Taliban not the Enemy: Biden - Taliban Confirm Office in Qatar

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As you wish...


Please see post 148 for the full article.

You mean the parts that validate my arguments about US arrogance and unwillingness to compromise ..

Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.
...

In interviews, U.S. participants and sources close to the Taliban discussed the exchanges in detail and debated whether the State Department should have been more flexible in its hard-line stance. Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.

Some Afghan experts argue that throughout the negotiations, the United States never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula." Officials never found a way to ease the Taliban's fear of embarrassment if it turned over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western power.

"We were not serious about the whole thing, not only this administration but the previous one," said Richard Hrair Dekmejian, an expert in Islamic fundamentalism and author at the University of Southern California. "We did not engage these people creatively. There were missed opportunities."
...


The article only further establishes the fact that the war in Afghanistan was a war of 'choice' and was a result of US unwillingness to explore multiple options provided by the Taliban to have OBL prosecuted.

Any international organizations you may cite is no good if the government in discussion is not a party to a treaty that created said organization in the first place. There are plenty of historical and current precedents where the accused was tried by the accusing country: Peru v Lori Berenson. Or that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was turned over by Libya for Pan Am 103.

'Precedence of trials of the accused in the accusing nation' does not invalidate the Taliban's position - the decision on whether or not OBL and Co. should be handed to the US for a trial in the US was the Taliban's - they were, justifiably, unwilling to do so and offered multiple feasible alternatives that the US rejected and instead launched war. I fail to see how you can excuse US behavior here, or excuse US culpability, direct and indirect, in the deaths of hundreds and thousands of innocents across three nations following the US decision to go to war.

Was the US Brahamdagh Bugti's sponsor in his actions? News has it that there were several European countries willing to accept him. None stepped forward to assist ObL and ObL's parent country, Saudi Arabia, disowned him.

Was the Taliban 'OBL's sponsor in his actions'? There is no evidence that the Taliban provided OBL with money, training or resources - if anything, it was OBL who was providing the Taliban with finances, in order to cushion his own stay in Afghanistan.

Brahamdegh Bugti continued to lead his terrorist organization while in 'exile' in Afghanistan under US and Afghan protection and support. His organization continued to (and still is) carry out terrorist attacks against civilians (educators, physicians and workers from other ethnic groups as well as pro-Pakistan Baluch) while he was in Afghanistan. Wikileaks indicates that he was also involved in the abduction of Solecki, and the US and UN were involved in negotiations with him over his release.

The number of countries 'willing to accept Bugti' does not invalidate US culpability in sheltering a terrorist and his organization, and facilitating his 'safe exile' to another nation. At best, US actions are identical to those of the Taliban (in sheltering OBL) that it condemned and went to war over. But of course being 'two-faced' comes naturally to the red-neck infested US military and political leadership.

 

[gambit]

You mean the parts that validate my arguments about US arrogance and unwillingness to compromise ..

Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.
...

In interviews, U.S. participants and sources close to the Taliban discussed the exchanges in detail and debated whether the State Department should have been more flexible in its hard-line stance. Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.

Some Afghan experts argue that throughout the negotiations, the United States never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula." Officials never found a way to ease the Taliban's fear of embarrassment if it turned over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western power.

"We were not serious about the whole thing, not only this administration but the previous one," said Richard Hrair Dekmejian, an expert in Islamic fundamentalism and author at the University of Southern California. "We did not engage these people creatively. There were missed opportunities."
...


The article only further establishes the fact that the war in Afghanistan was a war of 'choice' and was a result of US unwillingness to explore multiple options provided by the Taliban to have OBL prosecuted.

Nonsense.

I can start by vandalizing your car. Then I throw my trash into your yard. Then I begin to vandalize your house. Then I start making obscene gestures and comments at your wife and children as they walk down the streets.

The question is not how far CAN I go but rather how far will you ALLOW me to go. Ultimately, you can allow me to go as far as holding a knife to your neck as you lay broken on the ground, after I destroyed your home and done horrible things to your family. Ultimately, you have a choice all the way to end to do nothing while I slice open your neck.

But is that abstraction attractive to those of us who prefers to deal with the real world? No.

After the embassy bombings, governments all over the world shook their heads at US and wondered why-oh-why is the US, with all that military might, doing nothing to those who while the evidences may not be sufficient in a court of law they are overwhelming in pointing the guilty finger at the perpetrators. Then after Sept 11, 2001, they all know within their hearts that the US no long er had any choice. No sane government would believe -- and did not believed -- that if al-Qaeda possessed nuclear weapons or any other forms of 'WMD', al-Qaeda would not use them. In other words, they believe the US got lucky.

Just like you in that hypothetical situation above, if you feel that somewhere along the way of my behaviors, the point where you have no choice but act to protect your family and yourself, then 9/11 was that point for US. In fact, other governments believed that point was long passed, even before the embassy bombings. So if it was evident that the US had no choice but to act, then there was no other choice for ObL to be other than in US possession.

'Precedence of trials of the accused in the accusing nation' does not invalidate the Taliban's position - the decision on whether or not OBL and Co. should be handed to the US for a trial in the US was the Taliban's - they were, justifiably, unwilling to do so and offered multiple feasible alternatives that the US rejected and instead launched war. I fail to see how you can excuse US behavior here, or excuse US culpability, direct and indirect, in the deaths of hundreds and thousands of innocents across three nations following the US decision to go to war.

Then it can be argued that the Taliban shares the same condemnation because they chose to value the life of one man over those thousands of innocents.

Was the Taliban 'OBL's sponsor in his actions'? There is no evidence that the Taliban provided OBL with money, training or resources - if anything, it was OBL who was providing the Taliban with finances, in order to cushion his own stay in Afghanistan.

Brahamdegh Bugti continued to lead his terrorist organization while in 'exile' in Afghanistan under US and Afghan protection and support. His organization continued to (and still is) carry out terrorist attacks against civilians (educators, physicians and workers from other ethnic groups as well as pro-Pakistan Baluch) while he was in Afghanistan. Wikileaks indicates that he was also involved in the abduction of Solecki, and the US and UN were involved in negotiations with him over his release.

The number of countries 'willing to accept Bugti' does not invalidate US culpability in sheltering a terrorist and his organization, and facilitating his 'safe exile' to another nation. At best, US actions are identical to those of the Taliban (in sheltering OBL) that it condemned and went to war over. But of course being 'two-faced' comes naturally to the red-neck infested US military and political leadership.

Then we call that 'rent' to the Taliban for making available land for ObL and al-Qaeda to operate and train. The number of countries willing to accept Bugti matters for it means there are sympathizers to his cause whereas no one wanted ObL and an-Qaeda in their neighborhoods. And if there were any, after 9/11, they abandoned him. Bugti's cause can be seen as local while ObL's and al-Qaeda's were believed to be global. Bugti argued that his people were being oppressed by Pakistan. Rightly or false, that argument has believers. No one, not even the ME despots, believed the muslims were under any infidel oppression.

 

[VelocuR]

US-Taliban peace deal collapses after Karzai refuses to go on: Report

Published: December 23, 2011

The US-Taliban peace deal, that was earlier reported to have reached a critical juncture, has “ultimately collapsed after Afghan President Hamid Karzai balked at its terms,” The Washington Post (WP) reported on Friday.

“It was the closest that the parties have come to genuine peace negotiations after nearly a year of talks,” an official was quoted in the WP report.

According to the report, “the deal called for the prisoners (from US detention at Guantanamo Bay) to be sent to house arrest in Qatar, where the Taliban planned to open an office.”

A senior Obama administration official was quoted in the report saying that “right now, things have stopped; everybody is taking a deep breath.” The official further said that contacts with the Taliban are expected to be re-established early in the new year.

The report said that “the potential transfer of prisoners was the result of at least a half dozen meetings this year between US representatives and a Taliban delegation headed by Tayyib Agha, an aide to Afghan Taliban leader Mohammad Omar.”

As per the WP report, the senior official said that they believe they are talking to the right people; people who are capable of negotiations.

According to the report, the deal called for 5 Taliban GITMO prisoners to be sent to house arrest in Qatar.

 

[lem34]

Guys give me a break does any of you really believe that americans would allow this puppet that kind of leverage to effect what they want. I dont think so. He is disposable as a pampers nappy. There are people who have done far greater servise to americans over a longer period who have been discarded eg mubarek

 

[somebozo]

Why Qatar has soo much intrest in islamic extrmist?? Almost everything they touch becomes tainted with Taliban, extremism and sucide boming...recently their "peace" efforts in Syria were rewarded with two suicide car bomb blasts!

 

[Pfpilot]

There can never be real peace in Afghanistan due to a government with vested interests. The US put in place a government made up of the same kind of people they are fighting against, the difference is simply in what each side believes is right. Karzai has alienated much of the nation and could frankly care less, he and his family are minting money at the expense of the Afghani people.
This is always the problem with the states America deals with, whatever it's intentions: they prefer a leader who's only good quality is that they will follow whatever the US tells them to do; who's more perfect for the role than a dictator who will crush any opposing thought and preserve the status quo of subservience to the US...only, after a while they become high on their own power and the US comes back as the savior and disposes of them.

 

[VelocuR]

Why Qatar has soo much intrest in islamic extrmist?? Almost everything they touch becomes tainted with Taliban, extremism and sucide boming...recently their "peace" efforts in Syria were rewarded with two suicide car bomb blasts!

Qatar and Bahrain is the home to US Military bases, I think they want to make Talibans comfortable in new offices and order them wherever they go to attack for the best interest.

 

[pakdefender]

Nonsense.

I can start by vandalizing your car. Then I throw my trash into your yard. Then I begin to vandalize your house. Then I start making obscene gestures and comments at your wife and children as they walk down the streets.

The question is not how far CAN I go but rather how far will you ALLOW me to go. Ultimately, you can allow me to go as far as holding a knife to your neck as you lay broken on the ground, after I destroyed your home and done horrible things to your family. Ultimately, you have a choice all the way to end to do nothing while I slice open your neck.

But is that abstraction attractive to those of us who prefers to deal with the real world? No.

The hypothetical situation you have cooked up there in is your post is pure BS, it may be an internal reflection on thuggish mentality that might be there in US mil personnel but it has no relevance to reality
US support to Israel is the root cause of the conflict in the Middle East , you provide support and weapons to the Israelis who use them against those who have only sticks and stones to defend themselves.
People are being evicted from their homes based on religious grounds and America supports the murder and land grab that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinian
This is the root cause of the conflict in the Middle East and which has formed the basis of attacks on American presence around the globe
Don’t try to play innocent and pretend to be the one who was targeted first.

 

[PakShah]

US says Afghan Taliban 'not an enemy'


US says Afghan Taliban 'not an enemy'
Reports say Washington will hold secret meetings with the group this year after statement by US officials.
Last Modified: 01 Jan 2012 05:52

The US government has said in a statement that the Afghan Taliban are not neccessarily an enemy, a move that is part of a new policy to open talks with the group.

Reports say Washington will hold secret meetings with the Taliban this year.

As Barack Obama's campaign for re-election as US president gathers pace, his advisors are well aware that opinion polls show that two out of every three Americans now oppose the Afghanistan war.

But some say it could hurt Obama on the road to a second presidential term.

Al Jazeera's Tom Ackerman reports from Washington.

Source: Al Jazeera


US says Afghan Taliban 'not an enemy' - Americas - Al Jazeera English

 

[Screambowl]

what about TTP?

 

[Thorough Pro]

They just delivered a new year gift on Bagram Airbase.

 

[PakShah]

Taliban 'confirms' deal to open Qatar office

Afghan peace negotiator calls Taliban decision to set up office in the Gulf state a "gesture of good faith".
Last Modified: 03 Jan 2012 14:28

The Taliban has battled Afghan and foreign armies since it was ousted from the government in 2001 [Al Jazeera]
The Taliban has confirmed it has come to an "initial agreement" to open a political office overseas as part of peace talks with the US, according to a statement.

In a statement that was emailed to news organisations and published on their purported website, Voice of Jihad, on Tuesday, the Taliban said it had held "preliminary talks with relevant sides including Qatar" to open an office outside Afghanistan.

"We're now prepared, while having a strong presence inside [Afghanistan] to have a political office outside [the country] for negotiations," the statement said, reiterating the stance that all foreign troops must leave to end the war.

A senior member of Afghanistan's High Peace Council, the government's official body charged with seeking a negotiated end to the country's war, said he welcomed the Taliban move.

"It is important for the Taliban to negotiate with the international community, especially with the US, and we welcome their decision to set up a political office," Arsala Rahmani, a top negotiator on the council, told the Reuters news agency.

"It is a gesture of good faith. The Taliban are blacklisted by the US so it is very important for them to engage in talks with the US," he said.

urther demands

The Taliban's statement said one of its demands was for a prisoner exchange to include the release of inmates from the US-run detention facility in Cuba's Guantanamo Bay.

"This is the first time [the Taliban] have said public ally that yes, they will have these talks through an office in Qatar," reported Al Jazeera's Bernard Smith from Kabul, the Afghan capital. "So with this notable step . . . if [the talks are] going to happen outside Afghanistan, we're waiting to see what the Afghan government has to say about this."


Meanwhile, Pakistan's Taliban forces continue to fight in the Afghan border region [Al Jazeera]

The Afghan government recalled its ambassador to Qatar last month for consultations over reports that the Taliban were looking to open an office in Doha, the Qatari capital.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, later said in a statement that his government "agreed" to the idea of a Taliban liaison office being opened in Qatar.

It is unclear, however, what role the Afghan government would play in any talks between the Taliban and the United States. The Taliban refers to Karzai's government as a "puppet regime" of the US, and said in its statement that "Afghans must be allowed to create an Islamic government of their choice that be no harm to any one".

The Taliban statement rejected some media reports that negotiations with the US had begun, but according to a source in Pakistan early discussions had been held last autumn in Doha, Qatar, between US diplomats and a small Taliban delegation led by Tayyeb Agha, the former secretary of Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

The comments come two days after Karzai publicly welcomed remarks by US Vice President Joe Biden that the Taliban "per se is not our enemy", saying they would help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.

The Afghan government's own talks with the Taliban have been on hold since September, when Burhanuddin Rabbani, the chief of Karzai's High Peace Council, was assassinated by a Taliban suicide bomber at his Kabul home.

Taliban 'confirms' deal to open Qatar office - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

 

[Tehmasib]

KABUL, Afghanistan — Giving its first major public sign that it may be ready for peace talks, the Taliban announced Tuesday that it had struck a deal to open a peace mission in Qatar.

The step was a sharp reversal of the Taliban’s longstanding public denials that it was involved or interested in any negotiations to end its insurgency in Afghanistan.

In a statement, Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, said that along with agreeing to set up the office in Qatar, the group was asking that Taliban detainees held at the American prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, be released. Mr. Mujahid did not say when the Qatar office would be opened, or give specifics about the prisoners the Taliban wanted freed.

American officials have said in recent months that the opening of a Taliban mission would be the single biggest step forward for peace efforts that have been plagued by false starts. The most embarrassing came in November 2010, when it emerged that an impostor had fooled Western officials into thinking he represented the Taliban and then had disappeared with hundreds of thousands of dollars used to woo him.

If all goes as planned, the opening of an office in Qatar will give Afghan and Western peace negotiators an “address” where they can openly contact legitimate Taliban intermediaries.

American officials have said for years that the war in Afghanistan ultimately required a political solution, not a military one. The “surge” of additional troops ordered by President Obama at the end of 2009, and the sharp increase in kill-and-capture missions against the Taliban’s midlevel leadership by special operations forces over the past two years have largely been aimed at getting the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Though there were hints of interest, as recently as last month, Western officials in Kabul were questioning whether the Taliban was indeed ready or willing to talk. Tuesday’s announcement will help to erase those doubts, Western officials said, although they all stressed that the process was closer to the beginning than the end and that there was no assurance that a final settlement could be reached.

“Publicly, I don’t think we could have asked for a stronger endorsement of the peace process from the other side,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the talks. “But this isn’t even close to having a done deal. That’s going to take years, if it even happens.”

There was no immediate comment from the Afghan government, which has been cool to the idea. When word that Qatar had agreed to host such a peace office first surfaced in December, the Karzai government rejected the notion and recalled its ambassador to the Persian Gulf state. Afghan officials complained at the time that they had not been formally notified by the Qataris, and that they preferred that any such mission be in Saudi Arabia or Turkey. But a week ago, President Hamid Karzai grudgingly agreed to Qatar as the site.

The American embassy in Kabul issued a brief statement on Tuesday reiterating what the United States wants to see in a final settlement. “We support an Afghan-led reconciliation process in which the Taliban break with Al Qaeda, renounce violence and accept the Afghan constitution, especially protections for minorities and women,” said Gavin Sundwall, a spokesman for the embassy.

Since the debacle with the impostor, America and its allies have focused on establishing a trustworthy channel for pursuing a peace deal with the Taliban. The push began early last year when American and German negotiators managed to make contact with a man they believed to be a legitimate representative of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s reclusive leader.

The Western diplomat said on Tuesday that the Taliban announcement was a product of 10 months of on-again, off-gain talks with the man, Tayeb Agha, a former secretary to Mullah Omar. The talks were shrouded in secrecy in large part to protect Mr. Agha and other Taliban intermediaries.

The biggest concern was that the government of Pakistan, where most of the Taliban’s leadership is believed to reside, would obstruct any talks in which it did not play a direct role. Pakistan has in the past arrested insurgent leaders who sought to open talks without its blessing.

Afghan and American officials have long feared that Pakistan aims to use the peace process, which it says it supports, as a way to solidify a dominant position in Afghanistan. Pakistan is believed to have backed the Taliban for much of the past decade, for the same reason. The Qatar office is seen as a way of lessening Pakistani influence over the talks

source : nytime 9:57 PST on 03 Jan 2012

 

[heartrocker22]

Good now i know where to send my hate mails ..... could u ppl pls forward me their address as an when this office opens

time to hit downtown to improve my galli vocabulary...

 

[fatman17]

Pakistan welcomes Taliban's Qatar move


Farhan Bokhari - Correspondent - Islamabad

Additional reporting by

James Hardy Asia-Pacific Editor - London



Pakistani officials have said that Islamabad will support the Taliban's establishment of an office in Qatar as a precursor to negotiations for a peace settlement in Afghanistan.

The Taliban announced on 5 January that "besides our powerful presence inside the country, [we are] ready to establish a political office outside the country to come to an understanding with other nations and have reached an initial agreement with Qatar and other related sides."

Senior Pakistani officials said they supported negotiations in Qatar between the US and the Taliban but warned that the process was in danger of being "out of sync" with the realities on the ground in Afghanistan, where the US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has spent the past 10 years fighting the Taliban-led insurgency with varying degrees of success.

A senior Pakistani Foreign Ministry official said on 6 January that Islamabad had told the US that it intends "to support the Qatar process. We will support any effort to try to bring peace to Afghanistan". He added that Pakistani support will principally involve ensuring the participation of Afghan Taliban under its influence.

However, a Pakistani intelligence official commented that there are "no guarantees" of a successful conclusion to the Qatar negotiations. Referring to the large number of Taliban attacks in 2011 in which Western troops were targeted with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the official said "some of the Taliban believe they have foreign forces on the run in Afghanistan. It is very important that they are convinced that they will never win this war. So far, many Afghans directly involved [in the fighting] believe the US will eventually retreat as the Soviet Union did" in 1989.


COMMENT

The Taliban's announcement on 5 January opened up the possibility of meaningful talks between the two sides in the ongoing Afghanistan conflict, but also drew into focus the challenges facing a viable peace process.

Meanwhile, the admission by a Pakistani official that Islamabad has influence over the Taliban is a revelation in itself as officials generally do not admit to direct ties. Analysts have suggested that the opening of the Qatar office could be an attempt by some of the Taliban leadership to get away from Pakistani - and specifically Inter Services Intelligence agency - control.

Another possible question the Taliban's move raises is whether it supports ISAF's contention that the insurgency in Afghanistan is on the run. ISAF officials regularly say that momentum has been reversed since the dark days of the mid-2000s, pointing to decreased activity in the southern 'heartland' of the Taliban: Kandahar and Helmand provinces.

However, it should be noted that the Taliban lived up to its word of focusing on high-profile targets in 2011. A series of attacks decapitated the government and security leadership in Kandahar province, while attacks were also launched against ISAF headquarters, the US embassy in Kabul and the leadership of Kunduz province.