Show of Hands

Consider the colossal stupidity of negotiating with the man who was the leader of the Taliban when we invaded in 2001, and agreeing to return his top lieutenants just as we are preparing to leave.

13 years and 3,435 deaths later we leave with the same people in charge as when we arrived. Brilliant.

3G - it's easy to sharpshoot now. Doe example, had the US listened to Pakistan and negotiated the turning over of OBL, or permitting his trial and execution at an intl court, think how many lives and injured soldiers could have been spared.

The fact is, the terms do matter. Downsizing a committer of Democide to a terrorist is ricockulous. Pol Pot and Mao are not anywhere close on scale to Timothy McVeigh. And the Taliban is nowhere near Al-Qaeda. You know what also really pisses me off

About this whole damn thing? We started the damn Taliban's rise to
Power following the ending of the USSRs involvement in AFG. We trained them, armed them, and helped them start the takeover. Now here we are again 20 odd yrs later training, arming

And setting up a new group of savages to run the same damn country. Who gives a damn if he gets his LTs back? Whether they take it back over or the new gov sticks around, does anyone honestly think this isn't going to bite us again when the sons who

Lost their moms, dads, brothers or saw their friends blown up, are old enough to pick up a bomb or a rifle? Do we honestly think that's not the case?

Your facts are wrong. We didn't have anything to do with the Taliban, they didn't even exist until a few years after the soviets left.

Typical liberal thinking, until they kill you, this kind of thinking is stupid!

youtu.be/fXHkrxhDNcc

DUEY - calling this "liberal thinking" is a misnomer. This poll was in response to the POTUS releasing 5 Taliban leaders in exchange for our only US POW. I think the Taliban is an organization that commits acts that go everything I would define as

Human. I think any nation with leaders like this is beyond uncivilized. They're animals. Period. They are however, NOT an international terrorist group. Never have been. I hesitate to call them "Afg domestic terrorists" only because that broadens the

Definition considerably to include every repressive/torturous regime in the world. In other words, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim King-un, the king of Saudi, etc. all become terrorists and I think their something worse. However, assume for the sake of argument

I was actually responding to rebelfury76 below with his comment. My bad

They ARE "Afg domestic terrorists." To us, those held in GTO can only be classified as POWs or maybe political prisoners right? We (to the best of my knowledge) do not have a foreign policy (nor have we ever) that advocates the US imprisoning DTs

from other countries right? That means that exchanging 5 enemy POWs for the one US POW is a completely legitimate action. It also means the remaining 77 AFG POWs should be released as soon as we have a peace treaty in place with AFG right? I hope you

Can see, what I'm thinking isn't "liberal" or "conservative" for that matter. It's about the rules of war that have guided this nation since its inception. Does that make sense at all?

Shazam; I stand by my earlier post. Libs don't like to call anyone a terrorist. You know one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. It's only words, comparing what these guys do to politicians is as I said stupid.

DUEY - I agree they're not politicians by any stretch. However, like I said, i think there's things worse than terrorists, and I'd lump them into to that. I don't mind for this argument calling them "Afg domestic terrorists." If we presuppose that,

Do you agree that as far as GTO and the war in AFG goes, they can only be classified as POWs - not a "terrorist" in the sense of al-quaeda?

*al-qaeda

And for the record, REB has repeated said everything I have said is leftwing crap. Your calling him a "liberal" makes me grin like the Joker!

Glad I could put a smile on your face!

And the other thing is anyone at GITMO is an ENEMY COMBATANT not POW status. These people have proven they will go back to murdering people. When you don't wear a uniform this is the outcome.

DUEY - look at the history of "enemy combatant." It is complete bullshit designed to give the POTUS carte blanche. A uniform is NOT necessary to be in a country's armed forces under the GC.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

You can call it bullshit all you want but believe it or not there is a law that legalizes GITMO.
www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

As the war ends these murders will be released. Would you want these people in a prison in your neighborhood and imagine the BS court dramas.

DUEY - believe me I am well aware there is a law. Written in 2006. Still complete bullshit. Here's how things should have worked. We should have left them classified as POWs, but brought charges of democide against those who partook at the Hague.

There, they could be tried and if found guilty, executed. We would also then have the ability to hunt down the other committers of democide and tried them as well. Anytime one popped up, grab him and try him. Now we have 70 odd people that we will

At some point let go. Do I want them in my neighborhood? Nope. Did we pursue the wrong strat trying to end around intl law? Yep.

Good, glad you have an opinion. But even happier these savages were kept in a crap hole on Cuba. I view the World Court similar to the Nobel Committee that hands out prizes, worthless highly political and Anti-American.

so dis the US military

They don't do it intentionally to the best of my knowledge. Collateral damage is different than intentionally attacking civilians

Only semantically

So let's say the Taliban is a "domestic Afghan Terrorist" group. For the US, those held in GTO can only be seen as either political prisoners or POWs right? This means the exchange for the US POW completely OK right? Also, as soon as the war in AFG

Is ended - say end of year if the schedule is upheld - all of the Taliban POWs should be immediately released right? Or am I missing something?

You and I both know that won't happen and it's been "by year's end" for the past five years or so.

REB - i didn't if it WOULD. I asked if it SHOULD happen.

SKINNER - i've been reading a lot about this tonight. the correct term is "DEMOCIDE."

No, I don't believe that's the case. Democide implies they are a legitimate government that controls the country. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the government that controls Afghanistan, not the Taliban. Perhaps the Taliban has formerly

committed democide but I don't believe that's the case presently unless I'm misconstruing something.

KRAZY - read my comments to DEUY above, or SKINNER below. Does what I am trying to say make sense?

Yes.

Still, terrorists. ;)

Yeah....that's convenient, but inaccurate. They also tried very hard to advert the war, but GWB and Cheney would not be dissuaded. I think we could have handled it better, but honestly, at the time we were all so hurt and pissed, there really wasn't

Another course. They're not terrorists though. They have never attacked the US in any way.

The US has aided and supplied arms to countless groups one could consider "terrorists." Does that make the US government a terrorist organization?

If you are harboring a fugitive, you're in deep sh*t. You may not like that , but it's reality. That's what the Taliban were doing. Harboring/getting in the way.

As for the US being a terrorist, I guess it's all perception. I don't see it that way.

Never attacked the US in any way? They've killed plenty of US soldiers.

JACK - see my comments above.

They didn't try to avert the war. They were offered the opportunity to hand over Bin Laden for trial and refused.

3G - actually they did. Give this a read. www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26410.htm

Lol.

I do not like the Taliban. Truthfully, i think everything the group stands for is the opposite of what I consider "humanity." That being said, they are not terrorists. They have never attacked anyone from US with the exception of those within AFG,

Blows me away that we're cool with labeling them as such.

Well I must say that's an interesting perspective sir. One indeed which frankly I haven't considered. Makes me think.

You don't need to attack the US to be a terrorist. Attacking your own people to terrorize them into submission, as the Taliban routinely does, counts as terrorism just as much.

ZOD - i hear what you're saying, and I want to agree with you. The problem I have is that makes that chubby Korean guy, The king of Saudi, pretty much any dictator or group of dictators. Terrorism is different. Or at least I think the word should

Mean something different - it's defined differently too.

There is no standard, generally recognized definition of terrorism. I go with the classic: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Wouldn't that definition make any war a terrorist act?

There is a reason there is no generally recognized definition of terrorism.

The word itself is used to provoke certain feelings, like fear and anger. Politicians have popularized it because of its power to further an Us vs Them dichotomy.

By generalizing a complex organization by simply labeling them a terrorist group, we no longer feel compelled to understand them as people with motivations, needs, and desires.

They aren't people anymore. They are the enemy.

I don't like the Taliban as much as the next guy. However, labeling them as terrorists is not only incorrect, it is a dehumanizing process.

This is why I refuse to call anyone a terrorist. The word is just a dysphemism.

Excellent use if the word dysphemism - I'll have to remember that. Lol.