PDA

View Full Version : ~ U.S. Doesn't Consider Taliban Terrorists ~



Zman
06-03-2007, 07:17 AM
:sl:/Peace To All
US Does Not Consider Taliban Terrorists

--Even As The Taliban Attacks US, Canadian, And British Forces,

Organization Is Left Off Terrorist List In 'Political' Decision--


Courtesy of: The Christian Science Monitor
By Tom Regan
May 2, 2006

When the US State Department issued its annual Country Report On Terrorism [1] last Friday, it listed numerous state-sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, and groups it considers Foreign Terrorists Organizations [2], like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hizbullah. Conspiciously absent from the lists, however, was the Taliban.

In an article entitled "Terrorism's Dubious 'A' List," the non-partisan Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) reports that the religious extremist organization has never been listed [3] as a terrorist group by the US, Britain, the EU, Canada, Australia, or any of the coalition partners, despite the fact that during its six year rule in Afghanistan, it ptovided safe haven for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and currently is staging terrorist attacks against coalition forces and waging a national campaign of intimidation and fear.

The new report did designate the Pakistan-Afghan border region as a terrorist "haven," however,

In a CFR Q&A on the Taliban, Christopher Langdon, a defense expert at the Institute For International Strategic Studies, describes the group as "An insurgent organization" that will periodically "Use terrorism to carry out its operations" [4].

According to Kathy Gannon, the former Associate Press bureau chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan, these [Taliban] have at times aligned themselves with Al Qaeda fighters and with Mujahedeen (holy warriors) led by the anti-government warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

During the Soviet occupation, Hekmatyar received more support from US and Pakistani agents than any other fighter.

"The Afghan Taliban is better organized today than it was in 2001," says Gannon, "They have more recruits [and they] have been able to take advantage of the lawlessness, the criminal gangs, and the corruption in the government."

Langton says Taliban forces "Have largely recovered from their initial defeat," and are proving a savvy enemy for coalition forces.

Taliban fighters have become encouraged by the domestic opposition some NATO nations face as they deploy in former Taliban strongholds previously patrolled by US forces, he says.

"They are very adept at reading these signals and seeing where the weaknesses lies."

...The steadily worsening situation in Southern Afghanistan is not the work of some ineffable Al Qaeda nebula. It is the result of the real depredations of the corrupt and predatory government officials whom the United States ushered into power in 2001, supposedly to help fight Al Qaeda.

The above is the heart of the article, to read the complete article, kindly click on the following:

http://csmonitor.com/2006/0502/dailyUpdate.html
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Cognescenti
06-03-2007, 05:08 PM
Who put in the bolded sections? Hmmm? Is this supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Isn't this what you have been arguing for? Finesse regarding the use of the term 'terrorism"? Did anyone ever claim the Taleban planned or executed the 9-11 attacks?

I am not sure I understand your point.
Reply

wilberhum
06-03-2007, 05:17 PM
I don't think the Taliban ever terrorized any one expect there fellow Afghans.
But then I thought everyone knew that. Just not everyone accepts that.
Reply

islamirama
06-03-2007, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I don't think the Taliban ever terrorized any one expect there fellow Afghans.
But then I thought everyone knew that. Just not everyone accepts that.
well what i found interesting in all this was....

Taleban are not labeled terrorists but the border of afghan and pakistan is labeled terrorists region when it's talebans fighting there.

Taleban are fighting the invaders of their country and yet they are not labeled terrorists, the Iraqis are doing the same and yet they are labeled terrorists, just as hamas is as well who is fighting the occupation of its country.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Cognescenti
06-03-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
well what i found interesting in all this was....

Taleban are not labeled terrorists but the border of afghan and pakistan is labeled terrorists region when it's talebans fighting there.

Taleban are fighting the invaders of their country and yet they are not labeled terrorists, the Iraqis are doing the same and yet they are labeled terrorists, just as hamas is as well who is fighting the occupation of its country.
Alas! We are discovered!


There are Al Quaeda types in Waziristan as well, my friend.
Reply

Keltoi
06-03-2007, 05:55 PM
The Taliban are not designated as a "terrorist group" simply because they are not defined by a terrorist agenda. Yes, they use terrorism when it suits their purposes, but they are also the deposed former government. They are enemies to be sure, but simply labeling them as a terrorist organization overlooks their prior status.
Reply

Philosopher
06-03-2007, 06:30 PM
The Taliban is not the same as Al-Quaeda.

Also, if you look at Bin Laden's profile by the FBI, he is NOT wanted for 9/11.
Reply

Zman
06-03-2007, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
The Taliban is not the same as Al-Quaeda.

Also, if you look at Bin Laden's profile by the FBI, he is NOT wanted for 9/11.

Thats true. Thanks for mentioning it...
Reply

Cognescenti
06-03-2007, 08:13 PM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
The Taliban is not the same as Al-Quaeda.

Also, if you look at Bin Laden's profile by the FBI, he is NOT wanted for 9/11.
I just looked it up. You are right.

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

USAMA BIN LADEN

Photograph of USAMA BIN LADEN

Aliases: Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin, Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, The Prince, The Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shaykh, Hajj, The Director

DESCRIPTION

Date of Birth Used: 1957 Hair: Brown
Place of Birth: Saudi Arabia Eyes: Brown
Height: 6'4" to 6'6" Sex: Male
Weight: Approximately 160 pounds Complexion: Olive
Build: Thin Citizenship: Saudi Arabian
Language: Arabic (probably Pashtu)
Scars and Marks: None known
Remarks: Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane.

CAUTION

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

REWARD

The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ARMED AND DANGEROUS

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS PERSON, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL FBI OFFICE OR THE NEAREST AMERICAN EMBASSY OR CONSULATE.



6 ft 6 and 160 ...wow...guess he doesn't like Pashtoon food.
Reply

NobleMuslimUK
06-04-2007, 10:54 AM
:sl:
Al-Qaeda is a made up thing, the so called Al-qaeda attacks are carried out by CIA, Mossad and MI5 then by their zionist controlled media and government blamed on the hoax Al-qaeda.
These scumbags labelled Taleban, Iraqi freedom fighters and Hammas as terrorists by saying Al-qaeda is involved and everyone believed those lies. Now their lies are coming out, from their own mouths. Hahahahahaha
Reply

Amadeus85
06-04-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by NobleMuslimUK
:sl:
Al-Qaeda is a made up thing, the so called Al-qaeda attacks are carried out by CIA, Mossad and MI5 then by their zionist controlled media and government blamed on the hoax Al-qaeda.
These scumbags labelled Taleban, Iraqi freedom fighters and Hammas as terrorists by saying Al-qaeda is involved and everyone believed those lies. Now their lies are coming out, from their own mouths. Hahahahahaha
CAIR (council on american islamic ralationships) admitted many times that there were muslims who commited attacks on World Trade Center.
Reply

Malaikah
06-04-2007, 12:37 PM
and currently is staging terrorist attacks against coalition forces and waging a national campaign of intimidation and fear.
As much as I try, for the life of me I can't figure out how attacking the forces invading your country can be considered a terrorist attack??:?
Reply

MTAFFI
06-04-2007, 01:32 PM
Originally Posted by NobleMuslimUK
:sl:
Al-Qaeda is a made up thing, the so called Al-qaeda attacks are carried out by CIA, Mossad and MI5 then by their zionist controlled media and government blamed on the hoax Al-qaeda.
These scumbags labelled Taleban, Iraqi freedom fighters and Hammas as terrorists by saying Al-qaeda is involved and everyone believed those lies. Now their lies are coming out, from their own mouths. Hahahahahaha
OK....:rollseyes sure...lol

Originally Posted by islamirama
well what i found interesting in all this was....

Taleban are not labeled terrorists but the border of afghan and pakistan is labeled terrorists region when it's talebans fighting there.

Taleban are fighting the invaders of their country and yet they are not labeled terrorists, the Iraqis are doing the same and yet they are labeled terrorists, just as hamas is as well who is fighting the occupation of its country.
Did you even bother to consider that some of the people inhabiting these areas are not actually the Taliban? Obviously not :eek:


The Taliban are not terrorist, they are fighting to take their government back, and they arent really known for killing a lot of civilians (or at least as many as Al-Qaeda in Iraq). However they could have saved themselves the trouble and handed over OBL when they had the chance, just because they didnt doesnt make them terrorists, it just makes them the enemy, and a government that would harbor a terrorist. Therefore they were attacked and overthrown and now they live like goats in the mountains. To bad so sad for them.

Al-Qaeda is labeled as terrorist because they attack civilian, government and military personel alike without regard to innocents. They are also not fighting in their own country and their main objective is to strike fear in the Iraqi people so that they may take over the government by force. Even the people of Iraq do not like Al-Qaeda.
Reply

Muslim Knight
06-04-2007, 01:48 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
As much as I try, for the life of me I can't figure out how attacking the forces invading your country can be considered a terrorist attack??:?
You can't. It's the same idea how propaganda works. Only the faction that has the upperhand can make that. The US calls itself liberation forces and it 'liberates' land while the resistance defending their own homeland is called the 'resistance', the 'terror network', the 'separatists'. It depends also on who is handling the media. Since the resistance have no media, too bad for them.

What is fair in this war? Nothing. War is deception. You instill the thought in the enemy that they are the ones terrorising, they are the ones causing the problem. It's the tactic to defeat one's resolution. Without resolution there can be no will to fight. That way you get defeated much easier. Organization is everything.

Sorry to say but if the resistance intends to win, they have got to have organized army and propaganda machine.

What am I rambling... I don't normally post in the Worlds Affair section... mumble.. mumble... let me just return as Comparative Religion section freak...
Reply

NobleMuslimUK
06-04-2007, 04:55 PM
The biggest casualty of any war is the TRUTH...
Reply

wilberhum
06-04-2007, 05:49 PM
Originally Posted by NobleMuslimUK
The biggest casualty of any war is the TRUTH...
Well, something we are in total agreement on. :thumbs_up
Reply

lilah
06-04-2007, 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I don't think the Taliban ever terrorized any one expect there fellow Afghans.
But then I thought everyone knew that. Just not everyone accepts that.
lol, i guess it's ok to terrorize your own kind...as long as the oil isn't threatened....long live shell, long live mobile, long live texaco.

:skeleton:
Reply

wilberhum
06-04-2007, 07:02 PM
Originally Posted by lilah
lol, i guess it's ok to terrorize your own kind...as long as the oil isn't threatened....long live shell, long live mobile, long live texaco.

:skeleton:
Knowledge and acknowledgement are not approval. :? :?

And we all know about all those rich oil reserves in Afghanistan. :skeleton:
Reply

Zman
06-04-2007, 08:09 PM
:sl:

I read that Afghanistan was to be a transit point for a pipeline to be layed down by UniCal, originating from the Caspean Sea going through Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

I think they wanted to avoid at all costs an alternative route via Iran (something along those lines).

Most modern Western Wars are about interventions to dominate natural resources. They are waged on behalf of the corporations.

Interventions for "humanitarian" reasons, combating "terrorism," "liberating" and oppressed people, are only a disguise, in order to legitimize these illegal wars, to lul the soon-to-be occupied into a false sense of security and blindening the "natives" to the real aimes, and conning our local populations into approving these invasions and filling the ranks with pawns who are to be sacrificed for Exxon and Haliburton.

The invasions have nothing to do with defending our nation from a fabricated threat.

It's all about economics and economic prosperity (primarily, for the elite)...
Reply

wilberhum
06-04-2007, 08:12 PM
If you think we did it for a pipeline, I have a bridge I will sell you.
Reply

Muezzin
06-04-2007, 09:26 PM
All this stuff about oil pipelines is straying from the topic, is it not?
Reply

lilah
06-04-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
If you think we did it for a pipeline, I have a bridge I will sell you.
[s] The SPICE must Flowww [/s] - Dune
-------------------------------------------
[mouse] The OIL must Floww [/mouse] - Earth
Reply

Cognescenti
06-04-2007, 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by Zman
:sl:

I read that Afghanistan was to be a transit point for a pipeline to be layed down by UniCal, originating from the Caspean Sea going through Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

I think they wanted to avoid at all costs an alternative route via Iran (something along those lines).

Most modern Western Wars are about interventions to dominate natural resources. They are waged on behalf of the corporations.

Interventions for "humanitarian" reasons, combating "terrorism," "liberating" and oppressed people, are only a disguise, in order to legitimize these illegal wars, to lul the soon-to-be occupied into a false sense of security and blindening the "natives" to the real aimes, and conning our local populations into approving these invasions and filling the ranks with pawns who are to be sacrificed for Exxon and Haliburton.

The invasions have nothing to do with defending our nation from a fabricated threat.

It's all about economics and economic prosperity (primarily, for the elite)...
What do you think is powering the computer and monitor you are using to enlighten us...as squirrel in a cage? Until you come up with a better idea, it is going to be carbon-based fuels for a while.

There is this too. Your Afghanistan hypothesis is a laugh riot. One of the biggest single exporters of oil to the US is less than 1500 miles from Miami. Don't you think it would be easier to invade Venezuela? Mexico produces more oil than Iraq. We could drive there...or just rent luxury cruise ships
Reply

Zman
06-04-2007, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
All this stuff about oil pipelines is straying from the topic, is it not?
:sl:

No disrespect intended, this is Just my opinion.

But, since the Taliban are Afghans, and since they weren't classified as terrorists, that casts doubt on the real reason for our invasion of Afhganistan.

That it wasn't to combat terrorism, but to secure the oil flow (and to have a military presence near Russia, China and Iran, Pakistan).

We're not there to combat terrorism and Al Qaeda and their Taliban "hosts/protectors", since we disbanded the Bin Laden Unit in the CIA.

We're not there to combat terrorism and Al Qaeda, since before our invasion, we requested that the ruling Taliban hand over OBL for trial, and they offered to cooperate by asking for proof of his guilt, and my government did not comply with the request.

Since Emperor Bush said that if you harbor terrorists then you're complicit in their actions, so why aren't the Taliban listed as terrorists? And since it was a "political" reason for not classifying them as terrorists, then what is the "political" reason that we're in Afghanistan.

If we retaliated against Afghanistan and its representative government, the Taliban for allegedly allowing OBL to plan the 9/11 attack from a cave in Afghanistan, then why isn't OBL officially cited for his complicity on 9/11 on the FBI's Most Wanted List?

That brings us back to, why are we in Afghanistan?

That must mean that the Taliban and OBL aren't the real reasons for our presence there. correct?

I think the original article provides some room to maneuver in the debate.

What do you think?
Reply

Islamicboy
06-04-2007, 10:27 PM
What oli? I am paying $1.30 per litre where is all this glorious oli everyone talks about? I was paying less before the Afganistan invasion and the Iraqi invasion.
Reply

Keltoi
06-04-2007, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Zman
:sl:

No disrespect intended, this is Just my opinion.

But, since the Taliban are Afghans, and since they weren't classified as terrorists, that casts doubt on the real reason for our invasion of Afhganistan.

That it wasn't to combat terrorism, but to secure the oil flow (and to have a military presence near Russia, China and Iran, Pakistan).

We're not there to combat terrorism and Al Qaeda and their Taliban "hosts/protectors", since we disbanded the Bin Laden Unit in the CIA.

We're not there to combat terrorism and Al Qaeda, since before our invasion, we requested that the ruling Taliban hand over OBL for trial, and they offered to cooperate by asking for proof of his guilt, and my government did not comply with the request.

Since Emperor Bush said that if you harbor terrorists then you're complicit in their actions, so why aren't the Taliban listed as terrorists? And since it was a "political" reason for not classifying them as terrorists, then what is the "political" reason that we're in Afghanistan.

If we retaliated against Afghanistan and its representative government, the Taliban for allegedly allowing OBL to plan the 9/11 attack from a cave in Afghanistan, then why isn't OBL officially cited for his complicity on 9/11 on the FBI's Most Wanted List?

That brings us back to, why are we in Afghanistan?

That must mean that the Taliban and OBL aren't the real reasons for our presence there. correct?

I think the original article provides some room to maneuver in the debate.

What do you think?
How does the U.S. not designating the Taliban as a terrorist organization cast any kind of doubt on the reasons for war? They were an isolated government which was harboring a terrorist organization. Agree with it or not, the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war fit the bill in Afghanistan to a T. Afghanistan was the home of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. The 9-11 attacks had just occurred. It was about revenge and punishment, not treasure.
Reply

Islamicboy
06-04-2007, 10:35 PM
The 9-11 attacks had just occurred. It was about revenge and punishment, not treasure.
.

Howcome American government did not turn the other cheek. I think this means they are bad christians just imagine how Jesus Peace be upon him is feeling.
Reply

wilberhum
06-04-2007, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
How does the U.S. not designating the Taliban as a terrorist organization cast any kind of doubt on the reasons for war? They were an isolated government which was harboring a terrorist organization. Agree with it or not, the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war fit the bill in Afghanistan to a T. Afghanistan was the home of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. The 9-11 attacks had just occurred. It was about revenge and punishment, not treasure.
It seams we need to put forth a document outlining major points in the history of the conflict.

Some don’t seam to be able to remember. :skeleton:
Reply

Cognescenti
06-04-2007, 10:55 PM
What...no oil in Afghanistan? Dang!

Then it was all done for Big Rug! Yeah, that's it! Cheney was a former Chairman of the largest Afghan rug importer in the US, Rugs-R-Us, a division of Halliburton.

Why do you think they call it "carpet bombing"?
Reply

lilah
06-04-2007, 11:42 PM
to insist that oil had/has nothing to do w/ mid east policy, the over throw of opposing governments, the labeling of whos a terrorist country and whos an ally is plane foolishness....granted, there were other reasons for the invasion of the taliban, the same organisation that were american allies decades prior, but oil is a major motivator....if the prime export of these nations were potatoes instead of petrolleum, US's involvement in afganistan would not be a non issue.....

jmo
Reply

Keltoi
06-04-2007, 11:46 PM
Originally Posted by lilah
to insist that oil had/has nothing to do w/ mid east policy, the over throw of opposing governments, the labeling of whos a terrorist country and whos an ally is plane foolishness....granted, there were other reasons for the invasion of the taliban, the same organisation that were american allies decades prior, but oil is a major motivator....if the prime export of these nations were potatoes instead of petrolleum, US's involvement in afganistan would not be a non issue.....

jmo
The U.S. was never allies with the Taliban as a government, but they did give a little back door help to those fighting the Soviets. I suppose that distinction is too subtle for some.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-20-2011, 04:37 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 12:06 AM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-02-2009, 08:11 PM
  4. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 07-02-2009, 08:50 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:41 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!