Administration Says Taliban Are Not Terrorist

[metis]

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.

Yes, but about double the Afghan total are found in Pakistan, and it was pushed by the Pakistani military to begin with.

 

[BSM1]

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...

So are you defending the Afghanistan Taliban?

 

[JerryL]

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.

It's not a tribe; but rather a political movement.

Other political movements include the TeaParty, the Libertarians, The Nazis (National Socialist German Workers' Party), etc.

And no: I'm not attempting to claim they are similar in their place on the evil/good scale. It's not an attack.

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".]

Yes. When AlQuaeda was known as the Mujahadeen, and their attacks were against eastern power rather than western powers: we called them "freedom fighters". See also the Contras.

Heck: the American revolutionaries engaged an a large number of activities which were clearly terrorist in nature... targeting non-military governmental employees (tax collectors) and loyalists.

 

[BSM1]

Heck: the American revolutionaries engaged an a large number of activities which were clearly terrorist in nature... targeting non-military governmental employees (tax collectors) and loyalists.[/QUOTE]

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the American revolutionaries had declared war on another sovereign nation. They also had a uniformed standing army that could be identified. Although some of their tactics were brutal they were in a state of war. The terrorists we see in the Mideast seem to attack at random without provocation.

 

[Seeker of the Ancients]

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

Sooo... pointing out that the corporation that runs the WSJ is headed by a man who is staunchly conservative and encourages the people under him to run stories that either positively frame conservative arguments or attack liberal ones and saying that this affects the objectivity of the news source is an intellectually asinine statement?

Noting that while the WSJ isn't as horrible as the other branches of News Corp (I see you neglected to notice that part of my comment/purposely edited it and my explanation of reasoning out, so I'll restate it here), it is still known for twisting and spin doctoring stories to attack alternative political positions (such as the article posted here) and as such, probably shouldn't be your only source of information regarding a mildly (I almost don't even want to say that) controversial statement made by an administration of the opposing party is somehow using the intellectual depth of a paper plate?

Damn... And here I was thinking I was smart. I graduated from the 5th grade and everything.

 

[metis]

It's not a tribe; but rather a political movement.

Other political movements include the TeaParty, the Libertarians, The Nazis (National Socialist German Workers' Party), etc.

And no: I'm not attempting to claim they are similar in their place on the evil/good scale. It's not an attack.


Yes. When AlQuaeda was known as the Mujahadeen, and their attacks were against eastern power rather than western powers: we called them "freedom fighters". See also the Contras.

Heck: the American revolutionaries engaged an a large number of activities which were clearly terrorist in nature... targeting non-military governmental employees (tax collectors) and loyalists.

I agree with all of the above, but there are some experts whom have referred to the Taliban as a "tribe" since they do have some distinctions that are different from the larger whole. However, I know what you're saying and I agree.

 

[Poeticus]

A group that butchers young children, particularly young girls, for attending school; that routinely flogs and molests women on a daily basis; that has perpetrated atrocities against the Hazaras since its very inception; that drove out a considerably huge section of Afghanistan's Sikhs and Hindus after having them wear stars as religious identifiers, much akin to how the Nazis forcefully had the Jews wear the Star of David insignia; is ... not a terrorist group?

 

[JerryL]

A group that butchers young children, particularly young girls, for attending school; that routinely flogs and molests women on a daily basis; that has perpetrated atrocities against the Hazaras since its very inception; that drove out a considerably huge section of Afghanistan's Sikhs and Hindus after having them wear stars as religious identifiers, much akin to how the Nazis forcefully had the Jews wear the Star of David insignia; is ... not a terrorist group?

Because atrocities done by a government in power are simply atrocities. To be terrorism the purpose must be to terrorize a group with the goal of getting a specific action from that group.

To extend "terrorist" to the oppression of a people by their state is to declare terrorist basically every government prior to the 18th century. (and bluntly even then: The US vs natives, the southern US vs blacks, the West vs Chinese, etc... and let's not start on the French revolution.)

 

[Augustus]

So are you defending the Afghanistan Taliban?

Jesus wept.

Your line of argument is like this:
b-"Al-Qaeda enslaved lots of Yezidis"
a- That was ISIS not al-Qaeda
b- "Are you defending al-Qaeda?"

; is ... not a terrorist group?

While there is certainly a fair dose of political expediency in the way it is used in the OP, in general you would expect the US government to have a more nuanced approach than simply viewing everyone as identikit 'terrorists'.

It is hard to deny that armed insurgent is a more accurate description of the Taliban than simply terrorist. Same is true for other groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram, who have armies and seek to take and hold areas of land rather than simply carrying out individual attacks.

People have a problem with them not being called terrorists because it terrorist has just become a synonym for 'bad guys who hate America' and armed insurgent doesn't have the same emotional punch. If you call them armed insurgents then it seems to some people as if you are giving them a ringing endorsement and absolving them of any crimes, rather than simply describing what they actually are.

The problem is today the only important thing for politicians is which particular carefully crafted 5 second soundbite they play on TV, rather than any attempt at keeping people informed accurately. The public is often so misinformed that many issues exist in a 'alternative reality', where politicians create imaginary solutions for problems as they exist in voters' heads, rather than how they exist in the 'real world'.

'Terrorism' is one of these key areas which tends to exist in a magical fantasy land with very little grounding in what is actually true.

 

[BSM1]

Jesus wept.

Your line of argument is like this:
b-"Al-Qaeda enslaved lots of Yezidis"
a- That was ISIS not al-Qaeda
b- "Are you defending al-Qaeda?"



While there is certainly a fair dose of political expediency in the way it is used in the OP, in general you would expect the US government to have a more nuanced approach than simply viewing everyone as identikit 'terrorists'.

It is hard to deny that armed insurgent is a more accurate description of the Taliban than simply terrorist. Same is true for other groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram, who have armies and seek to take and hold areas of land rather than simply carrying out individual attacks.

People have a problem with them not being called terrorists because it terrorist has just become a synonym for 'bad guys who hate America' and armed insurgent doesn't have the same emotional punch. If you call them armed insurgents then it seems to some people as if you are giving them a ringing endorsement and absolving them of any crimes, rather than simply describing what they actually are.

The problem is today the only important thing for politicians is which particular carefully crafted 5 second soundbite they play on TV, rather than any attempt at keeping people informed accurately. The public is often so misinformed that many issues exist in a 'alternative reality', where politicians create imaginary solutions for problems as they exist in voters' heads, rather than how they exist in the 'real world'.

'Terrorism' is one of these key areas which tends to exist in a magical fantasy land with very little grounding in what is actually true.

I thought I was fairly explicit in my question. Why would you dodge it?

 

[Augustus]

I thought I was fairly explicit in my question. Why would you dodge it?

Because it was not really worthy of a serious response. I think you can infer the answer pretty easily from my reply anyway.

 

[BSM1]

Because it was not really worthy of a serious response. I think you can infer the answer pretty easily from my reply anyway.

That sure makes it convenient for those that cannot or will not answer....

 

[Augustus]

That sure makes it convenient for those that cannot or will not answer....

Yeah, I'm a massive fan. The world has far too many 1500 year old statues, musical instruments and visible women after all and not enough beards, ethnic cleansing and forced conscription of children. Massive fan.

 

[Iti oj]

That sure makes it convenient for those that cannot or will not answer....

How does correcting a factual mistake you made equal supporting them?