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

[SBD-3]

Taliban paid £100 a month to stop fighting - SnesOrama Emulation Community

 

[Fracker]

What???? 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...

You are carrying wrong history here, Taliban actually said they have asked OBL to leave Afghanistan, and they said there is no AQ. and US raise their demands and included many Taliban leaders in 20 person list. and attacked Afghanistan without even waiting for the response from the.

Their goal was to capture Afghanistan, and put their puppet government into power. Which they have done so, which is why they are offering deals but with only one demand that they all will gather under karzai.

 

[Zabaniyah]

What? How? wtf?

So, why make an enemy out of the Taliban in the first place? Why spend billions on that? Why open up an Iraq war front? I mean what the **** for?

So since many Taliban died from US attacks, America would go say like:

"Hey man, sorry but that was all friendly fire for all those years".

It appears to me that the Afghan Taliban aren't exactly a single entity. It is divided among various factions within it, each with their own strengths and ideas. Just exactly how would the US be dealing with that? CIA?

You know, the US had to make friends with some insurgent groups in Iraq in order to contain the Al-Queda. We all remember the deadly insurgency in Fallujah. It seems this is the exact tactic the US is implementing in Afghanistan.

Guess technology and patriotism alone doesn't solve everything in regards to addressing 9/11 grievances.

Oh well, Yankee Talibanee bhai bhai

 

[bhasinusc]

Basically America has conceded defeat in Afghanistan and now are begging the Taliban to give them some reprieve so that they can save their faces and do a hasty retreat. Don't be surprised if you see in a few weeks announcements of complete troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and talks about bringing Taliban on the discussion table. Even American and Indian proxy Hamid Karzai is eagerly willing to negotiate with Taliban. Probably Karzai wants some high minister post in the new government in Afghanistan after America withdraws.

The economy of America is pretty much exhausted and it is in their interests to withdraw from Aghanistan. Using deadly weapons including according to some reports Mini - Nukes to kill an estimated 1 million people in Afghanistan has not earned them any semblance of victory.

 

[r0ck]

What a load of tripe!

It's as if you wage a war on a country but say hey the army of that country is not our enemy.

Like Mr. T of the A-Team would say;

"But that's who you wagin' a war against fool"

Ohh...the irony of American jingoism and hypocrisy, and since some people are gonna buy it, truly one of a kind.

 

[regular]

WASHINGTON: The United States has said that Taliban is not an enemy of America, a move seen as the latest effort of the Obama administration to send an olive branch to the terrorist outfit that ruled Afghanistan before 9/11.

"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical," US Vice-President Joe Biden said in an interview to the Newsweek magazine.

"There is not a single statement that the (US) President has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens US interests," he said.

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. So there's a dual track here, Biden added.

"One, continue to keep the pressure on al-Qaida and continue to diminish them. Two, put the government in a position where they can be strong enough that they can negotiate with and not be overthrown by the Taliban," he said.

"And at the same time try to get the Taliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, through reconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al-Qaida or any other organization that they would harbor to do damage to us and our allies," Biden said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, supporting Biden's statement, said the Vice-President does not regret having said this.

"We didn't invade Afghanistan. We did not send US military personnel into Afghanistan because the Taliban were in power. They had been in power. We went into Afghanistan because al-Qaida had launched an attack against the US from Afghanistan," he said

Taliban is not the US's enemy: Biden - The Times of India

No Uncle sam U can't get away with it ...U must fight the Talibaans cuz they are ure worst enemies....They supported OBL there they gave him protection ....now U needa get rid of Talibaans.I guess U got scared of Talibaans thats why U are trying to run away from them........

 

[Fracker]

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.

Gambit, it look stupid when you attack the whole country for bunch of 20 people, where Government is willing to move OBL out & us can than nab OBL (after all OBL helped them in civil war, they can't simply handover him to US). kill 1000s, trigger a non stopping war in the region, disturbing whole region (pakistan was the most worst effected country), regrow opium back, and then simply call those who you were fighting with "Not our enemies". Pure Stupidity

PS: USA jumped into war by himself, no body pushed them into this mess. Even if someone consider 9/11 attack by OBL, how come a USA president can declare war against Aghanistan just after 4 hrs of the attack? Which they couldn't prove till Oct 2002, when OBL video for accepting attack released. (which still looked a fake one). They came to afghanistan to remove Taliban, and place their own puppet government, that was the only motive they had. and now when they know they can't defeat a nation who don't know anything else then fighting. They are now using diplomatic way to get out of this mess.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We have every right to our demands just as Mullah Omar believe to his.


We do not care. And after 9/11 it would be absurd for any country to think that we should care about this internal issue


We do not care. And after 9/11 it would be absurd for any country to think that we should care about this internal issue.

Right there you just validated my point about members of the US political, military, intelligence and media leadership being arrogant, trigger-happy rednecks who engaged in a useless war out of a knee-jerk reaction, and ended up catalyzing the growth of terrorism and extremism world wide, rather than 'destroying Al Qaeda', and in the process causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It will be interesting to see DoD/Pentagon's response, if any.

Panetta is in charge of DoD - as CIA chief he authorized the drone strike on a tribal elder and political-agent meeting in NW, against the advice of DoS and the US Ambassador in Pakistan, immediately after Raymond Davis's release - I suspect his fingerprints are on the recent attack on Pakistani troops and their cold blooded murder, and I would not be surprised if he and Petraeus concoct an 'incident' in collaboration with their Afghan intelligence buddies, to try and undermine the peace initiative.

 

[All-Green]

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.

Well, let us see the other perspective as well.
Discarding proof as a mere luxury is not justified when lives and future of an entire nation and region is at stake.

This case is not same as having no proof of Zionist control of USA and believing in the same.
The world did not invade USA over Zionism without any proof.
On the other hand USA did invade Afghanistan despite Taliban request for proof and trial of OBL.
If it was a bluff as per you, then at least the bluff should have been called first before going in guns blazing.

This attitude resulted in reinforcing another major blunder of military intervention in Iraq over WMDs...accusation was enough in eyes of US high command to attack and disrupt a major country.
Eventually no WMD was ever found!
Millions of lives left in tatters and no one dared question the war that was launched without proof.

If any party gives a statement regarding trial of an accused criminal in neutral territory, should it be treated immediately as a joke and all out offensive be launched?
Should further talks not be held over this offer to ensure that justice is served without loss of additional innocent lives?

Treating the offer as a joke was cruel if we see the outcome of it all and the fact that now USA and entire world needs the same jokers to find way out of current mess.

We all knew AQ used Taliban as a shield but they are not one and same.
Yet the military action ensured they join hands against a common foe, this was a huge blunder.
Terrorism cannot be dealt with conventionally and we have all learnt that by now, military invasions only fuel the uncontrollable flames of conflicts which terrorists cherish.

It is best to adopt a more indirect approach by isolating the terrorists first and foremost.
This was not done in case of Afghanistan.

After all the blood and violence, once again Taliban have to be heard.
Would have been better if the Taliban were made to act on their offer before the invasion.
If they were lying it would have weakened their support and if it were true, it would have avoided a lot of pain and devastation.
Since USA did not heed this request, it shall forever be seen as USA's uber arrogant move.

Military muscle is supposed to give you additional convincing power in an standoff, from not doing anything about AQ to actually deporting him to a neutral venue for trial was a huge change of stance by Taliban and it was brought about by the tough stance. However, the followup to this softening up was a grave mistake.
The American muscle had succeeded in breaking down the resistance to hide OBL and if America had been patient with this offer, it would have had much more legitimacy regardless of the future course of action of Taliban.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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?

OBL also resided in various other nations that the US sought to 'pressure' before ending up in Afghanistan - I don't see any consistency in the US approach when negotiating with those nations and the Taliban - where was the 'imminent invasion and threat of war' before?

It was the 9/11 attacks that 'crossed the line', and therefore the 'decade before' has no relevance - the decision to coalesce international support for military action in Afghanistan was a good step, in order to put pressure on the Taliban regime, and it worked in that the Taliban made the offers they did, tat had not been seen before.

It was the decision to not further explore those offers, engage diplomatically and use both the threat of sticks and inducements of aid and recognition, to garner more concessions and cooperation against AQ and other international terrorist groups. Also, as I pointed out, the PA/ISI and NATO forces could have also made contingency plans for joint special-ops to hunt down OBL and the other leadership, in case the Taliban reneged on their offers of trial in a third country.

Pursuing negotiations and engagement for several months even, and delaying a military operation for that duration, would not have made a difference in case of a military operation months down the road, rather than three weeks after the attacks.

After all these years holding our hands throughout these attacks, we are under no obligations to accept that absurd offer.

The offer is not absurd at all, it was the US response that was absurd, and reflective of an inbred redneck's response.

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.

As I clarified already, it is the 'mind-set' that the term describes that I find applicable in describing US leadership, irrespective of race. The n-word is simply a racial slur, not reflective of a particular 'mind-set' as is the case with the term 'red-neck'.

 

[Khan_patriot]

So now i think that the Taliban are not the US's enemies because they have replaced them with Pakistan, when will the US learn not to surround itself with self proclaimed enemies.........

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No it was not. And no one in the diplomatic corps will buy that.

Of course they won't 'buy it' - they have to defend a 'knee jerk and flawed decision' to go to war, despite the obvious opportunity to engage in dialog and negotiations leading towards a trial of OBL and company.

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.

The US gave the terrorists a recruiting tool - the US gave the terrorists propaganda tools - it allowed the terrorists to point to the massacres of innocents in Afghanistan and the illegal war in Iraq as evidence of the US 'desire to kill and occupy Muslims and Muslim lands', which allowed them to recruit people to fight against an 'evil empire massacring Muslims and occupying Muslim lands'.

You cannot deny US culpability, inadvertent though it may be, in boosting terrorism and extremism all over the world. The US's 'actions caused a reaction.'

 

[Hulk]

Right there you just validated my point about members of the US political, military, intelligence and media leadership being arrogant, trigger-happy rednecks who engaged in a useless war out of a knee-jerk reaction, and ended up catalyzing the growth of terrorism and extremism world wide, rather than 'destroying Al Qaeda', and in the process causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Sorry Afghanistan war was right and US helped the world. It also helped the Afghan women from being suppressed. Pakistan never tried to help Afghanistan as long as their interest were met.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

Nonsense - the fact that the US was willing to go to war over the allegations against OBL would at the least require the US to demonstrate the 'overwhelming evidence' that they apparently possessed to take the course of action that they did.

There is a reason international agreements, instruments and platforms such as extradition treaties, INTERPOL, etc. exist. The Taliban regime was completely justified in calling for a justification of US allegations before 'extraditing or prosecuting' any individual resident in Afghanistan.

The BLA leader Brahamdegh Bugti and his associates are responsible for thousands dead in terrorist attacks in Baluchistan - yet this individual was sheltered with full US and Afghan knowledge in Kabul, accompanied with official US denials (we only know this now because of wikileaks) of his presence, and the US and Afghans then facilitated his 'exile' to Switzerland.

So lets dispense with all this feigned outrage over the 'Taliban sheltering OBL', the US was sheltering, and continues to, one of Pakistan's most wanted terrorist leaders. The US is no better than the Taliban regime in 'sheltering an accused terrorist leader and group'.

---------- Post added at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 AM ----------

Sorry Afghanistan war was right and US helped the world. It also helped the Afghan women from being suppressed. Pakistan never tried to help Afghanistan as long as their interest were met.

That post addresses none of the arguments made so far that debunk your opinion. Please read through the previous posts.