Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It notes: "Pakistan's manipulation of the Taliban senior leadership continues unabatedly".
It says that Pakistan is aware of the locations of senior Taliban leaders.
"Senior Taliban representatives, such as Nasiruddin Haqqani, maintain residences in the immediate vicinity of ISI headquarters in Islamabad," it said.
It quotes a senior al-Qaeda detainee as saying: "Pakistan knows everything. They control everything. I can't [expletive] on a tree in Kunar without them watching."
"The Taliban are not Islam. The Taliban are Islamabad."
"This is old wine in an even older bottle. I don't think these claims are new. These claims have been made for many, many years," said Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan's foreign minister,
...
A senior security official in Islamabad who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity claimed that the report was inspired by "Western troops losing ground in Afghanistan and now looking for scapegoats. .
...
Pakistan is known to have maintained close ties in the past with the Taliban but says it turned its back on the hardline movement after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when the country joined the U.S.-led global coalition against terror.
Let's see - where was bin Laden when he was killed? Not far from a Pakistani military base?
"This is old wine in an even older bottle. I don't think these claims are new. These claims have been made for many, many years," said Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan's foreign minister,
...
A senior security official in Islamabad who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity claimed that the report was inspired by "Western troops losing ground in Afghanistan and now looking for scapegoats. .
...
Pakistan is known to have maintained close ties in the past with the Taliban but says it turned its back on the hardline movement after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when the country joined the U.S.-led global coalition against terror.
Let's see - where was bin Laden when he was killed? Not far from a Pakistani military base?
Uh-huh, not looking good here...
He wasn't just near a Pakistani military base, but the Pakistani military college. Basically Pakistan's version of West Point, so it is even worse than they claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iqra6500
I think, it is not a confirm report because I live in Islamabad and here is not found any Taliban. These are found in Nothern areas of Pakistan.
I don't think he is saying that the Taliban is active in Islamabad, but rather that the Pakistani government has a lot of ties to the Taliban and members of Pakistan's intelligence service (ISI) and military are providing them with assistance.
Not really a big surprise. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia funded and trained the most extremist elements of the Afghan resistance in the 1980s (which later became the Taliban) and also actively recruited Islamic Fundamentalists from around the Muslim world (which later became Al Qaeda, the GIA, and other lovely groups).
Not really a big surprise. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia funded and trained the most extremist elements of the Afghan resistance in the 1980s (which later became the Taliban) and also actively recruited Islamic Fundamentalists from around the Muslim world (which later became Al Qaeda, the GIA, and other lovely groups).
True. But the US was mostly focused on arming and training the Tajiks because the Pashtuns (which the Pakistanis supported) were just as keen on fighting each other and the Tajiks as they were the Soviets. The CIA was also concerned about the possibility of the Pashtuns turning against them.
Pakistan is more responsible for the situation than the US. Also, Pakistan is still actively supporting these guys (possible because of the large Pashtun population in Pakistan and it is a way of keeping them focused on the West and not causing Pakistan to have to deal with them).
True. But the US was mostly focused on arming and training the Tajiks because the Pashtuns (which the Pakistanis supported) were just as keen on fighting each other and the Tajiks as they were the Soviets. The CIA was also concerned about the possibility of the Pashtuns turning against them.
Pakistan is more responsible for the situation than the US. Also, Pakistan is still actively supporting these guys (possible because of the large Pashtun population in Pakistan and it is a way of keeping them focused on the West and not causing Pakistan to have to deal with them).
Right. I was not blaming US for Pakistan supporting Taliban today. They could hurt Taliban, but choose not to and yet we have given then $17 billion since 2001.
They have nuclear weapons. Actually have them, we aren't guessing. If we don't help them with money for things (bribe) they'll give those weapons to extremists.
Ever want to know why Iran wants a nuclear weapon?
We need to pull back from this region of the world and let them know, a mushroom cloud appears of the United states or a military mutual defense ally, we'll smoke you entirely back.
They have nuclear weapons. Actually have them, we aren't guessing. If we don't help them with money for things (bribe) they'll give those weapons to extremists.
They have never threatened to give them to anyone. That is just a line to justify the spending.
Let me correct my numbers, we have not given them $17 billion, we have given them $28 billion since 2001
Maybe things will change.....
Quote:
The Senate has proposed continued restrictions on reimbursements to Pakistan in the 2015 defense budget that’s being debated in Congress. A portion of the reimbursement for 2015 is not eligible for a waiver, and can be paid only if the U.S. defense secretary certifies that Pakistan has “undertaken military operations in North Waziristan that have significantly disrupted the safe haven and freedom of movement of the Haqqani network in Pakistan,” according to an amendment added by Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee.
They have never threatened to give them to anyone. That is just a line to justify the spending.
Let me correct my numbers, we have not given them $17 billion, we have given them $28 billion since 2001
Maybe things will change.....
Well of course its not an open threat, but it is a concern from intelligence agencies and military experts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
