• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

FIVE straight days of Taliban violence in Pakistan

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Can someone please explain to me what exactly Pakistan's newly elected Parliament plans to do about the Taliban!?

Suicide attack hits Pakistan navy college

LAHORE, Pakistan, March 4 (UPI) -- Two suicide bombers set off explosive vests Tuesday at the Pakistani Naval War College in Lahore, killing at least seven people.

At least 20 people were seriously hurt, with others suffering minor injuries, the Pakistan Tribune reported.

Several vehicles parked in the area were destroyed.

One of the bombers detonated his vest near the entrance and next to parked trucks carrying cylinders of gas, The Washington Post reported. An Interior Ministry spokesman, at a news conference, said that the second bomber got farther into the campus before setting off his vest.

For the past five days, fighters associated with the Taliban have carried out daily attacks.
Their continued and seemingly unhindered existance throughout Pakistan makes me sick.

Why is NATO having such a difficult time mustering enough troops to combat these scumbags?

Why has Pakistan been unable to put a dent in their actvities throughout their own country!?

Inquiring minds want to know...


Enough is enough. Even by P&Ns standards we're out of hand here and therefore El Locko

Hayabusa Rider- AnandTech Senior Moderator
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
NATO does not operate in Pakistan so that is out of the question. Keep in mind the Taliban were and still are a creation of the ISI and still have significant mainline support among large segments of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies.

Stopping this is going to be very difficult for the Pakistani government. For Pakistan to stop the Taliban will require these elements to give up their creation. I do not see that happening at this time.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Maybe we should borrow another $10 billion from China and give it to Musharraf. Our kids will pay the money back.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Maybe we should borrow another $10 billion from China and give it to Musharraf. Our kids will pay the money back.
way to address the questions posed in the OP! Troll much?

GG. :roll:
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: bamacre
Maybe we should borrow another $10 billion from China and give it to Musharraf. Our kids will pay the money back.
way to address the questions posed in the OP! Troll much?

GG. :roll:
Awww, the truth hurts. I'm sorry, horsey. :(
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: bamacre
Maybe we should borrow another $10 billion from China and give it to Musharraf. Our kids will pay the money back.
way to address the questions posed in the OP! Troll much?

GG. :roll:
Awww, the truth hurts. I'm sorry, horsey. :(
Great. Another serious issue raised and of course we end up with drivel for debate. :disgust:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Thankfully, we have a plan...

Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff confers with Pakistan's president over war on terror

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The top U.S. military official Tuesday held talks on fighting terrorism with the president and the army chief of Pakistan, whose troops have been battling a growing insurgency along the border with Afghanistan.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen was making his second visit to Pakistan in a month. The back-to-back trips reflect U.S. concerns that the insurgency by al-Qaida and Taliban militants in the country's northwestern tribal region represents an increasing threat.

Mullen's talks took place as a suicide bombing attack at the Pakistan navy training college in the eastern city of Lahore left four people dead and 14 others wounded Tuesday, police and an interior ministry official said.

Mullen met with President Pervez Musharraf for talks on the «regional security situation and the measures being taken to address it,» the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported.

«They also discussed the role the two countries were playing in the global war against terror,» APP said.

Mullen also conferred with army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani at the army headquarters in Rawalpindi, a garrison city near the capital, Islamabad.

Mullen and Kayani «discussed matters of professional interest with particular reference to the security situation in the region,» a statement from Pakistan's military said. It provided no further details.

Last month, Mullen said the threat of Islamic extremism was growing in Pakistan and that the country's leadership was aware of the challenge facing the nation.

Mullen is likely to use his current trip to discuss plans calling for 22 U.S. personnel to train elements of the Pakistani military in counterinsurgency and intelligence gathering techniques.

The training _ to be passed on to Pakistan's border Frontier Corps force _ would leave those troops better able to cooperate with U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, a U.S. military official told The Associated Press on Sunday.

The U.S. personnel are scheduled to arrive sometime between June and October, the official said. Current plans call for the U.S. training to last two years and to be passed on to some 8,500 Frontier Corps troops.


Mullen was also expected to meet with Gen. Tariq Majid, the chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff committee.

An increase in violence in northwestern tribal regions has raised doubts about the ability of Pakistan's U.S.-allied government to stem the militancy.

On Sunday, a suicide bomber attacked a meeting of tribal elders discussing how to resist militants in the tribal town of Darra Adam Khel, killing 40 people.
Only 22 U.S. personnel? I wonder if TGB, and the rest of the Pakistani people, will consider that an "invasion"...?
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,434
79
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Thankfully, we have a plan...

Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff confers with Pakistan's president over war on terror

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The top U.S. military official Tuesday held talks on fighting terrorism with the president and the army chief of Pakistan, whose troops have been battling a growing insurgency along the border with Afghanistan.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen was making his second visit to Pakistan in a month. The back-to-back trips reflect U.S. concerns that the insurgency by al-Qaida and Taliban militants in the country's northwestern tribal region represents an increasing threat.

Mullen's talks took place as a suicide bombing attack at the Pakistan navy training college in the eastern city of Lahore left four people dead and 14 others wounded Tuesday, police and an interior ministry official said.

Mullen met with President Pervez Musharraf for talks on the «regional security situation and the measures being taken to address it,» the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported.

«They also discussed the role the two countries were playing in the global war against terror,» APP said.

Mullen also conferred with army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani at the army headquarters in Rawalpindi, a garrison city near the capital, Islamabad.

Mullen and Kayani «discussed matters of professional interest with particular reference to the security situation in the region,» a statement from Pakistan's military said. It provided no further details.

Last month, Mullen said the threat of Islamic extremism was growing in Pakistan and that the country's leadership was aware of the challenge facing the nation.

Mullen is likely to use his current trip to discuss plans calling for 22 U.S. personnel to train elements of the Pakistani military in counterinsurgency and intelligence gathering techniques.

The training _ to be passed on to Pakistan's border Frontier Corps force _ would leave those troops better able to cooperate with U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, a U.S. military official told The Associated Press on Sunday.

The U.S. personnel are scheduled to arrive sometime between June and October, the official said. Current plans call for the U.S. training to last two years and to be passed on to some 8,500 Frontier Corps troops.


Mullen was also expected to meet with Gen. Tariq Majid, the chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff committee.

An increase in violence in northwestern tribal regions has raised doubts about the ability of Pakistan's U.S.-allied government to stem the militancy.

On Sunday, a suicide bomber attacked a meeting of tribal elders discussing how to resist militants in the tribal town of Darra Adam Khel, killing 40 people.
Only 22 U.S. personnel? I wonder if TGB, and the rest of the Pakistani people, will consider that an "invasion"...?

Vote Ron Paul and bring em home. ;)
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Thankfully, we have a plan...

Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff confers with Pakistan's president over war on terror

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The top U.S. military official Tuesday held talks on fighting terrorism with the president and the army chief of Pakistan, whose troops have been battling a growing insurgency along the border with Afghanistan.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen was making his second visit to Pakistan in a month. The back-to-back trips reflect U.S. concerns that the insurgency by al-Qaida and Taliban militants in the country's northwestern tribal region represents an increasing threat.

Mullen's talks took place as a suicide bombing attack at the Pakistan navy training college in the eastern city of Lahore left four people dead and 14 others wounded Tuesday, police and an interior ministry official said.

Mullen met with President Pervez Musharraf for talks on the «regional security situation and the measures being taken to address it,» the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported.

«They also discussed the role the two countries were playing in the global war against terror,» APP said.

Mullen also conferred with army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani at the army headquarters in Rawalpindi, a garrison city near the capital, Islamabad.

Mullen and Kayani «discussed matters of professional interest with particular reference to the security situation in the region,» a statement from Pakistan's military said. It provided no further details.

Last month, Mullen said the threat of Islamic extremism was growing in Pakistan and that the country's leadership was aware of the challenge facing the nation.

Mullen is likely to use his current trip to discuss plans calling for 22 U.S. personnel to train elements of the Pakistani military in counterinsurgency and intelligence gathering techniques.

The training _ to be passed on to Pakistan's border Frontier Corps force _ would leave those troops better able to cooperate with U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, a U.S. military official told The Associated Press on Sunday.

The U.S. personnel are scheduled to arrive sometime between June and October, the official said. Current plans call for the U.S. training to last two years and to be passed on to some 8,500 Frontier Corps troops.


Mullen was also expected to meet with Gen. Tariq Majid, the chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff committee.

An increase in violence in northwestern tribal regions has raised doubts about the ability of Pakistan's U.S.-allied government to stem the militancy.

On Sunday, a suicide bomber attacked a meeting of tribal elders discussing how to resist militants in the tribal town of Darra Adam Khel, killing 40 people.
Only 22 U.S. personnel? I wonder if TGB, and the rest of the Pakistani people, will consider that an "invasion"...?
Vote Ron Paul and bring em home. ;)
Absolutely not. Destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda, throughout the 'Stans, is a noble and worthwhile fight.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
A couple of A-teams can train enough people who then train others. This number (22)sounds about right - low visibility, very few so as not to spark an uproar.

Whether it will work is another question. The Frontier troops have not done well against the Taliban.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Sounds like a much better plan than the previous one.

It's about damn time something effective is done. OBL and Alzwahiri have been there for years.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,434
79
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Sinsear


Vote Ron Paul and bring em home. ;)
Absolutely not. Destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda, throughout the 'Stans, is a noble and worthwhile fight.

/paging Palehorse's meter....anyone...

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Sinsear


Vote Ron Paul and bring em home. ;)
Absolutely not. Destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda, throughout the 'Stans, is a noble and worthwhile fight.

/paging Palehorse's meter....anyone...
DOOHHHH! <bangs on meter>

my bad... ;)
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: dphantom
A couple of A-teams can train enough people who then train others. This number (22)sounds about right - low visibility, very few so as not to spark an uproar.

Whether it will work is another question. The Frontier troops have not done well against the Taliban.
Well, in this case, I'm hoping that "cooperating with U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan" finally means unhindered cross-border air support and coordinated hammer/anvil missions... I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Not to get off topic, even more so, but Paul voted for the invasion of Afghanistan.

Back on topic, we'd be in a MUCH better position had we left Iraq alone, and followed the bad guys that actually attacked us, into Pakistan. Instead we are now nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now forced to leave fighting our actual enemy to non-US military, which has not done well for us lately.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: dphantom
A couple of A-teams can train enough people who then train others. This number (22)sounds about right - low visibility, very few so as not to spark an uproar.

Whether it will work is another question. The Frontier troops have not done well against the Taliban.
Well, in this case, I'm hoping that "cooperating with U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan" finally means unhindered cross-border air support and coordinated hammer/anvil missions... I guess we'll have to wait and see.
While I hope for the best as well, I would not count on much results from any joint operations. Much of the Pakistan military and intelligence is compromised by strong sympathy for the Taliban. Joint operations will often fail because of this.

The most success we have had is when we or NATO strike without providing advance notice. We can get away with such actions on a small scale like a predator drone mission or insertion of a SEAL or Green Beret A-Team, but company/battalion/brigade sized missions would never work right now in terms of capturing/killing significant Al-Quda or Taliban leadership targets.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not to get off topic, even more so, but Paul voted for the invasion of Afghanistan.

Back on topic, we'd be in a MUCH better position had we left Iraq alone, and followed the bad guys that actually attacked us, into Pakistan. Instead we are now nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now forced to leave fighting our actual enemy to non-US military, which has not done well for us lately.
Well, hindsight is always 20/20. I still support our invasion of Iraq. I think in the long term it was the right thing to do. But the execution of the aftermath was abysmally incompetent. We could and should have been out of Iraq years ago if our political leadership had had any idea of what it would take to maintain order in a somewhat hostile country.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: dphantom
A couple of A-teams can train enough people who then train others. This number (22)sounds about right - low visibility, very few so as not to spark an uproar.

Whether it will work is another question. The Frontier troops have not done well against the Taliban.
Well, in this case, I'm hoping that "cooperating with U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan" finally means unhindered cross-border air support and coordinated hammer/anvil missions... I guess we'll have to wait and see.
While I hope for the best as well, I would not count on much results from any joint operations. Much of the Pakistan military and intelligence is compromised by strong sympathy for the Taliban. Joint operations will often fail because of this.
I do believe that assessing the level of said compromise would be one of the teams' primary missions while they're training the Frontier Corps.

:beer: here's to their success!
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
It's a good thing we never took our eye off the ball in regards to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. ;)
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81

The issue in my mind, is, will the Pakistanis recognize that radical Islam is a cancer and that the Taliban and their ilk need to be mercilessly exterminated? I doubt it.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Why is NATO having such a difficult time mustering enough troops to combat these scumbags?

Why has Pakistan been unable to put a dent in their actvities throughout their own country!?
It's the same reason we still have illegal aliens in the United States. You need to have the will to get rid of them, even if that means, <gasp>, shooting them.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's a good thing we never took our eye off the ball in regards to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. ;)
It's a good thing we didn't, son, it's a bad thing they are allowed to retreat behind Pakistani borders and do cross border terrorism.

We could have fixed this a long time ago, in that you are right, instead of wasting time, money and manpower in Iraq, which will be a success, it will, in time, but was it worth it?

I have the highest regard for the men i've both served with and not served with, but that mission was stupid from the get go, i want Blair on trial for it, i will do my best to make it happen and i know there are others who agree with me on it, but now... now no one seems to care much anymore.

This idiocy has cost way more lives than needed because of three things, Blair, Bush and the refusal to listen to the military who KNOW these things.

US took the big hit there though and it's not getting better from here, US is laying low awaiting a recession, Iran is pompous and proud.

Whaddaya say cowboys, maybe it's time we started working with the UN and uphold those human rights that we talk so much about but never follow?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Why is NATO having such a difficult time mustering enough troops to combat these scumbags?
You know, son, i'm done taking this insults from your sorry arse, you know better, or rather, if you are who you say you are you damn well should know better.

We don't have the problem, the US does.

You KNOW that, and yet you spew this bullshit.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY