Taliban deny high-level contact with Afghan government

Taliban deny high-level contact with Afghan government

www.cnn.com

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- The Taliban rejected Wednesday claims made by the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan that high level militant leaders have been in contact with the Afghan government.

"Contrary to the claims by the morale-sagging General Petraeus," a Taliban spokesman wrote in a statement...

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Afghanistan held secret peace talks with Taliban

Here we go again.

More [he said, she said who struck Paul?]. It seems that every few months this story "Breaks" about supposed Peace talks. I've provided a link to a thread I posted earlier in the year. It sounds almost identical etc. My bet is that both sides are talking but neither side really wants to give any details.

If either side really wants PEACE then I say enough of the chin wagging, roll up their sleeves and get to it people are dying...




www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Totally agreed on let's get talks going and stop wagging!

Isn't the Pres. Of Afghanistan's brother a major drug dealer? And if a connection can be made between the "terrorists" and the drug trade (besides the CIA connection ) , then isn't it a no-brainer there are many high level connections bewteen those 2 groups?

Unless we are to believe the brothers have no contact

Anyhow, there's no way we'll ever leave Afghanistan...EVER....not with the recent revelation of billions of dollars worth of minerals discovered...we're not just going to walk away from that...

The problem is that the Taliban isn't some monolithic organization. There are off-shoots all around the country and some may be in talks with the Afghan gov't.

Originally posted by Signals
Anyhow, there's no way we'll ever leave Afghanistan...EVER....not with the recent revelation of billions of dollars worth of minerals discovered...we're not just going to walk away from that...

I think the figure was......Trillions

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Signals
Anyhow, there's no way we'll ever leave Afghanistan...EVER....not with the recent revelation of billions of dollars worth of minerals discovered...we're not just going to walk away from that...

I think the figure was......Trillions

I think you are right..

The elite of the US will never leave until the last dime can be pulled from their dead dying hands(afghans)

"Contrary to the claims by the morale-sagging General Petraeus," a Taliban spokesman wrote in a statement e-mailed to CNN

what a way to seek peace by calling him a liar

the afghan government comes back nope we aint talking to em


the council is formed and yet they arent talking to them


ok this is getting a bit confusing either they are or they arent- my call bunch of 5 years who need to play rock paper scissors to see if they are going to talk or not it will be just as effective as 9 years of war.

reply to post by neo96




I think the Taliban are hurting more than they have eluded to and is believed in the press, they have recently taken a beating and have been pushed from every county NATO has moved to recently.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Heck as a former FBI agent found out the Taliban was in high level contact with
our government right up til the day before 9-11.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is a whole laundry list of "say what ?" out there concerning a lot of events.

Good post thou slayer ! Star and Flag !

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


Well now that's an interesting angle.
I havent looked into it yet. Reading it now.

It would not surprise me in the least if the Karzai government is talking to the Taliban. Now, is the President privy to these so called high levels talks? That is yet to be determined? The Obama Administration has been vocal about a pull-out in Afghanistan, and the Karzai government is aware of how they are viewed by the people of Afghanistan. It would seem the people in the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan are more than ready to align allegiances with the Taliban rather than than fledgling government, who is often cited for rampant corruption, in Kabul? Apparently, they are aware that Taliban is going to have a place at the table amid a US departure or reduction in military operations.

Karzai Divides Afghanistan in Reaching Out to Taliban

The insurgency, which is overwhelmingly waged by Pashtuns—Afghanistan's largest ethnic group—shows no sign of abating despite the surge in U.S. troop numbers. Instead, the Afghan leader, himself a Pashtun, is seeking a negotiated peace deal with the Islamist militants.

As it stands now, it seems the position of President Karzai and his government is to bolster reconciliation with the Taliban? The article above paints the picture of an Afghanistan when the US departs and Karzai's attempts to pad his pillow in the aftermath. However, another interesting take on the whole thing is how the other ethnic groups who have been persecuted by the Taliban in the past are taking Karzai's alleged communications with the Taliban?

. . . key leaders of Afghanistan's three largest ethnic minorities told The Wall Street Journal that they oppose Mr. Karzai's outreach to the Taliban, which they said could pave the way for the fundamentalist group's return to power and reignite civil war.

online.wsj.com...

If the ethnic groups with clout like the Hazara, Uzbek, and others feel threatened by the latest overtures of peace by the Kabul government to the Taliban, then they could very well start an insurgency of their own and a domino affect would prevail. Thus, making an already dire security situation ten times worse. I think the US government and military planners are aware of these back alley deals with members of the Taliban, but their silence on it is puzzling?

We must remember that there are US forces tasked with pacifying the war torn nation, as well as European powers in country doing the same. Casualty levels are on the rise for all. Moreover, as the President of Afghanistan is allegedly making overtures among his own ethnic group who comprise the Taliban in a feeble attempt at ensuring power and relevance in the event the US and NATO leaves; he risking the security of the foreign military forces tasked with backing his government and combating the insurgency. Furthermore, he giving the cold shoulder to ethnic groups who have been victims of the Taliban regime and have supported him in the past.

As far as I am concerned, the situation in Afghanistan is dire, and either Hamid Karzai is taken to task on his corruption and slapped around a bit, or needs to be ousted from power entirely before the country descends into hell, if it hasn't reached that level already? The guy is beginning to show his true colors and speaks with a forked tongue. Typical politician I suppose, but it does not help when military forces are being killed in higher numbers and at the same time alienating non-Pashtun Afghans.To put it simply, Karzai and his corrupt government have very serious trust issues to contend with.

It wouldn't surprise me the least to find out that this is a PR stunt where the script for the Taliban was written by the CIA and they gave them concessions/money to make it publicly. It draws heat away from the Afghanistan Corrupt Puppet Government including Karzai and his brother.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Honestly, it makes me wonder, why the Hell we are over there messing around.

Is it to truly fight a war, for the oil, or to waste money, time, and soldiers lives?

We've been involved with Afghanistan since the 70's and still no headway.

Taliban Build Multi-Million Dollar Insurgent Operation, Complicating U.S. Efforts

Considering Afghanistan is one portion of the Golden Crescent why not go after them harder?

Quote from : Wikipedia : Golden Crescent

The Golden Crescent is the name given to one of Asia's two principal areas of illicit opium production, located at the crossroads of Central, South, and Western Asia.

This space overlaps three nations, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, whose mountainous peripheries define the crescent, though only Afghanistan and Pakistan produce opium, with Iran being a consumer and trans-shipment route for the smuggled opiates.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) heroin production estimates for the past 10 years show significant changes in the primary source areas.

Heroin production in Southeast Asia declined dramatically, while heroin production in Southwest Asia expanded.

In 1991, Afghanistan became the world's primary opium producer, with a yield of 1,782 metric tons (U.S. State Department estimates), surpassing Myanmar, formerly the world leader in opium production.

The decrease in heroin production from Myanmar is the result of several years of unfavorable growing conditions and new government policies of forced eradication.

Afghan heroin production increased during the same time frame, with a notable decrease in 2001 allegedly as a result of the Taliban's fatwa against heroin production.

Afghanistan now produces over 90% of the world's opium.

In addition to opiates, Afghanistan is also the world's largest producer of hashish.

Is it our domestic policy clashing with our foreign policy or an obstruction through the United Nations?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b11216b03a32.jpg[/atsimg]

Quote from : Wikipedia : United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is a United Nations agency that was established in 1997 as the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention by combining the United Nations International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) and the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division in the United Nations Office at Vienna.

It was renamed the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in 2002.

Enough is enough if you ask me.

If we're legtimately waging a War on Drugs getting it off of America's streets is not sufficient.

Go after the source and lay waste to anyone producing this crap and cut off their supplies, money, and manufactuaring capabilities, completely, or is it too much to ask that we actually win a war we're waging, or is there just too much money to be made to line certain politicians pockets?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas




I honestly feel it has very little to do with fighting the Taliban. Looking for boogieman in caves etc.
I've always felt it is the US/Wests way of influencing the region especially Central Asia with it's vast Oil reserves.

We know that Central Asia is in play. Russia wants to limit Central Asian production so as not to have competition with it's Fuel sales to Europe and now that China is building a pipeline towards the Central Asian region. That will also compete with it's newly opened Pipe line Directly running between Russia to China.

If anyone is winning this it's China not the US or Russia or even the EU.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

I honestly feel it has very little to do with fighting the Taliban. Looking for boogieman in caves etc.
I've always felt it is the US/Wests way of influencing the region especially Central Asia with it's vast Oil reserves.

We know that Central Asia is in play. Russia wants to limit Central Asian production so as not to have competition with it's Fuel sales to Europe and now that China is building a pipeline towards the Central Asian region. That will also compete with it's newly opened Pipe line Directly running between Russia to China.

If anyone is winning this it's China not the US or Russia or even the EU.

edit on 30-9-2010 by SLAYER69 because: for clarification

Oh of course, the Taliban is just a small distraction, something to keep our attention.

Meanwhile, the oil pipelines and a reconfiguring of the regional politics is in play, dividing a map.

Geo-politically the Middle East is just another turf war for the Pentagon.

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce162ff8ff28.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

This bold and important book strives to be a practical "strategy for a Second American Century."

In this brilliantly argued work, Thomas Barnett calls globalization "this country’s gift to history" and explains why its wide dissemination is critical to the security of not only America but the entire world.

As a senior military analyst for the U.S. Naval War College, Barnett is intimately familiar with the culture of the Pentagon and the State Department (both of which he believes are due for significant overhauls).

He explains how the Pentagon, still in shock at the rapid dissolution of the once evil empire, spent the 1990s grasping for a long-term strategy to replace containment.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Barnett argues, revealed the gap between an outdated Cold War-era military and a radically different one needed to deal with emerging threats.

He believes that America is the prime mover in developing a "future worth creating" not because of its unrivaled capacity to wage war, but due to its ability to ensure security around the world.

Further, he believes that the U.S. has a moral responsibility to create a better world and the way he proposes to do that is by bringing all nations into the fold of globalization, or what he calls connectedness.

Eradicating disconnectedness, therefore, is "the defining security task of our age."

His stunning predictions of a U.S. annexation of much of Latin America and Canada within 50 years as well as an end to war in the foreseeable future guarantee that the book will be controversial. And that's good. The Pentagon's New Map deserves to be widely discussed.

Ultimately, however, the most impressive aspects of the book is not its revolutionary ideas but its overwhelming optimism.

Barnett wants the U.S. to pursue the dream of global peace with the same zeal that was applied to preventing global nuclear war with the former Soviet Union.

High-level civilian policy makers and top military leaders are already familiar with his vision of the future—this book is a briefing for the rest of us and it cannot be ignored.

--Shawn Carkonen

Between the Pentagon and Zbigniew Brzezinski's plots I see the Taliban as a gnat.

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ec7219abc1a.jpg[/atsimg]

Kirkus Reviews : Amazon Review :

The former national security advisor is still a believer in geopolitics after all these years.

Like most foreign-policy aficionados weaned on the Cold War, Brzezinski (Out of Control, 1993) has been forced by the disintegration of the Soviet Union to broaden his perspective--but not very far.

He sees the US as the only global superpower, but inability to maintain its hegemony indefinitely means that ``geostrategic skill'' is essential.

To what end is not specified beyond the vague shaping of ``a truly cooperative global community'' that is in ``the fundamental interests of humankind,'' but in this genre, goals are commonly assumed rather than examined.

In any case, Brzezinski casts Eurasia as the playing field upon which the world's fate is determined and analyzes the possibilities in Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Balkans (interpreted broadly), and the Far East.

Like a grandmaster in chess, he plots his strategy several moves in advance, envisioning a three-stage development.

Geopolitical pluralism must first be promoted to defuse challenges to America, then compatible international partners must be developed to encourage cooperation under American leadership, and finally the actual sharing of international political responsibility can be considered.

The twin poles of this strategy are a united Europe in the West and China in the East; the central regions are more problematic and, for Brzezinski, not as critical in constructing a stable balance of power.

This updated version of East-West geopolitics is worth taking seriously but it is also an amazing example of how a perspective can be revised without actually being rethought.

I'm quite sure this is how both the United Nations and Washington D.C. see the Taliban.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/17da572ce609.jpg[/atsimg]

Just as I am certain they wish to rid themselves of this nonsense unless it increases funding.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Oh of course, the Taliban is just a small distraction, something to keep our attention.

Meanwhile, the oil pipelines and a reconfiguring of the regional politics is in play, dividing a map.

Geo-politically the Middle East is just another turf war for the Pentagon.

Outside of Pop culture opinion the US is in the ME to stay. The New Great Game is Central Asia. This isnt a matter of lack of fuel resources it's who will gain the upper hand on it's future sales and influence.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3edbde293a9.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by SLAYER69


I have zero doubt about this at all.

Decades ago Iraq and Iran were fighting against each other and hating "the great Satan", America, I knew back then they were being pushed against each other, to keep their in-fighting and incessant nonsense flaring up, like a kiln being heated, in order to make the area a long-term goal for our troops to eventually come into the Middle East, as a staging ground.

Then when Blackwater changed their name to Xe it was the icing on the cake that we were going into Asia next.

Blackwater : Right-Wing Conservative America, Whether You Like It Or Not...,

This nonsense is easy as Hell to interpret if you know Government, Military, and policy, procedure, and protocol.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Russia And India Sign Major Military, Nuclear Deals

en.rian.ru

Russia and India signed on Friday a host of high-profile deals during Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's working visit to the country. The visit kicked off late on Thursday, amid many expectations as well as big money.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It is something the west needs to keep an eye on though.

New Delhi, March 13 (ANI): India and Russia inked several pacts including civil nuclear cooperation and supply and joint development of military hardware during a hectic daylong visit of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to New Delhi on Friday. The two countries also upgraded their nuclear co-operation with Russia pledging to build up to 16 nuclear reactors for power stations in India.

Russia will build more than 1,000 stealth fighter jets within four decades, including at least 200 for its traditional weapons buyer India. Russia is also expected a joint venture with the state-run Indian company Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to manufacture around 200 fifth-generation fighter jets.

reply to post by SLAYER69


This only reminds me of when Hugo chavez asked Russia to forgive Cuba and Castro's debts.

A non-agression pact was signed back then as well.

And we both know what that means when a non-aggression pact is signed.

Sides are being picked and enemies are aligning on all sides.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Remind me again who exactly was one of the first persons Obama went to see early in his "Presidency"
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52af45170224.jpg[/atsimg]