PDA

View Full Version : America nails Pak-blessed terror camps



lemontree
02 Aug 06,, 05:13
This report seems to contradict the views expressed by the US intelligence community and that of their politicians.


America nails Pak-blessed terror camps

WASHINGTON: When India's national security establishment and foreign office mandarins meet with interlocutors from Islamabad and Washington over the next few days amid a spat over sponsorship of terrorism in the neighbourhood, they could draw upon court proceedings in Lodi, California, to make their case if their own material is considered suspect.

In an unprecedented development, the US Department of Justice and the FBI earlier this year took the help of a satellite imagery expert from the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) to nail the existence of terror camps in Pakistan in a case involving a Pakistani father and son duo.

As part of the evidence at the trial, the US government expert testified that jehadi camps existed and operated in various parts of Pakistan from 2000 to 2005, and specifically opined that a series of camps, including a well-known Jaish-e-Mohammed camp, were located in the Balakot area of Pakistan. (It is actually in POK)

The prosecution wheeled out the expert, Eric Benn, an analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency, to make its case against Hamir Hayat, while convicting him of planning to wage a jehad against the United States after training at a terrorist camp.

After reviewing satellite imagery for the jury, Benn said the mountainous location and description of the camp near Balakot in northeast Pakistan are consistent with statements made by Hayat during an interrogation by FBI agents last June, when he returned to the US after two years of training and indoctrination in Pakistan. "The kind of information I got out of the (Hayat interview) transcript is consistent with the physical things I observed," Benn testified in US District Court.

"This would be a militant camp." The testimony undermines Pakistan's insistence that there are no terrorist camps in the country, a pro forma denial that is often buttressed by State Department certification about being a frontline ally in the war on terrorism. Pakistan has now been turned around charges that it hosts terrorist groups to charge India with sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan.

It has also furnished its own listed of terror suspects it wants India to apprehend and send back in lieu of the India's 20 most-wanted, including Dawood Ibrahim. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1833219.cms

Karthik
02 Aug 06,, 07:27
Good find Captain.

I wonder what the Pak reaction will be. That satellite imagery is inaccurate? :biggrin:

krishna
02 Aug 06,, 07:32
Thanks for the article sir. Its hard to read those yellow text.

Ray
02 Aug 06,, 08:38
It reads:

"This would be a militant camp." The testimony undermines Pakistan's insistence that there are no terrorist camps in the country, a pro forma denial that is often buttressed by State Department certification about being a frontline ally in the war on terrorism.

Lahori paa jee
02 Aug 06,, 09:29
In Islamabad, the director-general of the Inter-Services Public Relations, Maj-Gen Shaukat Sultan, said the report was absurd.

“If US intelligence agencies had detected any such thing in Balakot, they should have passed on the information to us through official channels. The area of Balakot was extensively seen by all international agencies, including NATO and the US, during the earthquake relief operation in 2005. No such training camp was spotted by them. We reject this malicious report which is aimed at undermining Pakistan’s efforts in the fight against terrorism.”

The US intelligence agent showed the jury satellite images taken between 2001 and 2004 but he claimed that the facility in question seemed to have expand since then. “It may have become less temporary and more permanent,” he testified.

The images showed a 3km trail linked to the main road and dotted with several structures that seemed to reflect a guard house, barracks with a tin roof and perhaps some mud houses as well, the reports said.

The court is hearing terrorism charges against two Pakistani-Americans, 23-year old Hamid Hayat and his father Umer Hayat. Hamid’s sentencing has been postponed by four months to November and his father Umer Hayat, charged with lying to federal authorities, is being retried after the first round ended in a hung jury.

Agent Benn told the court that he did not “detect any formal weapons training”.

http://dawn.com/2006/08/02/top16.htm

That would be stupid a assumption to say Pakistan has camps in Balakot. The whole city was compteley destroyed by last years earthquake

Tronic
02 Aug 06,, 11:36
you think that would stop the terrorists (and ISI) at opening up camps there??? Last time I checked LeT, a recognizd terrorist group was providing support to the Pakistani earthquake victims openly... I wonder why the Pak government didn't stop them then??? hmmm... maybe becuase terrorism is just another branch of the Pakistani Intelligence agencies??? i.e. ISI...

Tronic
02 Aug 06,, 11:37
oh yea and Lahori, I was really expecting Pak to accept these reports... :rolleyes:

krishna
02 Aug 06,, 13:09
Why american policy makers cant read this and constantly supply arms to their future enemy. They dint learn lessons by creating taliban and Aq.

Lahori paa jee
02 Aug 06,, 14:02
oh yea and Lahori, I was really expecting Pak to accept these reports... :rolleyes:

No country would accept such claims even if its a known terrorist haven.

There might be training camps in Pakistan but to say they have images of the tin shelters/structures is absurd.

But then again these would be the same kind of intelligence reports which had warned Pakistan a few years back of possible bombs in Raiwand (which turned out to be Lotas :biggrin: )

raj
02 Aug 06,, 16:20
No country would accept such claims even if its a known terrorist haven.

There might be training camps in Pakistan but to say they have images of the tin shelters/structures is absurd.

But then again these would be the same kind of intelligence reports which had warned Pakistan a few years back of possible bombs in Raiwand (which turned out to be Lotas :biggrin: )
lahori, what do you think consititute a terrorist camps.
as far as i feel, one dosn't need big infrastructure to train people to break other countries economy unlike building economy, which obviously requires lots and lots of infrastructure.

Neo
02 Aug 06,, 17:01
But then again these would be the same kind of intelligence reports which had warned Pakistan a few years back of possible bombs in Raiwand (which turned out to be Lotas :biggrin: )
Don't forget the killing of 'Turkey' near LOC a few days ago... :biggrin:

highsea
02 Aug 06,, 17:19
That would be stupid a assumption to say Pakistan has camps in Balakot. The whole city was compteley destroyed by last years earthquakeThere were 5 men arrested in this case. Shabbir Ahmed, who was a religious leader in Lodi, Mohammed Adil Khan, the former Imam of the same mosque (and the one who was supposedly giving the orders), his son Muhammed Hassan Adil, Umer Hayat, and his son Hamir Hayat.

They were arrested in June 2005, the earthquake in Kashmir was in October.

Hayat admitted to taking training in Pakistan in 2003 and 2004.

Hamid Hayat, 22, lives with his father, Umer Hayat, 47, and Hamid has admitted that he spent time in Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan in 2003 and 2004. He arrived in Pakistan April 21, 2003, staying a little more than two years there. While in Pakistan, he spent six months in training camps. The training included shooting at targets of President Bush and other government figures, as well as “providing structured paramilitary training, including weapons training, explosives training, interior room tactics, hand-to-hand combat and strenuous exercise.” Hamid specifically requested, when given the choice, that his jihadi mission be in the United States, where hospitals and large stores of food (the San Joaquin Valley is a major agricultural area) could be potential targets. An unconfirmed eyewitness report (again, I stress unconfirmed) suggests the men may have also been seen casing the California Aqueduct, a massive water transport project that delivers water from northern to southern California. Both men are currently charged with lying to federal agents.

Umer Hayat, who was denied bail as a flight risk, has just built a home in Pakistan and contributed money to the training camp his son attended. Hayat’s attorney is Johnny Griffin III, who said Umer Hayat "is charged with nothing more than lying to an agent."

Hamid Hayat was on a no-fly list, and his May 29 flight returning from Pakistan to the United States was diverted to Japan, where he was questioned. He denied being connected to terrorists. After being allowed to return home, he was questioned again June 3-4, including a polygraph test, at which time he admitted attending the camp. Shown the video of his son's confession, Umer Hayat admitted knowing what his son was doing, sending his son money, and helping to pay for the costs of running the camp. Hamid Hayat's attorney was not available for court, and his bail hearing will be on Friday.

Two other men arrested for immigration violations were Shabbir Ahmed and Mohammed Adil Khan, the current and former imams of a mosque in Lodi. They were arrested after Umer, wearing an FBI wire, met with them before dawn on June 4. The two men were apparently planning to open a religious school in Lodi. Hamid Hayat was also in Pakistan as a teenager, where he attended a madrassah, or religious school, run by his grandfather, where he was influenced to attend the training camps. It is unclear at this time if Ahmed and Khan’s religious school would have been a madrassah. No other details were available, as the investigation of the two men is continuing. The homes of both men were searched, as well as the Hayat home.

http://www.sharingthesecretoflife.blogspot.com/2005/06/oh-no-al-qaeda-in-lodi-again.html


Why american policy makers cant read this and constantly supply arms to their future enemy. They dint learn lessons by creating taliban and Aq. Don't be a dumass. America didn't create the Taliban or al Qaeda.

Lahori paa jee
02 Aug 06,, 18:17
Don't forget the killing of 'Turkey' near LOC a few days ago...

Thanks Neo

Tronic
02 Aug 06,, 18:21
Don't be a dumass. America didn't create the Taliban or al Qaeda.

yea, Pakistan did... ;)

lol, ok, that was a joke... Pakistan did not CREATE the Taliban or Al-Queda, they merely sustained it and allowed it to grow... (its like this, Pakistan did not plant the seed but surely watered and harboured it...)

Ray
02 Aug 06,, 18:49
There might be training camps in Pakistan but to say they have images of the tin shelters/structures is absurd.

No. Training camps are in Palaces with marble floors and jacuzzis!

Pakistan did not create Talebans.

Talebans created Pakistan?

It is now internationally famed as the factory for terrorism.

A terorrist attack and there are Pakistani connections!

Sad.

troung
02 Aug 06,, 19:13
Why american policy makers cant read this and constantly supply arms to their future enemy. They dint learn lessons by creating taliban and Aq.

We didn't create either group...

Tronic
02 Aug 06,, 19:44
We didn't create either group...
errmm... so you are saying that the Russians made Taliban???

Dreadnought
02 Aug 06,, 20:21
IMO I know my goverment works with Pak. But if these camps exist they must be exterminated wether it causes a rift between them or not. Terrorists are Terrorists. :confused:

troung
02 Aug 06,, 20:40
errmm... so you are saying that the Russians made Taliban???

Nope it was the Pakistanis which pushed them. The Taliban showed up after the Communist government fell and Pakistan used them to try and make a puppet state in Afghanistan.

SLASH
02 Aug 06,, 20:57
Nope it was the Pakistanis which pushed them. The Taliban showed up after the Communist government fell and Pakistan used them to try and make a puppet state in Afghanistan.

urggggggg hasn't Pakistan been America's ally for the last 50 years :rolleyes: .

krishna
02 Aug 06,, 21:55
Nope it was the Pakistanis which pushed them. The Taliban showed up after the Communist government fell and Pakistan used them to try and make a puppet state in Afghanistan.

is it not atleast after effects of US intervention?

Also how about stringers used by so-called mujahiddins at the time of kargil war?

When you know they are creaters of taliban why do you supply arms to them still? Iam sure one fine day they will start using them against US interests.

Tronic
02 Aug 06,, 22:01
is it not atleast after effects of US intervention?

Also how about stringers used by so-called mujahiddins at the time of kargil war?

When you know they are creaters of taliban why do you supply arms to them still? Iam sure one fine day they will start using them against US interests.
no... the US only provided arms to the Mujahideens so they could fight against the Soviets... As soon as the war was over, America left... Pakistan took over from there on deciding that it needed a puppet in Afghanistan and to use the Mujahideens and all the arms against India... America did not arm the Afghans to start proxy wars against other countries... America armed them so they could stop the Soviet invasion which had it been succesfull would've probably gone right through Pakistan and ensured the Soviets a naval base in the Arabian Sea..

krishna
02 Aug 06,, 22:15
no... the US only provided arms to the Mujahideens so they could fight against the Soviets... As soon as the war was over, America left... Pakistan took over from there on deciding that it needed a puppet in Afghanistan and to use the Mujahideens and all the arms against India... America did not arm the Afghans to start proxy wars against other countries... America armed them so they could stop the Soviet invasion which had it been succesfull would've probably gone right through Pakistan and ensured the Soviets a naval base in the Arabian Sea..

Who given that strength and dare to pakistan to push taliban and run terror camps? US failed to control pakistan after defeat of USSR, so I called it as after effect.

Tronic
02 Aug 06,, 22:28
Control Pakistan??? How is US suppose to control Pakistan when Pakistan's own leaders don't have control over their own country and their own agencies...

troung
02 Aug 06,, 22:52
is it not atleast after effects of US intervention?

Yeah after the "Jihad" was done.


Also how about stringers used by so-called mujahiddins at the time of kargil war?

You mean the Pakistani army?


When you know they are creaters of taliban why do you supply arms to them still? Iam sure one fine day they will start using them against US interests.

Well in the very least they can't give F-16s to AQ...


Who given that strength and dare to pakistan to push taliban and run terror camps?

They did that on their own.

Tronic
02 Aug 06,, 23:46
US did not assist Pakistan in bringing to power the Taliban... The Pakistani's pretty much brought up the Taliban on their own... (basically they bought over the most poweful faction which was left standing after the Soviets left...)

America did not bring to power the Taliban or AQ... the only point where America IS to blame though is that they left Afghanistan in a pretty bad shape... only if they had paid attention earlier on...

highsea
03 Aug 06,, 00:13
... the only point where America IS to blame though is that they left Afghanistan in a pretty bad shape... only if they had paid attention earlier on...The US was never in Afghanistan. The only thing we are guilty of is helping the Afghanis defend themselves against Soviet agression. (And even that was not direct help, as everything funneled through Pakistan)

If you need someone to blame, blame the USSR for the war. It wasn't the US's doing.

platinum786
03 Aug 06,, 00:41
one last thing...

so there are camps....waht you gonna do about it?

Write to your local paper....lol

Tronic
03 Aug 06,, 04:04
The US was never in Afghanistan. The only thing we are guilty of is helping the Afghanis defend themselves against Soviet agression. (And even that was not direct help, as everything funneled through Pakistan)

If you need someone to blame, blame the USSR for the war. It wasn't the US's doing.
I'm not blaming the US for the war... the CIA provided the Afghans with massive arm shipments plus a lot of money to fight the Soviets.... but as soon as the Soviets left, so did American eyes on Afghanistan... this basically gave Pakistan to rape Afghanistan which had already been raped by the Soviets... So... what i'm saying is that America should have continued to supply shipments and money to Afghanistan but this time the shipments could've been Humanitarian Aid and the funds could've been Reconstruction funds.. If America didn't neglect Afghanistan after the war, then maybe we wouldn't have had 9/11 or even an AQ problem...

Tronic
03 Aug 06,, 04:07
one last thing...

so there are camps....waht you gonna do about it?

Write to your local paper....lol
hehe... i'm glad you acknowledged that there are terror camps running in Pak.. now don't be surprised if some of them vanish in the morning and Pak cries air intrusions!!! lol... by ANOTHER secret Mig-25 unit which the Pakistanis again couldn't intercept... lol...

veera8
03 Aug 06,, 04:17
one last thing...

so there are camps....waht you gonna do about it?

Write to your local paper....lol

LOL ,so your country PAK is a PAKKA TERROIST country :tongue:

troung
03 Aug 06,, 04:23
I'm not blaming the US for the war... the CIA provided the Afghans with massive arm shipments plus a lot of money to fight the Soviets.... but as soon as the Soviets left, so did American eyes on Afghanistan... this basically gave Pakistan to rape Afghanistan which had already been raped by the Soviets...

We kept up support until Communism was gone.


So... what i'm saying is that America should have continued to supply shipments and money to Afghanistan but this time the shipments could've been Humanitarian Aid and the funds could've been Reconstruction funds.. If America didn't neglect Afghanistan after the war, then maybe we wouldn't have had 9/11 or even an AQ problem

Had we taken more notice to where the weapons were going then we could have avoided a lot of the trouble.

lemontree
03 Aug 06,, 05:11
No country would accept such claims even if its a known terrorist haven.

There might be training camps in Pakistan but to say they have images of the tin shelters/structures is absurd.
I agree with your point.


But then again these would be the same kind of intelligence reports which had warned Pakistan a few years back of possible bombs in Raiwand (which turned out to be Lotas :biggrin: ) :biggrin: :tongue:

lemontree
03 Aug 06,, 05:15
Don't forget the killing of 'Turkey' near LOC a few days ago... :biggrin:
Major Turki's case is confusing since we don't have access to the actual source. In view of the politics being played about it seems that the reports have been denied on purpose.

lemontree
03 Aug 06,, 05:16
When you know they are creaters of taliban why do you supply arms to them still? Iam sure one fine day they will start using them against US interests.
That is an understatement after ISI's direct invilvement in 9/11.

lemontree
03 Aug 06,, 05:20
one last thing...

so there are camps....waht you gonna do about it?

Write to your local paper....lol
Stamp it out one day, ...maybe with you in it.

Archer
03 Aug 06,, 07:03
one last thing...

so there are camps....waht you gonna do about it?

Write to your local paper....lol

Let me see...
There is Balochistan..
There is NWFP
There is the Mujahir Qaumi Movement and the great, freedom fighter Altaf Hussain... :biggrin:

Then there are the Shias in Sunni Pakistan.. ;)

Balochistan banega azad, insha Allah! ;)

I think the coming years will be interesting for Pakistan, paybacks a ***** ...

667medic
03 Aug 06,, 07:04
Stap it out one day, ...maybe with you in it.
Amen to that....

gilgamesh
03 Aug 06,, 09:35
Stamp it out one day, ...maybe with you in it.

I must wear my glasses when I view this forum. I read that as "Strap it on one day...maybe with you in it"! I was like what the hell is the good Captain smoking? :biggrin:

Neo
03 Aug 06,, 12:09
Major Turki's case is confusing since we don't have access to the actual source. In view of the politics being played about it seems that the reports have been denied on purpose.
What prove has been provided that the report is being denied on purpose?

Tronic
03 Aug 06,, 12:17
What prove has been provided that the report is being denied on purpose?
well Neo there has been proof from neither side... I mean what proof did Pak provide that he is still alive??? Pictures, Public appearences??? none... so when you ask for proof, you have to ask for it from all angles...

oh and one more thing... if the reports are being denied on purpose by the government then I don't think the government would come out with proof that they are denying them on purpose... :biggrin:

Lahori paa jee
03 Aug 06,, 12:56
The US was never in Afghanistan. The only thing we are guilty of is helping the Afghanis defend themselves against Soviet agression. (And even that was not direct help, as everything funneled through Pakistan)

If you need someone to blame, blame the USSR for the war. It wasn't the US's doing.

USSR supported Veitnam against USA but Russia was never in Veitnam

USA supported Afghans against USSR but was never in Afghanistan

TopHatter
03 Aug 06,, 13:35
LOL ,so your country PAK is a PAKKA TERROIST country :tongue:
Knock that crap off veera8.

Lunatock
03 Aug 06,, 17:04
LOL ,so your country PAK is a PAKKA TERROIST country :tongue:

Smearing either Pakistan or India is not accepted on this board. Consider this your first & last warning.

veera8
03 Aug 06,, 17:05
Smearing either Pakistan or India is not accepted on this board. Consider this your first & last warning.

i got it ...let me cool down

lemontree
03 Aug 06,, 17:11
What prove has been provided that the report is being denied on purpose?
Because the report came from HQ Northern Command as a routine sitrep. But later was denied by Delhi and the next day we had the Northern Command also denying the report.

I'll be going for my unit raising day in Oct so I'll verify this story then.

highsea
03 Aug 06,, 18:30
I'm not blaming the US for the war... the CIA provided the Afghans with massive arm shipments plus a lot of money to fight the Soviets.... but as soon as the Soviets left, so did American eyes on Afghanistan... this basically gave Pakistan to rape Afghanistan which had already been raped by the Soviets... No, you said America left Afghanistan in pretty bad shape. YOUR words.

It is not America's responsibility to police or support every failed state in the world. Our involvement in Afghanistan was a function of the cold war. I realize this was before your time, but the world was not the same then as it is today.

Had the US not done anything, the USSR would have taken Afghanistan and then continued to carve off a good portion Balochistan from Pakistan to get their much coveted warm water port. Pakistan was our ally, and India was firmly in the Soviet camp. Iran had just siezed the American embassy and taken the hostages. The US couldn't stand by and let our only ally in the region become isolated on 3 sides by hostile countries.

That was the concern of the US, and when that threat no longer existed, the US was no longer concerned. We had not previously taken any responsibility for Afghanistan, and there was no reason to take it then.

You are looking at the world today, but you are not considering the world then.

So... what i'm saying is that America should have continued to supply shipments and money to Afghanistan but this time the shipments could've been Humanitarian Aid and the funds could've been Reconstruction funds.. If America didn't neglect Afghanistan after the war, then maybe we wouldn't have had 9/11 or even an AQ problem...Shoulda, woulda, coulda. I can make all kind of "what-if's" about India and Pakistan relationships in 1948 and what India "should have done" to avoid the Kashmir situation too, but it doesn't mean a thing. Hindsight is 20/20.

It was the cold war. That's what dominated politics in the world. Nobody at the time anticipated the rise of the Taliban or al Qaeda.

USSR supported Veitnam against USA but Russia was never in Veitnam

USA supported Afghans against USSR but was never in Afghanistan So? What's your point?

Tronic
03 Aug 06,, 19:24
No, you said America left Afghanistan in pretty bad shape. YOUR words.

It is not America's responsibility to police or support every failed state in the world. Our involvement in Afghanistan was a function of the cold war. I realize this was before your time, but the world was not the same then as it is today.

Had the US not done anything, the USSR would have taken Afghanistan and then continued to carve off a good portion Balochistan from Pakistan to get their much coveted warm water port. Pakistan was our ally, and India was firmly in the Soviet camp. Iran had just siezed the American embassy and taken the hostages. The US couldn't stand by and let our only ally in the region become isolated on 3 sides by hostile countries.

That was the concern of the US, and when that threat no longer existed, the US was no longer concerned. We had not previously taken any responsibility for Afghanistan, and there was no reason to take it then.
ok... kool and because of thinking like that... now you have Taliban and AQ... I'm not saying that America did a BAD thing... i'm just saying America did nothing... I'm glad the Bush government is finally acting like the previous governments failed to do...


You are looking at the world today, but you are not considering the world then.
the world today is a result of the world which was yesterday...


Shoulda, woulda, coulda. I can make all kind of "what-if's" about India and Pakistan relationships in 1948 and what India "should have done" to avoid the Kashmir situation too, but it doesn't mean a thing. Hindsight is 20/20.
Where did India, Pakistan, Kashmir come into all of this???


It was the cold war. That's what dominated politics in the world. Nobody at the time anticipated the rise of the Taliban or al Qaeda.
So? What's your point?
You mean nobody anticipated the rise of Taliban through Pakistan??? dude... the Pakistanis started backing the Taliban as soon as the Soviets left and America turned its back to Afghanistan... Taliban is not a result of bad American things.. it is a result of "lack of" American sight in that region... The world knew that Pakistan was sponsoring the Taliban, it was being done openly... No one cared... until ofcourse 9/11 happened... America should've finished the job in Iraq in 1991 aswell and solved the Iran problem then aswell...

highsea
03 Aug 06,, 19:52
ok... kool and because of thinking like that... now you have Taliban and AQ...That, along with every other comment you have made is a crock of sh*t. You have completely failed to grasp the points I have made.

Gee whiz, how did we ever survive the cold war without tronic to tell us what we should have done... :rolleyes:

Tronic
03 Aug 06,, 20:22
That, along with every other comment you have made is a crock of sh*t. You have completely failed to grasp the points I have made.
ran out of sensible arguments??? please do try to elaborate your point... I'm saying America neglected Afghanistan and today you have Taliban and Al-Queda... are you saying that is crock sh*t and is not true???


Gee whiz, how did we ever survive the cold war without tronic to tell us what we should have done... :rolleyes:

I don't have to tell what America should do... thanks to leaders like Bush, America is finally stepping up to the plate and sending these asses to the 72 virgin heaven they dream of...

highsea
03 Aug 06,, 22:10
ran out of sensible arguments??? please do try to elaborate your point... I'm saying America neglected Afghanistan and today you have Taliban and Al-Queda... are you saying that is crock sh*t and is not true???
Why waste time trying to explain something that you are not going to listen to? You already know it all, tronic. No one else has a clue... :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you go back and re-read my points, you will get some idea of what the US was doing. But I won't hold my breath.

I don't have to tell what America should do...Yet you will anyway...
America should've finished the job in Iraq in 1991 aswell and solved the Iran problem then aswell...The US did in 1991 exactly what we said we would do- we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. There was no mandate to take it further, no International or domestic support to take it further, and the coalition would have instantly collapsed had we tried.

And as we all know, there wasn't even any International support for what we did achieve, as witnessed by the Oil For Food fiasco and the willingness of the International community to ignore the terms of the cease-fire, UN resolutions, and arms embargo on Iraq.

We should have solved the Iran problem too, huh? Well, shouldn't we also solve the North Korea problem, the Darfur problem, the Chechnya problem, the Somalia problem, the Kashmir problem, the Mid-East problem, Global Warming, and every other problem in the world? Of course we will be pretty lonely, since there isn't another country in existence that will stand with us while we fix the world according to tronic.

... what i'm saying is that America should have continued to supply shipments and money to Afghanistan but this time the shipments could've been Humanitarian Aid and the funds could've been Reconstruction funds..Do you know how much money America dumped into Afghanistan? We were the number one provider of aid to Afghanistan in the world. Probably more aid than the rest of the world combined. Incidentally, we required that it was managed through the UN and NGO's so the Taliban couldn't grab it. But I guess that just wasn't good enough for tronic.

And of course, you blame the existence of the Taliban and al Qaeda on the US.
Taliban is not a result of bad American things.. it is a result of "lack of" American sight in that region...Bullsh*t. The Taliban was a result of the war. It was composed of refugees who fled Afghanistan during the occupation to Pakistan, and were indoctrinated in Madrassas there. They were mostly too young to be soldiers against the Soviets. Their ideology was implanted in Pakistan, and has it's roots in KSA.
If America didn't neglect Afghanistan after the war, then maybe we wouldn't have had 9/11 or even an AQ problem...That is also a crock of sh*t. The al Qaeda problem arose because Arab states needed to find a scapegoat for their problems, and just like you, they picked the US as the best candidate to blame everything on.

al Qaeda exists independent of the Taliban- Afghanistan was just a convenient place to operate from. OBL bought his way into the Afghan war because he needed a jihad, and that war best served his needs. He turned his sights on America after the first Persian Gulf War, since his Soviet enemies were no longer, and a holy warrior without an enemy isn't worth much. They grew in organization and power in the years after, since OBL had a large number of out of work jihadis to draw from, and lots of money from Arab States (who paid him to take his war elsewhere) to fund his jihad.

But had Afghanistan not been available, they would have simply located elsewhere.

Ray
03 Aug 06,, 22:24
Highseas,

The book "Unholy War" by John K Cooley of ABC and the "Bear Trap" by Brigadier Mohammed Yousaf is worth reading.

It contains great details including the build up and geostrategic issues of the Afghan war and the rise of the Mujaheedeen and their successor the Taleban and which country did what and of the various personalities and the dates of their meeting and what transpired and so on.

Good books both..

Tronic
03 Aug 06,, 23:59
Why waste time trying to explain something that you are not going to listen to? You already know it all, tronic. No one else has a clue... :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you go back and re-read my points, you will get some idea of what the US was doing. But I won't hold my breath.
Yet you will anyway...The US did in 1991 exactly what we said we would do- we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. There was no mandate to take it further, no International or domestic support to take it further, and the coalition would have instantly collapsed had we tried.

And as we all know, there wasn't even any International support for what we did achieve, as witnessed by the Oil For Food fiasco and the willingness of the International community to ignore the terms of the cease-fire, UN resolutions, and arms embargo on Iraq.

We should have solved the Iran problem too, huh? Well, shouldn't we also solve the North Korea problem, the Darfur problem, the Chechnya problem, the Somalia problem, the Kashmir problem, the Mid-East problem, Global Warming, and every other problem in the world? Of course we will be pretty lonely, since there isn't another country in existence that will stand with us while we fix the world according to tronic.
Do you know how much money America dumped into Afghanistan? We were the number one provider of aid to Afghanistan in the world. Probably more aid than the rest of the world combined. Incidentally, we required that it was managed through the UN and NGO's so the Taliban couldn't grab it. But I guess that just wasn't good enough for tronic.

And of course, you blame the existence of the Taliban and al Qaeda on the US. Bullsh*t. The Taliban was a result of the war. It was composed of refugees who fled Afghanistan during the occupation to Pakistan, and were indoctrinated in Madrassas there. They were mostly too young to be soldiers against the Soviets. Their ideology was implanted in Pakistan, and has it's roots in KSA. That is also a crock of sh*t. The al Qaeda problem arose because Arab states needed to find a scapegoat for their problems, and just like you, they picked the US as the best candidate to blame everything on.

al Qaeda exists independent of the Taliban- Afghanistan was just a convenient place to operate from. OBL bought his way into the Afghan war because he needed a jihad, and that war best served his needs. He turned his sights on America after the first Persian Gulf War, since his Soviet enemies were no longer, and a holy warrior without an enemy isn't worth much. They grew in organization and power in the years after, since OBL had a large number of out of work jihadis to draw from, and lots of money from Arab States (who paid him to take his war elsewhere) to fund his jihad.

But had Afghanistan not been available, they would have simply located elsewhere.

You're the one not listening... here, Answer these questions for me because I don't know anything... please share me your knowledge... ok?

1. Did America neglect Afghanistan after Soviets left?
2. As a result, did this give Pakistanis a free ticket to bring to power the Taliban?
3. As a result of #2, did Afghanistan become the free haven breeding grounds for terrorism?

please do answer these questions...

highsea
04 Aug 06,, 00:01
...Good books both..Thank you, sir. I will look into them.

What many people seem to overlook is that US involvement was defined entirely by the cold war environment. It was not about Afghanistan or Pakistan for the US, it was about handing the Soviets a defeat. The CIA was not the least bit interested in Jihad other than how it could be used to reach that objective. No one wanted to get entangled with the various warlords and tribes that were constantly squabbling among themselves (and still are).

Looking at it from any other perspective ignores the US's motives and leads to misleading conclusions. It seems that everyone today thinks the US should have taken a stronger position either for or against (depending on who you talk to) Pakistan, when that wasn't why we were helping the mujahadeen in the first place. If you don't look at the US alliance with Pakistan in a cold war perspective, you can't hope to understand it. As countries, we have basically nothing in common.

I realize you understand this, but how do you explain it to someone who was not born yet? Lol.

TopHatter
04 Aug 06,, 00:18
the "Bear Trap" by Brigadier Mohammed Yousaf is worth reading.

Got that one on my bookshelf :)

troung
04 Aug 06,, 03:21
The book "Unholy War" by John K Cooley of ABC and the "Bear Trap" by Brigadier Mohammed Yousaf is worth reading.

With a disclaimer that he is trying to salvage his rep (failure to take Kabul, bloody failed offensives and so forth) and really hates the USA blaiming them for Zia's death. Oh yeah and then one has the Stinger issue.

lemontree
04 Aug 06,, 04:54
I must wear my glasses when I view this forum. I read that as "Strap it on one day...maybe with you in it"! I was like what the hell is the good Captain smoking? :biggrin:
:biggrin: :tongue: Actually I have given up smoking (2 months now), so I think the above snafu was the result of withdrawal symptoms.

lemontree
04 Aug 06,, 05:00
ran out of sensible arguments??? please do try to elaborate your point... I'm saying America neglected Afghanistan and today you have Taliban and Al-Queda... are you saying that is crock sh*t and is not true???
......
I don't have to tell what America should do... thanks to leaders like Bush, America is finally stepping up to the plate and sending these asses to the 72 virgin heaven they dream of...
Tronic,
Highsea is correct in this arguments. There was no way for the US to perceive the rise of Al Qaida since this was an occurance after Gulf War 1 in 1991. By then the US was out of Afghanistan for a good 5 years.

The Taliban came to power much later in 1996. The US by the was too busy with other hots spots on this planet.

And as Highsea correctly brought it out, that the US-Pak equation on the Soviet-Afghan war should been seen from the cold war perspective.

Besides the US did help and assist India and Israel to eliminate tactical weapon stock piles (of the Taliban and its backers) in the late 80s, a fact that mainly the intelligence community knows about.

troung
04 Aug 06,, 06:59
this was an occurance after Gulf War 1 in 1991. By then the US was out of Afghanistan for a good 5 years.

Actually we kept up supplies after ODS. Tanks and artillery were supplied after being left in the desert. There had been plans for a short time to sent 155mm guns into Afghanistan for the final phases but the Iraqi equipment did the trick one might say.

lemontree
04 Aug 06,, 08:22
Actually we kept up supplies after ODS. Tanks and artillery were supplied after being left in the desert. There had been plans for a short time to sent 155mm guns into Afghanistan for the final phases but the Iraqi equipment did the trick one might say.
I find that very hard to believe, for 2 reasons:
- The Taliban did not have US funding. They were funded by the ISI via the drug trade.
- All supplies mujahideen were being increasingly procured from China, and most of Taliban equipment was chinese supplied via the ISI's good offices.

Ray
04 Aug 06,, 11:34
Got that one on my bookshelf :)

If you read that book along with John Cooley's "Unholy Wars", the picture clears.

A most fascinating play of power politics.

Ray
04 Aug 06,, 11:36
With a disclaimer that he is trying to salvage his rep (failure to take Kabul, bloody failed offensives and so forth) and really hates the USA blaiming them for Zia's death. Oh yeah and then one has the Stinger issue.

He does say that there were many conspiracy theories.

The Brigadier has not categorically blamed the USA for Zia's crash.

The book is co-authored by Major Mark Adkin

TopHatter
07 Aug 06,, 01:45
I've taken up the Bear Trap ahead of other unread books on my shelf, so with that mind, a few inane questions... :redface:


With a disclaimer that he is trying to salvage his rep (failure to take Kabul, bloody failed offensives and so forth)Really? Can you elaborate on that?


and really hates the USA blaiming them for Zia's death.Because of the Abrams demostration or more directly?


Oh yeah and then one has the Stinger issue.In what context are you referring to here?

Speaking of the Pakistan Abrams trial, does anybody know anything more about it?
He only mentions that the United States was very keen to sell it to Pakistan and that it failed the firing trials miserably.

Ray
07 Aug 06,, 10:37
TH,

Foreign equipment fails because they are not tropicalised.

Stinger is a hypothesis that he stated was rife in Pakistan.

TopHatter
07 Aug 06,, 16:51
Foreign equipment fails because they are not tropicalised.
That's odd...I was under the impression that US equipment was designed and built with all climates in mind. :confused:

Before and during Desert Shield there must have been a serious crash program to get American gear up to speed in a hot dusty environment.

Ray
07 Aug 06,, 17:51
No.

They have to be tropicalised.

The failure rate of US equipment is very high in our climes compared to the Russian equipment, because the US equipment is highly sophisticated and mostly based on fragile and sensitive electronics.

Hence the preference for Russian equipment, apart from the cost.

TopHatter
08 Aug 06,, 00:25
The failure rate of US equipment is very high in our climes Well maybe if you people would turn on the A/C once in a while, we wouldn't have these problems, would we? :rolleyes:




They have to be tropicalised. Seriously though, what's involved in tropicalizing a tank for example? Thicker lubricants, particulate filtering etc?

raj
08 Aug 06,, 02:26
Well maybe if you people would turn on the A/C once in a while, we wouldn't have these problems, would we? :rolleyes:



Seriously though, what's involved in tropicalizing a tank for example? Thicker lubricants, particulate filtering etc?
better electronics with a response range in a wider range of temperature