Taliban Leader Maulvi Kabir Captured

[hembo]

Burney concerned at reports about Osama’s presence in Pakistan
Monday, February 22, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Chairman Ansar Burney Trust and former federal minister Ansar Burney has said that the recent arrest of one of the close allies of Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar from Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, has proved that his previous statements about the presence of terrorists in Karachi were true.

In a press release issued here on Sunday, Ansar Burney showed his grave concern over the information that Abu Riyan al Zarqawi, also known as Abu Musa, reportedly provided to security agencies that Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar were in Pakistan and that just a month ago he met them personally.

Burney said it was shocking to know after the reports that Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar were in Pakistan under the patronage of some political parties and supporters in the government.

Burney said that after the arrest of Abu Musa, it was now confirmed that the leadership of the al-Qaeda and Taliban were in Karachi and enjoying their life in safe havens. He demanded of the president and prime minister to take stern action against the increasing Talibanisation and al-Qaeda activities in Karachi.

Ansar Burney termed Talibanisation as a conspiracy to undermine peace in the entire region and urged the patriotic Pakistanis and national security agencies to curb this menace or the solidarity of the country would be at stake.

He said he had already confirmed reports and recently issued statements that after the Army operation in Swat and tribal areas, terrorists had taken refuge in Karachi and were spreading terrorism throughout Pakistan from the country’s largest city.

Ansar Burney termed Talibanisation a conspiracy to undermine peace in the entire region and urged the patriotic Pakistanis and national security agencies to curb this menace or the solidarity of the country would be at stake.,He condemned some politicians and religious leaders for their criminal silence at Talibanisation in Pakistan. Burney strongly criticised some political and religious parties.

 

[hembo]

---deleted--- duplicate---

 

[S-2]

"The current situation is in large part the US's fault."

We reserve the right to both defend ourselves and prosecute our enemies, A.M. Both are upon your lands and, until you "single-handedly" developed the intelligence and subsequent arrest of Baradar despite sound indications otherwise, there'd been no suggestion of your willingness to pursue such.

"Pakistan, and if you believe Seymour Hersh's comments..."

I don't particularly any more than you evidently believe those of the NYT about our participation in Baradar's arrest but it's an irrelevant strawman in any case.

"The whole 'have their cake and eat it too' could have been, and can be, resolved if the US provides Pakistan with the technology needed to carry out these drone strikes."

I disagree. Until a couple of weeks ago, there was no indication that you even admitted to the presence of these afghan enemies of ours upon your lands when we and everybody else understood otherwise.

You've consistently denied the presence of these men. Further, you personally fail to understand that PREDATOR is only the end of a chain of technologies necessary to prosecute these targets-much of which is sufficiently sensitive that we've no desire to see the processes and methods transferred to others.

"Till then it is a willful violation of Pakistani sovereignty, so long as the GoP is not comfortable with the idea of the US operating the drones and and refuses to publicly confirm cooperation on that level."

GoP is not comfortable admitting the presence of the foreign afghan taliban willfully violating its sovereignty yet doesn't spare the lash WRT actions in our self-defense. Most know that. It's like you refusing to admit the presence of the Haqqani network on your lands the day we are killing one of their family members. Too embarassing.

"Provide the technology necessary and problem over."

No problem that's not being solved in any case without doing so. Proof is before you daily. How your government addresses to its people the GoP's unwillingness or inability to confront these afghan and other foreigners on your land for all these years is your business.

We've made other arrangements satisfactory to our needs years ago and, quite frankly, no longer care or haven't you noticed?

Thanks.

 

[Solomon2]

Every day another Taliban bigwig captured! Feels sort of like Christmas, doesn't it S-2?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Every day another Taliban bigwig captured! Feels sort of like Christmas, doesn't it S-2?

Thank Pakistan and specially ISI.

 

[Solomon2]

Thank Pakistan and specially ISI.

I can thank Pakistan, but I consider it poor judgment to thank spooks in public: if it's true they don't want it and if it's false you don't want it!

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

if it's true they don't want it

What makes you think that solomon 2...?

 

[S-2]

"Every day another Taliban bigwig captured! Feels sort of like Christmas, doesn't it S-2?"

In the following July maybe. We don't yet know the rationales behind this shift one way or another other than the speculation in the op-eds. For the purposes of my friends on the ground, it's late but welcome. What it leads to is another matter.

WRT issues of sovereignty, Pakistani prior knowledge and technology transfers those, too, are old news.

Pakistan is welcome to acquire this technology from the PRC.

Thanks.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Pakistan is welcome to acquire this technology from the PRC.

PRC dosent have a tech like Reaper or Predator .. !
Even if they do come with something , it will not be of that standard ..!

Why dont the US provides us the tech which will enable Pakistan to get rid of this mess , even though the PA is contributing alot to get things in order on this end of the border ..?

 

[S-2]

"PRC dosent have a tech like Reaper or Predator .. !"

This is likely very true.

"...the PA is contributing alot to get things in order on this end of the border ..?"

For yourselves, yes. And you should protect yourselves. We're glad you finally chose to last spring. However those contributions have until two weeks ago only extended to the TTP. Many like retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood insist that your army doesn't wish to antagonize the afghan taliban.

We'll see soon if and how that might change.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well all Pakistani Papers who attended the ISPR conference published the same.

It would appear you are referring to the first statement confirming the arrest of Baradar by the ISPR - that statement AFAIK, had nothing indicating a joint operation. The reporting in the Pakistani media suggesting joint operation was based on the reports in the US media, specifically the breaking NYT story.

I am sure satellite phone and VOIP interception and triangulation facilities if at all available with Pakistan cannot match what the CIA has.

Perhaps they do not match, but the Taliban haven't shown a propensity to leave themselves open for that sort of triangulation since Nek Muhammed and Abdullah Mehsud (and likely other Afghan Taliban commanders in Afghanistan) got killed by the PA.

And VOIP interception and triangulation are not the sole means with which to locate HVT targets. Pakistani intelligence has arrested/neutralized the largest number of AQ/Taliban HVT's of any nation, so obviously whatever capabilities we possess, they are sufficient enough to show results.

The NYT had this news much earlier than any local Press and hence an American involvement can safely be taken for granted.

No - Carlotta Gall posted comments from Pakistani intelligence officials indicating that the ISI was after Baradar at least three weeks before the breaking NYT story. Baradar was arrested a week or more before the NYT story, and the NYT story itself quoted US officials who had been given access two weeks after Baradar's arrest. So the ISI arrested Baradar, the CIA either knew we were after him or was informed after the fact, and once arrested people started leaking to the media.

To me that indicates quite clearly that this was an ISI led operation, with the CIA in an observer role, and possibly providing electronic intelligence, but how critical US intelligence was remains unknown.

ISI has fought tooth and nail to oppose all efforts of placing them under the HM so chances are he is out of the loop. This was his statement. Highly credible if you see his numerous flip flops in the past about Xe and drone strikes

Actually a lot of political and defence analysts have fought against placing the ISI under the Interior Ministry as well, since the experience from the past, and the current suspicion, is that a politicized ISI led by the Interior Minister will merely be used to do the PPP (or whichever party is in power) dirty work.

The interior minsitry already has an intelligence agency (the Intelligence Bureau) and investigative agencies such as the FIA under its control, and there is no need for adding the ISI to that list and politicizing it.

The ISI reports to the Prime Minister, and that should be how it stays.

If there is any big target, I will show the nation,” Malik said. “We are a sovereign state and hence will not allow anybody to come and do any operation. And we will not allow that. So this (report) is propaganda,” he added.

Regards

Again, notice the part in bold - his strongest comments are directed against the assertion in the NYT that this was a 'joint operation' and that the CIA was also providing part of the manpower to actually conduct the raid, vs the CIA mainly cooperating with the ISI in areas such as electronic intelligence gathering where the ISI may be deficient.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We reserve the right to both defend ourselves and prosecute our enemies, A.M. Both are upon your lands and, until you "single-handedly" developed the intelligence and subsequent arrest of Baradar despite sound indications otherwise, there'd been no suggestion of your willingness to pursue such.

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.

Were Pakistan refusing to conduct drone strikes your argument might have some validity - since the Pakistani leadership has, since Musharraf's time, quite clearly and openly, on mutiple occasions, made it clear that Pakistan will carry out the drone strikes provided it is given the means to do so, the US position is completely illegal (in the absence of the GoP publicly accepting an agreement to allow these strikes) and a violation of another nation's sovereignty.

I don't particularly any more than you evidently believe those of the NYT about our participation in Baradar's arrest but it's an irrelevant strawman in any case.

Hersh's comments matter little - the GoP has been publicly stating that it would carry out these strikes itself and that the US should stop carrying them out for years now.

I disagree. Until a couple of weeks ago, there was no indication that you even admitted to the presence of these afghan enemies of ours upon your lands when we and everybody else understood otherwise.

BS - the arrangement would remain the same as is the case with intelligence operations that do not utilize drones. If the US provides actionable intelligence, then Pakistan would act. On occasions when the US has provided intelligence, Pakistan has acted and neutralized Taliban and AQ HVT's. On other occasions we have acted to neutralize Taliban and AQ HVT's without US intelligence.

The above actions clearly validate Pakistani cooperation, willingness her position. Your argument is speculative and based on 'what if'. If Pakistan were to not cooperate based on intel the US provides for drone strikes, there would be nothing to stop the US from reverting back to the situation that exists currently, so your argument is invalid.

Further, you personally fail to understand that PREDATOR is only the end of a chain of technologies necessary to prosecute these targets-much of which is sufficiently sensitive that we've no desire to see the processes and methods transferred to others.

A lack of willingness to share technology is not a good defence for the US committing illegal acts and violating the sovereignty of another nation.

GoP is not comfortable admitting the presence of the foreign afghan taliban willfully violating its sovereignty yet doesn't spare the lash WRT actions in our self-defense. Most know that. It's like you refusing to admit the presence of the Haqqani network on your lands the day we are killing one of their family members. Too embarassing.

Irrelevant - the discussion here is solely on whether the ISI/PA would act to carry out drone strikes on the basis of intelligence provided by the US - the GoP and the Military have clearly indicated they would, and the fact that the ISI provides a degree of intelligence for those strikes and the fact that it has neutralized the largest number of Taliban/AQ HVT's of any nation debunk your speculative argument.

Without allowing Pakistan to carry out the strikes, there is no way for you to claim that the PA/ISI would not do so, and if the PA/ISI did in fact not cooperate, then there would be nothing stopping the US from reverting back to unilateral strikes, and this time with good justification.

Till then, US actions are blatantly illegal and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

 

[Vassnti]

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.

Were Pakistan refusing to conduct drone strikes your argument might have some validity - since the Pakistani leadership has, since Musharraf's time, quite clearly and openly, on mutiple occasions, made it clear that Pakistan will carry out the drone strikes provided it is given the means to do so, the US position is completely illegal (in the absence of the GoP publicly accepting an agreement to allow these strikes) and a violation of another nation's sovereignty.

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.

 

[S-2]

"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 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?

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.

Silly.

When your government can face its citizens and the rest of us admiting what we all know along with an expressed forthright eagerness to assist Afghanistan and the U.N. by attacking these men then there might be cause to consider-IF we can assure such doesn't end in the hands of the Chinese.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

"On occasions when the US has provided intelligence, Pakistan has acted and neutralized Taliban and AQ HVT's."

Obama's Worst Pakistan Nightmare-NYT Jan. 9, 2009

"Washington’s sanguinity was not increased when Pakistan’s new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, arrived in Washington over the summer [2008] for what turned out to be a disastrous first visit. Gilani, as the country’s first civilian leader in more than a decade, was under huge pressure to show he could bring the intelligence agency, and the country, under control. He couldn’t — a brief effort to force the ISI to report to the civilian leadership was quashed — but he thought he had better show up with a gift for President Bush.

Gilani wanted to tell Bush that he had sent forces into the tribal areas to clean out a major madrassa where hard-line ideology and intolerance were part of the daily curriculum. There were roughly 25,000 such private Islamic schools around Pakistan, though only a small number of them regularly bred young terrorists. The one he decided to target was run by the Haqqani faction of Islamic militants, one of the most powerful in the tribal areas.

Though Gilani never knew it, Bush was aware of this gift in advance. The National Security Agency had picked up intercepts indicating that a Pakistani unit warned the leadership of the school about what was coming before carrying out its raid. “They must have called 1-800-HAQQANI,” said one person who was familiar with the intercepted conversation. According to another, the account of the warning sent to the school was almost comic. “It was something like, ‘Hey, we’re going to hit your place in a few days, so if anyone important is there, you might want to tell them to scram.’ ”

When the “attack” on the madrassa came, the Pakistani forces grabbed a few guns and hauled away a few teenagers. Sure enough, a few days later Gilani showed up in the Oval Office and conveyed the wonderful news to Bush: the great crackdown on the madrassas had begun. The officials in the room — Bush; his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley; and others — did not want to confront Gilani with the evidence that the school had been warned. That would have required revealing sensitive intercepts, and they judged, according to participants in the discussion, that Gilani was both incapable of keeping a secret and incapable of cracking down on his military and intelligence units. Indeed, Gilani may not even have been aware that his gift was a charade: Bush and Hadley may well have known more about the military’s actions than the prime minister himself."

A.M. I've read for years now your denials of these men on your lands. Perhaps you feel as those your tied to a posture that doesn't afford you to back out. I don't care. 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. Off-hand there's also the intercepts between your officers and Haqqani prior to the Kabul embassy bombing.

Military Reserves Rights Of Last Resort For Threats Inside Pakistan-Petraeus-Fox March 30, 2009

The quetta shura and Haqqani have been on your lands for years and it hasn't bothered you a wink. PREDATOR isn't going to stop and all your efforts debating here won't get it done. Maybe you can score some "thank-yous" from the guys with this silly posturing but I just had to laugh the other day when you're insisting on "evidence" about the Haqqanis as we're killing one of them.

We've moved beyond. Totally. Like I've said earlier-turn out the lights when you leave please.

Thanks.