Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Taliban: "Don’t accept the system of infidels called Democracy." And we negotiate with them?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Years ago, I started a thread about secret meetings and negotiations betwqeen the Obama administration and the Taliban.
US About to Re-Start Once-Secret Negotiations to Give Afghanistan Back to Terrorists

Although scoffed at, later independent reports revealed that p[art of Obama's "exit strategy" wa to deal with Taliban representatives on Afghan-Taliban coalition government.

Afghanistan's Karzai in Qatar, Taliban talks in focus

Reuters:Karzai's trip to the Gulf Arab state, a U.S. ally which has mediated in conflicts in Arab or Muslim countries, follows years of stalled discussions among the United States, Pakistan and the Taliban about a possible Afghan settlement.


Peace Talks With the Taliban

New York Times: During the 2010 surge ... the administration was conflicted and too cautious about pressing for talks. ... . Even after the administration decided in February 2011 to pursue talks ... ., , it took officials months to agree on the details.
The talks between the United States and the Taliban began early this year but soon collapsed when the administration, faced with bipartisan opposition in Congress, could not complete a proposed prisoner swap.


Now I'm admittedly no expert on political strategy, but I think I've got a pretty clear idea of the driving forces behind the Muslim Taliban; and it is antithetic to equality, fairness and peaceful co-existence with "infidels."

Today, we learn that on the eve of the first peaceful transfer of power between civilian goverments in Pakistani history, these Taliban have asserted and made clear to any such secular comity iwth Muslim faithful.


Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, in a message to the group's spokesman, outlined plans for the attacks, including suicide blasts, in all four of the country's provinces on polling day on Saturday.
"We don't accept the system of infidels which is called democracy," Mehsud said in the letter, dated May 1, and obtained by Reuters on Thursday.
www.reuters.com...


But they have not attacked the main opposition party led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, which has courted support from groups accused of supporting militancy.
Sharif, who is seen as favorite to become the next prime minister, says Pakistan should reconsider its support for the U.S. war on Islamist militancy and suggests he would be in favor of negotiations with the Taliban.
Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League has capitalized on widespread frustrations with the outgoing government led by the Pakistan People's Party.

www.reuters.com...

So, can someone please explain how the Obama administration can continue to push for "behind the scenes" talks to create a coa;lition that will NOT be allowed to succeed; whether in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, or anywhere else?

And will you explain how the Obama administration can so blithely commit hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (if not billions) to the support of regimes that will not accept democracy as a viable alternative to interecine violence and murders of "infidels" (such as Americans)?

Just wondering.

jw
edit on 9-5-2013 by jdub297 because: url




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I'm really guessing here, but is it possible that Obama doesn't want to leave Afghanistan without some agreement with somebody? Terrorist attacks are up, and if we just walk away it will be seen (properly) as a clear victory for Taliban forces.

I hate to think this way, but could all of this be simply to make Obama look successful?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The Taliban will soon go from being "terrorists" to "most favored commercial ally."All in the name of Unocal's pipeline which judging by these articles is not so farfetched.All part of the great game.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Sure the capitalistic ways of wealth and greed will overcome any Taliban thinking.

Once the top class get richer, they'll get the others aboard.

They won't call it democracy, but it'll still be capitalist none the less. Rich get richer, the poor become slaves with no rights.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Why were we there in the first place? Answer that question first.

The Taliban were originally (and probably are to a large extent) a proxy force for the Pakistani intelligence services. If you don't believe this look into the history of Afghanistan in the decade after the Russians left (the decade where the west didn't care). Look at the factions and who provided the backing.

The Taliban (while odious) were not the planners and perpetrators of 9/11. They were simply dumb enough not to hand offending Saudis and acolytes over immediately.

You cant eliminate the Taliban without eliminating the source. The source is Nuclear Armed Pakistan. The USA cannot play hardball with Pakistan as its an unstable nuclear nation with the potential to topple into Islamism (and a long history of war with nuclear india next door).

Given that the USA cannot 'beat' the Taliban for the reasons above, other than feeding troops into an entirely futile meat grinder ad infinitum what do you suggest?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm really guessing here, but is it possible that Obama doesn't want to leave Afghanistan without some agreement with somebody? Terrorist attacks are up, and if we just walk away it will be seen (properly) as a clear victory for Taliban forces.

I hate to think this way, but could all of this be simply to make Obama look successful?


Didn't Obama leave Iraq "with some kind of agreement?" Today they are killing each other by the busload, mosque-full and police-department-load.

How does negotiation the government of a fledgling democracy with a group that abhors democracy make any sense?

jw



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
The Taliban will soon go from being "terrorists" to "most favored commercial ally."All in the name of Unocal's pipeline which judging by these articles is not so farfetched.All part of the great game.


The Taliban own no pipelines, oil or gas production facilites, or even land rights. Their authority comes from Allah, and nowhere else. What story-books have people been reading to you from?

They own nothing but what Allah has given over to their control; and if an infidel doesn't recognize that, then it will be taken over the dead bodies of him and the next three generations of his family.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
Sure the capitalistic ways of wealth and greed will overcome any Taliban thinking.

Once the top class get richer, they'll get the others aboard.

They won't call it democracy, but it'll still be capitalist none the less. Rich get richer, the poor become slaves with no rights.


You obviously have no understanding of history or Islam.

Wealth comes not from possessions or "ownership" but from the dominion over the Earth that Allah and Mohammed have granted the faithful. It has been that way for more than 2,500 years.
Of course, different tribes believes theirs to be more entitled to such dominion than others, hence the 2,500+ years of Muslim barbarism that exists to this day.

Please, for and given all that time, identify for ius the multi-national corporations and monopolies of the Islamist.

I'll wait. But not long.

Too late. You lose

Now, leave your property, and go to the desert.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I think we may be starting on a faulty premise for some of this discussion in assuming the US intends to leave, on any level that matters.

Karzai: U.S. can have 9 Afghan bases after 2014

That comes from a day ago, in USA Today.

Karzai says U.S. wants to keep 9 bases in Afghanistan

That is a bit more direct and from the Washington Post.

I'm thinking that the US has absolutely no intention of going anywhere. Oh, "Combat Troops" are leaving....and that's going to be real painful for the "Non-Combat" people remaining, I'm guessing ...but America leaving? That seems to have been Election time talk to get the votes ...with no intention of doing any such thing. Why? Well... I have about a trillion guesses.

U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan

People at the time said that was going to make Afghanistan a long term strategic property for the U.S....and I really didn't buy it then. Now? Obviously, I was wrong to doubt the cleverness employed to insure the 'Finders, Keepers' concept is taken to warped levels I never thought possible. There is sure nothing ELSE to keep us in Afghanistan, given the high costs we'll be forced to endure when the Taliban realizes we're planning to be there for many many years into their future.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   


de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.


Well 0 for 5.

I'm almost inclined to agree with their observations of our current democracy if there was a viable alternative put forth instead or resorting to terrorism.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
Why were we there in the first place? Answer that question first.

The Taliban were originally (and probably are to a large extent) a proxy force for the Pakistani intelligence services. If you don't believe this look into the history of Afghanistan in the decade after the Russians left (the decade where the west didn't care). Look at the factions and who provided the backing.

The Taliban (while odious) were not the planners and perpetrators of 9/11. They were simply dumb enough not to hand offending Saudis and acolytes over immediately.

You cant eliminate the Taliban without eliminating the source. The source is Nuclear Armed Pakistan. The USA cannot play hardball with Pakistan as its an unstable nuclear nation with the potential to topple into Islamism (and a long history of war with nuclear india next door).

Given that the USA cannot 'beat' the Taliban for the reasons above, other than feeding troops into an entirely futile meat grinder ad infinitum what do you suggest?


Did you not know that there is no real "Pakistan?" It is a political creation of the post-imperial Middle East. The same goes for one or another of the artificial "homelands" carved out of others' territory for tribes that have amassed sufficient numbers to claim their "right" to independent statehood!

Why do you think there has never been a civil succession of gvernments in Pakistan since its creation?

jw



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
The entire region is Feudalist.
Forget the reasons and all the back door dealings you year about in the news.
Societies develop based on popular education.
1. Feudalism
2. Monarchy
3. Representative / fascist
4. Fascist / socialistic
5. Communistic

No one is better than the other, honestly. And 3 through 5 pretty much appear to be interchangeable. But you cannot take the popular education level of a feudalist society and replace it with a social one such as democracy over night. It doesn't work LITERALLY because the people DO NOT KNOW how to govern themselves.

These shifts only appear to occur naturally through cultural revolution.

US policy makers know this though.
Their real purpose is destabilization and control through military might and the continued reliance on the petro dollar.
This is all any of this is about.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




I'm thinking that the US has absolutely no intention of going anywhere. Oh, "Combat Troops" are leaving....and that's going to be real painful for the "Non-Combat" people remaining, I'm guessing ...but America leaving? That seems to have been Election time talk to get the votes ...with no intention of doing any such thing. Why? Well... I have about a trillion guesses.
"U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan "
People at the time said that was going to make Afghanistan a long term strategic property for the U.S....and I really didn't buy it then.


Don't be so sure of yourself.

I recall some of the posters here arguing a while back that the prime motivation for the Iraq invasion was control of their natural resources (oil fields). There was also talk of a continued presence of non- combat support troops and "trainers."
Today, we're gone, and China and the EU (e.g., Shell and BP) have the rights to most of the "natural resources" through strategic partnerships and "nation building."

It is not Obama's nature to have a lasting American presence elsewhere, whatever the resources.

jw



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Seems to me like they are pretty smart not wanting anything to do with our "democracy", I would not wish western style "democracy" on anyone.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 



US policy makers know this though.
Their real purpose is destabilization and control through military might and the continued reliance on the petro dollar.
This is all any of this is about.


Funny thing, though; oil, gas and other commodities are being traded in things other than the dollar betweem China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Korea, France, et al. The IMF's "SDR" is now becoming a rival to the dollar as the currency of trade in many of these places.

"Control through military might?" How much of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, China, Russia, Nigeria, Egypt and other resource-rich regions do we "control through military might?"

You might want to put sway the 1957 globe and get a new economic map to see just what our "influence" is in the region.
edit on 10-5-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Would that be the Taliban created by President Carter's then National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bryzinzky?
the one that recently ( during GWB's tenure he claimed it was a Taliban ambush till the army doctors proved other wise. Of course Bush's generals warned him not to beak off with that lie- it was a triple tap to the face from ten feet away ) killed Football hero Pat Tillman and then turned out to be US special forces?

I guess they don't like voting machins that chimps can hack, and which don't do paper trails, and vote fraud convictions that prove the president was INSTALLED

thats DEMOcrazy

oh BTW
the taliban was created to DRAW THE RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN so they are MUCH older then stated up thread
edit on 10-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


This is true, but be damned if the US is gonna give up now.
They've killed millions to get to this point.
This is their end game.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuttle
Seems to me like they are pretty smart not wanting anything to do with our "democracy", I would not wish western style "democracy" on anyone.


Since when is Pakistan governance "western style democracy?" Or Afghan?
I can see that they no longer teach "social studies: anymore, nor are the products of our "system" capable of grasping anything other than snippets and fleeting impressions of what they think they are being told.

There hasn't been a "western style democracy" in eith Pakistan or Afghanistan EVER.

What the Taliban mean, is "secular rule by a majority of the people."
This doesn't even exist in the U. S.!

jw



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


You even read what I said man?

THREAD TITLE




Taliban: "Don’t accept the system of infidels called Democracy."


WHAT I SAID




Seems to me like they are pretty smart not wanting anything to do with our "democracy", I would not wish western style "democracy" on anyone.



YOUR RESPONSE




Since when is Pakistan governance "western style democracy?" Or Afghan?


What???

Never said that it was, what in the hell are you talking about? How is your response in any way connected to what I said?, what are you talking about????
edit on 10-5-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join