Taliban denies killing member of Afghan peace council

[randolph85]

I agree on that but it could also be a Blackwater- my hunch is that Rahman had made a breakthrough- meaning a peace that would see a full withdrawal by NATO- something that would accommodate the Taliban's main interest. Seeing as he was a Talib, I doubt he would ever favor an occupation.

i have no idea what you even mean by this.

so rahman bypassed all channels and somehow guaranteed this "breakthrough" you are talking about, meaning that this guy has control over the western military-political policy? he did what secret talib-western negotiations weren't able to do?

nevermind the fact that its taken years of backdoor negotiations to even come to basic terms of a taliban office in qatar. but somehow this man has done what no other man could ever do?

and why are you hyping up blackwater? blackwater is full of a bunch of drunk former serviceman that the american government wouldn't be stupid enough to trust with high value assassinations.

[Shah-i-Kot]

i have no idea what you even mean by this.

so rahman bypassed all channels and somehow guaranteed this "breakthrough" you are talking about, meaning that this guy has control over the western military-political policy? he did what secret talib-western negotiations weren't able to do?

nevermind the fact that its taken years of backdoor negotiations to even come to basic terms of a taliban office in qatar. but somehow this man has done what no other man could ever do?

and why are you hyping up blackwater? blackwater is full of a bunch of drunk former serviceman that the american government wouldn't be stupid enough to trust with high value assassinations.

Seeing as he was a Talib, it would be very easy for him to get in touch with Talibs via backchannels. This is not an issue at all for people like him and Zaeef.

The Taliban have always been in Qatar and the UAE, many of their representatives went straight there right after 2001. The office phenomena was simply a way of formalizing what was already.


Blackwater has been blamed for many subversive actions. Even Karzai blamed them for terrorism in Afghanistan.

[Shah-i-Kot]

The moderates in the taliban want to be recognized as a legitimate political party that would like to have a say in Afghanistans future. If they are recognized by the afghan governmnet and NATO, then they would depend less on the ISI. these moderates want the killing and the suffering to stop.

I think this moderate Taliban has been hyped in order to split the Afghan insurgency, and somehow get some to agree with a Hamid Karzai regime/ an occupation.

Dont be mistaken by the talk of moderate. Im sure there are many moderate Taliban and many extreme Taliban in the sense of how they see religion.

Furthermore, ignoring the Taliban talk or whatever, Pashtuns will never tolerate a foreign occupation.

The foreign occupation is the reason the Afghan insurgency exists- nothing else is the reason.

If NATO/Karzai was genuine about peace talks, then any end result will see a full NATO withdrawal.

Ahmad Rashid pointed out its either peace talks with the Taliban for withdrawal or occupation. Its illogical to expect both, especially when the Karzai regime is making the demands.


Pakistan does attempt to see the Afghan insurgency for their own interests (they think that some of their interests will be met with the Afghan insurgency), and have killed some teachers/village Imams in Waziristan for being opposed to their presence/occupation of Waziristan.

[khushal]

The point is the Taliban in general take all their directives from Mullah Omar, whether they are moderate or not.

The taliban is not a unified force witha central command structure and that is why it very difficult to defeat them. Each commander does what he wants. If mullah Omar suddenly annouces to stop fighting, I highly doubt all commanders will stop fighting. There are drug gangs, extortion gangs, kidnapping gangs that are connected to the Afghan gov that are labeled as Taliban, they wont stop their criminal activities either as long as the current Afghan governmnet exists since they are part of the problem and oppose any solution becasue of the corruption. The violence wont end, it will continue and Mullah Omar knows this.

[Shah-i-Kot]

The taliban is not a unified force witha central command structure and that is why it very difficult to defeat them. Each commander does what he wants. If mullah Omar suddenly annouces to stop fighting, I highly doubt all commanders will stop fighting. There are drug gangs, extortion gangs, kidnapping gangs that are connected to the Afghan gov that are labeled as Taliban, they wont stop their criminal activities either as long as the current Afghan governmnet exists since they are part of the problem and oppose any solution becasue of the corruption. The violence wont end, it will continue and Mullah Omar knows this.

This is an assumption based on the fact that we have yet to know if Mullah Omar can stop the fighting. The fighting for now does not stop because there is a foreign occupation, and thats the primary reason that the insurgency exists. It remains to be seen once this does end whether Mullah Omar can stop the fighting or not.

I think in any case, there will be some small fighting, but not like the civil war.

I think the decentralized Taliban that you speak of in fact may have no ideological affinity to the Taliban. They may just be the regular Pashtun villager who is opposed to the foreign occupation.

If there was an Afghan Communist Resistance, people would join that too whether or not they adhere to their political interests.

[randolph85]

that would imply that mullah omar has no control of many of the fighters under his banner.

if an american soldier commits a crime that is opposed to the rules and regulations of the US military, we don't call him a lone wolf and everyone says f america. why are there different standards for the taliban?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

because UnknownPrince is trying to sell us a narrative where one side is not responsible for their actions but the other side is.

[faye]

you ever seen the videos on youtube, 'winter soldiers' iraq veterans against the war?
randolph are you saying that all the bad behaviour of u.s. australian, english or nato military gets reprimanded?

[khushal]

because UnknownPrince is trying to sell us a narrative where one side is not responsible for their actions but the other side is.

@Randolph and Revolution
NATO broke Afghanistan and so they are responsible for all the violence in the country. They could have done the ethical thing back in 2001 and worked with the Afghans instead of bombing the hell out of it and installing a corrupt regime. International law states that the occupier is responsible for security of the occupied.

[khushal]

you ever seen the videos on youtube, 'winter soldiers' iraq veterans against the war?
randolph are you saying that all the bad behaviour of u.s. australian, english or nato military gets reprimanded?

no one gets reprimended because both sides need men to fight. If you start reprimending them, then they would lose men willing to carry on the fight.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Afghanistan was already broke, and what you were saying would be true if there wasn't preexisting violence in Afghanistan. Perpetuated by The Taliban and other factions.

The escalation of suicide attacks wasn't because Afghans were facing a technologically superior enemy as misguided statistics and people desperate for excuses want us to believe; but because of being power hungry and wanting power and the idea that if "us Talibs aren't the ones in charge ...no one can be"/

NATO's is responsible for their own violence Taliban is responsible for theirs.

[khushal]

Afghanistan was already broke, and what you were saying would be true if there wasn't preexisting violence in Afghanistan. Perpetuated by The Taliban and other factions.

The escalation of suicide attacks wasn't because Afghans were facing a technologically superior enemy as misguided statistics and people desperate for excuses want us to believe; but because of being power hungry and wanting power and the idea that if "us Talibs aren't the ones in charge ...no one can be"/

NATO's is responsible for their own violence Taliban is responsible for theirs.

so what your saying is that international law stated above should be rewritten to satisfy your narrative.

[faye]

what khushal? was afghanistan not already having unrest between the tribes before being invaded by foreigners? from what i read, pakistan had soldeirs in there, helping the taliban.

[R3SISTANC3]

I think the decentralized Taliban that you speak of in fact may have no ideological affinity to the Taliban. They may just be the regular Pashtun villager who is opposed to the foreign occupation.

Those villagers make the bulk of the insurgency and exactly why US/NATO mission is a huge failure. The ideological Taliban are a few and without the thousands of average Pashtuns support they can't move a rock. Due to the idiocy of the occupiers and their crimes against the local people the Taliban resurgence was possible because of these aggrieved Pashtun masses in the East and South. The continuation of US/NATO and Afghan government failure has also caused resentment in Northern and Western areas.

The moderates (average Afghan local commander and villager) are in majority and not the ideological Taliban backbone.

This war is a failure for those who want the occupation to continue and those who want the occupiers to leave. As long as the occupation continues crimes against the natives will be committed. In return the insurgency will continue. In return counter insurgency will continue. It's a complete circle.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

so what your saying is that international law stated above should be rewritten to satisfy your narrative.

No I am saying Taliban are in fact responsible for their actions against the Afghan populace; just as NATO are, not sure how you got the other thing from. I guess UnknownPrince has dumbed down our forum a bit.