Baitullah Mehsud bites the dust, confirmed! :)

[Enigma SIG]

Baitullah Mehsud is alive, still holding command of Taliban fighters: Hakimullah Mehsud

Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, a coalition of various Taliban groups, has refuted the reports about killing of Taliban supremo Baitullah Mehsud in a drone strike. Hakimullah Mehsud, an influential Taliban commander while refuting the reports has said the Taliban will release a video of Baitullah Mehsud. He said Baitullah Mehsud was alive and still holding the command of Taliban fighters. He promised to release a recorded video of Mehsud within two to three days.

Baitullah Mehsud is alive, still holding command of Taliban fighters: Hakimullah Mehsud | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

Meh; I knew this would happen; Rehman malik has lost all credibility along with his marbles.

 

[Xeric]

hmm - seems to me that we are in agreement for the most part as you rightly point out the military is not immune to taliban sympathisers not unlike our political setup.

You mentioned that 'most of these rotten eggs' in the military have been caught. Does that mean some rotten eggs are still remaining? That was the key contention cited in my post.

Can you cite any examples of rotten eggs 'taken to task' within the Army over the last one year - say since Sep 2008?

Your main gripe seems to be that people like me focus on the military but fail to mention the pro-taliban politicians.

If you had read my earlier posts on various threads, you'd know I've clearly lambasted the Jamaat Islami for its pro-TTP/extremist stance as the party has simply become a mouthpiece for the taliban extremists and their salafi paymasters.

Hope you feel better now.

Just a word play BS and nothing else, you are deliberately making a stooge of yourself.
Doesnt merit a worthy reply; skipped!!

 

[Awesome]

India has much much more to gain from a stable confident and prosperous Pakistan than to have an area on it's western border run by warlords, following archiac way of life...

And not only Pakistan, it would help India much more to have stable confident and prosperous Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Afghanistan... than to help anyone take them back to stone age...

May be you should re-look at your perceptions.

Pakistan will never be run by warlords. That is not India's plan. India's plan is to keep Pakistan simmering and embroiled in conflict just to the point where there is a threat of Pakistan being run by warlords without it actually happening.

India has everything to lose with a prosperous Pakistan. Our military spending would increase and it is primarily India-centric.

 

[Developereo]

And not only Pakistan, it would help India much more to have stable confident and prosperous Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Afghanistan... than to help anyone take them back to stone age...

Actions speak louder than words.
Almost all of India's neighbors mistrust her and accuse her of meddling in their affairs.

 

[Xeric]

"One thing should be very clear and lucid to Predator owners that it is their mess that we are now cleaning in our country today."

I disagree and believe your army wasn't morally and physically prepared in late 2001-early 2002 to defend your western borders from an invasion by the ousted taliban gov't and its army.

What was this-a reply or just a slander?

BTW, we never faced any threat from the Western border till the 'liberators' landed in Afghanistan with all their gadgetry.

"They kick (though the kick equals a slap in strength) the bad guys there in Afghanistan and they run with their swollen azzez towards us (though only a very few of them)"

So you couldn't manage to keep "...only a very few..." from invading your country afterall in late 2001?

Yes we couldnt, say thanks to the drones!!

You killed innocents goofs who in turn were picked up by the ones who promised them to avenge the death of their beloved at the hands of american UCAVs!

And S-2 your are too from the military and you know it. You know very well how it works.

The foremost victory for any terrorist is to compel the opponent to use force, which you already did by invading Afghanistan and which we are also doing today. This not only commit a guud portion of ones military might in a fight which has no visible end but also help the terrorists in 'recruiting' supporters and sympathizers as collateral BS has to happen whenever an organized force would enter COIN!

You kill one bad guy with 20 other innocents and you get 40 terrorist supporters who are ready to eat you raw! And you know it sir, let's not play barbie!!!

"...and thereon they 'pollute' our youth by false motivations."

Again, "...only a very few..." corrupted your youth?

Worthless argument!!

i know you still have a hard time digesting the truth that only a very few cross over on our side!

Are you sure that the groundwork for such influence wasn't established by your national celebration of this taliban government-formerly recognized by only three nations, including Pakistan?

Let me correct you right here; you dont even know who the actual Talibans were!! In my humble opinion most of them are dead since long, only a few lurk behind who turned tides when the little Jesus was scared out of you on 9/11. i dont even consider the Taliban of today as Taliban, because they are not knowledge seekers-as the word translates.

Please try to differentiate between Al Qaeeda, Pakistani Talibans, Afghan Talibans fighting against Occupation and the dudes who (according to yanks) are protecting people like UBL!


BTW, yes Talibans (the real Talibans back in 80s) were beneficial for Pakistan. They were bad guys but they never fingered you or anybody else except that they kicked the Reds and the indians out of their land-both being acceptable and guud for Pakistan. BTW, it reminds me who made the Talibans?? Us or may be you..let me think...it's such a difficult question, isn't it? Again, sir let's stop playing barbie!!

Your national fawning over these curs made obvious to every kid in the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan what the quick path to the top was- become a taliban jihadist.

Classical Rant; skipped!

Not our fault...

Exactly, it's always their fault, they forgot that you the americans have been baptized with holy water! You cant do blunders (or may be they just happen)

"Moreover, this also gives an excuse to taliban hunters to spread their legs more than they own as they also claim that 'all' those who fled their assaults go to the 'safe heavens' inside Pakistan while they forget that the entire length of Afghanistan is available to the ones who flee the coalition attacks."

I'm certainly not one who has claimed all taliban left Afghanistan. Not so. We fight them daily in Afghanistan so, clearly, they are there. Certainly plenty, though-particularly those in planning, coordination, and leadership cells and many of their key commanders did leave. Further, without question many of those in Afghanistan will travel to Pakistan for medical support, often from Helmand to Karachi if need be. We know these things are partial to the definition of "sanctuary".

Now you changed your stance so blatantly that it made me laugh and then wonder about your credibility!

Yes they cross but then why would they cross when the arid Afghan terrain is at their disposal 24/7 as your Pet Karzai's govt and your own influences turns into ashes just outside Kabul!!

But nevertheless the spill over is there on our side from your side, i dont deny that.

Some reside in sanctuary permanently. Others temporarily as is the wont of battlefield combatants for rest, relaxation, re-arming, recruitment, and re-constitution. You know that, Xeric. You're a military man. That's why it's SANCTUARY.

Yes they reside, so what should be done, why dont you stop ranting, attacking with drones, and complaining and fence the god damn border, you have the resources i bet. Finish the fringing issue right there! Seal it! They wont cross here and then you can play barbie with them while keeping them on your side for ever! BTW, why do they slip away from watchful eyes of your military at the first place, why cant you just do something so that they dont escape, your military claims to be the most omnipotent kinda shyt on the planet!

"At least we our not occupying others territory while we liberate!"

How do you liberate without occupying others territory?

Just watch and you'll learn! We still have to go for Rah-e-Nijat!
i'll put you through an exam after the classes are over

Anyway, remember this-forty nations are there.

And yes these forty are being eating dust, oh may be not, you did get Mehsud, but no, he was not the prime target, so who was prime target, UBL or may Mullah Omer i guess.

They know what's going on too.

Well i'll reserve my comments, i dont want to under estimate great military machines for the sake of it.

Occupying? Get real.

Cant be more real.

i am surprised that now the yanks dont even like the definition of this word, wow, run people they are going to occupy more and say we just came to play base ball!

We're there for some damned good reasons.

Oh yes you sure are, no doubts about that.

We don't have an obsession with strategic depth...

Sorry for hurting you, but yes we are obsessed with this stone-age thinking, if that;s what you want to hear

...and that's a good thing because those possessing such have made the lives of these people in Afghanistan an utter hell.

And you have made Afghanistan a living paradise, not only Afghanistan but you have also made its neighbors heavens! The world sees that very clearly!

And still do by harboring their enemies.

Sorry but your President doesnt say that. Try to read his comments about the current operations. Sorry to wake you up, but let's keep pace with time.

There are enough polls available to show that, however increasingly less popular ISAF/America might be (and for some very good reasons), the taliban have nearly ZERO traction in Afghanistan (about 9% who "strongly" or "somewhat" support the taliban according to question #18 of the latest ABC/BBC/ARD poll in February 2009).

Duh..??!!

Kiddies here can toss around terms like "occupiers". Pros should know better. Your comment condemns too many other nations guilty of the same- none of whom you'd be correct to characterize as such.

Ah!!
Let me see the definition of occupier again!

Nope, it means the same and you perfectly fit in!

Do you differentiate between a "good" and "bad" taliban? It seems clear that you regret the afghan taliban's demise and celebrate their efforts to re-assert uni-lateral domination of Afghanistan on Pakistan's behalf.

Dont feed me BS!

You'll never get what you want me to say.

If so, I hope you understand that in riding the tiger, you'll be the first meal as there is NO DIFFERENCE. I'd think that the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan should be enough proof already.

Sir please try to get your facts, news and knowledge updated.

I'll close with this comment relative to that thought- if forty nations think that some nation needs occupation, there's a great chance that it's likely true. Afghanistan could use all the help it can get. Too bad that includes too little of the good and too much of the bad from Pakistan of all countries.

If we go by your understanding, then anybody who can muster forty men to refute a truth should also be allowed to take decisions at will, irrespective of what the fact says.

Anyway, thanks.

Anywaz, thanks.


S-2 you know what, you are not bad, but you think bad ?

 

[pakomar]

Well, thank God we silenced him in time.

That's a relief.

Buried the evidence underground for how he was supported by CIA and raw.

 

[pakomar]

Why would the USA support the TTP? Yo do realize that the US is fighting the same enemies as us in Afghanistan, right? Try not to listen to conspiracy theories so much next time.

During afghan Russia war most of the fighters goes from Pakistan to Afghanistan. TTP was supported by US to busy them in side Pakistan.

 

[XYON]

India has much much more to gain from a stable confident and prosperous Pakistan than to have an area on it's western border run by warlords, following archiac way of life...

And not only Pakistan, it would help India much more to have stable confident and prosperous Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Afghanistan... than to help anyone take them back to stone age...

May be you should re-look at your perceptions.

Right!! All the regional countries you have named above have currently long-standing disputes with India. Pakistan has dispute with only one regional country....India! So who is the regional BULLY here? Maybe its your Indian perception that needs changing!

 

[afriend]

Pakistan will never be run by warlords. That is not India's plan. India's plan is to keep Pakistan simmering and embroiled in conflict just to the point where there is a threat of Pakistan being run by warlords without it actually happening.

India has everything to lose with a prosperous Pakistan. Our military spending would increase and it is primarily India-centric.

You have got a very valid point here. India would want a pakistan which is peaceful and have strong state with concrete policy in terms of extrimism an any form of terror or a pakistan which is embroiled in problems.

Well the issue is, how well can Pakistan can understand the need for a strong state policy with zero tolerance for terrorism. As long as people are comfortable with terrorism which don't affect them, Pakistan cannot have a strong democracy. Either you support or you don't. And if secularism is not your objective and everything is based on religion its very hard to achieve. You can divert this extremist feelings to elsewhere, but unless and until you can curb them i feel this war is far from over.

If you curb extremism i am sure, more and more people will be involved in nation building rather than fight for frivolous issues.

Lets see how things pan out in future.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

What 40 nations is he talking about---all 39 are lackies---black-mailed--cajoled--forced into supporting---in the early days when france didnot support them---there was talk of trade sanctions with france----stop buying french wines---it put a big hurt to france. Any country who opposed them for any instance---there was a threat of big hurt coming from their un-loving uncle.

A puny little nation---a stone age people---could end up putting such a big hurt to the master of his planet---THE U S CANNOT BEAR THE SHAME OF RETREATING FROM AFGHANISTAN AS IT ADDS ANOTHER FEATHER OF DISMAL FAILURE IN THE CROWN.

It is such a shame---that a nation that gives all to one and sundry without prejudice and with open arms, can commit such blatant millitary blunders of such massive proportions---religious zealotary have destroyed many a mankind.

 

[Rafael]

Baitullah Mehsud is alive, still holding command of Taliban fighters: Hakimullah Mehsud

Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, a coalition of various Taliban groups, has refuted the reports about killing of Taliban supremo Baitullah Mehsud in a drone strike. Hakimullah Mehsud, an influential Taliban commander while refuting the reports has said the Taliban will release a video of Baitullah Mehsud. He said Baitullah Mehsud was alive and still holding the command of Taliban fighters. He promised to release a recorded video of Mehsud within two to three days.

Baitullah Mehsud is alive, still holding command of Taliban fighters: Hakimullah Mehsud | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

Hakimullah Mehsud killed in armed clash: sources

Updated at: 2120 PST, Saturday, August 08, 2009
SOUTH WAZIRISTAN: Spokesman of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan Hakimullah Mehsud and another Taliban leader Wali-ur-Rehman have been killed in an armed clash erupted during the Tehreek’s Shura meeting, Geo TV reported Saturday.

At the meeting Hakimullah Mehsud was appointed as TTP Chief after the reported killing of Baitullah Mehsud, the state media reported.

The agenda of the meeting was to appoint successor of Baitullah Mehsud, sources said.

Hakimullah Mehsud killed in armed clash: sources - GEO.tv


Baitullah-Hakimullah

 

[polyglot]

Right!! All the regional countries you have named above have currently long-standing disputes with India. Pakistan has dispute with only one regional country....India! So who is the regional BULLY here? Maybe its your Indian perception that needs changing!

Many Afghans would beg to differ. So 2 out of 3 isnt that bad for Pakistan and the iranians aren't your best chums either. (I am discounting China because you and chinese barely share a boundary)

While I haven't verified each case, most countries in Asia have disputes(mainly boundary disputes) with their neighbors. Very rarely are neighboring countries are best of pals like US and Canada. Infact your great ally China has more disputes than India. By your definition, China is a greater bully than India?

 

[Xeric]

Hi,

What 40 nations is he talking about---all 39 are lackies---black-mailed--cajoled--forced into supporting---in the early days when france didnot support them---there was talk of trade sanctions with france----stop buying french wines---it put a big hurt to france. Any country who opposed them for any instance---there was a threat of big hurt coming from their un-loving uncle.

A puny little nation---a stone age people---could end up putting such a big hurt to the master of his planet---THE U S CANNOT BEAR THE SHAME OF RETREATING FROM AFGHANISTAN AS IT ADDS ANOTHER FEATHER OF DISMAL FAILURE IN THE CROWN.

It is such a shame---that a nation that gives all to one and sundry without prejudice and with open arms, can commit such blatant millitary blunders of such massive proportions---religious zealotary have destroyed many a mankind.

Perfectly worded!

Just to add; the US leads the invasion and at times the '40 nations' have shown reluctance while they followed blindly. Forcing others to follow the suite doesnt exactly means that they actually supports the cause.

BTW, NATO and the Coalition of the Willing made the US think that they were having the popular stuff!! Strange blindness!

 

[alirulesall123]

During afghan Russia war most of the fighters goes from Pakistan to Afghanistan. TTP was supported by US to busy them in side Pakistan.

Keyword "was". And even that was True,( Which it isn't) why would they support militants to attack Pakistan? Pakistan was their ally at the time, and they needed us to train "mujahideen" to attack the Soviets in Russia.

That's like if the USA trained French Guerilla fighters to attack the British during D-Day

 

[S-2]

"I disagree and believe your army wasn't morally and physically prepared in late 2001-early 2002 to defend your western borders from an invasion by the ousted taliban gov't and its army." S-2

"What was this-a reply or just a slander?"

You contend that your troubles in Pakistan are the result of our "mess". Hardly. You are the ultimate arbiter of who crosses your borders- ALL of your borders, to include your western borders.

Either you were invaded successfully by the tattered remnants of the afghan taliban army, its wounded, and it's core governmental leaders...

...or you accepted them.

One or the other. How else can their presence be explained?

"BTW, we never faced any threat from the Western border till the 'liberators' landed in Afghanistan with all their gadgetry."

Of course not. That was a taliban government sponsored and mentored by your ISI. How could such be a threat? All the more reason to suspect that your lands weren't invaded by these tattered remnants.

They were offered sanctuary to reconstitute and eventually return. So they have.

"The foremost victory for any terrorist is to compel the opponent to use force, which you already did by invading Afghanistan and which we are also doing today."

Odd, isn't it, that this war to date has produced 20-30,000 afghan dead over an eight year period? Particularly when the afghan civil war to unseat Rabbani cost 200,000 thanks to assistance from the likes of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. (among notable others) and that the Afghan-Soviet war killed anywhere between 900,000 and 3,000,000.

"You kill one bad guy with 20 other innocents and you get 40 terrorist supporters who are ready to eat you raw!"

But, because of your overall excellence, never, ever experience such for yourselves? Further if so, not with the level of callousness and casual brutality with which we deliver tragedy? I see.

Well, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I personally think that my military has paid great heed to such given the penchant of so many here and elsewhere to exclaim of our "overwhelming firepower".

The casualties suggest a marked change from Afghanistan's two previous conflicts. Further, we know that most are the product of the taliban...

...or at least the U.N. and HRW do. That must be factored. Finally, we're all aware that, however successful or not, we must improve. Clearly, it was specific orders from McChrystal to his field commanders that were issued only recently.

Our use of violence is about as measured as a force of our capability has ever exercised and challenge you to show the same or better when/if you enter the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan anytime soon.

Good luck.

"i know you still have a hard time digesting the truth that only a very few cross over on our side!"

Indeed. A very, very hard time.

"Let me correct you right here; you dont even know who the actual Talibans were!!"

You've no reason to write that. Of course I do. They arose out of Oruzgan and Kandahar in about 1994 led by Omar and a few others who had battle experience in the mujahideen and wished to restore order amidst the civil war.

They were spontaneous and initially well-received. Your ISI pulled its favor from Hekmatyar and tossed it behind a winner...

...and so it was in 1996 when they seized power but were recognized by only KSA, UAE, and yourselves.

"In my humble opinion most of them are dead since long..."

If killed in battle by us. Certainly not by you. Omar has been assiduous in controlling his forces and refugee camps on your land. No trouble whatsoever. He knows not to rock the boat and who's buttering his bread.

There's no reason to think young men in 1993 aren't capable of being mature leaders now. They've gone nowhere and added youngsters to the fold.

"...only a few lurk behind who turned tides when the little Jesus was scared out of you on 9/11."

I don't make light of terror in Pakistan. Are you being intentionally crude about 3,000 citizens and residents of America dying in the space of two hours?

"Please try to differentiate between Al Qaeeda, Pakistani Talibans, Afghan Talibans fighting against Occupation and the dudes who (according to yanks) are protecting people like UBL!"

I have no need to differentiate such. My eyes are open and recognize the heinous nature of all these men as fundamentally the same. I've no tolerance for such.

You, of course, are accustomed to using some of the aforementioned groups to serve your own narrow purposes. You are well aware of the misery the afghan taliban inflicted upon their own people but can easily accomodate such.

Yet these are the same charismatic men who infected your own susceptible youth when you permitted taliban residency on your lands in late 2001. Their message is the same and you've seen the remarkable symmetry between the suffering in SWAT, Bajaur, and Buner as was experienced in Afghanistan both past and present.

Unacceptable to believe, therefore, that those other forty countries who can't evidently see your truth can somehow endorse your "mentorship" of the afghan people.

Xeric, let's be fair here. Pakistan doesn't give a whit about the afghan people and only care about the pashtu so far as they can deflect pashtu nationalist aspirations onto hazara, tajik, uzbek, and turkic lands in Afghanistan and AWAY from the Punjabi heartland. If doing so allows Pakistan to diminish Indian influence as tajik and Uzbek influence is also diminished-

all the better, thus avoiding ANY remote chance that Pakistan shall find the Indian army encamped on your western borders.

Not that such would ever happen. Just a nice rationale to keep Afghanistan as your personal playbox.

Well, at least it's clear that you're a supporter of the afghan insurgency and a serving officer in your army. The sentiment is still clearly there as I highly doubt your views are isolated.

In fact, I'd suspect that those notions pre-dominate your officer corps still and are still part of your operational calculus.

"Us or may be you..let me think...it's such a difficult question, isn't it?"

Not for me. We didn't have a damned thing to do with them. You did, though. We didn't recognize them. You did though.

And you accuse America of creating these guys long (1993) after we were gone? Your baby all the way and you reap the dubious benefits now.

"Exactly, it's always their fault, they forgot that you the americans have been baptized with holy water! You cant do blunders (or may be they just happen)"

Now you rant. We blunder often. Few work as hard at uncovering blunders and bringing them to light. Perhaps you've been following the story of the battle of Wanat. If not, do so. But if you do, understand that investigating our mistakes isn't uncommon. Afterall, we did conduct a review of our afghan operations. Petraeus did the same in Iraq in 2007.

We don't stand still nor ignore matters which can be improved, IMHO.

"Now you changed your stance so blatantly that it made me laugh and then wonder about your credibility!"

I don't find where you could be confused? Please show me any post where I've said that the taliban don't exist in Afghanistan? I know that Agnostic muslim and I clearly discussed the fact that many mid and lower tier taliban soldiers remained in Afghanistan in late 2001 and simply returned to their neighborhoods to await reactivation and new instructions from their masters in Quetta.

"Yes they cross but then why would they cross when the arid Afghan terrain is at their disposal 24/7..."

Oh boy! Clearly you jest or don't understand the need for resupply, medical treatment, meetings with a command leadership, escorting opium to Pakistan, etc.

"as your Pet Karzai's govt and your own influences turns into ashes just outside Kabul!!"

Well, Pakistan certainly knows how to control its own lands so I suppose your criticism of ISAF/ANA control is justified.

Further, with a shining example of pristine governance offered by your civilian leadership and civil administration, the control and acumen of Karzai's government certainly pales.

Of course, they've been doing this for eight years. I think you'd be aware of the hurdles they faced even without a raging insurgency directed from your lands. That's certainly been a monkey-wrench in the works.

"Yes they reside, so what should be done..."

Thank you for admitting as much. What would you advise be done for these afghan taliban leaders and their minions on your lands?

"...why dont you stop ranting, attacking with drones, and complaining and fence the god damn border, you have the resources i bet."

As do you but it's not the correct answer. First, it's not practical. As a military man you know that any obstacle must be covered by direct, all-weather observation 24/7 and, at a minimum, pre-planned artillery fires if not direct fires. That's a lot of border because no obstacle is insurmountable.

Mine the length without such and you'll find your roads mined by the largesse left for the picking.

Secondly, it would be culturally destructive to the pashtu tribes as well as being a visible symbol of the nature of afghan-Pakistan relations.

I don't like it and find it not feasible myself.

"...why cant you just do something so that they dont escape, your military claims to be the most omnipotent kinda shyt on the planet!"

Really? That from an officer of artillery? We claim nothing in such terms.

"i'll put you through an exam after the classes are over"

Somewhat arrogant from an officer who's discussing the reclamation of your own lands. After all, maybe America can teach you a thing or two about keeping war off your lands and doing battle elsewhere. It can be beneficial, if wars must be fought, for your own population. That's always a good idea IMV.

"And yes these forty are being eating dust, oh may be not, you did get Mehsud, but no, he was not the prime target, so who was prime target, UBL or may Mullah Omer i guess."

Disparage as you will. Those are forty nations who form their own views of matters and are affected by your choice to interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. How you value their perspectives is your affair.

"Sorry for hurting you, but yes we are obsessed with this stone-age thinking, if that;s what you want to hear..."

Saddens me, actually. You can't afford to believe that you've the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. You've done a piss-poor job of marketing your value to a stable and safe Afghanistan, sponsoring one of the most heinous regimes of modern history...

...and wish to do the same again.

Eventually, this ambition will prove impossible for others to ignore and will need to be addressed directly and firmly. I can only hope that those like yourself either recognize the futility of such ambitions or are eventually over-ruled by more sensible and accomodating perspectives.

India has earned nothing but praise by its work in Afghanistan, as near as I can tell. Nobody seems to see that which Pakistan claims. Repeatedly. Moreover, it's clear to most that your ISPR, Ministry of Interior, and ISI are engaged in a propaganda campaign of dissemblance and equivocation to justify your continued involvement in Afghanistan.

"And you have made Afghanistan a living paradise, not only Afghanistan but you have also made its neighbors heavens! The world sees that very clearly!"

Actually, what's clear to most, as it was during the Soviet-Afghan war, is that this insurgency holds no traction in Afghanistan without external sanctuary offered by Pakistan. Never re-constituted to begin with and not sustainable to boot.

Plain as day.

"Sorry but your President doesnt say that. Try to read his comments about the current operations. Sorry to wake you up, but let's keep pace with time."

Try providing them that I may read them in context and understand exactly to what you refer. Can you do so because I've got comments galore from Holbrooke, Gates, and Mullen referencing the Quetta shura just from this year.

"You'll never get what you want me to say."

Yes I have-

"Yes they reside, so what should be done..."

Crystalline and EXACTLY what I expected to read.

"If we go by your understanding, then anybody who can muster forty men to refute a truth should also be allowed to take decisions at will, irrespective of what the fact says."

Could be true but here there's sufficient questions about Pakistan's version of the "truth" to justify the presence of all these nations despite your wishes.

Get it?

These other nations know you'd prefer them to not be in Afghanistan, have considered your requests and the rationales behind such, and have decided that your vision of Afghanistan as a permanently retarded ward of yourselves isn't viable and actually quite dangerous to the rest of us.

Rejected.

Thanks.