“Nato’s top brass accuse Pakistan over Taliban aid”

The Telegraph

Nato’s top brass accuse Pakistan over Taliban aid

By Ahmed Rashid in Kabul
(Filed: 06/10/2006)

“Commanders from five Nato countries whose troops have just fought the bloodiest battle with the Taliban in five years, are demanding their governments get tough with Pakistan over the support and sanctuary its security services provide to the Taliban.

Nato’s report on Operation Medusa, an intense battle that lasted from September 4-17 in the Panjwai district, demonstrates the extent of the Taliban’s military capability and states clearly that Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) is involved in supplying it.”

“Nato’s top brass: Pakistan aids Taliban”

October 7th, 2006 at 17:49:33

http://www.rawstory.com/comments/20818.html

http://www.rawstory.com/comments.php?id=20818

October 7th, 2006 at 20:31:02 From: Fallaci Admirer
Takes an army to change Pakistan
It takes an army to change Pakistan. Our army is in Iraq getting itself shot for nothing. Iran is in the way. Going through Iran on the way to Pakistan is the fastest and best route to get there. Also by the time we subdue Iran, Pakistan may get the message.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:13:56 From: Fallaci Admirer
Scott l
At the end of another thread, you said that Iran like Russia would fight us through proxies and that getting nukes doesn’t mean we won’t have conflict with them. The point of invading Iran is to fight them when we can defeat them now with low casualties. We decided not to fight Russia in 1945, and lost 50k+ in Korea and Vietnam each. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation deaths are 70. So if we leave Iraq and invade Iran we can avoid greater deaths later.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:15:42 From: Fallaci Admirer
reply to Piltdown
“We should have dealt with the Taliban long ago, and done it properly.” They are still a threat as is Pakistan. The levels of deaths we have in battle now are very low compared to wars past. When they catch up with us in technology this will pass. We need to defeat them now when its very low. This won’t last forever.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:19:32 From: Fallaci Admirer
reply to Gandhi
“But to state that Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) is involved is clearly speculation.” Frontline went to Pakistan and filmed the Taliban in the tribal regions. They have killed over 100 tribal elders. The head of NATO in Afghanistan is a Brit. The Brits are facing up to the reality of Pakistan because of Pakistan’s role in terrorism there and their much greater links and respect for India, something you, Gandhi, should appreciate. The Seymour Hersh New Yorker article on Kunduz airlift says that India’s RAW (their intel) monitored it. This was the Nov 2001 airlift of Pakistan generals and adviers to the Taliban out of the Afghan city of Kunduz. They were fighting us even after 9-11. Saudis give them money to fund the Taliban and they skim a percentage. They have 38 billion in foreign debt.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:24:58 From: Fallaci Admirer
Gandhi
Many of your points are well taken. But those emphasize why we need to denuke them and keep them from funding terrorism or immigrating here. We should realize Iraq was a failure. We also failed to set up a secular govt and abolish religious law and courts so that we were at least fighting for what we believe.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:28:03 From: Fallaci Admirer
Dmaker
You are right that fighting in Afghanistan is a losing proposition, like Iraq. We need to think in terms of raids instead of occupation. That is why we need to denuke Pakistan, and not waste our effort on Afghanistan that we can never win. Same with Iraq. Denuke Iran and Pakistan and leave.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:00:12 From: Fallaci Admirer
Terrible
You are right, invading Iraq was a mistake. It was a Bush, PNAC obsession. When we were attacked on 9-11, they should have reoriented to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. If they had done that, we might have gotten Iran to give up its nukes, or we could blow them over quickly like we did Iraq and can now.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:01:53 From: Fallaci Admirer
Dmaker
Not sure your point, but I think if Bush explains a real strategy to the American people they will support it. He can explain we had 200 battle phase deaths in Iraq and have 70 occupation deaths per month. So the logic is leave Iraq but denuke Iran while its easy. He can then say that lets us combine our armies together without spelling out the threate to Pakistan in public.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:20:01 From: Fallaci Admirer
Piltdown
“Put your money where your mouth is.” The point is we can lose a few lives now or more later. In Iraq we had 200 battle phase deaths and lose 70 deaths per month of occupation, which gains us nothing. We want to denuke Iran and Pakistan and stop the funding of terrorism by Saudi Arabia and UAE. So we should do exactly those things. That’s what the neocons want to do, but they think they have to lie to the American people instead of just say, this is our plan. They can do each part of it one at a time so as not to tip off the others, but each part makes sense. If they tell the American people we are leaving Iraq so the 70 deaths per month are over, but we have to denuke Iran by ground invasion and point out this cost only 200 deaths in Iraq, they have a plan to sell.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:21:31 From: Fallaci Admirer
Piltdown, Secular rulers gone
We have focused our efforts in the wrong direction in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are right. If we invade Iran, we will be taking out theocratic rulers. All rulers in that part of the world are unpopular. If you depose theocratic rulers, the people will support non theocratic ones, adn vice versa. So depose the theocrats in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:34:39 From: Fallaci Admirer
Thank you

October 7th, 2006 at 23:36:08 From: Fallaci Admirer
re Dmaker
We Pakistanis and Saudis agree to what we ask but then do what they want. They both keep supporting terrorism. So we have to create change.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:45:01 From: Fallaci Admirer
Rephrase
The Pakistanis and Saudis agree to what we ask but then do what they want.

October 8th, 2006 at 09:19:24 From: Fallacie Admirer
Terrible
Since Iran has no nukes, this is the time to keep them from getting them. North Korea is a problem as is Pakistan because they have nukes and spread missile and nuclear technology.

October 8th, 2006 at 09:24:36 From: Fallaci Admirer
reply to Scott l
“I will have to settle for the natural course of cultural evolution to get my wish. ” So in the meantime, we need to contain the violence that may come towards us. As you point out, their masses are programmed with extreme views towards us that include what we call suicide bombing, but which they call maryrdom. Until that view changes, we need to keep nukes out of their hands. How long is this? Arabia attacked the West in 633 AD. Its now 2006. The Middle East and Pakistan were more Western in the 1960’s than now. Thus the evolution has been towards extremism. Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all funding or supporting that movement. Changing the governments can stop that direction. They can’t start getting better until we stop their governments and rich sheiks from making it worse. Denuke them in the meantime.

October 8th, 2006 at 09:26:54 From: Fallaci Admirer
Dmaker
FA: The Pakistanis and Saudis agree to what we ask but then do what they want. “you mean what is good for the usa and conspirators???????? and for themselfs!!!” Its what we ask them to do and then they don’t do. We ask them to stop supporting terrorism and in reference to Scott l’s comments, to stop teaching hate of the West in their schools. Saudi textbooks have such ideas in them, and they spread those textbooks in other lands, even in the US and Europe.

October 8th, 2006 at 09:27:35 From: Fallaci Admirer
Dmaker
FA: The Pakistanis and Saudis agree to what we ask but then do what they want. “you mean what is good for the usa and conspirators???????? and for themselfs!!!” Its what we ask them to do and then they don’t do. We ask them to stop supporting terrorism and in reference to Scott l’s comments, to stop teaching hate of the West in their schools. Saudi textbooks have such ideas in them, and they spread those textbooks in other lands, even in the US and Europe.

October 8th, 2006 at 10:13:32 From: Fallaci Admirer
Baz
“Ask whether can America afford the losses that have been the only reward for her unstinting support for Isreal?” The attack on the West started in 633 and was against the Christian Eastern Roman Empire. The Pope quoted Manuel II from 1500 and indicated it was a brusque statement, and there have been death threats. In France, the police have had 2500 wounded in 2006 from going into the projects of immigrants. Women are raped routinely in Malvo Sweden for not wearing veils and the government covers it up. A car dealer in Ohio just got death threats for an ad about Discounts for Dhimmis. Its not limited to Isreal in space or time. It started in 633 and is almost global in scope. They attacked India in 1999 and said it was terrorists when it was Pakistan’s army. When the invaders reached India they killed millions, some estimate tens of millions.

October 8th, 2006 at 12:59:59 From: Fallaci Admirer
Reply Dmaker
The Western doctrine is not just a random doctrine that we have and others have one just as good. The West’s doctrine reflects the wisdom of the ancient world around the Mediterranean basis. This includes the ancient Middle East. The Ancient Greek city states were based on democracy and on free state on the sea. They learned from each other, debated, and advanced science, law, freedom, etc. That was partly preserved by the Eastern Roman Empire. The attack in 633 was an attack on the ancient laws of Babylon and the Middle East for trade, commerce, interest, etc. The idea is to not have to nuke the rest of the world later by acting now when battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200 v. occupation deaths of 70 per month. We can invade Iran, leave Iraq, cut our total deaths and help Iraq by cutting of the aid to the rebels from Iran. Thus invading Iran dominates staying in Iraq.

October 8th, 2006 at 14:29:16 From: Fallaci Admirer
Gandhi
Good link and point. “Gen. David Richards, a British officer who commands NATO’s 32,000 troops here, warned in an interview with The Associated Press that if life doesn’t get better over the winter, most Afghans could switch sides.” We need to take this to the source, Pakistan which is training them and Saudi Arabia and UAE that are funding them.

October 8th, 2006 at 14:29:48 From: Fallaci Admirer
Tom3
We need to increase our army size, good point Tom3.

October 8th, 2006 at 14:57:17 From: Fallaci Admirer
Tom3
So we agree on the diagnosis, that Pakistan is the source and that it seeks to harm the West. So the question is the remedy. Invading Iran lets us surround Pakistan. We can then exert pressure on it by sanctions and even blockade. We can bomb their nuclear processing plants to stop their producing more fuel. Nuclear weapons have to be touched up or they become inert. Without a source, they become inoperative.

October 8th, 2006 at 15:48:54 From: Fallaci Admirer
Tom3
“So, tell me again Fascist Admirer, how are we going to invade Iran and Pakistan, when we are LOSING in Afghanistan and Iraq?” We are fighting wars on the periphery in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are funding or supporting those wars. That is why we must take the war to the source. Our main army is in Iraq. That army can leave Iraq and knock over Iran. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation deaths are 70 per month. We take out Iran and that positions us to surround Pakistan. We then offer them to give up their nukes or face sanctions and blockade and we hit their reactors so they can’t maintain their nukes, nukes decay over time and become inert.

October 8th, 2006 at 15:52:04 From: Fallacie Admirer
Gandhi
“Afghanis’ lives don’t improve”. Thus showing our current strategy isn’t working. Which is why going to the source can work. Defeating Iran will change perceptions in Pakistan of US capability. It also puts the army that defeats Iran on their border and unites the army in Iraq with the NATO army in Afghanistan. It gives direct supply from the sea through Iran to Afghanistan, so that we don’t depend on Pakistan. They have leverage on us because we don’t have a path from the sea to Afghanistan that doesn’t go through them. That will change their leverage, which will change their behavior.

October 8th, 2006 at 16:11:21 From: Fallacie Admirer
Reply to Gandhi
NATO is in Afghanistan to protect the West. Pakistan is intentionally undermining it by training the Taliban and supporting them with funds from Saudi Arabia that they take a cut of. Iran is supporting international terrorism and developing nukes. Pakistan developed its nuke in May 98 and then attacked India in 99 and in effect has attacked us through the Tablian and al Qaeda in Aug 98 embassies, 2000 Cole, 2001 WTC and Pentagon. Saudis are funding this. We have to go to the two sources Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or we will lose. They will fund and support rebels against us in Afghanistan and Iraq forever. Iran is part of this combination and it sees that like Pakistan, once it gets nukes, it can go on the offensive. So we need to attack them now when battle phase deaths are 200 v. occupation deaths per month in Iraq are 70. Deaths in Iran may be higher than in Iraq for the battle phase, but we are bleeding in Iraq and Afghanistan while our main opponents sit back in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia without being touched.

October 8th, 2006 at 16:14:27 From: Fallaci Admirer
To Tom3
Why do you want to let Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fund the deaths of Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely 9-11, the Cole and the embassy attacks? Why is your anger at the neocons but not at those who are the real source against us? Why do you want the Saudis to fund world wide terror and get away with it? Why let Pakistan fund the Taliban right now? 2 Pakistani generals were airlifted out of Kunduz in Nov 2001 according to Seymour Hersh. They have been fighting us the whole time. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?

October 8th, 2006 at 16:15:01 From: Fallaci Admirer
To Tom3
Why do you want to let Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fund the deaths of Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely 9-11, the Cole and the embassy attacks? Why is your anger at the neocons but not at those who are the real source against us? Why do you want the Saudis to fund world wide terror and get away with it? Why let Pakistan fund the Taliban right now? 2 Pakistani generals were airlifted out of Kunduz in Nov 2001 according to Seymour Hersh. They have been fighting us the whole time. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?

October 8th, 2006 at 17:37:29 From: Fallaci Admirer
Scott l
First, over the last half century they expropriated our oil contracts, leases, and more. “Historically the West has shown a greater propensity for aggression and domination than the Muslim world. ” The West has been subject to barbarian invasions from the East for millenia. The current immigration based version is the same as in millenia past. They attacked us in 1993 at WTC. That was intended to kill 250,000 people. They attacked us again and again. We took until 2001 to notice they were really at war with us. The Saudis are funding the Taliban against us now with Pakistan. Iran is funding terrorism like Hezbollah. You seem to be proposing surrender as the solution. The extremism came from the Muslim Brotherhood. Qutb came to America around 1950, had a bad reaction, and pushed modern extremism. Khomeini was pushing it in 1942. The Ottoman Empire was against us in WWI as part of the onslaught that started in 633 against the West. But your conclusion Scott is that we should surrender?

October 8th, 2006 at 17:53:11 From: Fallaci Admirer
Link on the relativism argument.
http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/2005/07/muslim-atrocities.html

You can also look at jihadwatch.org for the latest atrocities and terrorism incidents.

October 8th, 2006 at 20:15:52 From: Fallaci Admirer
West Bank: Buy in Buy Out
I propose Buy in or Buy out for the West Bank. Buy in is cut all outside aid, and aid creates rage, and instead have them spend their time at work to support themselves. Now they are paid to resist. Those who don’t like buy in, can go for buy out, they get 750 dollars per year per person and the host country gets the same. Jordan, Syria, Egypt can be hosts. The money can come from the oil fields in Iraq and Iran.

October 8th, 2006 at 20:18:05 From: Fallaci Admirer
West and violence
It is true the West has had violence in its past, but it was attacked at WTC 93 and didn’t really respond until 8 years later after WTC 01 and Pentagon attacks. So the West is peaceful and is being set upon by the non peaceful.

October 9th, 2006 at 08:48:46 From: Fallaci Admirer
re Buy Out Move Out

It has a nice ring to it Scott, so the question is which group to buy out and move out. Economically it applies better to the Palestinians. Per capita income of Israelis is 20k or more, while on the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, its 2k or less per year. There are approximately 6mm Palestinians and Israelis. So the buyout plan makes more sense for the Palestinians. Once they are gone, the per capita income of Israelis will likely rise by 10 percent or more, and security costs will fall, so that this pays for the buy out move out of the Palestinians.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: