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

reply to post by Danbones

Would that be the Taliban created by President Carter's then National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bryzinzky?

Do you mean the one compsed of tribal savages whose lives were guided by the interpreted words of Allah instead of a secular law?
The one that saw murder in furtherance of ancient traditions as more favorable than united efforts to improve the lives of the faithful?
That one?

So, why are would we want to "negotiate" with them?
(To get back on topic)

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Oh, I really don't know why we're not leaving and have no intention of clearing the nation on the previously announced timelines. That part is a guess. The fact we aren't leaving is...well, a fact. Actually, testified to under Oath, no less.

On April 17, in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford became the first top military official to offer specifics on these questions. The estimates are for a NATO-led force of 8,000 to 12,000 troops in Afghanistan post-2014, which does not include troops needed for counterterrorism and guarding U.S. diplomats. But as Bloomberg's Gopal Ratnam notes, "Other U.S. officials have called for a larger U.S. military presence than the range that is under discussion."

Source

Another article is a bit more interesting about it...but no less clear about the fact we aren't leaving. Just reducing forces and ..hoping that works out.

The United States envisions only a minimal presence of American troops in Afghanistan once the NATO mission comes to an end in late 2014. SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that fewer than 10,000 US soldiers are to remain stationed in the country beyond that date.

Only 5,000 of the 10,000 American troops foreseen by the plan are to be made available for the training mission. The other half will be earmarked for targeted operations against terror cells and al-Qaida camps as well as for the protection of US facilities in the country such as the embassy in Kabul.

In total, the post-2014 training mission is to encompass 15,000 troops. The US expects its NATO partners to plug any gaps that might result due to its limited presence. For Germany, the number is likely to remain large even after 2014, primarily due to the operation of the large camp in Mazar-e-Sharif.

(Source)

I do hope our NATO allies are all okay with that Gap filling stuff.... There are quite a number of articles referring to more specifics of the Post-2014 plans. A 'war' without calling it one anymore.

Something tells me, again, the Taliban won't be quite so cooperative about playing the semantics game and just letting it slide while they're still being hunted by ever smaller overall force structures. Eventually, we may get to where we're still attacking them, but from bases that don't have forces sufficient to withstand a concerted and focused counterattack. I believe the Russians learned how brutal that could get ...and they didn't play the piece meal game like this to get that lesson in blood.

reply to post 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.

You even read what I said man?

Yes.
You did.
Do you even read what you post?

Why would we (a republican government) want to negotiate to from a representative form of government in Afghanistan or Pakistan with a group (the Taliban) that does not believe in such a form of government inthe first place?

jw

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


If you believe that "testifies," "envisions," and "NATO forces" equates to a commitment by the Obama adminstration to the support of a foreign government, then you haven't been paying attention.

I tend to look at actions compared to platitudes as a better guide of what to expect from similar platitudes.

Do the words "Guantanamo," "transparency, "72 hours review," "keep your own plan/doctor," et c. ring any bells?
If so, I've got "5.4% unemployment," and "three million" green jobs I want to sell you
jw.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Something tells me, again, the Taliban won't be quite so cooperative about playing the semantics game and just letting it slide while they're still being hunted by ever smaller overall force structures. Eventually, we may get to where we're still attacking them, but from bases that don't have forces sufficient to withstand a concerted and focused counterattack. I believe the Russians learned how brutal that could get ...and they didn't play the piece meal game like this to get that lesson in blood.

Perhaps taking out a Talib here and there and a handful of Afghan wedding guests via drone strike might suffice as "American presence."

We probably wouldn't want to let a houseful of women and children get in the way of such an "American presence" rocketing a few "males of military age" to prove our resolve against the very people with whom we keep trying to negotiate "peace at any cost."

Does the name "Chamberlain" mean anything to you?

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post 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.

You even read what I said man?

Yes.
You did.
Do you even read what you post?

Why would we (a republican government) want to negotiate to from a representative form of government in Afghanistan or Pakistan with a group (the Taliban) that does not believe in such a form of government inthe first place?

jw

edit on 10-5-2013 by jdub297 because: sp, quote

So they would be pretty smart not wanting to have anything to do with a western style "democracy" then right?, just like I said, just as you have agreed. Again, what in the hell are you talking about?, whats your point in relation to the post I made?.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

If you believe that "testifies," "envisions," and "NATO forces" equates to a commitment by the Obama adminstration to the support of a foreign government, then you haven't been paying attention.

I tend to look at actions compared to platitudes as a better guide of what to expect from similar platitudes.

Do the words "Guantanamo," "transparency, "72 hours review," "keep your own plan/doctor," et c. ring any bells?
If so, I've got "5.4% unemployment," and "three million" green jobs I want to sell you
jw.

Wow.... What do you need?

General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. assumed command of the International Security Assistance Force and United States Forces-Afghanistan on 10 February 2013. A native of Boston, Massachusetts, he graduated from St. Michael’s College and was commissioned in 1977. He previously served as the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps from October 2010 to December 2012.

General Dunford has served as an infantry officer at all levels. He commanded the 2nd Battalion, 6th Marines. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, he commanded the 5th Marine Regiment.

(Source: ISAF Leadership Profile)

That man is the Commander of United States Forces: Afghanistan. He isn't some pundit on Fox or some peripheral commander talking out of his tail pipe.

I'm sorry, but if he is testifying that we're staying? I'm taking his word over your opinion. I do believe he knows what he's talking about. He's not simply following the orders of the President and carrying out the policy crafted from the Pentagon...directly...but he's helping to formulate it so he can then carry it out, personally.

The level of "Oh, don't believe your lying eyes & ears" that is starting to appear around here is awesome to see. Just unbelievable at times.

...unless of course you have some intelligence sources or professional expertise that trumps a U.S. Commanding General, running the Afghanistan Theater of Operations?

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Danbones

 

Would that be the Taliban created by President Carter's then National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bryzinzky?

Do you mean the one compsed of tribal savages whose lives were guided by the interpreted words of Allah instead of a secular law?
The one that saw murder in furtherance of ancient traditions as more favorable than united efforts to improve the lives of the faithful?
That one?

So, why are would we want to "negotiate" with them?
(To get back on topic)

jw

I never left topic
Just correcting some mistated facts in various posts...
Question:
Would you negotiate with your own (US) special forces for leadership of a country who as I mentioned GWB already stated the "Taliban " is intergangeble with?
They are just a BOOGIEMAN made up mostly of releasees from Guantanamo where the innocent are never let go

reply to post by Danbones


I am not being a stickler here, but if true I woul genuinely love to see the source claiming the Taliban is comprised "Mostly of released Gitmo prisoners."

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Danbones


I didn't serve in any of the recent MiddleEast interventions, but have several relatives who served there and a couple there as civilians.

To a one, none of them suggested "negotiate" was the way to deal with any of them; although they generally agreed on the best way to do so.

So, why do we keep trying?

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Danbones

 

I am not being a stickler here, but if true I woul genuinely love to see the source claiming the Taliban is comprised "Mostly of released Gitmo prisoners."

Thanks in advance.

not at all
there was a really telling interview on the BEEB the other day re a prisoner who was a proven mistaken identity and his lawyer
however this was more handy:

In 2004, the US government claimed that newly released captives from Guantanamo Bay detainment camp "returned to the battlefield".[1] Guantanamo Bay detainment camp is a joint military prison and interrogation camp under the leadership of Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) which has occupied a portion of the United States Navy's base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2002.[2] The prison holds people suspected by the executive branch of the U.S. government of being al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives, as well as those no longer considered suspects who are being held pending relocation elsewhere...

...Department of Defense spokesmen claimed in January 2009 that at least 61 former captives had returned to the fight. But they did not publish any of the men's names....

en.wikipedia.org...

off topic
dunno bout you but IMHO in light of the above

those no longer considered suspects who are being held pending relocation elsewhere

from the above quote
is about as scary a political scenario as you can get

Mullah Shahzada is a Taliban field commander who was held in extrajudicial detention in Guantanamo, was later released, and subsequently rejoined the Taliban

en.wikipedia.org...(Taliban_commander)

The Obama administration has offered to transfer several Taliban fighters from Guantánamo Bay in exchange for the release of the only U.S. prisoner of war in an effort to revive peace talks in Afghanistan, Missy Ryan of Reuters reports.

Officials said the proposal – which involves sending five senior Taliban members to Qatar if the Taliban agree to release Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl – is a concession from an earlier U.S. offer that would have divided the Taliban prisoners into two groups and required Bergdahl's freedom before the second group would be moved from Gitmo

www.businessinsider.com...

reply to post by Danbones


I absolutely agree.
Thanks for the reading material. I think I remember these claims and it seems no doubt we are creating enemies.
I guess I am most interested in the percentage. Is the Taliban that small that MOST of its members former Gitmo Detainees?

reply to post by Danbones


People scoffed when I told them we were negotiating with Taliban and ready to trade detainees for innocent hostages to show our "good faith" with the Talib leadership. This, after they were shown to have murdred others "just for effect."

Back then, critics wee more focused on "who created them" than on"what are they doing."
I guess, in a way, they still are, because nothing they do seems to disqualify them from being treated as legitimate spokepeople or representatives of the very people they are killing.

Guess which administration has chosen to "legitimize" the Taliban as a group worthy of sovereignty over the same areas they terrorize.

jw

something tells me the real problem is not osama bin laden
its we bin haddad

Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling to the Taliban, President Obama's national security adviser said Sunday as he downplayed worries that the insurgency could set up a renewed sanctuary for Al Qaeda.

Jones said the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai must improve and give hope to the people of Afghanistan. He added that he believes the government has a chance to succeed, with the aid of a strong effort by the U.S. to train the Afghan army and police.

"I don't foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling," Jones said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished," he said. "The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Danbones

 

People scoffed when I told them we were negotiating with Taliban and ready to trade detainees for innocent hostages to show our "good faith" with the Talib leadership. This, after they were shown to have murdred others "just for effect."

Back then, critics wee more focused on "who created them" than on"what are they doing."
I guess, in a way, they still are, because nothing they do seems to disqualify them from being treated as legitimate spokepeople or representatives of the very people they are killing.

Guess which administration has chosen to "legitimize" the Taliban as a group worthy of sovereignty over the same areas they terrorize.

jw

It looks like Obama's government is still connected to Zbigniew Bryzynsky through his son, who is, if I recall correctly, still connected to the present admin somehow...
But there it is in the quote: a second round of Taliban released for a POW just for starters

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Danbones

 

I didn't serve in any of the recent MiddleEast interventions, but have several relatives who served there and a couple there as civilians.

To a one, none of them suggested "negotiate" was the way to deal with any of them; although they generally agreed on the best way to do so.

So, why do we keep trying?

My guess:
we have to have a state of perpetual war and an emanual goldstien ( a la Brave new world ) for some reason

reply to post by jdub297


"Murder for effect".
Can you elaborate on this.
Curious to see how it is different than, say...blowing up a wedding reception and killing 30 family members and friends in a remote village.

Originally posted by jdub297

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

I know exactly how Pakistan was created. There are many running sores worldwide as a result of imperial blundering. Wether it should have been created or not is irrelevant, it exists as an armed state, with state apparatus that have been active in the region.

One of those actions was the creation of The Taliban.

Please respond to the point. If you don't want to negotiate with the Taliban how do you intend to proceed given that one of your 'allies' will keep the movement alive and you cannot cut them loose for fear of the repercussions.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by jdub297

 

"Murder for effect".
Can you elaborate on this.
Curious to see how it is different than, say...blowing up a wedding reception and killing 30 family members and friends in a remote village.

Once again, an ATS member who prefers being spoonfed to thinking for themselves.

"Murder for effect"
Taliban Behead 17 for Singing and Dancing
I'm not going to elaborate; ask your mom to explain.

Different from blowing up a wedding reception?
Obama says that doesn't happen. Or, if it does, it was unexpected. Or, if it could be expected, it wasn't intended. Or, if it was intended, it was necessary "for effect."

What about "males of military age" as legitimate targets? If you are older than 10, I'd be careful.

The difference is that the Taliban mean to do what they do for a purpose. Obama does what he does without regard for the consequences or implications because the low-infornation voters and MSM give him a free pass to do so. When you can do no wrong, you do not have to be accountable or justify your decisions.

Again, ask a grownup to elaborate for you.

jw

reply to post by justwokeup

Please respond to the point. If you don't want to negotiate with the Taliban how do you intend to proceed given that one of your 'allies' will keep the movement alive and you cannot cut them loose for fear of the repercussions.

If by "there," you mean Pakistan, we weren't there "in the first place."

If you mean Afghanistan, it was to drive the Taliban out and, in so doing, "flush out" bin Laden.

And?

Anyone who believes Pakistan is an "ally," is delusional. They are hostage-takers: "Send more money, or the nuclear country get's it." Their continual extortion is pathetic and we should let India take back what was once theirs, if they still want it. Their perceived "nuclear threat" can be dealt with, with well-directed EMPs. India knows how to do this. I don't see India playing that stupid "nuclear threat" game.

jw

jw