Is The Taliban A Terrorist Organization?

[Altfish]

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.

To be fair, some 'Terrorist' organisations have been on the right side.
e.g. I didn't agree with their tactics but the ANC in South Africa and the IRA in Northern Ireland were fighting for the 'good guys'

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I don't know what the definition is.
Functionally, "terrorism" appears to be anything violent
done by people disliked. So it's entirely perspective laden.
I'm considering giving up on using the word at all.
The Taliban are....uh..."the Taliban.

Disclaimer:
I do not approve, condone, or praise the Taliban or any terrorists.

 

[Wu Wei]

To be fair, some 'Terrorist' organisations have been on the right side.
e.g. I didn't agree with their tactics but the ANC in South Africa and the IRA in Northern Ireland were fighting for the 'good guys'

In some situations terrorists are who the government deems to be terrorists, right or wrong, the guys in charge make the lists. China calles Hong Kong Protestors terrorists. Some revolutionaries have been labeled terrorists by the government they were fighting. Not all terrorist labels are created equal

 

[England my lionheart]

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.

Ok fair enough,it’s interesting that Biden has sent the CIA cap in hand for a meeting with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar the co founder of the Taliban to ask for a withdrawal extension to which the answer is no,is this a defining moment for Biden,I have an urge to call him “sleeping joe Biden”,forgive me for that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok fair enough,it’s interesting that Biden has sent the CIA cap in hand for a meeting with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar the co founder of the Taliban to ask for a withdrawal extension to which the answer is no,is this a defining moment for Biden,I have an urge to call him “sleeping joe Biden”,forgive me for that.

We seeing theater at this point.
I'll judge Biden by his response to actual events.

 

[We Never Know]

The PRC & DPRK are also pretty terrifying.
Yet I didn't see them on the US list of terrorist organizations.
Why?
Perhaps because they're governments running a country.
But the same would apply to the Afghan Taliban.

I don't know what the definition is.
Functionally, "terrorism" appears to be anything violent
done by people disliked. So it's entirely perspective laden.
I'm considering giving up on using the word at all.
The Taliban are....uh..."the Taliban.

Disclaimer:
I do not approve, condone, or praise the Taliban or any terrorists.

In the US....

U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113B, Section 2331, which defines terrorism.

It defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know what the definition is.
Functionally, "terrorism" appears to be anything violent
done by people disliked. So it's entirely perspective laden.
I'm considering giving up on using the word at all.
The Taliban are....uh..."the Taliban.

Disclaimer:
I do not approve, condone, or praise the Taliban or any terrorists.

I read the definition I use somewhere and it made sense to me.
A military tactic to use acts of violence to cause terror in a civilian population to further a political agenda.

Unfortunately it's been diluted like the word socialism so it can be used to emotionally manipulate an audience.
A process not very useful in making any determination.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the US....

U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113B, Section 2331, which defines terrorism.

It defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

That's a fine technical definition.
But it doesn't appear to be the one applied by it's source.

 

[Revoltingest]

I read the definition I use somewhere and it made sense to me.
A military tactic to use acts of violence to cause terror in a civilian population to further a political agenda.

That's pretty much what I once thought.
But it's obsolete in this post dictionary age.

Unfortunately it's been diluted like the word socialism so it can be used to emotionally manipulate an audience.
A process not very useful in making any determination.

Seems about right.

 

[We Never Know]

Ok fair enough,it’s interesting that Biden has sent the CIA cap in hand for a meeting with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar the co founder of the Taliban to ask for a withdrawal extension to which the answer is no,is this a defining moment for Biden,I have an urge to call him “sleeping joe Biden”,forgive me for that.

Do you mean this secretive meeting?

CIA chief secretly met Taliban leader as Biden faces pressure over Afghan evacuation deadline

CIA director holds secret meeting with Taliban leader in Kabul: reports - Xinhua

 

[We Never Know]

That's a fine technical definition.
But it doesn't appear to be the one applied by it's source.

If the Taliban doesn't reach out of Afganastan, wouldn't that be like domestic terrorism?

Of course that's my opinion on the thought.

 

[Secret Chief]

It was all perfectly legal.

That's alright then.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the Taliban doesn't reach out of Afganastan, wouldn't that be like domestic terrorism?

I don't know.
I'd just call it violent oppression.

 

[England my lionheart]

Do you mean this secretive meeting?

CIA chief secretly met Taliban leader as Biden faces pressure over Afghan evacuation deadline

CIA director holds secret meeting with Taliban leader in Kabul: reports - Xinhua

Which obviously isn’t a secret,Britain Germany and a few others want an extension but Biden isn’t ,the Taliban leader apparently has threatened undisclosed acts if it is.

 

[Stevicus]

I considered posting that (sharing one brain again),
but thought it would be a rule violation, ie, it's wrong
to call the Taliban "freedom fighters" because that
would be to praise a US designated terrorist organization.

However, I should be safe in recognizing that some
people might could possibly view them as such.

Disclaimers:
- I oppose the Taliban.
- Nothing posted should be construed as praise, justification,
apologetics, approval, tolerance, or anything remotely positive.
- I oppose terrorist organizations that the Federal Government
does not, & gives a pass to. I oppose all terrorism.

I guess it would depend on how one defines "praise" or anything positive. At this point, I don't think it's against U.S. law to say positive things about a terrorist group. It might be in bad taste or offensive to some, but is it unlawful? I don't think so.

Sometimes, it's also a matter of dates. In 1831, Nat Turner might have been considered a "terrorist" by the authorities of the time, but now, he's considered an American hero.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess it would depend on how one defines "praise" or anything positive. At this point, I don't think it's against U.S. law to say positive things about a terrorist group. It might be in bad taste or offensive to some, but is it unlawful? I don't think so.

Sometimes, it's also a matter of dates. In 1831, Nat Turner might have been considered a "terrorist" by the authorities of the time, but now, he's considered an American hero.

What is legal isn't necessarily permissible on RF.
But what's illegal is generally prohibited on RF.
(US law)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This whole thing is such an interesting question. In trying to find a sensible answer, I was kind of forced to ask myself this question:

Is it possible that what is genuinely a terrorist organization could defeat and take over the government of some country -- large or small, doesn't matter? And if they could, would their becoming a government immediately alter their status from being a terrorist organization to not being one?

And in my view, the answer seems to be "no."

How other nations deal with that, however, is another whole question.

 

[Revoltingest]

This whole thing is such an interesting question. In trying to find a sensible answer, I was kind of forced to ask myself this question:

Is it possible that what is genuinely a terrorist organization could defeat and take over the government of some country -- large or small, doesn't matter? And if they could, would their becoming a government immediately alter their status from being a terrorist organization to not being one?

And in my view, the answer seems to be "no."

How other nations deal with that, however, is another whole question.

I like thoughtful consideration.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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.

You are quite correct, imo.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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.

What is interesting about terrorism, is the terrorist never thinks they are, but the terroree sure does.

I’m just saying from the standpoint of a terroree.

What do you think of my new word?