groups and parties use the word differently. Apply it to different groups. Go shopping around various terrorist lists from around the world. None of them are the same (though certain parties are likely to show up a lot, AQ among them).

whembly wrote:

EDIT: ninja'ed by djones.

Me too. Perhaps we should, hire some ninjas to resolve the problem

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
Sheltering a terrorist makes you a terrorist IMO.

So sheltering a murderer on the lam makes one a murderer?

That's silly. Aiding and abetting is not murder.

**d-usa**

One thing that probably complicates things is that unlike almost all the terrorist groups, the Taliban were actually a government that ruled a country. So once we changed the government in Afghanistan they became the insurgency that wants their country back.

This whole thing is really a non-story.

**djones520**

Xenomancers wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong...but the Taliban did crash 4 giant airplanes full of innocent people into sites in the USA ? Did they not do this? Have they...cleaned up their act or something? Now they only function locally? Jezz I can't wait till this nitwit is out of the white-house.

You are wrong. It was Al Qaeda that did that. The Taliban provided Al Qaeda shelter afterwards.

Hummm...I guess I see your point. Then again. Sheltering a terrorist makes you a terrorist IMO.

The Taliban are terrorists. But not because they were harboring them. They are terrorist because they use terror tactics to exert their will.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
One thing that probably complicates things is that unlike almost all the terrorist groups, the Taliban were actually a government that ruled a country. So once we changed the government in Afghanistan they became the insurgency that wants their country back.

This whole thing is really a non-story.

Hamas.

**nels1031**

Hezbollah, to some extent as well.

**LordofHats**

Hamas is less clear cut, simply because 'Gaza' is not a recognized state. Even in the case of a recognized Palestine, few recognize Hamas as the authority of it. Hezzbollah is more clear, in that Hezzbollah is political party with political power that happily engages in terrorism as a political tool, but it isn't a government or governing authority in itself.

The Taliban (under other names at times) were effectively the recognized government of Afghanistan, a recognized state. No one liked them. But we dealt with them. Helps that they were totally on board with kicking Commie ass (though for a time, so was AQ)

Until we really, really, didn't like them that is. Then we just decided feth them.

**d-usa**

Xenomancers wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong...but the Taliban did crash 4 giant airplanes full of innocent people into sites in the USA ? Did they not do this? Have they...cleaned up their act or something? Now they only function locally? Jezz I can't wait till this nitwit is out of the white-house.

You are wrong. It was Al Qaeda that did that. The Taliban provided Al Qaeda shelter afterwards.

Hummm...I guess I see your point. Then again. Sheltering a terrorist makes you a terrorist IMO.

The term there is "state sponsor of terrorism", also a term that has been fairly consistently used by prior administrations.

**Jihadin**

WWII Terrorists were called "Partisans" I believe

**Smacks**

Bran Dawri wrote:
So basically they're saying "terrorists are only terrorists if they intend to perform terrorist attacks on us. If they carry out terrorist attacks on others, that's OK."

No they are saying that the Taliban are not a terrorist group, which they aren't, they are an Islamic fundamentalist political/religious movement. Some of them might be terrorists, in the same way that some Irish people are terrorists, but that does not make the whole group a "terrorist group" any more than it makes "Irish" or "Muslim" of "Sinn Féin" a terrorist group. That would be a fallacy of composition.

Al-Qaeda is considered a terrorist group because the sole purpose of their organisation is to launch jihadi attacks. Obviously, there are going to be some grey areas, where groups are awkward to define, or people disagree on how they are defined, so distinctions must be made, and this is where the press secretary has made one.