Taliban refuse to comment on Rabbani death

[unknownprince]

Taliban refuse to comment on Rabbani death

Agence France-Presse
Taliban refuse to comment on Rabbani death - Hindustan Times

Kabul, September 21, 2011




First Published: 20:05 IST(21/9/2011)
Last Updated: 20:08 IST(21/9/2011)









The Taliban insisted on Wednesday that it did not want to comment on the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the former Afghan president who had been leading efforts to talk peace with insurgents.

In its first public comments since Tuesday's killing the Taliban posted a





statement on its Voice of Jihad website in Pashto.

"Until we receive more information and our information is complete, our position is that we cannot say anything on this issue," the translated comments from spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said.
The statement rejected earlier reports in some media that the Taliban had claimed responsibility for the assassination.
"Those media who have quoted us on this issue, this is all baseless and we again say that we do not want to speak about this issue at this time."
Kabul police and other officials have blamed a Taliban turban bomber for the killing at Rabbani's house.

[retro]

The treacherous Taliban barbarians, clearly think that it's acceptable to kill envoys.

Who killed the Afghan powerbroker and why?

EVERYONE seriously involved in the Afghanistan peace process saw something like this coming - every peace process has its share of murderous spoilers - but no one seems to have done much about it.
Close-up and personal killings like that of the former Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, and the President's brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, are all too familiar to this part of the world.


A bomber concealing explosives in a turban should not have got through security at the home of Burhanuddin Rabbani, former Afghan president and lately chairman of the government's High Peace Council.


The depth of the damage to peace hopes will depend very much on exactly who is responsible. If it was the Taliban, the question will be what part of the increasingly fragmented movement was involved.


Michael Semple, a former European Union envoy to Afghanistan, said the assassination was ''directly contrary'' to the moderate tone recently adopted by Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who issued a conciliatory message to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan, accepting the possibility of peace talks with the Americans and raising the prospect of sharing power. Sirajuddin Haqqani, head of an allied faction based in Pakistan's North Waziristan territory, said three days ago that he would follow Omar's lead.


Perhaps those public declarations belied the intent of these leaders - or that the assassination was by other factions seeking to derail the process. There are several possible culprits, particularly among what has become known as the ''Waziristan militant complex'', notably the post-Bin Laden remnants of al-Qaeda. Some of these groups have links with, and backing from, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, and some are well beyond its control.


Most diplomats involved in Afghanistan do not believe Rabbani was killed because of his peace council role; the council always seemed an unlikely vehicle for pursuing peace, not least in the choice of its chairman.
Rabbani, a veteran Tajik warlord who as president preceded the Taliban, appeared to have been particularly hated by the insurgent leadership. He was never entirely trusted by Pakistan's intelligence agency, which ran the fighting, or Saudi Arabia, which helped fund it.


The peace council had not played a role in the most important breakthrough so far - the direct contacts between US negotiators and an Omar confidant, Tayyab Agha, and the tentative steps towards opening a political office for the Taliban in Qatar.


The Rabbani killing is the biggest blow so far, not because of what he did but for what he stood for. He represented a significant constituency - the Tajiks of the Northern Alliance. They will now have to be brought back on board, and everyone else in the peace process will have to work out a strategy for dealing with the spoiler attacks that are sure to follow.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/who-kill...#ixzz1YbIU9ZLR

[unknownprince]

He supported the US war and occupation, disregarding and forgetting the wisdom in the resistance he put up against the Soviets, and thereby rendering a part of his past character invalid.


It seems he forgot it.

Cowards are the foreign aggressors who bomb homes and wage war against Afghan people on a daily basis.

[IamDZJ]

the Taliban are not responsible for this one. the USA had the pleasure this time.

[gadoonwal]

WHAT THESE PEOPLE WANT from afghanistan?
Are they not tired killing afghans for the last 31 years?
One thing is clear that the US do not want peace in this region.
They play this ethnic game everywhere.
Religion and ethnic issue are always created by these evils.
These people are living in the same region for thousands of years in peace with eachother but whenever these evils gose they created these issues.
US found afghanistan a right place to stay for its stratigic interests cus afghanistan is in war and never had a stable govt in the last 30 years.
THEY WANT CORRUPT PEOPLE TO RULE SO THE COUNTRY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO STAND ON ITS FEET.
aLQAEDA is their own invention can be move to any country by th US for its intersts.

[MostafaM]

US Envoys met wit Sayed Tayyab Afgha in one of the Gulf States and in Germany.

The US doesn´t need that weak and meaningless peace council.
That council was set up for domestic issues, to containe the NA influence on politics. Karzai tried to silence those hardline Massoudists who make up the second line of the anti-Taliban front.

The reconciliation process is under way and it seems like a spoiler attack like the other article posted here mentioned.

Who would grant from killing Rabbani?
- the hardcore Massoudists who have the most to loose
- the ISI who wants to maintaine the influence of it´s political and military proxies
These two antagonistic groups are struggling in the long term and Rabbanis departure and the end to a populistic approach towards an Afghan-led peace agreement is something both gain from:
- the Massoudists have another arguement to blame the Pashtun-led Taliban as ISI-proxies for not being interested in peace
- the ISI for deepening an ethnic rift and by "promoting" the installment of a Pashtun-led islamist movement in power after the Karzai regime has collapsed with zero amount of nationalistic politics etc.

The losers:
the ordinary people who are subject to proxy wars imposed on them.

[unknownprince]

The proxy talk. "Haqqanis' can call the ISI proxies too.

Lets wait and see what they say.

what is clear is that someone has been pretending to be Zabihullah Mujahid.

This pretending has also happened in Pakistan where after a market was attacked by a "remote controlled device" (classic American spy/Blackwater), some unknown Pakistani Talib claimed responsibility via phone only to be refuted by Pakistani Taliban later on, who then claimed foreigners were trying to defame them.

I doubt Rabbani was someone they considered a traitor especially in comparison to such characters as Karzai and Spanta.

[MostafaM]

Well, so far the Taliban and Haqqani´s network always immidiatly took responsibility for every attack they had organised and executed.

I ask myself why they need so much time to take responsibility this time.

Maybe the fear the backlash for killing a 71 year-old theologist or they weren´t behind it.

Time will tell.

These assassinations will deepen the rift in sociaty and elevate the chances for an up-coming civil war from 20% to 80% and I am sure the Taliban don´t want to fight again a lengthy and bloody civil war.

Something is really wrong here.

By the way, why don´t you comment on the meetings of Sayed Tayyab Afgha, an envoy of Mullah Omar, with State Department representatives in Bahrain and Germany?

[unknownprince]

the meetings were BS.

US said they want permanent occupation, despite looking at defeat. they want Afghans to agree to what they are fighting against

there will be no peace till they leave.

talks were bull ****

[unknownprince]

No one will tolerate it. region will not tolerate it

[gadoonwal]

The punjabis build the atomic bomb to keep them away from its borders.
Iran build up a strong army and are in the process of building nuclear weapon.
India is already a power and central asian countries are still under russain influence so it is not possible for the US to use them so afghanland is the best choice for them.
afghans of all ethnic background should form unity govt.A single ethnic group can not rule with peace in afghanistan cus it is multi-ethnic society.
Today if all afghans stand as one nation with one vioce for its security and liberty no one can beat them.No one would be able to use them for its interests.
How can you unite the nation and bring peace if you creating group like northren alliance and talibs?
Rabani provided the ground for the coming of talibans to afghanistan.
Pakistan was waiting for that.
After the fall of Najeebullah and Mujadadi govt why after tow years Rbanai refuse to give up power?
Him and his defence minister masood played a dirty role in the civil war along with gulbudin.
These people provided the ground for others to get into afghanistan.
People of afghanistan should STOP FOLLOWING THESE PEOPLE and think about their country and people.
Afghanistan is 30 years behind Bangladesh even.

[unknownprince]

Outsiders try to divide you when there are places to divide you.

There is only Islam. Islam is the only way Afghans have been united and will be united.

Lets wait and see what is said.

In any case I will say this, Rabbani, who in his later days sought peace, should have been realistic and broken away from US-Karzai instructions.

There will be no peace with any foreigners present in the country. They are the obstacle. Stop talking about proxy stuff,

Lets wait and see.

[unknownprince]

Who would grant from killing Rabbani?
- the hardcore Massoudists who have the most to loose
- the ISI who wants to maintaine the influence of it´s political and military proxies
These two antagonistic groups are struggling in the long term and Rabbanis departure and the end to a populistic approach towards an Afghan-led peace agreement is something both gain from:
- the Massoudists have another arguement to blame the Pashtun-led Taliban as ISI-proxies for not being interested in peace
- the ISI for deepening an ethnic rift and by "promoting" the installment of a Pashtun-led islamist movement in power after the Karzai regime has collapsed with zero amount of nationalistic politics etc.

The losers:
the ordinary people who are subject to proxy wars imposed on them.

you have raised some good points. The only issue is he was still a supporter of a US occupation. While I applaud and respect his vision of attaining reconciliation and peace, he unlike some of the other HPC members realized, should have understood that there will be no peace with a US war and presence. This is exactly why these people fight, and why they will continue to fight.

Now, the Afghan peace process can only be Afghan-led and involve a regional conference. There is no debate about this. US will have no role whatsoever besides withdrawal just as the Soviets did.

US must not have anything to do with it.

They are the problem and they need to understand what is written on the wall.

[retro]

Maybe the fear the backlash for killing a 71 year-old theologist or they weren´t behind it.

The Taliban are idiots and Afghanistan's national government will interpret this assassination as a grave insult.

[retro]

There is no debate about this. US will have no role whatsoever besides withdrawal just as the Soviets did.

Don't delude yourself! NATO currently have eight divisions, nesting in Afghanistan and the Taliban have no mandate to govern Afghanistan.