Britain says Pakistan is hiding Taliban chief

"Lieutenant-General David Richards will fly to Islamabad tomorrow to try to persuade ?"

Richard Armitage needs to be pulled out of retirement and flown to Islamabad. Only "back to stone age" persuasion works with the Pakis

It appears clear that Pervez Musharraf and his generals have been always walking a tight rope in trying to keep control of the actions of tribal chiefs in the mountaineous areas that we can find Al-qaeda sympethizers and operatives.

The Generals supposively are trying to make peace deals with these warlords to put down their weapons, but there are many who continue to ignore it. The ISI is obviously a bit to cozy with these operatives mostly because they are trying to protect the Musharraf goverment from to much upheavel.

All the recent press about our staunch ally in the war against terrorism (tm) seems to be a shift in policy against the Musharraf administration. Whether this is due to the intransigence President Bush ran up against in the recent face-to-face meeting or for some other reason, who in the public would know?

I did watch the PBS Frontline piece on the resurgence of the Taliban. Interesting in the directness of fingers pointed at the ISI and Musharraf's complicity. I found the clip of Musharraf and Bush in a press conference interesting as well. The body language and tone of speak from Bush to Musharraf indicates Bush to be fed up with the whole arrangement.

Also, the Frontline documentary indicated the US has sent Predator drones over into the tribal areas like the two Wariztans (sp?) and those drones have taken out regional Taliban leaders who have contended for power, launched attacks into Afghanistan and who have cut deals with officals from the Musharraf administration. They've killed at least one 'important' leader in this manner.

We may complain about the way things are stated officially and the seemingly goofy way US officials frame the conflicts, but bits and pieces like this lead me to believe we know far more than we say. We're still holding on to the hope that 'moderates' will rise and reformers will act. Eventually we'll grow tired of waiting for the Great Sea Change in the Ummah and at that point the public words will change. It seems to me that in private they already have.

Did anyone see John Stewart kissing Musharraf's butt on the Daily Show last week? When do you think John will start eating his words?

Wait til the Taliban swallows Pakistan. It's only a matter of time before Pakistan's "fight" against these neanderthals brings this about. I wonder which country Mushy Raff will want asylum in?

ISLAMSFORLOSERS - agreed. Mushy Raff will be dead, not banished. Nasseem will need to take precautions because the day is coming...

From the first Anglo-Afghan war 1838-1842

“From the British point of view, the First Anglo-Afghan War (1838–42) (often called "Auckland's Folly") was an unmitigated disaster, despite the ease with which Dost Mohammad was deposed and Shuja enthroned. An army of British and Indian troops under the command of General William Elphinstone set out from the Punjab in December 1838.”

“Some British troops returned to India, but it soon became clear that Shuja's rule could only be maintained with the presence of British forces. The Afghans resented the British presence and Shah Shuja. As the occupation dragged on, MacNaghten allowed his soldiers to bring in their families to improve morale; this further infuriated the Afghans, as it appeared the British were settling into a permanent occupation.”

Sound familiar?

We will never win or be left alone by proping up petty dictators when real leadership is needed.
Continuing to support this idiot Pervez Musharraf
serves no ones purpose but his own. We continue to send funds and arms to this government only to act surprised at the result.
David Richards is on another modern day Afghan/Pakistan fools errand.
Apparently some lessons are never learned.

Redhawk, I agree with your comments 100%; any sarcasm detected is not aimed in your direction. So, I'm curious, how did the story end? Did the "overwhelming majority of moderate Muslims" choose democracy and freedom over 7th Century tribalism, celebrate their "rescue" from the "few radicals" under Dost Mohammad, welcome the British with rose petals, and create a modern open society much like our own?

Because that's what's happening this time. Or it will soon happen. Or so we've been told.

Special Guest

What happened next?

One man, Surgeon-Colonel Roberts, got out alive.

But you already knew that?

The NeoCons in charge of our foreign and war policy have never been really interested in destroying the Taliban, killing Mullah Omar or OBL. They're far more interested in Iraq, for reasons better left undiscussed. And Musharaff knows this.

Or why else would you ask te question?

I agree with you entirely - we should have gone in there, done what we had to do to bin Liner, then got out again.

Democracy? Democracy will never take in any Muslim country, and anyone who claims otherwise is a fool. So you'd have let the Taliban get back in power people will ask?

Well, yes, why not? They're going to be back in power there one day anyway.

The only way to deal with the Muslim world is to seal it off with a ring of steel, having first deported to the Ummah evry Muslim in the Western world.

Go back in 100 years and see what's left. Wont be much.

Oil?

We're going to have to learn how to get on with much reduced supplies sometime in this century - may as well get it over and done with.

Let us not forget thet there was only ONE reason why Musharaff was 'on our side' during the 2001-02 war to remove the Taliban.

This is because Bush reminded him that British Intelligence had presented the US with a list of suitable targets that required destroying without delay.

A sizeable proportion of the targets were in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

Redhawk, good reminder from 19th century. History shows you can conquer Pakistan's low lying regions but not its tribal area. Just some musings follow.

By targeting Afghanistan, Bush had a policy guaranteed to fail in advance. By establishing an Islamic Republic and upholding religious law and courts, he double insured to fail. By not going after Pakistan or Iran, he triple insured it.

Our army is in Iraq doing nothing but bleed to death, trying to set up another Islamic Republic and to uphold religious law and courts there. This is another case of going after the periphery and not the source of the trouble, Saudi Arabia.

We had 200 battle phase deaths in Iraq and have 70 per month occupation deaths. If we invade Iran, and left Iraq we might be better off? The two drivers of occupation deaths in Iraq are foreign Sunni Arab fighters, that the Iranians wouldn't allow, and the Sunni Shiite split. This is absent in Iran. An invasion of Iran would also stop Iran's support of the rebels in Iraq.

Finally, invading Iran puts our army in Iraq on the Pakistan border where it can be used to influence Pakistan to give up its nukes, subs, missiles and bin Laden.

Just some possibilities.

Sir Henry Morgan, I agree with everything you wrote. Well said.

AiG

Special Guest

Thank you.

And isn't it so frustrating that the powers-that-be wilfully refuse to see it. And in the meantime our young men and women die and are physically and mentally maimed. How many of the American government have sons and daughters in the Line? We haven't got any over here - and three of Blair's are old enough to enlist.

This next is so simplistic, but oh boy it's had me chortling. Got to have a laugh occasionally.

http://www.beadee.com/attacked/bend_over.htm

Can't get enough of it.

I'll be posting about Afghanistan, and about Iraq, on Reconquista later this week - no graphs this time, just a short essay.

I've found another source for lists of terrorist attacks, but I'm having difficulty learning my way around it to extract information relevant to my purposes. It's in there - but separating it out from the non-Islamic attacks in e.g. India isn't easy.

http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp

I've also tried the CIA for info on attacks. The link puts me through to the State Dept. When I try searching for info on terrorist attacks - "Technical Difficulties".

That's one way of witholding information I suppose.

I've got to look because there's far more going on than RoP can list - and it goes back a lot farther than 2001. I want the info.

“Democracy will never take in a Muslim county” - that much is clear to everybody.

What on earth does any Western country finds useful about Pakiland I cannot figure. They have no energy source to supply the World; they have no economy to talk of; they have no real government (dictatorship is not a government); they never had any serious democracy; they contributed only negatively to the developed and developing worlds; they proliferated Nuclear know how to N. Korea and Iran; they stole Nuclear secrets from the Netherlands (I am of the opinion, The Netherlands/British/CIA knew about that, they let Pakiland steal the Nuclear technology to keep India on its tows. It is nearly impossible that Khan guy could have had access to certain highly confidential blue prints without the knowledge of the Netherlands’s security apparatus); they are the Wal-Mart of Jihad schools; they are the major sponsor of Jihad; they are the main creator and supporter of Talibans and Al-Quada; they are most corrupt country in the world, bar five; they hate everybody except China and Saudy Arabia (oneEyeWinked); they always lived on infidel aid; they are not in hurry to earn their living; they are responsible for spreading Jihad epidemic through out the world; they were absolutely 100% involved in 9/11th planning and execution (Indian airline hijacking ended in Afghanstan, the hijackers are the biggest terrorists still in Pakiland, one in Gitmo; an Afghanstan leader of Northern Front was assassinated with the help of Pakiland); every terrorist went to Pakiland; every terrorist received training in Pakiland;…..

Can Mr. Spencer educate me to let me know a one good reason that why don’t we bomb Pakiland back to the StoneAge?

The Pashtuns have been dyed in the wool jihadi since the second quarter of the 19th century when they were 'radicalised' by fantics from India, who retained connections throughout the north indian plain, seeking to regain the subcontinent for Islam from the Brits using a base outside their reach. Peshawar is the cemtre of this militant cult - the Brits, thinking in terms of 'mad Mullahs' failed to see the consistency and continuity of a tradition that has lasted to the present day. Musharraf can't control these people (in fact they've gained control of the ISI) and he is neither willing or able to fight a civil war against them.
We thus have the Alice-in-Wondeland situation where Pakistan is our ally and arms, trains and despatchs personnel to fight us in Afghanistan. The fact that we are defending a regime that places shariah law paramount in its constitution, in country that would collapse economically without the heroin trade, just piles even more idiocy on to the situation.

Redhawk

Like everybody else, particularly the BBC, you always mention the disastrous Afghan war of 1838-42 when a British Army was entirely wiped out.

Everyone forgets the Afghan war of 1880 and briefly this went as follows,

The Afghans attacked the British mission and Kabul and paraded the heads of the British resident and his deputy round the streets on poles. This was not a good idea because they were both Irishman and as it happened the British commander in chief, Lord Roberts was also an Irishman.

He marched an army to Kabul tried and hanged the culprits and then marched out again in the process kicking the sh** out of any Afghans who got in his way. There was a disaster when one of the columns lost 40 per cent of its strength in a desperate fight at Maiwand but that was commanded by an English general.

There was an election in Britain during the campaign and a liberal government took power so you will not be surprised to find were most upset about the victory. After all they had been telling the British public that the poor women and children starving in the snows of Afghanistan was much God's children as anyone else. It is doubtful if any of the British soldiers would have been so charitable, because some Afghan tribes tied prisoners down, forced their mouths open with sticks and had their women urinate in their mouths until their lungs filled and they drowned.

He did not try to occupy the place he just showed them a hard time.

Incidentally Lord Roberts recommended that the best way to achieve long-term peace was to break Afghanistan up into its different provinces. Naturally the Liberal Prime Minister could never approve such intervention in the affairs of another country.

I have often wondered how many of the world's really nasty problems originated with liberals insisting on doing the right thing.

Fred

You just gave an example of exactly what I said we should have done this time:

Go in, do what we have to do, then get out again.

And who cares about Afghans starving in the snows up in the mountains, who cares about the subjugation of Afghan women, and all the other "human rights" issues? Who cares?

None of our business.

What is our business is the well-being of our OWN people.

Sir Henry Morgan

"What is our business is the well-being of our OWN people"

Exactly!

Mr. Holger Dansker provided this link to a book by Sir Winston Churchill on the afghan war in the late 1800s. One can read what happened actually.

"The Story of the Malakand Field Force by Sir Winston S. Churchill"

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/9404

Pakistan is a major terrorist state. Pakistan was caught red-handed by India recently for orchestrating the Bombay train blasts which killed over 200 innocent people. Pakistan should not be trusted by the US. Musharraf himself is an Islamic fundamentalist and the ISI is out of control. The US should not hesitate to bomb targets in Pakistan. The security of the entire world is at stake.

The US must curtail Muslim immigration as well, allowing in only family-class migrants, as Muslims in the US are a ticking time-bomb. The US should also restrict Muslim immigrants from Canada and other Western countries too. Many of the immigrants, a large percent of who are fake refugees, support terrorism, and are a threat to the US. We must face Islamic fundamentalists and the Islamic threat head-on if our children are to live in safety.

David

The following article is written by one Mr. U. Mahesh Babu. It is titled "Gen Musharraf: How long can you fool the world?"

An Indian book Panchatantra is full of moral lessons, in the form of moral stories, which are relevant even to this day. One of the stories has a lesson for Gen Musharraf.

The story, in brief, is something like this: There was a lion, living in its den, which was severely bothered by a rat. The rat used to eat up his food and even his mane. With all its prowess and power, it was barely able to get rid of his tiny rival. So, one day it decided to call on its cousin a cat, which was known for catching and killing notorious rats. And, the day he met him, he said about its problem. As soon it understood the case, the cat swore on to bring a perfect end to its problem. However, when it turned to job the rat was too smart for the cat. For months, the culprit was far from being fixed. Still lion was happy because of the fear of the cat, the rat was no more bothering his mane and his food kept in the den. During those months, the lion with lavish foods was treating cat royally. At last, one fine day when rat came out of its hole it was captured and eaten up by its predator. But cat was now apprehensive. It said: ‘Oh! God, If lion comes to know about it, I will hardly be able to have the luxury that he has endowed upon me till date.’ Hence, with a fear of loosing the patronage of the lion, the cat never intimated the death of its culprit. But how long could the cat keep the lion under illusion? One fine day the lion was convinced that the rat was no longer in its abode, and from that day on it began showing off its colour by debarring its cousin of the luxuries. And thus the cat was ultimately starved to death.

So the said cat is Gen Musharraf, who had once swore to the United States of getting its culprit, the Saudi-born most wanted terrorist in the world—Osama bin Laden. It has now been over two years since any one in the world has seen the man over the video—if at all something suggests of his existence, it’s his voice over tape. Is it because Osama is having serious problem with his finances to buy a movie camera? It would indeed be insane to think that a mastermind who has sophisticated weaponry and the state-of-the-art terrorist training facility does not have this minute and petty equipment.

So the question, which arises finally, is: Where is Osama? The facts has it that Osama requires frequent dialysis and it is certain that if he lives in the mountains, the rigid conditions are certain to be lethal on his life. Should he endure, only thing that can save him is a reasonably luxurious treatment, which may be found only in Pakistan. So Indian intelligence officials are rightly pointing out ‘of rare chances of handing over Osama to Americans, or even declaring him dead’. This is because Osama is a passion target for Washington. It is certain that the day they have their prey, they would in no time restore democracy, overthrowing the military regime of the General. The condition of the General then would be like that of the poor cat, just narrated in the chronicle. But will he allow this to happen by himself? Certainly not!

Thus, Gen Musharraf: How long can you keep the world under illusion?

Let's stop fooling ourselves:

The Taliban chief, like all Kashmiri terrorist group chiefs are puppets of the ISI.

Unless the snake's head is dealt with, other outfits with other chiefs will continue popping up.

The US is helping to protect the snake head by backing Pakistan.

Fred

Do not take my comments as liberal minded; they were not intended to be. I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination unlike the majority of the residence of Europeistan and England.
The point I was trying to make is that many in the west continue to make the mistake of trying to befriend and appease the enemy. If we can just reason with them they will see that we are no threat and we can all go on our merry way. This is ridiculous of course. This type of appeasement has been going on for a very long time. I can think of Neville Chamberlain of WW2 and certainly our own Jimmy Carter as a relatively resent example.
We must first defeat the enemy.
Why in the world would anyone think that Osama bin Laden is anywhere else but in Pakistan and under the protection of Pervez Musharraf. He is probably in the Presidential Palace hiding out in the basement. Why the hell our government (the US) continues to appease him in light of his behavior escapes me. Keep your friends close and your enemy closer? Maybe, but enough is enough. I know, maybe the UN could give him a good listening to and Kofi Annan could wag his finger at him. Surely that would straighten him out.
Millions of Japanese dieing finally convinced them to change their nation’s course.
Japan is very quiet these days and content on making their economy work. Good for them.
In my view an object lesson with a similar outcome will be required to change the course in Pakistan/Afghanistan and the rest of the region. Unfortunately, I am pessimistic that the governments and people of the west no longer have the stomach for such politically incorrect and protracted campaigns.
The feminization of the west is almost complete.

Redhawk

What I was saying was that the MSM always concentrate on disasters while shouting - We are wrong! We are wrong! We are wrong!

I think the lesson of 1880 was that a well-organised force commanded by somebody who knew the country and people well, went in fast did the job and got out again just as fast. They did not mess about. I know things have changed politically and tactically but that sort of thing is worth remembering.

You are right that Afghanistan has always been pretty much ungovernable and a British officer said a hundred years ago “The Afghan tribes in have been killing each other for a 1000 years and all we do is make it more interesting”. Talk of "Bringing democracy to Afghanistan" makes about as much sense as sex education at a eunuchs convention.

It might amuse you to know that in 1880 the Emir was a described as “A fellow with a very shifty eye and a reputation for double-dealing” - even by Afghan standards. He first tried to talk the British out of invading but later said to Lord Roberts that “his life had been most miserable and he would rather become a grass cutter in the English camp than the ruler of Afghanistan”.

Also when the Taliban was overthrown a young Afghan woman was interviewed on a British chat show. Educated and wearing normal Western dress she said she had come to Britain on a holiday and a couple of years ago and been advised by her family not to return home. At the end of the interview the host quite innocently and brightly asked, “Now that the Taliban have gone are you going home?” The absolute panic on her face and in her voice as she told him “England is now my country” was something to behold. The best the embarrassed host could do was say “Well of course we are very lucky to have you”. Obviously Afghanistan is such a dump even educated Afghans don't want to live there.