View Full Version : Taliban moving towards peace talks with US over war in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/world/asia/taliban-ready-for-peace-talks-to-end-afghan-war.html?_r=0
Will be intersting to see what this means in practical terms. But it may be a first small step.
Schroeder
06-18-13, 04:44 PM
I don't think anything good will come from that. I'm convinced that in the end the Taliban will rise to power again once Nato is out of Afghanistan.
I've been wrong before but that is what I think will happen.
Nippelspanner
06-18-13, 04:47 PM
^
You're not alone with that opinion... definitely not.
Tchocky
06-18-13, 05:11 PM
I don't think anything good will come from that. I'm convinced that in the end the Taliban will raise to power again once Nato is out of Afghanistan.
I've been wrong before but that is what I think will happen.
Talkin' better than shootin'
It's been a long slow realisation that the Taliban aren't going to vanish off the face of the Earth, however much that appeals to me. Nobody likes it but it's better than what we've got right now.
fireftr18
06-18-13, 05:14 PM
Schroeder I hope and pray you are wrong, but it's predictable.
Skybird
06-18-13, 05:16 PM
Was about time that they give peace to the World. The lambs will lie beside the Wolves , and everybody barbaric and brutal and blind will become a better human being all by itself. Its so easy to explain. Magic always is.
Red October1984
06-18-13, 05:29 PM
I don't think anything good will come from that. I'm convinced that in the end the Taliban will raise to power again once Nato is out of Afghanistan.
I've been wrong before but that is what I think will happen.
+1
It'll be just like when we left Iraq.
All the collaborators that haven't already been killed will be killed and it'll be no different than before.
Cybermat47
06-18-13, 05:50 PM
I don't think anything good will come from that. I'm convinced that in the end the Taliban will raise to power again once Nato is out of Afghanistan.
I've been wrong before but that is what I think will happen.
And Afghanistan is just better off without those butchers.
Tribesman
06-18-13, 05:52 PM
Another humiliating climbdown.:down:
I wonder if the taliban will force many more climbdowns before the troops pull out next year.
Wolferz
06-18-13, 05:59 PM
From what I read about this, only the Taliban and the new government of Afghanistan will be talking things over. The US and it's allies are not invited, except to get out of Dodge by the end of next year.
Probably another ploy by the Taliban to sneak back into power without risking any more of their resources. If they gain another foothold and shut down the poppy production again, we'll be right back over there doing this all over.
Armistead
06-18-13, 06:04 PM
The Taliban is a major cultural force, we'll have to continue to deal with them. I don't care about them as a force, if the people don't like them, let them deal with them, it's when they protect and deal with terrorist. Regardless of what they do, I bet we'll remain in the area to some degree.
Regardless, it'll remain a corrupt nation.
Tribesman
06-18-13, 06:14 PM
From what I read about this, only the Taliban and the new government of Afghanistan will be talking things over. The US and it's allies are not invited, except to get out of Dodge by the end of next year.
Is ambassador James Dobbins leading the Afghan or the Taliban delegation at the talks then ?
Probably another ploy by the Taliban to sneak back into power without risking any more of their resources.
???????
Their increasing level of attacks over the past 18 months and stalling of the talks process until America dropped the precondition on Al-qaida seems to have escaped your notice.
I doubt they are trying to sneak back into power. They will simply take power the way they did last time. By force and without care as to what the rest of the world thinks.
Whether the talks are a ruse or otherwise is yet to be seen. Will the promise to give up ties to international terrorist organisations and secretly fund/support them, or will they simply talk until they are in a position to wrest power back?
All I can say is that I'm glad we (Australia) will be out of there soon. I don't believe we should have gotten involved there at all and will be glad when we are out.
mookiemookie
06-18-13, 10:16 PM
12 years later and we're back to exactly where we started.
GO AMERICA! WOO!
Red October1984
06-18-13, 10:59 PM
Taliban?!
Peace?!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...cute.....
Stealhead
06-18-13, 11:11 PM
I find it funny that they talk about this now. Back in 2004 and 2005 many US commanders in Afghanistan wanted to talk with the Taliban back then and come to some sort of deal and at the time it would have been possible to talk but I guess the US government wanted to spend 10 more years and achieve nothing long term.Go figure.
Here is an article from 2011 though some US commanders have wanted to talk to the Taliban for nearly ten years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8656886/Speaking-with-the-enemy-how-US-commanders-fight-the-Taliban-during-the-day-and-dine-with-them-at-night.html
Red October1984
06-18-13, 11:18 PM
I find it funny that they talk about this now. Back in 2004 and 2005 many US commanders in Afghanistan wanted to talk with the Taliban back then and come to some sort of deal and at the time it would have been possible to talk but I guess the US government wanted to spend 10 more years and achieve nothing long term.Go figure.
Eh...I guess we're becoming too much of an annoyance to the Taliban.
We don't actually do anything anymore... Yeah we kill them here and there but I'd like to know what we're actually doing over there right now.
We killed bin Laden. Boom. That's it. That's why we went there if I'm properly understanding it.
We don't have to reconstruct the entire world in Democracy even though that seems to be what we're good at.
We're having tons of problems with our own Democracy. What makes the Government think that these Middle Eastern Countries will actually listen to the "Western Hypocrites" who "can't even control their own government."
Armistead
06-18-13, 11:21 PM
I find it funny that they talk about this now. Back in 2004 and 2005 many US commanders in Afghanistan wanted to talk with the Taliban back then and come to some sort of deal and at the time it would have been possible to talk but I guess the US government wanted to spend 10 more years and achieve nothing long term.Go figure.
Here is an article from 2011 though some US commanders have wanted to talk to the Taliban for nearly ten years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8656886/Speaking-with-the-enemy-how-US-commanders-fight-the-Taliban-during-the-day-and-dine-with-them-at-night.html
We deal with Saudi Arabia, Taliban not much worse.
Stealhead
06-18-13, 11:28 PM
Eh...I guess we're becoming too much of an annoyance to the Taliban.
It is the other way round actually this war has cost us billions upon billions not to mention how many Americans have been killed or permanently injured.The whole thing has cost us much more and really for nothing as Bin Laden was in Pakistan and had likely been there since 2002.
We should have closed up shop in 2003 or 2004 when it was obvious that Bin Laden was no longer there.And the war in Iraq sure did not help as things where actually calming down in 2003/04 in Afghanistan then things picked up again and there is no doubt the crap happening in Iraq caused it.For example prior to 2006 the Taliban rarely used IEDs that they learned directly from how effective it was in Iraq.
It costs them less than $100.00 to make an IED it costs us several million dollars in material and manpower to deal with one IED.One of those MRAP vehicles cost anywhere from 1.5-4 million dollars.Then all the fuel all the cost in manpower.
@Armistead sometimes it is better to deal with someone you dislike than have to fight them.I would say that the Taliban is a lot worse than Saudi Arabia at least SA has a government that does a pretty good job maintaining strict control and they hate Iran.The Taliban I think have figured out that if they leave us be we will leave them be that could be worked out.Afghans spend as much time fighting each other as they do outsiders if not more so.
Red October1984
06-18-13, 11:58 PM
It is the other way round actually this war has cost us billions upon billions not to mention how many Americans have been killed or permanently injured.The whole thing has cost us much more and really for nothing as Bin Laden was in Pakistan and had likely been there since 2002.
We should have closed up shop in 2003 or 2004 when it was obvious that Bin Laden was no longer there.And the war in Iraq sure did not help as things where actually calming down in 2003/04 in Afghanistan then things picked up again and there is no doubt the crap happening in Iraq caused it.For example prior to 2006 the Taliban rarely used IEDs that they learned directly from how effective it was in Iraq.
It costs them less than $100.00 to make an IED it costs us several million dollars in material and manpower to deal with one IED.One of those MRAP vehicles cost anywhere from 1.5-4 million dollars.Then all the fuel all the cost in manpower.
We use a 3 million dollar bomb to blow up a 10$ tent. The logic behind this stuff....
But for the Taliban to want peace talks?
If they truly want peace, they want this to end as much as we do. :hmmm: You would think.
I think Iraq should've been better dealt with in 1991 instead of now. If we had gotten Saddam out of there in '91 I think things would have gone differently in 2002-05.
Tribesman
06-19-13, 01:48 AM
12 years later and we're back to exactly where we started.
GO AMERICA! WOO!
Unfortunately no, we're back to a worse position than when it started.
Eh...I guess we're becoming too much of an annoyance to the Taliban.
Errrrr.....No, they hold the winning cards and they know it.
But for the Taliban to want peace talks?
If they truly want peace, they want this to end as much as we do. :hmmm: You would think.
Errrrr....No.
They want talks, but with the "puppet master" not just the "puppet".
They just got it.
They want talks but without the preconditions on al-qaida.
They just got it.
They want something they didn't have before the invasion.
This office is their first step in getting the international diplomatic recognition they never had.
I think Iraq should've been better dealt with in 1991 instead of now. If we had gotten Saddam out of there in '91 I think things would have gone differently in 2002-05.
Iraq would be the same result if it was done in '91.
What was really dumb was the sheer stupidity getting the same obvious result at a time when they should have been working full out in Afghanistan.
AVGWarhawk
06-19-13, 09:03 AM
Talkin' better than shootin'
:hmmm: Words I don't think the Taliban utter.
Tribesman
06-19-13, 10:16 AM
Oh dear, the fallout begins.
The Afghan government has now suspended talks on security with America.
Apparently Karzai is a little upset with the US entering direct formal negotiations with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as it means they are recognising the Taliban as a government in exile.
Which puts him in a position rather akin to Vichy, Bohemia-moravia or Manchuko.
Bless, he's upset that he's being treated as the incompetent temporary US puppet that he is. He must know that his days are very much numbered. Fully expect to see either a Karzai in exile, or a Karzai from a lamp-post about two months after our forces leave.
Wow that long? I give him 2 weeks.
Wow that long? I give him 2 weeks.
I don't know, two weeks would be too quick, and the US would just quickly come back and reinstall another puppet, two months gives time for the public to be used to not being in Afghanistan and get angrier if the US makes any motions to go back.
Then again, finesse was never the Talibans strongest point... :hmmm: But they are very good at playing the long game, better than we are. :yep:
Jimbuna
06-20-13, 09:42 AM
Wow that long? I give him 2 weeks.
Be it weeks or months the outcome is inevitable.
Peace like Ice-cream melts ways.
BossMark
06-20-13, 02:37 PM
These sort of people never seem to want peace, I wouldn't bet on it happening in near future anyway :nope:
Tribesman
06-20-13, 02:57 PM
These sort of people never seem to want peace, I wouldn't bet on it happening in near future anyway :nope:
Don't talk about the military-industrial complex like that
And so it begins:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23042005
Or continues...although I think this is the first attack on the presidential palace, or at the very least the first since the handover.
They'll return, and keep going at it until they win, like I said earlier, they're better at the long game than we are.
Must get around to reading Peter Hopkirks book at some point...
Jimbuna
06-25-13, 09:10 AM
It says a lot when private security forces assigned to the CIA station were the means of the insurgents demise.
Tribesman
06-25-13, 10:27 AM
It says a lot when private security forces assigned to the CIA station were the means of the insurgents demise.
Didn't work too well in Benghazi though:03:
Wolferz
06-25-13, 10:35 AM
The Taliban rank and file didn't get the memo or what?:hmmm:
Wolferz
06-25-13, 10:50 AM
Jihawg Ammo...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/pork-laced-ammunition-designed-deter-terrorists/story?id=19473578&.tsrc=inucbr#.Ucm7uPjD-no
Jihawg Ammo...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/pork-laced-ammunition-designed-deter-terrorists/story?id=19473578&.tsrc=inucbr#.Ucm7uPjD-no
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1290449/picard-facepalm-o.gif
Betonov
06-25-13, 11:14 AM
Wouldn't work with a Bosnian. They'd bring kajmak and beer to go with that bullet :)
Wolferz
06-25-13, 02:26 PM
:06:Wouldn't work with a Bosnian. They'd bring kajmak and beer to go with that bullet :)
Are Bosnians considered Jihadists or is their Muslim population not down with sharia law ?
Wolferz
06-25-13, 02:29 PM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1290449/picard-facepalm-o.gif
Sorry Captain. It's nothing new. Black Jack Pershing was the first to use that type of ammo in the Phillipines in the early twentieth century. Those Muslims behaved themselves for decades afterwards.
You have landed on CHANCE...
"Go to hell. Go directly to hell. Do not pass GO Do not collect 72 virgins"
Sorry Captain. It's nothing new. Black Jack Pershing was the first to use that type of ammo in the Phillipines in the early twentieth century. Those Muslims behaved themselves for decades afterwards.
"Go to hell. Go directly to hell. Do not pass GO Do not collect 72 virgins"
What about the Christians? They're not allowed to eat pork either...
Wolferz
06-25-13, 02:48 PM
What about the Christians? They're not allowed to eat pork either...
Really? I'm a Christian and I LOVE! Bacon and good pork sausage.:D
As far as I know, the only Christians with a dietary taboo are the Catholics and that's just on Fridays and during lent.
Betonov
06-25-13, 02:49 PM
:06:
Are Bosnians considered Jihadists or is their Muslim population not down with sharia law ?
Secular like the Turks.
But the war woke in them some fundamentalist tendencies that are worrying me. But for now they simply love to enjoy life and good food. Lots of food
Wolferz
06-25-13, 03:03 PM
It's nice to hear that they're not all unreasonable jackwads, Betenov.:up:
I'd wager that the fanatics want to kill the seculars as much as they do the infidels.
Betonov
06-25-13, 03:08 PM
As far as I know, the only Christians with a dietary taboo are the Catholics and that's just on Fridays and during lent.
I love trolling my grandmother by eating bacon and eggs on lent :D
Really? I'm a Christian and I LOVE! Bacon and good pork sausage.:D
As far as I know, the only Christians with a dietary taboo are the Catholics and that's just on Fridays and during lent.
And the pig, because it has a cloven hoof that is completely split, but will not regurgitate its cud; it is unclean for you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
—Leviticus 11:7-8 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Leviticus&verse=11:7-8&src=JPR)
And the pig, because it has a split hoof, but does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You shall neither eat of their flesh nor touch their carcass.
—Deuteronomy 14:8 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Deuteronomy&verse=14:8&src=JPR)
EDIT: Actually, scrub that, that's the Jewish bible, darn religions having different sects...
Furthermore in regards to the Qu'ran, observe:
He has made unlawful for you that which dies of itself and blood and the flesh of swine and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked. But he who is driven by necessity, being neither disobedient nor exceeding the limit, then surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
—Quran, Al-Baqara 2:173 (http://quran.com/2/173)
Note in particular:
"But he who is driven by necessity, being neither disobedient nor exceeding the limit, then surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful."
Thus, he who may fall by pork bullet shall be forgiven for falling in the service of Allah, who is Most Forgiving and Merciful.
In other words, the plan won't work, not against fanatics.
Wolferz
06-25-13, 05:00 PM
Live and let live I always say. It does, however, require reciprocity on the part of our fellow human beings. Save the wedgies for pledge week.:-?
And so it begins:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23042005
Or continues...although I think this is the first attack on the presidential palace, or at the very least the first since the handover.
They'll return, and keep going at it until they win, like I said earlier, they're better at the long game than we are.
Must get around to reading Peter Hopkirks book at some point...
Porky derailments aside, They have practised the long game for the last 1000 odd years so no reason for them to stop that I can see. They have much to gain and little to lose so will keep going till they get what they want.
Tribesman
06-25-13, 07:17 PM
Are Bosnians considered Jihadists or is their Muslim population not down with sharia law ?
You seem to not know what the words you use mean.
Sorry Captain. It's nothing new. Black Jack Pershing was the first to use that type of ammo in the Phillipines in the early twentieth century. Those Muslims behaved themselves for decades afterwards.
Errrrrrr....no.
The only time they stopped attacking the American occpation in those decades is when the Americans were temporarily replaced by the Japanese.
As far as I know, the only Christians with a dietary taboo are the Catholics and that's just on Fridays and during lent.
No, there are lots of flavours of Christianity with dietary taboos. The most common on those big taboos are those that claim to be torah compliant Christians, mainly Copts and Adventists.
Jimbuna
06-26-13, 05:42 AM
Porky derailments aside, They have practised the long game for the last 1000 odd years so no reason for them to stop that I can see. They have much to gain and little to lose so will keep going till they get what they want.
Agreed...this is certainly something they have perfected over the centuries.
Betonov
06-26-13, 08:54 AM
You seem to not know what the words you use mean.
I think he does. Not being down with means not agreeing with, not being homy with the other Fatva dawgs
catch my drift
Tribesman
06-26-13, 10:02 AM
catch my drift
Those were not the words in question.
Betonov
06-26-13, 11:11 AM
Those were not the words in question.
A right, the errorfull connection of fundamentalism with sharia law.
The line is a bit blurry there
Wolferz
06-26-13, 11:41 AM
I am always of the opinion that there are two subjects that should never be broached in polite conversation... politics and religion. I broke my own rule.:timeout:
No matter what, an individual's opinion is their own and usually doesn't mean squat to anyone else.:hmmm: My best bet here would be to just STFU and not belabor the point by responding incessantly to a skewed dissection of what I said because I'm not troll bait.
Have a great day.:D
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.