Obama Admin, "Taliban are not terrorists." Taliban, "We are so, see!" "PEW! PEW! PEW!"

the OBAMA admin and OBAMA need to get their stories straight.

We don’t get to choose our enemies when we go to war,” Carney told reporters.We don’t get to choose our enemies when we go to war,” Carney told reporters. “We regard the Taliban as an enemy combatant in a conflict that has been going on, in which the United States has been involved for more than a decade. In this case--as you know we dealt with the Qataris in order to secure [Bergdahl’s] release--it was absolutely the right thing to do.”
But Tuesday White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list.
Home> Politics White House: Yes, The Taliban Is a Terrorist Organization

OBAMA and his cronies don't know if they are coming or going.

a reply to: Anyafaj

Well gee, I can't simplify that one anymore for ya son! But if you want, I can do more net searching and see what I find to spank ya further. Shall I try? Or are we done here?

You didn't do any spanking in the first place and it makes me wonder if reading was taught while you were in school. Read the real title not the one you made up.

Taliban says agent infiltrated Afghan's security forces for attack that killed 3 Americans

This means they had someone act like they were part of the Afghan forces to get close to Americans. Next look at who made the statement Zabihullah Mujahid had you done any research you would have found out this guy is from Pakistan not Afghanistan they are two different nations and two different factions of the Taliban you know that right? So in your ignorance you made up a title that made it look like the Taliban located in Afghanistan was responsible for the attack when they wasn't but rather the Pakistani Taliban. If you have any problems understanding the big words just let me know junior.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

That is because they broke US law when they dealt with the taliban...

18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists

www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: Aliensun
The key may lay with the inscription that is on Obama's left ring finger. BTW: That ring is not a wedding ring.

What do you mean? I have not heard of this.

Invade Afghanistan Oct 7th 2001...

Kill The Taliban leader Mullar Omar's 10 year old son on the 11th Oct 2001...



To sum up...

Lowkey...

They're calling me a terrorist...
Like they don't know who the terror is...
When they put it on me, I tell them this...
I'm all about peace & love (peace & love)...

They're calling me a terrorist...
Like they don't know who the terror is...
Insulting my intelligence...
Oh how these people judge (people judge)

This is funny.

It's like being shot, but instead of discussing "being shot" we are determining if we were actually shot by changing the definition of bullet.

Just wave the white flag and make it official.

*pffft!*

a reply to: beezzer

This is the White House's definition of "is" moment.



If it weren't so tragic, it would be comic.

it sounds like Obama is doing some pre-emptive damage control for some info that is going to come out in the future.

maybe the guy that they got back will be put on trial for desertion and he will spill the beans about how he saw americans giving weapons and suitcases full of cash to the Taliban.

If they aren`t terrorist then why did we spend so much time and money searching for and killing them as part of the "war on terror"?
if they aren`t terrorist then that seems to be an admission that the "war on terror" is a lie,we spent how many years and how much money in Afghanistan? killing Taliban who "aren`t terrorist".

Where did that money come from? did it come from the money that congress approved to fight terrorist? if it did then someone mis-appropriated that money and used it to fight non terrorists.
The "war on terror" was the selling point used to get congress to approve of funding a war in Afghanistan.

so, who`s lying?
Did someone lie to congress and say the Taliban are terrorist so that congress would fund a war in Afghanistan that wasn`t even a part of the "war on terror' or
is someone (Obama) lying now by saying the Taliban aren`t terrorist.

It`s a real slap in the face to all those families that lost loved ones in Afghanistan to now be told that their loved ones didn`t die fighting the "war on terror" because the people that killed them (Taliban) aren`t even terrorist.

a reply to: Aliensun

I was wondering when someone would point out that "inconvenient" fact about obama.

It explains where his TRUE loyalty lies-and his refusal to refer to anyone except white males as terrorists.

a reply to: Aliensun

Wouldn't it be like if someone always wore a shirt with a swastika on it-but swore up and down that they were Jewish.

But liberals never let facts get in the way.

There was a thread on this topic I think the other day, at least this topic came up during the first couple of posts.

Anyway, I am sure that other members have already raised this but I am going to give views on this also.

It might shock some of you to learn that "the Taliban" have never been a recognised terrorist group in the eyes no US law, not even under Bush. This is a List of all groups that the US state department regards as being "terrorists", the Taliban is not on that list. However Tehrik-i-Taliban (the Pakistani Taliban) are on the list but it is important to understand this is not the same Taliban lead by Mullah Omar that before 9/11 was the closest thing Afghanistan had to a governing body.

The Taliban is a "Insurgency group" which the US Department of Defence defines as:

The organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region . Insurgency can also refer to the group itself

The Afghan Taliban since after 9/11 have always been a Insurgency group from a legal stand point. So technically the White House spokesperson is correct to say that the Taliban are not a "terrorist group". Now sure there is some over lap and as a individual you might say that based on your understanding and your definitions that the Taliban is a terrorist group. That is totally fine, I would probably agree but at the same time that opinion does not matter what matters is how the state and the law defines "terrorist group" and "insurgency group" and when we are trying to have a facts based discussion about terrorism we have to work with these definitions and not our subjective views.

I think a big problem is how the media portray the Taliban quite often they will call a bombing of a convoy a "terrorist attack" or they will talk about how "Taliban terrorists" killed x amount of school children. When they should be talking about insurgents. As such it is understandable that quite a lot of people are quite shocked to here a Government official say that the Taliban are not a terrorist group even though this has always been the case. Also sometimes I think that they just talk about "the Taliban" when really they mean the Pakistani Taliban or Haqqani network who are actually terrorist groups. Unless it is of particular interest to your, you're not going to be overly failure with the list of designated terrorist groups and who those groups are so being surprised at this statement is understandable.

So to sum up, the Taliban have never been a terrorist group, under any American administration be it Clinton, Bush or Obama.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Anyafaj

Well gee, I can't simplify that one anymore for ya son! But if you want, I can do more net searching and see what I find to spank ya further. Shall I try? Or are we done here?

You didn't do any spanking in the first place and it makes me wonder if reading was taught while you were in school. Read the real title not the one you made up.

Taliban says agent infiltrated Afghan's security forces for attack that killed 3 Americans

This means they had someone act like they were part of the Afghan forces to get close to Americans. Next look at who made the statement Zabihullah Mujahid had you done any research you would have found out this guy is from Pakistan not Afghanistan they are two different nations and two different factions of the Taliban you know that right? So in your ignorance you made up a title that made it look like the Taliban located in Afghanistan was responsible for the attack when they wasn't but rather the Pakistani Taliban. If you have any problems understanding the big words just let me know junior.

So people in Pakistan are forced to stay in Pakistan? Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever! And people in Afghanistan and forced to stay in Afghanistan forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever too! And no one can ever move around and go from one place to another? WOW! Color me surprised!


That's be like me not being able to move from NJ to ME to GUAM to ME to MI to CA to NY to OH to NY to GA to NY to NC to MI to PA! Oh wait! DID THAT! It's amazing how people can move around without your permission isn't it!

So in other words, someone from Pakistan invaded Afghani forces, NO WAY! Duuuuuuude! That is sooo brony! Like, toootally, dude!

Like gag me!

Well since people want to play semantics.

Doesn't matter what the administration calls it out of politics.

They ARE all the same thing.

AQ,ISIS,Taliban by what ever 'cool' name they want to call themselves.

EVERY single one of them are nothing but a bunch of right wing NEOCON'S clinging to their guns, and religion, nation building over there.


A terrorist is defined as:

nternational terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

www.fbi.gov...

Anyone going around killing people in the name of ALLAH to coerce governments to bend to their will.

TERRORISTS!

The current administration needs to get it through their thick heads.

They are terrorist's.

This G'damn PC snip needs to end.

The US admin is only embarrassing themselves.

a reply to: neo96

Your point kind of gets back to what I was saying above about how we define a "insurgency group" and a "terrorist group" can often overlap.

Regardless of the definitions not American Administration to date has ever had the Afghan Taliban on the list of designated foreign terrorist organisations. It might sound like semantics, because it is semantics, but that's not to say the subtle differences are not important.

I personally would call the Afghan Taliban a "terrorist group" just like you would, but that does not matter. What matters is that according to successive US governments (and other states) the Taliban has always been a insurgent group. Now this might be fore political reasons or it could be that really on balance the Taliban is more insurgent than terrorist in the eyes of US law makers, I can see it being a bit of both.

People just love labels.....

Here's the issue I have with this. Who did the Taliban attack prior to their country being invaded?

Once their Country was invaded they were labeled "terrorist" for fighting back. Of course they do now commit acts that one can consider to be terrorist actions, but would they still do that if we were not still in their Country?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The Taliban.

That goes around shooting little girls in the head for going to school.

Cutting the noses off of women.

Destroying historical landmarks.

And a plethora of other medieval snip.

No matter how much lip stick the White House put's on the pig.

It's still a pig.

Terrorists.

They are in every sense of the word.

originally posted by: MrWendal
People just love labels.....

Here's the issue I have with this. Who did the Taliban attack prior to their country being invaded?

Once their Country was invaded they were labeled "terrorist" for fighting back. Of course they do now commit acts that one can consider to be terrorist actions, but would they still do that if we were not still in their Country?

I cannot seem to emphasise this point enough.

The Taliban have NEVER been a designated terrorist group according to the American establishment be it under Bush or Obama.

A large part of them being called a Insurgent group rather than a terrorist group is probably because some would argue that they are old government body of the country fighting to regain that control.

a reply to: neo96

Again i do agree with you, in my opinion I would call the Taliban "terrorists".

BUT

That does not matter when we are attempting to have a factual discussion in a factual discussion from the stand point of the American government along with the UK government they are a insurgent group rather than a terrorist group, the distinction is important. Now yes we can say that we think that the government is wrong in that assessment and cite our reasons for saying so but it does not change the fact that right now legally America regards the Taliban as a "insurgent group".

It was the exact same under Bush, this is a bi-partisan view, its not Obama one day waking up and say "the Taliban are not terrorists any-more".

Additionally one of the big problems in Afghanistan is correctly attributing the blame of certain attacks on the right group. May have been the Pakistani taliban who killed those school girls or it could even have been the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

So response is predicated NOT by the act, but by what we call the people performing the act.


Why in the hell doesn't everyone just surrender and quit with the word-games.

You're not fooling anyone.

In the last decade in Afghanistan, who were the terrorists... Really?

It's a matter of perspective I suppose. If we are to leave that godforsaken land, we must accept that the Taliban or some incarnation thereof will eventually return to power. They can't have legitimacy if they are terrorists, we can't negotiate with them.

They have despite all efforts survived the war.

Terrorists?

Absolutely, but what should they call us?