US & NATO Behind Rabbani Assassination?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The killing of Rabbani is eerily similar to that of Ahmad Shah Massoud which was carried out by Al-Qaeda and even then the Taliban issued a "no comment" response. The biggest losers from any peace deal in the region is Al-Qaeda, these foreign fighters are simply not part of any talks. All these talks of US+NATO being involved is just another crazy conspiracy theory. The Talibans should announce their position for the sake of Afghan interests or maybe it's foolish to expect that from these "holy warriors" as they would never point finger at their "arab brothers" even if it means ethnic tension and no peace in their country.

The thing is, the Taliban don't trust the US anymore than the US trusts the Taliban, and therefore 'the enemy of my enemy (AQ in this case) is my friend', as far as the Taliban are concerned. Until we see progress in peace negotiations and some sort of rough roadmap for political reconciliation involving the Taliban, I doubt there will be any overt or tangible rejection of AQ and/or associated groups by them, though the rhetoric is already there that the Taliban (not the TTP) are only interested in 'liberating Afghanistan', and not interested in 'attacking the West'.

 

[VCheng]

What can help is people like you also joining the effort to get the US to see the 'error of its ways' - if these policies have failed for ten years, they are not going to succeed because a few hundred rag tag militia men based in NW are disposed of.

The attack on the embassy did not 'set back Afghanistan', the 'truck bombing' did not set back Afghanistan - a decade of flawed policies by the US are behind the current impasse. The only way to improve things is to change the one constant over the past ten years, which is US policy.

Trust me AM, i am trying as best as I can, but to be fair, "error of its ways" is on BOTH sides, and in some aspects, clearly greater on the Pakistani side.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Or is it because several attacks on the US, from the first WTC bombing to the attempted Times Square bombing by a GC holding son of an AVM, all had their origins in that area, with the active participation of the ISI?

Don't see how you can be so flippant about throwing in 'participation of the ISI' in there - in essence you are replicating the distorted thought process and conspiratorial mindset of the US Establishement that Muse referred to - of concocting an imaginary enemy and bogeyman in the ISI.

And Pakistan was also responsible for capturing and deporting Ramzi Yousuf and Aimal Kasi, not to mention the subsequent hundreds of operationally important AQ HVT's and members, KSM, Libbi etc.

Further, if the problem does not correct itself, which it won't, unless something changes, who has the most to lose, given where we are presently?

A continuation of the current failed US policies in Afghanistan puts Pakistan at risk of continuing to be the nation with 'the most to lose', especially with the direction the US has now taken.

I don't see the US retracting its allegations and propaganda and apologizing, and for Pakistan to capitulate now to the US would only make it a bigger loser than if it were to invite US sanctions and whatnot, given that Pakistani capitulation is unlikely to change the direction of US policy in Afghanistan.

 

[muse]

Or is it because several attacks on the US, from the first WTC bombing to the attempted Times Square bombing by a GC holding son of an AVM, all had their origins in that area, with the active participation of the ISI?

Further, if the problem does not correct itself, which it won't, unless something changes, who has the most to lose, given where we are presently?

VC

Who has the most to lose?? Well you are a better judge of that - all I can ask you is where will the US go if expelled from Afghanistan??????????

 

[VCheng]

Don't see how you can be so flippant about throwing in 'participation of the ISI' in there - in essence you are replicating the distorted thought process and conspiratorial mindset of the US Establishement that Muse referred to - of concocting an imaginary enemy and bogeyman in the ISI.

My fear is that, well all is said and done, my comment (not made flippantly BTW) about the ISI will have been shown to be more fact than not.

And Pakistan was also responsible for capturing and deporting Ramzi Yousuf and Aimal Kasi, not to mention the subsequent hundreds of operationally important AQ HVT's and members, KSM, Libbi etc.

Yes, there is no denying the value of those contributions, which must be acknowledged.

A continuation of the current failed US policies in Afghanistan puts Pakistan at risk of continuing to be the nation with 'the most to lose', especially with the direction the US has now taken.

I don't see the US retracting its allegations and propaganda and apologizing, and for Pakistan to capitulate now to the US would only make it a bigger loser than if it were to invite US sanctions and whatnot, given that Pakistani capitulation is unlikely to change the direction of US policy in Afghanistan.

So am I correct in understanding that you are saying that Pakistan is on the losing end in either case?

 

[President Camacho]

The thing is, the Taliban don't trust the US anymore than the US trusts the Taliban, and therefore 'the enemy of my enemy (AQ in this case) is my friend', as far as the Taliban are concerned. Until we see progress in peace negotiations and some sort of rough roadmap for political reconciliation involving the Taliban, I doubt there will be any overt or tangible rejection of AQ and/or associated groups by them, though the rhetoric is already there that the Taliban (not the TTP) are only interested in 'liberating Afghanistan', and not interested in 'attacking the West'.

On enemy of my enemy is my friend - How did that first enemy become an enemy? I mean, how is it that the US became enemy of the Taliban? The US had not attacked the Taliban till the moment Taliban flatly denied giving up on Osama, and got itself readied to go through all the war, for Osama in particular.

Are you really saying that for almost no reason the Taliban hosted Al Qaeda and made an even bitter enemy out of the most powerful entity on this planet?

 

[VCheng]

VC

Who has the most to lose?? Well you are a better judge of that - all I can ask you is where will the US go if expelled from Afghanistan??????????

There will be no "expelling" for a fairly long time, until the goals of being there are met.

 

[muse]

There will be no "expelling" for a fairly long time, until the goals of being there are met.

Like I said there is an element of fanaticism in this project - the ideology itself has failed.

And of course these so called "goals" are elastic, it seems, they morph - so it seems to me that only strong political leadership can put it's house in order and that means putting the Pentagon back in it's box

 

[Ahmad Shah Abdali]

Its simple, those Talib idiots are subservient to their Arab masters, they think all Arabs are "holy" and therefore it is completely "Halal" to have millions of Afghans starved, killed, and displaced to protect a single Arab who BTW fled his own country due to his criminal activity and involvement in terrorism.

Afghanistan was better off under the Socialists, these Madrassah educated barbarians can't rule a country for sh!t.

It's unfortunately a trait shared by all these fundamentalists regardless of their nationality. They worship the arabs, but will get a shock of their life when they are treated worse than slaves if they ever happen to live and work in their "brother's" country. What enrages me the most is why do these arabs have the obligation to enforce "shaaria" in the ****** area while their own countries is where they should be waging their holy war against the dictators and the rotten state of their societies. Look at this video, the once proud Wazirs are left with their mouth open while the arabs are throwing them around like sheeps. Ofcourse whatever the arab says is out of Quran and nobody dares question them...

 

[President Camacho]

Don't see how you can be so flippant about throwing in 'participation of the ISI' in there - in essence you are replicating the distorted thought process and conspiratorial mindset of the US Establishement that Muse referred to - of concocting an imaginary enemy and bogeyman in the ISI.

AM, I would like you to take a note of how international relations work. It is always less about proof, and more about knowledge/intel. Whenever any attack originated from the land of Pakistan, ISI's part has been more than often looked for. It is not an exception, rather a norm that whatever country an attack comes from, the intelligence agency's involvement is first thing to look for.

But that kind of knowledge cannot be made public, because if it is made public, then the public will shout out to go for a war against that nation - Pakistan in this case. And for a long time, the US needed Pakistan in different ways for different purposes, so the US had to deliberately overlook such involvements.

However, such involvements are always talked, discussed, and deliberated upon in closed door meetings. In more than one, very grave occasions, ISI's name was mentioned. And each time the answerable officers denied any involvement (of the ISI) but at the same time asked for a closed door briefing on the same (ISI's involvement).

One such case was ISI Chief's facilitating the transfer of the sum of $100,000 to Mohammad Atta through Sheikh Saeed. The FBI officer investigating the financials, while denying the ISI's involvement, quickly asked for a closed door briefing.

One more recent case is that of Faisal Shahzad. It was never brought to light throughout the period till the US kept hoping for more action on part of Pakistan, but when the hostility came out in the open - it was revealed to the public that the ISI had full knowledge of fund transfer to Faisal Shahzad for all his efforts to explode a bomb on Time's Square.

So you see, it is not the conspiratorial mindset, rather keeping things under wrap and not disclosing anything until there's any need. Non-disclosure of any such info does not mean they have closed their eyes to it. They just keep it that way to get their work done where Pakistan's participation becomes indispensable.

The enemy is not imaginary, and has been there for a long time now.

And Pakistan was also responsible for capturing and deporting Ramzi Yousuf and Aimal Kasi, not to mention the subsequent hundreds of operationally important AQ HVT's and members, KSM, Libbi etc.

Don't you think most of these captures/killings were less out of PA's own conviction, and more because it was under immense pressure from the US?

 

[Riseup]

I think the war in Afghanistan is now going to take another turn right now. The conflicts between game players now brings out. As far as my understanding there are many power players are involve in this game, still sitting silent behind the screen. Currently we are seeing conflicts between US and Pakistan as a key player of the game but along with time all will fetch on the screen when the time arrive. For the peoples who surprised with Pakistan’s standing should know that Pakistani strategic planners understand their limitations, strength and weaknesses in this game. Peoples who are questioning over Pakistan’s strategy can give me answer my questions

1. Except Pentagon occupants, who are in this game want to prolong it? NATO, Russian, Chinese, Government of Afghanistan or Afghan’s group?

2. What are the chances that American would provide grantee to the NATO nations and other allied nations that until which time this war will be end with positive ending (as we see failure of the allied forces to control the situation in this region that is going worst day by day in the favor of them)?

3. As far as time is rolling out the expense of the war going to high day by day, who will bear all this NATO/Americans what will be their share?

4. And at the end what is the meaning of end for each stakeholders? And do you think that every stakeholder would satisfy with other’s definition of end?

I think these Pentagonal buddies are no answers except that … believe on us … be patience stay little bit more … give us a chance more…

But what the end when will result????

Yes, I agreed with Agnostic Muslim that Pakistan never want to return of allied forces from Afghanistan until a stable government setup will not build into Afghanistan between Afghan stakeholders otherwise situation will became like USSR returned era, Afghanistan became unstable with brutal war-lords, never in the favor of Afghans neither in Pakistan.

 

[Porus]

It's unfortunately a trait shared by all these fundamentalists regardless of their nationality. They worship the arabs, but will get a shock of their life when they are treated worse than slaves if they ever happen to live and work in their "brother's" country. What enrages me the most is why do these arabs have the obligation to enforce "shaaria" in the ****** area while their own countries is where they should be waging their holy war against the dictators and the rotten state of their societies. Look at this video, the once proud Wazirs are left with their mouth open while the arabs are throwing them around like sheeps. Ofcourse whatever the arab says is out of Quran and nobody dares question them...

That is scary. The whole region is apparently under the firm control of Talibans and the locals seem to be quite helpless before these terrorists. Pak Foj Zindahbad is nowhere to be seen, and how do you know these are Arabs?

 

[Ahmad Shah Abdali]

That is scary. The whole region is apparently under the firm control of Talibans and the locals seem to be quite helpless before these terrorists. Pak Foj Zindahbad is nowhere to be seen, and how do you know these are Arabs?

These guys are members of Lashkare Khurasan, an Al-Qaeda affiliated group which hunts down "spies" and target among others tribal elders who opposes the Taliban or don't strongly support them.Their dress also shows strong AQ influence. The message of guy singing is even more chilling if you understand Pashto. The message seems for the citizens to keep clear out of their way, coz these lunatics apparently seek the establishment of Khurasan bla bla

 

[VCheng]

Like I said there is an element of fanaticism in this project - the ideology itself has failed.

And of course these so called "goals" are elastic, it seems, they morph - so it seems to me that only strong political leadership can put it's house in order and that means putting the Pentagon back in it's box

You are very wrong here muse. There is no ideology or fanaticism on the US side, just a cold, hard, calculating pursuit of national interest, just as it should be.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My fear is that, well all is said and done, my comment (not made flippantly BTW) about the ISI will have been shown to be more fact than not.

There has been plenty of time for your comment to be shown as 'fact', and the 'fact' is that it has not.

Yes, there is no denying the value of those contributions, which must be acknowledged.

Those contributions support the argument that the ISI was not involved in any of those acts.

So am I correct in understanding that you are saying that Pakistan is on the losing end in either case?

Correct, but if we are too be on the 'losing side', then might as well do it on our terms and at least act in a manner that allows Pakistan to influence the situation in its neighborhood, which has many magnitudes greater repercussions for Pakistan than for the US, which sits thousands of miles away.