The United States is involved in peace talks with the Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told a youth group in Kabul on Saturday.
"Peace negotiations with the Taliban and with other countrymen have been started," Karzai told reporters after his earlier announcement on state TV. "Those who accept the constitution, freedom, democracy and development of Afghanistan can take part in this negotiation."
Representatives of the government and insurgents have been in touch, but there have been no high-level meetings, Karzai said. He added there was no specific agenda.
A senior U.S. source said there were contacts but nothing serious or substantial enough to be considered negotiations. U.S. statements are typically restrained, the source said, plus, "This is Karzai being Karzai." The source could not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.
The U.S. State Department indicated it would support reconciliation talks in Afghanistan.
"We must help create conditions necessary to enable political settlement among the Afghan people," department spokeswoman Megan Mattson said. "This includes reconciling those insurgents who are willing to renounce al Qaeda, forsake violence and adhere to the Afghan constitution."
The U.N. Security Council split a key sanctions list on al Qaeda and the Taliban on Friday with an eye toward reconciliation in Afghanistan.
The move makes it easier to add and remove people and entities from the sanctions lists. The council also established specific criteria for having an individual delisted. The vote was unanimous.
"It sends a clear signal that now is the time for the Taliban to come forward and join the political process," Mark Lyall Grant, the British ambassador to the United Nations, told the council.
At a news conference with Karzai earlier this month, outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates talked about making changes in Afghanistan.
"I believe that if we can hold on to the territory that has been recaptured from the Taliban ourselves and the Afghan forces and perhaps expand that security, that we will be in a position toward the end of this year to perhaps have a successful opening with respect to reconciliation, or at least be in a position where we can say we've turned a corner here in Afghanistan," Gates said, referring to political reconciliation talks.
Gates made the statement during his last visit to Afghanistan as defense secretary. Karzai awarded Gates the Wazir Akbar Khan medal, the highest governmental award.
What do you guys think? Is it about time? Or a waste of time?
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
there is no single "taliban" entity, rather a number of tribal "Talibans"
talks with some, if successful, might only curb the violence. Much like in Gaza, there is now a culture of that sort of thing in NW Pakistan, and regardless of the government that is left in Kabul, these people will continue to attack, even if "Taliban" leaders tell them to stop.
Blaxian, 'freedom fighters' who stone people to death, cut off noses, restrict women's basic rights, live by extreme Sharia law . . . do some more research. Nearly forgot too - suicide bombers. Hmm . . .
__________________ "Great men are forged in fire. It is the privilege of lesser men to light the flame . . . whatever the cost"
- torture
- execution
- have less progressive views on women
- extreme religiosity
- are willing to die for their cause
...
I have trouble thinking of an army on the planet that doesn't fit most, if not all, of these, especially if we allow more general than specific definitions
The American Armed forces, for instance, rewards soldiers who fight on in the face of unavoidable death. How this differs from a suicide bomber... well, I'm sure you'll provide the details.
The soldier probably doesn't plan to die when he wakes up that morning. I think that can be set aside as irrelevant.
The soldier is defending what he believes in to his last breath. Of course the suicide bomber is doing the same thing.
The soldier, however, is fighting rather than just dying. I tend to respect the effort involved in a valiant last stand but the ultimate result is the same (unless the means justify the ends?).
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
well, yes, but the suicide bomber is fighting as well
I think the best example would be the suicide bombing of military checkpoints. If the military strategy is, "we need to take out that checkpoint", but you are an insurgent group against the strongest military on the planet, a suicide bomb is a far better combat strategy than is an assault of any kind.
The knowledge that they are going to die, to me, is moot, especially as there are numerous examples of soldiers standing and fighting when they knew the end was inevitable. The Alamo or Custard's forces come to mind.
I suppose if we define "fighting" as "conventional warfare", sure, but I see suicide bombing as more of a tactic of fighting, rather than something different from fighting all together
And what about suicide bombers who target civilians?
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
What about Blackhawk helicopter pilots who knowingly launch missiles into civilian buildings?
EDIT: in the case of that type of suicide bombing, the target is more of a psychological nature. Civilian bombings, in asymmetric warfare at least, are a tactic that attempts to dissuade the more powerful army from fighting or prevent civilians from assisting the stronger power. If the point is, "Americans don't have suicide bombers who target civilians", ok, sure... but so what? they don't need to resort to asymmetric tactics. They certainly do have people willing to give their lives in combat, and they do have people who will deliberately attack civilians, and I imagine there is at least some overlap between the groups. tbh, I think the closest analogy to this would be the destruction of civilian infrastructure to prevent the army from being able to fight, while also essentially grinding any local economy to a halt.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Jun 22nd, 2011 at 05:41 PM
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 20th, 2011 05:52 PM
