U.S. officials say Pakistani spy agency released Afghan Taliban insurgents

[kidwaibhai]

---

---

If the US knew who these guys were then why do they not arrest them in Afghanistan if Pakistan did release them. They dont even mention the name of the leaders. Is there a possibility that it was a case of mistaken identity.

[dk33]

The UNSC resolution on Afghanistan to hand over OBL is as old as 1999. With a second resolution in 2000.

OBL was wanted for crimes in USA and not Afghanistan...

Aren't those resolutions similar to the one on Hafiz Saeed?

By resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), as reiterated in resolutions 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006) and 1822 (2008), the Security Council has obliged all States to:

* freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources, including funds derived from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly
* prevent the entry into or the transit through their territories
* prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer of arms and related material, including military and paramilitary equipment, technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities, with regard to the individuals, groups, undertakings and entities placed on the Consolidated List.


The Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee - 1267

... in which case the same argument can be made as is made with Hafiz Saeed, arrest and deportation is not mandated under the terms mentioned above.

Secondly, the UN did not recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, the Afghan ambassador seated at the UN was the one appointed by the overthrown regime, so who exactly in Afghanistan was responsible for implementing even the parts of the UNSC resolution mentioned above?

And again, why was the Taliban offer to try OBL and Co. in Afghanistan or a mutually acceptable third country not evidence of a willingness to cooperate (no such offer had been made before) and taken up by the US?

[dk33]

The difference in the usage.. In the first case its a news report to be read and interpretted by the reader as he/she sees fit. I am not using that to prove a point. In the second case the news report is being used to back an arguement. In which case the credibility of the report needs to be backed up ...

I am am not speaking about the usage nor getting into your and Emo's debate, but questioning the standards used to establish the veracity of both articles, and specifically questioning your standards to determine veracity.

You argued that 'unnamed sources' make the article quoting 'Indian Government sources' suspect - I assume then that you would apply the same standard in the case of the WaPo article, and that you consider it similarly suspect?

[karan.1970]

I am am not speaking about the usage nor getting into your and Emo's debate, but questioning the standards used to establish the veracity of both articles, and specifically questioning your standards to determine veracity.

You argued that 'unnamed sources' make the article quoting 'Indian Government sources' suspect - I assume then that you would apply the same standard in the case of the WaPo article, and that you consider it similarly suspect?

In one word Yes.. Unless verified by a named or official stand, its media assessments..Good as a report to be read and analyzed.. Bad to base a decision or a debate on...

[karan.1970]

Aren't those resolutions similar to the one on Hafiz Saeed?

By resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), as reiterated in resolutions 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006) and 1822 (2008), the Security Council has obliged all States to:

* freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources, including funds derived from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly
* prevent the entry into or the transit through their territories
* prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer of arms and related material, including military and paramilitary equipment, technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities, with regard to the individuals, groups, undertakings and entities placed on the Consolidated List.


The Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee - 1267

... in which case the same argument can be made as is made with Hafiz Saeed, arrest and deportation is not mandated under the terms mentioned above.

Secondly, the UN did not recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, the Afghan ambassador seated at the UN was the one appointed by the overthrown regime, so who exactly in Afghanistan was responsible for implementing even the parts of the UNSC resolution mentioned above?

And again, why was the Taliban offer to try OBL and Co. in Afghanistan or a mutually acceptable third country not evidence of a willingness to cooperate (no such offer had been made before) and taken up by the US?

Some key differences..

1. The one of Hafeez Sayeed is the specific to individual's relations with Al Queda and is a call on all member states, where as the one on OBL was specific to Afghanistan asking it to cooperate. Followed by sanctions when Afghanistan did not.

2. Hafeez Sayeed is not suspected of master minding killing of over 3000 US civilians in a single largest terror strike.

Tomorrow, if he is, what do you think will be the directive of US to Pakistan and what will be Pakistan's reponse. ??


Taliban had no jurisdiction to make that offer. OBL was an internationally declared terrorist hiding in Afghanistan. Taliban had no authority to negotiate on his surrender.. That too after 9/11 when the world was a little less forgiving..

[saad445566]

Sympathizing and/or apologizing with barbarians makes you a barbarian.

Helping the U.S. makes us a barbarian and helping Talibans make us a barbarian...

[Thomas]

And how misinformed could you be. The talibans as a group came into existence after the Russian withdrawal. And as far as the Afghani lives that were destroyed, well I don't see you guys running your mouth about the NA who were equally as corrupt and brutal. Why because they served the Indian interest. So Hypocrisy is the best trait and practised well by you guys.

So it's not ok for the Pakistani Taliban to practice the same atrocities as the Afghan Taliban (beheading, Attacks on school girls, blowing up schools, mass executions Ect). But it is ok for the Afghan Taliban to practice atrocities if it is in the Geo political interests of Pakistan? Then they are good Taliban?

Yes I know not all Pakistani's here believe the Afghan Taliban are good.

[graphican]

---

---

So it's not ok for the Pakistani Taliban to practice the same atrocities as the Afghan Taliban (beheading, Attacks on school girls, blowing up schools, mass executions Ect). But it is ok for the Afghan Taliban to practice atrocities if it is in the Geo political interests of Pakistan? Then they are good Taliban?

Yes I know not all Pakistani's here believe the Afghan Taliban are good.

Yup! and we also believe that mos of the Americans are not good and don't deserve to stay in Afghanistan, Pakistan or any other country of the Asia. Leave this territory to the people who own that and mind your business of the area that you own. Simple I guess but too complex for Americans to understand.