trump calls off Taliban negotiations

[JoeB131]

WOW, just WOW!

The little information we know about them comes from their Guantanamo case files. All of them are described as "high risk, as he may pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies."

And so what?

here's the thing. There's only two LEGAL reasons to hold them.

One was that they committed crimes against Americans, in which case they would have been entitled to lawyers and a court date. They didn't.

The other would have been if they were classified as POW's, under which case they would be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. But even then, once the Afghan Government requested their release, we kind of had to release them.

 

[JoeB131]

Are you now saying that you did NOT post this? "The Taliban leaders were NEVER terrorists and never had anything to do with attacks on the US.

Yes, that is exactly the case.

If they had something to do with attacks on the US, charge them with that and put them on trial.

Then again, we haven't put Khalid Sheihk Mohammed on trail, 14 years after we captured him.

 

[pknopp]

Once again, Trump comes up short on negotiations

There's still more time. Just have patience and Trump will deliver.

We are still waiting on that great health care plan everyone is going to love and for Mexico to pay for the wall.

 

[JimH52]

Once again, Trump comes up short on negotiations

There's still more time. Just have patience and Trump will deliver.

Will he deliver before or after he bankrupts the country?

 

[JimH52]

Once again, Trump comes up short on negotiations

There's still more time. Just have patience and Trump will deliver.

We are still waiting on that great health care plan everyone is going to love and for Mexico to pay for the wall.

Yup....but trump relies on his order to his cult members. "Believe what I tell you, not what you see, hear, and read."

 

[Rigby5]

Of course they were important Taliban leaders.
But what you still fail to totally ignore, is that there was ZERO Taliban participation in the 9/11 attacks on the US.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi who had no Afghan friends. The only reason the Afghans tolerated the Saudis is that the CIA demanded it.

Why would you care at all what anyone at Guantanamo wrote, since the were continually committing war crimes, like waterboarding, and illegally taking POWs out of the country of capture?

Are you now saying that you did NOT post this? "The Taliban leaders were NEVER terrorists and never had anything to do with attacks on the US.

They were the heroes who surrendered to save lives."

First, I don't give rats behind if they participated in 9/11. Oh, did you notice this?
Khirullah Said Wali Khairkhwa
released by WikiLeaks, described him as a “hard-liner in his support of the Taliban philosophy” and “known to have close ties to Osama bin Laden.”

Captured by Pakistani border patrol on Feb. 16, 2002.

To you, these are heroes who saved lives? You're one sick puppy! Seek help!

You seem totally confused.
The Taliban never committed any crimes at all.
The US attacked them for no reason, and it was the US who committed ALL the terrorism by using cruise missiles, massive air strikes, and drones on civilians.

The US can claim that some Taliban were friendly with Osama bin Laden, but that actually is an obvious US lie because the Afghans always hated the Arabs, including bin Laden, and only tolerated them because the CIA forced them to accept al Qaeda.

And it is even more ridiculous to put up pictures of ISIS abusing prisoners, when ISIS was created by the US in Iraq, and has nothing at all to do with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

No Muslim would ever burn people to death as with the captured Jordanian pilot.
Cremation is strictly forbidden under Islam.
Whomever did that was NOT at all a Moslem.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually, he was a deserter. And even a deserter is worth 100 of those pieces of shit.

So why did obummer trade all of the terrorists for him?

The Taliban leaders were NEVER terrorists and never had anything to do with attacks on the US.
They were the heroes who surrendered to save lives.

Are you retarded?

You seem to forget that the Taliban arrested offered Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia or any Islamic court, and it was the US that turned them down.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

{...
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


Staff and agencies

Sun 14 Oct 2001 17.19 EDT

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".

The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US.
...
Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts
The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.
...}

Yes, the evil conspirators offered up a pariah, so they could continue killing women and children indiscriminately.

And we, correctly, declined the offer.

That is just an ignorant lie.
The Taliban are the only popular leadership in Afghanistan.
They were the only ones not corrupt and kidnapping, ransoming, raping, murdering, stealing, etc.
They were the single most honest group, so were encouraged to form a coalition by the popular support of the people.
You clearly know nothing at all about Afghanistan, and need to do some reading.

 

[Rigby5]

Learn something about the Taliban before making ignorant statements.

{...
History of Taliban
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Taliban emerged as a resistance movement aiming to eject the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. With the United States and Pakistan providing considerable financial and military support, the Afghan Mujahideen were able to inflict heavy losses on the Soviet troops. According to The New York Times, the Soviet Union lost about 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. In 1989, the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan, and the Afghan Mujahideen, under the leadership of Ahmed Shah Massoud, surrounded the Afghan capital, Kabul, and took over the rule three years after the departure of the Soviets. The Afghan government that was backed by the Soviet Union and led by President Sayid Mohammed Najibullah was subsequently overthrown. The Mujahideen alliance forming the new Afghan government, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president, failed to reach political unity and ended up fighting one another (Matinuddin 12-16). VIDEO.
The Taliban was one of the Mujahideen factions that formed during the Soviet occupation and the internal fighting in Afghanistan. The Taliban emerged as a powerful movement in late 1994 when Pakistan chose the Taliban to guard a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. With Pakistan providing weapons, military training, and financial support, the Taliban gained control over several Afghan cities and successfully captured Kabul in September 1996. The Taliban continued to control most of Afghan territories with intermittent fighting with Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, the former defense minister under the coalition government led by President Burhanuddin Rabbani (Maley 1-9). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/144382.stm
Pakistani support for the Taliban is based on strong religious and ethnic bonds between the Taliban and Pakistan, especially with the tribal areas on the North-West borders of Pakistan. Most of the Taliban’s leaders were educated in refugee camps in Pakistan where they had escaped the Soviet invasion. Taliban militants are Sunni Muslim Pashtuns, and Pashtuns constitute thirteen percent of the total population of Pakistan. Pashtuns dominate the Pakistani military and are concentrated in the North-West Frontier province, which was the command center for the Mujahedeen groups fighting the Soviet troops and a major destination for the Afghan refugees (Matinuddin 16).
...}
History of the Taliban

 

[Rigby5]

Again, anyone who claims the Taliban protected bin Laden are just lying.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
{...
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

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".

The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US.

Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over".

Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts
The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.

Mr Kabir urged America to halt its air campaign, now in its eighth day, and open negotiations. "If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate," he said. "Then we could discuss which third country."

Large explosions caused by American bombs and missiles have been reported to the south and east of the Afghan capital, Kabul, this evening.

The sky above the city has been filled with tracer fire from Taliban anti-aircraft guns once again.

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.
...}

 

[Markle]

My highlight above.

Indeed we did and we were proven to be RIGHT.

Bowe Bergdahl, a traitor, was traded for FIVE TALIBAN COMMANDERS.

Please show us where President Donald Trump is negotiating and releasing major Taliban Commanders who will return to the battle field.

Bowe Bergdahl was a mentally ill kid who the Army signed up because they couldn't get regular kids to sign up anymore.

When he wandered off, the Army lied and said he as captured in combat, and even kept promoting him while he was in captivity.

Obama traded five guys we had no legal reason to hold. (They weren't POW's, and they hadn't committed any crimes against America). To date, none of them returned to the battlefield because other people stepped into their jobs a long time ago. The Afghan Government ASKED to have these guys returned hoping they could use them to negotiate with the Taliban.

Now, let's look at what Trump did. He went behind the back of the Afghan Government to negotiate with these guys and get a promise that they wouldn't harbor terrorists. He didn't do this for any other reason so he could save face and withdraw, and the Taliban burned him.

Tragic, why are you sympathetic toward terrorists?

No valid legal reason to hold? Did you not read what they did and what they are a part of? They were and are enemy combatants.

 

[Markle]

So Obama is told this guy was captured in combat, the Taliban is willing to swap him for five senior leaders that we had to release anyway...

There was no reason, whatsoever to release these barbarian terrorists, none whatsoever!

 

[Markle]

And so what?

here's the thing. There's only two LEGAL reasons to hold them.

One was that they committed crimes against Americans, in which case they would have been entitled to lawyers and a court date. They didn't.

The other would have been if they were classified as POW's, under which case they would be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. But even then, once the Afghan Government requested their release, we kind of had to release them.

NO legal reason was required to hold them. They were not American Citizens nor were they in America.

They were and are ENEMY COMBATANTS and therefore not entitled to any Geneva protections.

No, we did not have to "kind of had to" release them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Taliban never committed any crimes at all.

Shameless lie. They provided material support to terrorists.

Dude, has this stupid act of yours EVER worked on ANYONE?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You liberals should be cheering about this.

If Trump has signed peace agreements from the Taliban, North Korea, and Israel/Palestine going into 2020, he'd be unbeatable in the election.

Those 3 things will never happen. The Taliban refuse to come to this country, as they are afraid we may try to kill them or put them in jail. N. Korea has already gotten all the publicity they need out of Trump. And, Un will continue to launch short range missiles, more than likely to test out guidance systems. And, you can forget about Trump or his son brokering a peace deal with Israel and Palestine. He pissed off the Palestinians when he moved the embassy to Jerusalem. We lost our seat at the negotiation table because of that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Oh piss off you hypocritical ass. Trump was trying to negotiate a peace settlement you ignorant prick.

Dems never give Trump credit for anything. Not for his Israel/Palestine peace proposal, not for he peace meetings with North Korea, and not for his attempt to reach a peace deal with the Taliban.

So, Trump should get credit for deals that he still hasn't been able to make?

 

[Rigby5]

My highlight above.

Indeed we did and we were proven to be RIGHT.

Bowe Bergdahl, a traitor, was traded for FIVE TALIBAN COMMANDERS.

Please show us where President Donald Trump is negotiating and releasing major Taliban Commanders who will return to the battle field.

Bowe Bergdahl was a mentally ill kid who the Army signed up because they couldn't get regular kids to sign up anymore.

When he wandered off, the Army lied and said he as captured in combat, and even kept promoting him while he was in captivity.

Obama traded five guys we had no legal reason to hold. (They weren't POW's, and they hadn't committed any crimes against America). To date, none of them returned to the battlefield because other people stepped into their jobs a long time ago. The Afghan Government ASKED to have these guys returned hoping they could use them to negotiate with the Taliban.

Now, let's look at what Trump did. He went behind the back of the Afghan Government to negotiate with these guys and get a promise that they wouldn't harbor terrorists. He didn't do this for any other reason so he could save face and withdraw, and the Taliban burned him.

Tragic, why are you sympathetic toward terrorists?

No valid legal reason to hold? Did you not read what they did and what they are a part of? They were and are enemy combatants.

Liar.
The Taliban are honest and honorable people who never did anything to anyone else.
Which is more than the US can say, considering we illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan on total lies that only an idiot would ever believe.
The Taliban never had any contract with the US except when the CIA created or supported them in 1979 thru 1988, when we wanted them to fight the Soviets.
Anyone claiming the Taliban are terrorist is just a liar.
There is more than enough proof they never were.

 

[Rigby5]

And so what?

here's the thing. There's only two LEGAL reasons to hold them.

One was that they committed crimes against Americans, in which case they would have been entitled to lawyers and a court date. They didn't.

The other would have been if they were classified as POW's, under which case they would be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. But even then, once the Afghan Government requested their release, we kind of had to release them.

NO legal reason was required to hold them. They were not American Citizens nor were they in America.

They were and are ENEMY COMBATANTS and therefore not entitled to any Geneva protections.

No, we did not have to "kind of had to" release them.

Wrong.
They had committed no crimes so legally did have to be given POW status or released.
There is no other third option, such as enemy combatant.
If they committed crimes, then they MUST be given a TRIAL!
If they did not commit crimes, they must be POWs.
You are reading the false propaganda from Washington.
There is absolutely no such category as enemy combatant.

You seem to be unaware of any legal principles.
All people must be given the exact same rights regardless of whether they are US citizens or not, or whether they are in the US or not, as long as it is US authorities who have jurisdiction over them.
The founders would be very unhappy if they had read the silly things you wrote.

 

[Rigby5]

The Taliban never committed any crimes at all.

Shameless lie. They provided material support to terrorists.

Dude, has this stupid act of yours EVER worked on ANYONE?

That is just a total lie.
The Taliban never liked any of the Arab foreign legion volunteer in the Mujaheddin, and only accepted them because the CIA insisted.
You do not know at all what you are talking about.
The Taliban gave ZERO assistance to any terrorists.
In fact, almost all of al Qaeda was not even aware of bin Laden's secret terrorist activities.
No one was even sure until after the invasion of Afghanistan, and a video tape was found where he admitted it.
You really need to learn about a subject before making foolish posts that are totally wrong.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, we already know that there were Russian trolls who used social media to try to influence the election.

With the way Rigby is posting, I wonder if they are a Taliban troll, trying to improve the optics of the organization with their posts?

 

[Meathead]

And so what?

here's the thing. There's only two LEGAL reasons to hold them.

One was that they committed crimes against Americans, in which case they would have been entitled to lawyers and a court date. They didn't.

The other would have been if they were classified as POW's, under which case they would be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. But even then, once the Afghan Government requested their release, we kind of had to release them.

NO legal reason was required to hold them. They were not American Citizens nor were they in America.

They were and are ENEMY COMBATANTS and therefore not entitled to any Geneva protections.

No, we did not have to "kind of had to" release them.

Wrong.
They had committed no crimes so legally did have to be given POW status or released.
There is no other third option, such as enemy combatant.
If they committed crimes, then they MUST be given a TRIAL!
If they did not commit crimes, they must be POWs.
You are reading the false propaganda from Washington.
There is absolutely no such category as enemy combatant.

You seem to be unaware of any legal principles.
All people must be given the exact same rights regardless of whether they are US citizens or not, or whether they are in the US or not, as long as it is US authorities who have jurisdiction over them.
The founders would be very unhappy if they had read the silly things you wrote.

You may kiss our collective American asses.