Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say

[crisscross]

Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON ? The Taliban?s widening campaign in southern Afghanistan is made possible in part by direct support from operatives in Pakistan?s military intelligence agency, despite Pakistani government promises to sever ties to militant groups fighting in Afghanistan, according to American government officials.

The support consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders who are gearing up to confront the international force in Afghanistan that will soon include some 17,000 American reinforcements.

Support for the Taliban, as well as other militant groups, is coordinated by operatives inside the shadowy S Wing of Pakistan?s spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the officials said. There is even evidence that ISI operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or scale back violence before the Afghan elections.

Details of the ISI?s continuing ties to militant groups were described by a half-dozen American, Pakistani and other security officials during recent interviews in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. All requested anonymity because they were discussing classified and sensitive intelligence information.

The American officials said proof of the ties between the Taliban and Pakistani spies came from electronic surveillance and trusted informants. The Pakistani officials interviewed said that they had firsthand knowledge of the connections, though they denied that the ties were strengthening the insurgency.

American officials have complained for more than a year about the ISI?s support to groups like the Taliban. But the new details reveal that the spy agency is aiding a broader array of militant networks with more diverse types of support than was previously known ? even months after Pakistani officials said that the days of the ISI?s playing a ?double game? had ended.

Pakistan?s military and civilian leaders publicly deny any government ties to militant groups, and American officials say it is unlikely that top officials in Islamabad are directly coordinating the clandestine efforts. American officials have also said that midlevel ISI operatives occasionally cultivate relationships that are not approved by their bosses.

In a sign of just how resigned Western officials are to the ties, the British government has sent several dispatches to Islamabad in recent months asking that the ISI use its strategy meetings with the Taliban to persuade its commanders to scale back violence in Afghanistan before the August presidential election there, according to one official.

But the inability, or unwillingness, of the embattled civilian government, led by President Asif Ali Zardari, to break the ties that bind the ISI to the militants illustrates the complexities of a region of shifting alliances. Obama administration officials admit that they are struggling to understand these allegiances as they try to forge a strategy to quell violence in Afghanistan, which has intensified because of a resurgent Taliban. Fighting this insurgency is difficult enough, officials said, without having to worry about an allied spy service?s supporting the enemy.

But the Pakistanis offered a more nuanced portrait. They said the contacts were less threatening than the American officials depicted and were part of a strategy to maintain influence in Afghanistan for the day when American forces would withdraw and leave what they fear could be a power vacuum to be filled by India, Pakistan?s archenemy. A senior Pakistani military officer said, ?In intelligence, you have to be in contact with your enemy or you are running blind.?

The ISI helped create and nurture the Taliban movement in the 1990s to bring stability to a nation that had been devastated by years of civil war between rival warlords, and one Pakistani official explained that Islamabad needed to use groups like the Taliban as ?proxy forces to preserve our interests.?

A spokesman at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington declined to comment for this article.

Over the past year, a parade of senior American diplomats, military officers and intelligence officials has flown to Islamabad to urge Pakistan?s civilian and military leaders to cut off support for militant groups, and Washington has threatened to put conditions on more than $1 billion in annual military aid to Pakistan. On Saturday, the director of the C.I.A., Leon E. Panetta, met with top Pakistani officials in Islamabad.

Little is publicly known about the ISI?s S Wing, which officials say directs intelligence operations outside of Pakistan. American officials said that the S Wing provided direct support to three major groups carrying out attacks in Afghanistan: the Taliban based in Quetta, Pakistan, commanded by Mullah Muhammad Omar; the militant network run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar; and a different group run by the guerrilla leader Jalaluddin Haqqani.

Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, recently told senators that the Pakistanis ?draw distinctions? among different militant groups.

?There are some they believe have to be hit and that we should cooperate on hitting, and there are others they think don?t constitute as much of a threat to them and that they think are best left alone,? Mr. Blair said.

The Haqqani network, which focuses its attacks on Afghanistan, is considered a strategic asset to Pakistan, according to American and Pakistani officials, in contrast to the militant network run by Baitullah Mehsud, which has the goal of overthrowing Pakistan?s government.

Top American officials speak bluntly about how the situation has changed little since last summer, when evidence showed that ISI operatives helped plan the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, an attack that killed 54 people.

?They have been very attached to many of these extremist organizations, and it?s my belief that in the long run, they have got to completely cut ties with those in order to really move in the right direction,? Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said recently on ?The Charlie Rose Show? on PBS.

The Taliban has been able to finance a military campaign inside Afghanistan largely through proceeds from the illegal drug trade and wealthy individuals from the Persian Gulf. But American officials said that when fighters needed fuel or ammunition to sustain their attacks against American troops, they would often turn to the ISI.

When the groups needed to replenish their ranks, it would be operatives from the S Wing who often slipped into radical madrasas across Pakistan to drum up recruits, the officials said.

The ISI support for militants extends beyond those operating in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. American officials said the spy agency had also shared intelligence with Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant group suspected in the deadly attacks in Mumbai, India, and provided protection for it.

Mr. Zardari took steps last summer to purge the ISI?s top ranks after the United States confronted Pakistan with evidence about the Indian Embassy bombing. Mr. Zardari pledged that the ISI would be ?handled,? and that anyone working with militants would be dismissed.

Yet with the future of Mr. Zardari?s government uncertain in the current political turmoil and with Obama officials seeing few immediate alternatives, American officials and outside experts said that Pakistan?s military establishment appears to see little advantage in responding to the demands of civilian officials in Islamabad or Washington.

As a result, when the Haqqani fighters need to stay a step ahead of American forces stalking them on the ground and in the air, they rely on moles within the spy agency to tip them off to allied missions planned against them, American military officials said.

Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Eric Schmitt from Washington and Islamabad, Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...l?hp=&pagewanted=print

So much for Pakistan being an ally in the war on terror. It blows my mind how Pakistan is able to get away with all the shit they pull and still get massive amounts of AID from America.

 

[Lemon law]

First of all, the crisscross delusion is "So much for Pakistan being an ally in the war on terror. It blows my mind how Pakistan is able to get away with all the shit they pull and still get massive amounts of AID from America."

Which is misunderstanding of GWB's initial deal with Pakistan. When the Washington decision was made to invade and occupy Afghanistan, logistics required a land route into Afghanistan, and only two countries had that land route in along with seaports. When the other country was Iran, its not hard to understand why Pakistan became the lucky choice. But the original deal was, Pakistan got the aid in exchange for the land route in through Pakistani soil, basically a lease to a road, and nothing more. And the other part of the deal is that the US military was supposed to have no active combat role inside of
Pakistan, no exceptions period.

Sadly, Dumsfeld had the brainfart to go absurdly light on troops in the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. Basically leaving the Nato army with not enough troops and forcing a deal with the devil losing side in the Afghan civil war to make up the shortfall. And even after then having just enough military muscle to militarily win Afghanistan, Nato found themselves with not enough troops, by almost a factor of ten, to run any kind of military occupation. And even with Obama's extra 17,000, we are still some 500,000 troops short of enough troops to run an occupation. The Taliban is making inroads because Afghanistan has become a total basket case of corruption and anarchy

In short, Pakistan is being made the scapegoat for GWB&co incompetence.

And even if some rouge elements of the Pakistani ISI are giving some limited help to the Taliban, other parts of the Pakistani government are more effective than Nato. Pakistan has arrested more Al-Quida agents than the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED, and the Pakistani military has lost more troops than Nato
to joint AL-Quida and Taliban operations inside of Pakistan.

But if crisscross or anyone else wants to think we bought Pakistan, lock, stock, and barrel for $24.00 of glass beads, and therefore they should now be our unquestioning and totally obedient slaves, maybe they should think again.

Afghanistan has been a lose lose lose situation for everyone but AL-Quida and the Taliban, and the bulk of the blame belongs with Uncle Sammy. The USA broke it and are unwilling to allocate the resources to fix it. And now we have also managed to destabilize Pakistan along with the entire region.

 

[crisscross]

Dude! are you freaking blind?

the 9/11 attack was financed from Pakistan read this

"The FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC News (which went virtually unnoticed) that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan:

"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well . . . "Time Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind."

GWB's incompetence is not the reason behind Pakistan's historic support of the Taliban. Before you give me geography lessons go and read the the origins of Taliban, they were trained and bred in Pakistan & Saudi Arabia. During their regime when they treated women like animals and destroyed the Buddha statues among other crap Pakistan was one of only three countries in the world which recognized the Taliban and their links go much beyond geographic boundaries. When an Indian passenger plane was hijacked and taken to Afghanistan where they got full and complete protection. The hijackers demanded the release of the Pakistani terrorists who when released promptly went to Pakistan and addressed the media and their followers.


The issue here is not about how much Rumsfeld & GWB screwed up and before them Reagan screwed up. The issue here is that Pakistanis have no interest in getting rid of the Taliban and will do anything they can to make sure that the problem festers for as long as possible. They want a strong influence in Afghanistan and there is no way they will have that if the Taliban is defeated.

If after all the evidence that is out there you still believe Pakistan is doing the US a favor, I must say you are pretty naive.

 

[Lemon law]

I never said Pakistan was doing the US a favor, I merely pointed out what the initial deal was.

Although I think crisscross is being rather extreme in saying Pakistan wants the problem to fester, but it was and still is in Pakistani national interests to have a stable and friendly government to its West. Pakistan really needs those trade routes that go through Afghanistan into the Stans to the North. But the other issue, before the rise of the Taliban, anarchy and corruption made using those Afghan trade routes untenable because the trade goods get looted. And the same is now true today, eight years after the US invaded. And its on that point that Pakistan feels betrayed, GWB basically promised Pakistan it would stabilize Afghanistan in short order, and has never allocated the resources to do so.

But crisscross is correct that there are certain rouge elements in the Pakistani military and its ISI that did and still do aid the Taliban. They do so on the sly and any nations intelligence services leak. How long ago was it that we caught Aldridge Aimes passing information to the Russians. How many of our intelligence operatives are now leaking bits of information today that we have not caught? But bottom line, almost no matter how actively a few rouge Pakistanis aided the Taliban, those Taliban fighters are on their own inside of Afghanistan. And if they did not have a lot of inside Afghanistan support, they would not last very long. As we also learned from Iraq, having not enough troops to police the populations along with the anarchy an occupation brings, invites all kinds of local groups to empower themselves using mutual protection and corruption as organizing principles.

But crisscross also flunks Taliban history 101, even if Uncle Sammy did not recognize the Taliban government pre 911, it did not stop ole Uncle Sammy from being as thick as thieves with many of their leaders. And US agents were trying to hatch pipeline deals and all kinds of other schemes with the Taliban, and we even went as far as paying the salaries of the Taliban government.

My point is that there is a lots of blame to go around, its somewhat human nature, and until we understand all the real problem, its counterproductive to only demonize Pakistan. The initial appeal of the Taliban was that they could bring in a stable government, and end the corruption and anarchy. Its their selling point today. And we only fool ourselves if we fail to understand the USA has failed the allocate the needed resources to give Afghans a better alternative. I am certainly no Taliban apologist or a Taliban fan, but they are winning and will continue winning because their only virtue is being better than the anarchy and corruption the USA and Nato have re-imported.

And until Uncle Sammy and Nato understand we must do much better in ending the anarchy and corruption, we are fighting the wrong war, with the wrong weapons, and aiding and abetting the enemy.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: crisscross

Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON ? The Taliban?s widening campaign in southern Afghanistan is made possible in part by direct support from operatives in Pakistan?s military intelligence agency, despite Pakistani government promises to sever ties to militant groups fighting in Afghanistan, according to American government officials.

The support consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders who are gearing up to confront the international force in Afghanistan that will soon include some 17,000 American reinforcements.

Support for the Taliban, as well as other militant groups, is coordinated by operatives inside the shadowy S Wing of Pakistan?s spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the officials said. There is even evidence that ISI operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or scale back violence before the Afghan elections.

Details of the ISI?s continuing ties to militant groups were described by a half-dozen American, Pakistani and other security officials during recent interviews in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. All requested anonymity because they were discussing classified and sensitive intelligence information.

The American officials said proof of the ties between the Taliban and Pakistani spies came from electronic surveillance and trusted informants. The Pakistani officials interviewed said that they had firsthand knowledge of the connections, though they denied that the ties were strengthening the insurgency.

American officials have complained for more than a year about the ISI?s support to groups like the Taliban. But the new details reveal that the spy agency is aiding a broader array of militant networks with more diverse types of support than was previously known ? even months after Pakistani officials said that the days of the ISI?s playing a ?double game? had ended.

Pakistan?s military and civilian leaders publicly deny any government ties to militant groups, and American officials say it is unlikely that top officials in Islamabad are directly coordinating the clandestine efforts. American officials have also said that midlevel ISI operatives occasionally cultivate relationships that are not approved by their bosses.

In a sign of just how resigned Western officials are to the ties, the British government has sent several dispatches to Islamabad in recent months asking that the ISI use its strategy meetings with the Taliban to persuade its commanders to scale back violence in Afghanistan before the August presidential election there, according to one official.

But the inability, or unwillingness, of the embattled civilian government, led by President Asif Ali Zardari, to break the ties that bind the ISI to the militants illustrates the complexities of a region of shifting alliances. Obama administration officials admit that they are struggling to understand these allegiances as they try to forge a strategy to quell violence in Afghanistan, which has intensified because of a resurgent Taliban. Fighting this insurgency is difficult enough, officials said, without having to worry about an allied spy service?s supporting the enemy.

But the Pakistanis offered a more nuanced portrait. They said the contacts were less threatening than the American officials depicted and were part of a strategy to maintain influence in Afghanistan for the day when American forces would withdraw and leave what they fear could be a power vacuum to be filled by India, Pakistan?s archenemy. A senior Pakistani military officer said, ?In intelligence, you have to be in contact with your enemy or you are running blind.?

The ISI helped create and nurture the Taliban movement in the 1990s to bring stability to a nation that had been devastated by years of civil war between rival warlords, and one Pakistani official explained that Islamabad needed to use groups like the Taliban as ?proxy forces to preserve our interests.?

A spokesman at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington declined to comment for this article.

Over the past year, a parade of senior American diplomats, military officers and intelligence officials has flown to Islamabad to urge Pakistan?s civilian and military leaders to cut off support for militant groups, and Washington has threatened to put conditions on more than $1 billion in annual military aid to Pakistan. On Saturday, the director of the C.I.A., Leon E. Panetta, met with top Pakistani officials in Islamabad.

Little is publicly known about the ISI?s S Wing, which officials say directs intelligence operations outside of Pakistan. American officials said that the S Wing provided direct support to three major groups carrying out attacks in Afghanistan: the Taliban based in Quetta, Pakistan, commanded by Mullah Muhammad Omar; the militant network run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar; and a different group run by the guerrilla leader Jalaluddin Haqqani.

Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, recently told senators that the Pakistanis ?draw distinctions? among different militant groups.

?There are some they believe have to be hit and that we should cooperate on hitting, and there are others they think don?t constitute as much of a threat to them and that they think are best left alone,? Mr. Blair said.

The Haqqani network, which focuses its attacks on Afghanistan, is considered a strategic asset to Pakistan, according to American and Pakistani officials, in contrast to the militant network run by Baitullah Mehsud, which has the goal of overthrowing Pakistan?s government.

Top American officials speak bluntly about how the situation has changed little since last summer, when evidence showed that ISI operatives helped plan the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, an attack that killed 54 people.

?They have been very attached to many of these extremist organizations, and it?s my belief that in the long run, they have got to completely cut ties with those in order to really move in the right direction,? Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said recently on ?The Charlie Rose Show? on PBS.

The Taliban has been able to finance a military campaign inside Afghanistan largely through proceeds from the illegal drug trade and wealthy individuals from the Persian Gulf. But American officials said that when fighters needed fuel or ammunition to sustain their attacks against American troops, they would often turn to the ISI.

When the groups needed to replenish their ranks, it would be operatives from the S Wing who often slipped into radical madrasas across Pakistan to drum up recruits, the officials said.

The ISI support for militants extends beyond those operating in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. American officials said the spy agency had also shared intelligence with Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant group suspected in the deadly attacks in Mumbai, India, and provided protection for it.

Mr. Zardari took steps last summer to purge the ISI?s top ranks after the United States confronted Pakistan with evidence about the Indian Embassy bombing. Mr. Zardari pledged that the ISI would be ?handled,? and that anyone working with militants would be dismissed.

Yet with the future of Mr. Zardari?s government uncertain in the current political turmoil and with Obama officials seeing few immediate alternatives, American officials and outside experts said that Pakistan?s military establishment appears to see little advantage in responding to the demands of civilian officials in Islamabad or Washington.

As a result, when the Haqqani fighters need to stay a step ahead of American forces stalking them on the ground and in the air, they rely on moles within the spy agency to tip them off to allied missions planned against them, American military officials said.

Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Eric Schmitt from Washington and Islamabad, Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...l?hp=&pagewanted=print

So much for Pakistan being an ally in the war on terror. It blows my mind how Pakistan is able to get away with all the shit they pull and still get massive amounts of AID from America.

This is being fixed, read the news the next two weeks.

 

[Lemon law]

I see once again, JOS comes up with "This is being fixed, read the news the next two weeks."

I would have to waste a tremendous amount of time reading all your back posts to precisely quantify how many times you have told us that, yet each and every year the Taliban is doing better and Nato is doing worse, eight out of eight years running.

But fair is fair, now that Obama and Petraeus are now in charge, we will see if they can change the prior metrics. But so far, they seem to be using the tried and true losing strategy.

Time tell, two weeks more is not long to wait.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I am certainly no Taliban apologist or a Taliban fan, but they are winning and will continue winning because their only virtue is being more willing to oppress and control the populace through brutal violence enforced at the end of a gun barrel.

fixed.

You still mistakenly believe that the people the Taliban control have any choice in the matter -- as if they're actually choosing the Taliban versus the Nato-inspired alternative -- which has always been the fatal flaw in your entire argument.

You still don't know jackshit about the countries involved, the people, or the real situation on the ground.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I am certainly no Taliban apologist or a Taliban fan, but they are winning and will continue winning because their only virtue is being more willing to oppress and control the populace through brutal violence enforced at the end of a gun barrel.

fixed.

You still mistakenly believe that the people the Taliban control have any choice in the matter -- as if they're actually choosing the Taliban versus the Nato-inspired alternative -- which has always been the fatal flaw in your entire argument.

You still don't know jackshit about the countries involved, the people, or the real situation on the ground.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will get no argument from me if you assert that many Taliban would make a Nazi storm trooper look like a benevolent Boy Scout. But one still can not fault them for their fanaticism,
after all, they are playing I bet my life the second they enter Afghanistan. And they are opposed by a rather fanatical bunch in Nato, who assert the right to shoot any and all Taliban on sight, and even kill any near by civilians on just the rumor of any near by Taliban with weapons far superior to what the Taliban can muster.

Someone who is totally unbiased might call Nato and the Taliban mirror images of each other, both hating each others guts, and both fighting for control of Afghanistan. And since both sides are the bad guys, neither gets to wear white hats.

And if that is to be the metric, one would hope that each side takes it outside to some arena of combat
that leaves civilians out of it, and then each side can happily fight it out until only the winners are left standing. Your basic Nato strategy of Kill Kill Kill all Taliban which is the problem because Nato and the Taliban forgot to to take it outside to some civilian safe arena of combat.

Which is why your argument that I don't understand jackshit about the countries involved actually backfires on you when you say "You still mistakenly believe that the people the Taliban control have any choice in the matter -- as if they're actually choosing the Taliban versus the Nato-inspired alternative -- which has always been the fatal flaw in your entire argument."

Which is actually the Nato weak point, while the 31 million strong Afghan people can't per say choose between Nato and the Taliban, they can choose or not choose to report any Taliban activity and also shun any neighbors that have any Taliban leanings, that kind of group pressure can be very strong. Its could have been Nato's, in the first two years of the occupation. And even today, the people of Afghanistan may prefer Nato to win, but any man in the street has long given up any hope that Nato is willing to commit the troops and the resources to be able to do the job. Meanwhile Karazia's Government is a total sham outside of the city limits of Kabul. In 99.5% of Afghanistan, its total anarchy, corrupt war lord thugs are in charge, the police are on the take and not to be trusted, the courts don't function, and the people live in a shooting gallery.

And that palehorse, is why the people of Afghanistan don't trust Nato which has done nothing to improve the Afghan government. And meanwhile Nato is so deficient in troops,
that it has doomed Afghanistan to a civil war that last forever.

Meanwhile the Taliban has a rather draconian but a proven track record of ending the civil war which is the single thing much worse than the Taliban. As for the Nato inspired Alternative palehorse mumbles about, it might as well be some sort of pie in the sky because no one in Afghanistan has ever seen it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Someone who is a complete and total jackass might call Nato and the Taliban mirror images of each other

fixed.

Based on the the remainder of your reply, you still only know half the story. Your problem is in your twisting of that half of the story to fit some demented opinion which is based solely on a lifetime of reading blogs and other nonsense in the Interwebs...

Come see Afghanistan. Then, we'll talk again. Unfortunately, until then, your opinion isn't worth the $29 you paid to stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night...

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Meanwhile the Taliban has a rather draconian but a proven track record of ending the civil war which is the single thing much worse than the Taliban. As for the Nato inspired Alternative palehorse mumbles about, it might as well be some sort of pie in the sky because no one in Afghanistan has ever seen it.

An interesting attitude, but basically you are saying better to live in tyranny than fight and die for freedom. You blithley consign the Afghan people to a life of brutality and oppression; condon the rape, stoning and death of women for no reason but an opposition to tyranny; reduce the population to an illiterate, uneducated society and promote the spread of evil.

You sir are sorely misguided when you do not even understand our very own history and fight against tyranny. The willingness of our forefathers to give up their life, their treasure to secure freedom is completely lost on you.

To think the Afghan people want to return to the Taliban is non-sensical. Your proposition that it would be better for them is less than contemptible. Our policies and practices in Afghanistan have been problematic, but your assertion that Nato and the Taliban are nothing but mirror images of each other is laughable. You, who have no idea about the ethics and morality of Western Civilization would compare us to the savages of the Taliban who have so badly corrupted Islam.

Here you sit in a comfortable, safe environment provided to you by men and women who fought and died for you. And you deny the same opportunity to the people of Afghanistan. Given a choice, all people will choose freedom over tyranny. It is when that choice is taken from them that tyranny prevails. You, a product of Western Civilization should know better than almost anyone else how fragile freedom really is and how difficult it is to secure and then maintain that freedom.

Yet you can do nothing but condemn the helpless and weak to a life of oppression while you sit in a comfortable chair hosting a barbecue for your friends and congratulating yourself on accomplishing your task - the descent to evil of an entire country.

You will fail, because I and others will do everything we can to protect the men, women and children of Afghanistan and any other country who cries out for freedom and release from tyranny. So sit back, toss a beer back for me, because we are busy doing the right thing.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Meanwhile the Taliban has a rather draconian but a proven track record of ending the civil war which is the single thing much worse than the Taliban. As for the Nato inspired Alternative palehorse mumbles about, it might as well be some sort of pie in the sky because no one in Afghanistan has ever seen it.

An interesting attitude, but basically you are saying better to live in tyranny than fight and die for freedom. You blithley consign the Afghan people to a life of brutality and oppression; condon the rape, stoning and death of women for no reason but an opposition to tyranny; reduce the population to an illiterate, uneducated society and promote the spread of evil.

You sir are sorely misguided when you do not even understand our very own history and fight against tyranny. The willingness of our forefathers to give up their life, their treasure to secure freedom is completely lost on you.

To think the Afghan people want to return to the Taliban is non-sensical. Your proposition that it would be better for them is less than contemptible. Our policies and practices in Afghanistan have been problematic, but your assertion that Nato and the Taliban are nothing but mirror images of each other is laughable. You, who have no idea about the ethics and morality of Western Civilization would compare us to the savages of the Taliban who have so badly corrupted Islam.

Here you sit in a comfortable, safe environment provided to you by men and women who fought and died for you. And you deny the same opportunity to the people of Afghanistan. Given a choice, all people will choose freedom over tyranny. It is when that choice is taken from them that tyranny prevails. You, a product of Western Civilization should know better than almost anyone else how fragile freedom really is and how difficult it is to secure and then maintain that freedom.

Yet you can do nothing but condemn the helpless and weak to a life of oppression while you sit in a comfortable chair hosting a barbecue for your friends and congratulating yourself on accomplishing your task - the descent to evil of an entire country.

You will fail, because I and others will do everything we can to protect the men, women and children of Afghanistan and any other country who cries out for freedom and release from tyranny. So sit back, toss a beer back for me, because we are busy doing the right thing.

Well said ...... thank you for expressing my thoughts into words.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Meanwhile the Taliban has a rather draconian but a proven track record of ending the civil war which is the single thing much worse than the Taliban. As for the Nato inspired Alternative palehorse mumbles about, it might as well be some sort of pie in the sky because no one in Afghanistan has ever seen it.

An interesting attitude, but basically you are saying better to live in tyranny than fight and die for freedom. You blithley consign the Afghan people to a life of brutality and oppression; condon the rape, stoning and death of women for no reason but an opposition to tyranny; reduce the population to an illiterate, uneducated society and promote the spread of evil.

You sir are sorely misguided when you do not even understand our very own history and fight against tyranny. The willingness of our forefathers to give up their life, their treasure to secure freedom is completely lost on you.

To think the Afghan people want to return to the Taliban is non-sensical. Your proposition that it would be better for them is less than contemptible. Our policies and practices in Afghanistan have been problematic, but your assertion that Nato and the Taliban are nothing but mirror images of each other is laughable. You, who have no idea about the ethics and morality of Western Civilization would compare us to the savages of the Taliban who have so badly corrupted Islam.

Here you sit in a comfortable, safe environment provided to you by men and women who fought and died for you. And you deny the same opportunity to the people of Afghanistan. Given a choice, all people will choose freedom over tyranny. It is when that choice is taken from them that tyranny prevails. You, a product of Western Civilization should know better than almost anyone else how fragile freedom really is and how difficult it is to secure and then maintain that freedom.

Yet you can do nothing but condemn the helpless and weak to a life of oppression while you sit in a comfortable chair hosting a barbecue for your friends and congratulating yourself on accomplishing your task - the descent to evil of an entire country.

You will fail, because I and others will do everything we can to protect the men, women and children of Afghanistan and any other country who cries out for freedom and release from tyranny. So sit back, toss a beer back for me, because we are busy doing the right thing.

Well said ...... thank you for expressing my thoughts into words.

The only thing missing was some sappy patriotic music playing in the background.

 

[The Green Bean]

Bullshit to undermine Pakistan. We should throw the fucking American aid back on their faces.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Bullshit to undermine Pakistan. We should throw the fucking American aid back on their faces.

I wouldn't have too much issue with that and allowing India to reabsorb the eastern portions of Pakistan again. Mainly the Punjab and Sind areas.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe we can make it better with sappy patriotic music, but what is missing in action is that the USA and Nato are fighting for anyone's freedom in Afghanistan. Lets use be honest, we are fighting for our national interests, and given the way we have treated the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Vietnam, its not hard for them to connect the dots and see that there is a vast gulf between our stated motives and actual actions.

After all, how many patriotic Americans would volunteer to fight for the glories of Haliburton or the military industrial complex?

As for predicting I will fail, get a clue, I am doing nothing, nothing, and nothing to change to situation in any way. I am merely pointing out the lessons of history, showing the rest of you what is actually behind the emperor wears no clothes garment you all wants to see, and when our misguided efforts fail because you only fooled yourselves, you can only blame yourselves for using the wrong tools to do the wrong things.

But believe it or not, I too think its vital for the US and Nato to win in Afghanistan, what we differ over is basic tactics, and if any of you care to read my back posts, its not hard to figure out where we differ.

As it is, we are losing in Afghanistan, widening the war will almost certainly accelerate the rate of loss, and its rather hard for me to understand why none of you can connect the dots and see there is something to be learned from seven years of continuous dis-improvement. It shouts to anyone with brain one,
the same ole same ole tactics are not winning and it was long past time to reassess. Reassessing does not have to mean quitting, its can also mean finding different ways to win. But if we can't be honest to ourselves, how can we be honest with other people?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I am doing nothing, nothing, and nothing to change to situation in any way.

Trust me, that's been abundantly clear for years.

As it is, we are losing in Afghanistan, widening the war will almost certainly accelerate the rate of loss, and its rather hard for me to understand why none of you can connect the dots and see there is something to be learned from seven years of continuous dis-improvement. It shouts to anyone with brain one, the same ole same ole tactics are not winning and it was long past time to reassess. Reassessing does not have to mean quitting, its can also mean finding different ways to win. But if we can't be honest to ourselves, how can we be honest with other people?

Just out of curiosity, who around here remains a proponent of "the same ole same ole tactics"?

I, personally, would like to see 300,000+ NATO Troops in Afghanistan, a larger commitment of funds and troops by other nations, an increased outreach program to tribal leaders by the Karzai government itself, a cleansing of any/all corrupt officials -- at every level, more funding for Afghan's infrastructure, and a much stronger effort to eliminate the drug trade. I'd also like to see more coordinated operations between the NATO and Pakistani military -- to include hammer & Anvil operations along the border and an increase in air strikes and SOF missions on both sides of the border. The Taliban should not be given a safe haven anywhere.

How in the hell you continue to label that as "support for the same ole same ole tactics" is beyond comprehension... seriously, you're fucking retarded.

 

[Lemon law]

Palehorse, its still nice to say you like to see this, that, and the other thing, but when there are limited resources, they must be rationed and allocated carefully. And instead of just using a kill kill kill metric on any and all Taliban which is the same ole same ole tactics I was referring to, reallocating some of our resources to start fighting the corruption we have re-imported would at least give the Afghan people something to point to and say, hey democracy can work. I have also gone on record as recommending we drive a wedge between Al-Quida and the Taliban which we have not done.

And now its looks like the 2009 fighting is going to get much worse and much bloodier, because while we have been snoozing, it looks like Mullah Omar has been doing diplomacy, at a stroke united, Al-Quida, the Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan Taliban, and old line CIA trained Mujaheddin where significant differences existed before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...asia/27taliban.html?hp

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Bullshit to undermine Pakistan. We should throw the fucking American aid back on their faces.

I wouldn't have too much issue with that and allowing India to reabsorb the eastern portions of Pakistan again. Mainly the Punjab and Sind areas.

We are more than economically viable. We have $20trllion worth of coal reserves. Only if the fucking violence would end.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Bullshit to undermine Pakistan. We should throw the fucking American aid back on their faces.

I wouldn't have too much issue with that and allowing India to reabsorb the eastern portions of Pakistan again. Mainly the Punjab and Sind areas.

We are more than economically viable. We have $20trllion worth of coal reserves. Only if the fucking violence would end.

i just gotta ask, with who in political power once the violence ends? the taliban?

 

[Lemon law]

Again, its time to somewhat disagree with cubeless. When we are talking about the Taliban, basically ignorant and uneducated people who have never really been exposed to the benefits a Western type civilization can bring, combine that with a deteriorating lifestyle, anarchy, civil war death, and propaganda, and its an easy sell for the Taliban to say Western civilizations are the root of all evil. Join the Taliban and help us toss those Nato rascals out, go back to those good ole days that never were when we were an Islamic paradise. And because Sharia law is the time honored traditions, its a give us that old time religion, as for female rights, that the way its Sharia law has always been.

Note I said these potential Taliban recruits are ignorant, uneducated, and unexposed to the benefits a Western Civilization can bring, I never said they are stupid. And in fact they are about as smart as people anywhere else.

But when you look at Pakistan itself, you can basically divide it into the tribal areas that basically has never never seen or benefited from a Western style Civilization, and the rest of Pakistan who have not only exposed, they have in fact embraced Modern Western Style Civilization.

And when the Taliban goes to the latter group and asks them to accept Sharia law, not educate their daughters, and give up the benefits of modernity, its basically going to be over the dead bodies of 165 million Pakistanis who have embraced Modernity. And even the Taliban is not stupid enough to try it. But that is not what is happening, what the Taliban is saying to the Modern parts of Pakistan is if you leaves us alone in the tribal areas of Pakistan, we will leave you alone in the Modern areas. And at the same time, given the negative role Nato has played in destabilizing Pakistan, the Taliban is can also say, join us in helping throw Nato out of Afghanistan because they are really screwing the place up.

Its one thing for JOS and palehorse, or Nato to say what the people of Afghanistan or Pakistan should think about these basic offers, but at the end of the day, its the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who will think and act for themselves. Individually and collectively.

 

[cubeless]

the question was really to the bean... does he think that the taliban should be in charge and should the world accept the taliban as a political entity?

is the taliban really worse than the saudi's when u add it all up? they fund terrorism, totally dis women, etc... they just have just gotten to the point where the winners are entrenched, so they can suppress the fighting... would saudi be any different than afganistan if there wasn't oil?

it's not like the folks who want power are ever going to stop fighting over there... if u ain't the lead dog u r just another ass sniffer... and when the choice is between everything and nothing, going for it would be my pick... my personal belief is that the religious affiliation tends to just be cover for the power hungry... you pick a cloak that covers your real motive, which is power, and lets u rally the sheeple to follow you...

if the real problem is that the ante is now so high since the beloved patriot's have the bomb and we can't let islamists get it, it ends up leading to the war that would cap the recession in this economic cycle... we have 'no choice' but to take them all over for the greater good...

and since bo is upping the ante instead of pulling out all the troops and negotiating a peace plan with them it's his war now... i have to bet putin is chuckling into his vodka about us getting a payback on this one... he's probably selling stingers to the taliban to enhance the irony...

 

[cubeless]

oops...

 

[Lemon law]

Now I can agree that cubeless is asking some of the right questions. I can't speak for the Bean, but its clear he is conflicted and scared, I agree that Putin is chuckling into his Vodka, but I see no evidence that he is selling stingers YET.

As for the US position, its somewhat like inviting a termite inspector into your house for an estimate. And instead you get this hyperspastic guy who hates termites so much, that the next thing you know, without signing any real contract, starts razing your house to the ground and lighting the demolished woodpile on fire. Guaranteed, it will get the termites who stay, but not the ones who fly away elsewhere.

Never mind the fact the termite inspector will then depart, you will be totally homeless, but the worry becomes, what country in the world will ever invite the USA in for help.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: cubeless
the question was really to the bean... does he think that the taliban should be in charge and should the world accept the taliban as a political entity?

is the taliban really worse than the saudi's when u add it all up? they fund terrorism, totally dis women, etc... they just have just gotten to the point where the winners are entrenched, so they can suppress the fighting... would saudi be any different than afganistan if there wasn't oil?

it's not like the folks who want power are ever going to stop fighting over there... if u ain't the lead dog u r just another ass sniffer... and when the choice is between everything and nothing, going for it would be my pick... my personal belief is that the religious affiliation tends to just be cover for the power hungry... you pick a cloak that covers your real motive, which is power, and lets u rally the sheeple to follow you...

if the real problem is that the ante is now so high since the beloved patriot's have the bomb and we can't let islamists get it, it ends up leading to the war that would cap the recession in this economic cycle... we have 'no choice' but to take them all over for the greater good...

and since bo is upping the ante instead of pulling out all the troops and negotiating a peace plan with them it's his war now... i have to bet putin is chuckling into his vodka about us getting a payback on this one... he's probably selling stingers to the taliban to enhance the irony...

95% of the Pakistani population will renounce the Pakhtun Taliban. There is no chance in hell that the taliban take control of Islamabad. What most people fail to realize that Pakistan is a country of 165million more than 15 times the population of Afghanistan and 7 times that of Iraq. There is a lot of diversity of thought; opinion; and culture. 95% of the taliban are ethnic Pakhtuns. There is no way the rest of the country is going to support them. This is not Afghanistan. We have a well trained army and nukes and the taliban are not taking over the army. How many Pakistani generals do you see with beards and their bands almost coming to their knees?

The problem is the US thinks it has the right to act as the world police. If you had not abandoned Afghanistan after the cold war; things would have been alright. I still think the US wants to try and destroy our nukes, and establish a proxy puppet government in Pakistan against China, India and Russia. We are not Japan or Germany. Religion and faith are a huge part of life here. And the more people America kills the greater the fire of hate gets.

It's a very complex situation. But indicators suggest the taliban are back on the back foot. I think the world shouldn't accept the government in SA as a political entity either. The taliban are even worse. Atleast the saudis can read and write. The taliban only speak the language of violence. The best solution would be if the US could leave us the hell alone. We are doing well right now. The last thing we need is a drone attack to derail our stabilization period.

And we have a dog barking on the other side of the border. Reading their media makes me sick! They have as much hatred against us as the taliban. If our nukes were destroyed the balance of power would shift and their would be chaos. I think Obama is doing the right thing. They just promised us $7billion in aid. It would have been a lot better if there were no strings attached. It takes time to change a country. Aggression only makes it worse.

I also think Pakistan may become the new Egypt and Jordon. We don't have a dictatorship per se but it seems like the presidential seat is automatically controlled from Washington regardless of who gets to sit on it. The moment that falls; anti-American sentiments will be made clear.

Give the world one reason why they should like you? I see you bigger murderers than Alqaeeda and the Taliban. I wish there was something I could do about it. But it's life and I can only hope that justice is served before I die.

 

[tvarad]

The only people who haven't figured out that Pakistan is the epicenter of the global terrorism wave are the Americans! And everyone except them knows that the Pakistani army PULLS ALL THE LEVERS IN PAKISTAN. Even a fly can't take a s**t in that country without them knowing about it, but the Americans bought their story that A.Q.Khan acted on his own to proliferate nukes!

The eunuch civilian government is the proverbial lipstick on this pig to make it presentable to the Americans and other silly Westerners who still believe that the medieval Islamic mindset that rules the roost in those parts is ready for democracy.

The war on terror, as it stands, benefits only one entity viz. the beloved patriot army which has used American largesse in money and weaponry to enrich itself and buy up weapons to field on the border with India. It is also not in their interest for it to end as they will lose all the goodies being showered on them, including the latest of a few billion dollars announced by the idiot Obama. The day the Americans stop living in denial about being chumped by the beloved patriot army is the day the first steps towards solving the terrorist problem will have been taken.