Taliban spokesman Mohammed Suhail Shaheen says that the US and Taliban
are “getting close” on the peace deal in Afghanistan, and that an
agreement could be concluded soon if the US makes a “reasonable and convincing proposal.”
Both sides have indicated strong progress in the Doha talks. This upbeat
comment from the Taliban comes a day after a joint US-Afghan statement
agreeing to work to speed up the peace effort.
The broad basis for the deal is the US withdrawing from Afghanistan and
the Taliban agreeing to keep ISIS and al-Qaeda out of the country. A
power-sharing agreement between the Afghan government and Taliban, which
is likely to be a top priority.
There has been hope for some time that the deal could be reached before
Afghanistan’s September election. It seems possible that such a deal
could still be reached in that time-frame.
Meanwhile, the Afghani traitors who colluded with the USA for all these years are heading for the top of the US embassy in Kabul where their helicopter ride out of the country is waiting.
Do you think part of this “reasonable and convincing proposal” would be that the USA acknowledge that they invaded Afghanistan for bullshit reasons in the first place? That some dude named Osama bin Laden had taken down the Twin Towers on 9/11 and was holed up in a cave there? Naw… That’s fake news that has gone down the memory hole long ago.
CIA drug running and and rare earths aren’t BS, though naturally not initially articulated as such. Widespread knowledge of US proxies Al Qaeda and ISIS means lessened support.
The Taliban should hold out for accelerated US and NATO troop withdrawal. The former has the leverage.
A 9/11 truther? Really? I used to work with a functional moron who turned into a metallurgy “expert” when discussing the Twin Towers. Why is it so hard to believe that a small group of properly motivated individuals couldn’t pull off a coordinated attack?
I hate the term “truther”. That seems to include anyone who doesn’t buy into the official story. Personally, I think the “properly motivated individuals” theory is as far fetched as any theory out there. The incompetence needed on so many levels to let it actually happen is beyond where my imagination can go.
So you’re confident that the same US gov’t which can’t pull its head out of its ass, somehow pulled off murdering 3,000 citizens, collapsing the Twin Towers, firing a missile at the Pentagon, and hijacking four planes, not only wholly successfully, but with no leaks whatsoever after the fact? *That* is for me the most woefully unbelievable scenario.
You just proved my point. I said none of those things. The “incompetence” is what I want answered because it is unbelievable. But no where did I imply the government pulled it off. I lean more towards “not stopping” it.
events surrounding 911 raise so many questions. Why the Bush administration ( Wolfowitz and his pals inside and outside administration) didn’t listen to the FBI’s 33 warnings about attacks since Jan to Aug 2001? Why did they ask FBI to divert resources to Saddam before 911 ? Why did they hours after 911,blame Saddam for 911? How did they manage to persuade the media to go along? Main question why they haven’t been brought to justice for false claims and for perversion of justice abuse of power and for waging wars against innocents? Truths behind 911 will never be know until those people are brought to justice .
GW Bush, like Trump, is a trust fund kid, an intellectually incurious person who knows better than to try to upset the system which guaranteed him a better life than most without ever having to lift a finger.
Saddam was blamed because so many people in the GW Bush administration had already been gunning for him, and Iraq was viewed as the easiest domino to knock over for that group of neocons (of which Bolton was a vocal member.) The media was compliant because it was just post 9/11, everything was Stars and Bars for several years after 9/11.
Honduran mafia can come up with same same excuses and so could have Hitler and his gang
I thought we didn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Plus we have accused Iran of collaborating with the Taliban as one of the reasons they(Iran)can’t be trusted. We’re hypocritical squared.
“Hypocritical squared” You are so right on that.
Good. About time.
Of course, if this had happened under Obama, Trump would be Tweeting that the “failing” socialist administration was a bunch of traitors who Hate America selling out our “brave servicemen, who, I’ve been told, also had their votes stolen by the Dems,” or some babbling nonsense along those lines.
Not really. Before he became President he actually tweeted peacenik things. And did you watch the Republican primary debate where he called the Iraq war a disaster based on lies, and lamented the huge amount of Iraqi civilians killed? Kepp sticking to your partisan script though.
The other half of the time he uttered the most hawkish drivel you could imagine, such as ‘we need to take out the terrorists’ families. Trump is always talking out of both sides of his mouth, sometimes uttering support for opposing policies in the same sentence.
At it’s core he’s been ruling as an anti-Obama reactionary, so it’s a fair assumption that he’d attack Obama in that situation.
In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”
Trump is all over the place. That’s so that his different followers can cherry pick their favorite sayings and adhere strictly to those. Trump has been a tabloid figure for four decades now, there’s a lot of quotes out there to go through.
Did you watch the primary debate where he declared himself to be the most militaristic person on a stage he shared with Ted Cruz and other knee-jerk neocons?
While he was taking out full page ads in the “failing” New York Times demanding the death penalty for innocent black kids because he’s a rich scared old racist?