Pakistan complains about RAW activity

[SMC]

I know its hard to believe that one's nation is running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. The problem is the "trail" that the "hounds" leave is actually a highway.

You have operated in Afghanistan, hence your comment is surprising. Maybe your buddies in the Paras, RM or sigint or can help you out over a couple of beers.

The US shys away from blaming Pak directly of assisting Taliban if to avoid confrontation and instigation, but once is a while a "Cheny" is sent to Islamabad for some armtwisting. One cannot have missed the outbursts from regional experts and US/NATO staff officers directly accusing Pakistan for supporting Taliabn. For instance....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1009/dailyUpdate.html

The person you're quoting is not related to Bush administration. So what you said is irrelevent in this case.

 

[EagleEyes]

Sword,

When you say "support", what exactly do you mean or the article means?

Is the article referring to the support as in making a peace deal?

 

[sword9]

Sword,

When you say "support", what exactly do you mean or the article means?
Is the article referring to the support as in making a peace deal?

Webby the article I posted just gives a general picture, I couldn't locate the ones that quoted the British/NATO generals directly blaming PA. I locate a reliable source and discuss that later.

About the "peace deal" - the less said the better. The deal was aimed to by time to deal with the Baloch situation, to shift troops and gunships there. You will agree that it gets very difficult and expensive financially and politically to have two hot spots in a nation.

The deal also aimed to shift elements of the Taliban towards the south, to act as a buffer zone, to prevent the Balochi ingress/ egress from any support that they get from the Afghan side.

Some analysts feel that the "peace-deal" was to please the Pak Army....(read below) http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370188

According to the renowned analyst Ahmed Rashid, "The Waziristan deal was to prevent dissention within the Pakistan Army—border guards dying, defecting. The deal was to satisfy the Army" (Center for Conflict and Peace Studies, Kabul, October 4). There were reports even in 2004 when the military operation began in the area maintaining that there were desertions from the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force led by serving army officers but whose ranks are mostly Pashtun; Pashtuns refused to fight Pashtuns, creating serious unrest. Consequently, at least one Pashtun major-general from the Orakzai tribe has prematurely retired, while more than a dozen colonels have had to be posted elsewhere. Recently, a well known senior police officer hailing from Waziristan has also put in his papers in protest.

The US raid in Khar, Waziristan that killed 80 militants, was also ment to the blow the lid of that "peace-deal"

 

[PakSniper]

These analysts can say what they want, UK and US also has peace deals in Afghanistan and at the same time being attacked, they just have to put their failures on someone else, we all knew their is no way they can stop the Taliban or AQ they may not be in charge but they still have supporters cause of NATOs failed policies, not enough investment is going in their and it's not in NATOs favor but Taliban who basically run the south. Let alone the killing of civilians, everytime they attacked they call in the AF to take care of the situation if they just stood and fought it would cause less damage rather than drop a bomb, recently a 2,000LB bomb was dropped wiping out a family what you expect Afghans coming to NATOs feet and kissing them, honestly these analysts are on crack.

 

[HASEEB66]

independent souces put RAW'S budget at 1000 million and ISI at 250 million...but India is more vulnerable to ISI aims..American administration believes Indian blames because of Israely lobby but at this time the situation is different..the g-8 refused to blame Pakistan for the mumbai blasts.

 

[Keysersoze]

I know its hard to believe that one's nation is running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. The problem is the "trail" that the "hounds" leave is actually a highway.

You have operated in Afghanistan, hence your comment is surprising. Maybe your buddies in the Paras, RM or sigint or can help you out over a couple of beers.

The US shys away from blaming Pak directly of assisting Taliban if to avoid confrontation and instigation, but once is a while a "Cheny" is sent to Islamabad for some armtwisting. One cannot have missed the outbursts from regional experts and US/NATO staff officers directly accusing Pakistan for supporting Taliabn. For instance....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1009/dailyUpdate.html

Sword with respect there is a world of difference between what the average sqauddie thinks and what the generals say. They know it could be much much harder for them. There are some complaints that they are not allowed to cross the border, and that Pak is not doing enough. But everyone knows that Musharraf is walking a tightrope and they will not push too hard because it will de-stabilise the country and create a even bigger mess for Western forces to get themselves out of.

If I could repeat what some of the guys I know have said you would be surprised. Unfortunately I can't repeat it........

 

[Keysersoze]

I have been reading your posts in the other thread about JF-17 and you have proved beyond doubt that you do your research and homework well.

Why dont you do some homework with respect to what i wrote here?

I thank you for your compliment. However please bear in mind my homework in this regard involves my whole unit and some good friends of mine.

 

[Bull]

Cause what you said was totally untrue. Only india and afghanistan actually say what you said in your earlier post. He has no homework to do. You a whole bunch to do in fact.

"The Pakistanis are actively supporting the Taliban," declared a Western diplomat in an interview in Kabul.

NATO officials and Western diplomats in Afghanistan have grown increasingly critical of Pakistan for allowing the Taliban leaders, commanders and soldiers to operate from their country,

NATO and American officials in Afghanistan say there is also evidence of support from current midlevel Pakistani intelligence officials

Gen. James L. Jones, then NATO's supreme commander, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Quetta remained the headquarters of the Taliban movement

President Musharraf has acknowledged that some retired Pakistani intelligence officials may still be involved in supporting their former protégés in the Taliban.

So says International Tribune

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/asia/web.0121pakistan.php?page=3

 

[Bull]

Cause what you said was totally untrue. Only india and afghanistan actually say what you said in your earlier post. He has no homework to do. You a whole bunch to do in fact.

Richards flew to Islamabad primarily to convince Musharraf to rein in his military intelligence service, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, which NATO leaders believe is training Taliban fighters to attack the alliance’s troops in Afghanistan. Richards was also expected to deliver the demand that key Taliban leaders living in Pakistan be arrested.
( Lieutenant-General David Richards is the British general commanding NATO troops in Afghanistan)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/mush-o16.shtml

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/06/wafghan06.xml

 

[Bull]

Cause what you said was totally untrue. Only india and afghanistan actually say what you said in your earlier post. He has no homework to do. You a whole bunch to do in fact.

Along with india and pakistan, Britain, US, Denmark, Canada and Holland and NATO agrees with what i says.

 

[Bull]

There are some complaints that they are not allowed to cross the border, and that Pak is not doing enough. But everyone knows that Musharraf is walking a tightrope and they will not push too hard because it will de-stabilise the country and create a even bigger mess for Western forces to get themselves out of.

i shall take the above statement as an acceptance of the fact that your soveriegn land is being used by talibans, but Mushraff is weak to deal with it sternly.

 

[kidwaibhai]

Musharraf is not weak. he is keeping his options open. He knows that NATO is not sending more troops to Afgahistan and if the americans leave then he wants there to be a back up. This my brother is called strategic thinking

 

[Bull]

Musharraf is not weak. he is keeping his options open. He knows that NATO is not sending more troops to Afgahistan and if the americans leave then he wants there to be a back up. This my brother is called strategic thinking

He meaning Mushraff, i guess he would be kicked out of power by then.

 

[Adux]

If anyone thinks, that mushraff would be allowed to undermine American and NATO work in Afghanistan, during their stay or after they leave, Then those people are having a Wetdream

 

[PakSniper]

If anyone thinks, that mushraff would be allowed to undermine American and NATO work in Afghanistan, during their stay or after they leave, Then those people are having a Wetdream

Even if Pakistan govt. doesn't undermine NATO and US, the local population will and Pakistan population what is US and NATO going to do? They can't do much if they provoke and do something in Pakistan they can only expect more trouble. They are stuck no way forward, they can't control the situation their, most of Afghan is under Taliban control, and people are switching alliance, because what was promised isn't being delivered, and also those civilian killings are also changing the people's mind, its a failed mission they can't win, even Ex-USSR generals who were handed their behind are saying what I'm saying. Their is a line when you believe what a Media and US officials say, and those of what USSR generals say, and I rather believe the generals.

The only people who are having a wet dreams are those so called democracy bringers, thinking they will have things under the lid.