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.

 Smacks wrote:

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.

The Taliban uses terror tactics to gain control, ground, etc...

Even when they were in power, they still did it. Unless you think soccer half time events of stoning people to death wasn't state ran terrorism.

Lots of groups use terror to try and get what they want; it would seem counter-productive to just have them all on the same list when we need to approach each somewhat differently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-taliban-terrorist-organization/story?id=23981888

But did President Obama’s White House, through the Qatari government which brokered the deal, negotiate with terrorists, as suggested by Rogers and a number of high-profile Republicans?

When asked Monday if the White House considered the Taliban terrorists, Press Secretary Jay Carney dodged.

“We don’t get to choose our enemies when we go to war,” Carney told reporters. “We regard the Taliban as an enemy combatant in a conflict that has been going on, in which the United States has been involved for more than a decade. In this case--as you know we dealt with the Qataris in order to secure [Bergdahl’s] release--it was absolutely the right thing to do.”

But Tuesday White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list.

The U.S. is offering $10 million for information leading to the capture of the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, through the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program, an effort designed to “fight against international terrorism.” The National Counterterrorism Center also lists “Taliban Presence in Afghanistan” on its global map of “Terrorist Groups.”

Though the State Department has not designated the Afghan Taliban as an FTO, it has designated the group’s sister network, the Pakistani Taliban, as well as the Haqqani Network, a group closely associated with the Taliban that was believed to have been actually holding Bergdahl for most of his captivity. Hayden told ABC News the U.S. “did not negotiate with the Haqqanis” for Bergdahl.

Rather than arguing the status of the Taliban, however, the administration has launched a coordinated effort to characterize Bergdahl as a prisoner of war, rather than a hostage.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-obama-taliban-idUSBRE90A11F20130111

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday it would not be possible for Afghanistan to reconcile with the Taliban unless the Islamist militant group renounces terrorism.

Obama made the comment at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai after they met at the White House.

 Jihadin wrote:
WWII Terrorists were called "Partisans" I believe

I'd liken partisans to guerrillas, not terrorists. Guerrillas usually refrain from attacking civilians en masse, while by definition civilians are a terrorist's prime target.

As for the Taliban, they don't perform terror attacks on the West directly, but they train those who do so. And they regularly strike markets, mosques and mass transit systems on Pakistan and the areas of Afghanistan they don't control. So, yay, terrorists.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
WWII Terrorists were called "Partisans" I believe

I'd liken partisans to guerrillas, not terrorists. Guerrillas usually refrain from attacking civilians en masse, while by definition civilians are a terrorist's prime target.

As for the Taliban, they don't perform terror attacks on the West directly, but they train those who do so. And they regularly strike markets, mosques and mass transit systems on Pakistan and the areas of Afghanistan they don't control. So, yay, terrorists.

Now we are also getting into the "Afghanistan Taliban =/= Pakistan Taliban" mess.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Exactly.


ISIS and al Qaeda have broader, global goals. Afghanistan vis-a-vis the taliban only has regional aspirations.

This doesn't mean i want to invite the Taliban to tea tomorrow, it means that as a religious and political organization, despite its methods, its aspirations are regional. Not global. That is NOT the case with ISIS (world wide Caliphate under sharia to bring peace to the world... christ almost can't get that out with a straight face), or al Qaeda, which, i'll be honest, i'm not even friggin' sure what their goal is anymore.


The choice to mark them a terrorist organization or not is largely political if i had to guesss - on our end of the stick. It probably circumvents some diplomatic entanglements, or eases some negotiation or other for Americans in their own policies rather than any concession we've granted the Taliban.

One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Only if you use the most meaningless definition of terrorist possible. Groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban aren't freedom fighters by any stretch of the imagination.

 Haight wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Exactly.


ISIS and al Qaeda have broader, global goals. Afghanistan vis-a-vis the taliban only has regional aspirations.

This doesn't mean i want to invite the Taliban to tea tomorrow, it means that as a religious and political organization, despite its methods, its aspirations are regional. Not global. That is NOT the case with ISIS (world wide Caliphate under sharia to bring peace to the world... christ almost can't get that out with a straight face), or al Qaeda, which, i'll be honest, i'm not even friggin' sure what their goal is anymore.


The choice to mark them a terrorist organization or not is largely political if i had to guesss - on our end of the stick. It probably circumvents some diplomatic entanglements, or eases some negotiation or other for Americans in their own policies rather than any concession we've granted the Taliban.

US State Department Foreign Terrorists Organizations.

Abu Nidal Organization: Small regional group, no global aspirations. Only goal is to screw Israel.

Abu Sayyaf: Small regional group, no global aspirations. Only goal is to create separate Islamic state in Philippines.

Basque Fatherland International: Small regional group, no global aspirations. Only goal is to create a separate Basque state.

Al-Gama'a Al -Islamiyya: Small regional group, no global aspirations. Only goal is to cause ass pain to Egypts government.


I took these from the first handful of names on their list.

Now explain to me how these groups that don't have global aspirations make it on the list, but the Taliban, who are much larger, play in a much larger area, and have done much more "terrorism" activity, aren't terrorists.

Well, obviously it's because we've already negotiated with them so they CANT be.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Well, obviously it's because we've already negotiated with them so they CANT be.

We used to do a hell of a lot more than just negotiate with them, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 being the key date there.

 Pacific wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Well, obviously it's because we've already negotiated with them so they CANT be.

We used to do a hell of a lot more than just negotiate with them, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 being the key date there.

US by and large supported different groups. Afghanistan was not defended by one single coherent group in that conflict.

I wish people would stop trotting that line out... The Taliban didn't even exist back then anyways.

 djones520 wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Exactly.


ISIS and al Qaeda have broader, global goals. Afghanistan vis-a-vis the taliban only has regional aspirations.

This doesn't mean i want to invite the Taliban to tea tomorrow, it means that as a religious and political organization, despite its methods, its aspirations are regional. Not global. That is NOT the case with ISIS (world wide Caliphate under sharia to bring peace to the world... christ almost can't get that out with a straight face), or al Qaeda, which, i'll be honest, i'm not even friggin' sure what their goal is anymore.


The choice to mark them a terrorist organization or not is largely political if i had to guesss - on our end of the stick. It probably circumvents some diplomatic entanglements, or eases some negotiation or other for Americans in their own policies rather than any concession we've granted the Taliban.

US State Department Foreign Terrorists Organizations.

Abu Nidal Organization: Small regional group, no global aspirations. Only goal is to screw Israel.

Abu Sayyaf: Small regional group, no global aspirations. Only goal is to create separate Islamic state in Philippines.

Basque Fatherland International: Small regional group, no global aspirations. Only goal is to create a separate Basque state.

Al-Gama'a Al -Islamiyya: Small regional group, no global aspirations. Only goal is to cause ass pain to Egypts government.


I took these from the first handful of names on their list.

Now explain to me how these groups that don't have global aspirations make it on the list, but the Taliban, who are much larger, play in a much larger area, and have done much more "terrorism" activity, aren't terrorists.

Settle down there, tiger. As i said, the real reason probably boils down to politics.

 djones520 wrote:
The Taliban didn't even exist back then anyways.

Pretending that matters is a very bad play for the State Department. The Mujahadeen, who we supported with weapons and money to fight those evil commies by the United States, became the Taliban (remember how the Taliban used all those weapons we sold them back in the 80's against us? That was news). Change the name, but it's what it is. And that's before we get into the tentative "okay you guys are the legitimate government of Afghanistan" policy that the world was running with till 2001. A government by the way, that we conspired to create with Pakistan to end the Afghanistan Civil War in the wake of the Soviet war, cause it really doesn't look good on us that we helped kick out the USSR and then left the whole region a bloody mess. Gotta clean that gak up.

Yeah that whole foreign venture ended up biting us in the ass.

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."

Reminds me of America's attitude towards a certain Irish terror group...

You should read between the lines here.

The US policy on Al Quaeda is: 'eradicate them'.

The US police on the Taliban is: 'they are hostile and we are actively militarily opposed to them, but at some point we will have to negotiate with them'.

As this goes back to the Bush administration it show that the departments involved have some medium and long forecast planning, possibly through foreign influence. As a policy it makes sense.

So, according to this Administration;
- the Taliban are not terrorists
- Tea Party are terrorists


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.
Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Uh... old news buddy:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/07/obama_calls_the_gop_hostage_takers_over_tax_cut_compromise.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/30/republicans-aren-t-hostage-takers-they-re-political-terrorists.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/30/house-republican-hostage-takers-are-unfit-to-govern.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/10/09/obama-gop-hostagetaking-tactics-are-recklessunlike-my-own-of-course-n1719791
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/324925-dnc-video-blasts-republicans-as-hostage-takers
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/obama_calls_republicans_hostag.html

And folks wonder why nothing gets done...

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."

Terrorists use bombs and light weaponry to kill innocent civilians, that's what makes them terrorist's.
They should use drones like civilized people.

Who is defined as a terrorist is and always has been a matter of political expediency. The word is so abused at this stage it has no real meaning any more, and it never had a particularly defined meaning anyway.

Pretending this is any different is really pretty silly.

I'm frankly far more disgusted with Obama going to kiss the ass of the new Saudi ruler. I can still never fathom why the Saudis manage to be everyone's best friends when they publicly execute people etc etc etc etc.

When we start calling that lot "state terrorists" and putting them on lists too, I'll believe it is more than a political tool.

 djones520 wrote:
Unless you think soccer half time events of stoning people to death wasn't state ran terrorism.

Even if I did, which I don't, that still doesn't make them a terrorist organisation.They are distinct from groups such as AQ that exist primarily to launch jihadist attacks. Public stoning sounds more like a barbaric form of public execution. It might be terrifying but that does not make it terrorism. Public execution is common to many governments.

 djones520 wrote:
The Taliban uses terror tactics to gain control, ground, etc...

Most governments employ fear in some form if it suits them. Fox news is pretty much constantly fear-mongering for political ends, the allies bombed civilian targets during WWII. Hiroshima was absolutely a terror tactic, but that does not make the United States a "terrorist organisation" does it? Because it is a complex nation that is much more multifaceted.

From personnel experience they're in the "Terrorist" column

 Orlanth wrote:
You should read between the lines here.

The US policy on Al Quaeda is: 'eradicate them'.

The US police on the Taliban is: 'they are hostile and we are actively militarily opposed to them, but at some point we will have to negotiate with them'.

As this goes back to the Bush administration it show that the departments involved have some medium and long forecast planning, possibly through foreign influence. As a policy it makes sense.

Orlanth has it figured out. This is all about the US eventually getting out of Afghanistan.

I mean, if people in this thread would stop with, well, whatever the hell kind of outrage they're trying to drum up and think about this, they'd realise a few basic things. The US is not going to eradicate the Taliban. The US is not going to stay in Afghanistan forever. The US is not going to one day just say 'oh well, those terrorist scum are set to overrun the country but we're leaving anyway, sorry'.

As such, the US has to look for another way out. Trying to deal with the Taliban, or at least deal with more manageable parts of the Taliban, and allowing them a small part in legitimate Afghani society is one possible way out of this mess.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You should read between the lines here.

The US policy on Al Quaeda is: 'eradicate them'.

The US police on the Taliban is: 'they are hostile and we are actively militarily opposed to them, but at some point we will have to negotiate with them'.

As this goes back to the Bush administration it show that the departments involved have some medium and long forecast planning, possibly through foreign influence. As a policy it makes sense.

Orlanth has it figured out. This is all about the US eventually getting out of Afghanistan.

I mean, if people in this thread would stop with, well, whatever the hell kind of outrage they're trying to drum up and think about this, they'd realise a few basic things. The US is not going to eradicate the Taliban. The US is not going to stay in Afghanistan forever. The US is not going to one day just say 'oh well, those terrorist scum are set to overrun the country but we're leaving anyway, sorry'.

As such, the US has to look for another way out. Trying to deal with the Taliban, or at least deal with more manageable parts of the Taliban, and allowing them a small part in legitimate Afghani society is one possible way out of this mess.

So it's been a screw up, and all about saving face.

Only if you ignore the 'eradicate Al-Qaeda' bit. We got that one done.... Well then it just becomes a mess against cause wrecking AQ just led to ISIS so yeah. It's a screw up XD Not much face to save though

 LordofHats wrote:
Only if you ignore the 'eradicate Al-Qaeda' bit. We almost got that one done.... Well then it just becomes a mess against cause wrecking AQ just led to ISIS so yeah. It's a screw up XD Not much face to save though

Fixed that for you.

You need to catch up. Yeah sure some guys still run around with the label, but they have no power, are fractured, and pose no threat to anyone. Effectively AQ is dead. Bin-Laden was the only guy holding it together.

 Da Boss wrote:
Who is defined as a terrorist is and always has been a matter of political expediency. The word is so abused at this stage it has no real meaning any more, and it never had a particularly defined meaning anyway.

Pretending this is any different is really pretty silly.

I'm frankly far more disgusted with Obama going to kiss the ass of the new Saudi ruler. I can still never fathom why the Saudis manage to be everyone's best friends when they publicly execute people etc etc etc etc.

When we start calling that lot "state terrorists" and putting them on lists too, I'll believe it is more than a political tool.

1) Oil
2) Being their allies has huge advantages in the region, with access to the Suez, Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman

They're also not quite as deplorable as most of their neighbors

 LordofHats wrote:
They're also not quite as deplorable as most of their neighbors

I think that qualifies as damning with faint praise.