Global player India has every right to ties with Kabul: US

[ares]

The US wants to prop up an Indian puppet state in Afghanistan to weaken Pakistan/China strategically. Too bad India has been unable to do that even after nine long years of NATO cover.

Or they want to make sure that Afghanistan does not again become the terror central, as it had once become..when it had been left under Pakistan's watch.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

of course the indians have this right; as long as they do not use Afghan soil to destabilize or play dirty games against Pakistani nation

on this issue, our policies and aspirations are 100% crystal clear

 

[Developereo]

Or they want to make sure that Afghanistan does not again become a terror central, as it had once become..when it had been left under Pakistan's watch.

Nah.

The Taliban offered to extradite OBL to a neutral country to face trial. Terrorism was never the real reason for the invasion. Afghansitan's geography was.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

The US wants to prop up an Indian puppet state in Afghanistan to weaken Pakistan/China strategically. Too bad India has been unable to do that even after nine long years of NATO cover.

the Americans have ''paved the way'' figuratively speaking.....

who is securing VOLUME of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Chinese are being extremely pro-active in these regions. In a huge array of different fields, they are signing MoUs providing soft credit and securing investments across the board


actually, I find it very amusing

the indians would have been better off in 2001-2002, however there seems to be a policy and paradigm shift in Afghanistan as NATO clearly will not be leaving or preparing to leave with a strategic advantage in that tricky country

i think the indian are slowly realizing that the return on their ''afghan investment'' will not yield anything major or overly worthwhile

though setting aside all the regional politics, anything that is genuinely done for the betterment and well-being of Afghan peoples should be appreciated

and i emphasize the word ''genuinely''

 

[ares]

Nah.

The Taliban offered to extradite OBL to a neutral country to face trial. Terrorism was never the real reason for the invasion.

You think world's only super power will take up such an offer after 4000 of its citizens are killed?

Afghansitan's geography was.

And these are all conspiracy theories ..just like "9/11 was an inside job"

 

[ajtr]

Actually when ti comes to Afghanistan, I am of the opinion that all the regional countries should jointly work to help the country out of its miserable situation. Even Bangladesh and Nepal should contribute in any way they can. This would lead to more of a regional warmth and give Afghanistan the impression that it is not alone.

The more, the merrier especially if the attempt is directed towards rebuilding the country.

why only afghanistan problem?why not whole of asia?If regional powers can work together on afghanistan then sure whole of asian countries work together to change the world order itself to push the west out of asia.

 

[jayron]

Nah.

The Taliban offered to extradite OBL to a neutral country to face trial. Terrorism was never the real reason for the invasion. Afghansitan's geography was.

This is news to me! can you elaborate on this?

 

[aakash_2410]

Why would india need word and assurance from US to have relation with another country. That exposes how bigger global power india is.

Pitty pitty!!!!

Indians should ask GOI what did govt do with their billion dollars when 600 million indians struggling with poverty?

India doesn't need assurance. Have you even read the whole thread? U.S. just says that India has every right to have strong relations with kabul. That doesn't mean it is ASSURING india?!

And it's really funny when bangladeshis talk about poverty. And if it wasn't for us you'd still be speaking urdu, you ungrateful git! I just hope india finishes fencing as soon as possible.

Multidimensional Poverty Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ares]

This is news to me! can you elaborate on this?

Taliban's initial stand was they will extradite OBL to a neutral country, if USA provides evidence of OBL's involvement in 9/11.

After first 7 days of bombardment, they changed their stand to, they will offer OBL to a neutral country to be tried under Muslim law, if NATO stops it bombardment.

Mullah Omar did not want to directly negotiate with Americans (George W Bush) as he was a non-muslim and therefore considered unworthy of negotiations..and hence insistence on a neutral Muslim country's mediation.

Obviously all these proposal were outrightly rejected.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

what a cunning post; Bengalis were never forced to speak Urdu they have always before and after 1947 spoken in their local dialect

 

[Developereo]

This is news to me! can you elaborate on this?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/77687-shifting-reasons-being-war.html

Also, from Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On September 21, the Taliban responded to the ultimatum, promising that if the U.S. could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating that they had no evidence linking him to the September 11 attacks.
[...]
On October 7, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the U.S. made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer, and stated that the U.S. would not negotiate their demands.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

You think world's only super power will take up such an offer after 4000 of its citizens are killed?



And these are all conspiracy theories ..just like "9/11 was an inside job"

How the Taliban Pressed Bin Laden

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Evidence now available from various sources, including recently declassified United States State Department documents, shows that the Taliban regime led by Mullah Mohammad Omar imposed strict isolation on Osama bin Laden after 1998 to prevent him from carrying out any plots against the United States.

The evidence contradicts claims by top officials of the Barack Obama administration that Mullah Omar was complicit in bin Laden's involvement in the al-Qaeda plot to carry out the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. It also bolsters the credibility of Taliban statements in recent months asserting that they have little interest in al-Qaeda's global jihadi aims.

A primary source on the relationship between bin Laden and Mullah Omar before 9/11 is a detailed personal account provided by Egyptian jihadi Abu'l Walid al-Masri and published on Arabic-language jihadist websites in 1997.

Al-Masri had a unique knowledge of the subject because he worked closely with both bin Laden and the Taliban during the period. He was a member of bin Laden's Arab entourage in Afghanistan, but became much more sympathetic to the Afghan cause than bin Laden and other al-Qaeda officials from 1998 through 2001.

The first published English-language report on al-Masri's account, however, was an article in the January issue of the CTC Sentinal, the journal of the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point, by Vahid Brown, a fellow at the CTC.

Mullah Omar's willingness to allow bin Laden to remain in Afghanistan was conditioned from the beginning, according to al-Masri's account, on two prohibitions on his activities: bin Laden was forbidden to talk to the media without the consent of the Taliban regime or to make plans to attack US targets.

Former Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil told Inter Press Service in an interview that the regime "put bin Laden in Kandahar to control him better". Kandahar remained the Taliban political headquarters after the organization seized power in 1996.

The August 1998 US cruise missile strikes against training camps in Afghanistan run by bin Laden in retaliation for the bombings of two US embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998, appears to have had a dramatic impact on Mullah Omar and the Taliban regime's policy toward bin Laden.

Two days after the strike, Omar unexpectedly entered a phone conversation between a State Department official and one of his aides, and told the US official he was unaware of any evidence that bin Laden "had engaged in or planned terrorist acts while on Afghan soil". The Taliban leader said he was "open to dialogue" with the United States and asked for evidence of bin Laden's involvement, according to the State Department cable reporting the conversation.

Only three weeks after Omar asked for evidence against bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader sought to allay Taliban suspicions by appearing to accept the prohibition by Mullah Omar against planning any actions against the United States.

"There is an opinion among the Taliban that we should not move from within Afghanistan against any other state," bin Laden said in an interview with al-Jazeera. "This was the decision of the Commander of the Faithful, as is known."

Mullah Omar had taken the title "Commander of the Faithful", the term used by some Muslim caliphs in the past to claim to be "leader of the Muslims", in April 1996, five months before Kabul fell to Taliban forces.

During September and October 1998, the Taliban regime apparently sought to position itself to turn bin Laden over to the Saudi government as part of a deal by getting a ruling by the Afghan Supreme Court that he was guilty of the embassy bombings.

In a conversation with the US charge in Islamabad on November 28, 1998, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, Omar's spokesman and chief adviser on foreign affairs, referred to a previous Taliban request to the United States for evidence of bin Laden's guilt to be examined by the Afghan Supreme Court, according to the US diplomat's report to the State Department.

Muttawakil said the United States had provided "some papers and a video cassette". but he complained that the video had contained nothing new and had therefore not been submitted to the Supreme Court. He told the charge that the court had ruled that none of the evidence that had been presented warranted the conviction of bin Laden.

Muttawakil said the court trial approach had "not worked" but suggested that the Taliban regime was now carrying out a strategy to "restrict [bin Laden's] activities in such a way that he would decide to leave of his own volition."

On February 10, 1999, the Taliban sent a group of 10 officers to replace bin Laden's own bodyguards, touching off an exchange of gunfire, according to a New York Times story of March 4, 1999. Three days later, bodyguards working for Taliban intelligence and Foreign Affairs Ministry personnel took control of bin Laden's compound near Kandahar and took away his satellite telephone, according to the US and Taliban sources cited by the Times.

Taliban official Abdul Hakeem Mujahid, who was then in the Taliban embassy in Pakistan, confirmed that the 10 Taliban bodyguards had been provided to bin Laden to "supervise him and observe that he will not contact any foreigner or use any communication system in Afghanistan", according to the Times story.

The pressure on bin Laden in 1999 also extended to threats to eliminate al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan. An e-mail to bin Laden from two leading Arab jihadis in Afghanistan in July 1999, later found on a laptop previously belonging to al-Qaeda and purchased by the Wall Street Journal, referred to "problems between you and the Leader of the Faithful" as a "crisis".

The e-mail, published in an article by Alan Cullison in the September 2004 issue of The Atlantic, said: "Talk about closing down the camps has spread." The message even suggested that the jihadis feared the Taliban regime could go so far as to "kick them out" of Afghanistan.

In the face of new Taliban hostility, bin Laden sought to convince Mullah Omar that he had given his personal allegiance to Omar as a Muslim. In April 2001, bin Laden referred publicly to having sworn allegiance to Mullah Omar as the "Commander of the Faithful".

But al-Masri recalls that bin Laden had refused to personally swear such an oath of allegiance to Omar in 1998-99, and had asked al-Masri himself to give the oath to Omar in his stead. Al-Masri suggests that bin Laden deliberately avoided giving the oath of allegiance to Omar personally so that he would be able to argue within the Arab jihadi community that he was not bound by Omar's strictures on his activities.

Even in summer 2001, as the Taliban regime became increasingly dependent on foreign jihadi troop contingents, including Arabs trained in bin Laden's camps, for its defense against the military advances of the Northern Alliance, Mullah Omar found yet another way to express his unhappiness with bin Laden's presence.

After a series of clashes between al-Qaeda forces and those of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Taliban leader intervened to give overall control of foreign volunteer forces to Tahir Yuldash of the IMU, according to a blog post last October by Leah Farrall, an Australian specialist on jihadi politics in Afghanistan.

In late January, Geoff Morrell, the spokesman for US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, suggested that the United States could not negotiate with Mullah Omar because he has "the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands", implying that he had knowingly allowed bin Laden's planning of the 9/11 attacks.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

(Inter Press Service)

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

 

[aakash_2410]

what a cunning post; Bengalis were never forced to speak Urdu they have always before and after 1947 spoken in their local dialect

Not really mate. I'm not saying this nor have I made this up. It's a fact.
One of the main reasons for 1971 were language and all the development kept happening in west pakistan.

Bengali Language Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bangladesh Liberation War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PureAryan]

Or they want to make sure that Afghanistan does not again become the terror central, as it had once become..when it had been left under Pakistan's watch.

Terror central?

If there is any terror central in the world that is bharat that is hated by every neighbor, who sent terrorists to independent countries of Sikkim, Hyderabad, Goa, Kashmir, East Pakistan, Maldives, Sri lanka, Tibet and nepal to spread terror and occupy smaller countries.

Bharat will be kicked out of muslim lands as soon its master USA leaves.

 

[fallstuff]

India doesn't need assurance. Have you even read the whole thread? U.S. just says that India has every right to have strong relations with kabul. That doesn't mean it is ASSURING india?!

And it's really funny when bangladeshis talk about poverty. And if it wasn't for us you'd still be speaking urdu, you ungrateful git! I just hope india finishes fencing as soon as possible.

Multidimensional Poverty Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are feeling used ? Take it easy, its not the end of world. Don't get depressed about it, believe me its not worth it.