BS: Pakistan and the Taliban

Subject: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 02:32 PM

There is alot I do not understand about the 'War on Terrorism'. Why is there so little pressure on Pakistan to curb the Taliban and the training camps on Pakistani soil? Why does a dictator like Musharraf get away with pretending to be an ally of the U.S.

Seems to me that if the U.S. and its allies really wanted to end the war on terrorism, they would start by joining forces with India to put the squeeze on Pakistan. Instead, the U.S. has spread itself very thin by invading Iraq and leaving the job of ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban unfinished.

How does Musharraf get away with playing two ends against the middle?

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 03:01 PM

I is not and never has been a war on terrorism. It is all about political and financial interests.
It is not in Bush's interest or that of his puppet masters to actually get rid of any so called terror organisations. They need them otherwise they cannot be used as a bogeyman to justify whatever atrocities Bush wants to commit.
Let's face it, if the Taliban didn't exist, Bush and his cronies would have to invent them. In fact there are a lot of people who believe that is EXACTLY what they did. Isn't Osama Bin Ladens family as thick as thieves with the Bushes?
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 03:15 PM

I've heard that said before!

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: mack/misophist
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 04:12 PM

Musharraf may or may not be a dictator. Whether he is or not, he is not in complete control. Pakistan is a Muslim country, a rather orthodox one. In the western tribal lands (Waziristan) the government writ is often ignored. When the Afghan war started, there were some serious doubts about the loyalty of some Pakistani security agencies. Is that enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Leadfingers
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 04:21 PM

The question I wouild like answering is What is the Official position of the Upper Echelons of the Muslim Religious Hierarchy regarding Suicide Bombers !!
IF the Koran really says this is a GOOD thing or wether it says they are a BAD thing - So far they are saying nothing , which is as good as condoning the continued use of this extreme form of terroroism on whoever just happens to be in the area when the Bomb goes off !

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 04:48 PM

mack/misophist - Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Musharraf named himself president. Doesn't that make him a dictator?

Are you saying that some of the security forces support the Taliban and some support Musharraf? If so, why not join forces with those loyal to Musharraf and wipe out the Taliban and other terrorists. Is it because Musharraf is only kept in power by the U.S. and that Pakistanis do not generally support Musharraf?

If this is so, it is obvious that we will never win a war in Afghanistan as long as the Taliban and others can recruit and train in Pakistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 05:03 PM

Leadfingers - Here is a pretty good explanation of jihad.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010923jihad0923p5.asp

It seems the extremists take words from the Koran out of context and apply them to the problems of today.

Seems we have the same problem with interpreting passages of the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM

Dianavan, you're right of course. As far as i know the Pakistani people have never removed any government through an election. I suppose it's driven through pragmatism however distasteful that is. Why is it that India, which has existed just a little longer manages to maintain a reasonable democracy (ok it's not perfect but what is?) whereas Pakistan is in an unholy mess. The answer is in the question.

This is what happenned this week

A Pakistani man and a woman were tied to a tree and stoned to death by their families after they were suspected of having an affair outside of marriage. The couple, from the village of Donga Bonga in Bahawalnagar district in southern Punjab, apparently pleaded their innocence but died in an "honour killing" at the weekend in a hail of bricks.

Elahi Hussain, a divorcee in her forties, had angered her family by allegedly conducting an affair with a fellow villager, Hafiz Shah, 45. Eventually the couple were tied to a tree and subjected to ten minutes of stoning before they died. Two of the woman's brothers have been arrested and two other suspects are being sought.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:36 AM

This is actually one of the very few fields of politics in which I think the present US government has done a fairly good job. To put much more pressure on Musharraf and/or Pakistan would likely lead to an even more fundamentalist Pakistan with less control of jihadi.

It would be about as stupid and unproductive as the invasion of Iraq was. So for whatever bad and subjective reasons that has happened, let us praise Bush for not having made a mess of/in this Muslim country. He could have done much worse.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: mack/misophist
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 10:40 AM

Re: Muslim heirarchy. In theory, if there were still a caliphate, the caliph would be the highest authority after the Prophet. The line of the Caliphs was divided early on in the war that separated the Sunni and the Shi'a. There is no Caliph today. When Mohammed 'organized' Islam, he deliberately tried to eliminate any centralized authority. (The Caliphate was a post mortem add on, if I understand correctly.) Thence there is no official heirarchy except within individual schools of Islam and acceptance is more or less voluntary. The big difficulty in dealing with world wide Islam is that there is no one authority or even 100 authorities one can sit down with and work things out.

Re Security Forces: During the USSR/Afghan war, Pakistani security forces supported and supplied the Afghanis (and the Taliban), in part at our request. IIRC, we're the ones who first gave them the plans for the RPG's that have caused so much havoc. Some close friendships developed between them and this is a part of the world where close friendships are idealized. Since many Muslims place the needs of their faith above the wishes of their government - but don't wear signs to show which are which - this can be a problem. About a year ago, Jane's security report said they were 'relatively reliable'.

Re Waziristan: The government in far western Pakistan is essentially tribal. They are, and always have been relatively well armed and bellicose. The English didn't really rule there during the raj. Musharrah doesn't do much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 06:20 PM

mack/misophist - 06 Feb 07 - 10:40 AM

Re Security Forces: "IIRC, we're the ones who first gave them the plans for the RPG's that have caused so much havoc."

These the things that "we" gave them the plans for:

"The RPG-7 (Ruchnoy Protivotankoviy Granatomet, 'Handheld Anti-Tank Grenade Launcher') 6G3, and its predecessor the RPG-2, are man-portable, shoulder-launched rocket propelled grenade weapons. Its ruggedness, simplicity, low cost and effectiveness have made it the most widely used RPG in the world. Currently around forty countries use the weapon and it is manufactured in a number of variants by nine countries. It is also popular with irregular and guerrilla forces. Numerous recent conflicts with such forces have seen extensive use of the RPG-7, including the Battle of Mogadishu, Second Gulf War, and war in Afghanistan .

The most commonly seen major variations are the RPG-7D paratrooper model (able to be broken into two parts for easier carrying), and the lighter Chinese Type 69 RPG.

The RPG-7 was first delivered to the Soviet Army in 1961 and deployed at a squad level. It replaced the RPG-3, having clearly out-performed the intermediate RPG-4 design during testing. Its original design concept originated with two World War II era weapons: the American Bazooka and the German Panzerfaust. The current model produced by Russia is the RPG-7V2, capable of firing standard and dual HEAT, high explosive/fragmentation, and thermobaric warheads, with a UP-7V sighting device fitted (used in tandem with the standard optical sight) to allow the use of extended range ammunition. The RPG-7D3 is the equivalent paratrooper model. Both the RPG-7V2 and RPG-7D3 were adopted by the Russian Army in 2001."

Still I suppose it depends on which "we" you are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:55 PM

O.K.

So its necessary to keep the puppet Musharraf in power so that he can try to control tribal Muslims who may sympathize with the Taliban.

That begs the question - How can we ever hope to win the war on terrorism when terrorists are recruited and trained in Pakistan? It makes the war in Afghanistan seem futile.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: mack/misophist
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 12:05 AM

Some editorial writer made an amazingly good point a year or so ago. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no country left that can face the US with uniformed troops in a ground war. For the forseeably future any one who opposes the US in armed struggle will have to use guerilla tactics. To the best of my knowlege, no army has ever been particularly good at dealing with guerillas. Not since the Romans and killing or enslaving everybody in the tribe is no longer acceptable. We're not arguing about principles but details. Afghanistan might have worked if we'd kept at it but the shrub pulled troops out to send them to Iraq.

The point about 'uniformed troops' is that uniforms help make the Geneva Conventions work. Without them, how do you tell a soldier from a civilian? You may agrue that the conventions don't work but an attempt at civilized war is better than no effort at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 02:15 AM

mack/misophist - 07 Feb 07 - 12:05 AM

"To the best of my knowlege, no army has ever been particularly good at dealing with guerillas."

The British, Australian and Malay armed forces in Malaysia and in Borneo

"Afghanistan might have worked if we'd kept at it but the shrub pulled troops out to send them to Iraq."

How many troops did "shrub" pull out?

"You may agrue that the conventions don't work but an attempt at civilized war is better than no effort at all."

Not wishing to point out the obvious but there is no such thing as a "civilised war", if you are fighting a war you fight to win it, and do whatever is required to win it. If you are not prepared to do that, do everybody a favour and seek terms from your enemy immediately. In the case of the present situation, I believe that OBL & Co require you to convert to Islam, follow Sharia Law and abandon your allies. You never know you could see the likes of Hilary Clinton And Nancy Pelosi in veils or Burkha's yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Cool Beans
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 10:04 AM

I heard them the other day at a coffehouse in Ann Arbor. A little atonal--they've got that Middle Eastern thing going--but a lot of energy. Terrific oud player but the rest of the band: ho hum. I think people are turned off by the name.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM

Well Beans ... if we stop the wars, thus stopping the fat handouts to the military, stop the handouts to wall street, stop the fat salaries and bonuses to the corrupt fat cats in our governments ... etc., etc. etc. we would have enough money to help the needy in our own countries and still have enough to help out those suffering in Pakistan.

simple.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:55 PM

But they make jolly good curry in Pakistan!

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: gnu
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 03:31 PM

dianavan! Where ya been? Haven't heard from you in a dog's age.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:16 PM

Wolfgang: come down from that tree. "let us praise Bush for not having made a mess of/in this Muslim country?????!!!!

The USA set up the Taliban - using the very Pakistani security forces that Camerrhoid got upset about recently- to destroy the (Russian backed) secular state of Afghanistan, where women had rights and education, and the ability of mullahs to mull was severely restricted.

The Great Game- the US played it, beat the Russkies out, and then it came back and bit them- in a rather spectacular way.

Bush then invaded to get rid of the Yanks' FrankensTaliban. The rest is beyond the end of history.

Can you imagine a worse mess?

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 09:36 AM

The USA set up the Taliban - MYTH

using the very Pakistani security forces - The USA "controls" Pakistan's ISI?? Care to enlighten us as to how they manage to do that?

the (Russian backed) secular state of Afghanistan, where women had rights and education, and the ability of mullahs to mull was severely restricted. - The Khalq Faction of the communist PDPA granted no-one rights that they did not already possess, what they did do in six months was murder 4,000 more Afghan civilians than US-OEF, ISAF and ASF have managed to do in nearly nine years. That was how they restricted the ability of the mullahs to mull. They also succeeded in causing the intelligensia of the country to flee abroad which severely affected the standards of competence to govern and administer the country. Subsequent fighting then completely destroyed it, by September 2001 one-third of the population were either dead or living in refugee camps.

Can you imagine a worse mess? - Yes a return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan and the Taliban
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 11:49 PM

No The US set up AL Qaeda.

It was our friends the Saudis that created the Taliban.