It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pakistan Makes a Taliban Truce, Creating a Haven

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Ungh... The US would rather see Pakistan die off completely than find a truce.

So what? Pakistan formed a truce... just because it's a truce with someone the US doesn't like doesn't mean anything.

Quite frankly, US opinion isn't worth one cent over there. They have the right to call a truce with whoever they want.




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Hey! We put them / drove them there.
After so many years now in Afghanistan (longer than WWII) fighting the Taliban, can someone tell me why we are there again?
The Taliban were content to stay in Afghanistan before we went marching in. Like the Soviets before us we are being mired down in a pointless and costly war of attrition with no clear goals in sight.
The cost keeps going up. More people die every day. The Opiate production went up to record levels and has remained high. Just what the hell are we doing there and, more importantly, why should I care?


We are there to fight the enemy - taliban/al quaida/militant mohammedanism. As to why YOU should care, I haven't a clue. Didn't get my payment this month to think for you. Go back to sleep.

Slayer said that we would have to step on islamic traditions to combat this, or something to that effect. Well it's a very clear choice - step on their traditions, or allow them to stomp on ours. I made my choice in the 80's to help these folks against the Soviet Union, and I'm not real happy with the way they've returned the favor. See, if I help somebody out, it rankles me to see them turn and bite the hand that fed them. Personal quirk I have.

Before I'm accused of going on an anti-muslim rant, I should stress that I'm not Anti-muslim, But I'm violently opposed to militant mohammedanism. there is a difference. I won't go into my relationship with Islam, as that could put me on mirey ground, but I am NOT anti-muslim.

The Swat valley is a beautiful place. I am acquainted with it, as well as the Khyber Pass, Peshawar, Waziristan, Jalalabad, and Tora Bora. It would be a shame to have to erase it, but if the Pak government abdicates in the area and allows the enemy free reign, then the gangrene has set in, amputation the only viable option. I wouldn't support an American invasion of the area in force. That would be a counterproductive pissing-in-the-wind. Instead, I'd say send in some special ops teams to verify and locate targets, and take 'em out with air strikes. If that didn't calm the frayed nerves, then pave the whole place with glass. If we don't, we can look for it on OUR turf, eventually. That's the way militant mohammedanism works, and the way it HAS worked continually since 622 AD. Just ask the Byzantines, or "Romans" as the muslims refer to them. No, wait, you can't ask them, because militant mohammedanism ERASED the Byzantines. There are more examples, too numerous to go into here. Look it up for yourself.

I have a friend who just returned from Pakistan last spring. He went to the Swat valley for a while when he was there. He talked differently than before his departure, and was somewhat evasive. He did say, however, that the Swat valley was just as beautiful as it ever was, but "things" were different there now. He quit his job, and I've not seen him since Eid Al-Fitr. I guess he's finally retired.

Sharia Law is government by a god who is so weak as to require mere humans to fight for him and avenge his honor, rather than the other way around. For that reason, I must conclude that the god of militant mohammedanism bears no relation to the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, contrary to the popular propoganda.

If that's the kind of government they want, then fine, I'm all for it. I've always been for self-determination. They need to understand, however, that export of their ideals at the point of a sword will be met with a harsh response. Same goes for being a threat to others, nuclear or not. Keep it at home, stone your own women and kids, and I'm ok with it, since I don't have a dog in that fight. Of course, there's a lesson there for the US as well, regarding the export of their particular brand of "democracy" at the point of a bayonet Wars should never be fought to force your way of life upon those who want no part of it, whatever your ideology is. They should only be fought to keep threats off of your back. Afghanistan and now Pakistan qualify under those rules as legitimate targets. Iraq does not. As soon as Hussein was swinging, we should have evacuated and left them to decide their own fate. Maybe we WOULD have had to go back in and clean 'em out later, but at least they would have tied the noose themselves.

nenothtu out



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by solidshot
The downside to going into Pakistan will be the problem it causes here in the UK, in my town alone 20% of the population is of Pakistani decent and if we do invade there will be blood on the streets, this area is already infultrated by the militants (two of the liquid bombers came from here)


But this could be exactly what the forces that be want.... Allow a little trouble, call in the police riot squads when things get nasty, declare a state of emergency, enforce draconian law and start impounding the immigrants into camps, all fully hyped up by the media.

Scenes from 'Children of men' spring to mind.

People do seem to think that the other 80% of Britain will sat back and do nothing when the SHTF, but i doubt it. I think maybe popularity will grow of for far-right political parties like the BNP.

Either way it's adreadful thought and i don't know what i fear more.

Backward Radical muslims, a full enforced police state or a country suddenly swayed to the far right.


well if what your thinking comes comes true, england will likley become very polorised & violent with that 80% part of the uk already getting angry about the british jobs for british workers bs, as an english worker is more likley to lose the job becuase of cheap immigrant labour !!.
& in times like these the bnp surley stand to make gains from that 80% in the politcal side of things.
swat today, pakistan tomorow, the world ?.
we sure do live in interesting times.
so if the taliban actually managed to gain control over 1 of those apparent 100 nuclear weapons, what do you think they will do ?, ask for a ransome of some kind ?, use the weapon as soon as posible screaming allah is great as they push the button ?, or ask to be left alone ?..........in peace



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 

The reason the US is in Afghanistan has to do with strategic positioning and the most important reason, OPIUM.
Opium crops where almost wiped out by the Taliban and now after years and years of occupation the opium crops have never been so big.

and of course in order to really hit Iran you have to try and surround them.
Iraq one side, Afghanistan and Pakistan on the other.
Pakistan is just being set up so as there is a bigger front against Iran.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Obama is sending between 12 and 17 thousand more troops to Afghanistan.

And at the same time, the towel-ban has basicly been given a 100 mile piece of Pakistan.

So, they will leave afghanistan and go to their safe haven in Pakistan.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
That's what we need, another damn war to fight....meanwhile our own country and the rest of the world is coming down around our ears. I honestly think we have bigger fish to fry at the moment, but then who am i to voice my opinion? Those military contracts are quite lucrative I hear. IF this gets real ugly, I wouldn't be surprised if a draft comes into play at some point. I say let Pakistan deal with it, i'm personally sick of the American people buying into the constant "terrorism" propaganda and being used as pawns in some big stupid game of chess that has nothing to do with "freedom", and everything to do with MONEY.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Nobody seems to have anything to say other than tough talk about killing Pakistanis and Afghans.
Does anyone know why we are there? All the reasons previously spouted by our governments can, I think, safely be ignored as nothing more than bluster and grandstanding. What are we there for? It's a simple question, surely the answer can't be too complicated, can it?

As far as I can see we have only made things even worse in this region since we financed and armed what was to become the Taliban to fight the Soviets. This seems to be a repeated theme across the world though. Create the enemy that you will someday persuade the peopel you have to deal with.

I don't see hordes of Taliban appearing over the horizon as I sit at home sipping a cuppa, waving their long knives in the air and baying for the beheading of my neighbours for being infidel unbelievers. In short, they are not really high on my list of threats, especially without an Air force, Navy or even a mechanised army to get here.

The longer we remain, the worse it'll get and the more anti-western feeling we create with the weekly missile attacks that always kill innocents as well as the claimed insurgents. Maybe I'm wrong but I see all this as nothing more than deliberate agitation to escalate conflict.


I'll try this one more time--- we are there to close with and fight the enemy.

So you wonder WHY the taliban is the enemy? They gave aid, comfort, and sanctuary to al-quaida, an avowed enemy. Then, to make matters worse, they refused to give up the enemy, and continued their sanctuary policies, and support of al-quaida. This, in turn, made the taliban the enemy as well. Now, should Pakistan decide to provide sanctuary for the enemy willingly, then guess what the next step is...

Your assumption that we "armed and trained the taliban" is erroneous. I was there. The taliban did not even exist at that time. We armed and trained native Afghans, some of whom indeed did go on to form the taliban, under foreign influence (hence their interdependence on al-quaida). Some also became the northern alliance, and some stayed "independent". The taliban was formed by foreign wahabbist influences, not US intervention.

I assume you are British. Did the enemy need an "air force, navy, or mechanized infantry" to do the transportation bombings? If they did, why on earth did the British government allow the tanks and planes in? We didn't get that part of the news over here in the colonies. You say that wasn't the taliban? But it WAS. It was but a different head of the selfsame hydra.

I do agree with you that the longer we remain, the more "anti-western" feeling we will induce. Now, to be quite honest, I don't give a hang for how they "feel", but your argument is perhaps the best I've seen for getting in, doing the job LIKE WE MEAN IT, and getting right back out. To hell with "nation building", it's not our nation to build - but it IS our enemy to tear down. As long as they're occupied in rebuilding their own nation, they'll be less likely to be troublesome.

Furthermore, I think the coalition governments are going about this all wrong. Too many troops on the ground, giving more excuses for ill will. SpecOps is the way to go in this sort of warfare. Do you know how many US soldiers were on the ground when Kabul fell? 100, that's all. 100 Special Forces troopers tore down the taliban and put them on the run. Then the big army came in, wanting their share of the pie, and it all went downhill. SpecOps should do the "in-country" work, and just keep the big army outside and on call for special missions requiring concentrated, massive force. They can be injected onto the battlefield on VERY short notice, and then withdrawn when the fight is over. And "nation building" is absurd, as I've mentioned before, and counter-productive. If the US wanted to build a nation there, they should have injected massive aid into the power vacuum left in the wake of the soviet withdrawal. Now, it's too little, too late.

Lesson's over. You can go back to your cuppa now.

nenothtu out



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
So bin Laden could be in the Swat Valley and we wouldn't even know it. Or be able to get to him.

There are no really good options for the U.S. We cannot invade Pakistan because they are supposedly our allies and mostly because they have nuclear weapons. Our campaign to win hearts and minds isn't working.

Great Britain and Russia have both tried to establish empires in Afghanistan and both were defeated. What makes us think we can do any better?

The U.S. should have supported the Russians when they were there, but our cold war mentality wouldn't have allowed that.

Another option is for Turkey to invade Afghanistan, but that's a long shot.

The U.S. is between a rock and a hard place.


See, there's the problem - an "ally" doesn't willingly provide sanctuary to an enemy. Ergo, I think their "ally" status should be re-checked.

And yup, it's a huge mistake to attempt to establish an "empire" there. No reason for it. See my opinions above on "nation building".

nenothtu out



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Religion delivered by the bullet of an AK-47


One thing is clear, the Taliban dont give a rats posterior about religion, its all about control of the people with them.

I feel bad for that region in Pakistan, its such a beautifully picturesque country but now their children will receive a poor eductation if they are lucky enough to be male, or none at all if they are female.

Pakistan is like a volcano that could explode at any second, real extremism, real terrorism, real weapons of mass destruction, real threat of causing an international nuclear war!

Any country that has or wants nukes needs to understand the concequences of having them. Your on the world stage now Pakistan - best put on a good performance, eh?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
See, there's the problem - an "ally" doesn't willingly provide sanctuary to an enemy. Ergo, I think their "ally" status should be re-checked.


I think it's pretty clear that status was lost as soon as Musharaf was out of there. India is a closer and more important ally to us anyway, and if Pakistan gets too crazy coming out of that newly granted militant preserve, they're going to be coming into the situation regardless...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by cooler
 


Well I for one am not too happy with India. I lost my Tech Support position to them so people here in the states can repeatedly ask them to repeat themselves because nobody can understand their English.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Well that seems to be the case since 9/11. We have been in both locations shortly after and have been there ever since, Honestly I don't see how moving East can make us a bigger threat to Iran isn't that in the opposite direction?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Obama is sending between 12 and 17 thousand more troops to Afghanistan.

And at the same time, the towel-ban has basicly been given a 100 mile piece of Pakistan.

So, they will leave afghanistan and go to their safe haven in Pakistan.



And hopefully that safe haven will be a new ground zero. I'm wondering if the conspiracies of the Pakistanis are helping the US with setting them up to be bundled all together in one location is true?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Great point I keep hearing that the US help create the Taliban but in fact back in the day we helped the mujaheddin and pashtun I believe that's what they were called? Anyway the Taliban came later and yes some were former Soviet fighters who joined up later and yes I'm sure some of them were trained by the US.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by munkey66
 


Well that seems to be the case since 9/11. We have been in both locations shortly after and have been there ever since, Honestly I don't see how moving East can make us a bigger threat to Iran isn't that in the opposite direction?


Pakistan shares it's western border with Iran. At one point, the Pakistani, Afghan, and Iranian borders all meet. Many Pakis are not on friendly terms with Iran anyhow. It's the Sunni (Pak)/Shia (Iran) rift. They view Iran as apostates to the true religion.

nenothtu out



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
We need a draft! LOL

A somber second line at such a prospect



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by freeradical
 


Great point if Pakistan goes down the tubes so much for nuclear containment!
What I don't get is why we are not getting even more international support outside of all the Anti America flag burning people must see and understand what really is at stake here?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Well what I don't want to hear when the SHTF is people crying foul when all the bombs and missiles start hitting and people who haven't paid attention all start screaming that the US is a bully



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
After 9/11 this surprises people? Their own ISI supplied money to Mohammad Atta on 9/10/01 and we all know what happened a day later.
The Mumbai attacks anyone? Not Syria, not even Iran, are so much in love with sponsoring terror groups as the Pakistanis. Why we needed this story to convince us they aren't playing ball with us is beyond me.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Great point I keep hearing that the US help create the Taliban but in fact back in the day we helped the mujaheddin and pashtun I believe that's what they were called? Anyway the Taliban came later and yes some were former Soviet fighters who joined up later and yes I'm sure some of them were trained by the US.


That's correct. "Mujahideen" refers to a "holy warrior" of any variety, fighting for islam. translated to "those who wage jihad (muJAHIDeen)". The Pashtuns are an ethnic/tribal element in (southern) Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. One does not necessarily equate to the other, but in practice they were close. Many of the mujahedeen were foreigners flocking to the afghan jihad to make their bones for allah. Bin Laden was one of those. Pashtuns were native Afghans. In the north, the dominant ethnic group was Tajik, and most of them went with the Northern Alliance, and fought against the taliban.

The taliban was created by agitation and support from the foreign mujahideen, fanning the flames of latent elements of 7th century islam present in the tribal afghans. Their path to power followed the power vacuum left when both the Soviet Union AND teh US precipitously withdrew, leaving nothing to fill the void.

That's why, when the Northern Alliance swept through the country and took Kabul, with US assistance, a number of taliban corpses were left with money in either their mouths or right hands. It was the "wages" for what the Northern Alliance contemptuously viewed as "foreign mercenaries" that had taken over their country.

nenothtu out



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join