9 U.S. troops reported killed in Afghanistan

[Vijay Reddy]

the cards are in the hands of the Pakistanis and not the US

 

It is the same addled thinking that has caused Pakistan to start wars it had to back out of - 1965, Kargil etc. You have got to admire the ability to not learn from mistakes. It is a rare trait. Anyway, the American folks can now understand that you are not dealing with a rational actor here.

[crazyinsane105]

It is the same addled thinking that has caused Pakistan to start wars it had to back out of - 1965, Kargil etc. You have got to admire the ability to not learn from mistakes. It is a rare trait. Anyway, the American folks can now understand that you are not dealing with a rational actor here.

 

Go ahead and laugh dude, if the US really had the willpower it would have done something by now. Fact is the US isn't even ready to tackle Iran, a country who's military is significantly less stronger than Pakistan's and you're expecting Obama to take on Pakistan? Again, re-read my qoute: I said in the current situation, the cards are in the hands of the Pakistanis. Who knows what will happen tomorrow...

Edited July 25, 2008 by crazyinsane105

[Sardaukar]

As a matter of interest the two quotes I posted are by Winston Churchill. If the FFZ thread is correct then they are quite old. In fact, they pre-date the formation of Pakistan.

You seem to think that we (the West) should naturally support Pakistan as a counterweight to India but we gave that a go and it got us nowhere. India has never supported acts of violence against the USA (that I am aware of, certainly nothing like 9-11).

Pakistan may well be multiple personalities and all that but over here we lock crazy (dangerous-crazy) people away before they hurt someone. Pakistan has made its choices and now reality is coming home to roost.

Don't look for comfort from an Obama administration. Democrat administrations have been proven to be profligate with military force.

 

Those Winston Churchill quotes are indeed very old. He was remarkably perceptive person, it seems. Not much has changed in islamic world since he wrote those, 1899 to 1921.

 

Some are taken from 1899 book by Winston Churchill, "The River War", in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Kitchener's campaign in the Sudan.

 

This is part of what he said in 1921 Cairo Conference, as Secretary of British Colonies:

 

 

"A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe's] religious wars.

 

The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.

 

It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina."

 

No shit.

[T19]

Keeping an eye on the Indians obviously. The Pakistani are growing very alarmed by a pro-India Afghan government.

Well if Pakistan stopped the AL Q problem, maybe the Afghan govt would like Pakistan again... its worth a try

[T19]

The Taliban being barbaric? So I guess when Northern Alliance soldiers go around raping little boys in front of Canadian soldiers (who saw it with their own eyes and are now being treated for PTSD) that's a civilized thing, right? Both the Taliban and Northern Alliance are barbaric in their own ways, one of them isn't necessarily better than the other. BTW, if the Taliban was so barbaric, why was the US giving the Taliban aid (hundreds of millions of dollars) about a year before 9/11 when it was in full knowledge by the US there were Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan (the same organization which attacked the USS Cole and the American embassies and the WTC in the 90s)?

 

Ok the BS meter went off. That bit about Canadians did not happen. We were not in the Northern areas and Im just retired and I never saw one SITREP on that.

 

What is your source for that ??

[Colin]

Go ahead and laugh dude, if the US really had the willpower it would have done something by now. Fact is the US isn't even ready to tackle Iran, a country who's military is significantly less stronger than Pakistan's and you're expecting Obama to take on Pakistan? Again, re-read my qoute: I said in the current situation, the cards are in the hands of the Pakistanis. Who knows what will happen tomorrow...

 

 

The Pakistan army has not fared well against it's own home grown terrorists, even regular troops have suffered serious losses. plus the majority of Pakistan's military is poised on the Eastern front, they would be caught between a rock and a hard place to respond militarily to the US/NATO. Plus it’s armour would have to transit the passes to strike the NATO forces. What happens there depends on the air war and who is able to maintain air superiority.

Likely the Taliban will give safe passage to the military, but for a price to be extracted later. Before a war breaks out Pakistan will interfere with logistical shipments, likely freezing them at dockside for some contrived issues in the paperwork. That will be the 2nd ratchet in a high stakes game likely started by a serious air strike in the NWF or a large cross border incident.

[crazyinsane105]

Ok the BS meter went off. That bit about Canadians did not happen. We were not in the Northern areas and Im just retired and I never saw one SITREP on that.

 

What is your source for that ??

 

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/443954

 

The chaplain, Jean Johns, says she recently counselled a Canadian soldier who said he witnessed a boy being raped by an Afghan soldier, then wrote a report on the allegation for her brigade chaplain.

 

In her March report, which she says should have been advanced "up the chain of command," Johns says the corporal told her that Canadian troops have been ordered by commanding officers "to ignore" incidents of sexual assault. Johns hasn't received a reply to the report

 

An extremely large number of the current Afghan military is composed heavily of soldiers from the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance has been quite notorious in this ever way before the US even came into Afghanistan...

 

 

The other bit for the US aiding the Taliban just a year before 9/11: you can that in one of Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11." I don't really like quoting his work but he shows videotaped evidence of a Taliban official coming here to the US and even speaking to the press. Moore also pointed out that the US indeed had funded the Taliban before 9/11 with over 100 million dollars. If what he said was untrue, I would have read by now dozens of right wing articles bashing him over the head for making up that fact...

[crazyinsane105]

The Pakistan army has not fared well against it's own home grown terrorists, even regular troops have suffered serious losses. plus the majority of Pakistan's military is poised on the Eastern front, they would be caught between a rock and a hard place to respond militarily to the US/NATO. Plus it’s armour would have to transit the passes to strike the NATO forces. What happens there depends on the air war and who is able to maintain air superiority.

Likely the Taliban will give safe passage to the military, but for a price to be extracted later. Before a war breaks out Pakistan will interfere with logistical shipments, likely freezing them at dockside for some contrived issues in the paperwork. That will be the 2nd ratchet in a high stakes game likely started by a serious air strike in the NWF or a large cross border incident.

 

You seem to be forgetting the fact that Pakistan happens to be the logistical base for NATO and the US. 80% of the fuel supplies still run through Pakistan you know...

 

 

EARLIER in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama just sounded naive. Yesterday, he sounded frightening.

 

In a speech long on bluster and short on common sense, Obama called, yet again, for withdrawing our troops from Iraq and letting al Qaeda declare victory. But he's not a peacenik: He wants to use those forces to invade Pakistan.

 

While any sensible American would agree that airstrikes and special-operations raids on al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in Pakistan make sense, the notion of sending in a massive ground force is madness.

 

What Obama has in mind would, indeed, make Iraq look like a "cakewalk."

 

In critiquing the senator's happy-go-lucky belligerency, I have two disadvantages: Unlike Obama, I actually served in the military and, unlike the senator, I've actually been in the stretch of Pakistan he speaks so merrily of invading.

 

Here's why he's nuts:

 

* Pakistan is a nuclear power on the brink of internal collapse. Do we really want to drive it over the edge and see loose nukes in the hands of a radicalized military faction - or terrorists?

 

* The mountain ranges where the terrorists are holed up are vast. The terrain is some of the toughest in the world. An invasion would suck in hundreds of thousands of troops. And a long occupation would be required.

 

* Even those tribesmen who don't support the Taliban or al Qaeda are proud and xenophobic to extremes - they'd rally against us. And all of the senator's bloggers couldn't stop them.

 

* The Pakistani military would fight us. Right now, they're cooperating, at least to some degree - but they'd fight any invader.

 

* President Pervez Musharraf's government would fall - probably overthrown by Islamic nationalists in the military and security services. Welcome to your Islamofascist nuclear power, senator.

 

* We'd also have to occupy a big corridor through Baluchistan, Pakistan's vast southwest, since we'd lose our current overflight rights and hush-hush transit privileges on the ground.

 

An army at war needs a lot of fuel, ammunition, food, water, Band-Aids, replacements, etc. (not the sort of things armchair strategists bother about). Afghanistan is landlocked and surrounded by unfriendly states. Pakistan has been helping us keep our troops supplied. And you couldn't sustain Operation Obama by air. The senator hasn't even looked at a map.

* Along with giving away the game in Iraq, an invasion of Pakistan would create a terrorist-recruiting double whammy: The Middle East would mobilize against us - and what could we expect after we invaded a friendly Islamic state?

 

* Our troops are tired and their gear's worn out. (Obama wouldn't know, and he doesn't care.) They're fighting on in Iraq because they see progress and they have a sense of duty. But does the senator, who clearly doesn't know any soldiers and Marines, expect them to surrender Iraq - then plunge into Pakistan without a collapse in morale?

 

* Even setting aside the nuke issue, what would President Obama do when Pakistan, an Islamic nation of 170 million, broke into bits? Would we also occupy Karachi, Lahore and other megacities, after they turned into urban jungles where the terrorist became the king of beasts?

 

Go after al Qaeda? You bet. Anywhere, anytime. But we've got to do it in a way that makes military sense. A general staff recruited from MoveOn.org isn't going to enhance our security.

 

The only thing Obama accomplished with his wild-eyed pistol-waving yesterday was to make his primary opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, sound like a serious wartime leader.

 

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith.

 

 

 

Article is a year old, but points are still quite valid (minus the Hillary part).

Edited July 26, 2008 by crazyinsane105

[crazyinsane105]

Well if Pakistan stopped the AL Q problem, maybe the Afghan govt would like Pakistan again... its worth a try

 

This goes way before Al Qaeda. This has to deal with the issue of the Durrand Line, its by no doubt the biggest source of tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Honestly guys, look up that issue. Even the Afghan Taliban never recognized the line, but they weren't necessarily hostile about it either.

[lastdingo]

Such discussions would have a much better level if people would refrain from calling a withdrawal from a distant civil war a "surrender".

 

Look up how such actions are called in REALITY and HISTORY, nut just by political partisans.

Something like that is being called a DRAW.

 

People who spout rhetoric bullshit as feeded to them by political strategists are just embarassing and ruin discussions, as they inevitably inject a lot of bullshit.

 

The Iraq war was wrong, is wrong, wasn't justified, isn't justified, there's nothing to win - why waste thousands of own and ten thousands of other lives just to save face?

The USA don't deserve to save face in Iraq. They fucked it up and deserve to learn the bitter lesson of having failed. It will help them in the long run.

Be happy that GWB has only fucked up in a war with a distant, irrelevant nation. The war is quite unimportant, a draw doesn't hurt (except the ego).

 

 

Btw, last I heard about it Obama talked about sending troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and to pressure Pakistan. I cannot recall that he told the public he'd invade Pakistan.

 

Even if he did - bad luck. The USA has to choose between Obama and McCain, and McCain is pretty much as poor a choice as GWB. McCain would probably attack Iran, keep troops stuck in Iraq for at least four more years, break what's left of the economy and budget and having him as president might cause a drift of Europe away from the USA that might end the NATO in the long run.

[Gabe]

Let Pakistan be alarmed. Afghanistan has every right to look for military partners that will enable it to fight back against Pakistan's continual violations of Afghan soveriegnty.

 

If anything, Afghanistan should be threatening Pakistan with war. Nothing unifies a people like an external enemy.

 

Yeah I'm sure that would be the end of our problems.

 

Look nobody is happy with the Pakistanis, but why are we acting surprised with their double dealings when we don't take their security into account? Why in the world would anyone think killing Talibans would be more important to them than destabilizing Indian allies in Afghanistan? What are our long term goals there? The Afghans aren't going to stop being Afghans, and the Pakistanis and Indians will always have their agendas. Who would've thunk it?

 

We should be bribing warlords on both sides of the border and leave the rest for the CIA and the USAF. What we've got right now is Marines (of all people) in isolated mountain outposts trying to terraform Afghanistan. That is just about the most ludicrous mission you could come up with.

[T19]

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/443954

 

The chaplain, Jean Johns, says she recently counselled a Canadian soldier who said he witnessed a boy being raped by an Afghan soldier, then wrote a report on the allegation for her brigade chaplain.

 

In her March report, which she says should have been advanced "up the chain of command," Johns says the corporal told her that Canadian troops have been ordered by commanding officers "to ignore" incidents of sexual assault. Johns hasn't received a reply to the report

 

An extremely large number of the current Afghan military is composed heavily of soldiers from the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance has been quite notorious in this ever way before the US even came into Afghanistan...

The other bit for the US aiding the Taliban just a year before 9/11: you can that in one of Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11." I don't really like quoting his work but he shows videotaped evidence of a Taliban official coming here to the US and even speaking to the press. Moore also pointed out that the US indeed had funded the Taliban before 9/11 with over 100 million dollars. If what he said was untrue, I would have read by now dozens of right wing articles bashing him over the head for making up that fact...

 

Your quoted article did not say this happened in the north and did not say its was Afghan troops. From the article it could be concluded that it was civilian on civilian assaults. You posted that it was Northern Alliance Troops in the North. False on both accounts

[Vijay Reddy]

Look nobody is happy with the Pakistanis, but why are we acting surprised with their double dealings when we don't take their security into account?

 

Okay, let me understand this.

 

On 9/11/2001 a gang of terrorists attacked the US and killed thousands of Americans. They were organically linked with a medeival Islamic thug regime supported by Pakistan. According to your logic, the best thing for the US is to ignore the Al Qaeda and Taliban threat and bend over backwards to please Pakistan?

 

"Bob, these Taliban fellas are not going to stop hosting international terrorists, but remember, it doesn't matter if a few thousand of our people die. The only thing matters is that Pakistan must be happy.

 

Yes Tom, we all know that the world revolves around Pakistan. Therefore in addition to ignoring their terror support, let's given them $10 Billion for all the troubles we've caused them."

 

Are you for real?

[crazyinsane105]

Your quoted article did not say this happened in the north and did not say its was Afghan troops. From the article it could be concluded that it was civilian on civilian assaults. You posted that it was Northern Alliance Troops in the North. False on both accounts

 

OTTAWA, June 16 (UPI) -- A growing number of Canadian soldiers are suffering after witnessing Afghan boys being raped by Afghan soldiers, the Toronto Star reported Monday.

Several military chaplains told the newspaper they had counseled veterans returning from combat in Afghanistan for severe post traumatic stress disorder and their reports weren't being dealt with by the Canadian military.

 

On Saturday, the Star reported a Canadian corporal gave closed-door parliamentary testimony about a boy's rape he witnessed in 2006 and the visible signs of rape trauma.

 

The Liberal critic for national defense in Ottawa said he has asked party permission to query Foreign Affairs Minister David Emerson about the sex-abuse allegations and said the soldiers' allegations should have resulted in at least a diplomatic note to the Afghan government.

 

"Anybody who says this is about cultural differences should have their head examined," Emerson told the Star.

 

 

 

Look up articles written by Eric S. Margolis about Afghanistan and/or Northern Alliance. He's one of the few reporters who's been to Afghanistan during the Soviet War, during the reign of the Taliban, etc. etc. Even he points out that the Northern Alliance were extremely notorious in raping boys...

[crazyinsane105]

Okay, let me understand this.

 

On 9/11/2001 a gang of terrorists attacked the US and killed thousands of Americans. They were organically linked with a medeival Islamic thug regime supported by Pakistan. According to your logic, the best thing for the US is to ignore the Al Qaeda and Taliban threat and bend over backwards to please Pakistan?

 

"Bob, these Taliban fellas are not going to stop hosting international terrorists, but remember, it doesn't matter if a few thousand of our people die. The only thing matters is that Pakistan must be happy.

 

Yes Tom, we all know that the world revolves around Pakistan. Therefore in addition to ignoring their terror support, let's given them $10 Billion for all the troubles we've caused them."

 

Are you for real?

 

And you are conveniently forgetting that the US was also supporting the Taliban. :lol: With monetary aid that is. Explain to me, why are you b*tching about Pakistan supporting the Taliban when the US was also doing the SAME EXACT THING a few months before 9/11? Let's not be hypocritical here.

 

 

BTW, an interesting article:

 

 

Empowering “Soft” Taliban Over “Hard” Taliban: Pakistan’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy

 

By Sadia Sulaiman

The phenomenal rise of various Pakistani Taliban militant groups since 2004 and subsequent militant activities in both Pakistan and Afghanistan have surprised many. In a short span of nearly three years, the Pakistani Taliban threat has developed into a considerable political and security challenge to both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The presence of figures from al-Qaeda’s senior leadership and other foreign militant groups in the North Waziristan Agency, South Waziristan Agency and Bajaur Agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan has provided enormous support to various Pakistani Taliban groups in the shape of ideological, strategic, tactical and logistical assistance, particularly in the development of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and suicide bombings.

 

The formation of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in December 2007 by various Taliban groups effectively brought together 27 Taliban groups under one umbrella. The union was viewed as an attempt to pursue Talibanization in Pakistan while conducting a “defensive jihad” against Pakistani security forces operating in FATA and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) (Islam Online, March 6). Baitullah Mahsud, who heads the TTP, is blamed for most of the suicide attacks and terrorist violence in FATA, NWFP and Punjab province in 2007. Mahsud is also accused of involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

 

A New Alliance in Waziristan

 

On June 30, Mullah Nazir, commander of the Taliban of the Ahmadzai Wazir Tribe of South Waziristan, and Hafiz Gul Bahadur Wazir, leader of the Taliban of the Uthmanzai Wazir and Daur Tribes of North Waziristan, announced the merger of their groups under a common front, the “Local Taliban Movement,” to fight ISAF-NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan (Islam Online, July 13; Dawn [Karachi], July 1). Subsequently, Hafiz Gul Bahadur was appointed as the overall commander of both the Ahmadzai and Uthmanzai Taliban, Mullah Nazir as the deputy commander and Mufti Abu Haroon as the spokesman of the group (The News [islamabad], July 13). The formation of the Bahadur-Nazir alliance could be aptly described as a “Waziri alliance” since both Nazir and Bahadur belong to the dominant Wazir Tribe, which nearly encircles the Mahsud Tribe from three sides in Waziristan. As stated by Mullah Nazir, the group has been formed to “defend the Wazir Tribe’s interests in North and South Waziristan” (Daily Times, July 2).

 

It is, however, generally believed that the bloc was formed as an attempt to counter Baitullah Mahsud and his TTP. As stated by a pro-Mullah Nazir tribal elder who attended a jirga (tribal council) to ratify the Nazir-Bahadur agreement, the move aims at allowing the two leaders to “forge unity against Mahsud” (Daily Times [Lahore], July 8). The agreement comes against a backdrop of increasing terrorist activity by the Baitullah Mahsud-led TTP against the Pakistani government as well as militant raids in June to punish the pro-government Hajji Turkistan group from the neighboring Bhittani tribe. Both Mullah Nazir and Hafiz Gul Bahadur are pro-government and shun terrorist activities within Pakistan.

 

The biggest point of contention between Mullah Nazir and Baitullah Mahsud is the support the latter provides local Uzbek militants belonging to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). The dispute can be traced back to March 2007, when Nazir purged the Uzbek militants along with their local supporters from the Ahmadzai Wazir’s tribal territory following accusations they had violated local customs and traditions and indulged in the killing of tribal elders. These Uzbek militants and their local supporters took refuge with Baitullah Mahsud and continued to carry out attacks against Mullah Nazir and his key commanders. Simultaneous attacks were conducted against Mullah Nazir and Commander Malik Khanan on January 7, killing eight militants and injuring three others (BBC, January 7). Khanan was eventually killed by suspected Mahsud and Uzbek militants on June 1 (Dawn, June 1). The killing of Khanan left Mullah Nazir vulnerable to the threat posed by Baitullah Mahsud. The Waziri alliance, therefore, will help Nazir in strengthening his support base among the Ahmadzai Wazir and restrain the Uzbeks and Mahsud militants from harming him. At the same time, Hafiz Gul Bahadur has expressed his concerns several times about the Uzbek militants’ growing anti-Pakistan activities in North Waziristan.

 

Nazir and Bahadur, while committed to fighting ISAF-NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, are both against the TTP’s terrorist activities in Pakistan (Daily Times, July 2). The policy of Nazir and Bahadur conforms to the broader policy of the Afghan Taliban, who have always advised the Pakistani Taliban to shun fighting Pakistani security forces and focus their energy and resources on Afghanistan (Asia Times Online, May 15, 2007). However, some Taliban militants, especially Baitullah Mahsud, have recently moved closer to al-Qaeda, which advocates conducting terrorist attacks against the Pakistani government and staging global jihad. Mullah Omar, the leader of Afghanistan’s Taliban, has personally disapproved of Baitullah and renounced his relationship with him (Asia Times Online, January 24).

 

Impact of the Formation of the Waziri Alliance

 

The Waziri alliance will lead to Hafiz Gul Bahadur emerging as the strongest Taliban commander in North and South Waziristan—both in terms of manpower and influence with the Afghan Taliban. Both the Ahmadzai Wazir and Uthmanzai Wazir tribes share a border with Afghanistan’s Khost and Pakita provinces while Baitullah Mahsud’s tribe is landlocked. Hence, Mahsudi Taliban militants require a safe passage through Waziri territory to conduct cross-border activities in Afghanistan. In the wake of any open hostility between the TTP and the Waziri alliance, the latter could deny the Waziris safe passage to Afghanistan. That is why Baitullah Mahsud distributed pamphlets in North Waziristan assuring Hafiz Gul Bahadur that he will neither oppose him, nor conduct a fight against him (Dawn, July 3). The alliance also provides strength to the much-weakened Mullah Nazir and assures him of the needed support if Baitullah Mahsud adopts a threatening posture toward him.

 

The formation of the Waziri alliance may considerably weaken Baitullah Mahsud and the TTP in North and South Waziristan. The Waziri alliance is presently attempting to woo various Taliban militant groups operating in FATA and NWFP away from the TTP. The Haji Namdar-led Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi Anir Munkir (Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices) militant group operating in Khyber Agency has reportedly joined the Waziri alliance (The News, July 6). Bahadur may also try to attract other non-TTP Taliban militant groups operating in FATA, such as the Shah Khalid group (Mohmand Agency) and the Jaish-e-Islami of Maulvi Wali-ur-Rehman (Bajaur Agency).

 

Isolating Baitullah Mahsud

 

There are prospects that the Waziri alliance may also bring the pro-government Hajji Turkistan group of the Bhittani Tribe into its fold. The Bhittani Tribe borders the Mahsud Tribe to its east and provides the latter land passage to the southern districts of NWFP. While the infamous Asmatullah Shaheen group of the Bhittani tribe has joined the TTP, the rival Turkistan group faced an armed onslaught from the TTP militants in June that left nearly 40 Bhittani tribesmen dead. The Mahsud tribe and its Taliban fighters face a complete blockade if the Ahmadzai, Uthmanzai and Bhittani tribes join their ranks in the wake of any aggression by the Mahsuds against one of them.

 

There is a chance some of the dissenting Mahsud Taliban commanders may join hands with the Waziri alliance, thereby weakening the base of Baitullah Mahsud within his own tribe. The Uzbeks may also come under tremendous pressure from both Nazir and Bahadur. Baitullah Mahsud has a significant number of Uzbek militants in his ranks and any change of loyalty on the part of Uzbek militants from Baitullah to Nazir and Bahadur in an attempt to safeguard their survival may effectively erode Baitullah’s fighting capabilities in the region. As it becomes embroiled in inter-tribal and intra-tribal cleavages, the TTP may shift its focus away from the Pakistani government for the time being.

What can now be expected is a successful and historically-tested “divide and rule” policy by the Pakistani government, based on pitting one rogue against the other with some concessions offered to the one willing to side with the government. Such a strategy could prove more effective than employing troops and conducting military operations in the volatile frontier region.

[Vijay Reddy]

Eric Margolis is a terrorist apologist whose writings are little more than homo-erotic fantasies about "masculine, war-like Pashtuns." He is a Muslim from his mother's side (Albanian) and has of late become a jihadist apologist. His anti-semitism is also well known and he sees a "Mossad conspiracy" behind every development in the Middle East.

 

Eric Margolis is as credible a reporter on the war on terror as Noam Chomsky is on American matters. No wonder jihadi sympathizers love him.

[crazyinsane105]

Eric Margolis is a terrorist apologist whose writings are little more than homo-erotic fantasies about "masculine, war-like Pashtuns." He is a Muslim from his mother's side (Albanian) and has of late become a jihadist apologist. His anti-semitism is also well known and he sees a "Mossad conspiracy" behind every development in the Middle East.

 

Eric Margolis is as credible a reporter on the war on terror as Noam Chomsky is on American matters. No wonder jihadi sympathizers love him.

 

Funny, in his previous articles he bashes Hamas for conducting the second intifiada against Israel (specifically suicide bombings) and he isn't pleased with Hamas shooting rockets at innocent Israelis either. I only posted his reference up since he has been one of the few journalists that has actually been to Afghanistan multiple times and seen things with his own eyes more or less. BTW, the guy has extremely differing view from me on a range of subjects so its not like I'm in love with his writing either.

[Vijay Reddy]

And you are conveniently forgetting that the US was also supporting the Taliban. :lol: With monetary aid that is.

 

Nonsense. Just because you repeat a lie doesn't make it the truth.

 

The Americans tolerated the Taliban till the late 1990s because several veteran intelligence people did not want to give up on persuading the Taliban to give up Al Qaeda. That changed slowly, culminating with the Kenya/Tanzania embassy atttacks. Once it became clear that the Taliban were not going to part with Osama Bin Laden despite various inducements, the Americans worked muscularly to isolate and punish the Taliban. The US persuaded China and Russia to go along and pass UN Security Council resolution 1267 in 1999, well before 9/11. Of course in 1998, US cruise missile strikes destroyed a few camps that were actually run by the ISI. These are all documented facts.

 

Also, Pakistan's connections to the Taliban and Al Qaeda are well documented in the 9/11 commission report. In fact, the "Taliban" included several Pakistan army and Frontier Corps soldiers, artillery units and were supplied using the Pakistan Army's National Logistics Cell. You cannot compare that to America's position with these thugs.

 

What bullshit will you peddle next? 9/11 was a Jewish Conspiracy? 4,000 Jews got advance warning?

Edited July 26, 2008 by Vijay Reddy

[T19]

OTTAWA, June 16 (UPI) -- A growing number of Canadian soldiers are suffering after witnessing Afghan boys being raped by Afghan soldiers, the Toronto Star reported Monday.

Several military chaplains told the newspaper they had counseled veterans returning from combat in Afghanistan for severe post traumatic stress disorder and their reports weren't being dealt with by the Canadian military.

 

On Saturday, the Star reported a Canadian corporal gave closed-door parliamentary testimony about a boy's rape he witnessed in 2006 and the visible signs of rape trauma.

 

The Liberal critic for national defense in Ottawa said he has asked party permission to query Foreign Affairs Minister David Emerson about the sex-abuse allegations and said the soldiers' allegations should have resulted in at least a diplomatic note to the Afghan government.

 

"Anybody who says this is about cultural differences should have their head examined," Emerson told the Star.

Look up articles written by Eric S. Margolis about Afghanistan and/or Northern Alliance. He's one of the few reporters who's been to Afghanistan during the Soviet War, during the reign of the Taliban, etc. etc. Even he points out that the Northern Alliance were extremely notorious in raping boys...

 

You cant quote an article on a wire service that quotes the article that did not say in it Afghan soldiers or Norther Alliance. Quote a source

[Vijay Reddy]

You cant quote an article on a wire service that quotes the article that did not say in it Afghan soldiers or Norther Alliance. Quote a source

 

Don't hold your breath. You cannot expect factual arguments from those who think that the Taliban are good guys or that the US brought 9/11 upon itself.

[R011]

OTTAWA, June 16 (UPI) -- A growing number of Canadian soldiers are suffering after witnessing Afghan boys being raped by Afghan soldiers, the Toronto Star reported Monday.

 

I'd barely trust The Star if it said the sun rose in the east this morning - which they'd claim was part of some nefarious secret agenda on the part of the Conservative government. Their real point is to allege misconduct on the part of the Canadian government in order to support the eventual election of the Liberal Party. Not only that, this is a paraphrase of a Star article, not the article itself, which mentioned only one chaplain making one report.

 

In fact, while it first claims that there have been multiple reports, it only actually mentions one and that other chaplains are critical of DND's response to their claims of untreated PTSD - without specifically mentioning the cause.

 

Look up articles written by Eric S. Margolis

 

Indeed. Best way to get the ISI's opinion on world affairs. Not so good if you want factual or unbiased reporting.

Edited July 26, 2008 by R011

[Vijay Reddy]

RO11,

 

Margolis used to praise Musharraf to the heavens before 9/11. After the Pakistani U-turn on the Taliban, Margolis wrote columns questioning Musharraf's manhood and naturally Musharraf cutoff Margolis from the Pakistani gravy train. Within days, Margolis became Musharraf's number-one critic.

 

Anyways, Margolis' wisdom can be summarized in one theme - "Muslim warriors are too powerful to be defeated. Therefore the West must give up fighting them and focus on addressing 'injustices.' In other words, bend over and take it and stop supporting Israel and the jihadis will stop bothering us"

[crazyinsane105]

Nonsense. Just because you repeat a lie doesn't make it the truth.

 

The Americans tolerated the Taliban till the late 1990s because several veteran intelligence people did not want to give up on persuading the Taliban to give up Al Qaeda. That changed slowly, culminating with the Kenya/Tanzania embassy atttacks. Once it became clear that the Taliban were not going to part with Osama Bin Laden despite various inducements, the Americans worked muscularly to isolate and punish the Taliban. The US persuaded China and Russia to go along and pass UN Security Council resolution 1267 in 1999, well before 9/11. Of course in 1998, US cruise missile strikes destroyed a few camps that were actually run by the ISI. These are all documented facts.

 

OK, then please explain how the US supporting the Taliban before 9/11 was/is a lie? It was in both Michael Moore documentaries and although I liked neither of those documentaries, those facts have NOT been disregarded by anybody. The US had indeed been giving monetary aid to the Taliban months before 9/11 and I am already stating my source and as of today, there hasn't been anybody that has disproved it. Just because you don't want to believe in it doesn't make it false.

 

The camps were being run by the ISI? Even more complete BS coming from your part. Ever heard of a guy called Aukai Colin, author of the book called "My Jihad"? Here, I'll post up a review about him before you call him a terrorist sympathizer:

 

"He has been described as a "beefy-linebacker, All-American, blue-eyed, Irish- American mujahid holy warrior" who has led a life of faith, danger, and espionage in some of the most perilous war zones on the face of the Earth.It all started when a fellow worshiper in his San Diego mosque suggested that he go to Bosnia to stop the Serb-sponsored genocide that was taking place there. This eventually led him to Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan, where he trained with the most aggressive and terrifying mujahadeen in the world. But when a commander asked him to raid a town in Kashmir that would include hostage taking and the killing of civilians, his life took another turn. As he was fighting jihad in Chechnya, terrorist attacks across the world shocked him and he became disillusioned by the way some were using Islam to further their own ends or to attack innocents. He was recruited by the U.S. government as an undercover operative in the fight against terrorism.His callous treatment by inept members of the law enforcement and intelligence community provides insight into why the U.S. government can't fight against something it doesn't understand. The FBI and CIA have now spent millions of dollars to understand the events that led up to September 11, even as the information was theirs for the taking. Aukai not only became familiar with one of the leaders of the attack on America, he also became acquainted with one of the hijackers and was invited to return to Osama bin Laden's training camps. My Jihad is the personal story about the biggest threat to world peace and stability in our generation, as told by an insider."

 

 

He visited the training camps himself (hell he actually trained there for about two or three months), none of which were run by the ISI. He made only one reference to the ISI in his entire book, and considering the fact this guy's actually gone around in different jihadi hotspots during the 90s...I fail to be convinced that the ISI and Pakistan is indeed promoting global jihad as you are saying.

 

This is the absolute first time I'm hearing the training camps in Afghanistan were run by the ISI. Do you have source to back that up?

 

 

 

Lastly, I stand corrected on the Northern Alliance issue. I wasn't aware of the track record of the Toronto Star so I'm going to disregard that report.

[R011]

OK, then please explain how the US supporting the Taliban before 9/11 was/is a lie? It was in both Michael Moore documentaries

The second sentence answers the first.

 

As for Colin, that an entry level recruit doesn't know to whom his supervisors report is hardly surprising or meaningful.

Edited July 26, 2008 by R011

[R011]

Mind you, it does seem to be true that the US did announce a humanitarian aid package of $43 million (that's million with an M) in May 2001. This raised US spending on such aid to Afghanistan, to $124 million for that year.

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/

 

Many post-9/11 reports of this aid don't mention that it was humanitarian, mostly wheat and other foodstuffs, and imply that it was simply cash to the Taliban.