White House: Taliban is not a terrorist group

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Jan 28, 2015.

  1. aaronvan, Jan 28, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015

    aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    I tend to agree. The Taliban has not tried to attack the U.S. homeland, ever. There are plenty of insurgencies around the world that fall into that category. Certainly, they are terrorists from the local (i.e. Afghan) citizen's POV and local insurgencies can commit terroristic acts (i.e. the Vietcong) against Americans. But are they terrorists in the vein of AQI, Black September, or the IRA? I think not.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...surgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Whatever.

    Though I suspect the Fox News agenda just got set for the next month.
     
  3. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #3
    This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to justify prisoner swaps for a deserter and paying ransom to the enemy.

    The white house should get back to us when they are done playing semantics.
     
  4. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #4
    Probably not.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #5
    People automatically assume the Taliban and al-Qaeda are the same. But to say the Taliban never supported al-Qaeda is a differ story. So technically, it's debatable if the Taliban should be labeled a terror group or not.
     
  6. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    That has been posted quite a few times, and previous US involvement in the Middle East is known. This sounds like the press bickering over choice of words again. I would be more skeptical if they went back to regarding the Taliban as an ally (note photo is Cold War era).
     
  7. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #7
    The arrogant short-sightedness of BO is stunning. Bush didn't attack and defeat the Taliban because they attacked us, but because they refused to hand over OBL. They made Afghanistan a haven for terrorists and will be again, thanks to Obama's feckless leadership.
     
  8. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #8

    1. Prior to 9/11, the Taliban repeatedly offered to hand over Bin Ladin if the U.S. could provide proof of his involvement in terrorist activities against us.

    2. This has absolutely nothing to do with the initial invasion of Afganistan. The only thing it might put into question is why the **** we remained there for so **** long, wasting so many American lives in the process?
     
  9. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #9
    They offered to hand him over while we were bombing them. It would have been Vietnam all over again, the Taliban quibbling over which third party country they'd accept, dragging things out and stalling our attack. Bush was correct to keep the pressure on the Taliban rather than accept bogus negotiations.

    What has nothing do do with the initial invasion?

    It was the War Against Terrorism, didn't you know? Bush said at the outset that it would take a long time to win. Wars cost lives, but we lost very few in Afghanistan compared to other wars. There were 2,039 KIA to defeat the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run. Heck we lost a 1,000 KIA in the rehearsal for D-Day, so the relatively low casualty count in Afghanistan was amazing.
     
  10. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #10
    Mujahideen not = Taliban not = AQ. Nothing you don't already know, not that it matters.

    I don't care what they called. It all translates to air strike material. As a soldier that was deployed, **** those dudes.
     
  11. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #11
    Ties back into the whole thing of people thinking all muslim groups are terrorists, thus all muslims are terrorists doesn't it.

    A view which is rife unfortunately.
     
  12. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #12
    Really? The Taliban is still an evil group that is our enemy. This isn't a case of a town thinking the local Muslim shop owner is a terrorist.
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    Wars have to come to an end.

    There were soldiers deployed to Europe to fight the Nazis. But when the war was over, we stopped bombing them

    The war in Afghanistan is coming to an end. We were successful - we got Osama bin Laden and the network connected with 9/11.

    Unless we want to remain forever at war; with a monthly diet of body bags and maimed service people; we have to stop fighting there. We have to stop sending patrols and bombing missions there.

    And at some point we have to stop referring to the Taliban in terms that classify them as an automatic enemy.
     
  14. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #14
    We won?' I disagree. Iraq and Afghanistan are conflicts where battles were won, but the wars were lost.

    We are "technically" out of Iraq, and it's worse than ever. Afghanistan still have very strong insurgencies, and as soon as we leave it will collapse in to the same hell it was before.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    There is a difference between "winning" a war; and achieving in your original aims.

    We got rid of Saddam Hussein (and made sure he didn't have any WMD.) We got rid of the Osama bin Laden's network in Afghanistan.

    We achieved our objectives.

    It was only when we started adding additional jobs that we ran into problems. And lets be realistic and say that some of those tasks were never really achievable, no matter how much blood and treasure we poured into Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Are we totally "happy" with the way things are in Iraq or Afghanistan? Obviously not. But thats not the way things usually work when a war is over.

    The Taliban are a threat to the 20th century and the questionable ethics of the current Afghan government.. To the educational prospects of Afghan women. But they aren't going to start sending terrorists to New York or Boston to blow up bridges.
     
  16. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #16
    It doesn't matter whether they're you're enemy (who's "our" anyway, and who do you think you are to tell me who my "enemy" should be?)....... The point of the fact is that as the white house is noting, that insurgency, and terrorism are different things....

    I've seen a number of comments on here in the past, that clearly show that there's a number of users who think that mujahedin, taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL/ISIS and all muslims are all the same thing, and all the enemy of the white west..... That may not be you..... but there are plenty here who do.
     
  17. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #17
    The White House is playing a game of semantics. Terrorists? Insurgents? Irrelevant to the fact they are our enemy. They would gladly kidnap us for ransom or kill us if given the chance. If that doesn't define enemy, I don't know what does.

    ----------

    If we achieved our objectives, we would have left immediately following accomplishing them. Instead, we stayed for years as our government wondered how we could ever leave without the countries collapsing in to chaos. This is why Obama made no drastic moves before his reelection. They all knew these outcomes were inevitable. It was just a matter of deciding when to yank off he bandaid.

    The Taliban may not send people to blow us up, but it has been proven there are home grown sympathizers who will. They are also definitely within range of European targets. They're currently too busy with us, but what do you think will happen when we leave? They aren't just going to return to a peaceful life.
     
  18. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #18


    Well there is a difference between terrorism and insurgency..... I can see you struggle to grasp that though
     
  19. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #19
    When the insurgency expands outside the borders of their own country, the difference is very neglible.
     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    Fine. Its very easy to point out flaws and failures. Shortcomings and disappointments with the status quo.

    But what is the alternative? Do we really want to keep going with an unwinnable war forever? Do we really want to spend tens/hundreds of billions of dollars on a military occupation of a country that really is of no strategic importance to us? And how many dead and wounded American soldiers is that worth?

    The US military has had over a dozen years to "win" in Afghanistan. It has been spared no weapon system; no number of troops. It has had allies; it has had the support of the American people; and it has had the resources of the most technologically advanced weapons ever conceived. You can't blame Jane Fonda or the Hippies for "losing" this war. It could never have been won to begin with.

    And we are no closer to "eliminating" the Taliban than we were a dozen years ago. And in many key metrics (ie. the production of opium) Afghanistan is considerably worse off.

    Complain all you want. But unless you can come up with an alternative strategy, then you are essentially asking us to continue ad infinitum a war that cannot be won.
     
  21. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #21
    I would have been out years ago. Continuing now is as pointless as it was 5 years ago.
     
  22. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    For decades the U.S. has believed and based policy on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Yes it bites us in the ass , undermines our international reputation, diminishes our protestations about terrorists and our professed morality.
     
  23. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #23
    But it doesn't mean they are the same, right now does it. :rolleyes:
     
  24. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #24
    Their influence has already breeched international borders.
     
  25. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #25
    Thats not an alternative, thats just hindsight (which say say is allways 20 20 ...).

    And I really don't see what the fuss is all about, not calling them terrorist anymore is just is just aligning the spolen worth a bit more with the truth. Doesn't mean the they won't be considered enemys anymore.
     

Share This Page