EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Silent About Taliban Guarantee Offer on al Qaeda
WASHINGTON - The Barack Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December to give "legal guarantees" that it will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries.
Afghan Taliban fighters pose for a picture at a mosque in Andar district of Ghazni province in April. The Barack Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December to give "legal guarantees" that it will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries.(AFP/File/Mohammad Yaqubi) The administration's silence on the offer, despite a public statement by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressing skepticism about any Taliban offer to separate itself from al Qaeda, effectively leaves the door open to negotiating a deal with the Taliban based on such a proposal.
The Taliban, however, has chosen to interpret the Obama administration's position as one of rejection of its offer.
The Taliban offer, included in a statement dated Dec. 4 and e-mailed to news organizations the following day, said the organization has "no agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is ready to give legal guarantees if foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan".
The statement did not mention al Qaeda by name or elaborate on what was meant by "legal guarantees" against such "meddling", but it was an obvious response to past U.S. insistence that the U.S. war in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent al Qaeda from having a safe haven in Afghanistan once again.
It suggested that the Taliban is interested in negotiating an agreement with the United States involving a public Taliban renunciation of ties with al Qaeda, along with some undefined arrangements to enforce a ban al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan in return for a commitment to a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.
Despite repeated queries by IPS to the State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley and to the National Security Council's press office over the past week about whether either Secretary Clinton or President Obama had been informed about the Taliban offer, neither office has responded to the question.
Anand Gopal of The Wall Street Journal, whose Dec. 5 story on the Taliban message was the only one to report that initiative, asked a U.S. official earlier that day about the offer to provide "legal guarantees".
The official, who had not been aware of the Taliban offer, responded with what was evidently previously prepared policy guidance casting doubt on the willingness of the Taliban to give up its ties with al Qaeda. "This is the same group that refused to give up bin Laden, even though they could have saved their country from war," said the official. "They wouldn't break with terrorists then, so why would we take them seriously now?"
The following day, asked by ABC News "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos about possible negotiations with "high level" Taliban leaders, Clinton said, "We don't know yet."
But then she made the same argument the unnamed U.S. official had made to Gopal on Saturday. "[W]e asked Mullah Omar to give up bin Laden before he went into Afghanistan after 9/11," Clinton said, "and he wouldn't do it. I don't know why we think he would have changed by now."
In the same ABC interview, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested that the Taliban would not be willing to negotiate on U.S. terms until after their "momentum" had been stopped.
"I think that the likelihood of the leadership of the Taliban, or senior leaders, being willing to accept the conditions Secretary Clinton just talked about," Gates said, "depends in the first instance on reversing their momentum right now, and putting them in a position where they suddenly begin to realize that they're likely to lose."
In a statement issued two days after the Clinton-Gates appearance on ABC, the Taliban leadership, which now calls itself "Mujahideen", posted another statement saying that what it called its "proposal" had been rejected by the United States.
The statement said, in part, "Washington turns down the constructive proposal of the leadership of Mujahideen," and repeated its pledge to "ensure that the next government of the Muhajideen will not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries including the neighbors if the foreign troops pull out of Afghanistan."
The fact that both the State Department and the NSC are now maintaining silence on the offer rather than repeating the Clinton-Gates expression of skepticism strongly suggests that the White House does not want to close the door publicly to negotiations with the Taliban linking troop withdrawal to renunciation of ties with al Qaeda, among other issues.
Last month, an even more explicit link between U.S. troop withdrawal and a severing by the Taliban of its ties with al Qaeda was made by a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.
In an article published Nov. 11, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin, who was then visiting Kabul, quoted an unnamed U.S. official as saying, "If the Taliban made clear to us that they have broken with al Qaeda and that their own objectives were nonviolent and political - however abhorrent to us - we wouldn't be keeping 68,000-plus troops here."
That statement reflected an obvious willingness to entertain a negotiated settlement under which U.S. troops would be withdrawn and the Taliban would break with al Qaeda.
A significant faction within the Obama administration has sought to portray those who suggest that the Taliban might part ways with al Qaeda as deliberately deceiving the West.
Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution, who headed the administration's policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan last spring, recently said, "A lot of smoke is being thrown up to confuse people."
But even the hard-liner Riedel concedes that the Pakistani Taliban's attacks on the Pakistani military and Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) threaten the close relationship between the Afghan Taliban and ISI. The Pakistani Taliban continue to be closely allied with al Qaeda.
The Taliban began indicating it openness to negotiations with the United States and NATO in September 2007. But it began to hint publicly at its willingness to separate itself from al Qaeda in return for a troop withdrawal only three months ago.
Taliban leader Mullah Omar's message for Eid al-Fitr in mid-September assured "all countries" that a Taliban state "will not extend its hand to jeopardize others, as it itself does not allow others to jeopardize us... Our goal is to gain independence of the country and establish a just Islamic system there."
But the insurgent leadership has also emphasized that negotiations will depend on the U.S. willingness to withdraw troops. In anticipation of Obama's announcement of a new U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar issued a 3,000-word statement Nov. 25 which said, "The people of Afghanistan will not agree to negotiations which prolongs and legitimizes the invader's military presence in our beloved country."
"The invading Americans want Mujahidin to surrender under the pretext of negotiation," it said.
That implied that the Taliban would negotiate if the U.S. did not insist on the acceptance of a U.S. military presence in the country.
The day after the Taliban proposal to Washington, Afghan President Hamid Karzai made a public plea to the United States to engage in direct negotiations with the Taliban leadership.
In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Karzai said there is an "urgent need" for negotiations with the Taliban, and made it clear that the Obama administration had opposed such talks.
Karzai did not say explicitly that he wanted the United States to be at the table for such talks, but said, "Alone, we can't do it."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
74 Comments so far
Show All"This is the same group that refused to give up bin Laden, even though they could have saved their country from war," said the official.
------------
Rewriting History.
Taliban Did Not Refuse to Hand Over Bin Laden
From The Guardian:
Oct. 17, 2001
A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.
But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.
The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.
He met officials from the CIA and Pakistan's ISI intelligence directorate in Islamabad on Monday. US officials pressed the minister for a sweeping change in the regime. "They are trying to persuade him to get the moderate elements together," another source said.
Full and unedited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
Evidently, unnamed officials, as well as - then senator - Clinton, don't read newspapers. Why bother? Surely they have more important things to do, like attending fundraisers, meeting with lobbyists, watching American Idol . . .
Thanks for the truth,
Thank you, Cygnus, for saving me the trouble. Nice to know others remember this, too.
Goebbels was a piker compared to our politicians.
Nice to see people still have memories of the truth. The invasion of Afganistan was planning and ready to go long before 9/11
The US demanded that they hand him over to the United States, not a third party country. You forget that part.
The USA get's custody of anyone it wants without offering evidence?
Sorry international Law does not work that way.
And where it becomes even worse, given the Bush admin. was demanding of the Taliban something that the U.S. would definitely not do, is, f.e., in the U.S. government's constant and criminal refusal to extradite Cuban and (maybe) other terrorists living within "safe harbor USA" for trials; terrorists who are known, instead of only believed, to be guilty of major crimes, killing hundreds of innocent people.
And guess who clearly forgot to THINK ... before posting.
Previously the Taliban refused to extradite Bin Laden to the US, for the 9/11 crime, without evidence; according to The Guardian: Sep. 17, 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/22/afghanistan.terrorism1
Generally at an extradition hearing the requesting country has to supply a minimal amount of evidence to indicate that there are charges that need to be addressed. Perhaps the US did not wish to release the evidence at this time because of National Security concerns.
Nice catch Cygnus-X1!
If you check my related posts for excerpts from the Wikipedia page on the war on Afghanistan, then we learn that the Taliban maintained the position that you describe. They definitely did not want to hand OBL over to the U.S., but they offered to put him on trial under Islamic law or to hand him over to a third country the U.S. wouldn't be able to pressure into doing its bidding or secret bidding. Otoh, I thought to have read from one or more articles over the past several years that the Taliban had also offered the altenernative of handing him over to the UN's international court to be tried and investigated under international laws; and I don't think this is mentioned in the aforementioned Wikipedia page, which might or might not be wrong about omitting this.
But they definitely and understandably didn't want to hand him over to the U.S. and it's evidently a good thing that they maintained this position. Even the FBI doesn't have him charged in relation to the 9-11 attacks of 2001, because the U.S. DoJ or Supreme Court hasn't ruled him guilty, at all, in these attacks. Read the words or about the words from Bush with the excerpts I made from the Wikipedia page and from a couple of articles it references and I provided direct links for, along with some excerpts from them. When we do that, then it becomes easy to see why it's evidently a good thing that the Taliban stood by its refusal to hand OBL over to the US.
Sh*t. The Bush administration still, to this day, doesn't have a U.S. government ruling against OBL for the 9-11 attacks; to this day, over eight years later.
Like the saying, "So, what are we fighting for?". And like the answer says, global dominance with economics as the underlying basis, thirsting for oil or, really, control or dominance over the global energy market(s), backed or enforced with geopolitical muscling through the expansion of U.S. superpower's military empire-building, establishing many more military bases in Asia, where the U.S. already had a criminal, hegemonic, ... hundreds.
You're saying the Taliban had previously refused to extradite OBL to the US without the US providing sufficient evidence to the Taliban or a neutral party the Taliban would accept to allow to evaluate the evidence, which is true. But your post further down the page caused me to return to this one because you seem to be saying or inferring that they would have accepted to extradite OBL to the U.S. if the evidence required was provided and did prove OBL to be guilty in or for the 9-11 attacks.
If that's what you're saying, then the article you linked to at the Guardian doesn't say this; certainly not explicitly anyway. It does say that the Taliban refused to hand over OBL without sufficient evidence being provided by the US, but doesn't say they would have agreed to "extradite him to the U.S.". Could they have extradited him to a third country or the UN's international court? Would that be considered an extradition; or would the term only apply if OBL was handed over to the U.S.?
According to www.thefreedictionary.com, "extradite" only means, "1. To give up or deliver (a fugitive, for example) to the legal jurisdiction of another government or authority", and maybe handing OBL over to a third country or the UN's international court would be not only another and outside "legal jurisdiction", but also an act that could be called extradition.
The Wikipedia page I excerpted plenty from in a couple of posts in this page, as well as two articles referenced in it and that I excerpt a little from each from, none of these say that the Taliban would've agreed to hand OBL over to the U.S. They clearly state that they maintained their refusal to do this and only offered to hand him over to a third country, if and only if the U.S. provide evidence incriminating him in the 9-11 attacks; and that they also offered to put him on trial under Islamic law, I believe in Afghanistan.
If you disagree, then can you back it up with links to articles that support your claim?
I remember something about that too, and mentioned it to people. I think the Taliban had a condition that the death penalty not be applied to Bin Laden by the USA, and that was unacceptable to our death culture. It was passed over because we always wanted to occupy Iraq and the Taliban didn't give any consideration for that.
After all, everyone wants to kill Bin Laden from Bush, to Kerry, to Obama, to Hillary. Along with the other people they are killing.
"After all, everyone wants to kill Bin Laden from Bush, to Kerry, to Obama, to Hillary. Along with the other people they are killing."
They do; or do they only say, to the public, that they do? They say a lot of things to the public, and it's mostly LIES. Electors, aka voters, have given the politicians of the likes of the ones you named a lot of reason to believe that their LIES sell like hotcakes ... to the public. And they know that the public, the majority anyway, wouldn't support the truth of these wars, and many other criminal foreign actions and politics of the government of the USA, [if] the public was told the truth by their political "leaders" or "representatives"; and the lies sell like hotcakes with many voters.
I thought to vaguely recall having read somewhere online that the Taliban had made the initial offer to hand over OBL to a third country or the UN's international court prior to the launch of the war on Oct. 7, 2001, but maybe I'm misremembering what the article(s) said for exact dates or timing of the initial offer. Oct. 17th is early enough into the war to strongly matter though.
However, the Wikipedia page on the war in Afghanistan tells us something else that perhaps most people have never read or even heard about and it's about OIL pipeline negotiations being backed out of by the Taliban and the U.S. government's reaction to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
My excerpt will contain other background information unrelated to oil, but I think related to the present war on Afghanistan having been commanded; or when I say unrelated to oil, it's at least not an association made in the Wikipedia page's text or paragraphs that I'm referring to. The OIL pipeline part is in the last excerpted paragraph.
EXCERPT
Background
... (skipping or omitting these first two paragraphs)
After the August 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings were linked to bin Laden President Bill Clinton ordered Cruise missile strikes on Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. U.S. officials pressed the Taliban to surrender bin Laden, and the international community imposed sanctions of the Taliban in 1999 calling for bin Laden to be surrendered to U.S. custody. The Taliban repeatedly rebuffed the demands, however.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Special Activities Division paramilitary teams were active in Afghanistan in the 1990s in clandestine operations to locate and kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. These teams planned several operations, but did not receive the order to execute from President Bill Clinton.[40] These efforts did however build many of the relationships that would prove essential in the 2001 U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan.[40]
A formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted on September 9, 2001, had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the September 11 attacks. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaeda, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, including outlines to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.[41]
One day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. And, if both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."[42]
An article published in March 2001 by Jane's, a media outlet serving the military and intelligence communities, suggests that the United States had already been planning and taking just such action against the Taliban six months before September 11, 2001. According to Jane's, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan being used as bases.[43]
The BBC News reported that, according to a Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would proceed by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan – where American advisers were already in place – and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.[44][45]
An article in The Guardian on September 26, 2001, also adds evidence that there were already signs in the first half of 2001 that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. A U.S. Department of Defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January 2001 and U.S. General Tommy Franks visited the country in May 2001, conveying a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country". However, this assertion overlooks the fact that these relationships had been ongoing since the break up of the USSR, and that under Clinton similar statements had been made by military officials.
U.S. Army Rangers were training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan, and there were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana. Reliable western military sources say a U.S. contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north, with U.S. military advisors already in place in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.[46]
In August 2001, U.S. State Department official Christina Rocca was with the Taliban, at their last negotiation over U.S. energy giant Unocal's planned oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan.[37][47][48][49] She said, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."[50][51][52]
END OF EXCERPT
I think it's clear enough that the U.S. did NOT expect the Taliban to offer to hand over OBL in 2001, or not without the pressure from war, anyway. And while the Wikipedia page's "Background" section includes, at the start, US or western allegations regarding OBL, his militarism, and terrorism, and the U.S. charged him as responsible for or at least guilty in the bombings against two U.S. embassies in Africa and suspected him of being involved with the bombing on the USS Cole, this would not justify war on the Taliban government in 2001. The U.S. could've told the Taliban that the U.S. military was coming and wouldn't fire at Taliban, etcetera, if they did not try to prevent the U.S. military in its efforts for trying to track down and capture or kill OBL et al; instead of launching war directly on the Taliban and spreading the war across much of Afghanistan.
Based on the above excerpt, it seems pretty clear, I believe, that the U.S. was set on launching this war and that OIL may've definitely been a main motive.
It's become clearer ever since, however, that the war is really being used for more than only oil; that it's being used for majorly establishing U.S. military bases in a very strategic part of Asia. The global dominance aspect seems to be clearly a top, if not the top, motive. If both of these theories, say, eventually are proven to have been wrong, a mistaken perception, then the U.S. nevertheless does seem to have been definitely determined to launch war on the Taliban government, while Al Qaeda wasn't part of that government; only having been associated with it, which is not sufficient justification for war on the Taliban. Heck, the U.S. is far more criminal; and long has been!
I said in my prior post to have believed to have read that the Taliban had offered to hand over OBL prior to the launch of the war, and the Wikipedia page I already excerpted from, which is the same one I'll again excerpt from, below, doesn't confirm this; BUT, it does say that the Taliban had offered to put OBL on trial in an Islamic court, under Islamic law, in Afghanistan on Oct 7, 2001. The page also says that the Taliban initially offered to hand over OBL to a third country on Oct. 14th, instead of the 17th.
EXCERPT:
September 11, 2001 attacks
...
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.[57] 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[58] 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[59]
* 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."
Many noted that of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September 11, none were Afghans (fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon).[60] None lived in Afghanistan (they lived in Hamburg). None trained in Afghanistan (they trained in Florida). None went to flight school in Afghanistan (that training occurred in Minnesota).[61]
The Taliban government responded through their embassy in Pakistan, asserting that there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. They also stressed that bin Laden was a guest in their country. Pashtun and Taliban codes of behavior require that guests be granted hospitality and asylum.[62]
On September 22, 2001, the United Arab Emirates, and on the following day, Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties.[citation needed]
On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military hostilities, the Taliban offered to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.[63] This offer was rejected by the U.S., and the bombing of targets within Afghanistan by U.S. and British forces commenced the same day.
On October 14, 2001, seven days into the U.S./British bombing campaign, the Taliban offered to surrender bin Laden to a third country for trial, if the bombing halted and they were shown evidence of his involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks. This offer was also rejected by Bush, who declared "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty." [64]
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). There is some debate as to whether UNSC authorization was required, centered around the question of whether the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or an act of aggression.[65]
The Bush administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[66] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[67]
On December 20, 2001, the UNSC did authorize the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with authority to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[68] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on August 11, 2003.[69]
END OF EXCERPT
Ref. 62 refers to the following article.
"Why Bombing and Warnings Are Not Working"
by Hasan Jafri and Lewis Dolinsky, San Fran. Chronicle, Oct 16, 2001
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1016-09.htm
The first paragraph reads:
"PRESIDENT BUSH has told the Taliban that the bombing of Afghanistan will end if they give up Osama bin Laden and comply with other U.S. demands. This proposition may play well in Peoria or even London but not in Kabul or Kandahar."
Ref. 63 is the following article.
"U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden", Oct 7, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban
And ref. 64 is the following article. Actually, because what I excerpt from the article is too much for one post, with all of the above text, I'll make another post for ref. 64 in the above excerpt from Wikipedia.
Continuing with my immediately-above post, for ref. 64 from the Wikipedia page, it's for the following article.
"Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
9.30pm update: * Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt
* Second week of airstrikes starts
* Taliban urges US to halt bombing"
by Guardian staff and agencies, Oct 14, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
EXCERPT:
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".
...
Before the start of the air campaign, the Taliban had demanded evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in the attack and had offered to try him before an Islamic court inside Afghanistan - proposals that the US promptly rejected.
END OF EXCERPT
Also see the article from Brad Blog that I fully quoted further below. It was the 60th post before making this one, so this one should make it 61, now; unless other people make replies before the post I just made. So just check from post 61 onward, a little further. It's a post regarding Sibel Edmonds telling us about Osama Bin Ladin, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban and U.S. government having been quite or very "tight" right up to Sept. 11, 2001. It adds a little sour-lemon twist, say, to the whole history of this war on Afghanistan.
Unka 'Bomb: Hey, Mr. Taliban, Tali B Banana (republic of US, that is). Daylight go and we wan' come home! - The Dupes.
The US is not interested in negotiations for peace! They want war to fill the pockets of the military industrial complex elite from all the weapons sales! The elite also enjoy their power for murdering and torturing innocent people, including children!!! Jung, the father of depth psychology, explicitly said that evil exists in the world and we had better figure out how to deal with it!! How to deal with the great evil terrorist nations of the world, Israel and the U.S. ???
Telling the truth to power and lies, A Common Dreams tradition, can only help.
In fact, it may be the most important way to deal with evil.
Compared to seeing Mr. Obama's using of the Nobel Peace Prize speech for the imprinting of enemy imagery, through use of the "evil" loose in the world phrase and other dehumanizing statements, with calling the US "evil" and raising the ante with Israel is "evil", I agree Common Dreams is a much better way to deal with "evil"; and more in accord with Jung's concept and experience of "God"--"a "morally evolving personality" (is the extraordinary conception of Answer to Job)". With his speech, Mr. Obama reveals himself to be an intelligent though not overly tempered by a deep human experience, thus he organizes (perhaps in part due to the "boxing lessons" from his step-father, or the disappearance of family and family friends in Indochina) under a fantastical concept of "evil", an "evil" which can pop out from behind any door or tree; thus his further imprinting of "evil" enemy imagery in the form of "Al Qaeda" and "Taliban" is perhaps the most heinous result of his usage of the Nobel speech opportunity. Of course it will be a tough task to overcome the enemy imagery mantra, now chanted for 10 years from the White House, and emblazed daily and nightly by the MSM, but not an impossible one -- the basic requirement is human recognition (at every turn, whenever possible), like the spreading of this article, and the fact of earlier (1990's) negotiations with the Taliban(Mujahideen) would achieve.
Can you imagine why these officials would "remain silent" about a negotiated deal that could end the Afghan conflict? Here we've just committed to a military "surge" of our own and are urging NATO nations to do the same; and we're urging Pakistan to send its military forces to their border to clean out the "nest" of Al-Qaeda supposedly residing there. To accomplish by negotiation rather than by what we (mistakenly) think could be accomplished by force of arms would be to admit that we were exaggerating the power of military forces to achieve a peaceful settlement in AfPak. (The "Obama" war to achieve peace "doctrine" at Oslo.) So much for the "change" toward negotiation with the "enemy" that the Obama regime was to have inaugurated. Obama is stuck in a quagmire of his as much as of Bush's making and we're getting out of this thing not by negotiating with "evil," but we're getting out when we whip their asses and come out with our "honor" even if it kills us (it will).
God bless macho America!
The Taliban offerred to turn members of Al Qaeda over before and the US refused outright. The US does not want peace.
Take a look at Iran. Iran has offerred to turn over their stockpile of nuclear material over in a neutral site in exchange for fuel for their Nuclear power program. This is what the US was DEMANDING.
The US is now refusing this offer and asking for more sanctions.
Why?
Iran does not want to turn over all its stockpiles at one time. They did this once before with France and france then refused to return it. They do not trust the West and insisted they be allowed to turn over a portion at a time.
The same happened with the US making demands they thought Iraq would never agree to (UN Inspectors) and once Iraq had agreed, the US changes their terms.
See North Korea as another example. It was not North Korea that failed to live up to the agreement they signed with Washington regarding the development of Nuclear weapons. GW Bush came to power and unilaterally refused to honor the terms the previous Governmnet had agreed to. It was only then that North Korea restarted its program.
The US Government can not be trusted.
Excellent points. The US accusations of deviousness toward other nations are breathtaking in their hypocracy. And worse, with it's stupendous military, the US is never, nor has been since 1945, in a position where it could not accept such offers, monitor, then respond if the agreement is broken. This point alone is all the proof of US global malfeasance that I need.
The US has been the biggest threat to world peace and harmony for 64 years, 4 months, 10 days, and counting.
The US demanded that they turn bin laden over to the US. The Taliban only offered to turn him over to a third party.
Your point? Al Qaeda members would have been in custody and all the US had to do was provide proof they were behind 9/11.
This would have meant an Invasion of Afghanistan not needed.
The US Government can never be relied on to keep their word. They are liars. They sent diplomats to Canada and LIED to the Canadian Government about having proof that Iraq had WMDS in an attempt to get Canada to join in on the unwarranted aggression on that country.
They LIE to their closest allies. If a FRIEND of mine LIED to me in order to get me to partake in a crime with him, I would never trust his word again and he would no longer be a friend.
I responded to point 1 in the prof rebuttal. They wanted to force the US to turn over classified information.
Second, the recent Blair comments confirm what I have always suspected about the Iraq invasion. It was the global version of a blanket party, off the record no body saw anything.
So the US had Intel On the identity of the 9/11 bombers that was classified? was it so classified they could not even prevent the attacks?
You are full of it. They had no "Information".
They had so little incriminating information about Osama bin Ladin in relation to the 9-11, 2001, attacks that to this day the FBI still doesn't have him listed as Wanted by the U.S. for these attacks; because to this day, the U.S. DoJ or Supreme Court hasn't ruled him as guilty in those attacks.
Wow, talk about "classified information"; it's so classified the U.S. Supreme Court or DoJ hasn't been allowed to see it in order to be able to evaluate whether, or not, it proves that OBL is guilty for or in the 9-11 attacks.
Way to go, guess who. Quite a joker you are; or an idiot, or liar.
"The US demanded that they turn bin laden over to the US. The Taliban only offered to turn him over to a third party."
Not true, as I point out above they were prepared to extradite him to the US after an extradition hearing. This offer preceded the third party offer. Second time you've made this statement, what is your agenda? Mine is truth.
You mean making America cough up all its intel on al-qaida?
You mean like the Intel that claimed WMDS in Iraq?
If America has shown one thing over the past 30 years. It has no intelligence.
TheProf,
See my reply to your post further above, the one you're referring to; my second reply to it, that is.
With what guarantees, how will it be monitored, what is the penalty if they are found to violate the agreement, is the Taliban a cohesive enough organization that the leadership can extert that kind of control over all it's members, and the entire country..."
And I was going to say, the Bush administration proved that a country cannot guarantee it will abide by its legal agreements.
Well, you want to know what guarantees...
Good question that can only be answered by negotiation.
Take a chance on peace, and you can always go back to WAR.
Silence Spreads Evil.
Not just Bush. Actually, several administrations.
The US has abrogated all it's legal responsibilities to the climate change agreements in Rio in 1992.
Right on, again, WTF.
Ask some Native Americans about treaties with the Great White Father.
jm 11:01 ------ To relieve you of all your apprehensions.
Yes to your last two questions.
And your first three questions fall under the domain of a standard treaty.
Relax you might even enjoy peace after awhile.
Brilliant minds at work in Oslo.
Who should we give the Peace prize too?
How about that guy who refused to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
Ya Ya Ya !
Though to be fair one poster did claim Obomber stopping the deployment of israeli nuclear armed ships off Iran as the reason for the Prize.????????????
This is not the first time that the Taliban have offered a deal. If I recall correctly, the US has not negotiated with the Taliban since the late 1990s. All negotiations with the Taliban ceased after the Taliban awarded an oil pipeline construction/maintenance contract to a non-US company. The US also withdrew all financial and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan at the same time.
I think this is correct, and hope that a CDer with better memory than mine will fill in the details, or correct me if I am wrong.
Interesting point. I don't even have a memory of that. If someone knows will they please jump in here.
Henry, the wikipedia page on Bridas is a good starting point.
Thanks.
The U.S. may well make a deal with the Taliban. What you can count on is this, the U.S. must have control of the pipeline routes. If that requires troops, a reason will be found and/or manufactured to justify troops. Global warming or no, the fossil-fuel wars will continue and become more intense. If you want to stop energy wars, join the movement to stop wasting energy, the movement to elminate the private auto, the movement for free public transit.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
The Taliban is ready to stop meddling.
The US is not.
""The real threat to U.S. military power is nuclear proliferation, because if every little country has nuclear weapons it becomes very tricky for the United States to engage in military action."
Immanuel Wallerstein
Brilliant move! Let's see how Mr. Smart reacts to this one. I would put on hold all war preparations and sit down with the Talibans, but I am not that smart.
Obama and the so-called powers in Washington are nothing more than sock-puppets for the Corporations and The Bilderberg Group. These are the ones who pull the levers and push the buttons in Washington. These are power broker elitists headed by David Rockefeller whose idol happens to be Hitler and Hitler's methodology of bringing the masses under domination, indoctrination and enslavement. There is big money involved here but unfortunately it won't be for the American people, the benefactors will be the same ones that have been pulling the strings all along, the ones who tell us how long this war will last and where the next war will be, the same ones who imploded the mortgage loan disaster and the same ones who now are preparing a lab engineered virus called H1N1, they are also the ones who are plotting the take over and development of the "carbon trade" system they want to launch which if it succeeds will bring us into the a new Global System where our Bill of Rights and Constitution will mean nothing, go to healthfreedomusa.org and find out the details about the H1N1 vaccine. Go to the Endgame.com or Infowars.com or just do your own research.
Just tell people to read, "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" by Daniel Estulin......and then they could read the chapter on The Council on Foreign Relations....Almost all of Obama´s advisors are members of The Council on Foreign Relations........
There is no way Obama negotiates with The Taliban.....This is a "Never Ending War". They would probably destroy "The Oil Pipeline" and not allow American Bases in their country.
The Enemy is within our own government and that enemy has control of us.