You must log in or register to comment.

GlobalTravelR t1_j6p7wyi wrote

Maybe they shouldn't have to tried to shelter, support and protect the Taliban and Al Q'aeda when the US was trying to root them out for the last 20 years.

The US supported the Taliban in the 80's during the Russian-Afghanistan Invasion and while that help drive out the Russians, it also gave them 9/11, in return.

You reap what you sow.


autotldr t1_j6odx1z wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)

> Monday morning's bombing, which left at least 225 wounded, raised alarm among officials over a major security breach at a time when the Pakistani Taliban, the main anti-government militant group, has stepped up attacks, particularly targeting the police and the military.

> "When we know that Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan is active, and when we know that they have threatened to carry out attacks, there should have been more security at the police compound in Peshawar," he told the AP, using the official name of the Pakistani Taliban.

> The Islamic State in Khorasan Province, a regional affiliate of the Islamic State group and a rival of the Taliban, has also been behind deadly attacks in Pakistan in recent years.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: attack^#1 Taliban^#2 Peshawar^#3 Pakistani^#4 bomber^#5


AbandonedSamurai t1_j6og6e4 wrote

> “From all entry points, there are multiple layers of security you have to cross” with ID checks.

Very common in Pak and India

Add layer B because layer A is not working. Add layer C because layer B is inefficient. Add layer D because layer C cannot be trusted.

This goes on and on.