Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Afghans back Pakistan's plan of talks with Taliban

SAYED SALAHUDDIN

Reuters

Latest comment posted at 1:11 PM EDT 05/05/08

Kabul backs Islamabad's plan, but urges neighbour not to allow militants space to regroup and launch raids across the border ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Karzai should make a deal with the Afghan Taliban similar to what Pakistan has done with their own.

    Get a pledge from the Afghan Tailbs not to attack Afghans, but to target foreigners, whether they are Arab, Nato, or otherwise.

    The Talibs are nationalists. It will be easy to sell. Why should the guardians of foreign interests, of poppy seed growers, of Unocal gas line deal unfavorable to Afghanistan be protected?

    Tories should be ashamed of using our troops to protect Corporate interests. The Liberals sent the soldiers to do development work, not to guard poppy fields.
  2. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Good luck getting the Taliban to agree to any compromise. The Talibs are exploiting Pashtun "nationalistic sentiment" (if true nationalism can exist in a tribal society), not Afghan nationalism. ..and get your facts straight, the liberals sent our troops to provide security to development workers. In this context that means fighting Taliban who attack both local and international development efforts.

    I am also concerned, if you are writing from Toronto, that you are calling for attacks on Canadians.
  3. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Good luck getting the Taliban to agree to any compromise and get your facts straight, the liberals sent our troops to provide security to development workers.
    ***************************************************** Abu Akkrab get YOUR facts straight. The liberals sent our troops because the USA is our largest trading partner. Development and little girls going to school were afterthoughts and talked about to justify our commitment to the voters and never mentioned before we went in. Any talk about peace talks is very unpopular NOT because they might be useless but because they might succeed thus showing that Harper’s Tory policies are misguided and if they were to succeed might prove that Layton has more on the ball than any of the LibCons. Wouldn’t that be a tragedy? Churchill said, “Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.”
    CYMRO
  4. Kathleen Degelder from WashingtonUSA, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle: Jack Layton? Are you out of your mind? Hezbollah in Montreal and Jack Layton.---Abu Akkrab: Good post.
  5. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Abu Akkrab: Hi

    " .. The Talibs are exploiting Pashtun "nationalistic sentiment" (if true nationalism can exist in a tribal society), not Afghan nationalism .."

    There is some truth to that. However, it is not universally true. Pakistani strategy is to isolate the extremists and engage the rest.
  6. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: The influencing power in keeping the Taliban on war footing are two in this
    game. First its the Egyptian Zuhweri who has indoctrinated the Taliban and
    as long as he controls nothing positive will come out. Those who have come
    out of his influence, they have reverted to the Afghan society and sought
    help to get rehabilitated. Secondly there is the power struggle between the
    Pashtun and Tajik warlords to have complete power in Kabul, therefore the
    members of Panjsheer group will not like to see the unity amongst the Pashtuns. Thirdly it is not in neocons agenda to see peace in Afghanistan or
    they will lose their base here for strategic reasons.
  7. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Khalid, bang on with the first two, but the third is stretching things. "Surrounding" Iran has its benefits, but it is better done by a "natural" enemy that can stand on its own two feet. I may agree if you insert Irag for Afghanistan. In Irag the Sunni / Shia divide can be played to advantage and the Iraq invasion happened after the Taliban were initially ousted.
  8. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: The third reason: The availability of safe haven in Pakistan.
  9. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: I am tired of hearing about the U.S. led attack on Afghanistan. It was not a U.S. attack. It was the vanguard of NATO. You kill my citizens, you hurt my people, you will pay the price. Had the war gone the way that Bin laden(sic) had hoped then it would be over. The Bush family would be the toadies of the Saudi clan. I object to being alluded to as a follower. I have never followed. I have always led myself to stand up for what I believed. Take your trite bs and stick it where the sun don't shine. You don't speak for me as a Canadian or express the Canadian sentiment when you denigrate what we are attempting to accomplish in this land for the people that inhabit the planet in that region.
  10. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Brendan Caron: Greetings

    " ..... Had the war gone the way that Bin laden(sic) had hoped ..."

    But it has gone the way OBL planned it to go.

    OBL's strategy as gleaned from captured Laptops was not to defeat the West, but to bleed it. So far:

    1. 9/11
    2. Elimination of OBL's worst Arab enemy - Saddam Hussein
    3. The West mired in in Iraq, Afghanistan, with no hope for victory.
    4. The US in $9 Trillion debt, and counting.
    5. War cost over $500 Billion and counting
    6. Al-Quaeda now spread to Iraq, ME, Europe, NA
    7. Sinking $
    8. $ 20 oil now $ 120, so more Saudi $ for Jihadis
    9. Recession in US staring in face, Canada and EU to follow
    10. Demoralized, fearful, leaderless, listless, hopeless US
    11. Emboldened Iran

    need I go on. So far it is OBL 11 - Dubya 0

    Heads in sands if you think the war has not gone OBL's way.
  11. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Abu Akkrab: Hi

    " ... The third reason: The availability of safe haven in Pakistan..."

    That reminds me:

    12. Loss of Pakistan as a valued Ally

    need I go on. So far it is OBL 12 - Dubya 0
  12. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: Abu Akkrab: I am not stretching the third reason, US has strategic reasons
    to be in Afghanistan. They (neocons) realized in nineties the strategic value
    of establishing a base here. The question was of timing, how and when?
    Opportunity knocked on 09/11 and they did not let it go! They did not need
    a Corp of army to remove Saddam in Iraq; After all the people wanted to be
    relieved of a tyrant. Other means could have been used with help of local population to achieve the aim. The real aim was not only removal of Saddam,but establishing themselves long term in Iraq.In Afghanistan
    people within the establishment of Taliban were not happy with the Al Qaida control. They wanted a way out, but not in the present manner by
    having their country occupied. To Washington DC this region serves as a
    Pivot to swing in any direction with a minimum time with a striking force.
  13. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: Syed abassss. You are a liar and a twit as has been pronounced by the people that regularily read here. You have been pronounced a liar and twit. I can teach you how to spell.
  14. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Brendan Caron: Greetings and Peace

    " .... Syed abassss. You are a liar and a twit as has been pronounced by the people that regularily read here. You have been pronounced a liar and twit. I can teach you how to spell...."

    Many thanks for your kind words. I regret I have not taken time to pass my posts through a spell checker. I will try to be more careful.

    Cheers.
  15. Karunaratne Jeyatilleke from Ottawa, Canada writes: What happened to the lets kill'em rhetoric??? It toned down after Hillier resigned!
  16. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: The Taliban are not nationalists - they are Islamists. Many of the Taliban are orphans who were raised in madrassahs in either Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan. They have no knowledge of Afghan history or culture and no family ties. They know only the twisted version of Islam they were taught and how to hate and fight. Those who continue to fight after years of having the opportunity to participate in Afghan society have no interest in negotiating peace. They want control in order to compel people to live according to their dictates. There has never been a Muslim society as repressive as the Taliban. Many are tied in with al-Qaeda and al-Zawahiri and will not settle for anything other than a theocratic state with all foreigners gone(not just foreign troops) as well as any Muslims who do not accept their twisted interpretation of Islam. At some point the problems posed by the situation in Pakistan will need to be dealt with. Benazir Bhutto was a supporter of the Taliban in the beginning and it is doubtful that a government under her husband will be prepared to deal effectively with the problem with out considerable outside pressure. Any agreements they make will be solely in the interest of avoiding further problems with the Islamists within their own borders - Islamists being supported by other Arab countries and Arab individuals with lots of money. They have little to gain from the successful rebuilding of Afghanistan.
  17. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Catherine Medernach from Winnepeg .What's an Islamist ?
  18. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: As I use the term if refers to extremist Muslims(such as bin Laden and groups such as al-Qaeda, International Islamic Jihad as well as the Taliban) who believe that Muslims must return to religious rule based on Islamic law (sharia). The want all Islamic countries to be essentially theocracies and want to eliminate not only Western military troops, but all Western economic, political, social and cultural influences in the Muslim world which they believe are incompatible with Islam. Most also want to see Israel destroyed.
  19. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Catherine Medernach: Greetings

    " ... As I use the term if refers to extremist Muslims(such as bin Laden and groups such as al-Qaeda, International Islamic Jihad as well as the Taliban) who believe that Muslims must return to religious rule based on Islamic law (sharia). The want all Islamic countries to be essentially theocracies and want to eliminate not only Western military troops, but all Western economic, political, social and cultural influences in the Muslim world which they believe are incompatible with Islam. Most also want to see Israel destroyed...."

    Save yourself the verbosity. You mean the Islamic groups supported with money and material by Republican Right since Harding/Coolidge/Hoover times.
  20. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: No - I mean the ones supported by bin Laden and by other rich Muslims in the Persian Gulf. And the ones supported by the South American drug trade - like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. It might not be convenient but you cannot blame everything on the US. bin Laden was not funded by the US even in the war against the Soviets. He plenty of his own resources. He brought equipment from his family's construction business to Afghanistan to build his caves in Afghanistan.
  21. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Catherine Medernach: Hi

    " .... No - I mean the ones supported by bin Laden and by other rich Muslims in the Persian Gulf. And the ones supported by the South American drug trade - like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. It might not be convenient but you cannot blame everything on the US. bin Laden was not funded by the US even in the war against the Soviets. He plenty of his own resources. He brought equipment from his family's construction business to Afghanistan to build his caves in Afghanistan...."

    Oh I see. You mean those supported by the CIA.

  22. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: I asked the question, because I think "Islamists" is a word made up for George Bush's War on Terror , to describe an imaginary enemy to justify an endless war .There are infinite reasons for Afghans to take up weapons against their governmnet and occupiers that have nothing to do with Shia law and theocracy ,both of which , by the way seems the rule in Nato's Afghanistan.
  23. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Best to keep on killing the taliban...
  24. Sissy Schuss from Canada writes: interesting but ultimately flawed policy

    double edge sword, nested game, two level game etc

    on the one hand indirect support for incursions into Afghanistan and on the other attempts to mediate a a brokered agreement.

    For parallels in history and to understand the flaws of
    this approach see: Who Intervenes? (OSUP 2006).

    Pakistan is the keystone to mission success in Afghanistan.
  25. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, Canada writes: Geoffrey May from Canada writes: I asked the question, because I think "Islamists" is a word made up for George Bush's War on Terror , to describe an imaginary enemy to justify an endless war .

    The term has been around way longer than that, referring to political movements wishing to impose Islam on a population. No linguistic treadmill can change the fact that people can easily tell the difference between the Taliban and, say, the Green Party of Manitoba.
  26. Random Observer from GTA, Canada writes: Syed, still using G&m to publish your fundamentalist propaganda and trying to whitewash facts.

    As B.C. Expat noted above, no amount of word games can change the fact that the extremist identified in Catherine Medernach are fundamentalist Islam trying to further their version of Islam. The money and support for these extremist comes from ME, Pakistan and other Islamic nations.

    Can you provide a link for any “fatwa&8221; from any Islamic religions authority against these terrorist who are mudding name of Islam?
  27. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Geoffrey May: Greetings

    "Islamists" is a word ... to describe an imaginary enemy to justify an endless war.

    Whatever the origin of the word it has come to denote a term to view Islam as a "Political" movement. People using religion for nationalistic ends.

    Islam as defined in the Koran and practiced by Mohammed is more of a socio-economic construct.

    " ... There are infinite reasons for Afghans to take up weapons against their governmnet and occupiers that have nothing to do with Shia law and theocracy ..."

    The one and only reason why Afghans have always taken up arms from times immemorial is to throw out the invaders and foreigners.

    Afghanistan is majority Sunni - as are the Talibs and the Pushtuns all in the south. They were supported by the Saudis and the Republican Right. The 20% minority Shia are in the West and in the North. They are largely supported by Iran.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top