On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:15:22 +0100, Andrew Swallow
<
am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 19/10/2012 12:59, Bill wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:53:34 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>> <
am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/10/2012 09:08,
dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> US sees potential for wider anti-Taliban uprising:
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501712_162-57535318/us-sees-potential-for-wider-anti-taliban-uprising/
>>>
>>> Whether village based vigilantes/militias are the correct way to remove
>>> the Taliban I do not know. However once they have been removed a weekly
>>> patrol where the locals are asked if any outsiders are causing problems
>>> will help prevent the Taliban from returning.
>>
>> Translation of original story:
>>
>> For reasons unknown, but possibly related to local relations between
>> the village maliks and some Taliban from another area, the lashkar of
>> the tribe expelled the Taliban from their area.
>>
>> US officials hope this will be a trend, anyone who knows about
>> Pathans realises that this is almost certainly a localised incident
>> and has more to do with personalities than anything else...
>>
>
>Divide and conquer.
>
>Where the Taliban are from out of town, say Pakistan, they are not
>family. When they boss everyone around with lots of new rules they are
>likely to upset lots of people including the tribal Lashkar.
The Afghan Taliban are not from Pakistan.
The Pakistani Taliban are from Pakistan...
The Afghan Taliban is Pakistani sponsored.
Who sponsors the Pakistani Taliban is something of a mystery, but
quite possibly very wealthy businessmen from South Waziristan .
>Even arguments in 10% of the villages will upset the Taliban's control
>and disrupt the drugs trade.
Who do you think controls the drug trade?
It certainly isn't the Taliban who, at best, tax it.
Or do you think the maliks get their money by being good honest
traders?