Administration Says Taliban Are Not Terrorist

[esmith]

It now seems that the Administration has decided that the Taliban are not terrorist but "armed insurgents" During a White House press briefing White House spokesman Eric Schultz when asked about a Jordanian plan to swap a would-be suicide bomber for a Jordanian pilot being held by Islamic State militants, the White House reiterated the longstanding policy of the U.S. to refuse negotiations with terrorists. He was then asked about Army Sgt. .Bergadahl's swap for Taliban operatives. His response was that the Taliban are considered "armed insurgents" vice terrorist.
The above was partially obtained from: White House Labels Taliban ‘Armed Insurgency,’ Not Terrorists - Washington Wire - WSJ
Well I guess you have to spin it someway.

 

[Seeker of the Ancients]

Oh boy... Where to begin?

Well for starters, your source of information is faulty. The Wall Street Journal is a division of News Corp, the "news" organization headed by the infamous conservative, Rupert Murdoch. NOTHING that comes out of that conservative propaganda machine can be trusted as objective fact. FOX News and the New York Post (two other divisions of News Corp) are notorious for spin-doctoring and in many cases outright lying to the public in order to discredit liberal views and give legitimacy to conservative ones. While the WSJ isn't quite as bad since it primarily focuses on economic issues, it is still subject to bias and will tailor stories to discredit progressive or democratic administrations.

As for the actual point of the article, I am in no way a friend to the Taliban. Their brutal and oppressive policies make me sick to my stomach. However, while it is true that the administration did not refer to the Taliban as terrorists in this instance, it's important to note that they never have. The Taliban was the fundamentalist Islamic regime that controlled Afghanistan prior to being overthrown after the events of 9/11, resulting in them forming an armed insurgency against us for the duration of the war. And while people the world over have decried the massive list of human rights violations the Taliban has accrued over the years, neither the United States government nor the UN has officially declared the Taliban to be a terrorist group. Whether you agree with this or not is another debate entirely, but this was the policy long before Obama came to office.

So why would they make a big deal about it in this article? My analysis: it's an alarmist smokescreen. Especially since the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, FOX News and the other divisions of News Corp have been trying to capitalize on the idea that Obama is "soft on terrorism". While this is not the case, they have had success pushing this idea primarily by using articles and "news stories" like this one. This particular story aims to prey on the ignorance of its readers, many of whom likely believe that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are one in the same. They are not, and the latter is the one that is actually recognized as a terrorist organization. But by implying that the Taliban was once considered a terrorist group (again, false), they give false legitimacy to their conservative narrative, drumming up disapproval for the current administration and, by association, the Democratic Party.

Ah... Deception at its finest.

 

[Laika]

I got the impression that the Taliban were kind of local warlords, whereas Al Qaeda were entirely separate Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists. (the Taliban wanted to hand Bin Laden over after 9/11, but that wasn't enough for the Bush Administration).

Am I wrong on this?

 

[Augustus]

I got the impression that the Taliban were kind of local warlords, whereas Al Qaeda were entirely separate Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists. (the Taliban wanted to hand Bin Laden over after 9/11, but that wasn't enough for the Bush Administration).

Am I wrong on this?

Pretty much correct (except that they didn't offer to hand him over to America). They were a group that grew out of the Islamist resistance to the Soviets and eventually seized power during the civil war of the early-mid 90s. They are not 'classical' Islamists as they mix their Islamic and Pashtun ideologies in a way a group like ISIS would probably find heretical.

People tend to lump all 'Islamists' as being the same and basically equal to 'terrorist' without paying any attention to the significant differences.

I posted this in another thread so will copy paste it here:

The lumping together of things like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIS, Abu Sayyaf, MILF etc as just being 'Islamic terror groups', completely misses the significant differences between their aims and ideologies.

MILF are/were pretty much a 'normal' nationalist group who happened to be Muslims.

The Taliban a Pashtun/Deobandi extremist nationalist group.

Al-Qaeda a transnational Salafi-Jihadi terrorist group.

ISIS an ultra extreme Salafi-Jihadi Islamo-nationalist group.

The you have the Shia groups who often function as an extension of Iranian foreign policy

Hamas which is a recognised governing power as well as a militant group

non-violent Islamists like Hizb ul-Tahrir

etc.

 

[Laika]

Thanks for that.

People tend to lump all 'Islamists' as being the same and basically equal to 'terrorist' without paying any attention to the significant differences.

This makes a lot of sense as the media tends to simplify everything into one monolithic "other". Communism is similar in being presented as huge monolithic bloc whilst having a huge number of heretical 'factions' with often intricate and subtle differences of interpretation that wouldn't make much sense to outsiders. I think we forget to think about diversity for social groups we aren't part of, whereas we a more sensitive to the ones we are familiar with.

I can well imagine the same happening with "Islamists" as whilst they may all share the same very broadly defined political goal of an "Islamic state", that doesn't mean the same interpretation of Islam as a basis for individual laws or institutional arrangements. It probably won't matter much to the general public, but it would make a difference for the intelligence services and academics trying to make sense of what is going on.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

They finally realized that Taliban is the legitimate govt in Afghanistan and it enjoys the greater support. Hench it cant be terrorist group. Because Taliban(no matter how much u disagree with them) wants only to rule Afghanistan. They dont threaten to blow up White House or to commit suicideattacks in Europe.


In my view only ISIS, Alqeada, Boko Haram and Alshabab can be seen as terrorists because they strike down in other countries. All they want is to terrorize people.
Groups like Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan(Taliban), Ahraar Al Shaam, Liwa Tawhiid, Hamas cannot be labled terrorists. They pose no threat to West or to Muslim countries. All they want is to rule the places where they came from and where they enjoy support from locals. It is unwise to call all islamic groups terrorists just because they want to rule by Islamic Law.

 

[Augustus]

I can well imagine the same happening with "Islamists" as whilst they may all share the same very broadly defined political goal of an "Islamic state", that doesn't mean the same interpretation of Islam as a basis for individual laws or institutional arrangements. It probably won't matter much to the general public, but it would make a difference for the intelligence services and academics trying to make sense of what is going on.

As a commie, you might be interested in Sayyid Qutb's, and other contemporary Islamists borrowings from Leninist revolutionary ideology (and their borrowings from Naziism).

Bit of a summary here, there are also more 'academic' sources if you can access them

The Leninist Revolutionary Manifesto of Sayyid Qutb

They finally realized that Taliban is the legitimate govt in Afghanistan and it enjoys the greater support.

That's a bit like saying Asad's regime is the legitimate government of Syria...

 

[Laika]

As a commie, you might be interested in Sayyid Qutb's, and other contemporary Islamists borrowings from Leninist revolutionary ideology (and their borrowings from Naziism).

Bit of a summary here, there are also more 'academic' sources if you can access them

The Leninist Revolutionary Manifesto of Sayyid Qutb

There was a brief period of mixing between Islam and Communism in the 1920's and 30's in the USSR in central Asia and some mention of a strand of 'Islamic Marxism' which survived till the 60's and 70's. I'm very sketchy on the details. A similar combination happened with many Communists using Christian rhetoric as well, but it didn't last. The Soviets were initially more tolerant of Muslims because they were considered an exploited colonial people until Stalin took over.

I've suspected there was a connection between that and modern-day Islamists use of the term "Imperialist west". Communism is in some ways closely resembles a theocratic system in not making a distinction between politics, ethics and law as happens in liberal, secular systems, so I can understand how it could translate into an Islamist system. But it's nice to see how the dots connect. Many, many thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh boy... Where to begin?

Well for starters, your source of information is faulty. The Wall Street Journal is a division of News Corp, the "news" organization headed by the infamous conservative, Rupert Murdoch. NOTHING that comes out of that conservative propaganda machine can be trusted as objective fact.

^ This statement has the intellectual depth of a paper plate.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

^ This statement has the intellectual depth of a paper plate.

LOL That is kind of harsh...

 

[Iti oj]

^ This statement has the intellectual depth of a paper plate.

Do you plan on saying why? Your posts reads like a crumbled napkin.

 

[BSM1]

Oh boy... Where to begin?

Well for starters, your source of information is faulty. The Wall Street Journal is a division of News Corp, the "news" organization headed by the infamous conservative, Rupert Murdoch. NOTHING that comes out of that conservative propaganda machine can be trusted as objective fact. FOX News and the New York Post (two other divisions of News Corp) are notorious for spin-doctoring and in many cases outright lying to the public in order to discredit liberal views and give legitimacy to conservative ones. While the WSJ isn't quite as bad since it primarily focuses on economic issues, it is still subject to bias and will tailor stories to discredit progressive or democratic administrations.

As for the actual point of the article, I am in no one a friend to the Taliban. Their brutal and oppressive policies make me sick to my stomach. However, while it is true that the administration did not refer to the Taliban as terrorists in this instance, it's important to note that they never have. The Taliban was the fundamentalist Islamic regime that controlled Afghanistan prior to being overthrown after the events of 9/11, resulting in them forming an armed insurgency against us for the duration of the war. And while people the world over have decried the massive list of human rights violations the Taliban has accrued over the years, neither the United States government nor the UN has officially declared the Taliban to be a terrorist group. Whether you agree with this or not is another debate entirely, but this was the policy long before Obama came to office.

So why would they make a big deal about it in this article? My analysis: it's an alarmist smokescreen. Especially since the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, FOX News and the other divisions of News Corp have been trying to capitalize on the idea that Obama is "soft on terrorism". While this is not the case, they have had success pushing this idea primarily by using articles and "news stories" like this one. This particular story aims to prey on the ignorance of its readers, many of whom likely believe that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are one in the same. They are not, and the latter is the one that is actually recognized as a terrorist organization. But by implying that the Taliban was once considered a terrorist group (again, false), they give false legitimacy to their conservative narrative, drumming up disapproval for the current administration and, by association, the Democratic Party.

Ah... Deception at its finest.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I believe that gunning down 150 innocent Pakistani school kids does allow you to add "terrorist" to your "armed insurgent" ID card.

 

[Augustus]

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I believe that gunning down 150 innocent Pakistani school kids does allow you to add "terrorist" to your "armed insurgent" ID card.

Was a different Taliban... Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan is not 'the' Taliban.

 

[BSM1]

Was a different Taliban...

Of course it was....

 

[Augustus]

Of course it was....

Look it up. "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan"

 

[BSM1]

Look it up. "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan"

Uh-huh...sure.

 

[Augustus]

Uh-huh...sure.

One of the all time greatest, most devastating and intellectually rigorous polemics. Rhetoric so profound it is as if Cicero himself had come back from the dead to wield a pen once more...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you plan on saying why?

Shucks … you're right. The WSJ is obviously nothing but a mouthpiece of right-wing propaganda and distortion.

Your posts reads like a crumbled napkin.

It's hard to clean up drivel and end up with a pristine napkin.

 

[metis]

The Taliban is a rather large tribe that covers parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so certainly the Taliban as a tribe are not all terrorists. However, no doubt that there are many in the Taliban that either are or whom support such activities, and it's possible (and probable, imo) that most are at least supportive of what we may call "terrorism". [remember that one person's "terrorists" are another person's "freedom fighters".]

 

[Augustus]

The Taliban is a rather large tribe that covers parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so certainly the Taliban as a tribe are not all terrorists. However, no doubt that there are many in the Taliban that either are or whom support such activities, and it's possible (and probable, imo) that most are at least supportive of what we may call "terrorism". [remember that one person's "terrorists" are another person's "freedom fighters".]

Pashtun is an ethnic/cultural identity in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. they make up just under half of the Afghan population. The Taliban, are an Afghan political/religious/Pashtun nationalist group.