Peace gets a new chance in Afghanistan

Note: the topic is not whether a word is offensive. It is about a possible peace deal.

Please post on topic

Peace with the Taliban? Are you kidding me? Whose brilliant idea was this? This group would never honor any peace deal, because there would be stipulations for all sides involved guaranteeing their interests. As far as the Taliban is concerned, there interests take precedent over others. This agreement would not be worth the paper it is printed on, and more will die as a result of it. Look at what the Taliban did when they were given a stretch of land in Pakistan's scenic Swat Valley a few years ago.

Pakistan Makes a Taliban Truce, Creating a Haven

The government announced Monday that it would accept a system of Islamic law in the Swat valley and agreed to a truce, effectively conceding the area as a Taliban sanctuary and suspending a faltering effort by the army to crush the insurgents.

Pakistan army 'will retake Swat'

The militants are led by a radical local cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, who is linked to the Taleban.

His men are accused of killing dozens of state employees and government supporters in addition to destroying nearly 200 schools - most of them for girls.

The Taleban oppose education for girls, which they say is un-Islamic.

They took over, installed Sharia Law, and reignited their reign of terror on the local population. The situation got so bad, and the Pakistani army would have to forcefully retake the Swat Valley from the maniacal hands of the Taliban.



The Pakistanis government's efforts to extend the white dove and olive branch to the Taliban ended miserably. This just happened a few years ago, and now it seems government are going down the same road in Southern Afghanistan? What short attention spans they have, and this will end badly.

This ragtag group of medieval mountain men, have shown time and time again that it is only their way or the highway. The only way to deal with these extremists is to have them pushing up daisies or imprisoned indefinitely. Please excuse the harsh tone in my last sentence, but that is how I feel they should be dealt with. They are a menace to civilization and stability in Afghanistan. This group has no concept of general compassion, sympathy, or respect for their fellow man. Therefore, any negotiations are mute and meaningless, because they blatantly ignore the basic premises of civil conduct in the modern age.

Keep them on the run, root them out wherever they are hiding, decimate safe havens, and last but not least, no truce or surrender only lead and a farewell card. That is how they play the game, and it is high time to give them a piece of their own medicine. They have used beheadings, floggings, civilians as human shields by occupying villages and towns, and other atrocious forms of warfare to reestablish complete control over Afghanistan or anywhere they can get a foothold. I am sorry, but this will not work and will end very badly if allowed to proceed.

reply to post by Jakes51


Wow.

First off, the Taliban wouldn't even exist if the US and its CIA dogs found better things to do with their money than give it, along with weapons, to Islamic Extremists that were willing to fight the Soviets as proxies.

Secondly, you wouldn't have any problems with the Taliban if they agreed to build a pipeline through their land, which is what the US government expected... unfortunately they didn't expect the Taliban to say no.

In fact, here's a sweet little picture of Taliban "freedom fighters" as they were back then, sitting in the White House with President Reagan:


Interesting how fast they were suddenly made out to be "terrorists", eh?

Oh and by the way, who are you to say anything about the Taliban? They had nothing to do with 9/11. Please explain what they did to you.

Oh, and did you happen to know that the Taliban has been offering ceasefire negotiations for years but it was the US that stated "we don't negotiate with terrorists"? It probably has something to do with the fact that the coalition never went to Afghanistan, or the Middle East in general, to give a damn about the humanitarian situation there (if they did, they wouldn't have irradiated the place with depleted uranium).

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Jakes51

 

Wow.

Wow, is right. But not for the reasons I think you are implying? These guys are bad news and have been harsh toward any people they have ruled over. That is fact! The evidence is everywhere. Just look for yourself.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
First off, the Taliban wouldn't even exist if the US and its CIA dogs found better things to do with their money than give it, along with weapons, to Islamic Extremists that were willing to fight the Soviets as proxies.

Hindsight is 20/20. I am fairly certain the Communist stalwarts of old had wished they had not gotten involved in their own meat grinder and money pit which was Afghanistan? What you are talking about is the after affects of US involvement in aiding the Afghan Mujahideen. As far as I am concerned, the ends justifies the means. The Soviets were pushed out of Afghanistan, and may have very hasten the collapse of the USSR. At that time the wolves were wearing sheep's clothing.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Secondly, you wouldn't have any problems with the Taliban if they agreed to build a pipeline through their land, which is what the US government expected... unfortunately they didn't expect the Taliban to say no.

Oh yes, the illusive pipeline? The Taliban were in negotiations to build the pipeline, but the country was at civil war, and that may have very well put the kibosh on the deal? Moreover, it wasn't just the US attempting to make a deal, but also an Argentinian firm. The article below is from 1997.

Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

Who knows why the deal never happened. However, I think the attacks on the Taliban have more to it than a pipeline?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
In fact, here's a sweet little picture of Taliban "freedom fighters" as they were back then, sitting in the White House with President Reagan:


Interesting how fast they were suddenly made out to be "terrorists", eh?

Oh and by the way, who are you to say anything about the Taliban? They had nothing to do with 9/11. Please explain what they did to you.

Oh, and did you happen to know that the Taliban has been offering ceasefire negotiations for years but it was the US that stated "we don't negotiate with terrorists"? It probably has something to do with the fact that the coalition never went to Afghanistan, or the Middle East in general, to give a damn about the humanitarian situation there (if they did, they wouldn't have irradiated the place with depleted uranium).

They were made out as terrorists by what was done to the Afghan population under their harsh and brutal rule. Public floggings, beheadings, schools burned to the ground, ancient archaeological sites destroyed, and other terrifying exploits by the so-called freedom fighters to some. Perhaps, if you had the unfortunate circumstance of living under their reign you would think differently about them?

About them having anything to do with 9/11 that is up for debate, and many have beaten that dead horse for years now. They are a bad bunch, and their record speaks for themselves. Unfortunately for them, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time in 2001, and were ousted from power.

They have done nothing to me personally, but I do know they have continued to take up arms to destabilize Afghanistan and thwart NATO efforts to provide security to fledgling government trying to take shape in country that has been ruled by tribal law for so long. In regards to the Taliban calls for ceasefire negotiations, just look at what happened in Pakistan and you will see how it won't work.

I respect your input, and value your response to my post. However, I have to agree to disagree with your assertions. Apparently, I see things differently than you. As far as your photo of former President, Ronald Reagan, meeting with alleged Taliban members? Conspiracy has it, that he may have been suffering from Alzheimer's Disease while in office, and perhaps; he thought he was meeting with Maggie Thatcher and her staff? All jokes aside. On another note, how do we know that those meeting with the President were not the Northern Alliance or some other group? All I saw was some men sitting in the White House in traditional Afghan attire.

reply to post by Jakes51

President Ronald Reagan Meeting Some "Mujahideen" 7 to 8 years BEFORE the Taliban existed...

Originally posted by Johnze
I very much doubt the U.S is going to hand over opium production to the taliban.

I think Dimitri has a interesting perspective on that ...

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Why the hell would Afghans want peace through privatization of their resources under the guns of Western soldiers?

reply to post by SLAYER69


That is kind of what I thought about the picture with President Reagan. All it showed to me was a bunch of Afghan men having a meeting with the President. However, it did not provide any context to the photo. That is why I jokingly mentioned that conspiracy theory. Thanks for providing context to the photo.

The Military Industrial Complex got cut in the budget!

Second

reply to post by jdub297


Makes sense to me. It moves the Taliban out of the equation, ends most of the fighting and bloodshed, all the while placing them into an area that can be watched / contained (for the most part).

Couple all that with the possibility of the Taliban forming their own government again, and being recognized by the UN, it would legitimize the Taliban, and make holding the Taliban government more accountible through un resolutions. If the Taliban dont want to playball, then other coutries dont have to do business with them. If they decide to attack Afghan controlled territory, or even Pakkistan territory, it opens the door for an international force to restore the peace, since it would violate UN Charter for breach of peace.

An intresting game plan with some even more intresting possibile outcomes.

Originally posted by Jakes51
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

That is kind of what I thought about the picture with President Reagan. All it showed to me was a bunch of Afghan men having a meeting with the President. However, it did not provide any context to the photo. That is why I jokingly mentioned that conspiracy theory. Thanks for providing context to the photo.

edit on 10-4-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

Obviously these weren't Taliban meeting Reagan at the time; they didn't exist. However, the Taliban came out of the Afghan mujahideen, the very same mujahideen that the CIA bolstered in the 70s and 80s. I'm sure if we did the research on it, we can ID a few of these guys as future Taliban.

And keep in mind that not only did the CIA provide money and weapons to the mujahideen, they also set up logistics, organization and even trained them (it's all in the book "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll).

To say that the Taliban are bad because they don't cooperate with NATO... well, that's just a sad argument, in all honesty. NATO invaded Afghanistan under false pretenses, no sh!t the de-facto rulers of the country will fight against us.

Oh, and you claim that the Taliban supported the pipeline? That's not what I've been taught all these years.

And one more thing, the Taliban is in direct collaboration with the ISI; in fact, it was the ISI and CIA that supported the mujahideen against the Soviets. Also, Karzai's militant group happens to be India's proxy in Afghanistan. So this is why I find the media stories of Taliban vs Pakistan government to be very interesting, considering they actually work together.

President Hamid Karzai today confirmed that the US has been engaged in talks with the Taliban. No word uet from the US.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by jdub297

 

Couple all that with the possibility of the Taliban forming their own government again, and being recognized by the UN, it would legitimize the Taliban, and make holding the Taliban government more accountible through un resolutions.

You're kidding, right? The Taliban want to take Afghanistan farther vack into the Stone Age than it already is.

If the Taliban dont want to playball, then other coutries dont have to do business with them. If they decide to attack Afghan controlled territory, or even Pakkistan territory, it opens the door for an international force to restore the peace, since it would violate UN Charter for breach of peace.

That brings us right back to where we are today -- an international "coalition" led by the US, except the Taliban will have had time to tear down what's been built, re-establish ties with supporters such as Al Qaeda, and prepare for a greater offensive that we will, ultimately, back away from under heavy public criticism.

This is not to say that we have any business "nation building" in Afghanistan, but I thought that Obama was supposed to be "transparent" about what he was doing with our troops and money, and to our "allies."

Of course, I didn't expect him or his administration to do anything honest or good, anyway.

jw

An intresting game plan with some even more intresting possibile outcomes.

Originally posted by dbriefed
Why the hell would we want peace with people who behead innocents and stone women to death?

I take it you're referring to our ally, Saudi Arabia. Ya know, I've often wondered about that myself

As we enter the election cycle Obama's Astan options appear limited. With the arrival of Nov 2012, the disgrace of an immediate withdrawal would be as politically unpalatable as continuing to stumble forward in this murky misadventure with no end in sight. In my mind that leaves negotiations with the Taliban, including significant concessions, as the only viable alternative. Far from ideal, but the only opportunity for the US to eventually extricate itself from this unrelenting situation while maintaining some degree of "honor".

reply to post by OBE1

In my mind that leaves negotiations with the Taliban, including significant concessions, as the only viable alternative. Far from ideal, but the only opportunity for the US to eventually extricate itself from this unrelenting situation while maintaining some degree of "honor".

So, you're saying that Obama's negotiations are for domestic political effect rather than strategic withdrawal and preservation of the status quo.

Barack Obama cannot possibly believe that negotiating with the Taliban will have any lasting results. It merely permits him to accelerate withdrawal, while leaving a permanent remnant to protect the Northern Alliance and shaky national government. The Afghans in power can not themselves defend a central government when the country has been tribal for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Originally posted by jdub297
So, you're saying that Obama's negotiations are for domestic political effect rather than strategic withdrawal and preservation of the status quo.

It appears he's targeting both, and may ultimately accomplish neither.

The withdrawal of 30,000 troops, 10,000 by years end. A nod to the constituency as Obama walks that familiar high-wire strung from Left..to..Right, over the mud huts and mine fields of a "broken 13th-century country".

Snips:

Is Obama Only Postponing the Inevitable?
Pat Buchanan – Fri Jun 24, 3:00 am ET

In deciding to pull all of the 30,000 troops from the surge out of Afghanistan, six weeks before Election Day 2012, but only 10,000 by year's end, President Obama has satisfied neither the generals nor the doves.

He has, however, well served his political interests.

*

Strategically, removal of 30,000 troops in 15 months means that Obama has given up all hope of victory over the Taliban. Gen. MacArthur's dictum — "In war, there is no substitute for victory" — is inoperative in yet another American war.

Obama's strategic goal now is the avoidance of defeat, until the election of 2012 is behind him. And by retaining 70,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan during the fighting season and political season of 2012, he has an insurance policy against a Taliban Tet-style offensive or major U.S. military reversal as voters begin to fill out absentee ballots.

*

And if Afghanistan has become a stalemated war between the Americans and Taliban after a decade in which 1,600 Americans have given their lives and 12,000 have been wounded, how well will the Karzai regime and ANA make out when the Americans, the best soldiers in the world, depart, and they face the Taliban alone? - Full Text

reply to post by OBE1


Funny, how the Obama WH is eager to tout the "soundness" of this political decision, but continues to ignore the on-going strategic "negotiations" with the Taliban.

Wouldn't the two be part and parcel of an over-all Afghanistan policy?

The only way to peace is to take down ALL terrrorists, they are like a disease

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by OBE1

 

Funny, how the Obama WH is eager to tout the "soundness" of this political decision, but continues to ignore the on-going strategic "negotiations" with the Taliban.

Wouldn't the two be part and parcel of an over-all Afghanistan policy?

Careful jdub, that kind of talk only leads to trouble. Deductive reasoning when applied to US foreign policy issues was declared a 'potential national security threat' prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Dincha know ?

Originally posted by dbriefed
Why the hell would we want peace with people who behead innocents and stone women to death?

That's like giving up trying to find serial killers.

"we"?.. I'm already at peace with all Afghan people regardless the name calling by a handful of liars who call themselves politicians. If the Afghanis want freedom from US oligarchs & federal reserve occupiers.. I hope they get it.

.. oh and btw, serial killers are those found guilty of same in a court of law, the so called Taliban are Afghani people, charged & convicted of nothing, who are fighting uninvited unwanted invading liars.

reply to post by GovtFlu

.. oh and btw, serial killers are those found guilty of same in a court of law, the so called Taliban are Afghani people, charged & convicted of nothing, who are fighting uninvited unwanted invading liars.

False, and falser.

There is no such offense as "serial killing." It is a description.
Would Dahmer, Fish, Bundy, Chikatilo or Rader not be "serial killers" biut for their capture? That is pahetically ridiculous. It is a status earned by action. Whether convicted or not a person who murders serially is, by definition, a serial killer.

The Taliban are not "fighting unwanted invading liars." They murder to destroy anything that conflicts with their brand of Islam. When Pakistan gave them a huge section of the Swat valley and withdrew givernment forces, the Taliban immediately destroyed schools, mudered "infidels" among the tribes, and set about to inflict their standards on everyone in and near the region.

It got so depraved that the Pakistanis had to reverse course and send troops back into the region to protect innocents who did not adhere to the Taliban orthodoxy.

This, from 2008, describes the "new" Taliban agreement:

The peace deal in Swat and Malakand comes after several rounds of negotiations. A 15-point agreement was signed with representatives of the Northwest Frontier Province and representatives of Fazlullah's Taliban. The major points of the agreement are as follows:

• Sharia law would be imposed in the Swat and Malakand districts;
• The Pakistani Army will gradually withdraw security forces from the region;
• The government and the Taliban would exchange prisoners;
• The Taliban would recognize the writ of the government and cooperate with security forces;
• The Taliban would halt attacks on barber and music shops;
• The Taliban cannot display weapons in public;
• The Taliban would turn in heavy weapons (rockets, mortars);
• The Taliban cannot operate training camps;
• The Taliban would denounce suicide attacks;
• A ban would be placed on raising private militias;
• The Taliban will cooperate with the government to vaccinate children against diseases like polio;
• Fazlullah's madrassa, the Imam Dherai, would be turned into an Islamic university;
• Only licensed FM radio stations would be allowed to operate in the region;
• The Taliban would allow women to "perform their duties at the work place without any fear."
...
The Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with Fazlullah in May 2007 with similar terms. The terms of the nine-point peace deal signed in 2007 required Fazlullah to support the polio vaccination campaign and education for girls, as well as government efforts to establish law and order. He also agreed to shut down training facilities for terrorists, stop manufacturing weapons, and support the district administration in any operation against anti-state elements. Fazlullah's followers were also to stop carrying weapons in the open. In return, Fazlullah was permitted to continue broadcasting his illegal FM radio programs and the government dropped criminal cases lodged against him.

The Taliban promptly disobeyed the terms of the deal, and began to overrun police stations and enforce sharia law in the district.

www.longwarjournal.org...

Here, a Swati educator describes the results of "peace" negotiatiated with the Taliban"

“The brief rule of the Taliban left deep scars on nearly every aspect of Swati life. It was a serious mistake on the part of the rulers to continue to tolerate their activities for such a long time and allow them to get stronger and bolder in their aims,” he said.
...
The reign of the Taliban in Afghanistan was romanticised as a model rule without regard to its backward and bigoted policies against women, education, human rights and social and economic progress.

In Swat, Ziauddin said the walls were painted black with slogans of Mullah Omar and Fazlur Rahman as the great caliphs of Islam. Fazlullah cleverly aimed his radio propaganda at women, motivating them in every speech and sermon to send their sons, husbands and brothers for Jihad. His propaganda also described education as harmful for women and against Islam. This confused people’s mind who even stopped their girls from going to school. Ziauddin who runs a very ambitious school system said that the Taliban destroyed 404 schools.

tribune.com.pk...

The Taliban have onlt one agenda, and it has nothing to do with invaders or outsiders; it is committed to radical Islam,

Saira Bibi's eyes still flash with pain and anger through the small gap in her veil as she recounts how the Taliban who once ruled here dragged her from home and flogged her in front of her neighbors.

It didn't matter that she always wore a body-covering burqa, nor that she rarely left her mud-brick home. It didn't matter that her conservative in-laws scoffed at the accusation she was an adulterer. To the Islamist extremists who had taken over her tiny town above Pakistan's Swat Valley, a rumor was enough.

"They came and took me to the school, where 150 or 200 people had been gathered. They pushed me to the ground and hit me 15 times," says Bibi, 30, holding her 1-year-old son as he reaches for the safety pin keeping her veil in place. Her right hand fidgets under the fabric as she recalls her humiliation nearly two years ago.

Bibi is one of the first women to openly speak about being publicly punished during the Pakistani Taliban's rule over this resort area. Her tale is a painful reminder of how Swat's conservative, ethnic Pashtun culture descended into harsh theocratic rule that banned girls from school, women from markets and executed anyone who resisted.

An iconic video of a flogging much like Bibi describes helped galvanize Pakistani public support for last year's army offensive that finally drove the Taliban out of the Swat Valley, following several failed peace deals with the militants. The footage of the beating was shown repeatedly on national television, stirring outrage among many who were getting their first up-close glimpse of the Taliban's brutality

]url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/06/world/main7122774.shtml#ixzz1QJOaYB00[/url]

So do you intentionally misrepresent who and what the Taliban are, or do you defend them out of ignorance?

Aside from these comletely baseless assertions, what was it you intended to convey? Do you support Obama negotiating secretly with a murderous radical Islam sect, while pretending that his actions in Afghanistan are in the US' and Afghans' best interests? Do you recall his secret negotiations with Iran even before he was swon-in? Where did that get us?

Do you ever read what you type before you post? If so, how can you support either if your assertions?

jw