Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban

Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban - Nato, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 1-2-2012 @ 02:10 AM by CaptainBeno

The Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly assisted by Pakistani security services, according to a secret Nato report seen by the BBC.

The leaked report, derived from thousands of interrogations, claims the Taliban remain defiant and have wide support among the Afghan people.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Oh dear, seems the secret is out...............Someone's nose is growing?

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 02:20 AM by LeLeu

Whoever made the secret NATO report is a little behind I think

It was kind of obvious when they found Osama Bin Hiding where they did,
amongst other things

Does this mean that Pakistan is our enemy now as far as these thing go?

edit on 1-2-2012 by LeLeu because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 02:36 AM by CaptainBeno

reply to post by LeLeu

False flags false flag.......EVERYWHERE!!! It's only a matter of time!

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 03:01 AM by aarys

When there is tens of thousands of Talban fighters crossing the border, then I think it is a safe bet to say the Parkistan leadership are some how supportting them. We need to get out of there ASAP. Russia couldnt break the nut. It was a embassing mess for the Ruskies. And now after 10 years the west are also failling. Either we stay there for ever fighting the Taliban. Or. We leave and the Taliban take back power. Leaving now or 5 years down the track , either way they will take back power.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 07:46 AM by sitchin

to many of our troops have died to let the Taliban retake control..If the leak reports are true and judging by passed form,America and Europe should be invading Pakistan as we speak right?? i think not...if the head lines read .".The Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly assisted by Iranian security services", according to a secret Nato report seen by the BBC. then we would be bombing Iran now right?? double standards?? i think so

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 09:13 AM by redzareptile

reply to post by CaptainBeno

all of these supposed revelations surrounding the "war on terror" seem like kids picking sides on the playground.
The whole world knew that from the begining Pakistan was helping Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. They are just doing it openly because they don't need our devalued dollars anymore, when they can chum up with China and Russia.
Team:1
USA
Europe (except Italy, they like to do their own thing)
Canada (The USA would find a way to cut them off of the continent.)
Australia
All the other smaller nations that still think they need our protection or have been recently over run.

Team2:
China/Russia (they can flip a coin to see who gets first billing)
Iran (practically China's own oil fields).
Somalia (pirates make good allies, arrrrghhh!!!)
The rest of the World that hates the USA.... Pretty much everyone else.

Switzerland..... As you were.

This tounge in cheek view of the situation is not far from the truth.
I just wish it wasn't!

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 09:18 AM by mr-lizard

Originally posted by redzareptile
reply to post by CaptainBeno

all of these supposed revelations surrounding the "war on terror" seem like kids picking sides on the playground.
The whole world knew that from the begining Pakistan was helping Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. They are just doing it openly because they don't need our devalued dollars anymore, when they can chum up with China and Russia.
Team:1
USA
Europe (except Italy, they like to do their own thing)
Canada (The USA would find a way to cut them off of the continent.)
Australia
All the other smaller nations that still think they need our protection or have been recently over run.

Team2:
China/Russia (they can flip a coin to see who gets first billing)
Iran (practically China's own oil fields).
Somalia (pirates make good allies, arrrrghhh!!!)
The rest of the World that hates the USA.... Pretty much everyone else.

Switzerland..... As you were.

This tounge in cheek view of the situation is not far from the truth.
I just wish it wasn't!

I'm glad you left the UK out of this, does this mean we can get about fixing our country and not engaging in anymore warfare?

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 11:06 AM by sitchin

reply to post by redzareptile

the reason Pakistan are in dialogue with the Taliban as they don't want the repercussions when the major players finally give up on Afghanistan ..Pakistan know the Taliban will be around when the west finally tires of trying to defeat a culture they simply don't understand .. Mighty Russia her self could not defeat the Taliban,Pakistan are thinking long term when the Taliban finally retake control ..call it damage limitation ..i'm not saying its right , but it is what it is

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 03:18 PM by bg_socalif

The Paki ISI has supported the Taliban since they first surfaced in the mid-90's. They've always wanted a "friendly" regime in Afghan to serve as a "counterweight" to India.

This report is doing a good job of stating the obvious.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 03:34 PM by mike_trivisonno

It is unwise to operate under the assumption that Islamic Jihad and muslims can be divorced from each other, that the muslims will bargain in good faith with non-muslims, and that they will function in ways objectionable to their prophet Mohammed, and their deity, Allah.

Unwise and deadly.

One defeats Islamic Jihad or falls upon its blade. There is no middle ground with Allah; your submission or your blood spilled upon his altar is the choice presented.

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 05:22 AM by Mr Peter Dow

YouTube Link

Peter Dow's "no" to Taliban's surrender terms. Afpak strategy for victory in war on terror. (YouTube)

CBS News
CBS News: Divisions within Taliban make peace elusive

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made news Wednesday when he said the combat role for U.S. troops in Afghanistan could end next year instead of 2014. On Thursday, he took a step back -- insisting U.S. forces will remain combat ready -- even as they transition into their new role of training Afghan troops.

Another part of the U.S. strategy involves getting the Taliban to hold peace talks with the Afghan government. CBS News correspondent Clarissa Ward spoke with some top Taliban representatives where they live in Pakistan.

They call Sami ul Haq the "Father of the Taliban," one of Pakistan's most well-known and hard-line Islamists.

Ward visited ul Haq at his religious school near the Afghan border. Many Afghan Taliban leaders and fighters studied there, earning it the nickname the "University of Jihad."

Ul Haq said that top Taliban figures are receptive to the idea of peace talks, but that three key conditions must be met first: The Americans must leave Afghanistan, he told Ward. Secondly, Taliban leaders should be released from Guantonamo. The third demand is there should be no outside interference in Afghanistan.

It's unlikely that American negotiators will accept these terms, though a release of some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay has been discussed.

While some elements of the Taliban's leadership may be supportive of peace talks, there are clear signs that divisions exist within the group. Many of the younger, more militant foot soldiers insisting that they are not ready to stop fighting.

At a small guesthouse on the outskirts of Islamabad, CBS News had the rare chance to sit down with a young Taliban commander from Helmand province. For security reasons, he asked that his face be not shown.

"If these talks in Doha are successful and Taliban leaders tell you and your fighters to put down your arms, will you do it?" asked Ward.

"No, it will not happen," he said. "And those who are talking to the political wing of the Taliban should understand that real peace is only possible by talking to the ground fighters."

"So the bottom line is you're not willing to compromise, you're not willing to collaborate? Is there any chance of peace?"

"If the Afghan government announced tomorrow that strict Islamic law would be reinstated, we would accept that," he said, "but those in power now will never go along with that."

For the moment, there is a huge gulf between what the Taliban and their backers want and what America would be willing to accept.

So the Deans of Jihad have dictated terms to the West, the terms they propose of the West's surrender to the Jihadis in the war on terror.

So what should the response of the West be? Should we surrender to the Jihadis, or should we fight to win?

This guy Sami ul Haq should be a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp along with his University of Jihad colleagues, his controllers from the Pakistani ISI and his financial backers from Saudi Arabia.

The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism".

There ought to be drone strikes on the University of Jihad. (Darul Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, Pakistan)

We ought to seize control of Pakistani and Saudi TV satellites and use them to broadcast propaganda calling for the arrest of all involved in waging terrorist war against the West.

It just seems very poor tactics for our military to be risking life and limb in the minefields of Afghanistan yet at the strategic level our governments and businesses are still "trading with the enemy".