Taliban no more terrorists?

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?


then why do so many pakistanis (including many on this forum) passionately desire this outcome? throwing afghanistan and its people to the dogs just to spite a superpower? schadenfreude can be a pretty evil thing.

and i'm not talking about the crazy islamist types. i'm talking about those who would never in a million years want to see the taliban or taliban-like forces gaining power in pakistan.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

the deal with the taleban is being done by the Americans, and according to them they are not their enemies. So what can Pakistan do in that regard?

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

What Pakistanis desire is the removal of the US from the region. Why? Because it affects us negatively. The average person sees none of the benefits of supposed US help to Pakistan. What they see is suicide bombings and the deaths of their family members due to our support of the US policies in Afghanistan.

There are very very very few people on this forum who want to see the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan. This thread is a perfect example of that. Nobody is happy with this deal.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?


what explains all the gleeful comments about the US "losing" the war in afghanistan? the only unachieved aspect of the US definition of victory is stable democracy and permanent end to taliban rule. either you don't support this goal or you think there is a better way to achieve a taliban-free afghanistan. perhaps in a post-US afghanistan, the ISI would play the hero and negotiate a grand political settlement with a representative democracy resulting in peace and stability? is that the assumption? surely i don't need to explain why that is laughable.

do you think the taliban has a greater chance of regaining power if the US stays or leaves? and what do you think happens when they leave?

and it's not that people in this thread are unhappy with this because they want to see the taliban defeated. they are simply gleeful over the ability to interpret this as a sign of US defeat...which again brings us back to the throwing-afghanistan-to-the-wolves desire mentioned earlier.

unless you think there is a superior alternative to achieve a taliban-free stable afghanistan, the only explanation for the glee is the power of schadenfreude. that of course is pretty damn evil given the likely outcome for the country.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

Its not gleeful. Its reality. If you think the US has succeeded in Afghanistan by all means pay a visit to the country and see for yourself. The government is not a democracy. The 2008 and 2010 elections are a perfect example of that. The US and UN have taken increasingly stronger stances against the fraud in those elections or did you forget all of that? The Taliban is strong in the case of at least 20 of the 34 provinces and the others they have been destabilizing rather effectively.

What is laughable is the fact that until 3 weeks ago the Taliban were killing American soldiers and they were considered the enemy. Now they are being brought into government by the Americans. That is pathetic. The US is actively seeking ways to appease the Taliban before they with draw. How does that benefit anybody? How is that a permanent end to Taliban rule when they are being brought back into power?

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?


i agree that sustainable political stability is a key objective that remains unachieved. i have simply pointed out that this may be a US objective but its not a key US interest. the core american interests in this war have already been accounted for and relevant objectives have been achieved in full. democracy and girls attending school in afghanistan are simply american desires, not american needs. a taliban regime returning to power is a problem solely for the afghan people. the only way a taliban government will be a problem for the US is if it returned to sheltering al-qaeda, which is something we know it would not do again.

but the idea of a resurgent taliban adding to US difficulties in the country seems to be a source of joy for many forumers. i simply asked why that is, given your questionable contention that everyone here wants to keep the taliban out of power. something doesn't add up.

[quote]
What is laughable is the fact that until 3 weeks ago the Taliban were killing American soldiers and they were considered the enemy. Now they are being brought into government by the Americans. That is pathetic. The US is actively seeking ways to appease the Taliban before they with draw. How does that benefit anybody? How is that a permanent end to Taliban rule when they are being brought back into power?
[/QUOTE]
in that case shouldn't your logical response be a desire for the US to double-down and be more aggressive and effective in their fight against the taliban? but you want the opposite to happen, which will cement the negative outcome that you claim not to desire. how does that make sense to you?

you haven't answered my question about who exactly will sort out afghanistan and prevent taliban rule if the US leaves.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

Your reading comprehension is either addled by your grasp of the English language or your personal prejudices. Nobody wants the Taliban in power yet that is what the Americans are doing. Everybody here wants the Taliban eliminated as a fighting force. This thread is a perfect example. I have said this 3 times so far and you still don't get it. Be it the TTP or the Taliban, a vast majority of posters want the eliminated. Yet the opposite is happening.

If the US objective was to remove the Taliban from power why are they negotiating with them now?

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

Negotiating with the taleban when they want the world to believe they have won the war. 10 years of bloodshed of afghan, Pakistani and NATO soldiers. They destabilized the whole region and now are running from the battlefield. Pakistan was bad as 10 years ago they had recognized taleban govt and now when Americans are doing the same thing it’s pragmatism.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?


i asked you repeatedly how you think that will happen in a post-US afghanistan?

[quote]
This thread is a perfect example. I have said this 3 times so far and you still don't get it. Be it the TTP or the Taliban, a vast majority of posters want the eliminated. Yet the opposite is happening.
[/quote]
i explained my issue with this comment in detail above and you have chosen to ignore completely. you have now snuck in the TTP to validate this comment. clearly we are not talking about opinion on TTP. the people in question unanimously despise the TTP (remember good taliban/bad taliban theory) so that is irrelevant

in any case, i am not even talking about being pro-taliban. from the beginning i am specifically talking about people who may be anti-taliban (even afghan taliban) in principle but relish the schadenfreude so much that they would still rather cheer them on in the war regardless of what that may mean for the afghan people.

[quote]
If the US objective was to remove the Taliban from power why are they negotiating with them now?
[/QUOTE]
there is a simple answer to this question. the taliban have already been ousted from power but consensus is that for a lasting durable peace, current taliban members may need to be involved in the political process. this would mean the taliban would cease to exist as a military force and key leaders be brought into a representative government/parliament. this vision is obviously nothing like a theocratic taliban regime similar to what previously existed.

whether this is feasible or not is another debate entirely. i am of the view that it may not be feasible at all. in that case the only real losers will be the afghan people.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

  1. What will happen? Well the warlords that have been receiving money from the US and NATO will use that money to buy weapons and aim to maintain their control over their regions and at the same time they would state that the government is too weak to do its job so they can do it better. The various Militias set up by NATO outside of the government structures like ALP and NCR in the northern provinces will run amok establishing random check posts. This is not gonna happen over night but it will happen over time. Karzai will run for a third term, the Northern Alliance will cause trouble. Hekmatyar will force his way around Takhar and Kunduz with Rabbani gone. Welcome back to the 1990s again. The South will remain in Taliban hands like it is now and they will push to reassert themselves with a weak government in place.

  2. Just because the Americans are losing that does not mean people support the Taliban. That connection is a weak one based on propaganda and not reality. The Americans are not seen as allies or in any beneficial to the people of Pakistan so why should we be supportive of their endeavors esp since they have proven to be two faced on the matter.

  3. Actually no there is no consensus on the matter. If there was consensus on the matter it would not have taken them 10 years to reach such a conclusion. And even then they have only reached this conclusion when they announced they were leaving. Peace with the Taliban is making peace with the very people that kill Americans on a daily basis in Afghanistan. And obviously you haven't been paying attention to the news around the negotiations. The Taliban are not being asked to disarm anymore. So they will remain a military force and they are being given international legitimacy by allowing them to open up an international office.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

What's with the lengthy arguments. Pakistan cannot accept US directly dealing with Taleban. Simple.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

Neither can the Afghans. That is why they recalled their Ambassador from Qatar. :rolleyes:

And goes to show very adequately that Pakistan has no influence over the Taliban if the US is negotiating without us.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

i don't understand........why are indians jumping up and down so much about what happens with pakistan and afghanistan...........

on one side...they keep saying that those pakistanis are paranoid/crazy who have concerns about india having greater ambitions than just 'trade' with afghanistan....

and on the others side........... they are all too much interested and concerned with what happens there??

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

shh...i think one of these days Americans might declare Taleban as Mujahideen...

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/03/afghan-taliban-says-it-has-reached-deal-to-open-liaison-office-in-qatar/#ixzz1iOVqnRtd?test=latestnews

Afghan Taliban Says It Has Reached Deal to Open Liaison Office in Qatar

KABUL, Afghanistan – The Afghan Taliban say they have reached a preliminary deal with the Gulf state of Qatar to open a liaison office there that could have a key role in peace talks to end more than a decade of war.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said on Tuesday the liaison office will conduct negotiations with the international community. He did not say when it would open.

Mujahid’s statement says the Taliban held negotiations with Qatar’s government and other “relevant parties” about the office’s opening.

For the U.S. and its allies, the idea of a Taliban political office in Doha has become the central element in efforts to draw the insurgents into peace talks.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/03/afghan-taliban-says-it-has-reached-deal-to-open-liaison-office-in-qatar/#ixzz1iP0UiIie

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Latest+attack+delivers+message+what/5977551/story.html

Latest attack delivers message - but what is it?

When Taliban’s communications consist of suicide bombings and general mayhem, the point is not always clear

There was a brutal demonstration on Tuesday, if any were needed, that the hesitant pas de deux between the United States and the Taliban aimed at a political solution in Afghanistan could founder over the central role of the terrorist-brigand Haqqani Network.

At least 10 people were killed when insurgents, including suicide bombers, attacked the government building in Sharan, the capital of Paktika province, which, together with territory over the border in Pakistan’s North Waziristan, is the fiefdom of the Haqqani family.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack and it is reasonable to suppose that Sirajuddin Haqqani, who now runs the family brigand business and its up to 15,000 fighters on behalf of his aging father Jalaluddin, intended the attack to deliver a message of some sort.

But as always with people whose main method of communication is suicide bombers, roadside mines, kidnappings and general mayhem, it’s difficult to decode that message.

The Haqqani Network, which is allied to both the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorist network, has a long history of mayhem.

It is responsible for a series of high-profile attacks in the Afghan capital, Kabul, including the 2008 bombing of the Indian embassy and last September’s assault on the U.S. embassy and nearby NATO bases.

After that last attack, U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen said the Haqqani net-work “acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).”

Other officials in Washington and Islamabad have tried to play down the admiral’s sharp comment, but then they would.

**What is hard to avoid, however, is that the Haqqani Network is holding a veto on at least the early stages of the still highly tentative contacts between U.S. officials and the emissaries of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former Taliban leader of Afghanistan who was pushed out by the American-led invasion in 2001 and who is now believed to be living near the Pakistan military centre of Quetta, summer capital of the southwestern Baluchistan province.

**
**Last week, the Taliban announced it is establishing a presence in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar to be “a political office for negotiations.”

**
**This significant development in the efforts of the Barack Obama administration to find a political route to ending the Taliban insurgency before U.S. troops complete their withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 follows years of hunting by American officials for a credible intermediary.

**
It’s been a rocky road. Some emissaries turned out to be suicide bombers, and killed their negotiating partners. One confidence trickster from Quetta with nerves of steel spent months in Kabul claiming to be a representative of Mullah Omar before disappearing with hundreds of thousands of dollars in “goodwill payments.”

Finally, early in 2010, the German spy agency Bundesnachrichtendienst met Tayyab Agha, who was quickly judged to be a reliable intermediary with Mullah Omar. There are, how-ever, several commentaries from the region that doubt this is the real Tayyab Agha, or, if it is, whether he truly speaks for the Taliban’s governing council.

Agha, accompanied by associates, first met with U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers in November 2010.

Agha has what look to be good credentials among the Taliban and the Pashtuns, the dominant tribe in southern Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan.

His elder brother was a leading mujahedeen commander fighting the invading Soviet Union in the 1980s, when, of course, the Central Intelligence Agency funnelled money and arms through Pakistan’s ISI to what are now the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Agha was too young for the antiSoviet jihad and went instead to Quetta where he learned English and Arabic.

When Mullah Omar and the Taliban took over Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, Agha became the leader’s translator and spokesman, and then his personal secretary.

One issue appears to have dominated Agha’s talks so far with the Americans, and this is where the story comes back to the Haqqani Network.

The U.S. wants the return of the young American soldier Bowe Berg-dahl, who was kidnapped from his post in Paktika province in June 2009.

The Haqqani Network says it captured Bergdahl and is prepared to return him if Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership ask it to do so.

Agha, apparently, has told the Americans Bergdahl can be released in exchange for five senior Taliban prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. Obama is wary of being accused of appeasement as the presidential election campaign gets into full gear.

And, at the moment, both the government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul and the Pakistani government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, are uneasy about the direct Taliban-Washington talks.

So there is no certainty what was the message of Tuesday’s attack on Sharan, or on whose behalf it was delivered.

[email protected]

](http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Latest+attack+delivers+message+what/5977551/story.html)](http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Latest+attack+delivers+message+what/5977551/story.html)

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/us-plans-major-push-for-new-talks-with-taliban/#ixzz1jDNLFa40?test=latestnews

US plans major push for new talks with TalibanPublished January 12, 2012| The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON – **The US plans a major push next week to jump-start peace talks with the Taliban, senior Obama administration officials said, amid the first concrete signs of progress toward a negotiated end to the 10-year-old war in Afghanistan.

**The press comes amid the potentially embarrassing emergence of a video Wednesday that appears to show US troops urinating on Afghan insurgents’ corpses. Its authenticity hasn’t been confirmed.

The US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul to seek his approval to resume US negotiations with Taliban representatives over confidence-building measures aimed at laying the ground for direct Afghan-Taliban talks.

Senior Obama administration officials said the prospective confidence-building measures include the establishment of a Taliban political office in Qatar, a Taliban statement distancing itself from international terrorism, and the transfer of up to five Taliban militants held at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

**The White House has made reconciliation a top priority, seeing it as the most likely avenue for stopping the fighting and winding down the war. President Barack Obama wants Afghans to take over security responsibilities by 2014.

**
**US military pressure on the Taliban over the past two years has convinced at least some of the group’s leaders that it is time to enter peace talks, officials believe. Past outreach efforts went nowhere and many US officials acknowledge they remain skeptical that the current effort can succeed. **“It may work. It might not,” a senior administration official said. “It’s the responsible, humane thing to do, to try.”

Officials outlined what amounted to a divide-and-conquer strategy of getting the Taliban to break with Al Qaeda and to split off more militant factions from those open to peace. “Some are going to want to fight and some are going to want to talk,” the administration official said.

Officials said US and Taliban representatives last met in October and have yet to agree on the sequence with which confidence-building measures would be implemented. US officials were encouraged by the Taliban’s announcement this month that the group supports establishing a political office in Qatar and pointed to other indications that the Taliban were now interested in engaging.

Military and intelligence officials have in the past voiced deep skepticism about the prospects of peace talks with the Taliban. A senior Obama administration official said it remains unclear to the US whether the Taliban are interested in peace talks with the Afghan government. The Taliban have so far refused to hold direct talks with Karzai’s government.

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/asia/quest-for-taliban-peace-talks-at-key-juncture.html?hp

Adversaries of Iran Said to Be Stepping Up Covert Actions

WASHINGTON — Over the last year, Marc Grossman, a veteran but low-key diplomat, led a small team of American officials who met secretly from Doha, Qatar, to Munich with a shadowy representative of Afghanistan’s Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, in hopes of starting peace talks.

The Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate an end to the war, initially brokered by Germany’s spy service, showed promise but have been scuttled more than once by rumors, deliberate leaks in Kabul, Islamabad and Washington and the assassination of the top Afghan negotiator in September by a supposed envoy wearing a bomb in his turban, Afghan and Western officials said.

**Then, Mr. Grossman and other administration officials were caught by surprise when the Taliban announced last week that they were prepared to take an important step by opening a political office in Qatar.
**
Now, despite doubts in the administration, misgivings on Capitol Hill and the erratic objections of the most important partner in any potential peace deal — PresidentHamid Karzai — the administration’s best hope for ending the war in Afghanistan has reached a critical juncture. Next week, Mr. Grossman and his team are rushing back to the region to consult with several allies, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and if Mr. Karzai gives his blessing, will resume preliminary talks with the Taliban representative before another opportunity slips away.

The Qatar office would be the first of what the officials described as a series of reciprocal steps that could include the release of at least five senior Taliban officials held at the United States prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Wednesday that the administration was “still in the preliminary stages of testing whether this can be successful.”But **she went on to say that for the first time there appeared to be support for a political resolution that included leaders of the radical Islamic government that ruthlessly ruled the country from 1996 until the American invasion after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
**
“The reality is we never have the luxury of negotiating for peace with our friends,” Mrs. Clinton, who has pressed the initiative within the administration, said at the State Department.“If you’re sitting across the table discussing a peaceful resolution to a conflict, you are sitting across from people who you by definition don’t agree with and who you may previously have been across a battlefield from.”

**The negotiations — potentially as historic and as politically wrenching as the Paris peace talks that ended the Vietnam War — come after more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and they could unfold in the middle of President Obama’s re-election campaign.**The reversal of the Taliban’s longstanding public refusal to negotiate with the United States — and the administration’s willingness to reciprocate — punctuated a highly compartmentalized effort that has proceeded in fits and starts, with the knowledge of very few officials, according to administration and Afghan officials involved in the negotiations.

Begun by the American envoy Richard C. Holbrooke, who died in 2010, it has been conducted by his successor as senior representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr. Grossman, a former ambassador to Turkey who came out of retirement to take on what has been described as one of the most difficult jobs in government. His team includes about a half-dozen State Department, Defense Department and intelligence officials.

Only a month ago, when envoys from dozens of countries gathered in Bonn, Germany, hoping to announce a new push for political reconciliation in Afghanistan, the effort appeared moribund. The fiercest opposition came from Mr. Karzai, whose position on the prospect of talks, one senior administration official said, involved wild swings in mood and position.

Under pressure from the administration, however, Mr. Karzai ultimately relented, dropping his objections, though he continued to make demands on the location of any Taliban office until the day after it was announced.

With the United States and NATO already having announced that they would withdraw most international forces from Afghanistan by 2014, the search for some kind of political reconciliation between the new government and the Taliban became an imperative for the administration.

Nearly a year ago, Mrs. Clinton first signaled the opening for talks by recasting the administration’s longstanding preconditions: that the insurgents lay down their arms, accept the Afghan Constitution and separate from Al Qaeda. Instead, she described them as “necessary outcomes.”

By then, Germany’s intelligence agency had already brokered a meeting in Munich in November 2010 between the Americans and Tayeb Agha, an English-speaking former aide and spokesman for the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Omar, who is believed to remain in hiding in Pakistan.

Initially, the Americans were wary, having been recently embarrassed by an imposter posing as a top Taliban envoy (who ultimately made off with tens of thousands of dollars in payments).

The killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last May added momentum to the peace efforts, underscoring the increasingly limited ties between Al Qaeda and the remaining Taliban. One of the conditions that the United States has sought is a Taliban renunciation of Al Qaeda and international terrorism.

Over the course of what officials described as several meetings, Mr. Agha verified his true identity and connection to the Taliban leadership in hiding by posting a prearranged message on a Web site used by the group, according to the officials.

That led Mr. Grossman, a veteran diplomat whose style has been far more low-key than the flamboyant Mr. Holbrooke’s, to meet with Mr. Agha personally in October in Doha, Qatar, to discuss “confidence building” measures, including the opening of a political office.

Then things ground to a halt. Mr. Karzai, still angered by the killing the month before of the official in charge of reconciliation, Burhanuddin Rabbani, balked at the prospects of a Taliban office in Qatar. Mr. Karzai has often reacted angrily to diplomatic efforts that he perceives are under way without sufficient consultations. His aides in this case said he was properly notified.

Mrs. Clinton and other officials have repeatedly said publicly that any reconciliation effort must be led by the Afghans themselves, and yet privately they have pressed very hard for the Afghans to do so, the officials said.

”I don’t think it’s a secret that we need the Afghans — we need Karzai to be part of this,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul. Is he? “He says so. We’ll have to see.”
The situation pivoted sharply shortly after Christmas, officials and Western diplomats in Kabul said. In meetings up and down Afghan government, American and other Western officials made the stakes clear: if President Karzai wanted to leave a peace deal in place when his final term ends in 2014, this was his best chance. The Americans wanted the Qatar office to happen, the Europeans were on board and, most important, it appeared the Taliban’s leadership was willing.

A senior Afghan official acknowledged “divisions” in the presidential palace over the matter between those with pro-Western sympathies within President Karzai’s inner circle, and those whose wariness of America and its objectives in Afghanistan runs deep.

The official said that even though Mr. Karzai agreed to the Qatar office in the days after Christmas, he remained “uncertain” about whether the Taliban were sincere. That skepticism is shared by many in Washington.

“What actually ends up unfolding and what understandings are reached to launch something more visible and serious — all of that has not been fully determined yet,” a senior administration official familiar with the effort said.

As the process becomes more visible it is likely to face more intense scrutiny, especially on Capitol Hill. The release of high-level Taliban leaders from Guantánamo would certainly risk a political backlash in an election year. To criticize Mr. Obama for trying to close the prison, Republicans often point to instances in which some former detainees took part in terrorist or insurgent activity, and lawmakers from both parties tied the administration’s hands even further by imposing new restrictions on transfers.

A Taliban transfer could be the trial run of that system, and administration officials are studying the most recent version as they consider the deal. It requires the secretary of defense and the secretary of state to certify to Congress that the government to which a detainee would be transferred has certain steps to ensure that the detainee will not engage in terrorist activity.

Such a certification must take place 30 days before any transfer. While the administration provided a classified briefing to leaders of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees about aspects of the reconciliation talks proposal late last year, it has apparently not yet made any formal certification.

Rather than releasing the five Taliban leaders in Afghanistan, the idea appears to be a transfer to the custody of Qatar, whose government would keep them under some form of control — like surveillance, house arrest and blocking them from travel abroad. Those conditions remain subject to negotiation.

**Mrs. Clinton, who met with Qatar’s prime minister at the State Department on Wednesday, said no transfers were imminent.
**
**Even now, the officials said, much remains uncertain, including the role of Pakistan in any negotiations, as well as the willingness of any of the sides to come to terms on meaningful, lasting reconciliation that would protect what the United States considers nonnegotiable: a peaceful, democratic government that preserves the gains made over the last decade.
**
**Syed Muhammad Akbar Agha, a former Taliban commander who lives in Kabul and a cousin of the administration’s liaison with the Taliban, Mr. Agha, said in an interview that the former government now sought peace, even if it remained committed to its Islamic vision of Afghanistan.

“The Taliban want peace like all of our Afghan brothers and sisters,” he said. “We believe in Islam, and we believe that Afghanistan should be an Islamic state. But the Taliban do not think that they can bring a true Islamic state only by force. We can bring those changes in many ways — by negotiating, by speaking.”**

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

[RIGHT]اخباری رپورٹ جس ميں ملا عمر کے نام کو ايف بی آئ کی لسٹ سے ہٹاۓ جانے کا دعوی کيا گيا ہے، اس ميں سنسنی خيز مواد کا استعمال تو کيا گيا ہے ليکن اس ميں حقائق اور شواہد کی ضرورت کو يکسر نظرانداز کر ديا گيا ہے۔

ملا عمر کا نام ايف بی آئ کی لسٹ ميں موجود ہی نہيں تھا بلکہ ان کا نام امريکی اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمنٹ کے “ريوارڈ فار
جسٹس پروگرام” ميں شامل کيا گيا تھا اور اس ميں کوئ ردوبدل نہيں کيا گيا ہے۔

ريوارڈ فار جسٹس پروگرام کی ويب سائٹ پر واضح طور پر درج ہے کہ ملا عمر کی طالبان حکومت نے اسامہ بن لادن

اور ان کے القائدہ نيٹ ورک کو 911 کے حملوں سے پہلے برسوں تک پناہ فراہم کی تھی۔
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=wanted_terrorist&language=urdu

ذوالفقار – ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم – يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ

[EMAIL=“[email protected]”]
[email protected]
www.state.gov
http://www.facebook.com/pages/USUrduDigitalOutreach/122365134490320?v=wall

[/RIGHT]

Re: Taliban no more terrorists?

What about the taleban office being set up in Qatar, is that a hoax as well?