Taliban Leader Maulvi Kabir Captured

[Cynic Waheed]

Its really funny and kind of sad to read comments that my American friends are furiously advocating!

In all honesty, if you are so proud of ur Military Might which by the way cannot even secure Afghanistan where it is facing rag tag army of the so called taliban with their Ak's. Where are all of your drones when these people are crossing over the border into Pak in the first place? or do u guys deliberately wait for them to cross into Pak so you can have this ' See we told u, they are in Pak' attitude!

Calling u arrogant is perhaps an understatement. but from what I gather, We did not, and I emphisise.. DID NOT ask u to come running after 9/11 and be our allies. U dont like our work .. then jst pull the trigger.. whats the hold up?

Ha! u cant control a rag tag army, I wonder what will u be able to do if u did bring the war to Pak. If u cant appreciate our work then just shut up!! We are used to being cornered by the world and being blamed for all the mess. Nothing new! We can live with it. The big question is .. If you fail in Afghan which I have no doubt in my mind u will .. Will you be able to live with that? The mightiest military existence in the world, with the aid of 40 other nations defeated by rag tag mullahs! I cant wait for that day to see the looks on your arrogant faces!
Having said this, am in no dillusion and I dont appreciate the fact that u will be defeated. I want these Taliban dead too .. But u cant do it without our help!! so I will give you a preposition. Alternatively if you really wanna save ur faces then give us respect that we deserve .. and start treating us on an equality basis! We will not be bullied around for long!

Donot forget, ur supply lines still run through our country. And if you keep pushing us around, and we will pull the plug eventually .. U no what will happen!! BTW we have previously done it and We will do it again if your arrogance continues!! There is a limit and you guys are reaching that limit!

Finally, as far as my British friends here are concerned this is all I can say to them. Don't think you are some out of the world species. I live here and I know exactly what you are made up of. You are nothing more than their a.k.a USA's poodle. Don't forget your limits. If it weren't for the USA U wdnt have survived Hitler's bombings. you have jst managed to repay the debt of WWII and you talk as if you guys are some super power. Deal with the sh*t Tony put you in before blaming Pak for your problems. Perhaps you need a reality check. NHS provides free service .. better see some GP soon mate.

U need Pak more than Pak needs u to save ur *****!! so treat Pak the way u want to be treated!!

Enough Said! Now come and bite my ***!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I disagree. Your government hasn't even admitted still to the presence of our afghan taliban enemies on its lands save for Mukhtar's remarks last December. That years-long 24/7 violation of your sovereignty hasn't lost you a wink of sleep. Why would we presume you to attack targets purportedly non-existent on Pakistani lands?

This is irrelevant - the only justification the US might have had for conducting these drone strikes unilaterally in violation of Pakistani sovereignty was if Pakistan refused to do exactly that which the US is doing currently.

You cannot reset the goals for what you expect Pakistan to do vs what the US is doing by virtue of its illegal actions. Pakistan only has to offer to do as much as the US is doing.

Hence US actions are blatantly illegal and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

Providing you the technology answers concerns of your's WRT to enemies directly affecting you. There's no indication that our concerns would be addressed. Finally, if the Chinese can't provide it to you, then we're not giving it to them...errr, you.

More nonsense and dissemblance - the only party that has provided the Chinese with US technology are your blue-eyed boys the Israelis.

Shows the depths to which you have to sink, concocting lies of Pakistan providing US technology to China, to defend illegal US actions against another nation.

The indications that US concerns will be satisfied by Pakistan exist already - they exist by virtue of the fact that Pakistan provides significant HUMINT in FATA for US drone strikes, and by virtue of the fact that Pakistan has neutralized more Taliban/AQ HVT's than any other nation.

And in any case, if US concerns were not satisfied there would be nothing stopping the US from returning to the current situation, but with the justification of having shown that Pakistan was unwilling to do that which the US is doing to stop a cross-border threat to ISAF.

Your excuses are poor and flawed, and US drones strikes clearly illegal and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is the crux of the problem, the continued policy from Pakistans politicians to say one thing and do another. They condem the strikes in public while, they know where the drones are flying from, you could see them parked on the run way till they built a hanger if the goverment of Pakistan objected it was a simple matter of closing the base down. Ok flights could still have happened from else where but it is a joke to publicly rage about drones while they are being maintained fueled and armed on Pakistan soil.

There is no violation just politicians lying about allowing the attacks because they think it will cost them votes.

I disagree - if the GoP is allowing these drone strikes to be conducted by the US then it is doing so unwillingly. There is a reason why the GoP, if such is the case, is not accepting that an agreement exists between the US and Pakistan on these strikes - the reason being that given the huge unpopularity (with Pakistani citizens) of allowing Western entities to conduct military operations and the willingness of the GoP to conduct these operations, there is no need for any foreign entity to conduct them.

Hence the consistent refrain from the GoP, from Musharraf to Zardari, that drone technology needs to be given to Pakistan and only Pakistan conducts all military operations on Pakistani soil.

The GoP is rightfully looked at disdainfully for acquiescing to the Americans on this issue, and needs to move towards making US drone strikes part of the red line. Any and all military operations on Pakistani soil should be under the command and control of Pakistan.

In the absence of a public GoP acknowledgment of an agreement to conduct these strikes, US actions are illegal and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty - there is no getting around that fact.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The above isn't the first intercept we've acquired that shows a relationship against those that might be able to make arrests and those to whom we'd like it done.

Since the alleged intercepts are all over the media, wouldn't be too much to ask for actual evidence instead of the usual propaganda and lies ala 'Saddam has WMD's' now would it?

Sorry, sell your BS to someone else - a nation that started a war, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocents dead, with another on the basis of a lie, sold in similar fashion to its people through its media, has no credibility left, especially with this kind of media gimmickry.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

"Since the alleged intercepts are all over the media, wouldn't be too much to ask for actual evidence..."

What's your idea of acceptable evidence, A.M.? I'd be curious. Transcripts? Actual tapings of conversations? At what point would you then allege that they're fabrications?

Sanger isn't a liar. He's the White House correspondent for the world's largest newspaper. Both his editors and he demand independant sourcing. It's how papers build reputations.

Gilani indicated to us he'd have something of note to provide at his meeting. We already knew what would come of it-nothing. The raid was made. Some kids were busted and Gilani had nothing big to deliver...no surprise to the President and the Nat'l Security Advisor.

It wasn't us that provided the target and expectations. It was your own security forces. Somebody within them got to the madrassa. We just knew beforehand both the "present" and the actual outcome. Nobody was mislead about the event nor results except poor Gilani.

"Sorry, sell your BS to someone else - a nation that started a war, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocents dead, with another on the basis of a lie, sold in similar fashion to its people through its media, has no credibility left, especially with this kind of media gimmickry."

NOTHING provided from open-sources will prove adequate for your agenda. That's established. Reasoned discourse seems impossible with you. I've no reason to believe that Petraeus is lying. Unquestionably he is careful about what he reveals. You won't know all HE KNOWS but what he says shall be true enough when speaking before our media or open sessions of Congress.

Your sources?

You don't have anything else to rely upon, do you? Resorting to these red-herrings as fall-back with tiresome regularity is child-like and without forethought given the above. Choosing such repeatedly is the refuge of the weak-minded and a show-stopper for those more able.

You and I are done until that changes. Disparage as you wish but I'll not respond. You're easy enough to work around and you can bet I'll not give you rationale for banning. Absent substantive support, your thoughts are largely meaningless from your dorm room in Michigan. You've not been a professional military officer, statesman/politician, journalist, businessman, diplomat nor bureaucrat. You're a student.

Thanks.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

@ S-2
You are hopelessly going off topic ...!
Please provide a quality which people expect from an experienced military officer ..!

Sanger isn't a liar. He's the White House correspondent for the world's largest newspaper. Both his editors and he demand independant sourcing. It's how papers build reputations.

Pls dont follow the crowd , I guess based upon the rpute Collin Powel was also not lying abt the Iraqi WMDs..!

Some kids were busted and Gilani had nothing big to deliver...no surprise to the President and the Nat'l Security Advisor.

Guess what happend when Gen Pasha met the CIA cheif :

ISI Chief confronts CIA counterpart with evidence | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/41884-cia-supporting-terror-inside-pakistan.html

I've no reason to believe that Petraeus is lying

I have no reason to believe Gen Pasha would be lying when he presented the Facts to the CIA cheif ..!
I have no reason to believe that PA is double dealing when its an agreed fact that PA suffered more casulties while fighting these Irhabists, last year than the mighty ISAF , All they come up with is bombing innocent civilians in the name of UN mandate ..!

 

[S-2]

"Pls dont follow the crowd , I guess based upon the rpute Collin Powel was also not lying abt the Iraqi WMDs..!"

Who is above mistakes? OTOH, should we assume because mistakes have been made that future analysis is perpetually contaminated?

"Please provide a quality which people expect from an experienced military officer ..!"

I try. I'm not always able to satisfy the exacting standards established here.

"Guess what happend when Gen Pasha met the CIA cheif :"

Well, I guess we know what was told to Mr. Panetta in general terms. I'm surprised that a meeting between the senior intelligence officers of their respective countries provided a description of the allegations to NATION from unattributed sources that could only come from within Gen. Pasha's staff. It's too bad that those un-named sources wouldn't go into greater detail having gone as far as they did.

Do you think this was a planned leak by ISI?

"I have no reason to believe Gen Pasha would be lying when he presented the Facts to the CIA cheif ..!"

Perhaps not. I've no reason to believe Gen. Pasha didn't accurately convey his brief to Mr. Panetta. We don't know what those facts were, specifically, nor did the sources provide Mr. Panetta's response.

"I have no reason to believe that PA is double dealing when its an agreed fact that PA suffered more casulties while fighting these Irhabists..."

I've never questioned at this board the efforts of your troops nor have I ever questioned that they're not engaged in a lethal, dangerous war with Pakistan's enemies. I have questioned whether your senior military leadership and government see all the enemies in Pakistan that we perceive. Casualties and the effort of your troops, though, is only part of the larger picture. I hope you note that difference.

"last year than the mighty ISAF , All they come up with is bombing innocent civilians in the name of UN mandate ..!"

Despite my care to avoid insults of your troops and their efforts in Pakistan, I routinely face these insults of our efforts in Afghanistan. While the world's press is gathered in Afghanistan and travels with our troops, the same can't be said in Pakistan. Your ISPR restricts severely that similar access so we're not really able to say what has happened with complete certainty.

Here, however, is one perspective about Swat that you may be interested to read-

Return To The Swat Valley-Imran Khan Al Jazerra Dec. 29, 2009

and a report from DAWN of civilians killed in Swat by an airstrike-

22 Civilians Die in Airstrike On Swat Village-DAWN Oct. 20, 2008

Now I don't offer these as accusations-only evidence that war is hard. Nonetheless, H2O3C4Nitrogen, I've provided you in the past with the U.N. data that shows the "mighty ISAF" killed three times fewer civilians last year than the humble taliban despite the preponderance of firepower according to U.N.A.M.A. I'm sure you remember it.

Our soldiers fight very hard too. We also suffer for both the losses we cause the afghan people as well as our own. I doubt the taliban care very much about that. The numbers indicate what an effort it takes for them to kill three times the amount of innocent civilians as ourselves. I'll ask you to be more careful, however, in the future. Meanwhile, here is one modest account of our troops and the sacrifices they've made in a region where Rahman's forces are very active-

The Battle Of COP Keating-An Ear Witness Account-Foreign Policy Thomas Ricks Oct. 10, 2009

Not many civilians died here. Some American troops did...and one hell of a lot of taliban.

I've read your sources in full. I hope you'll do the same with mine.

You'll have to forgive me on one point-I can't stand Ahmed Quareshi and don't typically read his blog. I doubt he's EVER written one article that's reflected well of my government or military. He has no obligation to seek a balanced perspective as it's a blog. Certainly your right to read him but, equally, certainly my right to not although I will in this case.

A.M. says that Mullah Faizullah is living in hiding with Rahman amidst the afghan taliban in Konar. Are they afghan intelligence? That confused me.

Mr. Quareshi re-iterates the NATION story about the Pasha-Panetta meeting but adds nothing to it. I'll say this about both articles-they indicate that Pasha sure did tell Panetta how it's going to be. Assuming the accuracy of both the NATION and MR. Quareshi's accounts-and no reason not to note the global reputation of NATION-Americans can only be grateful that General Pasha didn't shoot Mr. Panetta on the spot.

Thanks.

 

[Solomon2]

"You have no right to willfully violate another nation's sovereignty when that nation is openly willing to execute the same actions you wish to do so."

I had this discussion last week with someone else on the forum. Last year, whenever Musharraf defended Pakistani sovereignty, no matter how strongly he spoke, he always discussed what the Pakistani Army. They were always next to each other in his speeches.

The subtle hint, as far as diplomats are concerned, was that only areas where the P.A. had control were really considered "sovereign". Everywhere else was fair game - at least for drone strikes, maybe for much more.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

was that only areas where the P.A. had control were really considered "sovereign". Everywhere else was fair game - at least for drone strikes, maybe for much more.

Based upon this then Kabul and some other remote parts of afghanistan is only the place where Isaf has controll , Rest is a fair game for almost every imaginable entity in this planet ..! Its a clasic theater to play games isnt it..?
But unfortunately some players keep on shouting that " Hey you cheated " not knowing the fact that everybody is a born cheater ..!

 

[Solomon2]

"Based upon this then Kabul and some other remote parts of afghanistan -"

No, because Musharraf was only talking about Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What's your idea of acceptable evidence, A.M.? I'd be curious. Transcripts? Actual tapings of conversations? At what point would you then allege that they're fabrications?

Actual taped conversations would be a start - something that people, if they wish to, can actually have verified through third parties for authenticity, and can analyze for context and approach the GoP/PA with.

Sanger isn't a liar. He's the White House correspondent for the world's largest newspaper. Both his editors and he demand independant sourcing. It's how papers build reputations.

These journalists base most of their stories on 'sources', and those 'sources' an hold widely differing views. Last year for example both the NYT and LA Times ran stories on the drone strikes around the same time - the LA Times quoted its US sources as claiming that Pakistan had a degree of control over the US of the drones, the NYT did not. Mullen was asked about both stories and he stated that the NYT was the more accurate.

This is but one episode, even the NYT has carried stories in the past quoting US intelligence and administration officials who have had widely divergent views on Pakistan - all of this points to the fact that while these journalists may not be lying, their stories on the basis of 'sources' without any actual evidence backing them up need to be taken with a gain of salt. Sanger may not be lying, but how do we know his source in the White House is not, and is deliberately pushing out propaganda to push a particular agenda to pressure Pakistan through the media.

Gilani indicated to us he'd have something of note to provide at his meeting. We already knew what would come of it-nothing. The raid was made. Some kids were busted and Gilani had nothing big to deliver...no surprise to the President and the Nat'l Security Advisor.

So says Sanger .... see above.

NOTHING provided from open-sources will prove adequate for your agenda. That's established. Reasoned discourse seems impossible with you. I've no reason to believe that Petraeus is lying. Unquestionably he is careful about what he reveals. You won't know all HE KNOWS but what he says shall be true enough when speaking before our media or open sessions of Congress.

Nothing without evidence will prove adequate - and for allegations such as the ones being made, without evidence there is nothing to accept. The US put that nail in its credibility with its lies on Iraq, and the role of the media in that fiasco, how it was manipulated by the US establishment and how it manipulated the masses in turn means that this sort of 'sensationalist' reporting will find no traction with me at least without concrete evidence backing it up.

Your sources?

You don't have anything else to rely upon, do you? Resorting to these red-herrings as fall-back with tiresome regularity is child-like and without forethought given the above. Choosing such repeatedly is the refuge of the weak-minded and a show-stopper for those more able.

You and I are done until that changes. Disparage as you wish but I'll not respond. You're easy enough to work around and you can bet I'll not give you rationale for banning. Absent substantive support, your thoughts are largely meaningless from your dorm room in Michigan. You've not been a professional military officer, statesman/politician, journalist, businessman, diplomat nor bureaucrat. You're a student.

Thanks.

And continue sinking to further depths S-2 - now its down to ad hominems and argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacies.

I disparage based on a very recent history of the US pushing lies and manipulating the media to go to war on the basis of those lies. That is not an episode that can be easily forgotten, and that is not an episode that paints the credibility of the US media and establishment in a favorable light.

I also disparage based on very blatant double standards when it comes to the US/ISAF inability to neutralize Taliban militants attacking Pakistan form Eastern Afghanistan, explained away by a 101 excuses, while Pakistan gets maligned for not similarly acting against militants in NW because of its own constraints.

Cheers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"You have no right to willfully violate another nation's sovereignty when that nation is openly willing to execute the same actions you wish to do so."

I had this discussion last week with someone else on the forum. Last year, whenever Musharraf defended Pakistani sovereignty, no matter how strongly he spoke, he always discussed what the Pakistani Army. They were always next to each other in his speeches.

The subtle hint, as far as diplomats are concerned, was that only areas where the P.A. had control were really considered "sovereign". Everywhere else was fair game - at least for drone strikes, maybe for much more.

First Musharraf is not around any more, and speculation by either you or 'diplomats', through parsing Musharraf's words, does not amount to approval by the GoP.

US drone strikes are a blatantly illegal act and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty so long as the GoP publicly denies any agreement with the US to allow these strikes and publicly offers to conduct them herself if provided with the resources to do so.

 

[Solomon2]

US drone strikes are a blatantly illegal act and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty so long as the GoP publicly denies any agreement -

In D.C. it seems accepted that all drone operations occur with the implicit or explicit approval of the GoP, utilizing P.A. intelligence. You know very well that I don't like this arrangement, I'd prefer drone ops be Pakistan-flagged somehow, but apparently the GoP and ISI want to preserve deniability. (Which also answers a previous question, why I think the ISI would be uncomfortable with Americans thanking it publicly.)

 

[S-2]

"apparently the GoP and ISI want to preserve deniability."

Geez, you think?

Helps having control over media access to their own country and all the right journalists in those fine newspapers under their thumb...

That Farzana Shah, for instance-she's a real source of credibility. Ever read her work?

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In D.C. it seems accepted that all drone operations occur with the implicit or explicit approval of the GoP, utilizing P.A. intelligence. You know very well that I don't like this arrangement, I'd prefer drone ops be Pakistan-flagged somehow, but apparently the GoP and ISI want to preserve deniability. (Which also answers a previous question, why I think the ISI would be uncomfortable with Americans thanking it publicly.)

The speculation in Pakistani circles is the same, that there is a private approval, however I would argue that the approval is a coerced one and given reluctantly.

The US has publicly refused to provide Pakistan with drone technology, and S-2 has proffered his reasons (albeit incorrect) that the refusal has to do with leaking out sensitive technology, systems and processes.

The problem with accepting US plaudits for cooperation in the drone strikes and publicly accepting an agreement is that it would solidify the status between the Taliban in NW and the GoP as enemies and end any pretensions of a 'ceasefire'. But at the same time Pakistan would continue to have no control over the Predators, and so we would not be able to apply greater resources against targets of our choosing in NW, despite having made more enemies by allowing the US to use those resources.

The only solution is for Pakistan to carry out these strikes.