Hacker News Reader

Comment by tW4r | Hacker News Reader

"We do not negotiate with terrorists"

> has officially appointed negotiators with the Taliban

This is a statement for the headlines, my brother in peak of the Afghanistan war was negotiating with Taliban everyday.

A lecturer I had in college had a military background, optimizing energy consumption in remote military setups. Turns out, the cost per gallon can be over $100 by the time you get it to the region, build and start a convoy for protection, and drive to the remote camps. 40% vs 80% efficiency on the generators really makes a difference!

They were flying into an airport in the middle east, just like a commercial flight. The conversation was along the lines of:

"What are we doing? We're gonna get shot down! Why aren't we doing {aggressive landing style that limits the window for getting hit}?"

"Nah, it's completely safe to land at this airport. They don't mess with our stuff."

"What do you mean, we're in the middle of enemy territory!"

Turns out, there was an agreement between with the local opposition military leader. They wanted/needed oil for heating and other purposes. The US military had tons of barrels of used oil from all their vehicles. The US gave all that to the opposition with an agreement that they don't shoot at our planes.

When are we going to see Tesla Model T(ank) or A(rmoured personnel carrier) and military bases covered in solar panels?

The Taliban are a political faction.

Yes, they are responsible for horrific crimes, but the American Government call them terrorists in an effort to delegitimatize them. Which is why so many people are now surprised by claims that the Taliban are gaining / have gained control of Afghanistan: they can't fathom how a terrorist group can rule a country. But you change their label to be more accurate, and it clicks for people.

Words are powerful.

From FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss, in his book Never Split the Difference, the US government always negotiates with terrorists.

"We do not negotiate with terrorists"

- the Taliban, to the US government

> "We do not negotiate with terrorists"

If we have the high ground*

"We do not negotiate with anyone who has nothing to give in return for weapons".

The classification of who are terrorists, is fluid anyway...

Deranged man shoots up a [whatever place]?

Does he have white supremacist leanings? Years ago/Fox News: "mentally deranged person". Category appointed by the left: "Right-wing terrorist".

Is that person Muslim/did he tweet about ISIS? "Terrorist"/"Links to terror groups are being looked at."

Remember, Nelson Mandela was once a "terrorist" too.

The classical definition of terrorism is using public violence and fear to achieve political change.

Yeah, yeah..

Hah, Donald Trump is a terrorist leader.

I would define terrorism as the organized destruction of life or property for the purpose of spreading fear rather than the achievement of any strategic military objective.

Deranged white supremacist shoots up a place? Not terrorism, unless the shooting was organized by a group (such as ISIS).

Sometimes it's debatable whether a particular attack constitutes terrorism, but the definition is not "fluid" in my opinion.

> "We do not negotiate with terrorists" > has officially appointed negotiators with the Taliban

I miss Trump already

> "If I were now president, the world would find that our withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a conditions-based withdrawal," Trump claimed in a statement. "I personally had discussions with top Taliban leaders whereby they understood what they are doing now would not have been acceptable," he said.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-blames-biden-unacceptable-talib...

The Taliban is not really a red/blue issue

Reply on news.ycombinator.com