Should diplomatic language be more straightforward?


fulminante 15 September, 2008, 11:22	Certainly . The current diplomatic language must be interpreted and that is the danger . For example : Frank discussions = bitter disagreement . So I think that a clear message including insults, when necessary, make possible less misunderstanding and miscalculations . It's about time somebody put in the right place rabid dogs like a certain british minister . Being polite and diplomatic with certain people only encourages their idiotic behavior . permalink quote 0 fulminante
Cantemir 15 September, 2008, 12:14	To me, in a NORMAL society, government's only duties should be to, say, build roads, deliver mail, defend national borders, mint coins and register patents on people's ingenuity. In such a society, sovereign people would be free to engage in commerce with substance, not with fiat money. For instance, 371.25-grain silver dollar today, will still be a 371.25-grain silver dollar tomorrow. No imaginary wealth! What you own, will remain your own, until you choose otherwise. Property would be held in allodium, untaxed. In a NORMAL society, government would provide a bona fide, accountable, judicial forum to resolve conflicts between sovereign citizens and would only pass laws that are most wholesome and necessary for the public good. In such a society with almost no taxes, one could afford to privately educate one's children and contribute to any charities one chooses. “Welfare,” would be how well one fares from one's own responsible, sovereign efforts and not the handouts from state's coffers. In such a society, the language of politicians would, by necessity, be clear and straightforward, no beating about the bush. But alas, where in the world would you have such a society? Really, nowhere. The Constitutions of most countries make sure one is a slave from craddle to the grave by stating that one cannot claim to be a sovereign human being apart from the public system in which one operates, thus being always subjected to the will of the majority, even if that could be detrimental to oneself and to others. Thus, in almost all nations, one cannot become a politician and still be honest and straightforward - the system would spew them out like a rotten, decayed tooth. How could then their language be clear and to the point? It would first require for the very social, economic and financial systems to be replaced for more fair ones and then good results would follow. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen under the current planetary Game controlled more and more from reptilian Orion and Mintaka. Such a waste! permalink quote 0 Cantemir
Fred 15 September, 2008, 15:39	EVERYTHING in diplomatic language HAS to be just right, REGARDLESS of the text ESPECIALLY in English where words can have multiple meanings,and even something as the placement of a comma, can make a HUGE difference. For example , a sick man, writing a letter to his vacationing wife would say - "Im not getting any better, come home." move the comma and it becomes "Im not getting any, better come home." The words remain the same , but the wife's reaction would be determined by the placement of the comma! ^_^ Plain Language is important, but details will still be crucial to any diplomatic agreements. permalink quote 0 Fred
Yahshuah Our Righteousness 15 September, 2008, 16:39	Everyone's human. Besides, with all the language mangling and mutilation by modern slang in movies, TV, on the Metro, in the streets, in the music, in the schools - everywhere you go .it's no wonder the tongue slips into the NORM and one defiles oneself. More importantly is the DESPERATE issue that Lavrov was dealing with at the time: A MADMAN Saakashvili tearing familiies apart LITERALLY at bUSH's command of his PRIVATE contracted murderers! That's the main OFFENSE TO THE WORLD, TO THE NATIONS, TO EVERY SOUL ON EARTH in 2008! The issue of the .word is "swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat"; as the Holy Scriptures says. permalink quote 0 Yahshuah Our Righteousness
Lavy 15 September, 2008, 18:18	With non-diplomatic people, yes. With those that understand only straightforward language, only that language should be used. As they say, diplomacy is a two-edged sword - sometimes in hard-talk there's a lot of truth. Sweet language only masks hypocricy. Probably some people haven't learnt to be hypocritical enough! permalink quote 0 Lavy
Norman 15 September, 2008, 22:52	A few points on diplomacy: 1. Diplomacy is putting an issue in a positive, constructive and respectfully assertive way. 2.Diplomacy is trying to solve a problem in a peaceful way. 3. Most diplomats are looking out for their own country's best interest, while trying to look like they care about the other country's concerns. 4. When all else fails, threaten to use the economic or military options! permalink quote 0 Norman
marita 16 September, 2008, 03:35	If you adopt a more simplistic approach to diplomatic language, then people may take points of view, facts and comments out of context. Diplomatic communication in relation to complex subjects should be thorough, although not unduly magnified. The British tabloids and western media are notorious for maliciously misrepresenting words and phrases which have damaged reputations, destroyed relationships and ruined lives. I would opt for a more attractive softly-softly approach, before western and Middle Eastern journalists are given a second chance to report disparagingly about events and current affairs in the future. permalink quote 0 marita
David 16 September, 2008, 10:06	Yes, BUT if it takes more severe methods to try and get a message across to stubborn idiots, like Miliband, you have to. (A man has to do what a man has to do) permalink quote 0 David
Norman 16 September, 2008, 20:04	Three points: 1. There are three options to settle the world's problems; DIPLOMATIC, MILITARY AND ECONOMIC. 2. Solutions should be positive, honest,constructive and respectfully assertive. 3. Words should be backed up by actions, if needed! permalink quote 0 Norman
Don 16 September, 2008, 23:03	Yes, I think that in many circumstances diplomatic language should be more straightforward so that there should be no misunderstandings or misinterpretations on either side of the argument. Of course, this can be done in an intelligent and polite way without bullying and threatening. It's something I think American politicians and diplomats need more practice in. permalink quote 0 Don
Tbilisi 17 September, 2008, 01:23	I think Russia should have went ahead and took over the capital Tbilisi. I cant imagine how all the rheteoric and BS coming from Tbilisi cant be infuriating to the leaders of Russia. The only reason I can think of for the capital not being taken is it would have caused massive casualties and damage to Tbilisi. However it seems like NATO and the EU is treating the issue like Russia did destroy the capital anyway so maybe Russia should have went ahead and done it. Britain and the US are obviously behind all of this. Britain is affraid of Russia rising again and the US wants it all- all the oil, the middle east, central asia etc more and more - all of it. China should be concerned with this also because if the US takes control of central Asia there will be no problem controlling and blackmailing China either. I think China should be aware of this given its history of being a western pseudo-colony for hundreds of years. China is being quiet on purpose im sure. NATO is a US tool to expand its power and Britain dominates the EU and thus helps the US keep western Europe against Russia even though the EU and Russia could both spur massive mutual prosperity if they really work together and the US and UK are very affraid of this possibility. As far as diplomatic language goes - it should be straight forward as possible. Usually whichever side is using nonsense and ambiguous language it is hiding its real intentions and regards. It is obvious the US and Britain hold Russia in contempt and are trying everything they can to keep Russia weak. The real trump card here will be the real stance of China. If China is pulled into the US-british game it would be game over for Russia I think. If China stays with Russia I think Russia can overcome its troubles eventually. Once again Russia is the battlefield of the world and the Russian people are stuck in it. permalink quote 0 Tbilisi
ROBERT (U.S.) 17 September, 2008, 05:37	Sir Walter Scott said it best in a poem, Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive . permalink quote 0 ROBERT (U.S.)
Sevodnya_Net 17 September, 2008, 08:54	This topic inspired by the amusing tale of Lavrov and Milliband I daresay. I think it ought to be pointed out that there is a difference between "diplomatic language" as prepared and pronounced in public, and ordinary language, as spoken off the record between grown-ups. Why we should expect foreign ministers to speak to each other in private in the language of the diplomat is beyond me: plainly frequently they do not. If Lavrov lost it for a few seconds it proves only that he is human, and I'm glad about that as I was beginning to wonder. Furthermore, I'm also glad to see that he put the kibosh on his own side's ridiculous attempts to cover it up by coming clean. Despite the "shocked" reaction of the hangers-on, I suspect the people least bothered about it are Milliband and Lavrov themselves. On the subject of whether diplomatic language should be clearer, well it probably wouldn't hurt but 9 times out of ten I think we all know what the real meaning is anyway. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Andy 17 September, 2008, 15:17	Russia could easily have simply conquered and annexed Georgia. That it did not do so demonstrates that Russia's leadership genuinely wants to have good relations with the West. But the reaction of the Western "leaders" was one of hysteria, Cold War rhetoric and undiluted Russophobia. This is the thanks Russia got for demonstrating its remarkable restraint. By the way it's no coincidence that Nicaragua was the first country to recognise South Ossetia. The people of Nicaragua know better than most the hypocrisy of America when it speaks of its desire to uphold international law and "territorial integrity". When Nicaragua tried to take the US to the International Court (which Georgia now threatens Russia with) in the 1980s, the American side showed its real attitude towards "international law" by not even turning up for the proceedings. The then US ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick dismissed the ICJ as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't." One law for America; another for the rest of the world. permalink quote 0 Andy
Fred 17 September, 2008, 18:27	Sometimes a single word of plain language is all thats needed. My favourite example this is a brief, & concise plain language negotiation document was used in the battle of the Bulge. When General Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st Airborne, was told of a German invitation to surrender, McAuliffe wrote on a paper delivered to the Germans: “NUTS!”. It needed to be explained to the German commander, but it conveyed all the information that was needed. permalink quote 0 Fred
Roger 18 September, 2008, 03:47	America’s economic problems can be best understood in a social context. America is racially divided and socially disturbed. Many discontent Americans lack ingenuity, productivity and desire to work hard. Tax reductions have failed to motivate them. Instead to alleviate their stress Americans spend more money on themselves. Meanwhile hard working racially homogenous countries like China move ahead … permalink quote 0 Roger
Fred 18 September, 2008, 04:48	RUSSIA is NOT ethnically/racially homogenous, neither is China, China has about 7 differnt ethnic groups, the most famous of which are tha HAN Chineese, the Tibetians, the Mongols (Not all of them live in mingolia) the Ughurs, etc. They also dont always get along ESPECIALLY if youve seen Tibet on the news lately. Lets see - Uzbeks, Chehens, Russians, Jews all groups in the Russian federation, meanwhile Ethnically PURE countries like German, & Japan took DECADES to recover from being defeated by The Soviets, Americans & the British Empire which even included India at the time. If history has taught us ANYTHING its that diversity WORKS & its IMPOSSIBLE to grow an empire if you only include your own ethnic group. Even the old Nazi Germany, possibly the xenophobic & racial purity obsessed country the world has ever known recognized the need to include some diversity by integrating the French collaborators, & making the Japaneese "Honorary Aryans" & full partners in the failed empire that was supposed to rule the world. Their failure is the best example that I can think of against any attempt at "Racially Homogenious " nations. Sadly both the current American Capitalist, & old Soviet communist economies were both managed by incompetents and had flawed economic systems the economies of both fell apart. Economic crashes can happen anywhere under many systems. The competence of the people in charge, not the race is the biggest factor. Especially as the MOST racially homogeneous nations on earth these days are in AFRICA (Nigeria & Zimbabwe come to mind) and they are at the BOTTOM of the economic scale when compared against LESS homogeneous nations like France or the US. permalink quote 0 Fred
gin 18 September, 2008, 10:32	I'm sorry. May it's wrong topic for my message but I've just come across video on www.russia.ru - I'm shocked: Georgians shot civilians. http://www.russia.ru/brdmscorpion/ permalink quote 0 gin
qualla3stfiqui 18 September, 2008, 14:08	look to the essential banking system[there are others] permalink quote 0 qualla3stfiqui
qualla3stfiqui 18 September, 2008, 14:15	As the UK Times explained, India is "the only regional power committed to a new democratic Afghanistan. It was no accident that India shouldered part of the cost of the parliamentary and presidential elections. Nor should one ignore the symbolic value of the fact that India is building the new Palace of Democracy to house the Afghan parliament." Further, "The only power likely to offer Afghanistan long-term support is India. Helping Afghanistan would weaken radical Islamism and prevent Pakistan acquiring a hinterland through Afghanistan in Muslim Central Asia."[48] Historically, the Taliban were financed and armed by the Pakistani ISI, while India had backed the Northern Alliance during the 1990s. After the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance was put back into power as the Taliban were deposed.[49] This would explain why the ISI and Pakistan has again become the main supporter of the Taliban.[50] However, in most discussion on Pakistan funding the revival of the Taliban, what is left ignored is the ISI’s continued connections to British and American intelligence. For example, with the London 7/7 bombings, the mastermind was an MI6 asset and he had, along with several of the suspected bombers, connections to the Pakistani ISI.[51] Interestingly, keeping in mind the ISI’s help in the resurgence of the Taliban, in February of 2008, it was reported that, "Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan, as part of a top-secret deal to make them swap sides." Further, "Afghan government officials insist it was bankrolled by the British. UK diplomats, the UN, Western officials and senior Afghan officials have all confirmed the outline of the plan, which they agree is entirely British-led, but all refused to talk about it on the record."[52] permalink quote 0 qualla3stfiqui

fulminante 15 September, 2008, 11:22

Certainly . The current diplomatic language must be interpreted and that is the danger . For example : Frank discussions = bitter disagreement . So I think that a clear message including insults, when necessary, make possible less misunderstanding and miscalculations . It's about time somebody put in the right place rabid dogs like a certain british minister . Being polite and diplomatic with certain people only encourages their idiotic behavior .

permalink quote fulminante

Cantemir 15 September, 2008, 12:14

To me, in a NORMAL society, government's only duties should be to, say, build roads, deliver mail, defend national borders, mint coins and register patents on people's ingenuity. In such a society, sovereign people would be free to engage in commerce with substance, not with fiat money. For instance, 371.25-grain silver dollar today, will still be a 371.25-grain silver dollar tomorrow. No imaginary wealth! What you own, will remain your own, until you choose otherwise. Property would be held in allodium, untaxed. In a NORMAL society, government would provide a bona fide, accountable, judicial forum to resolve conflicts between sovereign citizens and would only pass laws that are most wholesome and necessary for the public good. In such a society with almost no taxes, one could afford to privately educate one's children and contribute to any charities one chooses. “Welfare,” would be how well one fares from one's own responsible, sovereign efforts and not the handouts from state's coffers. In such a society, the language of politicians would, by necessity, be clear and straightforward, no beating about the bush. But alas, where in the world would you have such a society? Really, nowhere. The Constitutions of most countries make sure one is a slave from craddle to the grave by stating that one cannot claim to be a sovereign human being apart from the public system in which one operates, thus being always subjected to the will of the majority, even if that could be detrimental to oneself and to others. Thus, in almost all nations, one cannot become a politician and still be honest and straightforward - the system would spew them out like a rotten, decayed tooth. How could then their language be clear and to the point? It would first require for the very social, economic and financial systems to be replaced for more fair ones and then good results would follow. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen under the current planetary Game controlled more and more from reptilian Orion and Mintaka. Such a waste!

permalink quote Cantemir

Fred 15 September, 2008, 15:39

EVERYTHING in diplomatic language HAS to be just right, REGARDLESS of the text ESPECIALLY in English where words can have multiple meanings,and even something as the placement of a comma, can make a HUGE difference. For example , a sick man, writing a letter to his vacationing wife would say - "Im not getting any better, come home." move the comma and it becomes "Im not getting any, better come home." The words remain the same , but the wife's reaction would be determined by the placement of the comma! ^_^ Plain Language is important, but details will still be crucial to any diplomatic agreements.

permalink quote Fred

Yahshuah Our Righteousness 15 September, 2008, 16:39

Everyone's human. Besides, with all the language mangling and mutilation by modern slang in movies, TV, on the Metro, in the streets, in the music, in the schools - everywhere you go .it's no wonder the tongue slips into the NORM and one defiles oneself. More importantly is the DESPERATE issue that Lavrov was dealing with at the time: A MADMAN Saakashvili tearing familiies apart LITERALLY at bUSH's command of his PRIVATE contracted murderers! That's the main OFFENSE TO THE WORLD, TO THE NATIONS, TO EVERY SOUL ON EARTH in 2008! The issue of the .word is "swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat"; as the Holy Scriptures says.

permalink quote Yahshuah Our Righteousness

Lavy 15 September, 2008, 18:18

With non-diplomatic people, yes. With those that understand only straightforward language, only that language should be used. As they say, diplomacy is a two-edged sword - sometimes in hard-talk there's a lot of truth. Sweet language only masks hypocricy. Probably some people haven't learnt to be hypocritical enough!

permalink quote Lavy

Norman 15 September, 2008, 22:52

A few points on diplomacy: 1. Diplomacy is putting an issue in a positive, constructive and respectfully assertive way. 2.Diplomacy is trying to solve a problem in a peaceful way. 3. Most diplomats are looking out for their own country's best interest, while trying to look like they care about the other country's concerns. 4. When all else fails, threaten to use the economic or military options!

permalink quote Norman

marita 16 September, 2008, 03:35

If you adopt a more simplistic approach to diplomatic language, then people may take points of view, facts and comments out of context. Diplomatic communication in relation to complex subjects should be thorough, although not unduly magnified. The British tabloids and western media are notorious for maliciously misrepresenting words and phrases which have damaged reputations, destroyed relationships and ruined lives. I would opt for a more attractive softly-softly approach, before western and Middle Eastern journalists are given a second chance to report disparagingly about events and current affairs in the future.

permalink quote marita

David 16 September, 2008, 10:06

Yes, BUT if it takes more severe methods to try and get a message across to stubborn idiots, like Miliband, you have to. (A man has to do what a man has to do)

permalink quote David

Norman 16 September, 2008, 20:04

Three points: 1. There are three options to settle the world's problems; DIPLOMATIC, MILITARY AND ECONOMIC. 2. Solutions should be positive, honest,constructive and respectfully assertive. 3. Words should be backed up by actions, if needed!

permalink quote Norman

Don 16 September, 2008, 23:03

Yes, I think that in many circumstances diplomatic language should be more straightforward so that there should be no misunderstandings or misinterpretations on either side of the argument. Of course, this can be done in an intelligent and polite way without bullying and threatening. It's something I think American politicians and diplomats need more practice in.

permalink quote Don

Tbilisi 17 September, 2008, 01:23

I think Russia should have went ahead and took over the capital Tbilisi. I cant imagine how all the rheteoric and BS coming from Tbilisi cant be infuriating to the leaders of Russia. The only reason I can think of for the capital not being taken is it would have caused massive casualties and damage to Tbilisi. However it seems like NATO and the EU is treating the issue like Russia did destroy the capital anyway so maybe Russia should have went ahead and done it. Britain and the US are obviously behind all of this. Britain is affraid of Russia rising again and the US wants it all- all the oil, the middle east, central asia etc more and more - all of it. China should be concerned with this also because if the US takes control of central Asia there will be no problem controlling and blackmailing China either. I think China should be aware of this given its history of being a western pseudo-colony for hundreds of years. China is being quiet on purpose im sure. NATO is a US tool to expand its power and Britain dominates the EU and thus helps the US keep western Europe against Russia even though the EU and Russia could both spur massive mutual prosperity if they really work together and the US and UK are very affraid of this possibility. As far as diplomatic language goes - it should be straight forward as possible. Usually whichever side is using nonsense and ambiguous language it is hiding its real intentions and regards. It is obvious the US and Britain hold Russia in contempt and are trying everything they can to keep Russia weak. The real trump card here will be the real stance of China. If China is pulled into the US-british game it would be game over for Russia I think. If China stays with Russia I think Russia can overcome its troubles eventually. Once again Russia is the battlefield of the world and the Russian people are stuck in it.

permalink quote Tbilisi

ROBERT (U.S.) 17 September, 2008, 05:37

Sir Walter Scott said it best in a poem, Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive .

permalink quote ROBERT (U.S.)

Sevodnya_Net 17 September, 2008, 08:54

This topic inspired by the amusing tale of Lavrov and Milliband I daresay. I think it ought to be pointed out that there is a difference between "diplomatic language" as prepared and pronounced in public, and ordinary language, as spoken off the record between grown-ups. Why we should expect foreign ministers to speak to each other in private in the language of the diplomat is beyond me: plainly frequently they do not. If Lavrov lost it for a few seconds it proves only that he is human, and I'm glad about that as I was beginning to wonder. Furthermore, I'm also glad to see that he put the kibosh on his own side's ridiculous attempts to cover it up by coming clean. Despite the "shocked" reaction of the hangers-on, I suspect the people least bothered about it are Milliband and Lavrov themselves. On the subject of whether diplomatic language should be clearer, well it probably wouldn't hurt but 9 times out of ten I think we all know what the real meaning is anyway.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Andy 17 September, 2008, 15:17

Russia could easily have simply conquered and annexed Georgia. That it did not do so demonstrates that Russia's leadership genuinely wants to have good relations with the West. But the reaction of the Western "leaders" was one of hysteria, Cold War rhetoric and undiluted Russophobia. This is the thanks Russia got for demonstrating its remarkable restraint. By the way it's no coincidence that Nicaragua was the first country to recognise South Ossetia. The people of Nicaragua know better than most the hypocrisy of America when it speaks of its desire to uphold international law and "territorial integrity". When Nicaragua tried to take the US to the International Court (which Georgia now threatens Russia with) in the 1980s, the American side showed its real attitude towards "international law" by not even turning up for the proceedings. The then US ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick dismissed the ICJ as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't." One law for America; another for the rest of the world.

permalink quote Andy

Fred 17 September, 2008, 18:27

Sometimes a single word of plain language is all thats needed. My favourite example this is a brief, & concise plain language negotiation document was used in the battle of the Bulge. When General Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st Airborne, was told of a German invitation to surrender, McAuliffe wrote on a paper delivered to the Germans: “NUTS!”. It needed to be explained to the German commander, but it conveyed all the information that was needed.

permalink quote Fred

Roger 18 September, 2008, 03:47

America’s economic problems can be best understood in a social context. America is racially divided and socially disturbed. Many discontent Americans lack ingenuity, productivity and desire to work hard. Tax reductions have failed to motivate them. Instead to alleviate their stress Americans spend more money on themselves. Meanwhile hard working racially homogenous countries like China move ahead …

permalink quote Roger

Fred 18 September, 2008, 04:48

RUSSIA is NOT ethnically/racially homogenous, neither is China, China has about 7 differnt ethnic groups, the most famous of which are tha HAN Chineese, the Tibetians, the Mongols (Not all of them live in mingolia) the Ughurs, etc. They also dont always get along ESPECIALLY if youve seen Tibet on the news lately. Lets see - Uzbeks, Chehens, Russians, Jews all groups in the Russian federation, meanwhile Ethnically PURE countries like German, & Japan took DECADES to recover from being defeated by The Soviets, Americans & the British Empire which even included India at the time. If history has taught us ANYTHING its that diversity WORKS & its IMPOSSIBLE to grow an empire if you only include your own ethnic group. Even the old Nazi Germany, possibly the xenophobic & racial purity obsessed country the world has ever known recognized the need to include some diversity by integrating the French collaborators, & making the Japaneese "Honorary Aryans" & full partners in the failed empire that was supposed to rule the world. Their failure is the best example that I can think of against any attempt at "Racially Homogenious " nations. Sadly both the current American Capitalist, & old Soviet communist economies were both managed by incompetents and had flawed economic systems the economies of both fell apart. Economic crashes can happen anywhere under many systems. The competence of the people in charge, not the race is the biggest factor. Especially as the MOST racially homogeneous nations on earth these days are in AFRICA (Nigeria & Zimbabwe come to mind) and they are at the BOTTOM of the economic scale when compared against LESS homogeneous nations like France or the US.

permalink quote Fred

gin 18 September, 2008, 10:32

I'm sorry. May it's wrong topic for my message but I've just come across video on www.russia.ru - I'm shocked: Georgians shot civilians. http://www.russia.ru/brdmscorpion/

permalink quote gin

qualla3stfiqui 18 September, 2008, 14:08

look to the essential banking system[there are others]

permalink quote qualla3stfiqui

qualla3stfiqui 18 September, 2008, 14:15

As the UK Times explained, India is "the only regional power committed to a new democratic Afghanistan. It was no accident that India shouldered part of the cost of the parliamentary and presidential elections. Nor should one ignore the symbolic value of the fact that India is building the new Palace of Democracy to house the Afghan parliament." Further, "The only power likely to offer Afghanistan long-term support is India. Helping Afghanistan would weaken radical Islamism and prevent Pakistan acquiring a hinterland through Afghanistan in Muslim Central Asia."[48] Historically, the Taliban were financed and armed by the Pakistani ISI, while India had backed the Northern Alliance during the 1990s. After the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance was put back into power as the Taliban were deposed.[49] This would explain why the ISI and Pakistan has again become the main supporter of the Taliban.[50] However, in most discussion on Pakistan funding the revival of the Taliban, what is left ignored is the ISI’s continued connections to British and American intelligence. For example, with the London 7/7 bombings, the mastermind was an MI6 asset and he had, along with several of the suspected bombers, connections to the Pakistani ISI.[51] Interestingly, keeping in mind the ISI’s help in the resurgence of the Taliban, in February of 2008, it was reported that, "Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan, as part of a top-secret deal to make them swap sides." Further, "Afghan government officials insist it was bankrolled by the British. UK diplomats, the UN, Western officials and senior Afghan officials have all confirmed the outline of the plan, which they agree is entirely British-led, but all refused to talk about it on the record."[52]

permalink quote qualla3stfiqui

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields