NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/index.html


Declassified State Department papers detail 1998 meetings

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- During secret meetings with U.S. officials in 1998, top Taliban officials discussed assassinating or expelling Osama bin Laden in response to al Qaeda's deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, according to State Department documents.

Very interesting.

Okay, I read the article, and I've got to say that whoever wrote that headline did a really shitty job of doing it. "Bargain" is an extremely loaded word, and nothing in that article led me to believe that there was any sort of exchange being talked about between the US and the Taliban. There was a lot of talk back and forth, but unless there's some offering going on--and the article notes that the Taliban was not willing to give Bin Laden up--I don't see how you can reasonably call it bargaining.

So much for America not negotiating with terrorists.

So much for America not negotiating with terrorists.
Please--read the article and show me the negotiations. I didn't see them. I could have missed something, as I read it a little quickly, but I saw nothing that could be called negotiations.

So much for America not negotiating with terrorists.the Talibans were not terrorists (not the NeoCon definition anyways)...They were the Gov of a Country.

the Talibans were not terrorists (not the NeoCon definition anyways)...They were the Gov of a Country.
They were considered state sponsors of terrorism, which is why the Clinton administration refused to recognize their government, and didn't think twice about bombing them and using cruise missiles against terrorist camps in their territory.

But again--the article as I understood it said only that there had been meetings, not that there had been negotiations or bargaining over Osama Bin Laden's fate.

They were considered state sponsors of terrorism.So is Israel...and the US.

So is Israel...and the US.
Not by the US. The US considered the Taliban government to be a state sponsor of terrorism, which, to be accurate, they were, unquestionably. It was right about the time mentioned in that article, right after the African embassy bombings, that Clinton basically told the Taliban, if al Qaeda or Bin Laden hits us again, we're hitting you, because you're sheltering them.

I'm not trying to defend the US's subsequent actions in this ill-named war on terror--we've screwed it up royally. But at least when it comes to Afghanistan, it's important to remember that we had warned them that this was a problem, and as the article notes at the end, the US State Department didn't think that their warnings were going to have much of an effect on the Taliban.

So is Israel...and the US.

The US considers Israel and itself state sponsors of terrorism?

The US considers Israel and itself state sponsors of terrorism?I don't care what the US Gov considers to be Terrorists

maybe US Gov considers Iran election to be a fraud...
maybe US Gov considers the Florida fiasco to be Democracy...
maybe US Gov considers Chavez to be a Dictator...
maybe US Gov considers Iraq did 9-11...
maybe US Gov considers torture a good thing...
maybe US Gov considers that War is peace...
maybe US Gov considers that Iraq had WMD in 2002

I don't give a rat's ass about what the Bushites or the US Gov "considers".

They were considered state sponsors of terrorism, which is why the Clinton administration refused to recognize their government, and didn't think twice about bombing them and using cruise missiles against terrorist camps in their territory.

But again--the article as I understood it said only that there had been meetings, not that there had been negotiations or bargaining over Osama Bin Laden's fate.
No, they were not.

The Taliban was never recognized as THE STATE therefore they were never considered STATE SPONSORS of Terrorism.

They gained control through military force and were never recognized as the official government of Afghan. Most of the Taliban were not even Afghani, they were Arab. A cultural distinction any Afghani would be quick to point out.

The Taliban was comprised of OUTSIDERS, the Afghanis wanted them gone.
Now they are--but just like we fecked up with the Soviets in Afghan--we are going to feck up with the Taliban, and they will come back and ruin the fecking day for the tribesmen again.

Piss poor strategy on the part of the United States --fecking grab-asstic knucklehead politicians.

I heard this on NPR **years** ago. How is this news?!?

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/news/2001/october/hannum.html



Fletcher's Hurst Hannum speaks on All Things Considered.

Interview: Law professors debate issue of US government giving Taliban evidence gathered against Osama bin Laden 10/03/2001
NPR: All Things Considered Copyright 2001 National Public Radio, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ADAMS: Professor Hurst HANNUM, President Bush has said there's no negotiating here. We're not gonna be talking to the Taliban about anything.

Prof. HANNUM: Well, we talk about everybody about anything, and obviously one doesn't want to drag the negotiations out in a way that will compromise our legitimate security interests.

... this was kicked around for days on the radio, along with the probability (or that the US *had*) tried to negotiate to get bin Laden.

Personally, I'm baffled why anybody would consider this a bad thing. It shows that the US persued diplomacy before the invasion.