Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taliban say they are not looking to rule Afghanistan alone

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Taliban say they are not looking to rule Afghanistan alone

    Taliban say they are not looking to rule Afghanistan alone
    - World - DAWN.COM
    Taliban said on Wednesday they are not seeking a "monopoly on power" in a future administration in Afghanistan but are looking for ways to co-exist with Afghan institutions — the most conciliatory statement to date from the militants.

    The statement came amid intensified United States-led efforts to resolve the long-running Afghanistan war. US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad reported this week that there had been "agreements in principle" toward a framework for peace with the Taliban, who now control almost half of the country and carry out near-daily attacks, mainly targeting Afghan security forces and government officials.

    Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman based in Qatar where the Taliban have a political office, said that once US forces withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban want to live with other Afghans, "tolerate one another and start life like brothers". Shaheen's statement was provided in an exclusive audio message to The Associated Press.

    "After the end of the occupation, Afghans should forget their past and tolerate one another and start life like brothers. After the withdrawal, we are not seeking a monopoly on power," Shaheen said.

    ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

    "We believe in an inclusive Afghan world, where all Afghans can see themselves in it," he added.

    He also said the Taliban envision a reformed police and local police forces, without offering specifics. Afghanistan's local police forces have been widely criticised as deeply corrupt and intimidating of the local population.

    Shaheen said another round of talks with Khalilzad is planned for February 25 in Doha.

    Khalilzad, who held talks with the Taliban for six days last week in Qatar, said during a visit to Kabul on Monday that much more remains to be done but that there has been significant progress toward an agreement with the insurgents.

    Read more: US envoy Khalilzad confirms 'draft framework' with Taliban: NYT

    In turn, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani assured Afghans that no deals would be made without the Kabul government's awareness and full participation.

    US troops invaded Afghanistan in November 2001 in response to the September 11 attacks and ousted the Taliban, who had harboured Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

    The Taliban, who had ruled Afghanistan since 1996, had imposed a harsh form of Sharia law.

    Shaheen also said the US and the Taliban will establish joint technical teams to work out details of a future US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as ways of preventing Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

    Khalilzad, who was appointed last September, has stepped up efforts to find a negotiated end to Afghanistan's protracted war that will allow an eventual withdrawal of US forces and bring to an end America's longest military engagement that has already cost Washington about $1 trillion.

    President Donald Trump has also expressed frustration with the continued US involvement in Afghanistan, lending a greater urgency to an early settlement.

    Despite intense negotiations with Khalilzad, the Taliban have refused to negotiate directly with Kabul and often refer to the Afghan government as puppets of the US. Khalilzad has also pressed Ghani's government, which is deeply divided, to cobble together a strong negotiating team.

    Atta-ul Rahman Salim, deputy head of the Afghan High Peace Council which comprises top Afghan clerics and other prominent figures, said the only way to peace is through direct talks with the government.

    "If the Taliban really want to join the peace process, the best and easy way to start is with direct peace talks with the Afghan government," he said, adding that "there is a big difference between what you say and what you do".

    Despite the Taliban insurgents' refusal to negotiate with Kabul, Shaheen's message appeared directed at a wide array of stakeholders in Afghanistan — possibly even Ghani's government — who could work together to hasten US troop pullout.

    "The withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan is a shared responsibility and a pride for all Afghans," Shaheen said.





    I’ll believe it when I see it. There must be a disarmament and armed forces integration program for this thing to succeed. This is why Afghan to Afghan talks need to parallel the US Talibs talks. The Taliban are barely giving nothing to the US while the US is negotiating its withdrawal. No sanctuary to anti state actors but they are no friends of daesh, aq is almost non existent. At this point it seems like a Taliban win but the initial reason the nation faced 17 yrs of this **** was because the Taliban refused to cave into give up its sanctuary of al Qaeda which they are doing now.
    There are people today who think that admitting God’s absolute greatness decreases the value and importance of humans in the creation, as if God and mankind are rivals competing in greatness and power. Meanwhile I feel that whenever our perception of God’s greatness increases, with it we become greater, because we are the creation of a great God.

    Sayyid Qutb

  • #2
    Originally posted by randolph85 View Post
    Taliban say they are not looking to rule Afghanistan alone
    - World - DAWN.COM
    Taliban said on Wednesday they are not seeking a "monopoly on power" in a future administration in Afghanistan but are looking for ways to co-exist with Afghan institutions — the most conciliatory statement to date from the militants.

    The statement came amid intensified United States-led efforts to resolve the long-running Afghanistan war. US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad reported this week that there had been "agreements in principle" toward a framework for peace with the Taliban, who now control almost half of the country and carry out near-daily attacks, mainly targeting Afghan security forces and government officials.

    Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman based in Qatar where the Taliban have a political office, said that once US forces withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban want to live with other Afghans, "tolerate one another and start life like brothers". Shaheen's statement was provided in an exclusive audio message to The Associated Press.

    "After the end of the occupation, Afghans should forget their past and tolerate one another and start life like brothers. After the withdrawal, we are not seeking a monopoly on power," Shaheen said.

    ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

    "We believe in an inclusive Afghan world, where all Afghans can see themselves in it," he added.

    He also said the Taliban envision a reformed police and local police forces, without offering specifics. Afghanistan's local police forces have been widely criticised as deeply corrupt and intimidating of the local population.

    Shaheen said another round of talks with Khalilzad is planned for February 25 in Doha.

    Khalilzad, who held talks with the Taliban for six days last week in Qatar, said during a visit to Kabul on Monday that much more remains to be done but that there has been significant progress toward an agreement with the insurgents.

    Read more: US envoy Khalilzad confirms 'draft framework' with Taliban: NYT

    In turn, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani assured Afghans that no deals would be made without the Kabul government's awareness and full participation.

    US troops invaded Afghanistan in November 2001 in response to the September 11 attacks and ousted the Taliban, who had harboured Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

    The Taliban, who had ruled Afghanistan since 1996, had imposed a harsh form of Sharia law.

    Shaheen also said the US and the Taliban will establish joint technical teams to work out details of a future US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as ways of preventing Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

    Khalilzad, who was appointed last September, has stepped up efforts to find a negotiated end to Afghanistan's protracted war that will allow an eventual withdrawal of US forces and bring to an end America's longest military engagement that has already cost Washington about $1 trillion.

    President Donald Trump has also expressed frustration with the continued US involvement in Afghanistan, lending a greater urgency to an early settlement.

    Despite intense negotiations with Khalilzad, the Taliban have refused to negotiate directly with Kabul and often refer to the Afghan government as puppets of the US. Khalilzad has also pressed Ghani's government, which is deeply divided, to cobble together a strong negotiating team.

    Atta-ul Rahman Salim, deputy head of the Afghan High Peace Council which comprises top Afghan clerics and other prominent figures, said the only way to peace is through direct talks with the government.

    "If the Taliban really want to join the peace process, the best and easy way to start is with direct peace talks with the Afghan government," he said, adding that "there is a big difference between what you say and what you do".

    Despite the Taliban insurgents' refusal to negotiate with Kabul, Shaheen's message appeared directed at a wide array of stakeholders in Afghanistan — possibly even Ghani's government — who could work together to hasten US troop pullout.

    "The withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan is a shared responsibility and a pride for all Afghans," Shaheen said.



    I’ll believe it when I see it. There must be a disarmament and armed forces integration program for this thing to succeed. This is why Afghan to Afghan talks need to parallel the US Talibs talks. The Taliban are barely giving nothing to the US while the US is negotiating its withdrawal. No sanctuary to anti state actors but they are no friends of daesh, aq is almost non existent. At this point it seems like a Taliban win but the initial reason the nation faced 17 yrs of this **** was because the Taliban refused to cave into give up its sanctuary of al Qaeda which they are doing now.
    Disarmament of who? Seeing as the Taliban/Afghan insurgency appear to be the apparent victors, I would conclude that the only ones disarming would be ANA and other regime forces.
    "The past is not my concern. The future is no longer my concern either. One minute. One minute of everything at once. And anything before is nothing. Everything after nothing. Nothing in comparison to that one minute."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Insight View Post
      Disarmament of who? Seeing as the Taliban/Afghan insurgency appear to be the apparent victors, I would conclude that the only ones disarming would be ANA and other regime forces.
      Yeah that would just lead to a civil war. It took like a decade to disarm the likes of Jamait enough for the central government to able to replace their strongmen from from power without the threat of an armed retailiation. There must be a strong inclusive central government no matter what kind of power sharing agreement comes about. This is not Lebanon where Hezbollah is tolerated because of the Israeli threat, If the US is gone, there is no reason for a parallel armed forces.

      The Taliban are a guerilla force, not a national military. Hundreds of thousands of Ana with modern weapons are not disarming for a couple 10 thousands of guys with ied’s and ak47s who are coming in from the cold. In Afghanistan, being on top of the mountain just makes you a better target. This is why the Taliban govt folded in like a week in 2001.
      There are people today who think that admitting God’s absolute greatness decreases the value and importance of humans in the creation, as if God and mankind are rivals competing in greatness and power. Meanwhile I feel that whenever our perception of God’s greatness increases, with it we become greater, because we are the creation of a great God.

      Sayyid Qutb

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by randolph85 View Post
        Yeah that would just lead to a civil war. It took like a decade to disarm the likes of Jamait enough for the central government to able to replace their strongmen from from power without the threat of an armed retailiation. There must be a strong inclusive central government no matter what kind of power sharing agreement comes about. This is not Lebanon where Hezbollah is tolerated because of the Israeli threat, If the US is gone, there is no reason for a parallel armed forces.

        The Taliban are a guerilla force, not a national military. Hundreds of thousands of Ana with modern weapons are not disarming for a couple 10 thousands of guys with ied’s and ak47s who are coming in from the cold. In Afghanistan, being on top of the mountain just makes you a better target. This is why the Taliban govt folded in like a week in 2001.
        US has totally sidestepped the Kabul regime in talks with Taliban. No further explanation is needed.

        Modern weapons of the ANA frequently fall into Taliban possession after they raid ANA bases. This has been happening for years.

        How the US Is Indirectly Arming the Taliban | The Diplomat

        An Emboldened Taliban Nearly ‘Wiped Out’ An Entire Afghan Army Unit Using Lethal New Tactics - Task & Purpose


        For the last 15-17 years, the ANA with the support of over 100,000 US/NATO troops and US airpower, could not defeat the Taliban.

        The ANA is a joke man. Even US soldiers joke about how inefficient the ANA is. This type of news happens everyday

        Taliban Kill 4 Afghan Forces, Overrun Northern Army Base

        And this happened last week right before US again restarted talks with the Taliban

        Taliban attack on military base kills at least 65, Afghan officials say | Fox News


        Neither the Kabul regime nor the ANA have any significance to the outcome.

        Watch Ghani's last press conference. Even he seems resigned to fate.
        Last edited by Insight; 01-31-2019, 01:42 AM.
        "The past is not my concern. The future is no longer my concern either. One minute. One minute of everything at once. And anything before is nothing. Everything after nothing. Nothing in comparison to that one minute."

        Comment


        • #5
          Vietnamese insurgents (Viet Cong) were a guerilla force who won the Vietnam war and went on to rule the country and set up a new government and arny after the US left.

          The losers of that conflict had no leverage
          "The past is not my concern. The future is no longer my concern either. One minute. One minute of everything at once. And anything before is nothing. Everything after nothing. Nothing in comparison to that one minute."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by randolph85 View Post
            At this point it seems like a Taliban win but the initial reason the nation faced 17 yrs of this **** was because the Taliban refused to cave into give up its sanctuary of al Qaeda which they are doing now.
            That’s not true though. Bush was going to invade Afghanistan even before 9/11 happened, and the Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden to Porkistan or another Muslim country.

            The Taliban and Al Qaeda were never that close. Bin Laden only gave Bay’ah to Mullah Omar because he didn’t want to lose influence among the Arab mujahideen to someone else, and the Taliban tried to keep him from using Afghanistan to plan attacks against other countries.

            Honestly, it was a big mistake for the Taliban to house Al Qaeda in the first place. They were the ISI’s guys, not the Taliban’s, and it was Arabs that committed most of the atrocities that the Taliban are associated with. They should’ve forced Porkistan to take them in.

            Comment


            • #7
              Anyway, I’m wondering who they’re willing to work with. It doesn’t seem to me that they’re going to join a coalition with the national government.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by maneatinglizard View Post

                Honestly, it was a big mistake for the Taliban to house Al Qaeda in the first place. They were the ISI’s guys, not the Taliban’s, and it was Arabs that committed most of the atrocities that the Taliban are associated with. They should’ve forced Porkistan to take them in.
                ISI did house those foreigners in Pakistan who fought in Afghan war of 80s, they were settled in FATA and they even married local women. In fact operations in Waziristan started because of that, Pakistani military wanted to hand over those Arabs and other foreigners to USA in 2003, Nek Muhammad resisted that.

                Osama bin Laden and his men arrived to Afghanistan in 1996 after they were exiled from Sudan and it was Sayyaf of your country who invited him to Afghanistan.

                "They should've forced Porkistan to take them in "......i dont know in which fantasy world you live, you have very weird and unrealistic picture of Taliban in your mind.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by randolph85 View Post
                  Taliban say they are not looking to rule Afghanistan alone
                  - World - DAWN.COM
                  Taliban said on Wednesday they are not seeking a "monopoly on power" in a future administration in Afghanistan but are looking for ways to co-exist with Afghan institutions — the most conciliatory statement to date from the militants.

                  The statement came amid intensified United States-led efforts to resolve the long-running Afghanistan war. US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad reported this week that there had been "agreements in principle" toward a framework for peace with the Taliban, who now control almost half of the country and carry out near-daily attacks, mainly targeting Afghan security forces and government officials.

                  Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman based in Qatar where the Taliban have a political office, said that once US forces withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban want to live with other Afghans, "tolerate one another and start life like brothers". Shaheen's statement was provided in an exclusive audio message to The Associated Press.

                  "After the end of the occupation, Afghans should forget their past and tolerate one another and start life like brothers. After the withdrawal, we are not seeking a monopoly on power," Shaheen said.

                  ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

                  "We believe in an inclusive Afghan world, where all Afghans can see themselves in it," he added.

                  He also said the Taliban envision a reformed police and local police forces, without offering specifics. Afghanistan's local police forces have been widely criticised as deeply corrupt and intimidating of the local population.

                  Shaheen said another round of talks with Khalilzad is planned for February 25 in Doha.

                  Khalilzad, who held talks with the Taliban for six days last week in Qatar, said during a visit to Kabul on Monday that much more remains to be done but that there has been significant progress toward an agreement with the insurgents.

                  Read more: US envoy Khalilzad confirms 'draft framework' with Taliban: NYT

                  In turn, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani assured Afghans that no deals would be made without the Kabul government's awareness and full participation.

                  US troops invaded Afghanistan in November 2001 in response to the September 11 attacks and ousted the Taliban, who had harboured Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

                  The Taliban, who had ruled Afghanistan since 1996, had imposed a harsh form of Sharia law.

                  Shaheen also said the US and the Taliban will establish joint technical teams to work out details of a future US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as ways of preventing Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

                  Khalilzad, who was appointed last September, has stepped up efforts to find a negotiated end to Afghanistan's protracted war that will allow an eventual withdrawal of US forces and bring to an end America's longest military engagement that has already cost Washington about $1 trillion.

                  President Donald Trump has also expressed frustration with the continued US involvement in Afghanistan, lending a greater urgency to an early settlement.

                  Despite intense negotiations with Khalilzad, the Taliban have refused to negotiate directly with Kabul and often refer to the Afghan government as puppets of the US. Khalilzad has also pressed Ghani's government, which is deeply divided, to cobble together a strong negotiating team.

                  Atta-ul Rahman Salim, deputy head of the Afghan High Peace Council which comprises top Afghan clerics and other prominent figures, said the only way to peace is through direct talks with the government.

                  "If the Taliban really want to join the peace process, the best and easy way to start is with direct peace talks with the Afghan government," he said, adding that "there is a big difference between what you say and what you do".

                  Despite the Taliban insurgents' refusal to negotiate with Kabul, Shaheen's message appeared directed at a wide array of stakeholders in Afghanistan — possibly even Ghani's government — who could work together to hasten US troop pullout.

                  "The withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan is a shared responsibility and a pride for all Afghans," Shaheen said.





                  I’ll believe it when I see it. There must be a disarmament and armed forces integration program for this thing to succeed. This is why Afghan to Afghan talks need to parallel the US Talibs talks. The Taliban are barely giving nothing to the US while the US is negotiating its withdrawal. No sanctuary to anti state actors but they are no friends of daesh, aq is almost non existent. At this point it seems like a Taliban win but the initial reason the nation faced 17 yrs of this **** was because the Taliban refused to cave into give up its sanctuary of al Qaeda which they are doing now.
                  Taliban promised in 2001 to hand OBL over to a third country but the USA refused. They wanted war. And they had it. Also Taliban promised not to cooperate with AQ in 2010. Anyway AQ presence in our country is ridiculously exaggerated. These peace talks are hilarious: we all want peace and the Taliban to be integrated into the government, but as you point out Talibs are selling bs while the USA is eager to get the f*ck out.
                  "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
                  I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

                  -Ferdowsi.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by randolph85 View Post
                    Yeah that would just lead to a civil war. It took like a decade to disarm the likes of Jamait enough for the central government to able to replace their strongmen from from power without the threat of an armed retailiation. There must be a strong inclusive central government no matter what kind of power sharing agreement comes about. This is not Lebanon where Hezbollah is tolerated because of the Israeli threat, If the US is gone, there is no reason for a parallel armed forces.

                    The Taliban are a guerilla force, not a national military. Hundreds of thousands of Ana with modern weapons are not disarming for a couple 10 thousands of guys with ied’s and ak47s who are coming in from the cold. In Afghanistan, being on top of the mountain just makes you a better target. This is why the Taliban govt folded in like a week in 2001.
                    There is right now more ANA soldiers and pro government militias in Kabul than the entire Taliban movements combined. Peace talks will fail if the Taliban refuse to talk to the government. For now they are playing like they are something: USA wants to leave and the Afg government seems weak. But lets be honest they can not win. If things get out of hand, as you pointed out, ANA is heavily armed. There are thousands of arbakais all over the country. And last but not least, literally thousands of Jihadis who would rearm in a matter of few weeks and start the civil war. 110k Western troops along with 250k Afghan forces failed to control the country. People must be deluded if they believe a 40-60k strong militia is going to overrun the entire country.

                    For now the Taliban are playing with advantage because they are waging an asymmetric war but once they start taking over provinces they will become easy targets. Just like in Syria where Sunni rebels took over Idlib and became a soft target for Russian air power.

                    Taliban cant really win this war. This is a golden opportunity for them to join the government. Only retarded Paki nationalists believe they have already won.
                    "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
                    I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

                    -Ferdowsi.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Firdousi View Post
                      There is right now more ANA soldiers and pro government militias in Kabul than the entire Taliban movements combined. Peace talks will fail if the Taliban refuse to talk to the government. For now they are playing like they are something: USA wants to leave and the Afg government seems weak. But lets be honest they can not win. If things get out of hand, as you pointed out, ANA is heavily armed. There are thousands of arbakais all over the country. And last but not least, literally thousands of Jihadis who would rearm in a matter of few weeks and start the civil war. 110k Western troops along with 250k Afghan forces failed to control the country. People must be deluded if they believe a 40-60k strong militia is going to overrun the entire country.

                      For now the Taliban are playing with advantage because they are waging an asymmetric war but once they start taking over provinces they will become easy targets. Just like in Syria where Sunni rebels took over Idlib and became a soft target for Russian air power.

                      Taliban cant really win this war. This is a golden opportunity for them to join the government. Only retarded Paki nationalists believe they have already won.
                      The problem is that the Jihadi orgs and networks have been weakened like crazy and would need time to reboot, and the ANA has low morale which will get even worse when America pulls out. If ANA morale collapses and they start running away before the Jihadi groups reorganize, the Taliban could sweep across the country really quickly and take over. This is basically what happened with ISIS in Iraq.

                      The war still wouldn’t be over as there’s almost definitely be a lot of resistance to the Taliban rule (especially in the north), but they’d have defacto control over most of the country within a few months.

                      What Ashraf Ghani should do to avoid that potential quagmire is try to talk to the Taliban without America’s involvement, and offer them a quicker American exit than whatever America’s committing to in exchange for a ceasefire and negotiations. Instead, he’s begging Trump to keep troops in the country.

                      The best case scenario for us is that the NUG and Taliban drop America and Pakistan and talk Afghan to Afghan. Both of those countries have screwed us over and can’t be trusted.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I wonder what the impact of Imran Khan is in all of this? Has he perhaps convinced the Taliban to enter in peace talks?
                        Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

                        A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai

                        For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."


                        The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!

                        -Ferishta, 1560–1620

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Admin Khan View Post
                          I wonder what the impact of Imran Khan is in all of this? Has he perhaps convinced the Taliban to enter in peace talks?
                          Imran Khan has no say and role in it. The entire Afghan-Taliban affair is strictly controlled by ISI/Pakistan Army, civilian government can not meddle in it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by maneatinglizard View Post
                            The problem is that the Jihadi orgs and networks have been weakened like crazy and would need time to reboot, and the ANA has low morale which will get even worse when America pulls out. If ANA morale collapses and they start running away before the Jihadi groups reorganize, the Taliban could sweep across the country really quickly and take over. This is basically what happened with ISIS in Iraq.

                            The war still wouldn’t be over as there’s almost definitely be a lot of resistance to the Taliban rule (especially in the north), but they’d have defacto control over most of the country within a few months.

                            What Ashraf Ghani should do to avoid that potential quagmire is try to talk to the Taliban without America’s involvement, and offer them a quicker American exit than whatever America’s committing to in exchange for a ceasefire and negotiations. Instead, he’s begging Trump to keep troops in the country.

                            The best case scenario for us is that the NUG and Taliban drop America and Pakistan and talk Afghan to Afghan. Both of those countries have screwed us over and can’t be trusted.
                            You are right but I believe out state is not collapsing anytime soon. Ghani said that without the USA Afghanistan would collapse within six months. But I dont think thats going to happen. Regional countries wont let it happen.

                            Also regarding Jihadis you are right. They have been badly weakened by Ghani. But I believe at this point they know that sooner or later they must rearm and prepare for war.

                            Peace talks are a golden opportunity for us, for the Taliban, for Jihadis, for regional countries,.. I just hope they reach a rational agreement. I was in Afg when we descended into chaos. I hope we dont go down that way again. It would be a nightmare.
                            "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
                            I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

                            -Ferdowsi.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Admin Khan View Post
                              I wonder what the impact of Imran Khan is in all of this? Has he perhaps convinced the Taliban to enter in peace talks?
                              Its a Trump thing. The Taliban has been open to sit with Americans from the beginning.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X