Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency 'supports' Taliban: UK University

[ajpirzada]

NA is a terrorist organization. I don't think so.
But is it any better govt than Taliban. No.

NA is same in Afghanistan as the Taliban. But in order to kill Taliban, it was important that we supported NA.

NA is not a terrorist organization since it kept its influence in Afghanistan itself. They were the govt there. NA never tried to expand its influence beyond Afghanistan, whereas Taliban has a goal to spread Islam in the whole world force it down our throats, and their version of Islam.

But in no way am I supporting these groups because NA too like Taliban killed thousands to enforce their version of law.

well if that is the only reason then even afghan taliban are not terrorists as their leadership never expressed any desire to expand their influence outside afghanistan. unless you are confusing taliban with al qaeda.

 

[Aslan]

NA were a lot weaker than the Taliban. In fact NA were formed very late and it is comprised of different leaders of different ethnicity who never agreed on one thing.

Also the aid India and Russia could manage was very low since India and Russia both were going through economic crisis in 90s and Russia had broken down.

This is what the BBC article had mentioned along with many things, but lets stick to the point of debate!




However, Delhi has been working hard to develop its ties with the new Afghan regime following the overthrow of the Taleban in 2001.

It moved swiftly to establish diplomatic posts in the country, hoping to counter the influence of its long-standing rival, Pakistan.

Indeed, land-locked Afghanistan placed strategically between Central and South Asia has long been a backdrop for a Cold War-style Great Game between the two nuclear neighbours.

For much of the past two decades, India has been wrong-footed in its Afghan policy.

In 1979, it was one of the few countries to support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - a decision which made the country vastly unpopular in that country.

A decade later, it continued to back the Communist-regime of President Najibullah, while Pakistan threw its entire support behind the ethnic Pashtun mujahideen warlords, particularly the Islamist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

When the Taleban swept to power, India had no presence or influence left in the country.

It countered Pakistan by strongly backing the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance, which controlled the narrow sliver of Afghan territory north of the Shomali plains.

Much of Indian support flowed in through Tajikistan, where it established a massive and influential embassy.

There are many suggestions that this is the route through which it also sent military hardware and other supplies to the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Masood.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | India renews historic Afghan ties

The author is an indian and even he admits that the military hardware was flowing into Afghanistan, via Tajikistan from the indian embassy there. So now from that we can also take it that if you can do it one you are doing it again, in this case smuggling weapons into Pakistan.

 

[T-Faz]

NA is a terrorist organization. I don't think so.
But is it any better govt than Taliban. No.

NA is same in Afghanistan as the Taliban. But in order to kill Taliban, it was important that we supported NA.

NA is not a terrorist organization since it kept its influence in Afghanistan itself. They were the govt there. NA never tried to expand its influence beyond Afghanistan, whereas Taliban has a goal to spread Islam in the whole world force it down our throats, and their version of Islam.

But in no way am I supporting these groups because NA too like Taliban killed thousands to enforce their version of law.

US and others would beg to differ with you assertion that 'Taliban has a goal to spread Islam in the whole world force it down our throats'.

He notes that many US diplomats “saw them as messianic do-gooders—like born-again Christians from the American Bible Belt.” [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 326]

Even many articles in the last few months have pointed it out that Taliban do not have any aggressive Islamic hegemonic intentions. This is why they are trying to open channels of talk with them, so is your government.

 

[Awesome]

Yes, 9/11 was the turning point after which US started supporting NA. But they still did a commendable job, since they had lost everything in 1996, and Taliban was being supported by Pakistan. NA were fighting a losing war.

The Taliban were aided due to the fact that they weren't anti-Pakistan. Previous governments in Afghanistan had sent in Migs and fired scuds into Pakistan. That all changed after 9/11, when they supported global terrorism and Pakistan did not support them any more.

Pakistans' support even before then was food and oil and looking the other way while tribal folks participated from our region in their fight against the NA

From the point we have severed ties when we expelled Zarawi, there is no demonstrable evidence with ANY body that there is any such support to the Taliban from Pakistan.

All these crazy stories come from the fact that Pakistan has not attacked the NW Taliban and these are mere speculations on the part of the western imagination as to why that is so. Pakistan's simple answer has been, we are engaged elsewhere and the fight cannot be expanded.

Moreover the western argument always falls flat since the NW Waziristan Taliban is only a small part of the big Taliban problem. 70% of all of Afghanistan is under Taliban control, compared to a small region the size of North Waziristan. So Pakistan has good reason to address its own concerns first, while Nato fixes its issues with that 70% of Afghanistan.

 

[jagjitnatt]

well if that is the only reason then even afghan taliban are not terrorists as their leadership never expressed any desire to expand their influence outside afghanistan. unless you are confusing taliban with al qaeda.

Taliban and Al Qaeda are different organizations but most of the leaders of Taliban and Alqaeda have switched organizations. AlQaeda sent its men to Taliban when Taliban needed them in the 90s. Later Taliban gave them refuge in Afghanistan when Bin Laden was thrown out of Sudan.

So they may be different organizations but they are very close and help each other out. It was because of the Taliban that Osama reached this level of power.

 

[Aslan]

Taliban and Al Qaeda are different organizations but most of the leaders of Taliban and Alqaeda have switched organizations. AlQaeda sent its men to Taliban when Taliban needed them in the 90s. Later Taliban gave them refuge in Afghanistan when Bin Laden was thrown out of Sudan.

So they may be different organizations but they are very close and help each other out. It was because of the Taliban that Osama reached this level of power.

And that is your historical knowledge of things. And yet you carry on arguing.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Much of Indian support flowed in through Tajikistan, where it established a massive and influential embassy.

This has been discussed on the previous page.

US and others would beg to differ with you assertion that 'Taliban has a goal to spread Islam in the whole world force it down our throats'.

Even many articles in the last few months have pointed it out that Taliban do not have any aggressive Islamic hegemonic intentions. This is why they are trying to open channels of talk with them, so is your government.

If influence of Islam over the world is not what they want to see, then why was it forcing Sharia in Pakistan?

MOD EDIT

 

[T-Faz]

US old trick, cannot get what you want, threaten the country with media propaganda campaign.

July 4, 1999: During Regional Crisis, Clinton Threatens to Publicly Expose Pakistan’s

In early May 1999, the Pakistani army, at the instigation of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, seizes a strategic height called Kargil in the Indian province of Kashmir. This creates a grave crisis between Pakistan in India. By early July, the CIA picks up intelligence that Pakistan is preparing to launch nuclear missiles against India if necessary. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif comes to the US on July 4 to meet with President Clinton about this. Clinton is livid and yells at Sharif for breaking promises, not only about Kashmir but also about failing to help with bin Laden. According to notes taken at the meeting, Clinton says he had “asked repeatedly for Pakistani help to bring Osama bin Laden to justice… [Sharif] promised often to do so but had done nothing. Instead, the ISI worked with bin Laden and the Taliban to foment terrorists.” Clinton threatens to release a statement calling worldwide attention to Pakistan’s support for terrorists. He adds, “You’ve put me in the middle today, set the US up to fail, and I won’t let it happen. Pakistani is messing with nuclear war.” Sharif backs down and immediately withdraws his troops from Kargil, ending the crisis. But as a result, Sharif becomes deeply unpopular in Pakistan. A few months later he will be ousted in a coup by Musharraf (see October 12, 1999), the general who started the crisis in the first place. [COLL, 2004, PP. 476-478]

Trust me, our Army has the guts to go full circle with any problems that we may have.

 

[Aslan]

@ jagjitnatt This has been discussed on the previous page.

Its relevant to the discussion so there is nothing wrong in mentioning that. And also Can you provide me with the post number that you had talked about that on.

If influence of Islam over the world is not what they want to see, then why was it forcing Sharia in Pakistan?

Which Talibans are you talking about now.

MOD EDIT

 

[jagjitnatt]

US old trick, cannot get what you want, threaten the country with media propaganda campaign.

Clinton threatens to release a statement calling worldwide attention to Pakistan’s support for terrorists.

Trust me, our Army has the guts to go full circle with any problems that we may have.

Yes, US is too powerful a friend for Pakistan.

Clinton threatened Sharif because he took false advantage of the situation, broke treaties with India regarding backing of troops during winter, and with US regarding use of nuclear missiles.

Musharraf sent in soldiers and mujahideen in Kargil. Sending mujahiddeen was a clear support to terrorism, not just support, the army was leading them, providing them with ammo, armor and logistics.

The war was initiated by Pak for no reason, why would have Clinton sided with Pak?

 

[ajpirzada]

Taliban and Al Qaeda are different organizations but most of the leaders of Taliban and Alqaeda have switched organizations. AlQaeda sent its men to Taliban when Taliban needed them in the 90s. Later Taliban gave them refuge in Afghanistan when Bin Laden was thrown out of Sudan.

So they may be different organizations but they are very close and help each other out. It was because of the Taliban that Osama reached this level of power.

well they have supported each other but never switched their seats. and about 9/11, well one can argue that mullah omar was willing to hand over OBL to any muslim country where he could be tried if there is any proof. furthermore they distanced themselves from AQ and rejecting their involvement in 9/11. they also agreed to cooperating if any evidence is shared. so technically they are different. but bec US had to do something to pacify their public and show the world their might, they attacked and hence brought AQ and Taliban together again. however their objectives and leadership structure is still independent from each other.

If influence of Islam over the world is not what they want to see, then why was it forcing Sharia in Pakistan?

well there is a distinction bw TTP and Afghan taliban who again have different power structure and objectives but cooperate with each other to some extent whenever there is a need.

 

[Aslan]

@ jagjitnatt This has been discussed on the previous page.

Its relevant to the discussion so there is nothing wrong in mentioning that. And also Can you provide me with the post number that you had talked about that on.

If influence of Islam over the world is not what they want to see, then why was it forcing Sharia in Pakistan?

Which Talibans are you talking about now.

These religiously inspired terrorist groups are so much against the Christians and the Jews, and somewhat against Hindus too. If spread of Islam is not their motive, then destruction of above mentioned religions surely is.

And now you have taken the discussion off topic, the same can be said about the hindu fanatics who burned christians alive in india. Stick the topic, if you cant put on a debate related to the topic then dont bother.

And what you have been defending since morning as credible. So why take them for their word, when they are trying so hard to destroy you.

MOD EDIT

 

[T-Faz]

Yes, US is too powerful a friend for Pakistan.

Clinton threatened Sharif because he took false advantage of the situation, broke treaties with India regarding backing of troops during winter, and with US regarding use of nuclear missiles.

Musharraf sent in soldiers and mujahideen in Kargil. Sending mujahiddeen was a clear support to terrorism, not just support, the army was leading them, providing them with ammo, armor and logistics.

The war was initiated by Pak for no reason, why would have Clinton sided with Pak?

Because we handed them the Soviets in a platter, because USA did not have a problem using the same tactics and groups for its goals.

When they and your country can use the same tactics, it becomes valid for others to utilize the same.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Can you provide me with the post number that you had talked about that on.

Come on its just a page away. Post 176 onwards.

Which Talibans are you talking about now.

Please read the whole thread. Asim's posts would answer your question.

And now you have taken the discussion off topic, the same can be said about the hindu fanatics who burned christians alive in india. Stick the topic, if you cant put on a debate related to the topic then dont bother.

MOD EDIT

 

[Aslan]

Come on its just a page away. Post 176 onwards.

Please read the whole thread. Asim's posts would answer your question.



This is not going offtopic. There is a difference between a riot and hatred so much that you wage a war against the religion. Listen to any speech of a Talibani leader and you'll understand, when they swear to wipe off jews and christians off the face of the earth

I have followed the whole thread since morning and read every thing written in it. So my questions stands why do you take them for their word if they are out there to destroy you. And yes there is a difference in riots and waging a war based on haterade.

MOD EDIT