Well, more aid ought to fix that right up, eh? More on this story. "Pakistan spy agency controls the Taliban and plans attacks," by Rob Crilly for the Telegraph, June 13:
Pakistan's intelligence services are supporting the Taliban with training, cash and sanctuary on a larger scale than previously thought as they battle Nato forces in Afghanistan, according to a survey of insurgent commanders.
The study also claims that President Asif Ali Zardari made a secret visit to Taliban prisoners in a Pakistani prison to arrange their release earlier this year.
It adds fresh evidence to long standing concerns that the country's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency retains ties to Afghan insurgents they first backed during their battle against Soviet occupation in the 1980s. It also suggests the policy is sanctioned within the highest levels of government.
The Pakistani military dismissed the report as "rubbish".
However, Matt Waldman, a Harvard researcher whose research is published by the London School of Economics, said there was extensive collaboration between the ISI and the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar, as well as a second faction, the Haqqani network.
He drew his conclusions from interviews with nine Taliban field commanders in Afghanistan who said ISI agents were working closely with the groups.
"According to both Taliban and Haqqani commanders, it controls the most violent insurgent units, some of which appear to be based in Pakistan," he wrote.
"Insurgent commanders confirmed that the ISI are even represented, as participants or observers, on the Taliban supreme leadership council, known as the Quetta Shura, and the Haqqani command council." [...]
Mr Waldman said Pakistan's activities were focused on building "strategic depth" in Afghanistan, part of a policy to gain influence and deny Islamabad's rival India a foothold on its eastern flank if US forces leave.
He said the strategy had support at the highest level, and detailed a visit made by President Zardari to a secret prison where he addressed 50 high-ranking Taliban captives.
"Reportedly, he told them they were arrested because he was under a lot of pressure from the Americans and that, 'you are our people, we are friends, and after your release we will of course support you to do your operations.'...
More damning information: "ISI 'officially' supporting Taliban: Report," from Asia News International, June 13:
[...] The report, which is based on several interviews and is backed by two top western security officials, said supporting the Taliban was the 'official' strategy of the ISI, and that 'Pakistan appears to be playing a double game of astonishing magnitude in Afghanistan.'
"As the provider of sanctuary and substantial financial, military and logistical support to the insurgency, the ISI appears to have strong strategic and operational influence - reinforced by coercion. There is thus a strong case that the ISI orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign," the report said.
The 'magnitude' of ISI's support can be gauged from the fact that up to seven of the 15-man war council (shura) of the Taliban are said to be Pakistani intelligence agents.
Even the former head of Afghanistan's intelligence agency, Amrullah Saleh, who resigned last week after President Hamid Karzai questioned his loyalty, put a stamp on this nefarious strategy of Pakistan.
"The ISI is part of the landscape of destruction in this country, no doubt, so it will be a waste of time to provide evidence of ISI involvement. They are a part of it," The Times Online quoted Saleh, as saying.
The report prepared by Matt Waldman, a Harvard analyst, also claimed that even President Asif Ali Zardari was hand in gloves in the crime.
It said that Zardari had held a meeting with some of captured Taliban leaders and assured them that the insurgents have the full support of his 'democratic' government.
A senior Taliban source, who is in constant touch with the Taliban's Quetta shura, also confirmed that in early April Zardari and a senior ISI official met about 50 high-ranking Taliban members at a prison in Pakistan.
Sources revealed that the Taliban commanders were treated like state guests in Pakistani jails.
"Prison guards wearing dark glasses served the Taliban captives traditional Afghan meals three times a day. They wanted to make the prisoners feel like they were important and respected," sources said....
"Reportedly, he told them they were arrested because he was under a lot of pressure from the Americans and that, 'you are our people, we are friends, and after your release we will of course support you to do your operations.'...
I bet they all stood up and cheered that one...It's understandable that he would arrest them for the kufr enemy, and keep them locked up until some undisclosed time, when the enemy approves it, and then they will all be friends...
Uh huh...I bet if any one of those terrorist had a gun they would have shot him right there...It's the Islamic way...
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"
While Bush might've been a simpleton, his heart and morals were in the right place. We already know who Obama 'is with' (paraphrasing):
"If the political winds change in an ugly direction, I'll stand with the muslims."
A normal, sane, pro-freedom, pro-civilization president would be expanding the war and adding the ISI to the list of terrorist organizations that are marked for elimination, along with Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jamat-e-Islam and the thousands of other terrorist offshoots of this evil death cult.
A pro-terrorist, treasonous anti-American president would turn a blind eye on these dangerous, enemy groups and provide them funding while beating up on allies like Israel who are fighting the same types of enemies.
Only in America could you get hit with a major terrorist attack that kills 3000 people and then elect a president who is a member of the same religion as the attackers. Obama can deny all he wants but there's tons of evidence in his words and deeds which betray where his true sympathies lie.
Is anyone really surprised? All that jizya to Pakistan has come to nought!
All that jizya to Pakistan has come to nought!...
The greedy mohametans who accept this $ from the kuffar are viewed as selling their religion for a cheap price by their more pious "bretheren". The result is chaos and insane violence as seen in the daily news. Paradoxically, the aid given is destabilizing. We are getting something. Although I, nabi ZK (pbum), agree it's not much bang for the buck.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Just to be clear, we are getting chaos in Najistan. And that is a good thing. But this is hardly cost effective.
nabi ZK (pb&j)
It's not really news that the ISI is sympathetic to the Taliban. During the Soviet occupation, they were helping the US funnel money and weapons to the mujahideen. After the war they supported the Taliban so that they could have 'Strategic Depth' if attacked by India. The Taliban's hosting of Al-Qaeda backfired on them and Pakistan. Did the Paki's and the Taliban know about the attack ahead of time? There's some evidence that they didn't, that UBL and friends didn't tell them until the last minute. The smart move for them at this point would be to turn over UBL, Ayman al-Zawahiri, et.al. to the US. When the US pulls out, they'd be back in business.
I use to be quite angry when I thought about the Iraq war because like many others I thought that Bush and Cheney had lied to America about the WMD's and Iraq's link to Al-Qaeda. I read something recently though which ameliorated my dislike of Cheney. When Papa Bush went to war against Iraq, the CIA told him (and Cheney and others) that they had no WMD programs. They subsequently found out when the inspectors went thru the country that they did have Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear weapons programs. SO, when Bush 2 in in office and factions within the CIA are telling him and Cheney that there's no solid proof that they have WMD's, what's he to think except that - "Well, what if they are wrong again?" I'm not sure that's what happened, I still think that it was most probably just an oil war, but it would explain the decision to go to war in Iraq better than what we heard out of the Bushies after they couldn't find WMD's.
Another thought I had about Cheney and the neo-cons was that perhaps they were thinking ahead and realized that we would probably end up going to war in Pakistan and Iran too. In that case, having Iraq and Afghanistan already 'subdued' and our forces pre-positioned in those countries would facilitate our defeating Iran and Pakistan faster. If this was their train of thought, then they should be given accolades for strategic thinking.
Now, if we can only get the Indians to be on our side, then when the wider war erupts, which I fear it will, we will be in a better position to win.
[just some late night rambling thoughts.... :-P ]
Bush 2 stole the 2000 and 2004 election so he was never legal president 0f the united state government. The Prime Minister have no ploblen with the Talibtan in jail in Pakistan as they arenot going to america death camp step up by the illegality bush government in america still being run secertly without the current president knowing about then.