Taliban Within 60 Miles Of Pakistan Capital-More Pakistani cities fall into Taliban hand »
Posted By pc25 8 months, 1 week ago in NewsPakistan's government confirms that Taliban militants, armed with heavy weapons, have taken control of new areas near the capital Islamabad.
Islamabad's Interior Ministry on Wednesday said that the Taliban moved out of the troubled northwestern Swat Valley and were now in control of Buner district -- only 100 km (60 miles) from Islamabad.
Members of a local tribal militia confronted the insurgents earlier this month when they started infiltrating the district.
Read Full Story at presstv.ir »
470 Views Share Story 61 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 61 (view all)
-
43%
pc258 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
as reported by Sweetness and Light
Reply
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/taliban-within-...
By David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter
September 25, 2004
… As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.
“… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now – if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”
So what is he waiting for?
Like Carville said if Hillary gave Obama one of her cajones they would both have 2-
AbuAmirahComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned11 Replies
-
50%
hyperbola8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah my. The zionist circles trying to keep hatred towards muslims running to fascilitate their crimes against humanity. Obama should get out of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. 40-50 years of our military imperialism in that part of the world is only reinforcing the resistance to our crimes.
Reply
U.S. Lacks Capacity to Win Over Afghans and so Bombs Them
President Barack Obama and other top officials in his administration have made it clear that there can be no military solution in Afghanistan, and that the non-military efforts to win over the Afghan population will be central to its chances of success.
The reality, however, is that U.S. military and civilian agencies lack the skills and training as well as the institutional framework necessary to carry out culturally and politically sensitive socio-economic programmes at the local level in Afghanistan, or even to avoid further alienation of the population.
In fact, the U.S. government does not even have a minimum corps of people capable of speaking Pashto, the language of the 14 million ethnic Pashtuns who represent about 42 per cent of the population of Afghanistan. It is in the Pashtun southern and eastern regions of the country that the complex insurgency that has come to be called the Taliban has been able to organise and often effectively govern at the village level in recent years.
...according to an official at the State Department’s Bureau of Human Resources, the United States has turned out a total of only 18 Foreign Service officers who can speak Pashto, and only two of them are now serving in Afghanistan – both apparently in Kabul. ...
The Washington Post reported that Obama announced in late March that the number of U.S. civilian officials to be involved in the new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy would be increased by at least 50 per cent to more than 900. But even a doubling of the civilian presence would not address the yawning human resource gap in regard to a non-military approach to the insurgency, according to Goodson.
That’s because the additional civilians would be based on a model of "highly paid contractors" who live far from the people they are supposed to be helping to win over, Goodson explained. That creates friction with their poorly paid Afghan counterparts and does nothing to establish relations with local people, said Goodson. -
86%
mesodude8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, at least Bush stayed focused on those who attacked us on 9/11. Oh, wait...The torturer who CUT and RAN after destroying our country's economy actually DIDN'T do that. In fact, he illegally invaded acountry that had nothing to do with 9/11 (we're finding out more and more about that fact every day) and then completely CUT and RAN from Afghanistan (notice a pattern here, anyone?) leaving Obama to clean up behind yet ANOTHER con sponsored CRAPSTORM. Wow ;-0
Reply
-
-
67%
pc258 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_...
Reply
"He added, '[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if 'violent Islamic extremists' were to 'take over'," Joshua Frank wrote January 22, 2005, for Antiwar.com.[1] -
71%
nostalgia8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This administration is bungling one thing after another
Reply
What a time to have a novice in office!
He punts one decision after another to committees, commissions, the Attorney General and on and on
If he dithers around on this hoping to escape responsibility for a decision, Pakistan might as well be handed to the Taliban on a silver platter-
62%
pc258 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The International political scene is heating up........North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, the insurgency is on the rise again in Iraq, Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran and this moron is celebrating Earth Day today and lip locking with Chavez over the weekend.......
Reply
have no fear Obama is here
http://images.quickblogcast.com/35238-32833/the_on... -
56%
antibrainwasher8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Compared to the neocon torturers, Obamsa's doing great after only 4 months, trying to repair the horrendous damage done by your hero, the mass murdering tyrant coward, Dick Cheney.
Reply
He hasn't started any false illegal wars yet, sending 5000 americans to their death for a neocon torturers lie, has he, you barking poodle.
Each day, you dig your con hole deeper, with your hate speech, ranting how you hate americal and its elected officials, but that's what we've come to expect from the Caribu Barabie voting idiots that make up the party of cons. -
50%
hyperbola8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah my! Nostalgia never saw a muslim she wouldn't want to bomb in support of zionist ideology!
Reply
Does the threat from al Qaeda justify a major escalation in Central Asia?
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/13/does-the...
Does the threat of international terrorism -- specifically al Qaeda -- justify a costly, long-term engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan? President Obama and his advisors think so, but I'm still not convinced. I certainly understand that we have a terrorism problem; I just don't believe that it is serious enough to warrant the level and type of effort the administration is proposing. And if the results of the recent NATO summit are any indication, our NATO allies seem skeptical, too.
Just how serious is the threat? According to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center,.... In America, the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than the risk of dying in a terrorist attack. And that would be true even if the United State were to suffer one 9/11-scale attack every ten years. Given these numbers, does it really make sense to double down in Central Asia?
In short, my concern is that we are allowing an exaggerated fear of al Qaeda to distort our foreign policy priorities. Having underestimated the danger from al Qaeda before 9/11, have we now swung too far the other way? I am not arguing for a Pollyanna-like complacency or suggesting that we simply ignore the threat that groups like al Qaeda still pose. Rather, I'm arguing that the threat is not as great as the administration -- and most Americans, truth be told -- seem to think, and that the actual danger does not warrant escalating U.S. involvement in Central Asia.
...I can think of at least three counter-arguments to my position.
First, one could argue that there have been no attacks on the United States since 2001 because we've put al Qaeda on the defensive, and that going after them in Pakistan’s frontier provinces will deny them a "safe haven" and further reduce their ability to stage another 9/11 (or worse). This line of argument sounds persuasive, but it falls apart on closer examination....
Second, one could argue that while the risk from conventional terrorism is manageable, the real danger is nuclear or WMD terrorism and that this threat justifies upping the ante in Afghanistan and Pakistan, even if the commitment is costly and open-ended. Nuclear terrorism is a worrisome prospect, but doubling down in Central Asia isn't the best response to that problem. Pakistan is the key here and our primary goal should be making sure that its nuclear arsenal remains under reliable control. The best way to do that is to try to prevent Pakistan from becoming a failed state. As emphasized above, using the U.S. military to go after al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas is likely to destabilize Pakistan, thus increasing the chances that nuclear materials will fall into the hands of terrorists.
-
-
AbuAmirahComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
40%
Wolfie20078 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So how is Obama's, "I'm sorry my country is so evil but now that I'm here we'll be nice and play well together" foreign policy working with the Taliban? Btw, wasn't there something about a Obama Taliban Summit? Obummer needs a new plan and he needs one pdq.
Reply-
67%
antibrainwasher8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you would stop your hate-america retoric for 10 seconds, you would realize that Obama is commander in chief, and your daily hate speech is just a coward barking from the sidelines, accomplishing nothing, and is infact a symptom of the ignorance that cost your pathetic con party a sweeping defeat.
Reply -
43%
mesodude8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So how is Obama's, "I'm sorry my country is so evil but now that I'm here we'll be nice and play well together" foreign policy working with the Taliban? Btw, wasn't there something about a Obama Taliban Summit? Obummer needs a new plan and he needs one pdq."
Reply
--Too bad only braindead cons know that Bush was such a wonderful President. ;-P -
-
-
-
100%
Albmore8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I have written for a long time the most dangerous threat to the US is Pakistan. Something needs to be done and done fast.
Reply
No reason for me to reply to ABU's comments until he can write something without cursing. It really shows a lack of education. -
80%
antibrainwasher8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok, politics aside for a minute.
Reply
The Teliban is funded by narco heroin dollars from selling to america and europe. All they are is 20 guys with AK47 willing to kill anything that moves with directions from religious mulahs. Of course, religious brainwashing is central to the peasants there, as it is here. Cant have a war without religion and tribalism, can you?
The teliban is succeeding for a reason, and it has nothing to do with america, it has to do with the structure of Pak. society. Pak. society is rigid, with a rich upperclass that owns all the land. The teliban is a peasant revolution, and the peasants do indeed hate the landed gentry. The peasants, overpopulated, no food, no jobs, and 12 children, no hope, no political power, are revolting against the upper class in their version of a French revolution, or the USA's version of Revolution from the british.
Obviously, the united states cannot permit these religious extreamists getting nukes, and India will not permit it either. I'm quite sure, that we will bomb the freak out of the nuclear installations if the teliban get near. Otherwise, let them have their revolutions, and to hell with them. The entire budget of Al Qaeda is less than one Helicopter. -
50%
Wolfie20078 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From what I heard Clinton say this morning the government of Pakistan isn't interested in halting the Taliban advance but that is, of course, if you can believe anything Clinton says. The Obama gang really don't seem too concerned. The B.O. gang are more interested in other things...............
Reply -
56%
Commodore18 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well I'm sure if the Taliban gets the nukes then Obama bin Laden will shake their hands then kiss their butts. Interesting how the Taliban never got close to the capital when Bush was in office. Now we could be looking at nuclear strikes on American soil. Way to go Obama!
Reply-
-
-
75%
antibrainwasher8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Commodore voted to send Caribu Barbie over there to put on a burka and solve foreign policy problems.
Reply
How could anyone who voted for caribu barbie have the nerve to show his sad sack of a face complaining about anybody cleaning up the repug mess left by the villiage idiot and repug greed, and the murdering coward torturing coward, Dicklass Warprofiteer Cheney?
Caribu Barbie voting cons have no cred, yet they just spew away, like irresponsible children.
-
-
50%
antibrainwasher8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cons, you have given 0 new ideas how to deal with this, whether its withdrawl, negotiation, bombing them all like Vietnam, all you ever do is bark like annoying poodles on a chain held by faux noise and the Billionaire cartel who brainwash your pathetic minds each day.
Reply
Lets hear your great plan for what we should do to Pakistan. I've already given mine. Lets hear the Con plan for world conquest. What, you going to hire Cheney and Rummy to get 'er done again, that worked so well before.
Freaking tools, the teliban are a revolution caused by stagnant Pakistani society, and have nothing to do with America, and if we get involved over there, it will be another vietnam. We can't let the teliban get nukes, Israel, India, and the US will not let that happen.
So are you cons going to sign up and fight your gung ho anti-america anti-obama war to bring baby jesus and democracy to the heathen Pakistanis who hate anything with a white skin? What's your bone head plan. Oh, that's right, you don't have one, so you'll just continue to bark like the cowards you are.
Remember who you voted for 5 months ago? YOu idiots voted to have McSenile and Caribu Barbie deal with this pile of crap. You idiots voted for Caribu Barbie. MORONS. -
67%
pcknowledge8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Interesting how the Taliban never got close to the capital when Bush was in office."
Reply
Actually Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban, rose to power during the beginning of Bush's second term in office. Mehsud & the Taliban have come close to the capital before, were also reportedly responsible for some bomb blasts in the area a couple of yrs ago as well. -
100%
reallypsst8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is going to be very interesting to see,will the USA invade Pakistan or let India kick the **** out of them and then sort it out,as for the nukes i do think that some of the delivery system is ours and can be monitored and maybe remotely overridden!
Reply -
0%
pcknowledge8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When Bush was President, he gave PM Musharaff $'s to fight "terrorism."
Reply
Musharraf has had ties with the Taliban since his teens and ties with Bin Laden since the Soviet war in Afghanistan. So, Musharraf gave the money he got from Bush to the Taliban to stage bomb attacks in Kashmir & parts of India. And now people think India would be able to restrain Mehsud & his Taliban followers? Interesting...-
100%
reallypsst8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nobody is saying india will restrain pakistan ,but that a serious conflict has existed for years between these countries and the USA has kept the peace ,but now the game is changing and tensions are running high,if pakistan is overrun india will defend itself!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
reallypsst8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/02/27/us...
Reply -
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.