Taliban’s supreme leader signals willingness to talk peace

[alienlovechild 75]

The supreme leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, has indicated that he and his followers may be willing to hold peace talks with western politicians.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, two of the movement’s senior Islamic scholars have relayed a message from the Quetta shura, the Taliban’s ruling council, that Mullah Omar no longer aims to rule Afghanistan. They said he was prepared to engage in “sincere and honest” talks.

A senior US military source said the remarks reflected a growing belief that a “breakthrough” was possible. “There is evidence from many intelligence sources [that] the Taliban are ready for some kind of peace process,” the source said.

At a meeting held at night deep inside Taliban-controlled territory, the Taliban leaders told this newspaper that their military campaign had only three objectives: the return of sharia (Islamic law), the expulsion of foreigners and the restoration of security.

Looking back on five years in government until they were ousted after the attacks in America on September 11, 2001, the Taliban leaders said their movement had become too closely involved in politics.

Abdul Rashid said: “We didn’t have the capability to govern the country and we were surprised by how things went. We lacked people with either experience or technical expertise in government.

“Now all we’re doing is driving the invader out. We will leave politics to civil society and return to our madrasahs [religious schools].”

The Taliban’s position emerged as an American official said colleagues in Washington were discussing whether President Barack Obama could reverse a long-standing US policy and permit direct American talks with the Taliban.

If the Taliban’s military aims no longer included a takeover of the Afghan government, this would represent “a major and important shift”, the US official said.

The Taliban objectives specified on their website had already shifted, Nato officials said, from the overthrow of the “puppet government” to the more moderate goal of establishing a government wanted by the Afghan people.

In the interview, the two leaders insisted that reports of contact between the Taliban and the Kabul government were a “fraud” and stemmed from claims made by “charlatans”. Up to now, no officially sanctioned talks have taken place, they said.

They laid down no preconditions for substantive negotiations, saying simply that the Taliban were ready for “honest dialogue”. Another Taliban source with close links to the Quetta shura said the movement was willing to talk directly to “credible” western politicians, including Americans, but not to intelligence agencies such as the CIA.

This source said that although the Taliban’s unwavering objective remained the withdrawal of all foreign troops, their preconditions for talks might now be limited to guarantees of security for their delegates and a Nato ceasefire.

According to a Nato intelligence source, Taliban representatives have established direct contact with several ministers in President Hamid Karzai’s government. But they refuse to have any direct contact with Karzai, whom they regard as an “illegitimate puppet”.

Instead, he was told that the Taliban believe they are winning and are able to negotiate from a position of strength. Asked about a forthcoming Nato offensive in the Kandahar region, a local Taliban commander who sat alongside the two scholars boasted: “We’re ready for this. We’re going to break the Americans’ teeth.”

The Taliban leaders said that lessons had been learnt from Nato’s last big offensive in the Marjah area of Helmand province earlier this year. When Nato gave advance notice of the operation, the Taliban were lured into sending too many fighters to the area, some of whom died.

“People don’t trust the foreigners because they are backing the warlords. People are fed up with crime and brutality and that’s a big problem for the Americans. We’re well positioned, with supporters everywhere.”

As they prepare for the traditional summer fighting season, the Taliban leaders are placing as much emphasis as Nato on winning the hearts and minds of the population.

Abdul Rashid said there had been Taliban commanders who had financed their campaigns by taking bribes to give safe passage to Nato supply convoys or from drug smugglers. But the Taliban’s leadership had ordered a halt to this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7100889.ece

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Abdul Rashid said: “We didn’t have the capability to govern the country and we were surprised by how things went. We lacked people with either experience or technical expertise in government.

“Now all we’re doing is driving the invader out. We will leave politics to civil society and return to our madrasahs [religious schools].”

The Taliban’s position emerged as an American official said colleagues in Washington were discussing whether President Barack Obama could reverse a long-standing US policy and permit direct American talks with the Taliban.

If the Taliban’s military aims no longer included a takeover of the Afghan government, this would represent “a major and important shift”, the US official said.

Trusting the Taliban would be an act of monumental stupidity. They're weakened and are looking for an opportunity to 'reload'. This is standard MO by terrorist groups in that part of the world.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The supreme leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, has indicated that he and his followers may be willing to hold peace talks with western politicians.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, two of the movement’s senior Islamic scholars have relayed a message from the Quetta shura, the Taliban’s ruling council, that Mullah Omar no longer aims to rule Afghanistan. They said he was prepared to engage in “sincere and honest” talks.

A senior US military source said the remarks reflected a growing belief that a “breakthrough” was possible. “There is evidence from many intelligence sources [that] the Taliban are ready for some kind of peace process,” the source said.

At a meeting held at night deep inside Taliban-controlled territory, the Taliban leaders told this newspaper that their military campaign had only three objectives: the return of sharia (Islamic law), the expulsion of foreigners and the restoration of security.

Looking back on five years in government until they were ousted after the attacks in America on September 11, 2001, the Taliban leaders said their movement had become too closely involved in politics.

Abdul Rashid said: “We didn’t have the capability to govern the country and we were surprised by how things went. We lacked people with either experience or technical expertise in government.

“Now all we’re doing is driving the invader out. We will leave politics to civil society and return to our madrasahs [religious schools].”

The Taliban’s position emerged as an American official said colleagues in Washington were discussing whether President Barack Obama could reverse a long-standing US policy and permit direct American talks with the Taliban.

If the Taliban’s military aims no longer included a takeover of the Afghan government, this would represent “a major and important shift”, the US official said.

The Taliban objectives specified on their website had already shifted, Nato officials said, from the overthrow of the “puppet government” to the more moderate goal of establishing a government wanted by the Afghan people.

In the interview, the two leaders insisted that reports of contact between the Taliban and the Kabul government were a “fraud” and stemmed from claims made by “charlatans”. Up to now, no officially sanctioned talks have taken place, they said.

They laid down no preconditions for substantive negotiations, saying simply that the Taliban were ready for “honest dialogue”. Another Taliban source with close links to the Quetta shura said the movement was willing to talk directly to “credible” western politicians, including Americans, but not to intelligence agencies such as the CIA.

This source said that although the Taliban’s unwavering objective remained the withdrawal of all foreign troops, their preconditions for talks might now be limited to guarantees of security for their delegates and a Nato ceasefire.

According to a Nato intelligence source, Taliban representatives have established direct contact with several ministers in President Hamid Karzai’s government. But they refuse to have any direct contact with Karzai, whom they regard as an “illegitimate puppet”.

Instead, he was told that the Taliban believe they are winning and are able to negotiate from a position of strength. Asked about a forthcoming Nato offensive in the Kandahar region, a local Taliban commander who sat alongside the two scholars boasted: “We’re ready for this. We’re going to break the Americans’ teeth.”

The Taliban leaders said that lessons had been learnt from Nato’s last big offensive in the Marjah area of Helmand province earlier this year. When Nato gave advance notice of the operation, the Taliban were lured into sending too many fighters to the area, some of whom died.

“People don’t trust the foreigners because they are backing the warlords. People are fed up with crime and brutality and that’s a big problem for the Americans. We’re well positioned, with supporters everywhere.”

As they prepare for the traditional summer fighting season, the Taliban leaders are placing as much emphasis as Nato on winning the hearts and minds of the population.

Abdul Rashid said there had been Taliban commanders who had financed their campaigns by taking bribes to give safe passage to Nato supply convoys or from drug smugglers. But the Taliban’s leadership had ordered a halt to this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7100889.ece

Trusting the Taliban would be an act of monumental stupidity. They're weakened and are looking for an opportunity to 'reload'. This is standard MO by terrorist groups in that part of the world.

given that Taliban's concept of "peace" is the same as that of their war-criminal "parents" Pakistani military and ISI (preceded by "rest in" for other side).

[mawilson 2,133]

Trusting the Taliban would be an act of monumental stupidity. They're weakened and are looking for an opportunity to 'reload'. This is standard MO by terrorist groups in that part of the world.

Indeed. Finish the bastards off and show them no mercy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Indeed. Finish the bastards off and show them no mercy.

+1

[john & jean 37]

Sure, we will talk...

poke your head out and hold still

[scandal 951]

The term i question "Unconditional Surrender". As used by the Allies in WWII.

The use of the term was revived during World War II at the Casablanca conference when American President Franklin D. Roosevelt sprang it on the other Allies and the press as the objective of the war against the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Both Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin disapproved of the demand for unconditional surrender, as did most senior U.S. officials (except General Dwight D. Eisenhower). It has been estimated that it helped prolong the war in Europe through its usefulness to German domestic propaganda that used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies, and its suppressive effect on the German resistance movement since even after a coup against Adolf Hitler there was no "assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country". It has also been argued that without the demand for unconditional surrender Central Europe might not have fallen behind the Iron curtain.

Despite those criticisms, I think FDR was absolutely right to insist on nothing less than the complete and utter capitulation of the Third Reich. When you face evil, you do not compromise. The same principle extends to the perpetrators of 9/11.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Pretty much just tell them to give us Osama Bin Laden and we leave. The people there can then duke it out and the victor rules.

[Dan J 277]

The term i question "Unconditional Surrender". As used by the Allies in WWII.

Despite those criticisms, I think FDR was absolutely right to insist on nothing less than the complete and utter capitulation of the Third Reich. When you face evil, you do not compromise. The same principle extends to the perpetrators of 9/11.

I hope you are not trying to say that the Taliban was behind 9/11. We don't need more fox style revisionism.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda ended up working together in Afghanistan due to common interests. An outside power attacked the country, they were going to take it lying down. However, outside of that. The Taliban and AQ have different goals. The Taliban is primary concerned with regional goals, by themselves, not as strong of a direct threat to the US (Potential for destabilising Pakistan notwithstanding). AQ on the other hand is operating on a global scale and is a direct threat to the US.

I don't think we will ever really get rid of the Taliban. At least not without considerable cost. So if a peace deal can be reached in that they stop working with and give up members of AQ. We can still satisfy our primary objective.

[scandal 951]

I hope you are not trying to say that the Taliban was behind 9/11. We don't need more fox style revisionism.

I am not a Fox style revisionist. But the events of autumn 2001 remain seared in my memory, as they should be for all of us.

Less than one week after the events of September 11, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush identified Osama Bin Laden as the 'prime suspect' in the attacks. Osama bin Laden was understood to be in Afghanistan at the time. On September 20, 2001, in an address to a joint session of Congress, President Bush issued an ultimatum demanding that the Taliban government of Afghanistan:

* deliver al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States authorities

* release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens

* protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan

* close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities"

* give the United States full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure

"They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate," said Bush. No specifics were attached to the threat, though there followed a statement suggesting military action: "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there."

I did not vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004. I think his Administration was a very poor one in most areas of domestic and foreign policy. I am by no means a fan.

But I do think he was 100% correct to have given the Taliban (at that time the de facto government of Afghanistan) an ultimatum to hand over al Quaida or face the consequences. They did not. We took the fight to them, entirely justifiably. From that moment, and even previously when they allowed al Quaida to train and plan and conspire to launch the Sept 11 attacks, they made it crystal clear that they were allied with the terrorists and in fact were indistinguishable from the al Quaida terrorists.

I think Bush's war in Iraq, in hindsight, was a tragic mistake. I do not think that at all regarding the war in Afghanistan.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I am not a Fox style revisionist. But the events of autumn 2001 remain seared in my memory, as they should be for all of us.

I did not vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004. I think his Administration was a very poor one in most areas of domestic and foreign policy. I am by no means a fan.

But I do think he was 100% correct to have given the Taliban (at that time the de facto government of Afghanistan) an ultimatum to hand over al Quaida or face the consequences. They did not. We took the fight to them, entirely justifiably. From that moment, and even previously when they allowed al Quaida to train and plan and conspire to launch the Sept 11 attacks, they made it crystal clear that they were allied with the terrorists and in fact were indistinguishable from the al Quaida terrorists.

I think Bush's war in Iraq, in hindsight, was a tragic mistake. I do not think that at all regarding the war in Afghanistan.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was born mostly out of revenge. Because Jorge Sr. had not removed Saddam from power, the latter began mocking US presidents (he also mocked Clinton's ultimata--because he, as it turned out correctly, assumed Clinton's term would end before his--and also Jorge Jr for same reason). Basically, he wanted to finish the job his father had failed to complete, the ouster of Saddam and replacement with pet regime (the latter was what bogged US in Iraq).

Pretty much just tell them to give us Osama Bin Laden and we leave. The people there can then duke it out and the victor rules.

That would probably have been the best approach to both Afghanistan and Iraq--depose the regime, then withdraw and leave the locals to sort out the mess.