It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whispers of Surrender in Afghanistan?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Whispers of Surrender in Afghanistan?


threatswatch.org

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement's foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.thememriblog.org




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I was not sure whether to post this or not.
I checked out the site that the info was supposedly taken from
(www.alwatandaily.com...#) but did not find it. But, there
are a lot of pages and sections so I may have overlooked it.
I checked the archives for the news of the last 3-4 days.

I just find it hard to believe that the US would make this kind
of deal.

IMO, If it turns out to be true, then the war is truly lost and
we need to bring out troops home before anyone else is killed.


threatswatch.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
If past performance is any indication, the Taliban will agree to the terms, take control of the regions, and continue to fire missiles at us. I hope we're not so foolish as to make a deal like that. We'll always come out on the short end of the stick.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaydie
 


removed.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I am starting to get a sick feeling that there may indeed be a basis of
fact in this story. This could be why Obama is being so elusive about
deciding about the surge. Maybe he is waiting to see if the negotiations
pan out?

From other sources:



Taliban's Afghan allies tell Barack Obama: 'Cut us a deal and we'll ditch al-Qaeda' President Barack Obama's review of strategy in Afghanistan means America will end up making a deal with the Taliban, and tolerating warlords, to end the fighting.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

And this:



Nevertheless, behind the scenes talks with mid-level Taliban officials already have begun, and Pakistani officials think they could rapidly accelerate now that Karzai has begun his second term. "We've already been talking to them [the Taliban]," said a senior Pakistani official in Islamabad, who couldn't be named because of the sensitivity of the issue. "If the US helps the process, some arrangements can be worked out for political reconciliation. I'm not for a moment suggesting that it's an easy task, but otherwise you will be fighting these people for the next hundred years."

www.csmonitor.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Holy #.

You mean the American government is using DIPLOMACY to stop the fighting, save lives and property, slow military spending and bring our troops home?

WOW, that'll NEVER work


Why is this a bad idea?

[edit on 24-11-2009 by midnightbrigade]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Well it doesn't surprise me at all, our whole approach to the entire endeavor was either severely flawed or had objectives that were/are only known to the planners and were most likely achieved early on.

We were told it was to take down the Taliban for harboring OBL, capture or kill OBL, and wipe out AQ.

Yet the Taliban is still strong enough to negotiate a cease fire/withdrawal.

Yet OBL was never captured and may still be alive and well.

Yet AQ is not only still around and fighting, but have gained much more support and credibility.

No doubt they will become even stronger if this whole fiasco ends like the OP reports it may.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
It would be nice to see the war over with, but the U.S. surrendering to stop the fighting? Not gonna happen. I mean cutting some kind of a deal, maybe, but not one that says "We will give you what you want if you stop shooting at us." I just can't see that happening, and frankly I wouldn't want to.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
Well it doesn't surprise me at all, our whole approach to the entire endeavor was either severely flawed or had objectives that were/are only known to the planners and were most likely achieved early on.

We were told it was to take down the Taliban for harboring OBL, capture or kill OBL, and wipe out AQ.

Yet the Taliban is still strong enough to negotiate a cease fire/withdrawal.

Yet OBL was never captured and may still be alive and well.

Yet AQ is not only still around and fighting, but have gained much more support and credibility.

No doubt they will become even stronger if this whole fiasco ends like the OP reports it may.



What the US government allows to be filtered to the media and what they are actually working on are often very different.

This does not mean deceiving the public so much as holding their cards to themsleves. There is no benefit for any country to blab about it's strategies and tip off it's competiors and enemies.

Weeks before 9/11 the US had a serious row with the Taliban who had made guarantees to provide security a new pipeline planned fo Afghanistan. Other factors but essentially the US said they'd come in if the Taliban did not comply.


Protection of bin Laden was the spark that set off the US invasion. Bin Laden was actually dead by 2002, but the US and Muslim World consider it to their advantages to maintain the illusion he's still out there.

The Taliban are on the run. Another untold back story, the Saudis at one time supported them. The dynamics of the region has changed. The Saudis and the Turks largely dictate US foreign policy in that part of the world. This is an ill kept secret but if you track what's going on with that in mind you'll see behind the public face the US puts on.

The real issues have moved to Pakistan now - country that has nukes and is now controlled by the ISI who are in bed with Islamic extremists and play back and forth games with the Taliban.

Regional alliances are in a constant flux depending on who is supplying funds and weapons. All is not what it appears to be.


M



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Well, if this is a lie, then its a potentially masterful piece of smear campaigning, so long as its picked up by MSM. It would be so contentious however that the source would have to be bullet proof. By whom; for what reason?
Obama may not be a hardass, but he is listening to the environmental lobby. Its way way in Saudi Arabia's interest (the source of the report) to have the Republican big oil party back in power & since this "surrender" would be unconscionable to most Americans, it would surely cause a monster backlash.
If its true & actually goes ahead, then we know 2 things for sure:
1) Obama was only ever installed to be a 1 term POTUS.
2) The US economy has already tanked & TPTB are trying to keep it a secret.
S&F btw



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Whatever happened to that rule..
"We Do Not Negotiate with terrorists"?
Oh yea, I forgot, this is Obama we are talking about.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
This was never a war against Al Quaeda, OBL or even the Opium fields. It was about keeping a war on the TV screens and bringing home the bodies of American/British troops to remind the public that the Mythical "Terrorists" are still out there to get us, and how we must give up our rights and pay more taxes to fund this shenanigans thats been happening ever since 9/11.

What your seeing is nothing more than Military Contractual Weapons being tested in a open arena, as with anything they need the wars to keep the money churning out the factories. No War means no weapons trading.

This war will end but you can sure bet the next flash-point will be Venezuela, co-incidentally just as American and the UK are pulling out of Afghanistan.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
My earliest recollection of operations in Afghanistan was daisy cutter bombs being droped on mountain caves to kill OBL.

I even remember US military showing us artist impressions of these super caves which were like nuclear bunkers with all the facilities required for the enemy to live in.

All complete BS of course.

OBL never mentioned now.

Nobody knows why we are there at all.

If Obama can talk us out of the place I'd say that was good.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
It's one thing to say that the wars in Iraq and Afganistan were orchestrated by the US government for political and financial reasons.

It's entirely another to claim that ALL terrorists are mythical creatures that don't exist.

Terrorists do exist. They can be found within the borders of most countires, including the U.S. Perhaps a reminder of what a terrorist actually is:


Noun 1. terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Link: www.thefreedictionary.com...


Having said that, the U.S. really needs to go back to the policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Negotiation does nothing but give the terrorists more power and allow them additional time to reorganize and plan.

Whether we should be in Afganistan or not does not diminsh the amount of lives that are being lost daily at the hands of these groups. Giving them any land as a "safety zone" will do nothing more but encourage them to continue their assaults in the hopes of acquiring / gaining even more land.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Well, we'll see next Tuesday when Obama reveals his long anticipated Afghanistan action plan. He is going to wait until we are all doped up on turkey leftovers to reveal the new strategy.

I can't figure this guy out. He already knows the plan. Why not reveal it now. Oh, wait, he doesn't want to dampen his party plans. Tonight is the first State Dinner at the White House with a guest list that reads like a who's who of Hollywood liberals and the progressive movement.

I feel like I'm waiting for the season finale of a sitcom.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
i don't understand why if you pull troops out of a country...supposedly you have "lost". we are there to get rid of people that threatened the united states, that's it. we are not there to take over the country, or change the way people live and behave or run their government. some people are still fighting WW2. let's not give these bombing criminals credit for having an organized army and country to defend. they don't, thus it is not a "war", it's a fight against a world criminal organization, that's it.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
Whatever happened to that rule..
"We Do Not Negotiate with terrorists"?
Oh yea, I forgot, this is Obama we are talking about.


The taliban may be scum, but it is us who invaded their country, right? So who's the bad guy? I don't see us invading Saudi Arabia because of the way their women are treated?
Further...how do you figure the war is going so far? At what point do you say, this is a dog's breakfast, and not worth American/Canadian lives?

I guess it's better to get another shot at Obama, cuz that'll fix everything



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The U.S. already lost, to continue the war is just losing more
shouldn't have been there in the first place

in my opinion this will just make the taliban stronger than before the U.S. came in and have more control

isnt it great of the american govt.

after the threat is even more huge they'll probably nuke afghanistan



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Just want to remind people there are a lot of UK troops being killed and injured as well. The UK government are such lap dogs to the US that the fate of our guys depends on what Obama decides.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I had a long discussion with a Pakistani journalist the other night. Just sharing a couple insights. Most Western people think of what's going on over there as Western countries coming in and taking control of governments.

If you live there and understand how things really work you'd see these countries often do not have what we'd consider governments. Going into Afghanistan is not like going into Finland. Afghanistan is a recognized sovereign state but for centuries various warlords and factions have fought to have control of various regions. There always has to be a nominal government to engage in international affairs like the UN, foreign trade anf resource exchanges. But it is always, at best, a puppet to some coalition of powers, domestic, or feoreign. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US is hoping to have installed something resembling representative governments so the entire population isn't at the mercy of local cutthroats who have no concern for the country's population at large.


Of course this isn't always benign. It's rally about pipelines and the massive drug trade in Afghanistan. But if the US, UK, no one was there, things would not suddenly be peaceful and prosperous. It never was. The best hope is that Afghanistan can start to have a real government that implements basic services, education, a more equitable distribution of revenues, an effective national military, strategic alliances with neighbouring states.

Tall order but ut has to start somewhere.

M



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join