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.

 

I thought that the USA doesn't "negotiate with terrorist"?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
www.foxnews.com...

U.S. Weighs Releasing Taliban Commander From Gitmo as Part of Peace Talks

Are "Peace Talks" just another way of saying "Negociating with Terrorist?"

WASHINGTON – The U.S. is considering a proposal to transfer a top Taliban commander out of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as part of a potential step toward peace talks with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

Is it wise to allow a top taliban commander to be freed from Guantanimo Bay?

A senior U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Mullah Mohammed Fazl is among the prisoners being considered for release. Held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, Fazl was suspected in sectarian killings of Shiite Muslims before the U.S. invasion that toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan in 2001.

Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that he hasn't been convicted of his crime for 10 years?


The U.S. alleges he was a top Taliban official who at one point commanded thousands of troops.

.......and the US government thinks it might be a good idea to set him free?....What?...


According to Reuters, WikiLeaks documents also placed him at the scene of a 2001 prison riot where CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed, though it's unclear whether Fazl was involved.

Any prisoner transfer would be part of a trust-building effort to renew peace talks next year with the Taliban that had reached a critical point before falling apart this month because of objections from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

One goal of renewed talks with the insurgents would be to identify cease-fire zones that could be used as a steppingstone toward a full peace agreement that stops most fighting, a senior administration official told The Associated Press -- a goal that remains far out of reach.


To me, this is just a fancy way of saying "Negotiate with Terrorist". If we have identified a large part of the Taliban as terrorist, and Fazi as a top Taliban official, it would seem foolish to release him. Just prosecute the man, give him his judgement, and DEAL with the terrorist, not negotiate.....There is not "peace" to be had with terrorist.


edit on 30-12-2011 by isyeye because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
it was never about the taliban or alqaeda and this is obvious by the actions of the gov.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by isyeye
 


Thought wrong and we have always worked along side terrorist in the past...everyone we work with eventually becomes are enemy at one point or another



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
To me, it isn't about negotiating with terrorists, it is ending the war and terrorism. Sure negotiations are apart of it, however only play a single part in order to acquire a larger goal, and that is no more 'terrorism'



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 

Oh you're being silly... These aren't terrorists, they are obstacles to successful foreign policy. That isn't a war, it's an overseas contingency operation using ever more creative forms of kinetic intervention in internal unrest of the Great Nation of Afghanistan.

So you see... It isn't the situation you're mistaken on, it's the language. That is critical you know.
If you didn't term it properly, one could easily get the idea that a United States President is pursuing a policy of appeasement at best...negotiated surrender of the battlefield, at worst. We couldn't have that, now could we?? So...get your copy of the talking points for the week, and recall now.....it's not what he does, it's what we call it that matters.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 

Oh you're being silly... These aren't terrorists, they are obstacles to successful foreign policy. That isn't a war, it's an overseas contingency operation using ever more creative forms of kinetic intervention in internal unrest of the Great Nation of Afghanistan.

So you see... It isn't the situation you're mistaken on, it's the language. That is critical you know.
If you didn't term it properly, one could easily get the idea that a United States President is pursuing a policy of appeasement at best...negotiated surrender of the battlefield, at worst. We couldn't have that, now could we?? So...get your copy of the talking points for the week, and recall now.....it's not what he does, it's what we call it that matters.




thanks, i didn't have the energy to put so eloquently.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well spoken......thank you for your comments.

So often it's how language is used that holds the true meaning of words.




edit on 30-12-2011 by isyeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by isyeye
 


Unfortunately saying you don’t negotiate is easier than doing.
No matter what, you have to try negotiating; peace is a price worth working for.
That being said, they should fly a plane load of pigs in to Guantanamo. Let the prisoners see them get unloaded and put into pens. Keep the pigs around for a little while, then one day march out about ten prisoners. Let the inmates watch as you kill ten pigs, gut them and hang them out in the sun.
Then you execute the prisoner’s while the others watched, stuff their bodies into the dead pigs, sow them up and bury them. (I don’t kill, but you could convince the prisoners you did it)
Then you exchange your prisoner and tell him that you will do this to all terrorists, or peace’s of and then let him tell the rest. No more terrorists.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
We are terrorists. Just like every other country in the world blowing other people up for strategic and financial gain. It's all about money. Don't buy the rhetoric that we're somehow above the fray and are fighting for freedom. We're fighting for cheap oil and $200 Iphones. Nothing more.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
He's a bargaining chip, a play if you will that will ensure a major concession from them I say let them make the trade. Perhaps they got on of our that we didn't know about and have been holding off for an occasion such as this!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Its just a reintroduction of an enemy to pursue



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by isyeye
 


I think there is noway to teach you people what your govt is doing to middle east.

3rd.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
In this world, it is often better to have friends than enemies. US have no wish to interfere nor meddle in ANY nation, but seek for only responsible civilised behavior which every nation on earth seeks as well, so as to progress and evolved.

It's not in the wordings, or its twists, but simply realities over the issue of the Talilban.

The Taliban had been an enemy, for their mistake in the support and hiding of Jihadist hell bent on mass murder of Planet Earth's humans.

Today, perhaps, the Talibans had seen the errors of their ways, and wish to change for the better as a responsible political entity. No doubt not many in the world would welcome their brand of 7th century styled Islamization of a nation, BUT so long as they no longer hurt or harm innocents, foreswear terrorism or support of unjustified Jihadism, they should be given a chance to forgiveness, just every human who is only flawed and had erred.

Their grouse is with USA is only the seemingly 'Invasion' by the moron republican Bush of their territory, when that invasion was meant to destroy the murderous and blasphemous Jihadists hiding in Afghanistan. The misunderstanding occurred sadly, but just like any other mistakes made by both sides, corrections can be made so that progress can happen.

This is no longer a case of 'negotiating' with the terrorist. Al Queda and its offshoots, no matter how many or how long, will be brought to face justice one way or another so long as mankind lives, for there is NO justification for the murders of innocents under any law, sovereignity or civilised society.

The Taliban, is NOT Al Queda, and will be given the benefit of the doubt for the sake of peace, and so long as they forswear support of terrorism in any form, they will not be enemies of mankind till they prove otherwise, which they will then share the fate of Al Queda.

May the Taliban be wise, and for the sake of innocents, live and let live. It's the People that matters, not the idealogy. If the People, either educated or uneducated ones accept their brand of idealogy, it will be their choice and consequences to bear. If not, it will be their sacred choice to excercise the right that all free human is given by birthright on Planet Earth - to voice out.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
You gotta be kidding me. Who're we talking about? Our government? Erm, here's a bit of history for you. In 1937 the U.S. gave a billion dollars to Nazi Germany which is equivalent to 10 billion (or more) today. Three years later WWII starts, and Pearl Harbor gets attacked.

Wanna know why the U.S. gives Israel billions of dollars each year? It's called Guilt Reparations and has a major factor in why we helped the Zionist Jews retake Israel in 1947, because of the money we gave Hitler he was able to build his Nazi war machine and roll across the whole of Europe unchecked. All the B.S. that is going in between Israel and it's muslim enemies is a direct fault of the U.S. meddling in world affairs at the behest of it's wealthy elite. The biggest conspiracy in human history has spanned from 1911 to 2011 which just also happens to be dubbed the "100 years of Satan" (Satan means Destroyer). Guess what? God has had enough, it's tribulation time.
edit on 31-12-2011 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Do sort out the facts from the fallacies.

1. In 1937, the world was not at war with Nazi Germany, nor knew of its hidden rearmament,or the depth of their theft of jewish funds. Germany was another manufacturing nation in need of private funds, and that was what had been sent there - private funds from Capitalist America since the 1920s, where Corporations brook no interference from gov as is today.

It was only after 1945, and under enlightened FDR's vision to avert another catastrophic war with the formation of the UN did the previously isolationist US gov started taking an active interest in the world, with appeals from smaller nations in the world appealing for the superpower of the day for help.

Often it started benevolent such as the 50s Korean war, Israel, but the big hearted often ignorant US officials were often fooled and taken for a ride, such as Vietnam Saigon's corrupt gov, Russian greed in Islamic Afghanistan, greedy Shah or Iran, need for oil from Saudi Arabia during the 70s oil crisis, etc.

Say thanks to Corporations such as ford, prescott bush, Rockerfeller, amongst many others whom stupidily and greedily funded the Nazis, NOT the Cary Grant generation of gov and american People.

2. The biggest conspiracy in human history had not been US gov's meddling in world affairs. USA had sat out WW1, and was prepared to sit out WW2 till the idiotic and nutjobs of Imperial Japan Army pulled a stunt on Pearl Harbour, similarly with Jihadists whom did a horrifying job on 911

It had been GREED by all elites whom ruled the world - regardless of nationality, social status, religion or political/theological origins. If there is a Great Satan, his name is Greed with sidekicks Power Lust, Self Interest, Ego, and lives in ALL nations in our world.

The Kingdom of God lives in all mankind - Christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, Hindus, atheists - each and everyone of us. If you are angry and frustrated, it is only that which lives inside you seeking for accountability, but at the correct targets, for civilised change to happen.


edit on 31-12-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join