Taliban set preconditions for formal peace talks

[bemildred]

Source: AP in WaPo

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Taliban officials have engaged in periodic, discreet contacts with Afghan and U.S. officials for months but are unwilling to move to formal peace negotiations until the U.S. agrees to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops, according to a Pakistani intelligence official and members of a newly formed Afghan peace council.

The White House said Wednesday that President Barack Obama supports attempts by the Afghan government to open peace talks with Taliban leaders, but still wants the insurgents to renounce violence and their support of al-Qaida.

However, press secretary Robert Gibbs said the United States was not taking part in any such talks. "This is about Afghanistan," he said. "It has to be done by the Afghans."

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that secret talks aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan have begun between representatives of the Taliban and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100603209.html

---

A straw in the wind?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[young but wise]

2. Hopey McChange?

:wtf: :puke:

[Chulanowa]

4. Welcome to DU

This used to be the premier liberal / Democratic website and discussion group on the internet.

Now it's a haven for a bunch of bitchy hipsters trying to impress one another by saying stupid shit about the president and democrats.

[Iowa]

10. You are partially correct...

"This used to be the premier liberal / Democratic website and discussion group on the internet."

True, but that was back in the day when it was still possible to be both a liberal and a Democrat simultaneously. Unfortunately, those days are, to a large extent, gone. The posters here are the same liberals we have always been. It's the Democratic party and its leaders who have changed.

"Now it's a haven for a bunch of bitchy hipsters trying to impress one another by saying stupid shit about the president and democrats.

Now here's where your thinking totally collapses. When Democratic leaders are criticized, such criticisms are almost always legitimate, are made in defense of liberal ideals, and are posted by genuine pro-labor, FDR-type Dems. The truth is, genuine liberal ideals are becoming less welcome here because they so frequently conflict with the rightward moving DLC-Democratic party leaders. So posters are forced to either 1) move rightward with the Democratic-DLC-corporate-driven party (a choice no one should be forced to make), or 2) continue to defend liberal ideals when it as at odds with Democratic party leaders, and run the risk of offending the Democratic-party-right-or-wrong crowd. Based on the comments here, the numbers of those who are choosing to move right-ward appear to be plummeting, while the numbers of those who are holding to their ideals appear to be growing. So, you're right, the site is definitely changing and evolving with the times.

DU administrators have some serious thinking to do, which they appear to be doing via the recent poll. Either this is a liberal site, or it isn't. It is no longer possible to be both a Democratic-party-right-or-wrong site, and a liberal site, IMO. The once-great Democratic party has gone off the rails to such an extent that it's no longer possible to pretend that nothing has changed, or to just sweep it under the rug. This would be a very, very dull place if it were purged of all the passionate, intelligent, honest liberals who regularly criticize the President and the party for their pro-war, corporate-driven behavior.

[Chulanowa]

11. Don't give me that "criticism" horseshit

"Hopey McChange" is not criticism.

There's criticism, and there's blathering right-wing horseshit. Our local "progressives" prefer the latter, because the former requires being informed and is thus, like, totally hard.

[Zax2me]

3. I don't like the idea of the Taliban...

Setting conditions for anything. Not even a meeting. Their conditions as a ruling government have been misogynistic, archaic and violence-based. And those are their high points.

[bemildred]

5. I was mostly interested in that WaPo was printing such ideas.

I was not taking a position about the merits of the Taliban.

[Zax2me]

6. Oh, yea, I know.

Was just making a general comment about the headline itself, not taking a position to the posting or you posting it at all.
Sorry, I have low post count disease!

[bemildred]

7. OK.

I don't like fundies of any stripe, anyway.

[maxsolomon]

8. this is what's going to end this - the taliban in the afghan government

it gives us cover to declare victory and leave. but it ain't karzai with the brilliant plan to try this - it's the Obama Admin.

the drone attacks on the taliban in Pakistan are the stick. the negotiations are the carrot.

[Broderick]

9. I expect

the WP to give me the facts. I can think about it beyond that. If they want peace, peace is a good thing. Conditional peace is a oxymoron. Talking about it doesn't hurt anything imo.

[Old Troop]

12. I can't help but think that it would be hysterical if we sent an all woman

team to negotiate.

[bemildred]

13. U.S. `Supportive' of Talks Between Taliban, Afghan Government, Gibbs Says

The U.S. supports reconciliation talks between the Taliban and senior officials in the Afghan government, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

“This is not something that we do with the Taliban,” Gibbs said told reporters at the White House today. “This is something that Afghans -- the Afghan government has to do with people in Afghanistan. And we have always been supportive of that reconciliation.”

Gibbs said the Taliban must renounce violence and any talks would have to be led by the Afghans. The U.S. won’t engage in direct talks, he said.

---

The talks, which are at a preliminary stage, follow meetings held in Saudi Arabia more than a year ago, the newspaper reported unnamed Afghan and Arab sources as saying. Those representing the Taliban are believed to have been “fully authorized” by the Quetta Shura, the Taliban’s top council, including the movement’s leader, Mohammad Omar, the Post said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-06/u-s-supportive-of-talks-between-taliban-afghan-government-gibbs-says.html

[bemildred]

14. Nato contractors 'attacking own vehicles' in Pakistan

---

Selling fuel

Dost Mohammad, an oil tanker owner from Nowshera district, said a Nato contractor had recently been caught trying to plant a bomb in an oil tanker.
Nato supply trucks parked by a road in Torkhum, Pakistan (2 Oct 2010) Contractors say there is little of no security for the supply convoys

"This happened in the area of Paiyee, when he was putting the bomb under the vehicle."

"At that time, a few men also opened fire on the tankers. The deputy later told the police that he had been told to plant the bomb by the contractor."

Dost Mohammad said the contractor had apparently sold off the fuel first.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11489955

[Prometheus Bound]

16. That's the headline of the week!

US commanders must get dizzy trying to figure it all out.

I sure do.

[bemildred]

17. Oursourcing is such a help, isn't it?

I know what you mean though.

[unkachuck]

15. "This is about Afghanistan," he said. "It has to be done by the Afghans."

....c'mon Gibbs, declare fuckin' victory and end the goddam thing....we need this perpetual Afghan war like we need cancer....

....haven't you noticed, we have a few problems right here at home....