Yet here you are showing how USA is paying hard cash to Pakistan to attack AQ.
Not sure how you see that. Most of the thread is about arming Afghanistan to "fight the Taliban" and the various overt and covert discussions and deals with the Taliban. Regarding Afghanistan, not everyone in the USG or NATO seems to be on the same page; and regarding Pakistan, some of the reporting herein shows that the USG has not been all too interested in what Pakistan is doing with the billions in allowance they get. An article posted above says this:
In fact, however, a considerable amount of the money the U.S. gives to Pakistan is administered not through U.S. agencies or joint U.S.-Pakistani programs. Instead, the U.S. gives Musharraf's government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of direct cash transfers. Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants. He needs only promise in a secret annual meeting that he'll use it to invest in the Pakistani people.
This has little to do with al Qaeda any more. I think this thread is more focused on examining the buildup of a greater conflict within and/or between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
the info you post appears to validate the idea AQ is treated as a real threat by USA - which tends to contradict the idea of AQ being a CIA asset, 911 being an "inside job" etc?
Again, there's not much to do with AQ in this thread. It's more about the Taliban and Warlords and the Afghan army on the surface, and likely control of the drugs and arms markets under the surface, among other things. You can bet everyone is involved in that.
To address your point: no contradiction. Why can't elements of an enormous USG consider AQ a real threat while at the same time elements of AQ are operating as CIA assets? Are we to assume that the right hand of the USA always knows what the left is doing, or that the public narrative is accurately reflecting the truth on the ground? Furthermore, can't members of the CIA and AQ operate both as mutual assets and mutual enemies? Add to this the Pentagon's multitude of intelligence agencies, the murky world of private security forces and intelligence units, non-US intelligence services, and you've got a recipe for tension, competition, betrayals, set ups and... chaos - which requires "arming Afghanistan and Pakistan to the teeth" to sort it out. I don't think we should assume that we are looking at monolithic teams who are all on the same page, committed to one side or the other. I think this is probably a fluid and complicated situation. These things can't be tied up neatly and I hope this thread is not giving the impression that they can be.