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.

 

Pakistani Taliban leader calls Obama 'our foremost enemy'

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Pakistani Taliban leader calls Obama 'our foremost enemy'


www.mcclatchydc.com

"Obama is our foremost enemy and our workers are raring to face him," Rehman said. "Our workers cherish death more than the life and London, Paris and New York are not far away from them."
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Three Former Top CIA Agents Say War In Afghanistan Ma
Feingold asks Obama to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Well in one of my previous threads linked below three ex-CIA operatives stated that the war in Afghanistan is making the world less safe, i would say this statement echos this in a rather dark and sinister manner.

While I do not agree with the Taliban's world view or their political actions I also do not feel it is the responsibility of my nation, the USA, to enforce our own ideals and values on nations who diverge from our ethical path. The Taliban's treatment of women is abhorrent, their destruction of ancient artifacts based on religious grounds and their tendency to be a repressive and violent regime is sad, but it is none of our business.

Our decision to go to war in Afghanistan, in the beginning, was understandable. Sadly Bush's decision to leave this war by the way-side and to instead put the majority of our resources into Iraq was a mistake. The time has come and passed to accomplish anything in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is gone if not dead. The Taliban is the Afghan Nations problem not ours.

In fact, our interference there is only causing more tension and violence. Now we see threats to European nations as a result of our continued military presence in Afghanistan.

As another member said, 'Afghanistan where nations go to die'.

www.mcclatchydc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
i believe the quote is, "Where empires go to die.." (British, Soviet, american currently)



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Pakistani Taliban leader calls Obama 'our foremost enemy'





LOL!

Oh the GOP is wrong yet again... Cheney wrong yet again... Most all of the Conservative posters on ATS here WRONG YET AGAIN!

I thought our enemies wanted Obama to be elected? Didn't they say that was exactly what terrorists wanted because he would be soft?

Buwahahahahahahaha



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 




So that's all you've managed to derive from the OP ? Some political point-scoring ? As people die ?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   


As another member said, 'Afghanistan where nations go to die'.


I like that..

It is ironic that THREE Military Super Powers went there and couldn't get decisive victories with their power, their planes, their multi billion dollar armies..

We even dragged in every major military power from Europe and still we cannot "build" a Nation..

These people must be proud that no matter how poverty ridden they are, their peasant armies have fended off the worst this World has to offer.

reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


You're a sad little man...




[edit on 8/26/2009 by Rockpuck]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 



According to an article I read the other day, the West is inadvertently (at least we should hope so) funding the Taliban, via 'aid' from which the Taliban seizes what it considers to be its due. The peasant Afghans claim also (according to the article) that the Taliban levies 'tithes' upon the peasants, and also compels the peasants to pay them a considerable proportion of profits from their crops.

Not to mention the armaments and supplies provided the Taliban by those who screw everyone behind their backs.

So, the Taliban is not quite the 'peasant army' we're led to believe.

But they're tough, no doubt about that

And if there weren't fortunes and strategic gains to be made from Afghanistan, would we be there ? Would we be there if not for the oil, the poppy crops ? Surely we're not there to 'give them their free-dums' or to 'save Muslim women from a fate worse than death' ? If the latter, maybe our troops should be employed in Western city ghettos, providing 'free-dums' and saving women from their lives of misery ?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 




So that's all you've managed to derive from the OP ? Some political point-scoring ? As people die ?


Not at all... I'm more interested in exposing those who have ruined our country for what they are.

It's the patriotic thing to do.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



It hasn't been received that way


Anyway, you're off topic



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by St Vaast
 


They are still a peasant army, no matter who gives them their weapons. When they beat the Soviets they were funded by the US and given all kinds of US toys to play with. It wouldn't surprise me if the Talibans main supplier is Russia or hell, even the US.

Occupational Wars don't really raise production levels back home like Total War does.. so I don't really see a point in supplying both sides of the fight in this instance.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by St Vaast
 


They are still a peasant army, no matter who gives them their weapons. When they beat the Soviets they were funded by the US and given all kinds of US toys to play with. It wouldn't surprise me if the Talibans main supplier is Russia or hell, even the US.

Occupational Wars don't really raise production levels back home like Total War does.. so I don't really see a point in supplying both sides of the fight in this instance.


Exactly. Total war increases the prominence of the victor in many ways.

1. Removes a producer/consumer from the market as a whole.
2. Creates Demand, an entire country has been leveled, ya gotta build it back up now.
3. Depending on trade sanctions inbound, the victor may provide the supply for that demand solely on their own, or they can share that demand with other coalition partners. Thus distributing the debt and collective ownership of the reconstruction.
4. Cultural DNA Injection during reconstruction.





[edit on 26-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



It hasn't been received that way


Anyway, you're off topic


How is answering your question off topic?

Geesh. Sorry for answering. That won't happen again.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Peasants or not, the way of life in Afghanistan is really none of our concern.

What IS our concern is the overwhelming cost of 'doing business' in Afghanistan. The costs that are driving our own economy into the toilet, causing our friends and family members to be killed and maimed, and where our actions are making us and the world less safe.

I don't care who the Taliban are afraid of. Until they come here and start messing with us I don't think we should be there messing with them.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


So does that mean its possible for stupid Arab Muslims cavemen to go commit 9/11 attacks at all? If they can take down empires, then they can definitely come here and attack us here.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


So does that mean its possible for stupid Arab Muslims cavemen to go commit 9/11 attacks at all? If they can take down empires, then they can definitely come here and attack us here.


firstly afghans are not arabs... not even close. they take down empires because those empires invade their homeland, afghanistan. they know afghanistan far better than us, theyve been at war constantly since 1979.. thats 30 years of world powers messing with thier way of life. the afghans ala the taliban did not attack us on 9/11 nor do i doubt they would have any desire to except that we have invaded thier lands... theyre ambitions are regional at best...



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Peasants or not, the way of life in Afghanistan is really none of our concern.

What IS our concern is the overwhelming cost of 'doing business' in Afghanistan. The costs that are driving our own economy into the toilet, causing our friends and family members to be killed and maimed, and where our actions are making us and the world less safe.

I don't care who the Taliban are afraid of. Until they come here and start messing with us I don't think we should be there messing with them.


I completely agree that afghan business is none of ours... its quite obvious to an educated person and to history that we are right now an aggresive imperialist empire...



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I always figured that it was in Waziristan that Cain rose up against Abel. The inhabitants of Waziristan are the keepers of an ancient spiritual secret and that is the reason so many young superpowers have been sent there to be destroyed.

America is at the gates of Hell, beyond which is the seat of Satan...we should expect the resistance to be intense...our victory there wouldn't be as sweet otherwise. What...you guys want to live forever?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Peasants or not, the way of life in Afghanistan is really none of our concern.



The new Great Game

Crude oil, once seen as a wealth-creating blessing for mankind, is fast turning into the “devil’s tears”. The struggle to control the world’s remaining energy reserves increasingly culminates in bloody conflicts and the killing of innocent civilians, with the war in Iraq only being the latest example. In The New Great Game, Central Asia, known as the "black hole of the earth" for much of the last century. The Caspian Sea contains the world’s largest amount of untapped oil and gas resources. It is estimated that there might be as much as one hundred billion barrels of crude oil in the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan alone.




Taliban

The Taliban initially enjoyed enormous good will from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality, and the incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords. Two contrasting narratives explain the beginnings of the Taliban.[12] One is that the rape and murder of boys and girls from a family traveling to Kandahar or a similar outrage by Mujahideen bandits sparked Mullah Omar and his students to vow to rid Afghanistan of these criminals.[13] The other is that the Pakistan-based truck shipping mafia known as the "Afghanistan Transit Trade" and their allies in the Pakistan government, trained, armed, and financed the Taliban to clear the southern road across Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of extortionate bandit gangs.[14]

Alhough there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[15]


Almost 70% of Afghanistan is controlled and ran by regional chieftains who don't care for the Taliban or the New Government. They were the ones who helped the US over throw the Taliban in the first place. They remembered when we helped them fight off the Soviets. So they returned the favor. The problem is that many of our generals and troops don't know that history and end up making new enemies of the ones who helped us in he first place. The same goes for Pakistani Tribal Chieftains they don't want the Taliban there either!



www.google.com

Pakistan tribe agrees to hand over Taliban


KHAR, Pakistan (AP) — A tribe in a Pakistani region where the military has fought insurgents has agreed to stop sheltering foreign fighters and hand over local Taliban leaders, authorities said. Pakistan has previously signed such pacts with tribes in its northwest regions bordering Afghanistan, and they tend to unravel.

But Monday's agreement in the Bajur tribal area came after the army said it had defeated insurgents there after six months of fighting. Bajur is a rumored hiding place of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, and the offensive there has earned praise from American officials who are concerned that militants use Pakistan as a base from which to plan attacks in Afghanistan.



www.timesonline.co.uk

US sacks top military commander in Afghanistan

The top US military commander in Afghanistan was sacked today after both the Pentagon and the White House decided that “fresh thinking” was needed to win the war. General David McKiernan, who has spent just 11 months in charge of Nato forces in Afghanistan, will be replaced by Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal who previously led the special operations command and is credited with killing the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Lieutenant-General David Rodriguez will be handed a new position of deputy commander of US forces in Afghanistan.


So instead of learning from our mistakes and making the changes needed to bring stability to the region. We do what is exactly the opposite of whats needed. We bring in a big gun so to speak and replace one General with another. I wonder if he understands the history? Who is the new guy?


General Stanley McChrystal

No one would have mentioned his name at all if President George W. Bush hadn't singled him out in public. Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, West Point '76, is not someone the Army likes to talk about. He isn't even listed in the directory at Fort Bragg, N.C., his home base. That's not because McChrystal has done anything wrong—quite the contrary, he's one of the Army's rising stars—but because he runs the most secretive force in the U.S. military. That is the Joint Special Operations Command, the snake-eating, slit-their-throats "black ops" guys who captured Saddam Hussein and targeted Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.



Why is Central Asia so important?
I'll tell you it's not for peaceful means. It's a power grab. Nobody's hands are clean. All the powers that be have their hand in this mess. The US is just the most obvious.

Undoubtedly Central Asia's strategic importance in international affairs is growing. The rivalries among Russia, China, United States, Iran, India, and Pakistan not tomention the ever-changing pattern of relations among local states (five former Soviet republics and Afghanistan) make the region's importance obviously clear. Central Asia's strategic importance for Washington, Moscow, and Beijing varies with each nation s perception of its strategic interests. Washington focuses primarily on Central Asia as an important theater in the war on terrorism. Additionally, it is viewed as a theater where America might counter a revived Russia or China, or a place to blunt any extension of Iranian influence. Moscow and Beijing view the region as a vital locale for defending critical domestic interests. This asymmetry of interest is a major factor in the competition among states for influence in the region.



Kazakhstan

Oil and gas is the leading economic sector. Production of oil and gas condensate in Kazakhstan amounted to 67.2 million tons in 2007, an increase from 64.5 million tons in 2006. Kazakhstan exported 60.2 million tons of oil and gas condensate in 2007. Natural gas production in Kazakhstan in 2007 amounted to 16.6 billion cubic meters. Kazakhstan holds about 4 billion tons of proven recoverable oil reserves and 3 trillion cubic meters of gas. Industry analysts believe that planned expansion of oil production, coupled with the development of new fields, will enable the country to produce as much as 3 million barrels per day by 2015, lifting Kazakhstan into the ranks of the world's top 10 oil-producing nations. Kazakhstan's 2005 oil exports were valued at $17.4 billion, representing over 70% of overall exports. Major oil and gas fields and their recoverable oil reserves are Tengiz (7 billion barrels); Karachaganak (8 billion barrels and 1,350 billion cubic meters of natural gas); and Kashagan (7-9 billion barrels).


The Great Game Revisited




[edit on 1-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I have something I want to ask all of you. Have you forgotten what happened on 9/11/01? Why are you letting the Iraq War dictate your feelings on a very legitimate fight in Central Asia?

Second, if a foreign empire is yet to defeat Afghanistan in a war, why not America? Why not us? I hate to make this seem like a sports match-up (which it most certainly is not), but does that not just mean the Mujahadeen and Taliban are due for a defeat?

[edit on 1-9-2009 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I have something I want to ask all of you. Have you forgotten what happened on 9/11/01? Why are you letting the Iraq War dictate your feelings on a very legitimate fight in Central Asia?

Second, if a foreign empire is yet to defeat Afghanistan in a war, why not America? Why not us? I hate to make this seem like a sports match-up (which it most certainly is not), but does that not just mean the Mujahadeen and Taliban are due for a defeat?

[edit on 1-9-2009 by sweatmonicaIdo]


al-qaeda isnt in afghanistan, al-qaeda is in pakistan... we are not.. therefore nulling and voiding the fight in afghanistan after we drove them out the first month or two of the war as a legitimate one.. weve been there 8 years!! doing what? obviously not a whole lot... babysitting the corrupt regime of Hamid "Mayor of Kabul" Karzai.. there are only 100,000 NATO/US troops in afghanistan... there were 118,000 Soviets in the 80's and it took them 9 years to fail... our ideology of american democracy is no less strange and foreign to the afghans as communism was... it doesnt help when the afghan government gives the afghan people no reason to support it.. there is very little public support for NATO or the Afghan Gov't outside of Kabul...




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join