Is The Taliban A Terrorist Organization?

[Secret Chief]

You think you are demented?
Look at me...I started this ding dang thread!
I regret it already, but now I'm committed.

You should be.

 

[Secret Chief]

I generally see the terrorist as the group that uses acts of terrorism as a military strategy used by an inferior group with limited power in an attempt to use fear/emotions to affect change in a larger more powerful entity.

If you can't win a war/battle through force, you use fear. This usually means fears of people being attack who can't defend themselves.

If you are the group in power, you no longer need to use fear as a military tactic to win the battle.

If the Taliban were at war with the US for example then likely they'd use terrorist tactics. If we aren't currently at war, there'd be no need for them.

Exactly; asymmetric war. If your enemy has an unbelievably massive military advantage then you don't wage war by turning up at a pre-arranged time in the field next to the castle.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally I don’t need a list to tell me an organisation are terrorists,that being said we do business with Saudi who have pumped money Into the Taliban,Pakistan who let them come and go as they like but they sure are terrorists,what a mess if al wards set up shop there too,the Taliban are deobandi and much more conservative than Eagan is.

We're facing multiple standards....
1) US government official list, which governs RF rules.
2) Strict definition of "terrorism".
3) A violent or oppressive government.
4) Your definition here.

 

[Revoltingest]

You should be.

I knew that was coming!

 

[Secret Chief]

I knew that was coming!

I hate to disappoint.

 

[Secret Chief]

We're facing multiple standards....
1) US government official list, which governs RF rules.
2) Strict definition of "terrorism".
3) A violent or oppressive government.
4) Your definition here.

The terrorists in Ireland ended up in government.
The terrorists in South Africa ended up in government.

 

[Revoltingest]

On this basis you can certainly call the American and Russian governments terror organisations, based on recent history.

Personal experience....
I once worked on a project designed to create terror.
It did so by being so capable of killing so many so quickly.

Before anyone thinks I'm advocating illegality....let me
state that this was for a US government contractor.
It was all perfectly legal.
However, I cannot vouch for usage of the product once
in the hands of government.

 

[Revoltingest]

The terrorists in Ireland ended up in government.
The terrorists in South Africa ended up in government.

But that's impossible....they're not on the Federal Government's list.

Disclaimer:
The above is either sarcasm or sarchasm, depending upon the reader.

 

[Nakosis]

I suppose they could be called a terrorist organization by some.
But then many people consider the US government and the Israeli government as terrorist organizations.

It’s in the eye of the beholder.

It the US and or Israel commit acts of terror, i.e. specifically target enemy civilians to cause fear within the civilian populations.
Perhaps we do.

However acts of war that attack military combatants, I don't see as terrorism. Not to say collateral doesn't occur but the difference being whether the civilian population was specifically targeted.

 

[sun rise]

At the risk of sounding cliché, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Witness the Jewish Irgun in pre-Israel Palestine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Witness the Jewish Irgun in pre-Israel Palestine.

When terrorists are our freedom fighting allies, it becomes murky.

 

[Revoltingest]

It the US and or Israel commit acts of terror, i.e. specifically target enemy civilians to cause fear within the civilian populations.
Perhaps we do.

However acts of war that attack military combatants, I don't see as terrorism. Not to say collateral doesn't occur but the difference being whether the civilian population was specifically targeted.

We also have terrorism committed ad hoc by soldiers.
When prosecution is lacking, this could constitute tacit
approval by government.

 

[Kooky]

Designating organizations as "terrorist" is ultimately a political tool of the US government with all its implications, so if the US government says that they are terrorists, then that's that.

Of course, being disliked by a sitting US government isn't necessarily a mark against a political movement. The Trump administration marked Antifa as "terrorists" and it's not like fighting against fascism is something to be condemned.

 

[sun rise]

I became interested in what criteria is used to designate an organization as terrorist: Foreign Terrorist Organizations - United States Department of State

First level from that web page, it seems pretty clear to me:

1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

The two links in #2 are listed as obsolete. But it includes items such as highjacking, sabotage, violent attacks, assassination, using biological agents. The second link has this definition: ** Section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

From a strict reading of that, to wit, "subnational", nation states cannot be terrorist organizations by definition.

So from my totally subjective, non-lawyer point of view, the government of Afghanistan cannot be a "foreign terrorist organization" by definition.

If there's a "Taliban" separate from the government of Afghanistan, they can be considered such.

 

[England my lionheart]

We're facing multiple standards....
1) US government official list, which governs RF rules.
2) Strict definition of "terrorism".
3) A violent or oppressive government.
4) Your definition here.

Number one:US law is for reference governing RF rules not a list,number 4 terrorists imo

 

[Revoltingest]

Number one:US law is for reference governing RF rules....

Yes, we've covered governing US law & designation ruling here.
(I understand that when an ally commits acts of terrorism, it
isn't legally terrorism by US Federal Government decree.)
However, I was addressing common usage in that post.

 

[Wu Wei]

Designating organizations as "terrorist" is ultimately a political tool of the US government with all its implications, so if the US government says that they are terrorists, then that's that.

Of course, being disliked by a sitting US government isn't necessarily a mark against a political movement. The Trump administration marked Antifa as "terrorists" and it's not like fighting against fascism is something to be condemned.

Multiple governments, law enforcement Organizations and militaries globally maintain lists of terrorist, not just the US

Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, New Zealand, Pakistan (believe it or not), United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Nations and the United States listed the Taliban as a terrorist organization

The Russian Federation did a well, but I am not so sure now

 

[Altfish]

Not sure what an official definition of terrorism is but I've always assume it was a group/organisation that advanced its beliefs by scaring/frightening the people it opposes.

By that definition The Taliban are terrorists, and Trump just about isn't ... but The Proud Boys and some extreme Antifa factions are.

 

[Wu Wei]

Not sure what an official definition of terrorism is but I've always assume it was a group/organisation that advanced its beliefs by scaring/frightening the people it opposes.

By that definition The Taliban are terrorists, and Trump just about isn't ... but The Proud Boys and some extreme Antifa factions are.

Interesting thing about that. There is no globally agreed upon definition of terrorism. There can even be differences with between US Law enforcement organization, Intelligence organizations and the military.

 

[Nakosis]

We also have terrorism committed ad hoc by soldiers.
When prosecution is lacking, this could constitute tacit
approval by government.

Doesn't really change the definition IMO.

If the act is done with the intent to cause terror in the civilian population.
If it is done to feel powerful or because they are stupid ********, it is still evil and wrong but not terrorism or at least what I would define as terrorism.