Thai Police Bust Multi-Million Baht Sex Toy Smuggling Ring

[webfact]

'Very positive signals' after U.S., Taliban talks - sources

By Jibran Ahmad and Abdul Qadir Sediqi

 

FILE PHOTO: Taliban walk as they celebrate ceasefire in Ghanikhel district of Nangarhar province, Afghanistan June 16, 2018.REUTERS/Parwiz

 

PESHAWAR, Pakistan/KABUL (Reuters) - A meeting between a senior U.S. diplomat and Taliban representatives in Doha last week to discuss a possible ceasefire ended with "very positive signals" and a decision to hold more meetings, people with knowledge of the talks said on Sunday.

 

The meeting between a delegation led by Alice Wells, deputy assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, and Taliban representatives was first reported in The Wall Street Journal but has not been officially confirmed.

 

According to one Taliban official, who said he was part of a four-member delegation, there were "very positive signals" from the meeting, which he said was conducted in a "friendly atmosphere" in a Doha hotel.

 

"You can't call it peace talks," he said. "These are a series of meetings for initiating formal and purposeful talks. We agreed to meet again soon and resolve the Afghan conflict through dialogue."

 

He said the talks had been held without the presence of Afghan government officials at the insistence of the Taliban.

 

The move comes as the Afghan government and the United States have stepped up efforts to end the 17 year-war in Afghanistan following the unprecedented three-day truce during last month's Eid al-Fitr holiday.

 

The truce, which saw unarmed Taliban fighters mingling with soldiers on the streets of Kabul and other cities, offered the first concrete vision of a peace settlement since an earlier attempt at peace talks broke down in 2015.

 

Although the Taliban refused an offer by President Ashraf Ghani to extend the Eid ceasefire, behind-the-scenes contacts have continued and the government has said it is considering another ceasefire during next month's Eid-al Qurban holiday.

 

As hopes of possible formal negotiations have risen, the United States has agreed to participate directly in the talks, although it insists the process will remain under Afghan leadership.

 

FREE MOVEMENT

The Taliban official said the talks took place with the approval of the leadership council. The two sides had discussed proposals to allow the Taliban free movement in two provinces where they would not be attacked, an idea that President Ashraf Ghani has already rejected. They also discussed Taliban participation in the Afghan government.

 

"The only demand they made was to allow their military bases in Afghanistan," said the Taliban official.

 

The meeting in Doha, where the Taliban maintains a political office, followed two earlier meetings between U.S. officials and Taliban representatives in recent months, the sources said.

 

"We have held three meetings with the U.S. and we reached a conclusion to continue talks for meaningful negotiations," said a second Taliban official.

 

He said they would first exchange prisoners and then discuss other issues that could restore peace to Afghanistan.

 

"However, our delegation made it clear to them that peace can only be restored to Afghanistan when all foreign forces are withdrawn," he said.

 

Another person with knowledge of the talks said the United States had pressed the Taliban side to accept the ceasefire offer for Eid-ul Adha, often known in Afghanistan as Eid-al Qurban, which this year starts on Aug. 22.

 

"So a long-term ceasefire is expected on Eid-ul Adha," the person said. "Both sides agreed upon the continuation of the meetings and talks and another meeting is expected before Eid, but the exact time and place is not clear yet."

 

The State Department confirmed that Wells had visited Doha but has said only that she met United Arab Emirates government officials, including the deputy prime minister, to talk about their contributions to the situation in Afghanistan.

 

Asked about talks with the Taliban, a State Department spokesman referred to a July 9 comment from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, that the United States would "support, facilitate, and participate in these peace discussions, but peace must be decided by the Afghans and settled among them."

 

Ghani's main spokesman Haroon Chakansuri said last week that peace talks would be Afghan-led and would build on international consensus in support of peace.

 

(Additional reporting by Sarah Lynch in WASHINGTON; writing by James Mackenzie; Editing by Adrian Croft)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-30

 

[blazes]

Not even Trump would be mad enough to meet face-to-face with the Taliban.

I'm all for peace, but it would be a terrible slur on the death of so many Western soldiers to allow these bastards anywhere near the reigns of power.

 

And it was only two days ago that the Taliban attacked a mid-wife clinic with suicide bombers, with about 70 killed.

[Mad mick]

only to work out who sells the pot? and who sells the opits, nothing changes its all business as usual

[from the home of CC]

foreign policy at its worst.

[pegman]

The Taliban, now there's a bunch that Trump can relate to.  

[sammieuk1]

Don't get to excited the most likely outcome is still a Fatwa Drone festival?

[Tchooptip]

"U.S. Taliban talks"

And we are supposed to believe that it is possible to receive honest answers from the Taliban? 

[ResandePohm]

14 minutes ago, Tchooptip said:

"U.S. Taliban talks"

And we are supposed to believe that it is possible to receive honest answers from the Taliban? 

Well, they should get on well with Trump who also has difficulty giving an honest answer to anything.

[helpisgood]

5 hours ago, blazes said:

Not even Trump would be mad enough to meet face-to-face with the Taliban.

I'm all for peace, but it would be a terrible slur on the death of so many Western soldiers to allow these bastards anywhere near the reigns of power.

 

And it was only two days ago that the Taliban attacked a mid-wife clinic with suicide bombers, with about 70 killed.

Are you sure it was the Taliban?  It could have been ISIS.  I haven't seen a more recent update on who is definitely responsible. 

 

One reporter, who used to be embedded with US forces in Afghanistan (sorry cannot recall his name) stated that the Taliban were more rational regarding their attacks, especially Afghan civilian attacks, while ISIS seemed to be filled with non-Afghan fighters who were quite mentally deranged and did not care at all who they had attacked and killed.  (It was from an episode of the podcast War College, which may have been a more recent one about special ops.) 

 

Or, as the NY Times reported on the attack in the OP:

 

"Although there was no immediate claim of responsibility, the attack bore the hallmarks of the Islamic State, whose local affiliate is especially active in Nangarhar and responsible for many suicide attacks there."  [Bold indicates a link]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/world/asia/afghanistan-midwife-center.html

 

And, here's the link within that quote which states that such a civilian attack in that region was likely an ISIS attack.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/world/asia/afghanistan-jalalabad-attack.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FAfghanistan

 

The Voice of America reports similarly:

 

"Recent similar attacks, however, have been claimed by the Islamic State group."

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/explosions-gunfire-afghanistan-jalalabad/4503742.html

 

 

[overherebc]

19 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

Are you sure it was the Taliban?  It could have been ISIS.  I haven't seen a more recent update on who is definitely responsible. 

 

One reporter, who used to be embedded with US forces in Afghanistan (sorry cannot recall his name) stated that the Taliban were more rational regarding their attacks, especially Afghan civilian attacks, while ISIS seemed to be filled with non-Afghan fighters who were quite mentally deranged and did not care at all who they had attacked and killed.  (It was from an episode of the podcast War College, which may have been a more recent one about special ops.) 

 

Or, as the NY Times reported on the attack in the OP:

 

"Although there was no immediate claim of responsibility, the attack bore the hallmarks of the Islamic State, whose local affiliate is especially active in Nangarhar and responsible for many suicide attacks there."  [Bold indicates a link]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/world/asia/afghanistan-midwife-center.html

 

And, here's the link within that quote which states that such a civilian attack in that region was likely an ISIS attack.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/world/asia/afghanistan-jalalabad-attack.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FAfghanistan

 

The Voice of America reports similarly:

 

"Recent similar attacks, however, have been claimed by the Islamic State group."

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/explosions-gunfire-afghanistan-jalalabad/4503742.html

 

 

Who believes any of this ceasefire crap. 

We need a bit of a break to collect some more fire power and explosives is more like.

[billd766]

quote from the OP

 

"The meeting between a delegation led by Alice Wells, deputy assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, and Taliban representatives was first reported in The Wall Street Journal but has not been officially confirmed."

 

Considering the attitude of Muslim men to women, especially western women, in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and many of the Gulf States, I am a little surprised that the US spokesperson is a woman.

 

I have no doubt that she is good at her job but culturally it may be a mistake.

[Kerryd]

The Taliban are pure scum. Period.

 

I spent 10 years working in Afghanistan and they were nothing but thugs and criminals that used religion to excuse any actions they took. (Remember we are talking about the Taliban, not the everyday Afghan people. Most of the Afghan people I met were nice, ordinary people that just wanted to earn a living and raise their families.)

The Taliban though. "Religious" fundamentalists that often act as judge, jury and executioner in order to instill fear into the population and cover up their own crimes.

 

See a girl you like ? Take her, rape her then accuse her of adultery (or pre-marital sex) and have her killed.
Find an 8 year old kid with 2 US one dollar bills in his pocket ? Accuse him of being a spy for the Americans and then hang him.

Want to terrorize a small village that has absolutely no foreigners in it (as in military personnel) ? Strap a bomb vest onto an mentally challenged child and send him into a crowded market and (remotely) detonate the vest.
Claim that drugs are forbidden and then force farmers to grow/harvest poppies or face having their families murdered.
Claim that murdering innocent Muslims is forbidden and then kill any that get in their way. (Just have to claim that they were "heretics" and it is all justified.)

Claim that you are on a crusade to rid the country of "foreigners" and then invite thousands of "foreigners" to fight for you in your crusade. 

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” 
― Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

When the fundamentalists took over in Iran in 1979, it didn't take long for a large portion of the population to start regretting it. When the fundamentalists finally won power in Egypt, it was short lived as the people realized they were nothing but a bunch of liars and thieves dressed in religious trappings. People in Tunisia started regretting electing a "hard core" religious party within a few months. Many other places are the same (like the areas controlled by ISIS and - this would be a laugh if it wasn't so tragic - the areas controlled by the Western backed "Free Syrian Rebels"). Seems they are even more hardcore and "old school" than Assad ever was and the people in the areas they control live more fear from the rebels than they ever did from the Assad government. The West doesn't want to admit it though because it would undermine their whole reason for backing those rebels in the first place. (And recall that in the beginning, the majority of the "rebels" were actually fighters from various terrorist groups. So many that the West had to stop sending arms and ammunition to the rebels because they were handing it directly over to those terrorists, many of whom split off and formed ISIS not long afterwards.

Same when the Taliban took over Afghanistan (most of it) in the mid-90s. After the Russians finally gave up and left the country, it was plunged into a viscous civil war for over 4 years with the Taliban finally gaining control over most of the country. They immediately went full "fundamental" on the population and snubbed their noses at the rest of the world.

Then Osama bin Laden came along. He needed a new hiding spot as he had basically been kicked out of Africa. In exchange for a wad of cash and a huge fleet of new pick-up trucks, the Taliban let Osama set up a number of terrorist "training camps" in Afghanistan and he basically had free rein to go anywhere and do anything.
Osama starts bringing in bus loads of "foreigners" to train at his camps.

 

The Taliban have claimed (many times) that they are only fighting to rid the country of "foreigners" but their own actions show them for the hypocrites and liars that they truly are. If they ever managed to get into power again they'd do the exact same thing they did last time. While "ISIS" was (supposedly) making inroads into Afghanistan, that was more of a "I want to be the leader of my own terrorist organization so that I control all the money and power" type of thing, with little splinter groups claiming allegiance to ISIS in the hopes they'd be the "winning horse" in the race. If the Taliban started marching across the country again, those little splinter groups would switch allegiance back again in less than a heartbeat.

But the Taliban would no doubt welcome ISIS to be "guests" in Afghanistan in exchange for being able to use their fighters (and popularity within certain corridors of power) to strengthen their own grip on the country.

And just like before, it wouldn't take long for them to start "exporting" that terror wherever they could around the world. 

 

[overherebc]

35 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

The Taliban are pure scum. Period.

 

I spent 10 years working in Afghanistan and they were nothing but thugs and criminals that used religion to excuse any actions they took. (Remember we are talking about the Taliban, not the everyday Afghan people. Most of the Afghan people I met were nice, ordinary people that just wanted to earn a living and raise their families.)

The Taliban though. "Religious" fundamentalists that often act as judge, jury and executioner in order to instill fear into the population and cover up their own crimes.

 

See a girl you like ? Take her, rape her then accuse her of adultery (or pre-marital sex) and have her killed.
Find an 8 year old kid with 2 US one dollar bills in his pocket ? Accuse him of being a spy for the Americans and then hang him.

Want to terrorize a small village that has absolutely no foreigners in it (as in military personnel) ? Strap a bomb vest onto an mentally challenged child and send him into a crowded market and (remotely) detonate the vest.
Claim that drugs are forbidden and then force farmers to grow/harvest poppies or face having their families murdered.
Claim that murdering innocent Muslims is forbidden and then kill any that get in their way. (Just have to claim that they were "heretics" and it is all justified.)

Claim that you are on a crusade to rid the country of "foreigners" and then invite thousands of "foreigners" to fight for you in your crusade. 

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” 
― Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

When the fundamentalists took over in Iran in 1979, it didn't take long for a large portion of the population to start regretting it. When the fundamentalists finally won power in Egypt, it was short lived as the people realized they were nothing but a bunch of liars and thieves dressed in religious trappings. People in Tunisia started regretting electing a "hard core" religious party within a few months. Many other places are the same (like the areas controlled by ISIS and - this would be a laugh if it wasn't so tragic - the areas controlled by the Western backed "Free Syrian Rebels"). Seems they are even more hardcore and "old school" than Assad ever was and the people in the areas they control live more fear from the rebels than they ever did from the Assad government. The West doesn't want to admit it though because it would undermine their whole reason for backing those rebels in the first place. (And recall that in the beginning, the majority of the "rebels" were actually fighters from various terrorist groups. So many that the West had to stop sending arms and ammunition to the rebels because they were handing it directly over to those terrorists, many of whom split off and formed ISIS not long afterwards.

Same when the Taliban took over Afghanistan (most of it) in the mid-90s. After the Russians finally gave up and left the country, it was plunged into a viscous civil war for over 4 years with the Taliban finally gaining control over most of the country. They immediately went full "fundamental" on the population and snubbed their noses at the rest of the world.

Then Osama bin Laden came along. He needed a new hiding spot as he had basically been kicked out of Africa. In exchange for a wad of cash and a huge fleet of new pick-up trucks, the Taliban let Osama set up a number of terrorist "training camps" in Afghanistan and he basically had free rein to go anywhere and do anything.
Osama starts bringing in bus loads of "foreigners" to train at his camps.

 

The Taliban have claimed (many times) that they are only fighting to rid the country of "foreigners" but their own actions show them for the hypocrites and liars that they truly are. If they ever managed to get into power again they'd do the exact same thing they did last time. While "ISIS" was (supposedly) making inroads into Afghanistan, that was more of a "I want to be the leader of my own terrorist organization so that I control all the money and power" type of thing, with little splinter groups claiming allegiance to ISIS in the hopes they'd be the "winning horse" in the race. If the Taliban started marching across the country again, those little splinter groups would switch allegiance back again in less than a heartbeat.

But the Taliban would no doubt welcome ISIS to be "guests" in Afghanistan in exchange for being able to use their fighters (and popularity within certain corridors of power) to strengthen their own grip on the country.

And just like before, it wouldn't take long for them to start "exporting" that terror wherever they could around the world. 

 

I agree 100%.

Give it a little while though and someone will be on here posting on the lines of 'if we could sit down with them and have meaningful dialogue I'm sure something good would result'