# News Flash!!  The Haqqani Network Just Might Be a Terrorist Organization!



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/5/9/2/6/11949839281460047022keyboard_key_yemu.svg.med.png



> With a Congressional reporting deadline looming, the Obama administration appears ready to designate the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization, risking a new breach in relations with Pakistan.


 
Let's review the bidding, shall we? (I'm not going to post links, feel free to factcheck on your own)

-The HQN is the most capable (i.e. deadly) terrorist group in the entire region. This specifically includes the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Everybody knows it.
-The leaders of the HQN are specifically named as international terrorists. Everyone knows it.
-The HQN is currently holding the only US POW in the region, Bowe Berghdahl. Everybody knows it.
-The HQN is is a terrorist organization through and through. Everyone knows it.

So why is the US dithering over where to drop the hammer on these clowns and call a spade a spade?

The main reason is because to admit the HQN is a terrorist organization is to admit Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism. Since the HQN is a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's intelligence apparatus the ISI,(Google it if you want), designating the HQN a terrorist organization directly and explicitly implicates the government of Pakistan in international terrorism and the deaths of US servicemembers. And everyone knows it.


----------



## CDG (Aug 31, 2012)

Who?


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> So why is the US dithering over where to drop the hammer on these clowns and call a spade a spade?


 
Im going to have to report this post as offensive to the ShadowSpear Diversity Officer. 
Pardus!  Paging Pardus!!


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Im going to have to report this post as offensive to the ShadowSpear Diversity Officer.
> Pardus! Paging Pardus!!


 

lol

I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear on this one.

http://angryyoungdem.blogspot.com/2007/03/lets-call-spade-spade.html


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 31, 2012)

1) That phrase might offend someone
2) I thought FF said we killed them/him/it/they


----------



## Brill (Aug 31, 2012)

You really believe that HQN is on the same playing field as Hezbollah, Hamas, FARC, Red Brigades, November 17, and Abu Sayef Group? 

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

*Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended*

It must be a _foreign organization._
The organization must _engage in terrorist activity_, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or _terrorism_, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** _or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism_.
The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals _or_ the national security (national defense, foreign relations, _or_ the economic interests) of the United States.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> 1) That phrase might offend someone
> 2) I thought FF said we killed them/him/it/they


 
These days, everything might offend someone.  If people educated themselves, they might not be so easily offended.  I totally get why people might find "the rule of thumb" offensive, given its historical context. But seizing on one particular word in "calling a spade a spade" and making assumptions (i.e. prejudices) about it and what I mean by it based on the color of my skin, makes the person getting offended over it at least as guilty of racism as he or she (wrongly) assumes I am by choosing to use the phrase correctly and in the traditional, historic, and most decidedly non-racist context.

Supposedly we got the operational commander of the HQN, Badruddin.  The overall commander, his brother Siraj, and the patriarch of the HQN, Jalaludin, are AFAIK both still alive.  But just killing the top leaders probably won't cripple the overall network, at least not immediately, since it's propped up by Pakistan.


----------



## Dame (Aug 31, 2012)

This thread needs clipart.
​

Marauder06 said:


> -The HQN is the most capable (i.e. deadly) terrorist group in the entire region.This specifically includes the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Everybody knows it.-The leaders of the HQN are specifically named as international terrorists. Everyone knows it.-The HQN is currently holding the only US POW in the region, Bowe Berghdahl. Everybody knows it.-The HQN is is a terrorist organization through and through. Everyone knows it.


​​


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

lindy said:


> You really believe that HQN is on the same playing field as Hezbollah, Hamas, FARC, Red Brigades, November 17, and Abu Sayef Group?
> 
> http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm


 
Um, yeah.




> *Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended*
> 
> It must be a _foreign organization._
> The organization must _engage in terrorist activity_, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),*** or _terrorism_, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),**** _or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism_.
> The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals _or_ the national security (national defense, foreign relations, _or_ the economic interests) of the United States.


 
Actually, no; they are operating at a higher level than some of the organizations you named.  And after we pull out of Afghanistan and the Taliban / HQN take the country back over, the HQN will be operating at a level approaching Hamas and Hezbollah, because they will have sanctuary, the resources of an entire country, and the political, military, and economic support of a major regional power (in this case, Pakistan).


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 31, 2012)

Mara's rhetorical questions that I answer unknowingly - 9,873,432
SL's sarcastic comment -1

I have some catching up to do...


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Mara's rhetorical questions that I answer unknowingly - 9,873,432
> SL's sarcastic comment -1
> 
> I have some catching up to do...


 
Actually, I take responsibility for not recognizing your sarcasm.  I'm three drinks deep into The Glenlivet and not spending as much time analyzing posts before I make a response as I usually do.  I didn't even post links to support my position on the HQN tonight ;)


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 31, 2012)

Weepin' jesus on the cross!  Someone get an NCO over to Mara's house for shit's sake!!!


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Weepin' jesus on the cross! Someone get an NCO over to Mara's house for shit's sake!!!


 
Well, I do need someone to do the next installment of the case study.  ;)


----------



## Brill (Aug 31, 2012)

Strongly disagree based on the definition of terrorism per US law.

Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182] 

4/   (iii) TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in this Act, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if   4/   it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) *and* *which involves any of the following: *​ 
 (I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle). ​ 
 (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained. ​ 
 (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person. ​ 
 (IV) An assassination. ​ 
 (V) The use of any- ​ 
 (aa) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or ​ 
 (bb) explosive,   4/   firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. ​ 
 (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. ​​ 
Furthermore, how does HQN meet this criteria?

INA: ACT 219 - DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION   1/  

 Sec. 219.  (a) Designation.- 
(1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-

(A) the *organization is a foreign* organization;

(B) the *organization engages in terrorist activity* (as defined in section  212(a)(3)(B)   1a/  or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and

(C) the terrorist *activity*  1a/  or terrorism of the organization *threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States*.


----------



## AWP (Aug 31, 2012)

It only took 3 years and we still do not want to admit that PK supports terrorists....you're with us or against us, right?

Asia and the Middle East will dominate US foreign policy far longer than Europe did during the Cold War and we still can't bring ourselves to admit that we've given 18+ billion dollars to a terrorist state on top of trade and jobs we've shipped to them. We're being raped and they are suing us for child support.

Fan-fucking-tastic.


----------



## CDG (Aug 31, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> It only took 3 years and we still do not want to admit that PK supports terrorists....you're with us or against us, right?
> 
> Asia and the Middle East will dominate US foreign policy far longer than Europe did during the Cold War and we still can't bring ourselves to admit that we've given 18+ billion dollars to a terrorist state on top of trade and jobs we've shipped to them. We're being raped and they are suing us for child support.
> 
> Fan-fucking-tastic.


 
Thanks to politicians who would rather continue fucking this country up as opposed to admitting they were wrong about something.  They'll be good either way, since if shit really does go south in a hurry, they'll be stealing all of our money to go run off to the Caribbean or wherever-the-fuck.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

lindy said:


> Strongly disagree based on the definition of terrorism per US law.
> 
> Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]
> 
> ...


 
This is a good question. I'm going to go pour myself another Scotch, and if I'm still coherent enough after, I'll write up what I think is a good response.

Short answer: by any and every definition, the HQN is a terrorist organization. I'll provide evidence shortly.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2012)

"Kill em all, let God sort em out".


----------



## AWP (Aug 31, 2012)

I guess I need to learn to drink Scotch. I sense a theme here.


----------



## Brill (Aug 31, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> This is a good question. I'm going to go pour myself another Scotch, and if I'm still coherent enough after, I'll write up what I think is a good response.
> 
> Short answer: by any and every definition, the HQN is a terrorist organization. I'll provide evidence shortly.


 
"Just over the next hill."


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I guess I need to learn to drink Scotch. I sense a theme here.


 
Since PB won't let me ban anyone tonight, I have to amuse myself somehow.   ;)

Lindy, give me 20 minutes.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Lindy, give me 20 minutes.


THATS WHAT SHE SAID.


----------



## Dame (Aug 31, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> THATS WHAT SHE SAID.


Wait. Mara's a chick?


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2012)

Dame said:


> Wait. Mara's a chick?


Yeah..you didnt know?


----------



## Dame (Aug 31, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Yeah..you didnt know?


Live and learn.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

Hm, I see everyone's a comedienne this evening.  Maybe PB will let me ban some people tonight after all...


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 31, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Hm, I see everyone's a comedienne this evening. Maybe PB will let me ban some people tonight after all.


 
Just wait for midnight, you pick the time zone. ;)


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

It was kind of funny, when I was researching on the Internet for my response just now, this thread kept popping up in the Google search.  ;)

OK, so here goes.

Attached is a paper I wrote last year on several topics, one of which was the Haqqani Network.  I took out my own name, the name of my school, and the name of my professor because I don't think they are important for this conversation, but everything else is as I wrote it.  In blue text are the comments from my professor.  I'm posting this version so everyone has a more-balanced view of the overall issues rather than just my POV.  As you will see, my professor didn't always agree with what I wrote.  

I'm posting this because I don't feel like re-typing the backstory and there are several good primary sources listed in the footnotes and the bibliography, for those who, like me, like to factcheck when people make claims about controversial topics.   So, anyone who is interested can read on the HQN and some related topics in depth if they feel like it and can use it to check both what I wrote in the paper and what I write here in this thread.

Now, to the issue of whether or not the HQN meets the definition of a terrorist group.  If we accept the definition of what a terrorist group is, as the one that Lindy provided (which I do), and if we understand the HQN and how they do business (which, conveniently, I also do, and will explain here), then I don't see how anyone can look at both things objectively and come to any other determination other than that the HQN is a terrorist network, and should be designated as such by the US Department of State.  With very little effort, I’m pretty sure I can find examples of instances in which the HQN meets not only one, but EVERY stipulation of what might land an organization on the terrorist list, with just a quick Google search.  Let’s see:  

/////



> (I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).


  “(the HQN) are the ‘Sopranos’ of Afghanistan- extortion, rackets, kidnaps, hijacks, protections…”
Source:  CNN.  Site:  http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1206/07/cnr.04.html



> (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.


The HQN has detained, threatened to kill, and used US Army Soldier Bowe Bergdahl and made the removal of US troops from the region a condition of his release.
Source:  NPR.  Site:  http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/158803583/taliban-showing-new-willingness-on-prisoner-swap



> (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.


The section of the US code defined above refers to people like heads of state, dignitaries, their families, etc.  Here is a link:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1116  The HQN regularly targets US and Afghan officials (and, at the behest of Pakistan, they target Indian officials as well), including Hamid Karzai.  
Source:  BBC.  Site:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15187069



> (IV) An assassination.


Too easy.The HQN were implicated in numerous attempted and successful assassintation, including the death of Burhanuddin Rabbani, former president of Afghanistan and instrumental of the peace/reconciliation process:  “All three of those attacks are believed to be the work of the Haqqani network, a Taliban-allied insurgent faction, based along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. “  Source:  Jagran.  Site:  http://post.jagran.com/Afghan-expresident-who-led-peace-efforts-killed-1316537882




> (V) The use of any-
> (aa) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or




Ok, so maybe I can’t prove EVERY stipulation ;)  But I’m quite sure that the HQN would use this stuff if they could get their hands on it.

(bb) explosive, 4/ firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.



> (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.



The fact that they exist and are carrying on these acts is evidence of the attempt and conspiracy to “do any of the foregoing.”  I don’t feel like I need to cite sources to prove this.

Now, let’s take a look at the requirements to designation a terrorist organization, already cited above:


> (1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-







> (A) the *organization is a foreign* organization;



I think you’ll concede that the HQN is a foreign, and not US, organization, without me citing sources?




> (B) the *organization engages in terrorist activity* (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) 1a/ or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and



I already cited above examples in which the HQN regularly engages in terrorist activity AND terrorism.  So this stipulation is met as well.



> (C) the terrorist *activity* 1a/ or terrorism of the organization *threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States*.



How the terrorist activity and terrorism of the organization threatens the security of US nationals:
“ Haqqani operations account for one-tenth of the attacks on ISAF troops, and perhaps 15 percent of casualties, senior American officials estimate” (personally, I think this percentage is MUCH higher.  Source:  New York Times.  Site: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/haqqani_network/index.html
 Also, the leaders of  the HQN are designatied as terrorists, so how can the leaders be terrorist, but the organization they lead, which regularly engages in terrorism, not be a terrorist organization?  Source:  Long War Journal.  Site:  http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/02/us_designates_al_qae.php 
Threat to US national security:  “The _*Haqqani Network*_ represents a _*strategic threat*_ to the enduring stability of the Afghan state and U.S. national security interests in the region.”  Source:  Institute for the Study of War.  Site:  http://www.understandingwar.org/report/haqqani-network-strategic-threat

So, in conclusion, the HQN meets most of the criteria for what constitutes an terrorist act (any one of them are sufficient).  The HQN meets all of the criteria for what constitutes a terrorist organization, as I just explained above.  I also want to point out that for every source I provided, there were probably dozens of others I could have provided as well.  These aren't just one-off events. Given these incontrovertible facts, then I can not see how any objective person would not come to the same conclusion that I have, that the HQN is, in fact, a terrorist organization.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 31, 2012)

A true O answer. :-"  "Cut & Paste", even if it was your material.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

What makes you think it was "really" my material?  ;)


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 31, 2012)

Saved for later...


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Saved for later...


 
Meh, save it for one night when you're having trouble sleeping.  Pretty much the only thing exciting in the whole paper is the cover of FHM with the photo of the model with "ISI" on her arm.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 31, 2012)

My new car is exciting.
I enjoy reading up on this stuff because I don't take any time to do it on my own.  I'm way behind the power curve on current/national/global events.  I didn't know what a HQN was until about a year after I joined this site.  :-/  And now it's dead, according to FF!


----------



## Brill (Aug 31, 2012)

So you are saying that HQN leadership should in fact be captured and tried in a US court of law for their crimes?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2012)

lindy said:


> So you are saying that HQN leadership should in fact be captured and tried in a US court of law for their crimes?


 
What does that have to do with anything?  Are you saying that the prisoners in Guantanamo and Bagram are not terrorists?    Many of them are not ever going to be tried to a US court.


----------



## Brill (Sep 1, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that the prisoners in Guantanamo and Bagram are not terrorists?  Many of them are not ever going to be tried to a US court.


 
Why yes, yes, I am saying that!  Terrorism is a crime!  An international crime at that! 

The fighters are an insurgent enemy force fighting to overthrow the foreign-backed government of Afghanistan.  Does HQ family have political ambitions/aspirations?  Is there a "manifesto" (outside of Sharia)?

My point is that HQN is just a proxy militant wing of ISI and are involved in the Afghan insurgency.  It seems they use "Asymmetric Warfare" (as we do...but with air-power, technology, etc) which is labeled "terrorist tactics".  Granted this is a very broad stroke whereas hotel attacks, targeted suicide bombings, etc clearly are intended to strike fear into the Afghan political leaders and populace in general.

The Russians typically call the Chechen insurgents illegal bandit formations but when they want to get attention/international sympathy, they go with terrorists.

Ultimately my point is that if we identify a small group like the HQN as at TO, then we really have become the World Police.  This is nothing more than political so someone back in DC can feel good about doing nothing to support troops on the ground who need to be able to call in an airstrike without being able to provide 100% assurance there will not be CIVCAS.  Although I will concede that Asymmetric Warfare does include Information Warfare and we're not doing too well on that front.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 1, 2012)

In the immortal words of Harry Tasker  "They were all bad".


----------



## x SF med (Sep 2, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, I do need someone to do the next installment of the case study. ;)


 
Here you go, Sir...

"Once upon a time, Faith shot Dud in the face and they all lived happily ever after."


...and back to the OP...  I guess Barry O finally got around to reading "War at the Top of the World" and put 2 and 2 together.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 2, 2012)

Okay...  Mara I will finish reading the paper later.   I stopped at the discussion of Pakistan and the taliban....  you missed one small piece of info with huge historical signifigance - Pakistan (the ISI under Gharib, IIRC) created the Taliban to fight the Russians in the 1979-1994 "Afghani insurrection" while at the same time  shipping in mujahadeen from Pakistan and other 'sympathetic countries', then took those veteran Pakistanis and sympathizers into the renewed Kashmiri fighting...  with some financial help from China.  (not sharpshooting, just clarifying my understanding of the situation...)

...  and one other point... the Great Game is back on and an even Greater Game this time.   I like the use of Kipling...


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 2, 2012)

I agree with Lindy. They're a local insurgent group operating in their own state. Foreign sanctuary and funding notwithstanding they are a very local group and have no wider aspirations outside of Afghanistan. Ergo they're not a terrorist group but rather than insurgent one because of the lack of true global (or even regional) operational capacity.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 3, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> I agree with Lindy. They're a local insurgent group operating in their own state. Foreign sanctuary and funding notwithstanding they are a very local group and have no wider aspirations outside of Afghanistan. Ergo they're not a terrorist group but rather than insurgent one because of the lack of true global (or even regional) operational capacity.


 
Actually HQN is backed by ISI, Muslim Brotherhood and the Afghani Taliban... China has been backing Pakistan also, so indirectly the Chinese are backing HQN ...and there is an Indonesian arm of HQN tied to the Indonesian Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood. all of which are globally funded through 'donations' and shell businesses in various parts of the world.  There are sub Saharan arms of all 3 noted organizations tied to the local tribal conflicts in the pan African conflicts promulgated by the Soviets/Chinese backing the Islamic insurgents.

A mod/admin may edit/delete/redact as needed if any of this is not for public consumption.


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2012)

x SF med said:


> A mod/admin may edit/delete/redact as needed if any of this is not for public consumption.


 
You used the term "insurgents" which I think is considered to be racist or culturally insensitve or something. I'm sure there's a rule of thumb I could apply, but I'm hungry. So, if another staff member could hold down the fort I'll go to chow and if I'm lucky I'll be in high cotton thanks to tonight's menu.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 3, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> I agree with Lindy. They're *a local insurgent group* operating in their own state. Foreign sanctuary and funding notwithstanding they are a very local group and have no wider aspirations outside of Afghanistan. Ergo they're not a terrorist group but rather than insurgent one because of the lack of true global (or even regional) operational capacity.


 
A "local" insurgent group?  By what definition?  I demonstrated in my earlier posts that the HQN meets almost every stipulation of what makes something a terrorist group (any one of which is sufficient by itself), we all agree that they use terrorist tactics in support of a political goal, and I proved that individually their leaders are already designated terrorists.  We could have an argument over what "type" of terrorist group they are (national, transnational, international) but that is semantics compared to whether or not they are an insurgent group or a terrorist organization.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 3, 2012)

I'm not ignoring this FYI, I'm just gathering my thoughts...and evidence


----------



## Brill (Sep 7, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> A "local" insurgent group? By what definition? I demonstrated in my earlier posts that the HQN meets almost every stipulation of what makes something a terrorist group (any one of which is sufficient by itself), we all agree that they use terrorist tactics in support of a political goal, and I proved that individually their leaders are already designated terrorists. We could have an argument over what "type" of terrorist group they are (national, transnational, international) but that is semantics compared to whether or not they are an insurgent group or a terrorist organization.


 
Well...it looks like I get to find out first hand.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 7, 2012)

lindy said:


> Well...it looks like I get to find out first hand.


 
If you're going to be in eastern Afghanistan, I'm sure you will ;)  

In other news...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/w...isting-militant-organization.html?_r=1&emc=na



> The Obama administration has decided to blacklist as a terrorist organization the Haqqani network, the militant organization responsible for some of the deadliest attacks against American troops in Afghanistan, several American officials said late Thursday.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 7, 2012)

It's a good thing the HQN isn't a terrorist network, otherwise our hostage that they're holding might be in greater danger right now, what with them being on "The List" and all.

Oh, wait...

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...st-designation-adds-to-captured-gis-woes?lite




> Senior members of the Haqqani network said that the United States' designation of the militant group as terrorists could endanger the life of an American soldier thought to be in their custody and jeopardize peace talks.
> "The Obama administration and U.S. military commanders know that their soldier Bowe Bergdahl is in our possession," a Haqqani commander told NBC News in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location on Friday.  "He is in our custody, but his government failed to make any sincere effort for his release, and now this new development could add to his woes."


----------



## Dame (Sep 7, 2012)

Was stuck at the car dealership today watching CNN. 
"And now, a report on why the Haqqani Network may be a dangerous terrorist threat."
I about came out of my chair. I haven't yelled at a television in public, well, ever. 
Me: "_*May* be?_ You must be joking! Everyone knows those bastards are terrorists. Free preaches it every freakin' day! Mara started a thread on how stupid the news is on this issue. WTF!"
20 yr old: "Mom, calm down. You're scaring people."


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 8, 2012)

I was hoping this thread would pop-up again.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15558

*Statement by George Little on the Haqqani Network*

            Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs George Little provided the following statement: 
            "We welcome Secretary Clinton's announcement that the Haqqani Network meets the statutory criteria for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity under Executive Order 13224.  
            The Haqqani Network represents a significant threat to U.S. national security and we will continue our aggressive military action against this threat.  These new group designations will build on our efforts to degrade the Network's capacity to carry out attacks, including affecting fundraising abilities, targeting them with our military and intelligence resources, and pressing Pakistan to take action.  We will continue these efforts, reinforced by today's new designations.  By strengthening our whole-of-government approach against the Haqqanis, we are supporting our campaign efforts in Afghanistan and further limiting the organization's capacity to destabilize the region."


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 8, 2012)

I think this also means we can target them wherever they are, kind of like AQ.  We can also go after their finances, facilitators, and the people who are sponsoring them.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 8, 2012)

I had a think about all this, Maruarau, and I think we're both pretty entrenched in our view and the argument will boil down to an exercise in definitions and logically extending to semantics over said definitions.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 8, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> I had a think about all this, Maruarau, and I think we're both pretty entrenched in our view and the argument will boil down to an exercise in definitions and logically extending to semantics over said definitions.


 
Probably so, it happens sometimes.

So, what you're saying is that you're an "irreconcilable." Hmm.... ;)


----------



## AWP (Sep 8, 2012)

What's tragic is that we have to label them as anything other than "Motherfuckers who need to be dead" IOT go after their finances and support structure. We didn't wake up one morning and find these guys wrapping our homes in toilet paper, these are known bad guys and we're in this Global Contingency Operation on Really Bad People or something, so going after this group shouldn't require a declaration of anything other than "They are killing our peeps."


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 8, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Probably so, it happens sometimes.
> 
> So, what you're saying is that you're an "irreconcilable." Hmm.... ;)


 
LOL, bastard. 

Nah I just think we're looking at the same thing from different angles. We both think they're cunts, after all. I do think definitions are important, overuse of a definition can lead to misuse IMO.


----------

