Karzai will protect Mullah Omar if he negotiates peace

SteveGrenard

Philosopher
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
5,528
Well GW must be having apoplexy on this news. If this works there goes Afghanistan.
And we still didn't get bin Leden. And then there is the drugs.



Afghan leader pledges to protect Taliban from US

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he will personally protect the former head of Afghanistan's Taliban regime from the US if he joins peace talks.

By Ben Farmer in Kabul
Last Updated: 3:51PM GMT 16 Nov 2008

Afghan leader Hamid Karzai is willing to hold talks with any groups which recognise the country's constitution(*), including the Taliban.

Mr Karzai said he would go "to any length" to protect Mullah Mohammad Omar, who has a $10 million price on his head from the US government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...eader-pledges-to-protect-Taliban-from-US.html

(*)Er, the very same Constitution discussed previously that is subservient to the laws of Islam and Sharia.

The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, yesterday defied the international community to stop him negotiating with the Taliban's supreme leader, Mullah Omar, after returning from London where he had talks at Downing Street last week. During a news conference at the presidential palace, President Karzai offered Mullah Omar asylum, if he agreed to talk peace. London and Washington maintain they will not support negotiations with Taliban extremists such as Mullah Omar. But in a surprise ultimatum, President Karzai challenged those who did not support his plans.

"If I hear from [Mullah Omar] that he is willing to come to Afghanistan, or to negotiate for peace, I, as the President of Afghanistan, will go to any length to provide protection," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/first-soldier-dies-in-armoured-bus-1021720.html

It is curious that now that the rest of the world including the U.S. is taking the heroin trade in Afghanistan seriously and seriously want to stop it Karzai suddenly decides to play this gambit.
 
Last edited:
Karzai must not have seen the youtube clip of what a .50 cal sniper rifle can do. I don't think he can back up his promise of protection. I doubt Mullah Omar believes him either.

DR
 
Karzai must not have seen the youtube clip of what a .50 cal sniper rifle can do. I don't think he can back up his promise of protection. I doubt Mullah Omar believes him either.

DR

Which makes me think why wasn't both Afghanistan and Iraq handled by a .50 cal sniper rifle saving a number of human beings both theirs and ours and money!!
 
Which makes me think why wasn't both Afghanistan and Iraq handled by a .50 cal sniper rifle saving a number of human beings both theirs and ours and money!!

Actually according to some analysts the situation in Afghanistan today is the result of doing just about nothing where the Taliban is concerned. Although there is that ten million dollar reward for Mullah Mohammed Omar....

Taliban leader runs free, targets Afghanistan

By Jonathan S. Landay
jlanday@mcclatchydc.com

Published: Sunday, Nov. 16, 2008 | Page 21A

WASHINGTON – For seven years, the Bush administration has pursued al-Qaida but done almost nothing to hunt down the Afghan Taliban leadership in its sanctuaries in Pakistan, and that's left Mullah Mohammad Omar and his deputies free to direct an escalating war against the U.S.-backed Afghan government.

The administration's decision, U.S. and NATO officials said, has allowed the Taliban to regroup, rearm and recruit at bases in southwestern Pakistan. Since the Islamic movement's resurgence began in early 2005, it's killed at least 626 U.S.-led NATO troops, 301 of them Americans, along with thousands of Afghans, and handed President-elect Barack Obama a growing guerrilla war with no end in sight.

http://www.sacbee.com/501/story/1401299.html
 
This is an aside, but has anyone listened to Karzai speak? He's a remarkably eloquent individual.

I'm not sure about this decision. Frankly I could be persuaded that saving new lives via a successful peace process is more important than retribution for the already dead--but the devil is in the details.
 
Karzai must not have seen the youtube clip of what a .50 cal sniper rifle can do. I don't think he can back up his promise of protection. I doubt Mullah Omar believes him either.

DR
.
If that's the video I'm familiar with, it's 1) not a .50 cal. sniper rifle, but a smaller caliber varmint rifle, and 2) those aren't "insurgents/terrorists/AlQuada/whathave you" getting tossed around, but ordinary 1 pound rock chucks in Idaho, I believe.
It would be spiffy if Omar's location could be pinned down, and then visited by a Maverick missile off a Predator UAV.
 
This is an aside, but has anyone listened to Karzai speak? He's a remarkably eloquent individual.

I'm not sure about this decision. Frankly I could be persuaded that saving new lives via a successful peace process is more important than retribution for the already dead--but the devil is in the details.

I'm not talking about retribution, terror is a tool, and that is President Bush's greatest mistake. He honestly thought the world was ready to denounce terror he was wrong.
 
This is an aside, but has anyone listened to Karzai speak? He's a remarkably eloquent individual.

I'm not sure about this decision. Frankly I could be persuaded that saving new lives via a successful peace process is more important than retribution for the already dead--but the devil is in the details.

The statement is pure PR. Karzai's goverment has aims that are entirely incompatible with the taliban so negotiations are likely to make little progress.

However it sends out the message he is the reasonable one. He is prepared to talk. Taliban will have to justify to it's followers and potential recruits why it will not take him up on the offer. It also makes it clear that people towards the edge of the taliban can make a deal.
 
It looks like the Taliban is not buying Karzai's offer if this has any truth to it:

Sensing weakness on the part of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government, representatives of the Taliban movement are talking tough. The radical Islamic group on November 17 brushed off a security guarantee offered by Karzai in order to enter into peace talks, saying that such negotiations can begin only after the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan.

Karzai extended his offer on November 16, saying that he would guarantee the safety of Taliban leader Mullah Omar to attend peace talks. Karzai apparently made the offer in defiance of the United States and other nations who have troop contingents in Afghanistan. "I, as the president of Afghanistan, will go to any length providing protection," Karzai said. "If I say I want protection for Mullah Omar, the international community has two choices: remove me or leave if they disagree."

The Taliban, by rejecting Karzai’s offer, solved any dilemma that might have confronted Washington. Even so, a State Department official hinted that the US government was not amused with Karzai’s freelance diplomacy.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav111708e.shtml

So when is the contract for foreign occupation of Afghanistan expire? Is there a UN
agreement or other agreement similar to Iraq in effect for Afghanistan?
 
Last edited:
The Taliban, by rejecting Karzai’s offer, solved any dilemma that might have confronted Washington. Even so, a State Department official hinted that the US government was not amused with Karzai’s freelance diplomacy.

I can only guess that this is referring to the following press conference exchange. Can someone tell me where the "hint" of displeasure is?

QUESTION: The – President Karzai has made an offer to safeguard or to guarantee the safety of Mullah Omar if he were to be willing to engage in negotiations. What does the Bush Administration think about such an offer?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well – and I have his transcript here as well, and he was talking about this in terms of political reconciliation in Afghanistan. And he makes quite clear in the transcript that in order for there to be political reconciliation or even to have discussions, the Taliban or others need to be willing to abide by the laws and the constitution of Afghanistan, to put aside their – you know, their arms, you know, to forego violence against Afghanistan and the Afghan state.

And it’s quite clear that the Taliban has not made that decision. Whether it’s Mullah Omar or on down, you have numerous examples of the fact that they have not turned away from violence, they have not turned away from trying to subvert the progress Afghanistan has made, and they have not turned away from using violence against Afghan citizens. There was just a terrible incident within the past week or so where the Taliban threw acid at schoolgirls, just – you know, just an awful, awful attack, the kind of – that brings back memories of the kind of violence that the Taliban perpetrated against the Afghan people while they had control of Afghanistan.

So, you know, President Karzai, as I read the transcript, was laying out a set of conditions, and a set of conditions whereby if individuals met them, then there would be the possibility of this reconciliation. But he makes quite clear when he says here, “But we are not at that stage yet. Right now, I have yet to hear from the Taliban leadership that they are willing to have peace in Afghanistan. They have to prove – they must prove themselves.”

So, you know, in a sense, that is – you know, that sort of hypothetical in no way addresses the current situation you have in Afghanistan or the – in Afghanistan. And so, in that sense, I don’t interpret his – President Karzai’s remarks as offering some sort of amnesty or safe passage to Mullah Omar.
QUESTION: Well, but I mean, here’s the thing. I mean, the way my colleagues, you know, interpreted it and the way it has been reported was that he was offering some kind of safe passage or a guarantee of safety. And the thing that I find perplexing is, given you just alluded to the violence perpetrated by the Taliban against his own people, let alone, you know, 9/11, I don’t understand why the Bush Administration, which has a $10 million reward out on Mullah Omar, would find it remotely acceptable, the idea of bringing someone like him into --
MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not saying we do.
QUESTION: Well, but do you or don’t you?
MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not – we’re not negotiating with the Taliban, and the Rewards for Justice program that you mentioned concerning Mullah Omar still is very much in place.
QUESTION: So you would oppose this?
MR. MCCORMACK: we are still fighting against those who would attack us and threaten us. We are still fighting against those who are threatening and attacking the Afghan state.
QUESTION: Right. So why are you reluctant to say yes, we oppose this, this is a man we hold responsible partly – or partly responsible for the deaths of, you know – you know, 3,000 American and other citizens in 2001?
MR. MCCORMACK: Look, we are – you know, we are going after the Taliban and that includes Mullah Omar, as evidenced by the Rewards for Justice program. There’s no evidence that the Taliban is turning away from violence. You know, all of that said --
QUESTION: Well, shouldn’t you --
MR. MCCORMACK: All of that said, there – you know, President Karzai insists and – that there needs to be a reconciliation, a political reconciliation within Afghanistan. You know, we have seen in other places, like Iraq for example, that political reconciliation is important. Now, the Iraqi example and the Afghan example are completely separate in terms of the facts on the ground and the situations. But this is something that President Karzai thinks is important trying to lay out the possibility of a reconciliation. You know, for our part, we certainly are not going to negotiate with the Taliban.

 
There seems to be a mixed bag of reactions including hints of displeasure or plain outright displeasure on this offer by Karzai. Do you have a link for the press conference you cited above?


Thursday, October 30, 2008WASHINGTON: The United States supports Afghan government efforts to reconcile with insurgents but not with Mulla Mohammed Omar, the Taliban leader who harboured al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday.“We as a government do not believe that Mulla Omar is somebody you reconcile with,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.

“Mulla Omar has the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands, based on the support he provided to Osama bin Laden. So we do not reconcile with al-Qaeda,” he said.Morrell’s comments were the most pointed rejection yet of a negotiated peace with Omar. Morrell acknowledged there has been a renewed emphasis on reconciliation that they are working to support. “We are talking about reconciling with — with insurgents within Afghanistan — not foreign fighters but insurgents within Afghanistan,” Morrell said.Afghan President Hamid Karzai has initiated contacts with the Taliban through Saudi Arabia amid growing concerns over rising violence and signs that insurgent groups are coalescing against his government.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=143936


Updated November 18, 2008 14:24:00

·
The United States has given a negative response to a plan by Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, to hold peace talks with the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar.

A White House spokesman says there are no positive signs from Mullah Omar that he is ready to renounce violence, break all ties with Al-Qaeda, and support the Afghan government and constitution.

The spokeman says the United States government is hopeful the Taliban will lay down their arms and choose to play a productive part in Afghan society but so far, he says, they continue to attack innocent civilians and coalition forces on a regular basis.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200811/s2422754.htm?tab=latest

US Cool to Amnesty for Taliban Leader
By David Gollust State Department
17 November 2008

The Bush administration Monday signaled opposition to an offer by Afghan President Hamid Karzai of safe-passage to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, if he entered peace talks with the Kabul government. The State Department said the United States will not negotiate with the Taliban. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.

Officials here are not categorically rejecting the idea of dialogue between the Kabul government and the Taliban's top leadership.

But the State Department says it would be hard to imagine the circumstances under which U.S. troops in Afghanistan would give Mullah Omar safe passage.

The Taliban leader was driven from power by U.S.-led forces in 2001, after the Islamic movement refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden in the wake of al-Qaida attacks in New York and Washington.

Mullah Omar, believed to be in hiding in western Pakistan, is high on the U.S. list of most-wanted terrorist figures and is subject to a $10 million State Department reward for his capture.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-11-17-voa54.cfm
 
.
If that's the video I'm familiar with, it's 1) not a .50 cal. sniper rifle, but a smaller caliber varmint rifle, and 2) those aren't "insurgents/terrorists/AlQuada/whathave you" getting tossed around, but ordinary 1 pound rock chucks in Idaho, I believe.
Fair enough, I know the one you refer to, but that isn't the only video I've seen. ;)
It would be spiffy if Omar's location could be pinned down, and then visited by a Maverick missile off a Predator UAV.
That, sir, is a really big if. His survival instincts are most impressive. My personal preference is one round, from .270 cal to .50 cal, pick the rifle. Twixt the eyes. Predator isn't magic.

DR
 
http://gulf-times.com/site/topics/a...=255184&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23

From the Gulf Times:

Taliban threaten attacks in Paris
DUBAI: The Taliban threatened to launch attacks in Paris unless France withdraws from Afghanistan, in a video aired by Al Arabiya television yesterday. The video also claimed an ambush that killed 10 French troops in August was carried out by the Taliban. It was not clear when the recording was made. "We have killed 10 French soldiers today as a message to the French so that they rectify their mistakes and withdraw from Afghanistan, and if they don't they will hear our response in Paris," said Mullah Farouq, identified as the commander of the unit that raided the French troops, on the video. His remarks were dubbed into Arabic by the station.

The video included footage of what appeared to be a French armoured unit being stalked by Taliban fighters. Some insurgents were later shown wearing uniforms of the French soldiers they had killed.
Mr Karzai has this to consider when he is dealing with the Taliban.

DR
 
One does have to ask, if you aren't willing to negotiate peace with the other side what do you plan to do? It's obvious that the US isn't targeting the Taliban in a way to destroy them, so their only other option I would have thought was to sit down around the table and talk rationally to get these guys to end the fighting. At least having them at the table isn't going to hurt anyone and who knows, it might even start saving lives. The current US attitude of refusing to even talk to those it deems as terrorists is patently rediculous.
 
One does have to ask, if you aren't willing to negotiate peace with the other side what do you plan to do? It's obvious that the US isn't targeting the Taliban in a way to destroy them, so their only other option I would have thought was to sit down around the table and talk rationally to get these guys to end the fighting. At least having them at the table isn't going to hurt anyone and who knows, it might even start saving lives. The current US attitude of refusing to even talk to those it deems as terrorists is patently rediculous.
I would suggest you not measure someone else's wheat by your own bushel.

Taliban position, summarized:

  • Go away
  • Leave us alone, world, this is our turf, you interfering load of :goat scrotums
  • Oh, and by the way, f:rule10 off.

Not much left to negotiate, is there? I can grasp the position the Taliban take. Who are all these damned foreigners, and what the hell are they doing here? From their position, it's a legitimate question.

In divorce cases, I hear that now and again a judge finds irreconcilable differences. This appears to be a similar case.

DR
 
I would suggest you not measure someone else's wheat by your own bushel.

Taliban position, summarized:

  • Go away
  • Leave us alone, world, this is our turf, you interfering load of :goat scrotums
  • Oh, and by the way, f:rule10 off.

Not much left to negotiate, is there?

Loads. To start with no one else actualy wants afganistan.

I can grasp the position the Taliban take. Who are all these damned foreigners, and what the hell are they doing here? From their position, it's a legitimate question.

If that was their position it would be easy to deal with. Problem is there position is also "Who are all these Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek and what are they doing?"
 
I would suggest you not measure someone else's wheat by your own bushel.

Taliban position, summarized:

  • Go away
  • Leave us alone, world, this is our turf, you interfering load of :goat scrotums
  • Oh, and by the way, f:rule10 off.

Not much left to negotiate, is there? I can grasp the position the Taliban take. Who are all these damned foreigners, and what the hell are they doing here? From their position, it's a legitimate question.

In divorce cases, I hear that now and again a judge finds irreconcilable differences. This appears to be a similar case.

DR

The problem here is that you might assume that is their position, and it might actually be, but isn't it better to sit down and talk and find out rather than operating purely on assumption you know what your opponents are thinking?
 
The problem here is that you might assume that is their position, and it might actually be, but isn't it better to sit down and talk and find out rather than operating purely on assumption you know what your opponents are thinking?
Didn't we do that in the late 90's? Even invited them here for talks IIRC.

They rewarded our efforts by allowing al Qaida a safe haven from which to attack us.
 
There have been an awful lot of wars fought over it for something no one wants.

Not as many as some other places. Afghanistan is on the way to places people actually want so armies pass through from time to time.
 

Back
Top Bottom