# Terrorist Talk



## dknob (Sep 14, 2011)

I kinda want to set up a thread where we can talk about the leaders of our enemies.

It's funny.. most people don't know who is leading the bad guys these days... its kinda like not knowing who was in charge of Nazi Germany as our guys were battling it out in Europe.

Ill start it off - Last month I was reading that the US and Karzai are talking peace with the Taliban and that Mullah Omar (don't worry, I forgot about this guy as well) would be needed to secure any types of deals.

I mean, where has this guy been since October 2001?! Has there ever been any communique? I completely forgot about our one eyed friend. I honestly thought he probably died and his body disintegrated in some bombing somewhere in the moutains.

Is he even an active player? Are we actively searching for him or is it more of a , "well IF he pops up, we gonna bust that melon, but until then we have other guys to worry about." ???


----------



## fox1371 (Sep 14, 2011)

They say that we're searching for him, and that he's still a major player.  However I know a few months ago he was staying at woman's home in Kabul I believe.  She made it known that he was there as a guest and he was to be protected as such.  He left freely IIRC.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 14, 2011)

I'm sure he's under the protection of a major player and problably someone in the Gov't.  My money is on the Haqqani fuckers, especially given they can access the "core" of Kabul with such ease.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...i-network-blamed-for-20-hour-Kabul-siege.html


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 14, 2011)

ISI


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 14, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> ISI



At this point in time I'm sure using the 'title' ISI or Haqqani is almost interchangeable.


----------



## Servimus (Sep 14, 2011)

RackMaster said:


> At this point in time I'm sure using the 'title' ISI or Haqqani is almost interchangeable.


Was about to say the same thing, but as a dumb college kid I didn't want to accidentally put my foot in my mouth.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 14, 2011)

ISI could exist w/o HQN, the opposite isn't true.


----------



## alibi (Sep 14, 2011)

One question that I have had about the ISI recently has been whether they are actually a competent terrorist intelligence service, or the fact that Pakistan provides political cover to them, makes them dangerous.  I guess it can be a combination of both, but, as juvenile as this question sounds, are the ISI....good at what they do?


----------



## Manolito (Sep 14, 2011)

The ISI has a strong religious past so I have to believe they are very slanted towards our enemies.
It is hard to find the truth about this group when Russia invaded AStan we funded and trained this outfit the ISI, then as best I can find out the trained killers became Talliban.
If anybody has a recommendation on what to read about the ISI I would appreciate it.
Bill


----------



## QC (Sep 14, 2011)

https://twitter.com/breakingnews/status/113850340599799808

Twitter has Zawahiri in Yemen, the Pakistan guys said, so it must be true.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 15, 2011)

Manolito said:


> The ISI has a strong religious past so I have to believe they are very slanted towards our enemies.
> It is hard to find the truth about this group when Russia invaded AStan we funded and trained this outfit the ISI, then as best I can find out the trained killers became Talliban.
> If anybody has a recommendation on what to read about the ISI I would appreciate it.
> Bill



Have a read of Ghost Wars.


----------



## QC (Sep 15, 2011)

A past president Zia al Haq i believe was a Wahabbi so it goes back a way.


----------



## dknob (Sep 20, 2011)

What about in Yemen? Is The American hiding in the cities or in the mountains or what?


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Sep 20, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> ISI could exist w/o HQN, the opposite isn't true.



Would you mind expanding on this a bit, Sir?

I really should be more informed on HQN with how much of an impact they are having in the region (any good book titles would be appreciated, until then, I shall start to hit up Google).  You are way more of a SME on the HQN than I.

I am probably way off base, but I consider HQN to be similar to AQ and aligned with the Taliban, and thus could survive without the help of the ISI, mainly because of religious principles.  I understand the that HQN and ISI have been tied together for a long time, and at times feel as though the HQN is the marionette in the relationship, but do you really feel as though the HQN couldn't survive without the ISI?

Thanks for any insight you can provide.


----------



## AWP (Sep 20, 2011)

Omar's spent most of his time in Quetta. You have him more or less in charge of the Taliban, then the Haqqanis notionally headed by Jaluluddin and actually run by his son Sirajuddin (or Sirajewdin as I like to call him as a further dig on the guy, not Jewish people). Then you have the ISI run by "I'm too lazy to look up their Wikipedia page" who is funded by American taxpayers and the Saudis. Outside of those guys you have several larger factions in Afghanistan alone (Yunis Khalis' and Dostum's old crews come to mind), the Nuristanis hate EVERYONE and I don't think they have a leader except "hate" which many of us on the board can relate to. Lastly, you have all of the other players around here like the TTP in Pakistan, the IMU in Uzbekistan, Al Q all around, and the Iranians.

Off the top of my head those are the players in the greater Afghan sphere of operations. I'm sure I missed a few. Time for bed.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 20, 2011)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> Would you mind expanding on this a bit, Sir?
> 
> I really should be more informed on HQN with how much of an impact they are having in the region (any good book titles would be appreciated, until then, I shall start to hit up Google). You are way more of a SME on the HQN than I.
> 
> ...



I'm by no means an expert on the HQN, I'm just a grad student with Internet access.  ;)

HQN is a tool of ISI.  It exists (in its current form, in its current sanctuary inside Pakistan) because ISI _*wants*_ it to exist.  Pakistan could crush the HQN- or at least make life very difficult for them- if they wanted to.  They don't; they don't see it in their national interests.

Pakistan still sees India as an existential threat.  That's why Pakistan developed nukes, that's why Pakistan is cozying up to China, and that's why (in part, I'm oversimplifying now) Pakistan maintains various Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations inside its borders.  Pakistan uses terrorists as proxies to attack its nemesis, India, and to put pressure on the U.S. to get us to pull out of Afghanistan.  Pakistan needs a weak but semi-stable border with Afghanistan in order to have strategic depth against India.  It does not want a stable Afghanistan with a strong central pro-Western government.  And it definitely doesn't want a large body of U.S. forces inside Afghanistan, within striking distance of all of those nuke sites...  Giving those pesky tribal fighters someone to fight also keeps them from acting out against the government of Pakistan.  That's win-win as far as they can see, especially if the U.S. is still going to give billions in aid.

HQN is very different from AQ.  HQN are indigenous, AQ is mostly foreign.  The purported goals of the two groups are also different.  AQ has a worldwide plan; a lot of people think the HQN would be happy with "Pashtunistan."  AQ is largely dependent upon HQN, for reasons I don't feel like going into right now.  HQN voluntarily subordinated themselves to the Taliban, but they still operate mostly autonomously.  I'm struggling to find a good comparison to this relationship... maybe if the U.S. national SOF task force commander went to a U.S. conventional ground commander and said, "OK, I work for you now, I'm going to support your overall game plan, but we're still doing our own planning, receive our own funding line and operational direction, and pick our own targets.  We'll let you know if we need anything."  I'm still not sure that's a good example, maybe someone like Freefalling with more time on the ground there than me can come up with something better.  At any rate, almost all of the "spectacular" attacks that take place in Afghanistan are executed by the HQN, operating under the overall Taliban banner.  The most recent example of this was the embassy attack in Kabul.  Classic HQN operation.

With regard to good reading on the HQN, I'd just Google "Haqqani Network" and start from there.  I remember a good piece in the Small Wars Journal, and I'm told that the Counter Terrorism Center at West Point just produced a very good HQN article.  I wrote a couple of pages on the HQN last year, if it was unclassified I still have it at the house and can post it up here in a couple of days when I find it.


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Sep 20, 2011)

Thanks much, Sir.  That all makes a lot of sense, and while I seemed to be on the right track with some of it, I was way off on most of it.  Although, as uneducated as I am at this point, I still think the HQN could survive without the ISI (though they would most likely be completely absorbed into either AQ (as a local asset) or the Taliban).

I recently started reading the Long War Journal and the Small Wars Journal, but I haven't checked them in a week or so.  Great articles being posted in both IMO.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 20, 2011)

Actually, you're right, HQN could survive without the ISI as long as the ISI didn't actively go after the HQN.  However, I doubt that the HQN would be operationally effective without ISI providing funding and a security umbrella.  Without ISI, the leaders of HQN would probably be like AQ, a lot more concerned about individual survival than getting it on in AFG.


----------



## AWP (Sep 20, 2011)

Something to consider about the HQN, to put things into perspective, is that they were a huge part of the Peshawar 7 during the Soviet era which meant their funding and support came from? US and Saudi arms distributed and controlled by the ISI. The ISI determined which group received which weapons and their quantity. Massoud's group for example received very little support from the ISI because of this since they weren't extreme enough (or Xtreme for you who remember the X Games from the 90's) by the ISI's standards. Like Mara the Intel Chick  posted, PK sees India as THE threat....not a threat but the "Allahdamned Sky is Falling" threat. To that end the ISI and PK gov't court Xtremists as proxies to fight an unconventional war with India over Kashmir. They see the madrassas as a necessary evil and fantastic supply of manpower to combat India. They won't be too serious about cracking down on groups like the HQN because it furthers PK's interests. The day the HQN tries to break away from ISI/ PK control is the day the free meals and handouts dry up.

The HQN and TB are just positioning themselevs for Afghan Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo once we pull out...see also 1992-1996 in Afghan history. They'll band together to punt the existing gov't out of power and then turn on each other to be king of the mountain and just like the first iteration, that war will be bloody. To oversimplify, this whole region operates under "The enemy of my enemy is my friend....or at least someone I'll sleep with because it is 0130 and who else is left?"


----------



## Brill (Sep 20, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Actually, you're right, HQN could survive without the ISI as long as the ISI didn't actively go after the HQN. However, I doubt that the HQN would be operationally effective without ISI providing funding and a security umbrella. Without ISI, the leaders of HQN would probably be like AQ, a lot more concerned about individual survival than getting it on in AFG.



Without ISI, HQN would be broke and left to picking up cans and bottles on the side of the road.  If this admin was strong enough, they should convey to Pakistan, knock the shit off or we'll back the Indians in Kashmir and then you'll feel the pain.  Pakistani food gives me the shits anyway...and it burns the o-ring.

IRGC: they are the real threat and have been since Iraq.

I strongly believe we should go BACK to Somalia, facilitate the end to the famine, and kill every jihadist that wants to go to paradise: just like we did in Iraq.  "If you build it, they will come."  Yes, alot of our brothers were killed in Iraq however IF the goal was to kick Saddam's butt off the throne and redirect attention from hitting the Homeland, then it was a success.  There are still alot of underwear bombers out there.  So let's get down to their level and kill them violently in the streets where they're buddies have second thoughts.  This TTP was extremely effective.

Wait...did FF just type "Electric Boogaloo"?


----------



## AWP (Sep 20, 2011)

One other tidbit about HQN: their power base is in the P2K region (Paktika, Paktia, Khost) of Afghanistan. During the Soviet "Occupation" some guy named Usama bin Laden built a huge cave complex (Jaji?) and earned his wartime street cred there in 87 or 88. That cave complex is in the P2K.

I have a hard time buying that the HQN wasn't involved in UBL's post-9/11 life.


----------



## Brill (Sep 20, 2011)

FF, let's not forget who funded Jalaluddin's efforts back then (payment wasn't in the form of Saudi riyals either).


----------



## AWP (Sep 20, 2011)

No, I'm well aware of our role and that of the ISI's in the HQN, I just also don't believe in coincidences when it comes to this place. Very little is unrelated around here, no matter how wild the story it seems.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 20, 2011)

HQN could possibly survive without the ISI by way of poppy sales/growing but I'm not sure what their views are on that.

ISI is a rogue elephant that's even a threat to the Pakistani government. Problem is they can't dismantle it.


----------



## fox1371 (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm not quite so sure that the HQN could survive without the ISI.  From my understanding there are really only a few major players in that poppy trade (outside of U.S. backed crops), those players being Iran, TB, AQ, and the ISI.  Now I can only guess that if the ISI were to let go of HQN, that the HQN would then be nothing more than a threat to everyone else that is making their money off of the heroine.  I agree that the HQN is a strongly religious organization, however without the organization and financing that the ISI provides, they'll be nothing but an armed group of religious nut jobs.  If the HQN strikes than there is a purpose behind it.  I don't see the ISI EVER letting the HQN go though.  If the HQN is dismantled than Iran is going to go into Afghanistan and control everything.  They need the HQN to fight their own little proxy against Iran if/when the situation arises again.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2011)

lindy said:


> Without ISI, HQN would be broke and left to picking up cans and bottles on the side of the road.  If this admin was strong enough, they should convey to Pakistan, knock the shit off or we'll back the Indians in Kashmir and then you'll feel the pain.  Pakistani food gives me the shits anyway...and it burns the o-ring.
> 
> IRGC: they are the real threat and have been since Iraq.
> 
> ...



Good post!


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 22, 2011)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44627163/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/



> The Haqqani militant network is a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's powerful ISI intelligence service, which supported the group as it launched a startling attack last week on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the top U.S. military officer said on Thursday.
> 
> Mullen, CIA director David Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all have met with their Pakistani counterparts in recent days to demand Islamabad take action against the Haqqani network.
> "The Haqqani network ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency," Mullen told the Senate panel.
> ...




I wonder when we're going to stop complaining about this and start doing something about it.


----------



## Sendero (Sep 22, 2011)

Leaning a lot from this thread.

Thought this was interesting regarding the Haqqani Network: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/09/22/starr-crackdown-pakistan-haqqanis.cnn?hpt=hp_bn1

It's a video talking about how the US is starting to use drone attacks on the Haqqani Network. They report 20% are directed at Haqqani targets.


----------



## Brill (Sep 22, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> I wonder when we're going to stop complaining about this and start doing something about it.



20 Jan 2013


----------



## TH15 (Sep 22, 2011)

This thread has been very informative. I do have one question though. How can we win this war? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not battling nations who will give up by bombing the hell out of them, but rather people deeply motivated by their religious beliefs. From an outsider's point of view, it seems like we kill 1 and 2-3 more pop up. It seems like we will always be at war with them, maybe just not a grandeur scale like in AFG or Iraq.

Just wondering what your guys' thoughts are on that and how we can defeat these bastards.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 22, 2011)

Even if you took the religion out of it, they'd still fight like that. It's a Pashtun thing.

(They're cunts).


----------



## Brill (Sep 22, 2011)

TH15 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not battling nations who will give up by bombing the hell out of them, but rather people deeply motivated by their religious beliefs.
> 
> Just wondering what your guys' thoughts are on that and how we can defeat these bastards.



Dude, you're swallowing the populist line of crap that the media is feeding you.  This war, just like all the others, is about power and money.  Sure, there are some that truly believe in the Islamic-fascist line of garbage (e.g. Muhamad Atta) but the majority of young jihadists are no different than the inner city kids in the US: hopeless, unwanted, and unemployed.  So they see a gangbanger with cash, chicks, and perceived power in the form that they are feared by others.  Once they join up (Blood, Crip, MS-13, Taliban, etc), they're needs are met: money, structure, wanted by the group, and power in the form of a mac-10, glock, AK, etc.   All they gotta do is a drive by (spray and pray), steal some stuff, etc and their needs get met.

Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Detroit, LA, Philly...seriously, what's the difference other than US-based gangs don't use suicide bombers or VBIEDs?

It's all about hookers and blow.  Some of them only understand violence so those f-tards require purification through deep lead injections.

Civil Affairs is the key in my opinion.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 22, 2011)

TH15 said:


> This thread has been very informative. I do have one question though. How can we win this war? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not battling nations who will give up by bombing the hell out of them, but rather people deeply motivated by their religious beliefs. From an outsider's point of view, it seems like we kill 1 and 2-3 more pop up. It seems like we will always be at war with them, maybe just not a grandeur scale like in AFG or Iraq.
> 
> Just wondering what your guys' thoughts are on that and how we can defeat these bastards.



It depends on what kind of "win" we're looking for.  If it's an Afghanistan that is (relatively) stable to the point that terrorist groups like AQ can't use it as a base to attack the U.S., then yeah, I think we can do that.  If it's nationbuilding or whatever, that's going to be a bit harder to accomplish.

Personally, I'm totally good with crushing AQ (which has already been done, IMO) scuffing up the Taliban, doing the best we can with whatever government we can prop up inside Afghanistan, and then wiping our hands of the place.  Afghanistan didn't matter a damn when the Taliban had it pre-AQ, and it won't matter much more than that post-AQ.  There are only a couple of good reasons to maintain a presence inside AFG, one of them being putting PK's nuke sites within range of our helos... the Paks can read a map too and don't really dig that idea, which is probably one of the reasons they're running the HQN so hard against us.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 22, 2011)

There are hundreds if not thousands of Pakistani "nuke sites"- they're disassembled. It's part of the status quo with India. If you have people in range of some of the sites you could never secure all of them. Not even close to half IMO.


----------



## AWP (Sep 22, 2011)

Sendero said:


> It's a video talking about how the US is starting to use drone attacks on the Haqqani Network. They report 20% are directed at Haqqani targets.



"Starting to?" Maybe a few years ago that was correct. ;)


----------



## AWP (Sep 22, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> There are hundreds if not thousands of Pakistani "nuke sites"- they're disassembled. It's part of the status quo with India. If you have people in range of some of the sites you could never secure all of them. Not even close to half IMO.



I don't see that at all. If you have to gather parts for your nukes like some insane quest in World of Warcraft then they aren't doing you much good, especially with the perceived threat of India just miles and an easy strike away. Also, the more you spread out your components the more risk you run in losing control of them; PK is paranoid about that. I can see have a dozen or so sites (maybe less) with assembled pret-a-porter nukes and maybe even some of them without nuke stocks so they can move around their weapons.


----------



## Sendero (Sep 22, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> "Starting to?" Maybe a few years ago that was correct. ;)



Ha, Good point.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 23, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> I don't see that at all. If you have to gather parts for your nukes like some insane quest in World of Warcraft then they aren't doing you much good, especially with the perceived threat of India just miles and an easy strike away. Also, the more you spread out your components the more risk you run in losing control of them; PK is paranoid about that. I can see have a dozen or so sites (maybe less) with assembled pret-a-porter nukes and maybe even some of them without nuke stocks so they can move around their weapons.



No, the status quo is that both sides won't use them first. Hence they don't keep them assembled and then if one side does assemble both know it's time to have a chat.


----------



## TH15 (Sep 23, 2011)




----------



## AWP (Sep 23, 2011)

I'm kind of reminded of an old commercial:

"You got your Haqqani Network in my Inter-Services Intelligence!"
"You got your Inter-Services Intelligence in my Haqqani Network!"
"Two great terrorist groups that terrorize together."


----------



## Scotth (Sep 24, 2011)

Drone attack appear to be targeting more attacks at the Haqqani Network but that is only what I read and I certainly have no first hand knowledge to backup that claim.



> The Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. military have stepped up unilateral strikes against the Haqqani network over the past year, a senior U.S. official has confirmed to CNN.
> 
> The news follows public comments by top U.S. officials this week voicing frustration with Pakistan's lack of action against the terror network.
> The senior official said the CIA and the U.S. military agreed last year to increase targeting of the Haqqani terrorist network inside Pakistan after Haqqani-backed insurgents stepped up their attacks across the border inside Afghanistan against U.S. troops and Afghan targets.
> ...



Remainder of article:  http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/21/us-targeting-haqqani-network-in-pakistan/


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 24, 2011)

lindy said:


> Dude, you're swallowing the populist line of crap that the media is feeding you. This war, just like all the others, is about power and money. Sure, there are some that truly believe in the Islamic-fascist line of garbage (e.g. Muhamad Atta) but the majority of young jihadists are no different than the inner city kids in the US: hopeless, unwanted, and unemployed. So they see a gangbanger with cash, chicks, and perceived power in the form that they are feared by others. Once they join up (Blood, Crip, MS-13, Taliban, etc), they're needs are met: money, structure, wanted by the group, and power in the form of a mac-10, glock, AK, etc. All they gotta do is a drive by (spray and pray), steal some stuff, etc and their needs get met.
> 
> Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Detroit, LA, Philly...seriously, what's the difference other than US-based gangs don't use suicide bombers or VBIEDs?
> 
> ...


Wow great post!


----------



## BravoOne (Sep 25, 2011)

alibi said:


> One question that I have had about the ISI recently has been whether they are actually a competent terrorist intelligence service, or the fact that Pakistan provides political cover to them, makes them dangerous. I guess it can be a combination of both, but, as juvenile as this question sounds, are the ISI....good at what they do?


The ISI is quite good at what they do. The Haqqanis and HiG are both ISI proxies. State sponsored terrorists. Pakistan likes having militias they can use to do their dirty work. They prove that in the Kashmir and IN India itself. Pakistanis are Pashtun folks just like most of the Taliban. The Taliban are largely drawn from the Ghilzai Confederation (8/11 senior leadership of the Talis are Ghilzai including Mullah Omar). The Ghilzai are traditional enemies of the Durrani (who were marginalized by the ISI during the resistance in favor of the  Ghilzai.) Exiled King Zahir Shah is a Durrani. One of the first things the Taliban attended to when they got control was subdued or coopt Durranis in large provinces. Deobandi Muslims (Taliban religion) are anti-monarchist and will keep the monarchy out of A'stan which falls in line with Pakistans desires for A'stan to provide them strategic depth against India. The ISI is clearly hedging their bets to ensure Pakistan has influence in A'stan no matter what happens with regard to the ISAF, Karzai and all of that. Unfortunately national intelligence agencies often have unsavory relationships to cover the bases.
What makes them dangerous IMO is the damn Islamist political parties that MOST of the leadership of the ISI and Pak Army belong to like JUI. These parties are hooked up with all kinds of scumbags and fund all manner of fuckery.


----------



## BravoOne (Sep 25, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> Wow great post!


I agree! Tribal engagement is the key. The Taliban played the tribal elder thing out when they came to power and that should be taken advantage of. The key to Afghanistan is the Tribes! Bumping them off is not going to help because of tribal law ALL the male members of the tribe are obligated to seek vengeance. Killing them just feeds the recruitment machine. Kill Mullah Omar and the Taliban will cease to exist. He's the source of their power. Ask the Brits about the whole "Mullah" phenomenon. That guy needs to go.


----------

