.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Headbanging Man.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Headbanging%20Man:1176040"]Here's another story that expands on the brief Yahoo piece: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27558.htm I don't know what to think, not having insider ISI/CIA perspective... If both these pieces are true, I see 3 possibilities: - The past 10 years of US allegations of ISI/"Al Qaeda"-Taliban cooperation have been a smokescreen for the CIA's own AQ-T ops. Actual ISI officials involved were strictly working for CIA, not their own country/establishment. - Musharraf, Zardari and the military leadership have successfully rooted out the entrenched elements of the ISI that were actually working with terrorists; of course, this would clash with the popular US myth that the ISI is uncontrollable by the political and military establishment. - Those elements of ISI willing to play both sides and attack civilians have always existed, but the CIA/Wall St/State Dept have decided that this pawn has outlived its usefulness, and are now more concerned about controlling Paki nukes. My guess would be something close to the 3rd option, of course providing this news isn't bullshit. After all, Daniel Pearl was killed whilst investigating connections between ISI and "Al Qaeda" before the CIA had really organized an operational presence in the area, and this story was NOT picked up by the MSM, which presented it as a strictly Judophobic act. Likewise, the Company and the Bush administration (including its "Congressional" 9/11 Commission) did all they could to cover for ISI after 9/11; that could be explained as part of the need to keep the story simple, but that wouldn't explain the billions in military aid simultaneously tossed Pakistan's way. Basically, it seems that US officials have been willing to criticize ISI for its methods and associations, except as applies to operations that have overlapped with CIA, in which case, these same officials bust out a double-dose of whitewash. It's bizarre to try to fathom what the real deeper relationship is, but obviously it wouldn't be the first time that a useful ally of the CIA turned into a target after a few decades of cooperation...[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][