Since PB won't let me ban anyone tonight, I have to amuse myself somehow.
;)Lindy, give me 20 minutes.
News Flash!! The Haqqani Network Just Might Be a Terrorist Organization!
- Thread starter Marauder06
- Start date
Since PB won't let me ban anyone tonight, I have to amuse myself somehow.
;)Lindy, give me 20 minutes.
THATS WHAT SHE SAID.
Dame
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,316
Wait. Mara's a chick?THATS WHAT SHE SAID.
Yeah..you didnt know?
Dame
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,316
Live and learn.Yeah..you didnt know?
Hm, I see everyone's a comedienne this evening. Maybe PB will let me ban some people tonight after all...
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. ;)
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:
/////
Source: CNN. Site: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1206/07/cnr.04.html
Source: NPR. Site: http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/158803583/taliban-showing-new-willingness-on-prisoner-swap
Source: BBC. Site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15187069
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.
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:
I think you’ll concede that the HQN is a foreign, and not US, organization, without me citing sources?
I already cited above examples in which the HQN regularly engages in terrorist activity AND terrorism. So this stipulation is met as well.
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.
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:
/////
“(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
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
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
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
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.
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:
I think you’ll concede that the HQN is a foreign, and not US, organization, without me citing sources?
I already cited above examples in which the HQN regularly engages in terrorist activity AND terrorism. So this stipulation is met as well.
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.
A true O answer. :-" "Cut & Paste", even if it was your material.
What makes you think it was "really" my material? ;)
Saved for later...
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.
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!
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
SOF Support
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
SOF Support
What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that the prisoners in Guantanamo and Bagram are not terrorists?
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.
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.
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...
... and one other point... the Great Game is back on and an even Greater Game this time. I like the use of Kipling...
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.
Similar threads
