Al Jazeera English: US denies 'direct Taliban contact'

[SealLion]

Well, folks. It's that time of year again.

It's AJE time.
So sit back and one.

let's begin the fun, shall we.....

Apparantly,....

Washington is not in "direct contact" with the Taliban as part of efforts to reintegrate anti-government fighters, the US envoy for Afghanistan has said.

This is not entirely true as Canadain military officials have been in contact with the Tali's for some time now.

If Canada and even the Afghan governments do, I'm sure that other military organizations involved in fighting the Taliban do.

Here's what I mean:

Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, said Sunday that a plan to offer vocational training and jobs to Taliban fighters who lay down their weapons....

well, if the Canadians have a plan to offer vocational training, then wouldn't it make sense to have communicated beforehand to the Taliban about stopping fighting??

The Afghan official in charge of reconciliation efforts with the Taliban said ...... that the government has regular contact with the group, but said no comprehensive talks are underway............."There were some contacts, and the contacts will continue,.............a variety of Afghan government institutions have been involved in the talks, including security forces

Seems like the Afghanistan government is also in communique with the Taliban

also...

On Jan. 28, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the establishment of an international fund to be used to reintegrate Taliban fighters

Well, if a fund was established, then most likely there was beforehand an effort made to communicate something, re: intergration and subsequently a fund developed for an eventual (and hoped for) reintegration.

Well, if the UK is, then why is the US not involved in talks with the made-for-TV terrroist group??
Either they are stupid and everyone else on the fighting lines is smart, or they are literally behind the times when involved in fighting your enemy.

What I mean is the effort of communication with your enemy to get to a resolution. That's what I mean.

Most states involved in some kind of dispute over something do communicate to resolve issues. Seems the US doesn't partake in communication, I guess.

Here's a quick link to the above qoutes:

LINK

sO back to the main headlined story:

"The press, since London, has been kind of obsessed with the idea that there are all sorts of secret talks going on with the Taliban.

"So I want to state very clearly that our nation is not involved in any direct contacts with the Taliban,....

so what are they hiding...they must be hiding something. Or like opined above, they are incredibly stupid for not engaging in communication with the enemy.

Washington and its allies agreed in London to support efforts by Hamid Karzai, ....... to persuade fighters not ideologically committed to the Taliban or al-Qaeda to lay down their arms in exchange for financial rewards and jobs.

So they have been in communique re: financial rewards, like briefly mentioned above at least. Well, wouldn't it make sense to have brought up such a discussion with the Taliban stating that if:

'you lay down your weapons and stop fighting, you'll get financial rewards??"
and if you do that, we may integrate you otherwise as well??



Some pple in the insugency group also are on the same lines;

Hussein Shobokshi, a Saudi-based columnist for the Alsharq Alawsat newspaper, told Al Jazeera there are wings in the Taliban that believe it is time for serious dialogue with the government to find a peaceful solution to the problems in Afghanistan..........."We are seeing another Taliban - that is more politically savvy and realistic,.......

LINK

in the above quote, keep in mind that the person being interviewed is talking about Taliban members that are more moderate opposed to the one's that are more extremist oriented and state they refuse to integrate.

A Taliban commander told Al Jazeera that no member of the group would be prepared to take part in talks if they were required to disarm first.

"I confirm that none of us will lay down arms even if he is paid mountains of money; none of us would abandon the right path," ........

However, ......... no one commander spoke for all the pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in the country and therefore it was difficult to gauge what the response to overtures from the government might be.

LINK

HEre's the article link for this topic:

Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - US denies 'direct Taliban contact'

Over all, I'm kind confused. Either I am not reading and interpreting the article correctly and am missing something, or the US is really holding 'secret' talks with the moderate Taliban at least.

[slikrapid]

a plan to offer vocational training and jobs to Taliban fighters who lay down their weapons.

they sure know how to invent new areas that are in need of additional funding, the usa government said it would support such a plan with some $500 mil., also notice this is essentially bribery, painting those people as ignorant (believe anyone's ideology) & dishonest (they have supposedly enlisted as fighters because of poverty - offer them money and they will join you, sounds like mercenaries)

would be interesting to see (without them knowing it is being recorded ofc) what kind of indoctrination will they be spreading on these trainings (so called afghanisation, i guess they teach how to be a good obedient citizen: they say jump, you say...) and what kind of companies would be involved there

Holbrooke said that this would run "in parallel" to military efforts, stepped up with the deployment of almost 40,000 more international troops to join the 110,000 already in Afghanistan, and the training of Afghan security forces.

more than a 1/3 increase in troops for 'security & training' reasons, basically whatever they want to do next, more troops are needed


a political analyst from afghanistan (2nd video below) interestingly talks about, as he said 3 types of taliban in the country: 'black'/'grey'/'white' talibans, with the 'black' (what he meant as 'bad') being foreigners, coming from outside afghanistan, that are actually some sort of instigators of bloodshed & ideas about suicide bombings (the al-qaida type) - he wasn't able to finish as he got quickly interrupted by the programs host - i would be inclined to think that this was sort of a glimpse at the reality, that this terrorist threat idea was actually imported to afghanistan with the purpose to ignite parts of the country & in effect justify a foreign military intervention

another interesting point is the significant saudi arabia involvement in the negotiating process, since we know the bin ladens come from saudi arabia, they were/are business partners with the usa, have connections with usa government & presidents (remember how bush granted them safe passage via airplane from usa just days after 9/11, when no one could fly in the whole country without special permissions, especially since the prime suspects were already revealed on the 13th, moreover later on bush insisted this family to be exempt from any kind of investigations regarding the subject), until now saudi arabia has been untouched by any western military intervention (afaik mainstream media reports were positive too) - imo it is quite possible that this area is actually the main generator of new emerging terrorist threats in the middle east, sort of a logistics base where training & operations are conceived (a cooperation with the most involved western powers) & implemented by connecting to different militant organizations throughout middle east (and maybe further), sending new trainers & instigators to spread their propaganda with islamistic overtones, as these individuals actually play a role resembling that of an infiltrated agent with a task to complete

this may explain why no effort seems to be enough to stop the 'threat', as if the rebels have tentacles spread all over the world (9/11) & middle east, which logically is unimaginable without a serious & numerous backup in funding/military experience/intelligence sources/personnel/organization/transportation/equipment/armament/connections with other militant organizations - anything this large in scale can only be attributed to the usa & its sources (military, cia,...), a logical assumption even without foreknowledge of any background considering these conflict(s)

one of the connections here with other warnings about the al qaida credibility, like...:

- its name, meaning 'the list'
- sudden rise from obscurity
- sudden 'supernatural' abilities (see the scale of expertize needed as written above)
- convenient culpability
- subsequent laws & regulations passed in the western countries
- reasoning for military interventions/actions that followed & their effects

...is this ability to quickly & covertly shift their headquarters after they complete an operation or before a western counter-attack - now imagine they don't ever shift their HQ in reality, as it is conveniently located away from global attention, within saudi arabia, in no fear of retaliation or media attention - so they don't need to move, just to train more agents & send them where needed to start an uprising or infiltrate groups suitable for this purpose, keep the tensions high and wait for the order (from HQ) to begin creating public disturbance when needed


so SealLion, to resolve the perplexity you mentioned earlier, if we wanted to be thorough, the usa is not contacting the taliban directly - they are either contacting their own agents (working as taliban instigators, not real taliban) or the current afghanistan government, this way the statement would actually be true

again, the same analyst (2nd video below) noted that international negotiations are being conducted as if the afghanistan people caught in the conflict (represented as members of various tribes, lead by councils of tribe elders) aren't important to be included (may be intentional to prolong the current situation, keeping it chaotic & complicated), he suggested to start from the tribes, where each tribe member would apply what elders concluded, which imo may sort out who is actually really causing the trouble there (or at least show who isn't), he also mentioned these tribes actually cannot be called the taliban (makes you wonder if the taliban themselves are actually minor groups creating confusion & enlisting dissatisfied volunteers from those tribes), furthermore international 'signs of good will' by removing taliban leader names from blacklists are according to him practically meaningless as these individuals have no major support in the country (basically a smokescreen action by the international community)

and they keep mentioning how the current afghanistan president has low influence (sway) on his citizens, that he is weak, etc. - which shouldn't be surprising as throughout his years of having an official leading role in afghanistan (from 2001), he had a close connection to the usa (probably closer than a simple friendly relationship, he was their person for the job) - since then there has been a decade of bloodshed without much improvement, so he evidently didn't rise up to the task as the citizens were expecting

parts taken from videos:

Taliban payout could be unpopular

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/01/20101293832374172.html

Is 'Afghanisation' possible?

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/01/2010128132220903967.html

this one is quite informative (skip the american guest though) - i remember saying on one occasion that it would be a better practice to independently report from the actual areas of conflict, including the more direct participants, preferably from the country, instead of just revolving foreign analysts & opinions from some external organizations like the mainstream media, other governments, international panel members, etc.

[SealLion]

.....that this terrorist threat idea was actually imported to afghanistan with the purpose to ignite parts of the country & in effect justify a foreign military intervention

Now that is an interesting theory.

Can you clear something up here, slik??

Not only that, but to propogate a potential 'colony' in the middle east.
Not a colony per se, but more so a continual occupation of one.
That is, have as many of the Tali's that are moderate, give up thier weapons, have more troops occupy and 'fight' the Tali's all in the name of helping that country.

.....moreover later on bush insisted this family to be exempt from any kind of investigations regarding the subject),

with respect to what exactly??
are you talking about complicity in those events??

......t is quite possible that this area is actually the main generator of new emerging terrorist threats in the middle east, sort of a logistics base where training & operations are conceived (a cooperation with the most involved western powers) & implemented by connecting to different militant organizations throughout middle east (and maybe further), sending new trainers & instigators to spread their propaganda with islamistic overtones, as these individuals actually play a role resembling that of an infiltrated agent with a task to complete

that coincides with your theory as stated above. An interesting idea slik. which might hold water considering the invention of terrorists to cause calamity and confusion and fear in today's current global trends regarding security, the intended need for one as per governments ideas of implementing such actions and manovering towards such thing. This brings to mind a post I made here not long ago about the UK increasing it's security level amidst some recent events.
Remember that event and the UK's suppossed justification for increased security??

[slikrapid]

Not only that, but to propogate a potential 'colony' in the middle east.
Not a colony per se, but more so a continual occupation of one.
That is, have as many of the Tali's that are moderate, give up thier weapons, have more troops occupy and 'fight' the Tali's all in the name of helping that country.

sure, its one possibility, you could call it added/extra (if not original) benefit for the invasion plan masterminds/originators

the taliban (meaning 'students' - again the strange name choice) themselves have a history of cooperation with usa (military, cia) and conveniently that specific cooperation gave them enough momentum to seize power in afgahanistan during the nineties - one might say they were being assisted towards a position & set up for a fall by foreign intelligence agency(ies) - in both instances they were actually serving a rather covert usa (or global goal if you like) goal (as needed at the time)

with respect to what exactly??
are you talking about complicity in those events??

yes - if a prime suspect is known, the investigators would logically dig everything they can about him, including connections & dealings of/with the suspect's relatives, yet this area (among others) was off limits to the investigators

This brings to mind a post I made here not long ago about the UK increasing it's security level amidst some recent events.
Remember that event and the UK's suppossed justification for increased security??

ah, the 'severe' threat

http://www.sb-innovation.de/showthre...threadid=18379

[SealLion]

Ah, yes. That's correct. The Taliban who , apparently were known as the Mujaheddin back in the day when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, were co-operating along with the Americans. Now, it is being made to seem as if the Taliban are the enemies of the NATO alliance in Afghanistan.

It's a secret cooperation that is actually going on.
The one's in the higher levels of the Taliban are, I am sure, aware of cooperative measures with the US and a few others, no doubt re: this whole scenario, are making it look like they are fighting tooth and nail, but in the lower echelons of the Taliban, the fighters most likely don't know a damn thing other than the fact that they're supposed to be mortal enemies with the current troops in that country.