Taliban reject peace deal - Macleans.ca

Taliban reject peace deal

Islamists’ website says victory ‘right around the corner’


Oh, that peace deal with the Taliban? The one that had a lot of people crowing “Jack (Layton) was right”? (Get well soon, Jack.) Turns out the Taliban want no part of it. Afghan President Hamid Karzai started the peace buzz last month at a conference in London, when he unveiled a plan to invite the Taliban to a peace council. But in a statement posted on their website—yes, there’s a Taliban website—the Islamic extremist group rejects the offer of talks, as they have all previous offers. “The invading Americans and all their invading allies should understand the objective of the mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate is more lofty and exalted than that the rulers of the White House could imagine,” the statement said.”These sacrificing mujahideen believe that the obtainment of this lofty goal is only possible through laying down their lives.” That’s the trouble with peace: there are fewer opportunities to die.


Filed under:

Taliban reject peace deal

    • Hats off to you, sir.

  1. "Taliban reject peace deal"

    Well, that's a shocker. Let's nix that plan…obviously there's no point in continuing down that road.

  2. Brilliant. The Taliban are on the verge of demonstrating that when you take on a modern Western country, you'll lose the first few rounds but if you can remain standing they'll give up shortly thereafter.

    Thank God we weren't such pushovers in 1940. Hopefully we can regain our collective sense, double down, and take these guys to the mattresses.

    • Vietnam [ Afghanistan for the Soviets] proved your first point a long time ago.

      As for the second: we just aren't prepared to be as ruthless as WW2. The reason is obvious, we aren't faced with a mortal threat to our way of life. This should always have been a police action.

      • To not realise Islam is a mortal threat is simply delusional …

        • Compared to the Wehrmacht? Get a grip.

        • "Islam"? That's a billion people you're talking about. Better recalibrate.

        • you bet,, remember 911?? there just gearing up for the next time,, when will it happen??? who knows, but it will!!!

      • How is that different from what it was after the Taliban was overthrown, which was punishment for playing gracious host to Al Queda.

        Wasnt the complaint that the Bush admin took its eye off the ball. A complaint I would share.

        The Taliban wont talk until they are in a position that they are quite weak, then it begs the question of why you would….that being said the goal is to get of Afghanistan so the afghanis can run it themselves in a manner that does no harm to its neighbours, near or far.

    • Your historical analogy is off-base.

    • Your historical analogy is off-base.

  3. Nobody ever agrees to anything until they agree to it.

  4. Agreed. Taliban have face to save too!

  5. drop a few nukes, that will sort them out

    • It's hard to drill through glass.

      • I am not sure i got this?? could you clarify please ??

  6. The extremist Islamic movement is into doing one thing and one thing only, the annihilation of anyone or anything that doesn't believe the way they believe. I have no idea of how to fight it properly, but to negotiate with them is the act of an infantile mind. You might as well negotiate with a wolverine.

  7. This was expected. it is the higher-ups in the Taliban that have the most to lose right now if there is peace. It is the thousands of Taliban soldiers that are the target of a peace plan, not their superiors.

    Comparisons to World War II are terribly naive. As were the predictions of victory in Afghanistan within a couple years of invading. Raising troop levels and maintaining the status quo in most other aspects isn't working. Soldiers are dying and governments wasting billions without progress.

    • I could be wrong, but is it true that there has never been an outside force to defeat the Taliban??