Pakistan Taliban set up camps in Syria, join anti-Assad war

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by neo96

 

widely alleged by the international community

Alleged. I think that means:

Definition: asserted, often doubtful
Synonyms: averred, declared, described, dubious, ostensible, pretended, professed, purported, questionable, so-called, stated, supposed, suspect, suspicious
Antonyms: certain, definite, sure

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....................

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by neo96

 

widely alleged by the international community

Alleged. I think that means:

Definition: asserted, often doubtful
Synonyms: averred, declared, described, dubious, ostensible, pretended, professed, purported, questionable, so-called, stated, supposed, suspect, suspicious
Antonyms: certain, definite, sure

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....................

Donald wasn't a duck, he walked like one and he quacked like one but he was a fraud. He was created as a duck because Donald the Taxman wouldn't have convinced people that unless they tithed to the taxman they would be unpatriotic.

BTW, its that same international community that says you cannot be trusted with a gun.

reply to post by GLaDOS


Do you imagine the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban to be totally separate and/or perhaps even competing or rival organizations? They are the SAME thing and the Taliban don't recognize borders the same way most in the world do for their Islamic vision.

Further... Just where the heck do people think Mullah Mohammed Omar has BEEN these past 12 years? Driving a Cab in Brooklyn? He's been leading the Afghan fight, in part, from the Northwestern Tribal land in Pakistan. The two groups overlap and merge to such a degree, I'm not sure anyone really can set them apart as two distinct organizations at all.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That's where you're wrong. They are rivals.

www.thenewstribe.com...
www.terminalx.org...
beta.dawn.com...

All these groups have their own ideologies and agendas.

reply to post by GLaDOS


I'm not even going to start to debate something I feel is night/day incorrect to the actual facts on the ground as well as how it's stood over the past 15 years or so, since the Taliban in Afghanistan actually came into it's own and full power. We're just TOOO far apart if you honestly believe these two groups are entirely separate and not in close cooperation.

I'll just agree to disagree here and ask again...where do you figure Mohammed Omar has been leading the Afghani Taliban from, exactly? It sure hasn't been from within Afghanistan where a whole U.S. Platoon could land on top of him any moment, without notice. Obama may have no stomach for that but Bush would have picked him off like a ripe lemon from the tree, if ANY opportunity had ever presented itself. Pakistan makes for nice exile.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I didn't say Omar isn't in Pakistan. He probably is.

The Pakistani taliban came into being when US pressurised Pakistan Army into launching an operation in the tribal regions. Afghan Taliban... well I'm sure you know.

reply to post by GLaDOS


Okay, that sounds close to the timelines....although it's real important to note that Pakistan has had a very close relationship through it's ISI with the Afghani Taliban during their reign and, as we're discussing here, since.

You ask if the ISI would be a part of anything which would harm it's own citizens? I dunno... Has the CIA ever done anything to harm a US Citizen? Why would folks think one intelligence agency is evil and the other above that conduct? Particularly when the ISI playing both sides meant a near family relationship with the CIA on one hand already. The other hand held Omar's and wished him well on his reign of terror in Afghanistan.

*And that last description isn't used lightly... Shooting women in the head for sport in the stadium and cutting noses right off girl's faces for punishment as a standard procedure in life under the Taliban is what I speak of.

The ISI has been eyeballs deep without predictable allegiances to rely on since the Russians were in Afghanistan. This is just the latest game of the ISI doing it's thing while the regime in Islamabad does it's own. They've never necessarily been in lock-step and they sure aren't these days by what I've been closely following.

Originally posted by GLaDOS
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I didn't say Omar isn't in Pakistan. He probably is.

The Pakistani taliban came into being when US pressurised Pakistan Army into launching an operation in the tribal regions. Afghan Taliban... well I'm sure you know.

US gov: "Hm.. how could we get the American people to support a group who's perception of we have already skewed and villainized? It seems we need more help overthrowing Assad.. Oh I know! Convince them that there's a separate sector of the same group that HATES the one that 'attacked' us."

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Of course ISI has close relations with Afghan Taliban. ISI (and CIA) created them. The difference being, the US/CIA ditched them after the Soviets left. ISI didn't. Why should they? Pakistan is Afghanistan's neighbor, why should they ruin relations? To face attacks from them?

So yes, I am not denying ISI is close with Afghan Taliban,

Now, question being about the TTP, it was set up entirely to fight against Pakistan Army. I really don't know why ISI would support such a group.

Originally posted by VisualQuanta

Originally posted by GLaDOS
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I didn't say Omar isn't in Pakistan. He probably is.

The Pakistani taliban came into being when US pressurised Pakistan Army into launching an operation in the tribal regions. Afghan Taliban... well I'm sure you know.

US gov: "Hm.. how could we get the American people to support a group who's perception of we have already skewed and villainized? It seems we need more help overthrowing Assad.. Oh I know! Convince them that there's a separate sector of the same group that HATES the one that 'attacked' us."

Hmm that doesn't really work either. US drone strikes were initiated to take the TTP out. But I guess anything goes in the US media.

reply to post by GLaDOS

Of course ISI has close relations with Afghan Taliban. ISI (and CIA) created them.

Someone needs to stop lying seriously:

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1994.[15][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth.[38][69][70][71] Since the creation of the Taliban, the ISI and the Pakistani military have given financial, logistical and military support.[16][

In addition, Saudi Arabia and Iran – as competitors for regional hegemony – supported Afghan militias hostile towards each other.

That also means the MOIS, the GIP.

MOIS

GIP

Those damn Americans!

They were the 'only ones'.

reply to post by neo96

reply to post by GLaDOS


Answer:

Was the US the only country in Afghanistan?

Was it?

reply to post by neo96


Not quite sure what you mean.

Afghan Taliban were created by ISI, CIA and the Saudis to fight against the Soviets. I'm not sure how you can deny this. It's not some conspiracy theory; it's a fact.

reply to post by GLaDOS


NO BECAUSE the Taliban were created 5 YEARS AFTER the Soviet withdrawl of Afghanistan.

The TALIBAN did not exist until 1994.

So that left Saudi GIP and Pakistan ISI, and Irans MOIS.

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1994.

reply to post by neo96


Oh, they changed their name from 'Mujaheddin' to Taliban. Completely different group now of course.
Oh and Iran is extremely anti taliban. They supported Shia groups, not taliban.

reply to post by GLaDOS


Keep moving that line.

In addition, Saudi Arabia and Iran – as competitors for regional hegemony – supported Afghan militias hostile towards each other.

reply to post by GLaDOS


Ouch... a little off on timelines there. The Taliban didn't come to form until the early 90's. Pakistan made them by support, no question. The CIA can't get the credit on those cretins tho. They were hostile to CIA people before they had the name and organization to belong to. The Northern Alliance or "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan" were the side from those the US backed and directly trained in the 80's. (The famous photo with Reagan in the White House.... Those are the guys that formed the Northern alliance) They were also the ones fighting a never ending civil war against the Taliban, had their most promising leader and General Assassinated by Al Qaeda (Ahmad Shah Massoud) two days before the WTC attack and was who CIA and Green Berets linked up with in October/November of 2001 to run over the Taliban.

Anyway.... The ISI would likely support such a group for the very divided local realities which form Pakistan. The same divides that created the Tribal Zone which is basically a nation within a nation...but isn't. I mean, even the Pakistani Army considers it a major offensive operation to go into areas of that region, within their own nation ....Taliban-Land. If somehow the Taliban overthrew Pakistan, I'd just say it would be safe to put money on the ISI becoming a VERY enthusiastic and loyal part of the new regime ..and hope it never happens. What better place for extremists than Intelligence agencies tho? With the power and secrecy? That's the ISI, IMO.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by GLaDOS

 

Keep moving that line.

In addition, Saudi Arabia and Iran – as competitors for regional hegemony – supported Afghan militias hostile towards each other.

That's exactly what I said. Saudi supports the Taliban, Iran supports Shia groups.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by GLaDOS

 

Anyway.... The ISI would likely support such a group for the very divided local realities which form Pakistan. The same divides that created the Tribal Zone which is basically a nation within a nation...but isn't. I mean, even the Pakistani Army considers it a major offensive operation to go into areas of that region, within their own nation ....Taliban-Land. If somehow the Taliban overthrew Pakistan, I'd just say it would be safe to put money on the ISI becoming a VERY enthusiastic and loyal part of the new regime ..and hope it never happens. What better place for extremists than Intelligence agencies tho? With the power and secrecy? That's the ISI, IMO.

edit on 15-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Are you expecting a couple of 1000 men to take over a nation of 180,000,000 with an army of 700,000?

Anyway, that region wasn't always part of Pakistan, hence why there are so many Pashtuns there. It was annexed in the 19th century by British India. After the Partition, Pakistan took control of it. Pakistan did not station troops there to respect autonomy demanded by the tribals and slowly it has come to this state.

en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. says that all of its funds went to native Afghan rebels and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. However, even a portion of those native Afghan rebels would form parts of the Taliban, fighting against the US military.

The Taliban movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. When Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq became President of Pakistan he feared that the Soviets were planning to invade Balochistan, Pakistan. In the meantime, the United States and Saudi Arabia joined the struggle against the Soviet Union by providing all the funds.