What's new

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

Just because your military cannot move as quickly as ours can, that does not equal to a knee-jerk response. In fact, from the start of the Afghan war, it was mostly Special Operations and USAF, not the 'regular' forces.
The ability to deploy military forces rapidly has nothing to do with my argument - it is the equivalent of giving a child a loaded gun and expecting nothing bad to happen - the time-frame of less than a month between the 9/11 attacks and the start of the US war in Afghanistan points to a lack of desire to conduct a proper investigation and build proper case against the accused, and a lack of desire to explore engagement with the regime in Afghanistan (backed up with the threat of war) to find a mutually acceptable means of prosecuting the alleged perpetrators.

We have gone through this before. Over a decade of attempts at negotiations with the Taliban, either directly or through acceptable third party, is more than qualify.
The 9/11 attacks did not occur a 'decade' before the invasion of Afghanistan, they occurred less than a month before. The Taliban made offers of a trial in a third country and/or independent judicial panel, and the US chose to ignore them and wage war.
Of course you would. It is well documented that only 'red-necks' are trigger happy people. Unlike those who are so restrained as we see in the ME today.
In terms of mindset, the US military, political and media leadership, that promotes the war-mongering trigger happy ideology being referred to, is just like the Mullahs and degenerates willing to blow up innocents in a market-place or mosque - the millions of innocents massacred across Latin America and Asia at the altar of 'US national interests' are testament to that.
 
Why Biden Isn't Necessarily Wrong About the Taliban
By Kerry Patton
Published December 20, 2011
| FoxNews.com

Vice President Biden opened up yet another can of worms which sparked uproar among many Americans when he stated that the Taliban was not an enemy to the United States. Unfortunately, with more than ten years of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, it is obvious that the vast majority of Americans remain undereducated in understanding the Taliban. Needless to say, for once, I don’t necessarily disagree with the statement claiming the Taliban is not an enemy to the United States.

The United States has become a nation of labels. Everyone has a label placed on them. Labeling terms are loosely thrown at individuals carelessly. In Afghanistan, virtually anyone who fought against the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has been labeled as the Taliban—such label is absolutely wrong.

Throughout my years serving in Afghanistan, I have actually met many so called "Taliban." Some were actual militants fighting against the Afghan government, some fought specifically against the United States, some fought on the side of the coalition, some didn’t fight at all rather served in security positions for government and non-government organizations, and others simply had nothing to do with picking up arms.

How could this be? How could Afghans actually align themselves in so many different capacities working either for or against the coalition yet all be labeled as Taliban? It’s actually not as complicated as one may believe.

The word Taliban stems from the Arabic word “Talib” meaning “student.” When I operated in Afghanistan, some persons considered me to be an actual Talib considering the magnitude of research and intelligence which I collected on the local populace. The data collected served as an educational phenomenon later used to assist in “teaching” U.S. decision makers about the tactical battle space. It was critical that I first become the student and allow the Afghans to be the teachers.

Of course, an actual Taliban militant group exists. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the TTP) often referred to as the Pakistan Taliban is the only Taliban militant group in existence. Other militant opposition groups which evolved from the Russian-Afghan war exist such as Hezb Islami Gullbidine (HIG), Hezb Islami Khalis (HIK), Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), and a dozen or so more throughout Afghanistan but that does not mean they are actual Taliban even though many align themselves with the Pakistan Taliban.

There is another militant movement in Afghanistan that exists which many Americans fail to acknowledge or accept—the locally disgruntled villagers. Afghanistan is a tribal nation. With tribal nations comes a magnitude of issues to include clan wars.
Unfortunately, many Afghan tribal elements simply wish the United States would stay clear of their domains. We foolishly oftentimes label such persons as Taliban when in fact these persons often hate the Taliban as much as you or I.

These tribes have weapons like the majority of Afghans. They use these weapons against ISAF as a means to keep “occupiers” out of their area. More often than not, when ISAF and the tribes engage in what are commonly referred to as “TIC’s” (Troops in Contact), reports are generated labeling enemy as Taliban when such label is not necessarily accurate.

A lazy American culture has promoted a need to label everyone. We have failed in understanding those different than us and simply believe labeling those different will better position ourselves in understanding. Such thought is a mistake. Under-educated labeling causes more confusion and commotion then good.

We have enemies throughout the world. In Afghanistan, our enemy may or may not be the Taliban. Then again, when we discuss the Taliban, are we simply generalizing an entire society of people vastly different than us or are we calling the spade a spade?

Central Asia and the Middle East are often referred to as "the lands of rumor." Rumors promote false senses of reality. People become socially conditioned to believe that which is not necessarily truth. Has the United States become another nation built upon rumor? When it comes to understanding Afghanistan, the people, and the Taliban, I believe the answer is yes.

Kerry Patton, a combat service disabled veteran, is a senior analyst for WIKISTRAT. He has worked in South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, focusing on intelligence and security and interviewing current and former terrorists, including members of the Taliban. He is the author of Sociocultural Intelligence: The New Discipline of Intelligence Studies and the children's book American Patriotism. You can follow him on Facebook.


Read more: Why Biden Isn't Necessarily Wrong About The Taliban | Fox News

Kerry, you dumb ****, why is there so much mention of Haqqani? However, in your haste, you have acceded the truth that TTP is indeed a militant outfit even though you failed to call them terrorists, for known reasons! But ofcourse, you are working on an agenda, a face saving agenda. But your face is covered in so much **** that it is not possible.

Mullah Omer was always the leader of real Talibaan, the freedom fighters and the largest and most disciplined group of mujahideen warriors. And they have kicked so much *** that you will willingly award Mullah Omer the Nobel peace prize if he so wishes to set that condition for a ceasefire! So Kerry you can continue to play your dumb, shitless scared, nation as they will continue to be manipulated by deceivers and fear mongers!
 
Look at it this way: In foreign affairs, if it MUST come down to a choice of being respected or feared, EVERYONE would chose to be feared. Pakistan can cry foul over the American raid in Abbottabad, but if you want to look at it in terms of insult, it pales in comparison to 9/11 or what happened to India in Mumbai in 2008. If anything to the scale of 9/11 happened to Pakistan and if Pakistan can respond the same way we did, would that response be so categorically so different from US? If anything, both our friends and enemies expected US to respond the way we did. To expect is not the same thing as to want. If we had done nothing, would that be any guarantee that al-Qaeda would remain in Afghanistan? Who here is really that intellectually a 12yr old? Santa Clause and the Great Pumpkin exists.

How the US wanted to respond and was expected to respond does not change the fact that the response was 'knee jerk', flawed and caused astronomically more problems, hundreds of thousands of dead and over a trillion in losses across four nations.

The US response acted as a catalyst for terrorist/terrorism growth across the world, and made the fight against terrorism harder and bloodier for many nations.
 
Chill out...Just because Biden had a 'senior' moment along with his natural brutishness in speech, that does not mean the next administration will not declare otherwise.

Ofcourse, we know all too well how your Govt,'s love back flips. Lying is your tradition, mass murder your passion....that's the legacy of your nation.
 
The ability to deploy military forces rapidly has nothing to do with my argument - it is the equivalent of giving a child a loaded gun and expecting nothing bad to happen - the time-frame of less than a month between the 9/11 attacks and the start of the US war in Afghanistan points to a lack of desire to conduct a proper investigation and build proper case against the accused, and a lack of desire to explore engagement with the regime in Afghanistan (backed up with the threat of war) to find a mutually acceptable means of prosecuting the alleged perpetrators.


The 9/11 attacks did not occur a 'decade' before the invasion of Afghanistan, they occurred less than a month before.
That is nonsense. You are talking as if the Taliban and al-Qaeda alliance were instantly formed on Sept 10, 2001 and attacked US on Sept 11, 2001. Who made the first attempt on the WTC Towers in 1993? Who attacked the US embassies in 1998? Who attacked US on the USS Cole in 2000?

The Taliban made offers of a trial in a third country and/or independent judicial panel, and the US chose to ignore them and wage war.
After all these years holding our hands throughout these attacks, we are under no obligations to accept that absurd offer.

In terms of mindset, the US military, political and media leadership, that promotes the war-mongering trigger happy ideology being referred to, is just like the Mullahs and degenerates willing to blow up innocents in a market-place or mosque - the millions of innocents massacred across Latin America and Asia at the altar of 'US national interests' are testament to that.
The term 'red neck' is usually attached to white people of a certain subset of the American demographic. Your enlargement of that racist blanket is no more palatable than an Asian using the 'n-word' against a black then tried to excuse himself by saying he is not white so therefore his usage of it is acceptable.
 
How the US wanted to respond and was expected to respond does not change the fact that the response was 'knee jerk', flawed and caused astronomically more problems, hundreds of thousands of dead and over a trillion in losses across four nations.
No it was not. And no one in the diplomatic corps will buy that.

The US response acted as a catalyst for terrorist/terrorism growth across the world, and made the fight against terrorism harder and bloodier for many nations.
But nothing about the terrorism themselves who chose to spread their wars. Nothing about their beliefs. Nothing about what they really want. Funny how other terrorist groups decided to lay down their arms while Islamic terrorist groups grew.
 
But nothing about the terrorism themselves who chose to spread their wars. Nothing about their beliefs. Nothing about what they really want. Funny how other terrorist groups decided to lay down their arms while Islamic terrorist groups grew.

I guess the psycho from Norway that killed tons of people is not a terrorist in your book. It must be those Muzlims, let's kill'em. Is that what you cowboys say before dropping bombs on civilians?
 
I guess the psycho from Norway that killed tons of people is not a terrorist in your book. It must be those Muzlims, let's kill'em. Is that what you cowboys say before dropping bombs on civilians?
Was he a member of any group?
 
Was he a member of any group?

Not technically, but he was definitely motivated by a nazi/white race nationalist ideology.
 
Not technically, but he was definitely motivated by a nazi/white race nationalist ideology.

Then he was crazy a$$-****. Many times you have heard of a man open fire in USA university/Public place. Understand the difference between Assault due to craziness and terrorism. Don't associate all murders/homocides to terrorism.

@Topic

What???? :undecided: taliban were never their enemy. They Nurtured taliban and ISI in during Afghan civil war. during 1985-2000 they were in continuous talk with Taliban. If you search on net you can see Taliban leaders visiting USA. USA was in process to get deal of many mines in Afghanistan.

In the mean time Al-Quaida did 9/11 and hide behind Taliban's gown. USA asked Taliban to handover OBL. If taliban had handed over OBL and dismantle AQ network, USA wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan/taliban.

So Talibans were not American enemy and moreover OBL is dead, now USA has no reason to keep Taliban as enemy. 90% of Taliban are crushed by American and Afghhani Boots... Cruuuunch...

Something for you to read:
Kent State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Northern Illinois University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
University of Texas shooting: Gunman Colton Tooley opens fire in library | Mail Online

Please don't generalize all murders/Homocides to terrorism (Just to Justify terrorism from ****** area).
 
In the mean time Al-Quaida did 9/11 and hide behind Taliban's gown. USA asked Taliban to handover OBL. If taliban had handed over OBL and dismantle AQ network, USA wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan/taliban.

The Taliban were willing if the US could provide proof. The US did not oblige.
 
White House backs Biden's 'Taliban-friendly' statement

WASHINGTON: The White House on Monday defended Vice President Joe Biden for saying that the Taliban isn't an enemy of the United States despite the years spent fighting the militant Islamic group that gave a home to Al Qaeda and its leader Usama bin Laden while he plotted the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"It's only regrettable when taken out of context," White House spokesman Jay Carney said of the vice president's remarks in an interview published

"It is a simple fact that we went into Afghanistan because of the attack on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. We are there now to ultimately defeat Al Qaeda, to stabilize Afghanistan and stabilize it in part so that Al Qaeda or other terrorists who have as their aim attacks on the United States cannot establish a foothold again in that country," Carney continued.

During Biden's interview with Newsweek last week, the vice president said it's "good enough" for the U.S. if Afghanistan stops being a "haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America" and its allies. He added that the U.S. is supportive of a reconciliation process between the Afghan government and the Taliban even if it's questionable whether a reconciliation is possible.

"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical," Biden said. "There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy, because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us."

Biden said that the U.S. is on a dual track in Afghanistan -- keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and support a government that is strong enough to "negotiate with and not be overthrown by the Taliban."

Carney said the U.S. did not send the military into Afghanistan because the Taliban were in power, and the vice president's point was that "while we are fighting them, it is not the elimination -- the elimination of the Taliban is not the issue here."


White House backs Bidens Taliban-friendly statement
 
Obviously their enemies are those who are working against them like Pakistan, China, Russia etc..
Talibans are working in their favour like de stablising Pakistan, Iran etc...
 
The Taliban were willing if the US could provide proof. The US did not oblige.
Can anyone provide proof that the US trained Osama bin Laden or that Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset? Or how about proof that Zionists control the US? The 'proof' demand and the offer to turn ObL over to a supposedly 'neutral' muslim country was a joke that no muslim country, neutral or otherwise, took seriously.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom