US & NATO Behind Rabbani Assassination?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If it were that easy, I suppose it will take only a phone call from Kayani, and the US will be happy to oblige, right?

The ability to make the right decision and try and revers course in Afghanistan and correct failed policies lies with the US, not with Kayani.

The ability to influence US decision makers lies with the American public and commentators, who need to step out of the shadow of the US Establishment propaganda and lies, and argue in favor of the US giving the proposals made by other nations a chance.

Of course with American citizens such as yourself, there is little chance of any rational opinion in support of the US 'taking a back seat in Afghanistan' becoming influential.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I assure you all the logistics involved are not magical, and thoroughly understood.

Sure, please explain the 'logistics involved' in the Haqqanis managing to travel hundreds of miles through ISAF controlled Afghanistan, into the heart of one of the most secure areas in Kabul, and then also 'escape back to North Waziristan'?

Or perhaps you can explain the 'logistics involved' in the travel of a truck full of explosives (an attack that the US supposedly knew was going to happen and therefore would have been looking for) across US controlled Afghanistan, and then have the 'attackers escape back into safe havens in North Waziristan'.

I am all ears ... or eyes, rather ...

 

[VCheng]

The ability to make the right decision and try and revers course in Afghanistan and correct failed policies lies with the US, not with Kayani.

The ability to influence US decision makers lies with the American public and commentators, who need to step out of the shadow of the US Establishment propaganda and lies, and argue in favor of the US giving the proposals made by other nations a chance.

Of course with American citizens such as yourself, there is little chance of any rational opinion in support of the US 'taking a back seat in Afghanistan' becoming influential.

So the situation is like a person standing in the middle of the train tracks, wanting the train to switch tracks by itself, since he doesn't think that he should be the one throwing the lever to switch tracks, since he is sure that the train will be derailed by hitting him.

You would be surprised just how rational and vigorous the processes and inputs are to the formation and implementation of US policy.

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

Sure, please explain the 'logistics involved' in the Haqqanis managing to travel hundreds of miles through ISAF controlled Afghanistan, into the heart of one of the most secure areas in Kabul, and then also 'escape back to North Waziristan'?

Or perhaps you can explain the 'logistics involved' in the travel of a truck full of explosives (an attack that the US supposedly knew was going to happen and therefore would have been looking for) across US controlled Afghanistan, and then have the 'attackers escape back into safe havens in North Waziristan'.

I am all ears ... or eyes, rather ...

Detailing the logistics would expose the processes used to collect those details. The scrubbed information has already been communicated.

 

[Bhairava]

You would be surprised just how rational and vigorous the processes and inputs are to the formation and implementation of US policy.

They will indeed be "surprised" when the flood waters go above their head (that time is fast approaching) but then it will be too late....

Some things cannot be understood by telling, rather they have to be learnt by bitter experience.

 

[VCheng]

They will indeed be "surprised" when the flood waters go above their head (that time is fast approaching) but then it will be too late....

Some things cannot be understood by telling, rather they have to be learnt by bitter experience.

I hope that the situation can be resolved.

 

[muse]

You would be surprised just how rational and vigorous the processes and inputs are to the formation and implementation of US policy.

Not at all - would not be surprised and also know the degree of ideology that is involved - and still get it wrong - they are after all just human beings, put their pants on one leg at a time - like the rest of us.

Anyway, if rational and vigorous process and inputs have brought us here for 10 years, lets have less of them.

Your judgment of the genus of the problem is fundamentally wrong -- The DoD and intelligence organs of the US wish to be at war with Pakistan and it's ISI -- It's a ideological war if you will -- no amount of rational or vigorous inputs will alter that, only a strong US president who can put the pentagon in it's place can stop this.

 

[VCheng]

......................

Your judgment of the genus of the problem is fundamentally wrong -- The DoD and intelligence organs of the US wish to be at war with Pakistan and it's ISI -- It's a ideological war if you will -- ...........................

Pray tell why would the DoD want an ideological war with the ISI?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So the situation is like a person standing in the middle of the train tracks, wanting the train to switch tracks by itself, since he doesn't think that he should be the one throwing the lever to switch tracks, since he is sure that the train will be derailed by hitting him.

You would be surprised just how rational and vigorous the processes and inputs are to the formation and implementation of US policy.

As a Pakistani resident in the US, I assure you that I have made my position on the current situation and on US policies (as I have argued on this forum) clear to many Americans, and debated the situation with them.

Pakistan's leadership and military has also time and again (if you have bothered to follow these events) highlighted its position on Afghanistan and the way towards a resolution of the conflict. As I pointed out earlier, Pakistan was the first nation to argue for a negotiated end to the conflict, and including the Taliban in a power sharing arrangement as part of the solution. Pakistan also advised against the initial invasion and made clear its suggestions on the post-taliban regime constructed by the US.

If the US and US commentators and analysts continue to be blind to all this and caught up in the ego and pride of 'superpower USA' then no amount of reasoning can convince them otherwise.

 

[VCheng]

.....................
If the US and US commentators and analysts continue to be blind to all this and caught up in the ego and pride of 'superpower USA' then no amount of reasoning can convince them otherwise.

So now what? If the US is not convinced by all the previous Pakistani efforts that you have listed, and you don't see the need for Pakistan to do anything more or different, then what resolves the present impasse?

 

[VelocuR]

We strongly condemn the killing of Rabbani assassination motivating by US in order to use opportunity against Pakistan.

Last name, there was assassination of Karzai's half brother hanging in the public. No solution.

 

[muse]

Pray tell why would the DoD want an ideological war with the ISI?

Because they are persuaded that in order to keep the US safe and promote her interests in that part of the world, pakistan and in particular the ISI must be cut down to size -- I don't know if you have ever had the opportunity to speak with US officers - in my interaction with them, I can say that below Full Bird or LTC, they openly express the ida that the reason for their failure in AFG is ISI - they actually believe it -- and I understand why they believe it - from it's very inception, the Afg project was run by fanatics whether in the CIA or the Pentagon - they buy into the entire line that to promote US interests, hostility towards Pakistan and Pakistani institutions is key to success - for 10 years this idea has accrued negative results for them, and I don't see this problem correcting itself, short of strong US political leadership

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So now what? If the US is not convinced by all the previous Pakistani efforts that you have listed, and you don't see the need for Pakistan to do anything more or different, then what resolves the present impasse?

What can help is people like you also joining the effort to get the US to see the 'error of its ways' - if these policies have failed for ten years, they are not going to succeed because a few hundred rag tag militia men based in NW are disposed of.

The attack on the embassy did not 'set back Afghanistan', the 'truck bombing' did not set back Afghanistan - a decade of flawed policies by the US are behind the current impasse. The only way to improve things is to change the one constant over the past ten years, which is US policy.

 

[Ahmad Shah Abdali]

The killing of Rabbani is eerily similar to that of Ahmad Shah Massoud which was carried out by Al-Qaeda and even then the Taliban issued a "no comment" response. The biggest losers from any peace deal in the region is Al-Qaeda, these foreign fighters are simply not part of any talks. All these talks of US+NATO being involved is just another crazy conspiracy theory. The Talibans should announce their position for the sake of Afghan interests or maybe it's foolish to expect that from these "holy warriors" as they would never point finger at their "arab brothers" even if it means ethnic tension and no peace in their country.

 

[VCheng]

Because they are persuaded that in order to keep the US safe and promote her interests in that part of the world, pakistan and in particular the ISI must be cut down to size -- I don't know if you have ever had the opportunity to speak with US officers - in my interaction with them, I can say that below Full Bird or LTC, they openly express the ida that the reason for their failure in AFG is ISI - they actually believe it -- and I understand why they believe it - from it's very inception, the Afg project was run by fanatics whether in the CIA or the Pentagon - they buy into the entire line that to promote US interests, hostility towards Pakistan and Pakistani institutions is key to success - for 10 years this idea has accrued negative results for them, and I don't see this problem correcting itself, short of strong US political leadership

Or is it because several attacks on the US, from the first WTC bombing to the attempted Times Square bombing by a GC holding son of an AVM, all had their origins in that area, with the active participation of the ISI?

Further, if the problem does not correct itself, which it won't, unless something changes, who has the most to lose, given where we are presently?

 

[Desert Fox]

The killing of Rabbani is eerily similar to that of Ahmad Shah Massoud which was carried out by Al-Qaeda and even then the Taliban issued a "no comment" response. The biggest losers from any peace deal in the region is Al-Qaeda, these foreign fighters are simply not part of any talks. All these talks of US+NATO being involved is just another crazy conspiracy theory. The Talibans should announce their position for the sake of Afghan interests or maybe it's foolish to expect that from these "holy warriors" as they would never point finger at their "arab brothers" even if it means ethnic tension and no peace in their country.

Its simple, those Talib idiots are subservient to their Arab masters, they think all Arabs are "holy" and therefore it is completely "Halal" to have millions of Afghans starved, killed, and displaced to protect a single Arab who BTW fled his own country due to his criminal activity and involvement in terrorism.

Afghanistan was better off under the Socialists, these Madrassah educated barbarians can't rule a country for sh!t.