US and Taliban sign historic troop withdrawal deal in Doha

[Ronaldo7]

Hardly a humiliation, just being pragmatic. The US cannot tame the Taliban without being brutal, and they will not go down that path. The US hasn't been defeated on the battlefield, and they don't want to keep exposing their soldiers to IEDs and suicide bombers.

Vietnam was completely different from Afghanistan. The US lost 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam and only 2,500 in Afghanistan.

After 18 years of war, Trump is finally ending Bush and Obama's foolishness.

The Vietnam war was different because there were a lot less airstrikes.
Here that’s pretty much all they did with some extra manual work

 

[Ronaldo7]

The positive thing for India about the US getting out of Afghanistan is that the major reason for the US to keep helping Pakistan's military will be gone.

No more F-16s like the ones which Kerry sent to Pakistan.

Expect the US to take a harsher stance wrt the FATF and elsewhere if ISI's keeps nurturing the jihadis.

Of course, in a future US administration the neocons may be back, and may start a war with Iran, in which case the US will need Pakistan again. Afghanistan isn't important enough for the US to be drawn back in. Whether the country's economy rots under religious rule, or progresses is now up to the Afghans.

Indians finding a silver lining in this too? Moral victory i guess lol.

The FATF has not been a major concern for us we know we’re not gonna get blacklisted. Not because of the US but because of China.

The US leaving AFG would mean Pakistan will have to deploy less soldiers on those borders and there will be less anti-pakistan elements targetting Pakistan.

All this “US will take a harsher stance on Pakistan” is just Indians day-dreaming.

If all goes to plan for Pakistan, they will have a lot more control in the region especially in AFG

So this deal is a win-win for Pakistan

 

[ahsan17]

Indians finding a silver lining in this too? Moral victory i guess lol.

The FATF has not been a major concern for us we know we’re not gonna get blacklisted. Not because of the US but because of China.

The US leaving AFG would mean Pakistan will have to deploy less soldiers on those borders and there will be less anti-pakistan elements targetting Pakistan.

All this “US will take a harsher stance on Pakistan” is just Indians day-dreaming.

If all goes to plan for Pakistan, they will have a lot more control in the region especially in AFG

So this deal is a win-win for Pakistan

Possibly the biggest thing that's understated, India's capabilities to de-stabilize Pakistan and spread terrorism in Balochistan, Karachi, etc will be almost completely neutralized.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Possibly the biggest thing that's understated, India's capabilities to de-stabilize Pakistan and spread terrorism in Balochistan, Karachi, etc will be almost completely neutralized.

Exactly and looking at how Balochistan is the majority of the terror attacks happen, the reduce in terror there will help to eradicate terror from Pakistan as a whole.
I’m seeing this happening in the next 10-15 years

 

[MenInG]

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani says his government has not pledged to free Taliban prisoners, as stated in a deal reached by the US and the militants.

Under the landmark agreement signed on Saturday in Qatar, 5,000 Taliban would be released in exchange for up to 1,000 government detainees by 10 March.

Mr Ghani said such a prisoner release "cannot be a prerequisite for talks", but must be part of negotiations.

The US-Taliban agreement includes a phased withdrawal of US troops.

In return, the hard-line Islamist group agreed to hold peace talks with the Afghan government.

The deal also commits the Taliban to prevent al-Qaeda and all other extremist groups from operating in the areas they control.

The US invaded Afghanistan weeks after the September 2001 attacks in New York by al-Qaeda, then based in Afghanistan. The Taliban were ousted from power but became an insurgent force that by 2018 was active in more than two-thirds of the country.

What did Ghani say?
Less than 24 hours after the deal was signed in Doha, the Afghan president told reporters in Kabul: "The reduction in violence will continue with a goal to reach a full ceasefire."

But he added: "There is no commitment to releasing 5,000 prisoners.

"This is the right and the self-will of the people of Afghanistan. It could be included in the agenda of the intra-Afghan talks, but cannot be a prerequisite for talks."

Any prisoner release, he added, was "not in the authority of the US" but "in the authority of the Afghan government".

An estimated 10,000 captured Taliban are being held in Afghanistan.

Bumpy road
What happens to the Taliban prisoners in Afghan jails was always going to be a tricky issue. For the insurgents, having them released is a key goal. The Afghan government, however, knows that, and is reluctant to play the card too early - without extracting any concession in return.

As one Afghan official put it to me: "They want their prisoners, we want a ceasefire."

The confusion over their fate stems in part from a difference in language between a statement released by the US on Saturday in Kabul, and the US-Taliban agreement.

The deal reached in Doha states that the US will "work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release" prisoners, before adding that the release will happen by the 10th March start of "intra-Afghan talks".

However, the US-Afghan joint declaration released on the same day simply says the US will facilitate between the government and Taliban on the "feasibility" of prisoner release.

What does the deal mean for the US?
More than 2,400 American troops have been killed during the conflict. About 12,000 are still stationed in the country.

The US and its Nato allies have agreed to withdraw all troops within 14 months if the militants uphold the deal.

US President Donald Trump, who had promised to end the Afghan conflict, said on Saturday that it was "time to bring our people back home".

Mr Trump said 5,000 US troops would leave Afghanistan by May and he would meet Taliban leaders in the near future.

He added that US troops had been killing militants in Afghanistan "by the thousands" and now it was "time for someone else to do that work and it will be the Taliban and it could be surrounding countries".

Nearly 3,500 members of the international coalition forces have died in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion.

The figures for Afghan civilians, militants and government forces are more difficult to quantify. In a February 2019 report, the UN said that more than 32,000 civilians had died.

The Watson Institute at Brown University says 58,000 security personnel and 42,000 opposition combatants have been killed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51695370

 

[Waseem]

I think you are very ignorant about Pakistan politics. That was about TTP, the same TTP which attacked the APS school, Imran Khan wanted govt to allow them to open their offices in Pakistan.

Bro it turns out that it's you who is ignorant about this rather than others. Do you know when TTP was formed and do you know when Imran Khan started raising this issue? Hint: It was about 8 years before TTP even existed. Imran Khan had warned several times that these sort of attacks would increase terrorism and more groups could come up and guess what? TTP was the result and clearly Imran Khan was right.
About TTP, Imran Khan always said that TTP is not an ideological group, it consists of several groups, some demanding Islamic sharia, some criminal elements who just wanted power to continue their activities, some Afghan/Indian proxies and Imran Khan always said that peace talks should be held with groups ready to talk and action against criminals and terrorists. Eventually APS happened and the there was no time to do anything other than attack.....He fully agreed with Zarb e azab and never said a word.

In short, Imran Khan was only person who kept insisting that Americans are making a mistake and this is madness to keep fighting, it could take decades (he said in 2002 onwards) and it took 2 decades almost. He was criticised, he was called names but he can hold his head high and proud of his stance. It's funny how some are trying to now say oh he said about bad Tliabans (TTP) and not good Talibans (Afghan) lol, his videos and Tweets are available where he said this in several interviews to local and international media.

 

[Knight_Rider]

New Twist, as the Afghan President Ghani has rejected the prisoner release:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51695370

Questions are:
1) why did americans kept the Afghan govt out of any discussions with Taliban?
2) Can Ashraf Ghani reject the terms agreed by Americans and derail Trump’s plan? Is he trying get some concession out of it?

 

[Bewal Express]

New Twist, as the Afghan President Ghani has rejected the prisoner release:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51695370

Questions are:
1) why did americans kept the Afghan govt out of any discussions with Taliban?
2) Can Ashraf Ghani reject the terms agreed by Americans and derail Trump’s plan? Is he trying get some concession out of it?

Ghani has no power.

 

[Bewal Express]

Bro it turns out that it's you who is ignorant about this rather than others. Do you know when TTP was formed and do you know when Imran Khan started raising this issue? Hint: It was about 8 years before TTP even existed. Imran Khan had warned several times that these sort of attacks would increase terrorism and more groups could come up and guess what? TTP was the result and clearly Imran Khan was right.
About TTP, Imran Khan always said that TTP is not an ideological group, it consists of several groups, some demanding Islamic sharia, some criminal elements who just wanted power to continue their activities, some Afghan/Indian proxies and Imran Khan always said that peace talks should be held with groups ready to talk and action against criminals and terrorists. Eventually APS happened and the there was no time to do anything other than attack.....He fully agreed with Zarb e azab and never said a word.

In short, Imran Khan was only person who kept insisting that Americans are making a mistake and this is madness to keep fighting, it could take decades (he said in 2002 onwards) and it took 2 decades almost. He was criticised, he was called names but he can hold his head high and proud of his stance. It's funny how some are trying to now say oh he said about bad Tliabans (TTP) and not good Talibans (Afghan) lol, his videos and Tweets are available where he said this in several interviews to local and international media.

Good Taliban v bad Taliban - The lifafa Cyril Almeida got taken to cleaners and humiliated for saying the same on twitter. I am not on twitter but I saw his humiliation at the hands of the posters.

 

[Napa]

The Vietnam war was different because there were a lot less airstrikes.
Here that’s pretty much all they did with some extra manual work

Against an enemy that doesn't come out in the open but remains hidden in the civilian population, the US had two options. Terrorize the civilians into surrendering the insurgents (like "successful" dictators, for example Saddam or the Saudis would have done), or use airstrikes. The US chose airstrikes as terrorizing the civilian population was not an option.

 

[Napa]

Indians finding a silver lining in this too? Moral victory i guess lol.

It is not a "moral victory". It is a simple fact that the US had to play nice with Pakistan (including supplying it F-16s 6 years ago) due to the leverage Pakistan had due to Afghanistan. That leverage will now be ended.

The FATF has not been a major concern for us we know we’re not gonna get blacklisted. Not because of the US but because of China.

Being on the FATF grey list is enough of a negative signal to Western FDI. Also, FATF is only one of many possible sanctions.

The US leaving AFG would mean Pakistan will have to deploy less soldiers on those borders and there will be less anti-pakistan elements targetting Pakistan.

All this “US will take a harsher stance on Pakistan” is just Indians day-dreaming.

If all goes to plan for Pakistan, they will have a lot more control in the region especially in AFG

So this deal is a win-win for Pakistan

You can have all the control you want of Afghanistan. Enjoy the trillion dollar trade with them and access to their unparalleled science and technology.

 

[Knight_Rider]

It is not a "moral victory". It is a simple fact that the US had to play nice with Pakistan (including supplying it F-16s 6 years ago) due to the leverage Pakistan had due to Afghanistan. That leverage will now be ended.

Being on the FATF grey list is enough of a negative signal to Western FDI. Also, FATF is only one of many possible sanctions.




You can have all the control you want of Afghanistan. Enjoy the trillion dollar trade with them and access to their unparalleled science and technology.

Phir wohi Angoor.
Jaane de bhai, koi faida nahee.

 

[Saeed]

It is not a "moral victory". It is a simple fact that the US had to play nice with Pakistan (including supplying it F-16s 6 years ago) due to the leverage Pakistan had due to Afghanistan. That leverage will now be ended.



Being on the FATF grey list is enough of a negative signal to Western FDI. Also, FATF is only one of many possible sanctions.




You can have all the control you want of Afghanistan. Enjoy the trillion dollar trade with them and access to their unparalleled science and technology.

I think it might be opposite. With U.S. having no stakes in Afghanistan they might be willing to sell their advanced equipment to Pakistan, of course as long as Pakistan has money.

Wouldn’t that be some sight though. A peaceful Afghanistan with a new government sitting in a parliament building built by India, enjoying the benefits of Salma dam and chimtala power station and then having trillion dollar trade with Pakistan. Mashallah that would be a sight to behold.

 

[Haroon786]

Quite clearly plain as to who this will benefit, if it should go through fully, and to who it won't.

 

[Bewal Express]

It is not a "moral victory". It is a simple fact that the US had to play nice with Pakistan (including supplying it F-16s 6 years ago) due to the leverage Pakistan had due to Afghanistan. That leverage will now be ended.



Being on the FATF grey list is enough of a negative signal to Western FDI. Also, FATF is only one of many possible sanctions.




You can have all the control you want of Afghanistan. Enjoy the trillion dollar trade with them and access to their unparalleled science and technology.

Why did Ind invest so much, what were they hoping to gain? Your govt has failed in its primary aim, this indeed is a good day.

 

[Napa]

I think it might be opposite.

Everyone is free to think up fantastical scenarios based on their hearts' desires.

With U.S. having no stakes in Afghanistan they might be willing to sell their advanced equipment to Pakistan, of course as long as Pakistan has money.

India and the US are now very tightly tied.

“You hear officials say now that the U.S. exercises more with India than any other non-NATO partner. You would never have imagined that 20 years ago.”

https://www.eurasiareview.com/26112019-us-and-india-grow-closer-strategically-analysis/

"The Surprising Success of the U.S.-Indian Partnership"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/india/2020-02-20/surprising-success-us-indian-partnership

Trump’s India visit tightens defense ties

https://asiatimes.com/2020/02/trumps-india-visit-tightens-defense-ties/

India's importance to the US in its defense plans is now so great, that they have stopped complaining about the SS-400 purchase.

Also, if the US defense industry was given the option, they would obviously choose the customer with $476 Billion forex reserves over one nearly bankrupt.

https://tradingeconomics.com/india/foreign-exchange-reserves

Wouldn’t that be some sight though. A peaceful Afghanistan with a new government sitting in a parliament building built by India, enjoying the benefits of Salma dam and chimtala power station and then having trillion dollar trade with Pakistan. Mashallah that would be a sight to behold.

If wishes were horses...

 

[Napa]

Why did Ind invest so much, what were they hoping to gain? Your govt has failed in its primary aim, this indeed is a good day.

Maybe bad planning by the Indian government. Or more likely they needed to show some form of support to the US. The US asked for Indian troops which India refused. But can't say no to everything when a friend asks. So they threw in a couple of billion dollars of infrastructure projects. That's not a big deal when there is $476 billion of forex reserves to play with.

My prediction is that in the next ten years the Taliban will either be fighting with each other, or Iran or Pakistan. People with their mentality cannot live in peace. Hopefully US and Russia will work out a deal to arm the non-Pashtuns (who actually are 58% of the population) so that the entire country is not dominated by the Taliban. There are easy supply routes to the Northern people through Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan if the Russia chooses to intervene. If the Taliban commit atrocities against the Shias as they have did in Mazar-i Sharif in 1998, then Iran may feel compelled to intervene.

 

[minamino]

Good from Ghani. Any self respecting Afghan would reject this ‘peace’ deal

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Maybe bad planning by the Indian government. Or more likely they needed to show some form of support to the US. The US asked for Indian troops which India refused. But can't say no to everything when a friend asks. So they threw in a couple of billion dollars of infrastructure projects. That's not a big deal when there is $476 billion of forex reserves to play with.

My prediction is that in the next ten years the Taliban will either be fighting with each other, or Iran or Pakistan. People with their mentality cannot live in peace. Hopefully US and Russia will work out a deal to arm the non-Pashtuns (who actually are 58% of the population) so that the entire country is not dominated by the Taliban. There are easy supply routes to the Northern people through Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan if the Russia chooses to intervene. If the Taliban commit atrocities against the Shias as they have did in Mazar-i Sharif in 1998, then Iran may feel compelled to intervene.

Please don't go back to the Northern alliance as a method to neutralise the taliban
That ended up badly for the hazaras who incidentally it wasn't their first time

The uzbekis will definitely have a part to play as they are a part of both the taliban and other religious movements in Central Asia too

 

[Ronaldo7]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-u...tent&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

 

[Ronaldo7]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">With peace in Afghanistan, all 3 geo strategic powers - US, China, Russia - will push for Pak entry into NSG. Their stakes in region are high. Meanwhile, by underestimating Pak’s first civil-mil gov, Modi gov has damaged India’s hard & soft power. We are isolated</p>— Pravin Sawhney (@PravinSawhney) <a href="https://twitter.com/PravinSawhney/status/1233580231224700928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 29, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Bewal Express]

Maybe bad planning by the Indian government. Or more likely they needed to show some form of support to the US. The US asked for Indian troops which India refused. But can't say no to everything when a friend asks. So they threw in a couple of billion dollars of infrastructure projects. That's not a big deal when there is $476 billion of forex reserves to play with.

My prediction is that in the next ten years the Taliban will either be fighting with each other, or Iran or Pakistan. People with their mentality cannot live in peace. Hopefully US and Russia will work out a deal to arm the non-Pashtuns (who actually are 58% of the population) so that the entire country is not dominated by the Taliban. There are easy supply routes to the Northern people through Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan if the Russia chooses to intervene. If the Taliban commit atrocities against the Shias as they have did in Mazar-i Sharif in 1998, then Iran may feel compelled to intervene.

It's great to see that you ignored the real reason and went for the old friend chestnut. As Ind cares so much for the minorities in Afg, I am sure they can provide the 20mn or so asylum in Ind that will face discrimination.

 

[Knight_Rider]

There is a long history that links Afghanistan with India since the days of Mahmud Ghaznavi.

 

[Napa]

It's great to see that you ignored the real reason and went for the old friend chestnut. As Ind cares so much for the minorities in Afg, I am sure they can provide the 20mn or so asylum in Ind that will face discrimination.

You either read my post to quickly, or your comprehension is very poor. By "friend" I meant the US, not the minorities in Afghanistan.

 

[Napa]

Please don't go back to the Northern alliance as a method to neutralise the taliban
That ended up badly for the hazaras who incidentally it wasn't their first time

The uzbekis will definitely have a part to play as they are a part of both the taliban and other religious movements in Central Asia too

Why do you blame the Northern Alliance for the bad things that happened to the Hazaras?

The Taliban think of Shias as kafir, so it is not as if the Hazaras can keep them happy by submitting to them. Of course, a proud people wouldn't submit in the first place.

 

[Bewal Express]

You either read my post to quickly, or your comprehension is very poor. By "friend" I meant the US, not the minorities in Afghanistan.

I knew what you meant. And I was referring to the law allowing minorities to seek asylum in Ind.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Why do you blame the Northern Alliance for the bad things that happened to the Hazaras?

The Taliban think of Shias as kafir, so it is not as if the Hazaras can keep them happy by submitting to them. Of course, a proud people wouldn't submit in the first place.

The hazaras have submitted to most Afghans in the last century mainly because they're suspected of being aligned with the iranian regime
The taliban who are modelled on the revolutionary guard of the new Iran regime must have taken a dislike to them too
The sipaha e sahaba are anti Shia and they have aligned with the taliban ccording to press since the death of mullah omar

 

[Napa]

The hazaras have submitted to most Afghans in the last century mainly because they're suspected of being aligned with the iranian regime
The taliban who are modelled on the revolutionary guard of the new Iran regime must have taken a dislike to them too
The sipaha e sahaba are anti Shia and they have aligned with the taliban ccording to press since the death of mullah omar

Given the Taliban's dislike of the Hazaras, it would seem to me that the best option for the Hazaras is to align themselves with the Northern Alliance to protect themselves.

 

[troodon]

Good luck to Hazaras, women and statues.

Barbarians are back. All hail the baboons who get to terrorize poor Afghan people again. They willl take Afghanistan to 7th century and keep it there for good.

 

[Napa]

Good luck to Hazaras, women and statues.

Barbarians are back. All hail the baboons who get to terrorize poor Afghan people again. They willl take Afghanistan to 7th century and keep it there for good.

While I understand your concern for women, the men are simply massacred.

A Tajik man who had been detained in the prison at the time described how the prisoners were ordered into the trucks:

As the jail filled up they would bring container trucks. It is hard to say exactly who was being put in. They were going to put me in, but I yelled, “I am old and Tajik—what are you doing?” It was very hot. People were already very thirsty. They put them inside and closed the doors. It was clear they would not survive ten minutes. I saw this happen once. There were maybe 120 to 150 men inside.

In at least two instances, nearly all of the prisoners inside the trucks died of asphyxiation in the crowded conditions and desert heat by the time the trucks reached Shiberghan, a three-hour drive from Mazar. One witness saw the trucks in Shiberghan:

In Shiberghan, they brought three containers to Bandare-i Ankhoï, close to the jail. When they opened the door of one truck, only three persons were alive. About 300 were dead. The three were taken to the jail. I could see all this from [where I was sitting]. This was seven days after the takeover. The containers were about twenty feet long. ... I know that there were many dead bodies because the Taliban asked [someone I know] and three Turkmens to go with them to Dasht-e-Leili [a desert site outside Shiberghan]. The Taliban did not want to touch the bodies so the porters took the bodies out of the containers.

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-02.htm

Hard to say the lot of the women was worse than that of the men.

 

[Pakpak]

Good luck to Hazaras, women and statues.

Barbarians are back. All hail the baboons who get to terrorize poor Afghan people again. They willl take Afghanistan to 7th century and keep it there for good.

Not like the Afghans have shown any aptitude to move into the modern century without the Taliban either. I've met Afghans in UK too who are as stuck in stone age as the Taliban. Things like bacha baazi acid attacks women abuse still were and are still rampant in the last 19 years. Don't let some women schools being opened fool you.

 

[Lonewarrior]

 

[Lonewarrior]

Indian media looks very desperate , now they are poking Balochistan issue in the deal ....
beganay ki shadi may Abdullah dewana ....

some naive Pakistanis should look this video ....

How Balochs are looking at Afghan US peace deal?

 

[AdamM97]

So Ashraf Ghani has refused to release the Taliban prisoners despite the agreement signed by the Americans and Taliban.
Say what you will about the deal but what leverage does he exactly hold? The US will topple him in no time if he goes against their wishes, he depends on the US to stay in power.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Given the Taliban's dislike of the Hazaras, it would seem to me that the best option for the Hazaras is to align themselves with the Northern Alliance to protect themselves.

Ahmed shah masood did leave behind a good legacy

 

[Local.Dada]

I never thought Taliban would be hailed as heroes anywhere else on mainstream
Internet.

Taliban and peace in the same sentence is so ironic

 

[Ronaldo7]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">LOL @ Indian journalists who have not read the US-Taliban deal and are reporting to their audience that the deal has collapsed after two days. Please read the damn text of the deal. It literally says in there a full ceasefire can only result after intra-Afghan talks.</p>— &#55356;&#57332;* FJ &#55356;&#57332;* (@Natsecjeff) <a href="https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1234490691096584198?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Before anyone starts talking about the Taliban ending the partial truce and before the Indians start getting happy about something they don’t know.

This partial truce was between the Taliban and the AFG gov, and now as it has ended it’ll be easier for the Taliban to control the country as the US troops will leave no matter what.

So i don’t see why Indians are getting happy.

Example:
https://mobile.twitter.com/nailainayat/status/1234488386754416640

This is what happens when you’re the “Abdullah” in the ”Begani Shaadi”

These Indians haven’t even read the full agreement and are getting happy. )

 

[Knight_Rider]

Indian media looks very desperate , now they are poking Balochistan issue in the deal ....
beganay ki shadi may Abdullah dewana ....

some naive Pakistanis should look this video ....

How Balochs are looking at Afghan US peace deal?

Kab tak rotay rahein ge indians. Time to pack their bags from Afghanistan.

Taliban will surely look after the dams and hospitals they have built in Afghanistan. Modi ka ilaaj bhi wahee se karwana chahiay (khushbu lagga k).

 

[MenInG]

Taliban militants will not take part in intra-Afghan talks until about 5,000 of their prisoners are released, a spokesman said on Monday, presenting a major possible barrier to ending the war.

Under an accord between the United States and the Taliban signed on Saturday, the two sides are committed to working towards the release of combat and political prisoners as a confidence-building measure.

The agreement calls for up to 5,000 jailed Taliban prisoners to be released in exchange for up to 1,000 Afghan government captives by March 10.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, not involved in the talks, has since rejected that demand.

“We are fully ready for the intra-Afghan talks, but we are waiting for the release of our 5,000 prisoners,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Reuters by phone.

“If our 5,000 prisoners — 100 or 200 more or less does not matter — do not get released there will be no intra-Afghan talks.”

The US has said it hopes negotiations towards a permanent political settlement and ceasefire can start in coming days, but Western diplomats and analysts see stark challenges ahead.

Ghani said on Sunday that US President Donald Trump had not asked for the release of the prisoners and that the issue of prisoner releases should be discussed as part of a comprehensive peace deal.

Zabihullah said the majority of prisoners on the list of 5,000 had been captured by American forces and were held in Afghan government prisons and that they had prioritised sick and older prisoners. US-led forces ousted the hardline militants from power in 2001.

Zabihullah said that an agreement of a reduction in violence in the seven days leading up to Saturday's pact in Doha had formally ended.

“As we are receiving reports that people are enjoying the reduction in violence, we don't want to spoil their happiness, but it does not mean that we will not take our normal military activities back to the level that we were before,” he said.

“It could be any time, it could be after an hour, tonight, tomorrow or the day after.”

The Afghan war has been a stalemate for more than 18 years, with Taliban forces controlling or contesting more territory yet unable to capture and hold major urban centres.

Under the agreement, the US is committed to reducing the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 from 13,000 within 135 days of signing.

It also is committed to work with allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces in Afghanistan over that period, if the Taliban adhere to their security guarantees and ceasefire.

A full withdrawal of all US and coalition forces would occur within 14 months, a joint statement said. The withdrawal depends on security guarantees by the Taliban.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1537869/t...part-in-afghan-talks-until-prisoners-released

 

[troodon]

Not like the Afghans have shown any aptitude to move into the modern century without the Taliban either. I've met Afghans in UK too who are as stuck in stone age as the Taliban. Things like bacha baazi acid attacks women abuse still were and are still rampant in the last 19 years. Don't let some women schools being opened fool you.

Without Taliban, Women education was at least there. People could actually talk freely at least in Kabul.

I expect women to suffer the most. They will be treated worse than animals. Their schools will be blown up again and anyone who opposes the tyrrany of Taliban will be beheaded in public.

Sharia will be in full force in Afghanistan.

 

[MenInG]

The Taliban are to resume attacks against government forces, just days after signing a deal with the US aimed at bringing peace to Afghanistan.

The hard-line Islamist group had observed a "reduction in violence" in the week leading up to the agreement.

The deal included a commitment to hold peace talks with the Afghan government.

But the group's spokesman said on Monday the talks would not go ahead if 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by the government were not released.

The release formed part of the agreement signed on Saturday in Qatar with the US.

But on Sunday, Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani told reporters his government had agreed to no such release.

"There is no commitment to releasing 5,000 prisoners," Mr Ghani said. "This is the right and the self-will of the people of Afghanistan. It could be included in the agenda of the intra-Afghan talks, but cannot be a prerequisite for talks."

The Taliban have previously refused to negotiate with the Afghan government, so Saturday's deal was just with the US, which invaded Afghanistan weeks after the September 2001 attacks in New York by al-Qaeda, then based in Afghanistan.

The Taliban were ousted from power but became an insurgent force that by 2018 was active in more than two-thirds of the country.

What have the Taliban said?
The Taliban said they would resume fighting Afghan forces, but would not target international troops.

This contradicted Mr Ghani's comments on Sunday. He had said the partial truce was set to continue "with a goal to reach a full ceasefire".

Meanwhile, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told news agency Reuters they would not take part in talks with the government unless the release went ahead.

"We are fully ready for the intra-Afghan talks, but we are waiting for the release of our 5,000 prisoners," he said. "If our 5,000 prisoners - 100 or 200 more or less does not matter - do not get released there will be no intra-Afghan talks."

An estimated 10,000 captured Taliban are being held in Afghanistan.

The BBC's Secunder Kermani says it's not yet clear if the Taliban will now resume fighting - or if this is an attempt to pressurise the government into releasing the detainees.

How has the US reacted?
General Scott Miller, the US forces commander in Afghanistan, said the reduction in violence "was a confidence builder", adding: "We're very serious about our obligations and we expect the Taliban will be serious about their obligations.

"The United States has been very clear about our expectations - the violence must remain low."


Media captionTens of thousands of Afghan soldiers have been killed and injured. This is their story
Saturday's agreement included the withdrawal of US troops and its Nato allies from Afghanistan within 14 months - if the militants hold up the deal.

About 12,000 US troops are still stationed in the country.

US President Donald Trump, who had promised to end the Afghan conflict, said on Saturday that it was "time to bring our people back home".

Mr Trump said 5,000 US troops would leave Afghanistan by May and he would meet Taliban leaders in the near future.

He added that US troops had been killing militants in Afghanistan "by the thousands" and now it was "time for someone else to do that work and it will be the Taliban and it could be surrounding countries".

On Sunday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CBS news that he hoped negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban would begin in the coming days.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51706126

 

[minamino]

The Taliban are to resume attacks against government forces, just days after signing a deal with the US aimed at bringing peace to Afghanistan.

The hard-line Islamist group had observed a "reduction in violence" in the week leading up to the agreement.

The deal included a commitment to hold peace talks with the Afghan government.

But the group's spokesman said on Monday the talks would not go ahead if 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by the government were not released.

The release formed part of the agreement signed on Saturday in Qatar with the US.

But on Sunday, Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani told reporters his government had agreed to no such release.

"There is no commitment to releasing 5,000 prisoners," Mr Ghani said. "This is the right and the self-will of the people of Afghanistan. It could be included in the agenda of the intra-Afghan talks, but cannot be a prerequisite for talks."

The Taliban have previously refused to negotiate with the Afghan government, so Saturday's deal was just with the US, which invaded Afghanistan weeks after the September 2001 attacks in New York by al-Qaeda, then based in Afghanistan.

The Taliban were ousted from power but became an insurgent force that by 2018 was active in more than two-thirds of the country.

What have the Taliban said?
The Taliban said they would resume fighting Afghan forces, but would not target international troops.

This contradicted Mr Ghani's comments on Sunday. He had said the partial truce was set to continue "with a goal to reach a full ceasefire".

Meanwhile, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told news agency Reuters they would not take part in talks with the government unless the release went ahead.

"We are fully ready for the intra-Afghan talks, but we are waiting for the release of our 5,000 prisoners," he said. "If our 5,000 prisoners - 100 or 200 more or less does not matter - do not get released there will be no intra-Afghan talks."

An estimated 10,000 captured Taliban are being held in Afghanistan.

The BBC's Secunder Kermani says it's not yet clear if the Taliban will now resume fighting - or if this is an attempt to pressurise the government into releasing the detainees.

How has the US reacted?
General Scott Miller, the US forces commander in Afghanistan, said the reduction in violence "was a confidence builder", adding: "We're very serious about our obligations and we expect the Taliban will be serious about their obligations.

"The United States has been very clear about our expectations - the violence must remain low."


Media captionTens of thousands of Afghan soldiers have been killed and injured. This is their story
Saturday's agreement included the withdrawal of US troops and its Nato allies from Afghanistan within 14 months - if the militants hold up the deal.

About 12,000 US troops are still stationed in the country.

US President Donald Trump, who had promised to end the Afghan conflict, said on Saturday that it was "time to bring our people back home".

Mr Trump said 5,000 US troops would leave Afghanistan by May and he would meet Taliban leaders in the near future.

He added that US troops had been killing militants in Afghanistan "by the thousands" and now it was "time for someone else to do that work and it will be the Taliban and it could be surrounding countries".

On Sunday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CBS news that he hoped negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban would begin in the coming days.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51706126

And people were celebrating this ‘peace’ deal

 

[troodon]

And people were celebrating this ‘peace’ deal

There will not be peace as long as religious bozos will rule the roost. You can put a dog on a throne. But it will continue pee on the throne. Old ways die hard.

 

[Knight_Rider]

There will not be peace as long as religious bozos will rule the roost. You can put a dog on a throne. But it will continue pee on the throne. Old ways die hard.

Fits perfectly on Modi

 

[JaDed]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/02/afghanistasn-bomb-attack-taliban-us-deal


Longest peace deal ever.

 

[JaDed]

So the peace deal is that bomb attacks in middle of football matches will continue till they have intra talks?

No wonder US is the smartest.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Why you think the deal between US and Taliban has ended?

No US personnel died in that blast and Taliban are adamant about release of their prisoners. Dont you think that Trump will be able to demand that from Ashraf Ghani?

 

[Ronaldo7]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/02/afghanistasn-bomb-attack-taliban-us-deal


Longest peace deal ever.

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1234519111998287874

Begaani Shaadi main Abdullah deewana.

The violence was supposed to be reduced not completely halted. also, the taliban spokesperson has said that they will comply with the agreement once their 5000 captives are released.

Indians really like to butt in into matters they know s-t about lol

 

[Ronaldo7]

Why you think the deal between US and Taliban has ended?

No US personnel died in that blast and Taliban are adamant about release of their prisoners. Dont you think that Trump will be able to demand that from Ashraf Ghani?

The taliban has clearly said that no foreign troops will be armed.

so i don't know Indians are getting excited

 

[Knight_Rider]

This statement from the US spokesperson clearly states that nothing has changed with regards to the deal. Taliban are just starting to take on their domestic opponents. Indians should stop their Bollywood dance now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51706126

 

[Ronaldo7]

The taliban has clearly said that no foreign troops will be harmed.

so i don't know Indians are getting excited

harmed*
[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] please correct it. thanks

 

[JaDed]

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1234519111998287874

Begaani Shaadi main Abdullah deewana.

The violence was supposed to be reduced not completely halted. also, the taliban spokesperson has said that they will comply with the agreement once their 5000 captives are released.

Indians really like to butt in into matters they know s-t about lol

Ofcourse you are right, that’s how peace works. Also no one is getting excited, but you are getting defensive.

Try the Abdullah line two more times on posters so that it becomes funny.

 

[troodon]

Reading through the posts, people supporting deal with Taliban clearly does not want the good for Afghanistan.

Would the supporters want Sharia in their own country that Taliban will implement on poor Afghans?

 

[JaDed]

Reading through the posts, people supporting deal with Taliban clearly does not want the good for Afghanistan.

Would the supporters want Sharia in their own country that Taliban will implement on poor Afghans?

Reply:
Begani Shaadi main Abdullah deewana

I understand now what posters mean when they say what does a Hindu have to do with Syria , Afghanistan etc etc...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Reading through the posts, people supporting deal with Taliban clearly does not want the good for Afghanistan.

Would the supporters want Sharia in their own country that Taliban will implement on poor Afghans?

No one wants that type of govt in Pakistan, but the current Afghan govt is anti-Pakistan so I guess those in Pakistan would prefer any govt which will have good neighbourly relations. Even Taliban.

 

[JaDed]

Why you think the deal between US and Taliban has ended?

No US personnel died in that blast and Taliban are adamant about release of their prisoners. Dont you think that Trump will be able to demand that from Ashraf Ghani?

I’m sure he would , I just didn’t know the meaning of peace and my bad on that, I’ll remember the definition next time as to how peace is achieved.

 

[sweep_shot]

Reading through the posts, people supporting deal with Taliban clearly does not want the good for Afghanistan.

Would the supporters want Sharia in their own country that Taliban will implement on poor Afghans?

If Afghans want Taliban, who are you to object?

Not everyone wants to see democracy. Democracy can't work everywhere equally.

Let Afghans decide what they want.

 

[JaDed]

If Afghans want Taliban, who are you to object?

Not everyone wants to see democracy. Democracy can't work everywhere equally.

Let Afghans decide what they want.

Do you feel the same about Syria bro?

 

[sweep_shot]

Do you feel the same about Syria bro?

Yes.

If Syrians want Assad gone (which many Syrians do), then I support the rebels. I can't support tyrants like Assad. This is a guy who drops barrel bombs on his own people.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Do you feel the same about Syria bro?

How long do you think the Syrian regime would have lasted if they weren't propped up by Russia and Iran? Syria wasn't doing too well when it was left to the Syrians before the intervention if I recall.

 

[JaDed]

Yes.

If Syrians want Assad gone (which many Syrians do), then I support the rebels. I can't support tyrants like Assad. This is a guy who drops barrel bombs on his own people.

Hmm and Taliban rule isn’t that of a Tyrant? Also how do you know Syrians wanted Assad out but Afghans want Taliban?

 

[JaDed]

How long do you think the Syrian regime would have lasted if they weren't propped up by Russia and Iran? Syria wasn't doing too well when it was left to the Syrians before the intervention if I recall.

Probably true, but whats the difference between Asad and Taliban?
Werent Taliban helped in 80s and 90s to come and remain in power.

 

[sweep_shot]

How long do you think the Syrian regime would have lasted if they weren't propped up by Russia and Iran? Syria wasn't doing too well when it was left to the Syrians before the intervention if I recall.

Turkey alone can obliterate Assad's dogs in less than a week. Assad is still standing due to Russia. Iran is not that relevant.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Reading through the posts, people supporting deal with Taliban clearly does not want the good for Afghanistan.

Would the supporters want Sharia in their own country that Taliban will implement on poor Afghans?

Like the current Afghan government were turning Afghanistan into America 2.0 right?
Google how many afghan civilians have died in the last 5-10 years.

After this deal, there will be some organisation. The current lawless land of Afg is much worse than it'll ever be with Sharia and there will a lot less civilian deaths

 

[sweep_shot]

Hmm and Taliban rule isn’t that of a Tyrant? Also how do you know Syrians wanted Assad out but Afghans want Taliban?

I know many Syrians want Assad out because I used to follow people who were in Syria (mostly journalists and regular people).

I have followed pro-Assad people, anti-Assad people, Kurdish activists etc.

As for Taliban, they have significant local support. You just have to do research.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Turkey alone can obliterate Assad's dogs in less than a week. Assad is still standing due to Russia. Iran is not that relevant.

Have you seen the videos where 10+ Pro syrian militants at a time are getting blown up by Turkish drones?

If Assad actually thinks that he can face Turkey then he's delusional. Turkey's the 11th best military in the world, Syria isn't even close

 

[JaDed]

I know many Syrians want Assad out because I used to follow people who were in Syria (mostly journalists and regular people).

I have followed pro-Assad people, anti-Assad people, Kurdish activists etc.

As for Taliban, they have significant local support. You just have to do research.

Ofcourse , the local journalists want Taliban in Afghanistan, my bad next time I’ll do my “research “.

 

[sweep_shot]

Have you seen the videos where 10+ Pro syrian militants at a time are getting blown up by Turkish drones?

If Assad actually thinks that he can face Turkey then he's delusional. Turkey's the 11 best military in the world

Yes. Turkey indeed has a very capable army and I want them to remain capable. Strong Turkey is necessary because Arab nations have become spineless.

Turkey can flatten out Assad anytime. Only entity that is preventing that is Russia.

 

[minamino]

Some really interesting comments here. There’s a blast less than a week after this deal and yet some people think peace will return to Afghanistan due to this deal

 

[Pakpak]

Without Taliban, Women education was at least there. People could actually talk freely at least in Kabul.

I expect women to suffer the most. They will be treated worse than animals. Their schools will be blown up again and anyone who opposes the tyrrany of Taliban will be beheaded in public.

Sharia will be in full force in Afghanistan.

Indians are clueless about Afganistan. The nation has been as backward as anywhere else barring Kabul. Nothing will change.

 

[cric_man]

Some really interesting comments here. There’s a blast less than a week after this deal and yet some people think peace will return to Afghanistan due to this deal

Yes and some very one sided commentary on the part of anti taliban posters as well

In urdu we have a saying "Is Hummam mein Sub Nangey Hein"; rough translation "Everyone is the same in this situation".

Lets be clear, Taliban have been horrible especially to the non Pashtoon minorities.

But so has all other actors. Post Najibullah, all afghan factions murdered and slaughtered their rivals and civilians of rival ethnicities. When Ahmad Shah Masood's forces took over Kabul and the northern warlords like the Butcher Adbul Rashid Dostum untelleable atrocities to pashtuns. Please tell me what was the life of Afghan women when these nice peaceful warlords were incharge b/w 93-95? Dostum even became vice president of Afghanistan after the US invasion and carried on his merry way. Search google on how his militia suffocated hundreds of Taliban prisoners crammed into containers and asphyxiated in 110 deg temperatures. When their US allies complained, they machine gunned the containers killing all inside. They explained they were creating breathing holes in the containers.

Coming to the hazara massacre in Mazar e Sharif, Please read through the below link. The horrible atrocity was done in retaliation to the Hazara's killing over 2000 taliban prisoners from the previous year as well as Hazaras driving out Balkh Pashtoons out of areas.

The killings of Hazara men and boys appear to have been carried out largely in reprisal for the killing of several thousand Taliban soldiers after a failed attempt by the Taliban to take the city from May to July 1997. Of these, some 2,000 were reportedly summarily executed after capture in Shiberghan and other areas, including areas to which prisoners from Mazar were deported. A number of neighborhoods targeted for searches in Mazar had been among those where resistance by Hizb-i Wahdat troops against the Taliban had begun at that time. Witnesses stated that Taliban conducting the house-to-house searches accused Hazaras in general of killing Taliban troops in 1997 and did not distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. In speeches given at mosques throughout Mazar, the Taliban governor, Mulla Manon Niazi, also blamed Hazaras for the 1997 killings.

Afghanistan: The Massacre in Mazar-I Sharif

Again, I am not justifying in any way what the atrocities done by the Taliban. But other players are not saints either. In the past 19 years, what improvements have been made to the lives of ordinary people of Afghanistan esp women? have they been liberated and feel free to go about unmolested in their daily lives since the scourge of Taliban has been lifted? After trillion dollars poured into Afghanistan by the US what has been achieved? What has the mayorship of kabul ( I would not call them Gov. of Afghanistan) done to integrate Pashtuns who make up 45% of the population and have been excluded from the government.
Taliban have substantial support amongst the Pashtun populance otherwise they would not have survived. That population needs to be given an alternative for them not to support the Taliban.

I look at it from a very selfish lense. This deal will pacify Pakistan's eatern border and deny our enemies safe havens to conduct terror strikes inside Pakistan.

Ideally I would love to see a peaceful Afghanistan were all can co-exist. CPEC infrastructure extended into Afghanistan and to Central Asia that benefits all around.

 

[Abdullah719]

'Good talk': Trump says he spoke to Taliban leader after accord

US President Donald Trump has said he held a "very good talk" with a Taliban leader in what may be the first direct discussion between a US leader and a senior Taliban official.

Taliban's chief negotiator Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and Trump held a 35-minute telephone call on Tuesday, a Taliban spokesman said, with Trump later confirming the call to reporters in the White House.

"I spoke to the leader of the Taliban today," said Trump. "We had a good conversation. We have agreed there is no violence. We don't want violence. We'll see what happens ... We had actually a very good talk with the leader of the Taliban."

The phone call came three days after the US and the Taliban signed an agreement in Doha on a US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan after more than 18 years.

"The President of the United States Trump @realDonaldTrump held a phone conversation with the Political Deputy of the Islamic Emirate, the respected Mullah Baradar Akhund. Details later," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid posted on Twitter.

In an emailed statement later, Mujahid said Trump told Baradar that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would soon speak to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani "so that the barriers against the inter-Afghan talks get removed."

No other details were disclosed.

Acknowledging a military deadlock after nearly two decades of conflict, the US on Saturday signed a historic peace agreement with the Taliban.

The deal, signed by chief negotiators from the two sides and witnessed by Pompeo, could see the withdrawal of all American and allied forces within 14 months and allow Trump to keep a key campaign pledge to extract the US from "endless wars".

But it could also easily unravel, particularly if the Taliban and other factions of Afghan society fail to have successful talks plotting a political way forward for the country.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/talk-trump-spoke-taliban-leader-accord-200303185853220.html

 

[The Viper]

Afghan conflict: US conducts first air strike on Taliban since deal

The US military has conducted an air strike against Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, just hours after President Donald Trump said he had had a "very good talk" with a leader of the group.

The US signed a deal with the Taliban on Saturday aimed at bringing peace to Afghanistan after years of war.

But a US forces spokesman said it launched an air strike on Wednesday in response to Taliban fighters attacking Afghan forces in Helmand province.

The Taliban has not commented.

It was not immediately clear if there were any casualties.

What did the US say?

Wednesday's strike was the first by the US against the Taliban in 11 days, when a reduction in violence agreement began between the two sides in the lead-up to Saturday's pact.

In a statement on Twitter, Colonel Sonny Leggett, a spokesman for the US forces in Afghanistan, said it was a "defensive strike" to disrupt an attack on an Afghan National Security Forces checkpoint.

The spokesman added that the US was still "committed to peace" but had a responsibility to defend its Afghan partners. He said Afghans and the US had complied with their side of the agreement, while the Taliban appeared intent on "squandering" the opportunity.

On Tuesday alone, he said, the Taliban had launched 43 attacks on checkpoints belonging to Afghan forces in Helmand.

"We call on the Taliban to stop needless attacks and uphold their commitments. As we have demonstrated, we will defend our partners when required," he wrote.

The Taliban has so far declined to confirm or deny responsibility for any of the attacks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51735315

 

[Abdullah719]

Mechanism reached for release of Taliban inmates, says Ashraf Ghani

A mechanism for the release of Taliban prisoners has been reached and a presidential decree will be issued in this regard on Tuesday, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said on Monday.

Ghani’s remarks came after he took an oath as president for another five-year term while, at a distance of a few metres, his electoral rival Abdullah Abdullah also held a parallel oath-taking ceremony.

Ghani said in his speech that the government he was forming would not only include members of his political camp though he would continue with the previous cabinet for two weeks. “Then we will form an inclusive government after consultation,” he said.

On March 2, Ghani had said he would not commit to a clause in the US-Taliban deal that called for a massive prisoner exchange, something the militants have been demanding for years.

Ghani had committed to continue honouring a partial truce that saw violence plummet in Afghanistan, but he had pushed back against the requirement for the Taliban to release up to 1,000 prisoners and for the Afghan government to release around 5,000 captives by March 10, when talks are supposed to start.

Following this, the Taliban had said it will not take part in intra-Afghan talks until about 5,000 of their prisoners are released, presenting a major possible barrier to ending the war.

“If our 5,000 prisoners — 100 or 200 more or less does not matter — do not get released there will be no intra-Afghan talks," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid had told Reuters by phone.

Loud explosions and gunfire were heard during today's inauguration ceremony. Ghani said such explosions and gunfire “cannot deter him from serving the nation”.

Ghani was sworn in for a second term on Monday but Abdullah refused to recognise the inauguration and held his own inauguration ceremony as a rival president.

Both Ghani and former chief executive Abdullah say they are Afghanistan's rightful leader following a disputed election last September, a stand-off that threatens political chaos days after the United States and the Taliban signed a deal on the withdrawal of US-led international forces.

On Sunday, the militant group had said peace talks with the Afghan government this week were unlikely to take place because of the oath-taking ceremonies, and had urged the leaders to instead to focus on an end to the war.

“We don’t think they will make it to getting ready for the intra-Afghan talks on March 10, because of [...] the disagreement between the politicians that is even leading to two swearing-in ceremonies,” the Taliban spokesperson had said.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1539590/mechanism-reached-for-release-of-taliban-inmates-says-ashraf-ghani

 

[Knight_Rider]

Taliban 2 : 0 Afghan Government
(India -5)

 

[cric_man]

Taliban 2 : 0 Afghan Government
(India -5)

Gaaii Bhense paani mein

 

[Abdullah719]

Taliban rejects Afghan gov't conditional prisoner release order

The conditional prisoner release order announced by Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani is against the US-Taliban agreement signed in Doha last month, a spokesman for the Taliban armed group said on Wednesday.

"It is properly explained in the peace accord that first 5,000 prisoners would be freed and then the Afghan dialogue would be initiated," Suhail Shaheen, spokesman for the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, said.

"We never agreed to any conditional release of the prisoners. If someone claims this, it will be against the peace accord that we signed on February 29."

The Taliban reaction comes after Ghani issued a decree ordering the release of 1,500 Taliban fighters, which presidential spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said was the first of two phases of releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners.

Sediqqi wrote on Twitter that the initial release was a goodwill gesture to kick-start peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

Another 3,500 are to be freed after negotiations begin, on the condition that there is a tangible reduction in violence, according to the four-article pardon decree.

Ghani's presidency has been challenged by Abdullah, who has also sworn himself in as the country's president.

Since the US-Taliban deal was signed in the Qatari capital on February 29, nearly 40 people have been killed in attacks, with 32 killed on Monday in a gun attack claimed by the ISIL (ISIS) armed group.

The US State Department issued a statement on Tuesday saying that the level of violence in Afghanistan is "unacceptable," and that, while the Taliban have stopped attacks against the US-led coalition forces and in Afghan cities, the violence in the countryside remains too high.

Despite the political turmoil in Kabul and increased violence on the battlefield, the US has started withdrawing its troops in keeping with the Doha deal. In the first phase, Washington will reduce its presence to 8,600 soldiers, down from the current 13,000.

If the Taliban adhere to their commitments to deny safe havens to armed groups in Afghanistan, Washington will withdraw the remainder of its troops over 14 months, according to the agreement.

At the time of its signing, the US-Taliban deal was touted as Afghanistan's best chance at peace after 40 years of relentless war while offering the US an exit after nearly 19 years of fighting in the country - its longest war.

President Donald Trump has expressed increasing frustration with the Afghan government and its security forces' inability to police and manage their own affairs.

The deal has faced hurdles from the outset, despite efforts by Washington's Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to bring the divided Afghan leadership together.

The US and other international players seem to have backed Ghani's leadership. Still, Abdullah, with his significant support base, cannot be ignored, analysts say.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...l-prisoner-release-order-200311073806368.html

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The Taliban said on Wednesday a release of prisoners by the Afghan government would begin by the end of March, and a senior Afghan government official confirmed the process would start “within a week”.

The development could remove a key factor in the deadlock holding up negotiations between the Islamist militant group and the Afghan government under a U.S.-brokered peace process.

“The meeting decided that the release of the prisoners will practically start by the end of March,” Suhail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesman, said on Twitter, referring to a virtual meeting that included Taliban and Afghan government officials.

 

[MenInG]

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan’s government late on Thursday announced a 21-member team to negotiate with the Taliban in a tentative sign of progress for the United States-brokered peace deal.

The list announced by the country’s State Ministry of Peace would be led by Masoom Stanekzai, a former National Directorate of Security chief, and included politicians, former officials and representatives of civil society. Five members of the team are women.

It was not immediately clear whether President Ashraf Ghani’s political rival Abdullah Abdullah would endorse the team selected, which diplomats have said would be vital given his camp’s strong influence in much of the country’s North and West.

Following the selection of the government’s negotiators, the next step should be to convene talks with the Taliban as part of a process aimed at ending America’s longest war and bringing peace to Afghanistan.

Abdullah’s spokesman did not immediately reply to request for comment.

The United States signed a troop withdrawal deal with the Taliban in February, but progress on moving to negotiations between the militant group and the Afghan government has been delayed, in part by the political feud between Ghani and Abdullah with both men claiming to be Afghanistan’s rightful leader following September’s election.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo failed to mediate between the two men to create an “inclusive” government during a day-long visit to Kabul on Monday, and announced a $1 billion cut in U.S. aid to Afghanistan, which he said could be reversed.

The government announced this week it would begin releasing Taliban prisoners at the end of March, edging closer to removing an obstacle to talks. The Taliban had demanded the unconditional release of 5,000 prisoners before starting talks with the government. Ghani countered with an offer to free 1,500 prisoners, and has since said he would release 100 at the end of March.

The arrangement was struck in a talks between Taliban and government officials held over Skype because of travel restrictions due to the global coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...otiators-for-talks-with-taliban-idUSKBN21E0PU

 

[MenInG]

The world is going to pot but these people.....

===

Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the militants could not talk to the 21-member team named on Thursday as it was not constituted taking into account all parties.

The team is headed by Masoom Stanekzai, an ex-security chief and supporter of President Ashraf Ghani, and includes politicians, former officials and representatives of civil society. Five members are women.

“In order to reach true and lasting peace, the aforementioned team must be agreed upon by all effective Afghan sides so that it can represent all sides,” said Mujahid.

The United States, which ousted the Taliban from power in 2001, signed a troop withdrawal deal with the group in February.

But progress on moving to talks between the militants and the Afghan government has been delayed by a feud between Afghan politicians, and disagreement between the Taliban and the government prisoner releases and a possible ceasefire.

Afghan ministry of peace affairs spokeswoman Najia Anwari said the Taliban’s stance was unjustified as the negotiating team was made after wide consultations among Afghan society.

Ghani’s political rival Abdullah Abdullah has not confirmed whether he will support the delegation, potentially important given his camp’s strong influence in the north and west.

Abdullah’s spokesman Fraidoon Khwazoon said that though the announced list was not final and there were “considerations that needed to be addressed”, it should not be rejected outright.

“All sides including the Taliban should try not to lose the available opportunity for peace, by make illogical excuses. The Taliban should not lose the current opportunity.”

The U.S. Embassy did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo failed to mediate between Abdullah and Ghana to create an “inclusive” government during a visit to Kabul on Monday, and announced a $1 billion cut in U.S. aid to Afghanistan, which he said could be reversed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...w-afghan-government-negotiators-idUSKBN21F0MM