Nevertheless....
"Al Qaeda seen dictating Taliban chief" by Associated Press | August 11, 2009
ISLAMABAD - Al Qaeda wants to choose the next Pakistani Taliban leader to replace Baitullah Mehsud, a top Pakistani official said yesterday, a move that could help the terrorist group maintain its sanctuaries near the Afghan border.
Related: Predator Precipitates Pakistani Divorce
Pakistani and American officials are confident that Mehsud died in a CIA missile strike last Wednesday in the South Waziristan tribal region, despite Taliban denials. Militants are said to have been meeting in recent days to determine Mehsud’s successor.
One contender, Hakimullah, phoned the Associated Press yesterday and denounced Pakistani government reports that he himself had been killed....
Another "terrorist" back from the grave, huh?
He also insisted that the Taliban chief was alive and his supporters unified.
Mehsud’s death would be a major blow for the Pakistani Taliban. He had succeeded in bringing various Islamist militant factions under a unified if loose command that posed an unprecedented threat to Pakistani security forces.
Pakistani intelligence officials and Taliban sources have told the AP that Arab fighters as well as Afghan Taliban joined shuras, or meetings, held by local militant commanders this past weekend in South Waziristan on who should succeed Mehsud.
Al Qaeda has encouraged Pakistanis to rise up against their government because of its alliance with the United States.
Translation: ANY ONE WHO PROTESTS government is a "terrorist."
Gee, that "Al-CIA-Duh" sure comes in handy for the neo-con war-pushers, huh?
How many times I gotta put this up?
"Something of a catchall term for loosely affiliated insurgents without a singular command structure. Often, the Afghan government favors the phrase 'enemies of the state' (New York Times July 24, 2007)."
"The Taliban is growing and creating new alliances not because its sectarian religious practices have become popular, but because it is the only available umbrella for national liberation," says Pakistani historian and political commentator Tariq Ali. "As the British and the Soviets discovered to their cost in the preceding two centuries, Afghans never like being occupied."
Also see: Afghanistan's Other Government
And today, readers?
"More and more, people here look back to the era of harsh Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001, describing it as a time of security and peace."
Oh, oh, oh!!!! I'm so offended by the AmeriKan MSM and its bullshit!
Also see: How I Came to Love the Veil
Now I know that is Afghanistan, but we are talking about an artificial border drawn by the British who NEVER ASKED the PASHTUNS what THEY THOUGHT!!!!!!!
Besides,
"The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997."
We can "LIVE WITH THAT?"
Well, I SURE CAN as long as the KILLING STOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please read: Pashtun Hospitality
Yeah, HOW are those REFUGEES doing, anyway, Globe?
