3 ms·

The Taliban got demonized by the US 20 years ago but they were not "pursuing political outcomes" - the relevant definition of terrorist - as they had already ac

The Taliban got demonized by the US 20 years ago but they were not "pursuing political outcomes" - the relevant definition of terrorist - as they had already achieved them. Just because we don't like them or respect them doesn't mean we can warp the definition of terrorist to include them, the US' mission was only to ensure that Al Queda was not leveraging Taliban military infrastructure. Obviously we know that any superpower saying "we're just targeting military" is bullshit. But it happened there too, and then the scope increased to ousting the Taliban and it failed.

GauntletWizard 5y ago
A terrorist group doesn't stop being a terrorist group because they control some territory. Their lack of state apparatus in the areas they controlled prevents them from being called a state, and the continued use of terror tactics like public beheadings and rapes. Maintaining the objectives they had already achieved is still political.
- vmception 5y ago
  There are regimes we respect in that region that do public beheadings, as detailed in law. Like I said, once you have sovereign immunity the standard for criticism or even airtime changes. Practically dissipates from the collective conscious, aside from a footnote in an obscure right’s group annual report.
kodah 5y ago
I'm really confused by this take. From the use of the word "demonized" to your direct assertion that the definition of terrorist is somehow "warped" to make it fit the Taliban. Can you take a look at this non-exhaustive list and let me know what you believe is "warped" based on public record? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices
- vmception 5y ago
  It should be pretty clear that the post is about a specific definition of terrorism and not my opinion on their practices, the only thing being warped is the definition. If its not clear, compartmentalize it and reapply everything said until it is clear.
  - kodah 5y ago
    I am asking how you can justify using those words in light of their documented behavior. If it's not clear, I'd like you to put your argument in plaintext with clear citations as to how the Taliban was demonized (eg: how things that people fear them for are not true) and how we changed the definition of "terrorism" to fit them.
    - vmception 5y ago
      By their political aims already having been met in 2000. They already controlled Afghanistan. They control it again. The US went on a war with a group that was hoping for political aims. It was very clear about that, and then eventually went on a 10-20 year war with the Taliban anyway. Here is Vice President Joe Biden affirming that in 2011. Their domestic policy in Afghanistan is not terrorism, while their external policy needs to be reconciled. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-that-the-taliban-per-se-is-not-our-enemy https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-afghanistan-decision-foreign-policy-process/2021/04/18/e45e3fec-a05d-11eb-a774-7b47ceb36ee8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-afgha... Try to find a source you happen to respect that says the same thing. Subsequently President Trump continued direct negotiations with them, which never broke our "not negotiating with terrorists policy" because............. I think you're starting to get it. With now President Biden fulfilling the pullout deadline that Trump negotiated, giving their country back to them because turns out there was ... a ... group trying to fulfill a political aim - something I've avoided saying as to not dilute and distract from my point. The US campaign against the Taliban required demonizing them as terrorists under the definition of terrorists which is simply inaccurate, this observation has nothing to do with their human rights record it has to do with political aims that they hadn't already have achieved, the US was required to leverage its media and general islamophobia that allowed for the public to not distinguish between distinct groups. This was successful, while on the ground the people that mattered had to treat them separately for diplomacy, which continues to this day with an outcome that isn't surprising at all when understanding why we shouldn't have attempted marginalizing the Taliban to begin with. Now they have Afghanistan back, the way it was before we got involved. I'm not sure if any of this information is new to you, but ultimately this is purely semantics. The human rights record isn't a factor.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

GauntletWizard 5y ago

A terrorist group doesn't stop being a terrorist group because they control some territory. Their lack of state apparatus in the areas they controlled prevents them from being called a state, and the continued use of terror tactics like public beheadings and rapes. Maintaining the objectives they had already achieved is still political.

vmception 5y ago
There are regimes we respect in that region that do public beheadings, as detailed in law. Like I said, once you have sovereign immunity the standard for criticism or even airtime changes. Practically dissipates from the collective conscious, aside from a footnote in an obscure right’s group annual report.

kodah 5y ago

I'm really confused by this take. From the use of the word "demonized" to your direct assertion that the definition of terrorist is somehow "warped" to make it fit the Taliban. Can you take a look at this non-exhaustive list and let me know what you believe is "warped" based on public record? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices

vmception 5y ago
It should be pretty clear that the post is about a specific definition of terrorism and not my opinion on their practices, the only thing being warped is the definition. If its not clear, compartmentalize it and reapply everything said until it is clear.
- kodah 5y ago
  I am asking how you can justify using those words in light of their documented behavior. If it's not clear, I'd like you to put your argument in plaintext with clear citations as to how the Taliban was demonized (eg: how things that people fear them for are not true) and how we changed the definition of "terrorism" to fit them.
  - vmception 5y ago
    By their political aims already having been met in 2000. They already controlled Afghanistan. They control it again. The US went on a war with a group that was hoping for political aims. It was very clear about that, and then eventually went on a 10-20 year war with the Taliban anyway. Here is Vice President Joe Biden affirming that in 2011. Their domestic policy in Afghanistan is not terrorism, while their external policy needs to be reconciled. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-that-the-taliban-per-se-is-not-our-enemy https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-afghanistan-decision-foreign-policy-process/2021/04/18/e45e3fec-a05d-11eb-a774-7b47ceb36ee8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-afgha... Try to find a source you happen to respect that says the same thing. Subsequently President Trump continued direct negotiations with them, which never broke our "not negotiating with terrorists policy" because............. I think you're starting to get it. With now President Biden fulfilling the pullout deadline that Trump negotiated, giving their country back to them because turns out there was ... a ... group trying to fulfill a political aim - something I've avoided saying as to not dilute and distract from my point. The US campaign against the Taliban required demonizing them as terrorists under the definition of terrorists which is simply inaccurate, this observation has nothing to do with their human rights record it has to do with political aims that they hadn't already have achieved, the US was required to leverage its media and general islamophobia that allowed for the public to not distinguish between distinct groups. This was successful, while on the ground the people that mattered had to treat them separately for diplomacy, which continues to this day with an outcome that isn't surprising at all when understanding why we shouldn't have attempted marginalizing the Taliban to begin with. Now they have Afghanistan back, the way it was before we got involved. I'm not sure if any of this information is new to you, but ultimately this is purely semantics. The human rights record isn't a factor.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]