Wikileaks : Secret Afghanistan War logs
- Thread starter sparklingway
- Start date
indushek
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,732
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
No sir i think the truth to be learnt is that, no matter what happens the real truth never comes out.
Old School
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,663
- Reaction score
- 1
Whoever behind this Wikileaks , it is certain that they are no well wisher of Pakistan and the United States. The relationship between the US and Pakistan is based on mutual interests instead of celeb image and this relationship can not be damaged by some jealous party who are now desperate to see how indispensable Pakistan is in the eyes of the US policy makers. This ill conceived propaganda against Pakistan will deliver nothing but more malice and desperation.
Some academicians in the UK are thought be involved with this wiki project which is an UK entity. It is also to mention that a group in LSE is persistently running anti - Pakistani propaganda with flawed and manipulated data.
Some academicians in the UK are thought be involved with this wiki project which is an UK entity. It is also to mention that a group in LSE is persistently running anti - Pakistani propaganda with flawed and manipulated data.
karan.1970
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 14,781
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
MZUBAIR
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,501
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
So are you saying you accept all that is there in the wiki leaks?
Truth is bitter.
The war should be over now..........Killing more innocents only generates the hate of Afgans for the world.
By the way ,I doubt Indian would beleive it...as the mind is set not to believe it.
Last edited:
But r u concerned about what will happen if US will leave Afgan now?
Talibans will take over it.
I accept that US should leave Afgan,but in the present circumstances where Afgan is not stable it will harm Afgan.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
But keep in mind that those 'Think Tanks' and 'analysts' primarily rely on US administration, military and intelligence sources for information on which they base their conclusions. US military and intelligence sources in turn base what they tell these analysts on the intelligence they obtain. The intelligence they obtain, if along the lines of what is in these 180 reports, appears to be largely unverified, distorted and even nonsensical.
Its a circular argument to make, that the conclusions of Think Tanks and anlaysts validate these reports, since reports like these are in some way the source of their analysis.
NWO
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 702
- Reaction score
- 0
It probably won't be any different then the past 30 or so years.
GUNNER
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
BAGHDAD, July 27, 2010 (AFP) - The US military's top officer on Tuesday said information in leaked documents on the war in Afghanistan did not call into question the US strategy or Washington's relationship with Pakistan.
Admiral Mike Mullen said he was "appalled" at the leak of 90,000 secret military files on the Afghan mission, but that the information about Pakistan's activities and other details were taken into account during a major strategy review on the war last year.
"Certainly the information that I've seen so far in the documents, there's nothing in there that wasn't reviewed or considered in the strategic review" on the war last year, Mullen told reporters on his plane before landing in Iraq.
He said the administration of US President Barack Obama was still "working through" all the documents, adding that most of the files appeared to be "field level information, raw intelligence."
The documents, made public by the website WikiLeaks, allege Pakistan -- a key ally in the fight against Al-Qaeda and its associates -- allows its spies to meet directly with the Taliban and even plot to assassinate Afghan leaders.
Asked if the files show Pakistan has duped Washington, Mullen said that was not the case and that the United States has made clear to Islamabad its concerns about possible links to militant groups.
US relations with Pakistan have "dramatically" improved in the past year and Pakistan has launched offensives against Islamist extremists in the northwest, involving tens of thousands of troops, Mullen said.
"I've seen some very positive steps," he said.
The US military is studying the leaked classified documents for any potential risks posed to American forces, said Mullen, who condemned the security breach.
"I'm appalled at the release. I feel very strongly that we need to make sure to do all we can that leaks like this don't occur."
Admiral Mike Mullen said he was "appalled" at the leak of 90,000 secret military files on the Afghan mission, but that the information about Pakistan's activities and other details were taken into account during a major strategy review on the war last year.
"Certainly the information that I've seen so far in the documents, there's nothing in there that wasn't reviewed or considered in the strategic review" on the war last year, Mullen told reporters on his plane before landing in Iraq.
He said the administration of US President Barack Obama was still "working through" all the documents, adding that most of the files appeared to be "field level information, raw intelligence."
The documents, made public by the website WikiLeaks, allege Pakistan -- a key ally in the fight against Al-Qaeda and its associates -- allows its spies to meet directly with the Taliban and even plot to assassinate Afghan leaders.
Asked if the files show Pakistan has duped Washington, Mullen said that was not the case and that the United States has made clear to Islamabad its concerns about possible links to militant groups.
US relations with Pakistan have "dramatically" improved in the past year and Pakistan has launched offensives against Islamist extremists in the northwest, involving tens of thousands of troops, Mullen said.
"I've seen some very positive steps," he said.
The US military is studying the leaked classified documents for any potential risks posed to American forces, said Mullen, who condemned the security breach.
"I'm appalled at the release. I feel very strongly that we need to make sure to do all we can that leaks like this don't occur."
They cannot say that because we do not know if the raw data was corroborated with something else. Wikileaks just has a portion of the secret information. We just do not know...maybe some of it is true. There are going to be hearings on this...public ones and if someone from the American govt comes out and says it is all lies if it was not..they will get roasted in there.As it is the domestic political situation is extremely fluid with Obama tanking in the polls and the GOP in position to swing at least one of the houses their way in November.
Last edited:
Jet Li
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2010
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 0
Let me break this down for everybody.
Everybody has to understand that Afghanistan was always against Pakistan. Iraq and Afghanistan were the only two countries who were against the formation of Pakistan in 47. Pashtun nationalism reached its height in the late 70's and as a result there was a civil war in Afghanistan..then Soviets came...After Soviets left this Pashtun nationalism remained and this was a threat to Pakistan.
What did you expect Pakistan to do? Sit around and do nothing while Afghans plot to overtake Pakistan? Don't be naive. Afghans brought this upon themselves. We were and are the dominant power in the region and we had to step in and take control. If Afghans were from the very start and continued to remain pro-Pakistan we would not have interfered in Afghanistan affairs. Think about it. The Indians seized upon the U.S. invasion in Afghanistan to get a strategic depth at Pakistan. Afghans gave support to Indians, Pakistan had to step up its efforts in Afghanistan. As you can see this animosity towards Pakistan still continues. What gain does Pakistan have by supporting Taliban besides safe-guarding the survival of Pakistan? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I really do not understand the Indians whining about this, this is not of their concern. They lost Karzai support they should move on. If they do remain in Afghanistan Pakistan will target them. There is not much India nor anybody else can do about this expect bickering and bashing which is meaningless. Even if U.S. does abandon Pakistan because of this which is highly unlikely Pakistan has the full support of China. U.S. economy is withering, China's economy is booming at an unprecendented rate. China will always support and NEVER abandon us as Pakistan is in a strategic location to connect China economic ventures to the Middle East. Take it as you will but these are the realities on the ground.
Read this:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/67199-pakistan-has-its-own-battle-fight.html
Everybody has to understand that Afghanistan was always against Pakistan. Iraq and Afghanistan were the only two countries who were against the formation of Pakistan in 47. Pashtun nationalism reached its height in the late 70's and as a result there was a civil war in Afghanistan..then Soviets came...After Soviets left this Pashtun nationalism remained and this was a threat to Pakistan.
What did you expect Pakistan to do? Sit around and do nothing while Afghans plot to overtake Pakistan? Don't be naive. Afghans brought this upon themselves. We were and are the dominant power in the region and we had to step in and take control. If Afghans were from the very start and continued to remain pro-Pakistan we would not have interfered in Afghanistan affairs. Think about it. The Indians seized upon the U.S. invasion in Afghanistan to get a strategic depth at Pakistan. Afghans gave support to Indians, Pakistan had to step up its efforts in Afghanistan. As you can see this animosity towards Pakistan still continues. What gain does Pakistan have by supporting Taliban besides safe-guarding the survival of Pakistan? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I really do not understand the Indians whining about this, this is not of their concern. They lost Karzai support they should move on. If they do remain in Afghanistan Pakistan will target them. There is not much India nor anybody else can do about this expect bickering and bashing which is meaningless. Even if U.S. does abandon Pakistan because of this which is highly unlikely Pakistan has the full support of China. U.S. economy is withering, China's economy is booming at an unprecendented rate. China will always support and NEVER abandon us as Pakistan is in a strategic location to connect China economic ventures to the Middle East. Take it as you will but these are the realities on the ground.
Read this:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/67199-pakistan-has-its-own-battle-fight.html
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
The US groupie whores are not willing to take this into account. But ever ready to spit sugar-coated venom to prove themselves torch-bearer of truth 
anyway Peshawar is a small area and trust me there is No such spot which could be used as suicide training base and where a known face like Gul can visit without being spotted.
Its a nice melodrama preparing grounds for face-saving exit strategy for yankees while at the same time put all the blame on Pakistan.
Above all Hikmatyar is a playing a role of a snake who is biting Pakistan on the behest of US. He and his HI did not take part in any active attack on US forces in Afghanistan since they have invaded Afghanistan.
This is really amusing how they are now making him devil.
yankees cant be trusted they can turn you into a devil in a minute while looking the other way denying their own role
GUNNER
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Pakistan and Afghanistan: interdependent, distrustful neighbours
The relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a lot more complex than described in the stories of ISI goons
Michael Semple
No one should be surprised that 180 of the leaked intelligence reports sound alarm bells about the involvement of Pakistan's ISI intelligence service in Afghan insurgency. Plenty such alarm bells have been sounded in the public domain already. But it is important that policymakers draw the right conclusions.
During the period covered by these reports, I sat in on one of the first national workshops of the Afghan reconciliation commission, headed by former president, Sebghatullah Mojadedi. Provincial police chiefs and governors and other officials split into small groups to discuss the causes of ongoing conflict. Encouraged by Mojadedi himself, every single working group fed back the conclusion that Pakistani ISI interference was the prime cause of conflict in the country.
This was more an article of faith than an empirical finding. Assembled Afghan officialdom simply worked on the basis that Pakistan had supported the Taliban, was opposed to the post-Taliban set-up and must be behind any resistance to this new setup.
In an even more blatant fashion, while visiting one of the Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan I asked the provincial intelligence chief to explain his role. He described his main function as being to inculcate in the people of the province a belief that Pakistan could never tolerate a stable Afghanistan, so that they would always be on their guard to check ISI interference.
The point is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are countries with a complex history of interdependence. Although most of Afghanistan's trade comes through Pakistan and Pakistan was the main place of refuge for Afghan refugees during the 1980s, the most popular way of establishing credentials as an Afghan nationalist has long been to denounce Pakistan as the enemy.
Among the 180 reports of ISI interference, most are drawn from informants or briefings from the Afghan intelligence service, who describe in lurid detail direct involvement of ISI officers in trying to wreak havoc inside Afghanistan. The bulk of them can now be dismissed as unreliable either with the benefit of hindsight (they warn of impending disasters which never happened) or on the basis of implausibility (conveying details the source could not have known) and because they fit in with a pattern of disinformation (stories constructed from recurrent themes and familiar characters).
One set of informants most likely passed on these reports because they found there was a market for them. More politically motivated informants, such as those Afghan officials who supplied briefings which US personnel later wrote up as intelligence, probably wanted to strengthen US backing by turning the US against Pakistan.
If you try and understand the Pakistan-Afghanistan links in the Afghan insurgency without the benefit of the largely concocted reports supplied to the US military, you still conclude that the insurgency depends upon a safe haven in Pakistan. All the commander networks which actually do the fighting in Afghanistan maintain a presence in Pakistan and use this to support their war effort. This is hardly surprising given the length of border, the amount of civilian movement, the tribal relationships and the intricate commercial links, even before you factor in a pre-2001 history of covert actions across the border. The relationship is a lot more complex than described in the crude stories of ISI goons.
Most Taliban I have talked to regarding the role of Pakistan make three broad points. They say that they require some degree of official blessing to be able to operate from Pakistan. They say that this blessing is never assured it is an uncomfortable relationship. And they say that any solution to the insurgency must have Pakistan's blessing.
The conclusion I draw from the intelligence controversy is that anyone charged with negotiating an end to the conflict in Afghanistan will have to guard that process from exactly the kind of disinformation we have all been studying. They will need to keep Pakistan, the insurgents and the various parts of today's Afghan establishment on board, and overcome a high degree of distrust which years of disinformation have contributed to.
The relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a lot more complex than described in the stories of ISI goons
Michael Semple
No one should be surprised that 180 of the leaked intelligence reports sound alarm bells about the involvement of Pakistan's ISI intelligence service in Afghan insurgency. Plenty such alarm bells have been sounded in the public domain already. But it is important that policymakers draw the right conclusions.
During the period covered by these reports, I sat in on one of the first national workshops of the Afghan reconciliation commission, headed by former president, Sebghatullah Mojadedi. Provincial police chiefs and governors and other officials split into small groups to discuss the causes of ongoing conflict. Encouraged by Mojadedi himself, every single working group fed back the conclusion that Pakistani ISI interference was the prime cause of conflict in the country.
This was more an article of faith than an empirical finding. Assembled Afghan officialdom simply worked on the basis that Pakistan had supported the Taliban, was opposed to the post-Taliban set-up and must be behind any resistance to this new setup.
In an even more blatant fashion, while visiting one of the Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan I asked the provincial intelligence chief to explain his role. He described his main function as being to inculcate in the people of the province a belief that Pakistan could never tolerate a stable Afghanistan, so that they would always be on their guard to check ISI interference.
The point is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are countries with a complex history of interdependence. Although most of Afghanistan's trade comes through Pakistan and Pakistan was the main place of refuge for Afghan refugees during the 1980s, the most popular way of establishing credentials as an Afghan nationalist has long been to denounce Pakistan as the enemy.
Among the 180 reports of ISI interference, most are drawn from informants or briefings from the Afghan intelligence service, who describe in lurid detail direct involvement of ISI officers in trying to wreak havoc inside Afghanistan. The bulk of them can now be dismissed as unreliable either with the benefit of hindsight (they warn of impending disasters which never happened) or on the basis of implausibility (conveying details the source could not have known) and because they fit in with a pattern of disinformation (stories constructed from recurrent themes and familiar characters).
One set of informants most likely passed on these reports because they found there was a market for them. More politically motivated informants, such as those Afghan officials who supplied briefings which US personnel later wrote up as intelligence, probably wanted to strengthen US backing by turning the US against Pakistan.
If you try and understand the Pakistan-Afghanistan links in the Afghan insurgency without the benefit of the largely concocted reports supplied to the US military, you still conclude that the insurgency depends upon a safe haven in Pakistan. All the commander networks which actually do the fighting in Afghanistan maintain a presence in Pakistan and use this to support their war effort. This is hardly surprising given the length of border, the amount of civilian movement, the tribal relationships and the intricate commercial links, even before you factor in a pre-2001 history of covert actions across the border. The relationship is a lot more complex than described in the crude stories of ISI goons.
Most Taliban I have talked to regarding the role of Pakistan make three broad points. They say that they require some degree of official blessing to be able to operate from Pakistan. They say that this blessing is never assured it is an uncomfortable relationship. And they say that any solution to the insurgency must have Pakistan's blessing.
The conclusion I draw from the intelligence controversy is that anyone charged with negotiating an end to the conflict in Afghanistan will have to guard that process from exactly the kind of disinformation we have all been studying. They will need to keep Pakistan, the insurgents and the various parts of today's Afghan establishment on board, and overcome a high degree of distrust which years of disinformation have contributed to.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
