New USA policy

OLD USA: “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: “We are totally down to negotiate with terrorists.”

How “old” are we talking? I seem to recall Trump bragging about negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban not too long ago.

Please tell me all about Trump’s negotiations with the Taliban. And I find it odd that the Taliban were in a position to “negotiate” anything back when Trump was in office, even if it wasn’t too long ago. Gene. What were they negotiating?

Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf (91.3 KB)

-----> wait

Page II paragraph D: D. With the start of intra-Afghan negotiations, the United States will initiate an administrative
review of current U.S. sanctions and the rewards list against members of the Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban
with the goal of removing these sanctions by August 27, 2020, which corresponds to Muharram
8, 1442 on the Hijri Lunar calendar and Saunbola 6, 1399 on the Hijri Solar calendar

I can try to make an excuse and run interference for the righties by saying something like “brokering an agreement with terrorists when they aren’t in a position of strength is fine” but I don’t like that either.

I’m not okay with this. Why didn’t I hear about this? Where did you hear about this?

Left or Right, we all exist in echo chambers of some degree. That’s why you guys should keep people like me around :slight_smile:

It’s also why I visit in large part. Jumping into the fray with the political opposition can be quite educational.

1 Like

I noticed that document always refers to the Taliban as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban”. That’s quite a mouthful and it’s repeated frequently. Never just “the Taliban”. I guess we wanted to make it crystal clear that we don’t trust them.

I also searched the document for how we will enforce it. What we’ll do if the Taliban attacks any US person. I couldn’t find anything. That document didn’t cover it, but I understand President Trump was very graphic when talking with the Taliban leader. He said he would kill him if he attacked. And he knows where he lives so he would kill his village. How’s that for diplomatic talk with savages?

I got the impression that the only reason he had any negotiations at all was to tell them we were leaving and to be sure they knew they’d die if they attacked. But Biden, the most stupid president in history, brought the military out first. So how could we kill them if they attacked? What benefit did the negotiations have if we can’t kill the savages?

Well ISIS-K claimed responsibility, and Biden swiftly carried out that drone strike to take out some of their leadership.

I seriously doubt Trump said that. I mean, I’m pretty sure that’s a war crime. Okay, I doubt he said it, but I also wouldn’t be surprised to be proven wrong.

He was in talks with them for years. He invited Taliban leaders to Camp David for in person negotiations. Granted he called that meeting off last minute, but he gave them a level of legitimacy no president had before.

Taliban was intentionally never declared a terrorist organization.

The Bush administration figured from the start some sort of peace from them would have to be made, and that we could use it as leverage to force them to turn on Al Qaeda.

When accessing the Taliban, it seems like more than one U.S. President has been smoking weed. If the Taliban isn’t a terrorist organization, they are definitely enablers.

The rationale is, as @Alaska_Slim was talking about, if we label them a “terrorist organization” then we legally can’t negotiate with them. Not applying the label makes it possible to work on agreements. You may not agree with it, neither do I, but it is what it is.

I don’t see what the alternative was. The very fact they took over the country so quickly proved they have popular appeal there; as did the propensity for their battlefield dead to be locals.

Best case scenario; they formed a political party, and participated within the democratic process.

We can’t fix what people there want. At best, we can just agree to fight ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Democrats, Republicans… the only way those two words make a bit of difference is amongst the people/voters. I don’t trust anyone in our government and I never will. “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” sounds great on paper until they deliberately fail to declare terrorists to be terrorists which it seems to me just happened.

I think every administration since 2001 has failed in Afghanistan and the Biden admin just happened to fail the hardest and the fastest. As much as I want to blame Biden and only Biden this is a failure of epic proportions on both sides of the aisle.

Either way in 2 weeks everyone will have forgotten about this debacle until next election.

1 Like

What’s the difference between a terrorist and a rebel group?

Keep in mind, they haven’t struck out at international targets, nor operate abroad. They have no pan-Islamic agenda, and frequently fight groups like ISIS who do.

They only care about having supremacy in Afghanistan.

Confusing terrorists and rebels is something we should avoid given that this very confusion is why we got involved in Yemen, bombing the Houthis, using the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) as justification. An act which called for combating all those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11 attacks.

… Despite the Houthis being Shia, and hating Al Qaeda as much as we do, and having nothing to do with the above. They just made the “mistake” of fighting the Saudis over who should rule their country.

https://www.dni.gov/nctc/groups/afghan_taliban.html

…???
…???
…???

https://home.dotgov.gov/

…???

One has their own government website I guess?

A “rebel group” will probably get U.S. aid to keep it in power. That way they will be able spend more money arms, terrorism and the Islamic revolution.