PDA

View Full Version : Proof..the truth starts to come about



Pages : [1] 2

Dreadnought
06 May 11,, 19:06
ISLAMABAD (AP) — One of three wives living with Osama bin Laden told Pakistani interrogators she had been staying in the al-Qaeda chief's hideout for five years, and could be a key source of information about how he avoided capture for so long, a Pakistani intelligence official said Friday.
By Anjum Naveed, AP

In its first confirmation of bin Laden's death, al-Qaeda warned of retaliation in an Internet statement, saying Americans' "happiness will turn to sadness."

Bin Laden's wife, identified as Yemeni-born Amal Ahmed Abdullfattah, said she never left the upper floors of the house the entire time she was there.

She and bin Laden's other two wives are being interrogated in Pakistan after they were taken into custody following Monday's American raid on bin Laden's compound in the town of Abbottabad. Pakistani authorities are also holding eight or nine children who were found there after the U.S. commandos left.

Given shifting and incomplete accounts from U.S. officials about what happened during the raid, testimony from bin Laden's wives may be significant in unveiling details about the operation.

Their accounts could also help show how bin Laden spent his time and managed to stay hidden, living in a large house close to a military academy in a garrison town, a two-and-a-half hours' drive from the capital, Islamabad.

The Pakistani official said CIA officers had not been given access to the women in custody. Already tense military and intelligence relations between the United States and Pakistan have been further strained after the helicopter-borne raid, which many Pakistanis see as a violation of their country's sovereignty.

The proximity of bin Laden's hideout to the military garrison and the Pakistani capital has also raised suspicions in Washington that bin Laden may have been protected by Pakistani security forces while on the run.

Risking more tensions, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed 15 people, including foreign militants, in North Waziristan, an al-Qaeda and Taliban hotspot close to Afghanistan, Pakistani officials said. Such attacks were routine last year, but their frequency has dropped this year amid opposition by the Pakistani security establishment.

Pakistan's army, a key U.S. ally in the Afghanistan war, on Thursday threatened to review cooperation with Washington if it stages anymore attacks like the one that killed bin Laden.

The Pakistani intelligence official did not say Friday whether the Yemeni wife has said that bin Laden was also living there since 2006. "We are still getting information from them," he said.

Another security official said the wife was shot in the leg during the operation and did not witness her husband being killed. He also said one of bin Laden's eldest daughters had said she witnessed the Americans killing her father.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give their names to the media.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's intelligence agency has concluded that bin Laden was "cash strapped" in his final days, according to a briefing given by two senior military officials. Disputes over money between the terror leader and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, led al-Qaeda to split into two factions five or six years ago, with the larger faction controlled by al-Zawahri, they said.

The officers spoke to a small group of Pakistani reporters late Thursday. Their comments were confirmed for The Associated Press by the same security official who spoke about the shooting of bin Laden's wife and who was present at Thursday's briefing.

The officer didn't provide details or elaborate on how his agency made the conclusions about bin Laden's financial situation or the split with his deputy, al-Zawahri. The al-Qaedachief apparently had lived without any guards at the Abbottabad compound or loyalists nearby to take up arms in his defense.

The image of Pakistan's intelligence agency has been battered at home and abroad in the wake of the raid that killed bin Laden. Portraying him as isolated and weak could be aimed at trying to create an impression that a failure to spot him was not so important.

Documents taken from the house by American commandos showed that bin Laden was planning to hit America, however, including a plan for derailing an American train on the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The confiscated materials reveal the rail attack was planned as of February 2010.

Late Thursday, two Pakistani officials cited bin Laden's wives and children as saying he and his associates had not offered any "significant resistance" when the American commandos entered the compound, in part because the assailants had thrown "stun bombs" that disorientated them.

One official said Pakistani authorities found an AK-47 and a pistol in the house belonging to those inside, with evidence that one bullet had been fired from the rifle.

"That was the level of resistance" they put up, said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

His account is roughly consistent with the most recent one given by U.S. officials, who now say only one of the five people killed in the raid was armed and fired any shots, a striking departure from the intense and prolonged firefight described earlier by the White House and others in the administration.

U.S. officials say four men were killed alongside bin Laden, including one of his sons.

Reflecting the anger in Pakistan, hundreds of members of radical Islamic parties protested Friday in several Pakistan cities against the American raid and in favor of bin Laden. Many of the people chanted "Osama is alive" and blasted the U.S. for violating the country's sovereignty.

The largest rally took place in the town of Khuchlak in southwestern Baluchistan province, where about 500 people attended.

"America is celebrating Osama bin Laden's killing, but it will be a temporary celebration," said Abdullah Sittar Chishti, a member of the Jamiat Ulema Islam party who attended the rally in Khuchlak. "After the martyrdom of Osama, billions, trillions of Osamas will be born."

Bin Laden's wife spent 5 years in Pakistani house - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-05-06-bin-laden-wife_n.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWorld-TopStories+%28News+-+World+-+Top+Stories%29)

Thank goodness the US happens to have billions, trillions of bullets waiting in the wings for these idiots as well.:biggrin:

Agnostic Muslim
06 May 11,, 22:49
Proof of what?

Dreadnought
06 May 11,, 23:42
Proof of what?

Proof that his wife (one of) has been living there for quite some time. Five years of time which in itself should have raised a red flag to their intelligence (ISI) a long time ago.
You claim in other threads that Pakistan is so smart and can support themselves without aid leading one to believe one of two things about the Pakistan Military.

Either:

A) They knew about this a long time ago (5 years in this case) through intelligence and prefered to flat out deny,deny,deny, or hold out until they could make good with US aid deals and deals to their home grown branches of terrorism.

OR

B) They are inherently stupid as to what goes on around their Military installations and Academies and not as smart as you claim them to be.

You choose because the US people that supply that aid arent buying it. Good luck in selling it here.:biggrin:

calass
06 May 11,, 23:52
Proof of what?

Did you not claim that Osama moved in only months back in the other thread?

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 00:06
Did you not claim that Osama moved in only months back in the other thread?
No, I said there was no evidence at that time indicating how long he had been living there. Some reports suggested years, others a year to a month. I went with the latter.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 00:13
Proof that his wife (one of) has been living there for quite some time. Five years of time which in itself should have raised a red flag to their intelligence (ISI) a long time ago.
Why would it have raised a red flag? She said she never left the compound in that time either. There are reports as of yet that any neighbors either saw OBL or suspected OBL.
So what would raise a 'red flag'?

And let me point out again that Pakistan has clearly stated that the couriers phone number that led to the US finding OBL's hideout was provided by the ISI - they would not be handing over critical intelligence like that to the US if they were in fact 'hiding him'.


You claim in other threads that Pakistan is so smart and can support themselves without aid leading one to believe one of two things about the Pakistan Military.
I also gave you facts and figures supporting my position, that Pakistan can generate more revenues than it takes in through aid and loans. All you are offering is speculation.



A) They knew about this a long time ago (5 years in this case) through intelligence and prefered to flat out deny,deny,deny, or hold out until they could make good with US aid deals and deals to their home grown branches of terrorism.
Nonsense - since Pakistan neutralized several high level AQ leaders, and provided critical intelligence that led to the US finding OBL.



B) They are inherently stupid as to what goes on around their Military installations and Academies and not as smart as you claim them to be.
That doesn't apply either. There was no 'suspicious activity' at the compound. There was no 'bomb making', no massive 'bomb materials or weapons shipments' transiting to and fro from the compound. No 'large groups of suspicious men' moving in and out. OBL was never spotted by anyone, and likely never stepped out of the compound once there.

So what was there to be suspicious about?


You choose because the US people that supply that aid arent buying it. Good luck in selling it here.:biggrin:
I have to choose neither since neither applies.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 00:39
One addendum to the 'incompetence' argument.

I do think the ISI was 'incompetent' in not detecting CIA operations in Pakistan, and hopefully that is something they will work on.

Double Edge
07 May 11,, 00:48
One thing thats interesting here is she appears free to talk. Does this imply that the inhabitants are in joint custody. Otherwise her answers will be coached.

S2
07 May 11,, 00:57
"Does this imply that the inhabitants are in joint custody."

"The Pakistani official said CIA officers had not been given access to the women in custody."

The article plainly suggests otherwise. It'll be a cold day in hell before our intelligence officials can conduct a serious discussion with these people. I doubt we've ever spoken with Mullah Baradar. Why would it be different here?

Double Edge
07 May 11,, 01:10
Missed that line S-2 :redface:

Will take it as official then that OBL was there as long as his wife suggests.

Dredd you got your proof

gunnut
07 May 11,, 01:16
Missed that line S-2 :redface:

Will take it as official then that OBL was there as long as his wife suggests.

Dredd you got your proof

Actually, she never suggested that.



One of three wives living with Osama bin Laden told Pakistani interrogators she had been staying in the al-Qaeda chief's hideout for five years, and could be a key source of information about how he avoided capture for so long, a Pakistani intelligence official said Friday.


The report did not state she said "they" were there for 5 years. Only "she" was there for 5 years.

notorious_eagle
07 May 11,, 02:19
One addendum to the 'incompetence' argument.

I do think the ISI was 'incompetent' in not detecting CIA operations in Pakistan, and hopefully that is something they will work on.

On a side note, i thought i would share that there is pressure building on General Ahmed Shuja Pasha and he may resign as the DG ISI. If that happens, lets see whom is nominated as the new DG ISI. Lt General Tariq Khan comes to mind, he's one person that is definitely deserving of that post and his track record speaks volumes of his performance.

S2
07 May 11,, 03:22
"I do think the ISI was 'incompetent' in not detecting CIA operations in Pakistan..."

Those wouldn't be the only operations inside Pakistan to which the ISI has displayed some incompetence. Sadly they're also among the least malignant.

OTOH, it's is very disappointing that we've needed to independantly observe and study from close range the operations of LeT, JuI, LeJ, JeM and more. These groups constitute an abiding threat to Pakistani civil society as well as Pakistan's immediate and distant neighbors.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 03:38
On a side note, i thought i would share that there is pressure building on General Ahmed Shuja Pasha and he may resign as the DG ISI. If that happens, lets see whom is nominated as the new DG ISI. Lt General Tariq Khan comes to mind, he's one person that is definitely deserving of that post and his track record speaks volumes of his performance.

I am not sure how much I agree with that, given that it was Haqqani in DC who allowed thousands of visas for US personnel without proper scrutiny. Of course the ISI could have still done a better job of monitoring the individuals, but the sheer numbers would require significant resources. Of course, I am unaware of the specific criticizm against him, and whether it is merited by a poor performance on his part in areas other than 'monitoring thousands of American officials' in Pakistan.

Interesting to note the barrage of opinions in the English language press that is critical of the ISI/PA as well - the US's 'media program' paying dividends. Thankfully, those opinions in the English press have little popular following in Pakistan, with the Urdu language TV media garnering a much larger following.

On another note, IMO, given the fact that we are at war and facing threats on multiple fronts, people advocating opinions such as those of Farhat Taj, and their contacts in Pakistan, should be arrested and tried for treason in military courts. While in normal times their opinions might be tolerable in the guise of 'freedom of speech', in a time of war, advocating in support of a foreign entity conducting military operations on Pakistani soil is nothing less than treason.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 03:40
Dredd you got your proof

Proof for what?

Double Edge
07 May 11,, 03:56
That the wife has been there for five years. As gunnut pointed out that does not necessarily imply OBL was there at that house as well for that length of time.

Does it matter whether he was at that house, he was somewhere in Pakistan and has been there since his escape from Tora Bora.

YellowFever
07 May 11,, 04:28
The fact that ST6 felt the need to use stealth copters tells me that indeed this was not a joint operation but one thing that bothers me is (and I have not been keeping up to date as I should wrt this matter) that according to the last article I read, the Americans informed the Paks about this operation soon after ST6 took off to nab OBL.

Why not before or after?

Was this a case of "we got people in Pak and we don't want you to interfere."?

Which pretty much tells me that the U.S. government thinks the Paks have been hiding him.

So tell me what's wrong with my so called brilliant analysis? :)

notorious_eagle
07 May 11,, 04:36
I am not sure how much I agree with that, given that it was Haqqani in DC who allowed thousands of visas for US personnel without proper scrutiny. Of course the ISI could have still done a better job of monitoring the individuals, but the sheer numbers would require significant resources. Of course, I am unaware of the specific criticizm against him, and whether it is merited by a poor performance on his part in areas other than 'monitoring thousands of American officials' in Pakistan.

Interesting to note the barrage of opinions in the English language press that is critical of the ISI/PA as well - the US's 'media program' paying dividends. Thankfully, those opinions in the English press have little popular following in Pakistan, with the Urdu language TV media garnering a much larger following.

On another note, IMO, given the fact that we are at war and facing threats on multiple fronts, people advocating opinions such as those of Farhat Taj, and their contacts in Pakistan, should be arrested and tried for treason in military courts. While in normal times their opinions might be tolerable in the guise of 'freedom of speech', in a time of war, advocating in support of a foreign entity conducting military operations on Pakistani soil is nothing less than treason.

Apologies for not being clear, pressure is building on Pasha for the fiasco that just happened. There has to be blood and it looks like Pasha will take the fall and resign from service. The question is, who is going to replace him? Is it going to be someone deserving of the position or just a subordinate of the incompetent PPP Government. Lt Gen Tariq Khan's name has been floating for a while now for either the position of COAS or DG ISI, i would certainly be very happy if in case Pasha resigns, the command is given to Tariq Khan. Dont even get me started on that SOB Haqqani, he's more of an Ambassador to the United States than he is to Pakistan.

It already appears that Army is putting its foot down and COAS has ordered the Americans to reduce their foot print in Pakistan. Although i have no problems with Americans targeting these SOB's as long as it is with Pakistan's consent. I still don't understand why the Americans don't transfer the drone technology to Pakistan, it certainly will be mutually beneficial as this will reduce the public anger against the US in Pakistan. Ahh well, i guess we have to wait until our own UCAV project comes online which is not far away. Farhat Taj along with some other journalists whom are darling of the West deserve to be tried for treason against Pakistan, its only because of the Army whom they soo fondly criticize are they allowed to share their opinion freely.

Officer of Engineers
07 May 11,, 04:38
I still don't understand why the Americans don't transfer the drone technology to Pakistan,Because Pakistan would then transfer that technology to China?

notorious_eagle
07 May 11,, 05:15
Because Pakistan would then transfer that technology to China?

Sir that is B.S, thats a fallacy that has been floated around similar to Pakistan transferring an F16 to PRC. Americans conduct routine inventory check of the armaments and hardware that are in possession of Pakistan and they are satisfied with Pakistan's track record. American military equipment is off limits to the Chinese, similar to the latest Chinese military equipment being off limits to the Americans. US Military Attache keeps a thorough track of all the sensitive American technology that is operated by Pakistan, if drone technology is transferred to Pakistan it would be no different.

S2
07 May 11,, 05:32
"Farhat Taj along with some other journalists whom are darling of the West deserve to be tried for treason against Pakistan, its only because of the Army whom they soo fondly criticize are they allowed to share their opinion freely."

She's in Norway, thank God. Irfan Husain and others, though, are within arm's reach. Nice to know, though, that at least notorious eagle believes it's the army actually controlling your courts.

Whom, btw, have you declared war upon? Yourselves? If so that would make sense insofar as los disappearos are concerned-

Robert Fisk: Into The Terrifying World Of Pakistan's "Disappeared"-Independant March 18, 2010 (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-into-the-terrifying-world-of-pakistans-disappeared-1923153.html)

A.M., that's a real cheap shot you took at Rabzon elsewhere, btw.

Dreadnought
07 May 11,, 06:15
Why would it have raised a red flag? She said she never left the compound in that time either. There are reports as of yet that any neighbors either saw OBL or suspected OBL.
So what would raise a 'red flag'?

And let me point out again that Pakistan has clearly stated that the couriers phone number that led to the US finding OBL's hideout was provided by the ISI - they would not be handing over critical intelligence like that to the US if they were in fact 'hiding him'.


I also gave you facts and figures supporting my position, that Pakistan can generate more revenues than it takes in through aid and loans. All you are offering is speculation.

Nonsense - since Pakistan neutralized several high level AQ leaders, and provided critical intelligence that led to the US finding OBL.

That doesn't apply either. There was no 'suspicious activity' at the compound. There was no 'bomb making', no massive 'bomb materials or weapons shipments' transiting to and fro from the compound. No 'large groups of suspicious men' moving in and out. OBL was never spotted by anyone, and likely never stepped out of the compound once there.

So what was there to be suspicious about?

I have to choose neither since neither applies.

If the wife of the worlds most renowed terrorists comes into the country or was already in the country and then locates in to a rented property, common sense states he's not far behind or he will be in contact. That in itself should have raised a red flag to intelligence. Apparently it did not or they refused to raise that point with US intelligence so im going with option B.

By the way, funny how you seem to like your own posts.

We have a word here in America for the way this turned out its called "BULLSHIT".:biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
07 May 11,, 06:26
Sir that is B.S, thats a fallacy that has been floated around similar to Pakistan transferring an F16 to PRC. Americans conduct routine inventory check of the armaments and hardware that are in possession of Pakistan and they are satisfied with Pakistan's track record.Hehehehahahahahahaha, Son, I think we are cross communicating here. The Americans NEVER TRANSFER MILITARY MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES TO PAKISTAN. You cannot reverse engineer a F-16. The Americans were never going to allow Pakistan anything more than light maintenance on the F-16s.


American military equipment is off limits to the Chinese,Well, the suspicion was that we found F-16 manuals written in Chinese.


similar to the latest Chinese military equipment being off limits to the Americans.Well, how about the Libyans? Qaddafy surrendered his AQ Khan's documents which included a CICH-4 nuclear warhead blueprint.


US Military Attache keeps a thorough track of all the sensitive American technology that is operated by Pakistan, if drone technology is transferred to Pakistan it would be no different.Pakistan was never trusted with anything above battlefield maintenance.

Double Edge
07 May 11,, 12:40
Ooh, a SECOND yellow belly sighting in a long while :)


The fact that ST6 felt the need to use stealth copters tells me that indeed this was not a joint operation but one thing that bothers me is (and I have not been keeping up to date as I should wrt this matter) that according to the last article I read, the Americans informed the Paks about this operation soon after ST6 took off to nab OBL.

Why not before or after?
Not a joint op but you had their permission to go in at a time of your choosing. Why use steath ? to help ensure you get away clean. It helps them if it can be shown they did not know.

GoP: we did now know they came (works for this op as well as any other Al-Q leader hiding in Pakistan)


Was this a case of "we got people in Pak and we don't want you to interfere."?
They cordoned off the area but did not get involved. There was an understanding in place.


Which pretty much tells me that the U.S. government thinks the Paks have been hiding him.

So tell me what's wrong with my so called brilliant analysis? :)
Its not about thinking, everybody knows they hide ppl. Hundreds of al-Q operatives handed over, in which country were they all caught ? yep, you guessed right.

The problem is showing that they are knowingly doing this. How the heck do you counter the GoP when they say 'i don't know' ?

The case is circumstantial in the sense there is no way a country could unknowingly allow this to happen.

Think back to getting them to move into Swat & Buner. As in defending their own soverign territory from other influences. Kept on putting it off. This is actually a larger instance of when they refuse to act compared to not going after al-q operatives.

In this case it was decided best way to get the job done was yourself.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 13:07
"Farhat Taj along with some other journalists whom are darling of the West deserve to be tried for treason against Pakistan, its only because of the Army whom they soo fondly criticize are they allowed to share their opinion freely."

She's in Norway, thank God. She travels to Pakistan for her so called 'research' doesn't she? And then there is her organisation and those affiliated with it and with her who reside in Pakistan.

Irfan Husain and others, though, are within arm's reach. Nice to know, though, that at least notorious eagle believes it's the army actually controlling your courts.
I might have missed it, but I don't recall IH advocating in favor of US military operations on Pakistani territory, and as such I have no issue with him and his opinions, even though they are often critical of the military. Criticism of the military is not an issue - advocating in favor of foreign military operations on Pakistani territory is.


Whom, btw, have you declared war
Terrorists and insurgents ofcourse.


A.M., that's a real cheap shot you took at Rabzon elsewhere, btw.
No it wasn't - he crossed a line when taking a position similar to Format Taj on foreign military ops inside Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 13:12
Hehehehahahahahahaha, Son, I think we are cross communicating here. The Americans NEVER TRANSFER MILITARY MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES TO PAKISTAN. You cannot reverse engineer a F-16. The Americans were never going to allow Pakistan anything more than light maintenance on the F-16s.
I do not believe Pakistan is asking for domestic production of the Predator or Reader - the reference to technology is in the context of providing equipment.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 13:18
If the wife of the worlds most renowed terrorists comes into the country or was already in the country and then locates in to a rented property, common sense states he's not far behind or he will be in contact. That in itself should have raised a red flag to intelligence. Apparently it did not or they refused to raise that point with US intelligence so im going with option B.
She gave an interview in 2002 in Yemen I believe where she indicated she would rejoin obl, what was the US doing? Did they monitor her movements? Why just blame Pakistan for not tracking her entry and movements? This guy was on your most wanted list, not ours.


By the way, funny how you seem to like your own posts.
Getting a little paranoid and frustrated at not having any credible evidence or arguments are we?
It May surprise you, but there are more than just one Pakistani commentators online who can offer articulate and coherent arguments and take the positions I do.

As far as the way things turned out, you May want to try applying that term to you own Intel failure that resulted in 9/11 in the first place. Mossad and CIA conspiracy eh? :-D

nvishal
07 May 11,, 13:42
They cordoned off the area but did not get involved. There was an understanding in place.
Not understanding. Pakistan gave away the bait. They watched as the americans took and run away with it. US won't implicate the PA for any "perfidy" because they need the supply routes. So pakistan knew US would continue to "play" stupid as before.

So with OBL gone, does it change the US policy in afghanistan in any way? We will just have to wait and see if their gamble worked. Does the US withdraw from afg?

Pakistan had a free run in afghanistan before 9/11. Everything has been on a hold since then. The US occupation in afg has allowed the indians to build a little goodwill in the side. Pakistan is terrified and wants US out of there. Osama was the king in the jihadi chessboard. But now this king is dead.

What "achievable" purposes has the USA got in afghanistan now?

"Rebuilding afg" is out of the question because pakistan won't allow any normalcy to prevail in afg if taliban is kept out from the ruling afg govt. And pakistan cannot control afg if the taliban is missing.

tankie
07 May 11,, 13:57
She gave an interview in 2002 in Yemen I believe where she indicated she would rejoin obl, what was the US doing? Did they monitor her movements? Why just blame Pakistan for not tracking her entry and movements? This guy was on your most wanted list, not ours.

And a massive part of the world's wanted list as well , now with your statement i guess the Pak Govt is advocating and endorsing terrorism whilst telling the rest of the world they are co,operating in the fight against ladins (deceased) AQ :rolleyes:

Double Edge
07 May 11,, 14:48
Not understanding. Pakistan gave away the bait. They watched as the americans took and run away with it. US won't implicate the PA for any "perfidy" because they need the supply routes. So pakistan knew US would continue to "play" stupid as before.
Can you show how US can implicate PA for perfidy in this instance ?

Circumstantially sure, more directly am afraid not :frown:

The US case is slightly different from the Indian one. In our case they say NO, to the US they say 'we did not know'. They play dumb.

Anyway, ball is in the US court now.


So with OBL gone, does it change the US policy in afghanistan in any way? We will just have to wait and see if their gamble worked. Does the US withdraw from afg?
No, they stay till they are satisified. Handing over OBL was never for the intention of getting US to withdraw from afg. OBL was just one card of several to keep the US relying on Pakistan. Is Al-Q dead now ? no, so there are stil more cards left to get. They all live in Pakistan.

I don't believe that Pakistan wants the US to quit, because then where is the need for Pakistan. They will always be of more use when the US is in rather than out.


Pakistan had a free run in afghanistan before 9/11. Everything has been on a hold since then. The US occupation in afg has allowed the indians to build a little goodwill in the side. Pakistan is terrified and wants US out of there. Osama was the king in the jihadi chessboard. But now this king is dead.

What "achievable" purposes has the USA got in afghanistan now?
See previous answer.


"Rebuilding afg" is out of the question because pakistan won't allow any normalcy to prevail in afg if taliban is kept out from the ruling afg govt. And pakistan cannot control afg if the taliban is missing.
OOE mentioned a while back that afg would become a proxy battlegorund in the future for the major powers in the area. On reflection i think this would be a bad state for the US to leave afg in. You want to leave a place more stable than when you entered it. Stability is preferred outcome. Failing which an afg that can adequately defend herself from nefarious designs would be the last resort.

Double Edge
07 May 11,, 14:57
now with your statement i guess the Pak Govt is advocating and endorsing terrorism whilst telling the rest of the world they are co,operating in the fight against ladins (deceased) AQ :rolleyes:
Yep, its a mixed message.

So what can we do ?

Julie
07 May 11,, 16:36
Osama Bin Laden Home Videos Expected To Be Released

WASHINGTON — The world is expected to get its first glimpse at Osama bin Laden's daily life as the world's most wanted terrorist Saturday with the disclosure of home videos showing him strolling the grounds of the fortified compound that kept him safe for years.

The footage shot at the terror leader's hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and propaganda tapes made there, are expected to be released to the news media Saturday, U.S. officials said.

They are among the wealth of information collected during the U.S. raid that killed bin Laden and four others. The information suggests bin Laden played a strong role in planning and directing attacks by al-Qaida and its affiliates in Yemen and Somalia, two senior officials said.

And it further demonstrates to the U.S. that top al-Qaida commanders and other key insurgents are scattered throughout Pakistan, not just in the rugged border areas, and are being supported and given sanctuary by Pakistanis.

Despite protests from Pakistan, defeating al-Qaida and taking out its senior leaders in Pakistan remains a top U.S. priority. That campaign will not be swayed by Islamabad's complaints that the raid violated the country's sovereignty, a senior defense official said Friday.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive material.

Their comments underscore U.S. resolve to pursue terror leaders in Pakistan, particularly during this critical period in the Afghanistan war, as President Barack Obama moves to fulfill his promise to begin withdrawing troops this July.

Already the Afghan Taliban has warned that bin Laden's death will only boost morale of insurgents battling the U.S. and its NATO allies. Al-Qaida itself vowed revenge, confirming bin Laden's death for the first time but saying that Americans' "happiness will turn to sadness."

For its part, the U.S. has already launched at least one drone strike into Pakistan in the days since bin Laden was killed, and there is no suggestion those will be curtailed at all.

The strikes are largely carried out by pilotless CIA drones, and the expectation is that they will continue in the coming days as U.S. military and intelligence officials try to take quick advantage of the data they swept up in the raid before insurgents have a chance to change plans or locations.

The raid on bin Laden's compound deep inside the Pakistan border has further eroded already strained relations between Washington and Islamabad, and angry Pakistani officials have said they want the U.S. to reduce its military presence in their country. The Pakistani army, while acknowledging it failed to find bin Laden, said it would review cooperation with the U.S. if there is another similar attack.

Pakistani officials have denied sheltering bin Laden, and they have criticized the U.S. operation as a violation of their country's sovereignty.

But a senior defense official said recent protests by Islamabad about the raid will not stop the U.S. from moving against terror leaders that threaten American security.

Obama has made it clear that the U.S. will take action wherever necessary to root out al-Qaida, which has declared war on the United States and has been using Pakistan as a base to plot and direct attacks from there and other insurgent locations around the world.

The official also said there are no plans to scale back U.S. training of the Pakistani frontier corps and army. But the decision is up to Pakistan.

U.S. administration leaders have been careful not to directly accuse the Pakistani government of being complicit in the existence of sanctuaries that have cloaked bin Laden and his lieutenants. But U.S. lawmakers say it strains credibility that the most wanted man in the world could have been in living in a major suburb, one that's home to Pakistan's military academy, without someone knowing it.

CIA director Leon Panetta told lawmakers that "Pakistan was involved or incompetent," according to a U.S. official, who recounted to conversation on condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door briefing.

Counterterrorism officials have debated how big a role bin Laden and core al-Qaida leaders were playing in the attacks launched by affiliated terror groups, particularly al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which is based in Yemen, and al-Shabab in Somalia.

Information gathered in the compound, officials said, suggests that bin Laden was much more involved in directing al-Qaida personnel and operations than some analysts thought over the last decade. And it suggests bin Laden was "giving strategic direction" to al-Qaida affiliates in Somalia and Yemen, the defense official said.

Officials say they have already learned a great deal from bin Laden's cache of computers and data, but they would not confirm reports that it yielded clues to the whereabouts of al-Qaida deputy Ayman al-Zawahri.

Al-Zawahri is a leading candidate to take bin Laden's place as the leader of the terror group.

Obama met on Friday with the U.S. commandos who killed bin Laden after a decade-long search.

"Job well done," the president declared, addressing roughly 2,000 troops after meeting privately with the full assault team – Army helicopter pilots and Navy SEAL commandos – who executed the dangerous raid. Their identities are kept secret.

Osama Bin Laden Home Videos Expected To Be Released (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/07/bin-laden-home-videos_n_858929.html?icid=main%7Ccompaq-desktop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C212491)

Yusuf
07 May 11,, 16:47
Apparently Indian intelligence has tipped it's american counterpart twice and the second time was in 2007 or so I gather when it was very specific about him living close to Pak Army base. The US chose to ignore or didn't think it was possible.

One thing is for sure, this event has proved what india has been crying hoarse about, that terror emanates from Pakistan. The US war on terror was fought in the wrong country after the taliban and AQ shifted to Pak.

notorious_eagle
07 May 11,, 17:25
Hehehehahahahahahaha, Son, I think we are cross communicating here. The Americans NEVER TRANSFER MILITARY MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES TO PAKISTAN. You cannot reverse engineer a F-16. The Americans were never going to allow Pakistan anything more than light maintenance on the F-16s.

Apologies for that, i meant provide the Predators to Pakistan, not TOT.


Well, the suspicion was that we found F-16 manuals written in Chinese.

I was not aware of that, although i talked to a senior PAF Officer in 2008 and asked him about PAF letting the Chinese take a peek at the F16, he said it was Pure BS.


Well, how about the Libyans? Qaddafy surrendered his AQ Khan's documents which included a CICH-4 nuclear warhead blueprint.

I was referring more to C803, C602, SD10B, A100, PL5EII, Chinese 3D radars and their latest electronic warfare equipment.

nvishal
07 May 11,, 18:24
Can you show how US can implicate PA for perfidy in this instance ?
But what is the point?

What makes you think that the US needs a case to go after PA/ISI? If it really wanted to go after them then it could have created a case out of thin air like the time it did with iraq and its WMD.

And some can even plausibly argue that saddam had more integrity than PA.

Anyway, ball is in the US court now.
Doesn't matter. The US needs pakistan. Look at it from their perspective. They have targets in the mountains. Why must they risk their own men? Casualties can hit home and change the mood of the people. Pakistan is willing to do it and offers the US its disposable men to go after the targets in exchange for financial and military gifts. Which country does that?

With no successful attack on US homeland since 9/11, I'd say the pakistani assistance with the US in its operations against the west-centric jihadi outfits are working.

No, they stay till they are satisified.
What can satisfy them and are they achievable?

Is Al-Q dead now ? no, so there are stil more cards left to get. They all live in Pakistan.
Al qaeda? You are making an assumption that jihadis do not cross over to other tanzims. They do. They do it all the time. If al-qaeda somehow "disappears" then there will be somebody else. There will always be somebody else. Some or other jihadi to take their place.

I don't believe that Pakistan wants the US to quit, because then where is the need for Pakistan
Pakistan's purpose is already there. The situation in afg is distracting that purpose.

Do you really think the punjabi muslims would just watch the taliban take over pakistan? lol They will carpet bomb the entire tribal areas to keep that from happening.

S2
07 May 11,, 18:29
"She [Ms. Farhat Taj] travels to Pakistan for her so called 'research' doesn't she? And then there is her organisation and those affiliated with it and with her who reside in Pakistan..."

Guilt by association? My, aren't you the thought police now. Ms. Taj's defense of PREDATOR attacks is hardly treasonous. She simply recognizes your government and army has long abdicated functional sovereign control over those lands and people to a heinous and brutal taliban entity. She likely, in fact, is a greater Pakistani patriot than you. No doubt her concern for the immense pressure placed on the pashtun citizenry of FATAville from their domination by the afghan taliban and TTP exceeds your's.

"I might have missed it, but I don't recall IH advocating in favor of US military operations on Pakistani territory, and as such I have no issue with him and his opinions, even though they are often critical of the military."

"Monday, January 18, 2010Irfan Husain: Howling at the Moon
Via Dawn.com (by Irfan Husain) -

Many of us in the punditry profession are guilty of making generalisations about what is happening in the tribal areas without having visited them in recent times. Thus, when we hear about the anger and outrage supposedly sweeping though the people of Fata over the frequent drone attacks, we tend to accept this as the gospel truth.

This myth was recently exploded by Farhat Taj in her article ‘Drone attacks: challenging some fabrications’, published recently in a national daily. Dr Taj is an academic at the University of Oslo, but more importantly, she comes from the region and has a degree of access to tribal Pakhtuns that is rare.

Over the last couple of years, the air has been thick with charges that the US drone campaign is ‘counter-productive’ as it is supposed to have caused the death of many non-combatants. The Pakistani government has lodged numerous protests with the Americans over the collateral damage their attacks have caused, and how they are destabilising the Zardari administration. The hypocrisy inherent in these protests is little short of breathtaking, considering that many of these remote controlled aircraft are said to operate from runways located in Pakistan.

However, as Dr Taj explains in her important article, ordinary people in Fata are delighted that at least somebody is killing the ruthless thugs who have seized control of their villages and their lives. She says that Pakistani and US media have tossed around the figure of ‘600-700 civilian casualties’ without citing any evidence.

According to Dr Taj, “…after every attack the terrorists cordon off the area and no one, including the local villagers, are allowed to come even near the targeted place. The militants themselves collect the bodies, bury the dead and then issue the statement that all of them were innocent civilians.”

Dr Taj goes on to explain that the only civilians who have been killed are the family members of the militants in whose houses other terrorists have gathered. In effect, these killers are using these women and children as human shields, hoping their presence will deter drone attacks. In any case, it is impossible to make even a rough estimate of how many civilians have been killed in the drone campaign.

The writer goes on to say: “The people of Waziristan are suffering a brutal kind of occupation under the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is in this context that they would welcome anyone, Americans, Israelis, Indians or even the devil, to rid them of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Therefore, they welcome the drone attacks. Secondly, the people feel comfortable with the drone attacks because of their precision and targeted strikes. [People prefer them to] the Pakistan Army’s attacks which always result in collateral damage.…”

[...]

Dr Taj concludes her article thus: “Moreover, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done everything to stop the drone attacks by killing hundreds of innocent civilians on the pretext of their being American spies. They thought that by overwhelming the innocent people of Waziristan with terror tactics they would deter any potential informer, but they have failed…. Interestingly, no one in Pakistan has raised objections to killings [sic] of the people of Waziristan on charges of spying for the US. This, the people of Waziristan informed, is a source of torture for them that their fellow Pakistanis condemn the killing of terrorists, but fall into deadly silence over the routine murders of tribesmen.…”

I have often wondered about this callous hypocrisy too. If we condemn the Americans so vociferously over the drone campaign, should we not be more critical of the thugs who are killing far more Pakistani civilians? And yet, it seems that our more popular Urdu anchorpersons and TV chat show guests reserve their outrage for Washington, while giving the Taliban and Al Qaeda a free pass over their vicious suicide bombings that have taken hundreds of innocent lives in recent weeks.

[...]

However, if we are to win the war against extremism, we need to analyse where our best interests lie. First we need to face the fact that the war is not going well. Even though the army has cleared most of South Waziristan of the TTP, it does not have the manpower to both hold the area it has wrested from the terrorists, and to take them on in the other regions they have fled to.

We need to wake up to the reality that the enemy has grown very strong in the years we temporised and tried to do deals with them. Clearly, we need allies in this fight. Howling at the moon is not going to get us the cooperation we so desperately need. A solid case can be made for more drone attacks, not less."

"Criticism of the military is not an issue - advocating in favor of foreign military operations on Pakistani territory is."

PREDATOR attacks? Hardly. Is she advocating a U.S. ground invasion of Pakistan? If so, I'd like to read it. Abdicating your sovereignty is the issue. It's why we won't transfer PREDATOR technology to Pakistan. That's a red herring designed to obfuscate the greater issue of WILLINGNESS, not ABILITY, to conduct military operations against our enemies.

No doubt you'd use PREDATOR...solely against your own enemies. After all, you've got so-called "priorities". PREDATOR wouldn't change your prioritization of targets. Those that are attacking Americans and Afghans would remain forever untouched despite possession of PREDATOR technology. If you've made no effort heretofore there's no reason to believe PREDATOR would change that. We will prosecute these attacks in our own self-defense. It is our right where sovereignty has been for so long selectively abdicated. The drone attacks are the minimally intrusive means we've available and, to boot, effective.

"Terrorists and insurgents ofcourse."

No. You subscribe to "good" taliban and "bad" taliban. We see no distinction and have assisted your efforts against the TTP. You've not reciprocated.

"No it wasn't - he [Rabzon] crossed a line when taking a position similar to Format Taj on foreign military ops inside Pakistan."

Your board though I'd beg you to reconsider. He posts op-eds by a LOT of Pakistanis. Don't they deserve a voice?

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 18:48
"She [Ms. Farhat Taj] travels to Pakistan for her so called 'research' doesn't she? And then there is her organisation and those affiliated with it and with her who reside in Pakistan..."

Guilt by association? My, aren't you the thought police now. Ms. Taj's defense of PREDATOR attacks is hardly treasonous. She simply recognizes your government and army has long abdicated functional sovereign control over those lands and people to a heinous and brutal taliban entity. She likely, in fact, is a greater Pakistani patriot than you. No doubt her concern for the immense pressure placed on the pashtun citizenry of FATAville from their domination by the afghan taliban and TTP exceeds your's.

If she has 'concern for Pakistan and the residents of the area' then she should support the provision of drones to Pakistan, not support/justify foreign military operations on Pakistani soil - the same for IH, though I am willing to extend him some leeway in that he was commenting on Taj's piece. If he supports her position of foreign military operations on Pakistani soil without Pakistani approval, then treason for him as well.


"Criticism of the military is not an issue - advocating in favor of foreign military operations on Pakistani territory is."

PREDATOR attacks? Hardly. Is she advocating a U.S. ground invasion of Pakistan? If so, I'd like to read it.
Support for US drone attacks on Pakistani soil is support for another nation carrying out military operations in Pakistan, and her support for the recent commando raid to get OBL, and more, is clear support for aggression against Pakistan through ground troops.

Abdicating your sovereignty is the issue. It's why we won't transfer PREDATOR technology to Pakistan. That's a red herring designed to obfuscate the greater issue of WILLINGNESS, not ABILITY, to conduct military operations against our enemies.
The excuses to not transfer Predator are the real 'red herrings' here.


No doubt you'd use PREDATOR...solely against your own enemies. After all, you've got so-called "priorities". PREDATOR wouldn't change your prioritization of targets. Those that are attacking Americans and Afghans would remain forever untouched despite possession of PREDATOR technology. If you've made no effort heretofore there's no reason to believe PREDATOR would change that. We will prosecute these attacks in our own self-defense. It is our right where sovereignty has been for so long selectively abdicated. The drone attacks are the minimally intrusive means we've available and, to boot, effective.

Speculation - and the US still has to 'control' plenty of space in Eastern Afghanistan from where terrorists attack Pakistan, so is plenty for you to focus on in Afghanistan before criticizing Pakistan's efforts in NW.

"Terrorists and insurgents ofcourse."

No. You subscribe to "good" taliban and "bad" taliban. We see no distinction and have assisted your efforts against the TTP. You've not reciprocated.
Actually, given Brahamdegh Bugti, Qari Zia and Mullah FM in Afghanistan, I only see some selective cooperation from the US.



He posts op-eds by a LOT of Pakistanis. Don't they deserve a voice?
No terrorists advocating violence against the Pakistani state and no 'liberal fascists' advocating/justifying foreign military operations (drones or ground troops) on Pakistani soil. I don't see that as a harsh position to take in the interests of Pakistan and her sovereignty.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 18:56
Bin Laden compound is ordinary by Pakistan standards

By Christyne J. Vachon
Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 05/05/2011 08:00:00 PM PDT

Last December I spent 10 days in Pakistan. I saw hundreds of compounds like the one in which Osama bin Laden was found. Yet I have watched many television reporters and commentators ardently, almost hungrily, convincing the American people that because the compound was so large, with such high walls, so close to Islamabad, the Pakistani government must have known bin Laden was there.

This is inaccurate and irresponsible.

In Pakistan, compounds with high walls, curled razor wire, guard houses and guards are common. Based on the photos and video footage I have seen, bin Laden's was typical of others. Many are more extensive and lavish, with equal levels of protection. Bin Laden's compound was on less than an acre and hardly a mansion. His neighborhood appears typical of the Pakistani professional class.

I was in Pakistan for Rotary International. We have donated funds to improve Pakistani schools and access to those schools for girls. I met with various individuals, often in residential compounds. One I visited had three homes within its high walls -- one for the parents, two others for their two sons and their families.

Pakistanis respect the privacy of the home. It provides a sanctuary, particularly for women; traditionally the only men allowed to enter its heart are those who live there. When I was invited into traditional homes, the women of the household and I met away from the men, without our headscarves. My male colleagues were either kept in another room, near the entry, or not allowed into the home at all.

Much of the media also has obsessed about the Pakistani military installation half a mile from bin Laden's compound. My experience passing military establishments in Pakistan was that they also have high walls, razor wire and guards, just like the residential compounds. Surrounding neighborhoods function like any other, with the addition of checkpoints. There is no reason to assume that those behind the Military Academy's walls should have known who was behind bin Laden's.

The day after bin Laden's death, John Brennan, the president's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, held a news conference.

"I think it's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time," he told the media. "I am not going to speculate about what type of support he might have had on an official basis inside of Pakistan."

No American official pointed the finger at the Pakistani government. But in many media sources, speculation was as rampant as the ignorance of those doing the speculating.

Irresponsible journalism and misinformation have gotten the U.S. into more than one war in its day. Would we have invaded Iraq if more of the media had questioned President George W. Bush's claims about weapons of mass destruction more deeply, rather than contributing to the post-9/11 hysteria he fanned?

And what lies ahead for U.S. relations with Pakistan, a poor Muslim nation halfway around the world? Wouldn't we all be safer if we learned the facts?


CHRISTYNE J. VACHON is an attorney and professor of international business and law. She is a member of Rotary International and provides pro-bono work to non-profit organizations. She wrote this article for this newspaper.

Opinion: Bin Laden compound is ordinary by Pakistan standards - San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_18002439?nclick_check=1)

Dreadnought
07 May 11,, 18:58
5 Year perhaps more........

(Reuters) - Osama bin Laden may have lived in Pakistan for over seven years before being shot dead by U.S. forces, senior Pakistani security officials said on Saturday, a disclosure that could further anger key ally Washington over the presence of enemy number one in the country.

One of bin Laden's widows told Pakistani investigators that he stayed in a village for nearly two and a half years before moving to the nearby garrison town of Abbottabad, where he was killed on Monday.

The wife, Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah, told investigators earlier that bin Laden and his family had spent five years in Abbottabad, where one of the most elaborate and expensive manhunts in history ended.

"Amal (bin Laden's wife) told investigators that they lived in a village in Haripur district for nearly two and a half years before moving to Abbottabad at the end of 2005," one of the security officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Abdulfattah, along with two other wives and several children, were among 15-16 people detained by Pakistani authorities at the compound after the raid.

Pakistan, heavily dependent on billions of dollars of U.S. aid, is under heavy pressure to explain how bin Laden could have spent so many years undetected a few hours drive from its intelligence headquarters in the capital.

Suspicions have deepened that Pakistan's pervasive Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency, which has a long history of contacts with militant groups, may have had ties with bin Laden -- or that at least some of its agents did. The agency has been described as a state within a state.

Pakistan has dismissed such suggestions and says it has paid the highest price in human life and money supporting the U.S. war on militancy launched after bin Laden's followers staged the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

Security officials said Pakistan had launched an investigation into bin Laden's presence in the South Asian country seen as critical to stabilizing neighboring Afghanistan.

"It is very serious that bin Laden lived in cities (in Pakistan)... and we couldn't nail it down fully," said one of the officials.

Pakistani leaders were already facing staggering problems before revelations that bin Laden was in their backyard raised new questions about their commitment to fighting militancy.

'WEAKNESS OF OUR RULERS'

Al Qaeda-linked Taliban militants who seem to stage suicide bombings at will remain a major security threat despite several military offensives against their bases in the forbidding mountainous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The economy is stagnant and the government must impose politically unpopular reforms to keep money from an $11 billion International Monetary Fund loan flowing to Pakistan.

Pakistanis are growing impatient with high food prices and poor services and an education system that is so flawed that many parents are forced to send their children to Islamic seminaries that spread hard-line ideologies that fuel militancy.

Some attention may shift to Chak Shah Mohammad, where bin Laden's wife said he lived before shifting to his last hideout.

The small village of mostly brick clusters of three or four houses also contains cave-like dwellings previously inhabited by the poor that are now being used to keep animals.

People there, like in other areas, expressed disdain for Pakistan's powerful military because bin Laden had spent so much time in Pakistan without being caught or killed.

Such criticism was rare before bin Laden's death put Pakistan under the international spotlight.

"It's a weakness of our rulers, military and intelligence that he (bin Laden) was in Abbottabad and they didn't know that," said Qazi Shaukat Mehmood, who like other residents highly doubts that bin Laden could have lived in Chak Shah Mohammad unnoticed for any length of time.

"I'm here for more than 20 years. I never saw any unusual activity. I don't believe this is true. It must be some kind of joke."

That would please Pakistani officials.

Anger and suspicion between Washington and Islamabad over the raid in Abbottabad, 30 miles from the Pakistani capital, showed no sign of abating.

The New York Times on Saturday quoted Pakistani officials as saying the Obama administration had demanded Pakistan disclose the identities of some of its top intelligence operatives as Washington seeks to find out whether they had contact with bin Laden or his agents before the raid on his compound.

The officials were providing details of what the Times called a tense discussion between Pakistani officials and a U.S. envoy in Pakistan on Monday.

A Pakistani security official denied the report, which he called "malicious."

Many in Washington suspect Pakistani authorities had been either grossly incompetent or playing a double game in the hunt for bin Laden and the two countries' supposed partnership against violent Islamists.

As it engages in damage control over bin Laden's presence, Pakistan must prepare for the possibility that supporters angered by bin Laden's death will hit back.

Since al Qaeda has ties with the Pakistani Taliban, this country could make an easy target.

Al Qaeda has acknowledged that bin Laden is dead, dispelling doubts by some Muslims the militant group's leader had really been killed by U.S. forces, and vowed to mount more attacks on the West.

The announcement on Friday by the Islamist militant organization appeared intended to show its followers around the globe the group had survived as a functioning network.

In a statement online, it said the blood of bin Laden, "is more precious to us and to every Muslim than to be wasted in vain.

"It will remain, with permission from Allah the Almighty, a curse that hunts the Americans and their collaborators and chases them inside and outside their country."

Al Qaeda urged Pakistanis to rise up against their government to "cleanse" the country of what it called the shame brought on it by bin Laden's shooting and of the "filth of the Americans who spread corruption in it."

In Washington, a U.S. official said U.S. intelligence had established on-the-ground surveillance in Abbottabad in advance of the raid. A phone call last year to a man known as the main courier to bin Laden helped lead the CIA to the compound, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.

U.S. officials also said among materials found at bin Laden's hide-out was evidence indicating al Qaeda at one point considered attacking the U.S. rail system on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/07/us-obama-statement-idUSTRE74107920110507?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FworldNews+%28News+% 2F+US+%2F+International%29

Dreadnought
07 May 11,, 19:03
Getting a little paranoid and frustrated at not having any credible evidence or arguments are we?
It May surprise you, but there are more than just one Pakistani commentators online who can offer articulate and coherent arguments and take the positions I do.

Ive posted nothing but facts and links to provide reference.

All you have provided are excuses without fact nor reference. Now who's bullshitting who?;)

I would also like to know if you feel free to disclose why you removed the city of Michigan from your moniker. Perhaps giving yourself a bit of a credible position maybe in making it souly Lahore?

Funny how that changed when these threads started.

Julie
07 May 11,, 19:15
Pakistan is dependent on billions of foreign aid from IMF and US and they have the audacity to call Americans "filthy?"

Agnostic Muslim is living in Michigan, receiving education benefits, and freedoms that our US soldiers provide, and AM is talking this filth? Is this typical Pakistani culture?

Isn't willful blindness a survival mechanism in Pakistan?

Why don't Pakistan make al qaeda provide money and education to better Pakistan instead of making it a hell hole? :mad:

Yusuf
07 May 11,, 19:24
A case of biting the hand that feeds you.

Not only AM but a majority if the pakistanis in the forum world sit pretty in the US while talking all ills. Most of them probably belong to big shots in PA/ISI.

The webmaster of a Pak forum too resides in Pak while his forum goes all out against the US. Typical hypocrisy.

S2
07 May 11,, 19:24
"If she has 'concern for Pakistan and the residents of the area' then she should support the provision of drones to Pakistan, not support/justify foreign military operations on Pakistani soil"

There's no basis for supporting such. If you won't attack these men absent drones there's no reason to believe that drones would change such. They aren't a target of your's and never have been.

"...the same for IH, though I am willing to extend him some leeway in that he was commenting on Taj's piece. If he supports her position of foreign military operations on Pakistani soil without Pakistani approval, then treason for him as well."

Ms. Taj hasn't called for a U.S. invasion of FATAville by our ground forces. She's BEGGED that the misery of the pashtun citizens of FATAville be alleviated and recognizes no available recourse from the Pakistani government. Your plainly wrong to characterize her as treasonous. Best you lump I.H. with her because his empassioned defense of Taj was clear.

"Criticism of the military is not an issue - advocating in favor of foreign military operations on Pakistani territory is."

PREDATOR attacks? Hardly. Is she advocating a U.S. ground invasion of Pakistan? If so, I'd like to read it.

Support for US drone attacks on Pakistani soil is support for another nation carrying out military operations in Pakistan, and her support for the recent commando raid to get OBL, and more, is clear support for aggression against Pakistan through ground troops.

No Pakistani was killed in that operation. The president made pains by risking the lives of ST-6 to assure such. Completely wrong.

"The excuses to not transfer Predator are the real 'red herrings' here."

It's not a technical inability that restricts your preparedness to attack Haqqani and others. It's a strategic choice. If you've other so-called priorities then PREDATOR wouldn't change that.

"Speculation - and the US still has to 'control' plenty of space in Eastern Afghanistan from where terrorists attack Pakistan, so is plenty for you to focus on in Afghanistan before criticizing Pakistan's efforts in NW."

We make war daily in eastern Afghanistan. We do so at great cost in blood and treasure. The reason for such can be traced to the afghan taliban leadership across the border.

"Actually, given Brahamdegh Bugti, Qari Zia and Mullah FM in Afghanistan, I only see some selective cooperation from the US."

Brahamdegh Bugti isn't in Afghanistan. Rehman and Mullah F.M. are faced with combat offered by U.S. Army troops in Kunar. What you see defies reality.

"No terrorists advocating violence against the Pakistani state and no 'liberal fascists' advocating/justifying foreign military operations (drones or ground troops) on Pakistani soil. I don't see that as a harsh position to take in the interests of Pakistan and her sovereignty."

I do. You've gone way overboard in your desire to silence legitimate criticism.

InExile
07 May 11,, 19:28
That article is actually right about the compound. Besides the high walls there is nothing that unusual about it; it is somewhat bigger than the other houses, but not 8 times bigger or worth a million like some have said in the media. The tone of the debate suggests that many Americans have had enough of alleged Pakistani duplicity.

S2
07 May 11,, 19:34
"Not only AM but a majority if the pakistanis in the forum world sit pretty in the US while talking all ills..."

Control your comments Yusef. The "majority" of Pakistanis whom participate in global discussion likely sit in Pakistan. In either case, it's not a known nor relevant quantity. Such could be as easily (and inaccurately) said of Chinese or Indians.

S2
07 May 11,, 19:39
The physical size of the lot upon which the house rests is enormous by every indication I've read. All of this rather massive property is contained within some rather imposing walls. Even so, where the home of very typical dimensions (whatever that might be) doesn't preclude it's unusual location in a community that's a virtual military cantonment.

Yusuf
07 May 11,, 19:45
Sorry Sir, may be a lot of Indians in forum world stay in the US, but they sure don't act like how most Pakistanis do.

India has ilover the years given ample proof of how Pakistan has used terrorism as an instrument of state policy, but the world at large chose to ignore it. The US fought the war on terror on the wrong side of the Durand line after the initial invasion.

Only apprehension is that the US might once again "forgive" Pakistan in return for favors in Astan. Policy needs a complete review.

Yusuf
07 May 11,, 19:48
The size of the house for once if considered typical, but if the residents don't come out of it at all is surely suspicious. Burning if trash inside the compound too is not typical. We may have high compound walls alrite, but why the 7 foot wall on the third floor?

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 20:40
Getting a little paranoid and frustrated at not having any credible evidence or arguments are we?
It May surprise you, but there are more than just one Pakistani commentators online who can offer articulate and coherent arguments and take the positions I do.

Ive posted nothing but facts and links to provide reference.

I was referring to your post about 'me liking myself' ostensibly suggesting that Notorious Eagle was a duplicate ID that I was using to back up my own arguments. Such childish games might be something you like to do, I have never had time for them, since I have always enjoyed debating and usually back myself to substantiate my arguments.


All you have provided are excuses without fact nor reference. Now who's bullshitting who?;)
What facts and references illustrating ISI complicity have you provided? You have pointed to the size of the house and the location, and on both those counts I have offered counter arguments which you refuse to acknowledge or refute, choosing to merely regurgitate your original argument of 'the house was so big and it was in XYZ town'.

The house was neither unusual by Pakistani standards, nor was it in an area where 'house searches' were routine without reason. Also keep in mind Panetta's own statements that despite surveillance from satellites, observation posts and local intel, for several months, they were only 60% to 80% confident that OBL lived there.


I would also like to know if you feel free to disclose why you removed the city of Michigan from your moniker. Perhaps giving yourself a bit of a credible position maybe in making it souly Lahore?

Funny how that changed when these threads started.
Again, you are paranoid and delusional - I have changed nothing in my profile in months, not since the last time I was posting on WAB, which was several months before the OBL episode.

And pray tell how exactly that is related to the topic in any case?

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 20:45
Pakistan is dependent on billions of foreign aid from IMF and US and they have the audacity to call Americans "filthy?"

Agnostic Muslim is living in Michigan, receiving education benefits, and freedoms that our US soldiers provide, and AM is talking this filth? Is this typical Pakistani culture?

Isn't willful blindness a survival mechanism in Pakistan?

Why don't Pakistan make al qaeda provide money and education to better Pakistan instead of making it a hell hole? :mad:

What are you going on about - where have I called Americans 'filthy'?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with defending Pakistan against unsubstantiated propaganda by the US media and establishment. It is not my fault that your media and lawmakers are making outrageous allegations without any credible evidence whatsoever. Tell them to shut up until they can prove their case and you won't have these arguments.

highsea
07 May 11,, 21:13
I do not believe Pakistan is asking for domestic production of the Predator or Reader - the reference to technology is in the context of providing equipment.Good grief. Predator is part of a system. The drones are just the end link of a long chain. There are many other assets that integrate- Rivet Joint, E-3, reconnaissance and communications satellites, portable battlefield computers, etc.

It's not something that can be transferred. The most the US can do is provide the intel that the system provides.

And as S-2 has already noted, it wouldn't change Pakistan's priorities.

The entire Pakistani debate surrounding transferring Predator to Pakistan is a propaganda argument. Pakistan couldn't use it if they did have it. You seem to think it's just some RC plane with a missile attached. That's about as far from reality as you can get.

You can't operate Predator in a vaccuum. Absent the satellites and UAS compatible platforms, Predator is nothing. The US will not turn over control of the supporting assets to any country- and even if we could, Pakistan would be somewhere alongside Iran on the list.

Pakistan already has as much of Predator as they can get, which is to say they operate from Pakistani airfields.

highsea
07 May 11,, 21:16
...It is not my fault that your media and lawmakers are making outrageous allegations without any credible evidence whatsoever. Tell them to shut up until they can prove their case and you won't have these arguments.You are so full of shit.

You haven't a shred of evidence to back any of your claims, other than some unnamed "senior intelligence and military persons" in Pakistani media.

Like we are supposed to take the word of the very people whose treachery we have exposed to the entire world.

What a joke you are.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 22:25
You are so full of shit.

You haven't a shred of evidence to back any of your claims, other than some unnamed "senior intelligence and military persons" in Pakistani media.

Like we are supposed to take the word of the very people whose treachery we have exposed to the entire world.

What a joke you are.

I am not making any claims I have to substantiate here, the US media and you guys are, that Pakistani institutions were complicit in hiding OBL.

If anyone has to prove anything it is you lot - Pakistan cannot prove a negative.

highsea
07 May 11,, 22:38
Then you are just retreating to ignorance/incompetence.

We snatched him from an ISI safe house on an army base.

So yes, Pakistan has to come up with a credible explanation.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 23:21
We snatched him from an ISI safe house on an army base.

So yes, Pakistan has to come up with a credible explanation.

Those are both untrue statements - the house was neither an 'ISI safe-house' nor was it on an 'Army Base'.

That you would think to make such absurd claims when there is not a shred of evidence supporting them is perhaps not a surprise given the behavior of the US media and certain US lawmakers.

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 11,, 23:22
We snatched him from an ISI safe house on an army base.

So yes, Pakistan has to come up with a credible explanation.

Those are both untrue statements - the house was neither an 'ISI safe-house' nor was it on an 'Army Base'.

That you would think to make such absurd claims when there is not a shred of evidence supporting them is perhaps not a surprise given the behavior of the US media and certain US lawmakers.

S2
07 May 11,, 23:36
A.M.,

You're making double posts here and on the other thread. Just a head's up.

"We snatched him from an ISI safe house on an army base."

I won't go that far...yet. I don't know that the location was an ISI safehouse nor can determine how anybody else might. If so, I'd sure expect more personal protection assets than seemed present.

Moreover, it certainly wasn't an actual military base. The community, though, possesses an inordinate amount of military assets in the surrounding areas and also serves as a retirement community to a goodly portion of former officers and public officials from my understanding.

highsea
07 May 11,, 23:57
...I won't go that far...yet.Yes, technically not "on the base". It was 750 yards away. Close enough as far as I am concerned.

Big house walled off, fake entrance, 14' walls, razor wire. OBL living there for 5 years. Tall guy, long beard.....:rolleyes:

I can buy the civilian leaders being ignorant. Zardari has no control of anything.

But the ISI and PA? Give me a break.

"We inspected the house" Sure.

PA General: "Who is living next door?"
ISI Chief: "That's Osama's house, sir"
PA General: "Oh, okay."

Mihais
07 May 11,, 23:58
Sir,without ISI documents it indeed impossible to prove as for a court of law that there was a safe-house.Highly doubtful we'll get one of those,but one never knows.However intelligence and military decision-makers do not and cannot operate based on lawyer-proof information.That doesn't makes said intel wrong and not actionable though.
If more information about the circumstances of the said neighborhood contradicts what we have until now,I'll modify my position.Until then,however,this one is blatant.I can only hope that there was indeed a shady deal(or the deal was in prospect).Otherwise we might have a tragedy sooner rather than later.

highsea
08 May 11,, 00:08
Sir,without ISI documents it indeed impossible to prove as for a court of law that there was a safe-house.Of course. I don't expect to get such documents.

Common sense is common sense. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck.

Like Pari said- gilded cage.

They let him continue to operate for all that time out of that house. I can sort of understand them wanting a bargaining chip. It fits their twisted way of thinking.

But they didn't neutralize him, which makes them our enemy.

There's no way around that.

highsea
08 May 11,, 00:12
...That you would think to make such absurd claims when there is not a shred of evidence supporting them is perhaps not a surprise given the behavior of the US media and certain US lawmakers.Behavior of the US media and US lawmakers?

Are you FREAKING SERIOUS?

WHAT ABOUT PAKISTAN'S BEHAVIOR?

I'm not the slightest bit interested in your excuses and rationalizations.

Your military/intelligence services have been harboring OBL for at least 5 years, all the while pointing their finger at Afghanistan.

Wake up and smell the shit you're shoveling.

highsea
08 May 11,, 00:26
...I don't know that the location was an ISI safehouse nor can determine how anybody else might. S-2, I respect the hell out of you, and I pay attention to what you write. Anytime you want to stop by my shop you're welcome and I'll buy the first round at the Lucky lab.

But I can't give the benefit of the doubt to those two-faced, backstabbing, treacherous, lying bastards. Sorry.

S2
08 May 11,, 00:29
What's confusing to me is the absence of committed warriors to defend him and any other way out. No tunnels, etc. Now five years may convince a guy he's safe but somebody (either OBL personally or his advisors) knew that electronic traffic would be a possible tip-off. So that was a concern...and eliminated.

The house itself seemed designed to keep prying eyes out. Without the guards, however, repelling an assault would take more than high walls.

How one could be so seemingly serenely secure is difficult to fathom.

dave lukins
08 May 11,, 00:38
What's confusing to me is the absence of committed warriors to defend him and any other way out. No tunnels, etc. Now five years may convince a guy he's safe but somebody (either OBL personally or his advisors) knew that electronic traffic would be a possible tip-off. So that was a concern...and eliminated.

The house itself seemed designed to keep prying eyes out. Without the guards, however, repelling an assault would take more than high walls.

How one could be so seemingly serenely secure is difficult to fathom.

The Worlds most wanted man with $millions on his head and no noticeable high end security does seem odd but then again if there was huge amounts of security he may not have been 'un-observed' by the Pakistani Intelligence for over five years ;)

highsea
08 May 11,, 00:48
...The house itself seemed designed to keep prying eyes out. Without the guards, however, repelling an assault would take more than high walls.

How one could be so seemingly serenely secure is difficult to fathom.The location was the protection. They believed an attack couldn't happen there. The US is going to bomb right next door to the premier Pakistani military academy?

They would have made us look like fools. "You killed a retired general and his entire family. Why didn't you ask us? Don't you think we would know whose house that was?"

They never foresaw a commando assault. It was unthinkable that the US would even consider such an act right next door to that academy.

They were "cooperating" with the US, and they would have plenty of time to move him if we started making noises about that location.

Remember back in 2006-2007, all that shit going on in Iraq. OBL was passing on instructions to Zarqawi from that house...:mad:

Julie
08 May 11,, 01:09
There is absolutely nothing wrong with defending Pakistan against unsubstantiated propaganda by the US media and establishment. It is not my fault that your media and lawmakers are making outrageous allegations without any credible evidence whatsoever. Tell them to shut up until they can prove their case and you won't have these arguments.WTF you talkin about? The US hasn't made outrageous allegations.....the US has proved their point by plucking the most wanted terrorist worldwide right from under Pakistan's nose.

Say what you want AM, but the proof is in the pudding by that raid. It showed the true colors of Pakistan, and not only is Pakistan in NO position to negotiate anything, rhetoric and a band-aid isn't going to fix this big showdown.

Let's just see how it plays out.....

S2
08 May 11,, 01:15
Geez, guys. I'm not sure you're catching my drift. I guess I'm wondering if he felt a need for tunnels and top-flight guards. Maybe somebody or something assured him such wouldn't be necessary there.

highsea
08 May 11,, 01:28
Geez, guys. I'm not sure you're catching my drift. I guess I'm wondering if he felt a need for tunnels and top-flight guards. Maybe somebody or something assured him such wouldn't be necessary there.Tunnels, maybe. I'm sure he had an escape plan, he must have thought he would get enough warning to skeedaddle. He had money sewn into his clothes.

Guards? He must have had some, there was a firefight and it takes more than a few women and children to tie up a seal team.

But don't you think his security depended entirely on our not finding him, no matter where he was? No amount of personal guards is going to protect someone from B-1 full of JDAMs. Too many people at that location would have compromised secrecy.

We didn't suspect that house, we tracked the courier there. Can you imagine our surprise when we got a positive ID?

Pannetta: "He's living WHERE?" :eek: :eek: :eek:

S2
08 May 11,, 01:45
"Can you imagine our surprise when we got a positive ID?

Pannetta: "He's living WHERE?":eek::eek::eek:

Ummm..., priceless?:biggrin:

highsea
08 May 11,, 02:22
...Ummm..., priceless?:biggrin:No doubt.

So getting back to the suspension of all reason mode.....

Let's just say the Pakistani story is all true. The army had no clue, the ISI had no clue, Pakistan is our trusted ally completely deserving of MNNA status.

Okay fine. You're Osama bin Laden. The entire Pakistani army and intelligence apparatus is looking for you. They are scouring the country. They really want to hand you over to their good friend and ally the USA, who will be eternally grateful.

You're in danger.
You need a hiding place.
You're looking for a place to build a house.
You're tooling around Abbotabad in your Land Rover, wearing your trusty Groucho disguise...

"Say, there's a pretty nice piece of property, it's in my price range. I wonder how the neighbors are?" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Double Edge
08 May 11,, 02:59
Maybe somebody or something assured him such wouldn't be necessary there.
The lack of tunnels did strike me as odd initially, but then one wonders how far they would get him anyway. Looking at the lay of the land what good would they serve ?

highsea
08 May 11,, 03:12
How do we know there are no tunnels? Beause OBL didn't get away in one, therefore they must not exist?

What floor was he on when he was shot? How much time did he have after the commotion started?

How much time did we spend looking for tunnels?

Parihaka
08 May 11,, 05:03
But they didn't neutralize him, which makes them our enemy.


The question is, which part of Pakistan is your enemy. Doubtfully the civil administration. The bulk of the population comprise the survivors of the indigenous population plus the millions of Indians driven north by religious propaganda during the partition.
The actual rulers of Pakistan regard that country not as a defined series of borders but simply a state of mind, a fluid cantonment in which military and financial assets can be mustered until such time as they triumphally return to their 'rightful' place as rulers of all India.
They staff the upper echelons of the ISI and the military, and if ever the general populace and their parliament get out of line they smack them down.
Standard retributions or 'bombing them back to the stone age' won't acheive the desired result: to the rulers Pakistan the country's only use is that it sits astride an important geographical location and a number of geological assets. These will continue to be exploited regardless of what happens to the bulk of the population.

If as I suspect the US is going to take punitive action against this ruling elite it will be in the form of more incursions into Pakistan, both drone and on foot, and most importantly far more CIA assets than even now operate there. The ISI having compromised, perhaps attempted to kill and certainly held Davis for three months is now going to find what the PAF and PA have just discovered: There's squat all they can do about a pissed-off super power.

Yusuf
08 May 11,, 05:07
I think there was a report about the US using radars on satellites to see if there were any tunnels.

I don't think ST6 looked for anything else but OBL and the harddrives. The pakistanis would know about it but not tell.
Another thing that should give a clue about Pakistani non cooperation is not handing over OBLs wives a d children to the US to get more info. Obviously not as they will be further exposed by the revelations.
Media reports already say that one of his wives has told that they lived in a village in Pakistan for over two years. All put together OBL has been in Pakistan for around 8 years!!!

Mihais
08 May 11,, 06:19
The lack of guards isn't that surprising.There is no real reason for them,no matter how you look at it.Only in movies bad guys surround their compounds with armed thugs patrolling around the pool:tongue:

Having no guard nearby doesn't preclude having protection from the distance.Every move there probably was surveilled.Like I said elsewhere,this isn't a job for everyday's cop,not even for the local garrison.OBL was a state asset.
Highsea,with respect,he can't be in a cage(thus a prisoner or a hostage) and harbored(which allows one shelter and freedom of action).Al Zarqawi and AQI were already an AQ franchise that didn't really needed OBL's directives except the most general ones.But those very broad directives can also be found in newspapers,so what's the deal?
I've no love for the Pakistanis and their nefarious role in A-stan.They deserve every bit of sanction for that.If OBL creates a pretext for strong measures against Pakistan,all for the better,but the 2 aren't necessarily connected. They really can't be THAT idiotic.
The US public is right to be angered,but it's for the wrong reason .But that will due.Just like Al Capone was arrested for the some trivial thing,he nevertheless went to prison.

Dreadnought
08 May 11,, 18:01
I was referring to your post about 'me liking myself' ostensibly suggesting that Notorious Eagle was a duplicate ID that I was using to back up my own arguments. Such childish games might be something you like to do, I have never had time for them, since I have always enjoyed debating and usually back myself to substantiate my arguments.


What facts and references illustrating ISI complicity have you provided? You have pointed to the size of the house and the location, and on both those counts I have offered counter arguments which you refuse to acknowledge or refute, choosing to merely regurgitate your original argument of 'the house was so big and it was in XYZ town'.

The house was neither unusual by Pakistani standards, nor was it in an area where 'house searches' were routine without reason. Also keep in mind Panetta's own statements that despite surveillance from satellites, observation posts and local intel, for several months, they were only 60% to 80% confident that OBL lived there.

Again, you are paranoid and delusional - I have changed nothing in my profile in months, not since the last time I was posting on WAB, which was several months before the OBL episode.

And pray tell how exactly that is related to the topic in any case?

If you look closely, I have provided links to the media that even quotes senior Pakistani intelligence comments. These link you will find at the bottom of my posts.

I have no illusion as too you having a "double identity", Our mods are better then that and would have found that out and banned you faster then you think. What I did point out is that liking ones own posts seems pretty off the wall bordering narcissistic meaning you agree with you own words. If you agreeed with your own words then there is no meaning to you "liking" them. If another poster "liked" them that is completly different.

It just seems funny that your location changed from Michigan (US) and Lahore Pakistan and then to just Lahore Pakistan. You ip address will tell anyway.

No a big matter of discussion just thought I would point that out.

Paranoid? No by any stretch of the word my friend and anyone else here (barring Paihaka ofcoarse:biggrin:;)) will tell you that.

And umm I think you have mistaken my posts for someone elses, I have said very little about the house at all, you may want to read back. My posts deal primarily with how long Bin Ladens wife was in country, meaning he wasnt far behind no doubt and atleast in communications with his family which in any serious investigation by a countrys intelligence (this case ISI) should have immediately alerted them to the possibility that he was there and has been there for sometime. Otherwise they could have stayed wherever they were and were never in any kind of danger from anyone.

Dreadnought
08 May 11,, 18:22
ISLAMABAD (AP) — Outraged Pakistanis stepped up calls Saturday for top government officials to resign following the daring American helicopter raid that killed Osama bin Laden and embarrassed the nation.


By Aqeel Ahmed, AP

Some of the sharpest language was directed at the army and intelligence chiefs, a rare challenge to arguably the two most powerful men in the country, who are more accustomed to being feared than publicly criticized.

The Pakistani army has said it had no idea bin Laden was hiding for up to six years in Abbottabad, an army town only two and a half hours' drive from the capital, Islamabad. That claim has met with skepticism from U.S. officials, who have repeatedly criticized Pakistan for failing to crack down on Islamist militants.

But with anti-American sentiment already high in the South Asian nation, many Pakistani citizens were more incensed by the fact that the country's military was powerless to stop the American raid.

Some lawmakers and analysts expressed hope that civilian leaders can seize on this anger to chip away at the military's power, but others doubt that even an embarrassment of this scale will shake the status quo.

"It was an attack on our soil, and the army was sleeping," said Zafar Iqbal, a 61-year-old retired bureaucrat in the central city of Lahore.

He singled out the leaders of Pakistan's army, air force and the main intelligence organization — Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman and Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha — saying they all should be forced to resign.

"All three of these men have brought insult to us, and they deserve all the punishment," said Iqbal.

The direct criticism of Kayani and Pasha was particularly striking because the two men enjoy a vaunted status in Pakistan due to their role in protecting the country from external threats, especially archenemy India. Some also feared that bad mouthing the shadowy spy agency, known as the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, could cause trouble and possibly even harm.

Kayani has also had strong backing from the U.S. and other NATO countries, which have sought to enlist his help in battling militants along the country's border with Afghanistan.

It is unclear whether anyone will actually be forced to step down. The Pakistani government is viewed by many as totally unresponsive to the numerous woes plaguing the nation, from a struggling economy to frequent terrorist attacks.

"It is not time to sprinkle salt on wounds," said Pakistan's Information Minister Firdous Aashiq Awan when asked about the calls for senior officials to resign. "It is time to apply ointment on the nation's wounds."

The Pakistani military also denied reports that the ISI chief, Pasha, planned to resign in the wake of the bin Laden raid.

U.S. Navy SEALs swooped into Abbottabad by helicopter before dawn Monday, killed bin Laden and were on their way back to Afghanistan before the army could respond. The army has said it had no prior knowledge of the operation — a claim backed up by the U.S.

"No one other than the ISI and army chiefs are responsible for this disgrace of American attacks on our homeland," said Jaffar Ali, a 35-year-old bank employee in the southern city of Karachi. "It is a complete failure of our security."

In contrast, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, a lawmaker for the ruling Pakistan People's Party, fixed the blame squarely on President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani — likely motivated in part by past conflict with the two men.

"This is a great violation of our sovereignty, but it is for the president and prime minister to resign and no one else," Qureshi told reporters Saturday in the central city of Lahore.

The main opposition leader in parliament, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, took a less selective approach. He said anyone from Zardari on down who can be faulted for what happened in Abbottabad should resign.

"This is a call coming from every street of Pakistan," Khan told reporters in Lahore.

Qureshi, the former foreign minister, said parliament should conduct a thorough inquiry into the raid.

Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani defense analyst, said the civilian government should broaden its focus and seize the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the country's military and intelligence agencies — a process that could reign in the amount of money they receive and reduce their power over Pakistani politics.

"I don't want something that just looks at where they went wrong this particular time," said Siddiqa. "It should go beyond this one event."

Others held out little hope that Pakistan's civilian leaders have the skill and authority to take on the army, irrespective of the ripples from the bin Laden raid. Many of them are viewed as corrupt and only looking out for their own self-interest.

"Can we fix ourselves? Take a look around. Does anyone think Asif Zardari has what it takes?" Cyril Almeida wrote on Friday in an editorial in Pakistan's leading English-language newspaper, Dawn.

Zardari and Gilani met with the head of Pakistan's army, Kayani, and other senior officials in Islamabad on Saturday to discuss the bin Laden raid, said the prime minister's office. Gilani plans to brief parliament about the raid on Monday.

It is unclear where bin Laden was located before he moved to Abbottabad. Residents of Chak Shah Mohammad, a sparsely populated village close to Abbottabad, denied a report in the New York Times Saturday that bin Laden had lived there for two and a half years with his family before moving to Abbottabad.

"I don't think the kind of people you and the intelligence agencies are looking for are here or have ever lived here," said Mohammad Shazad Awan, a former army soldier who has driven a public minibus in the area for the last 12 years.

But residents of Abbottabad were also not aware that bin Laden had been living there for such a long time.

Awan, who said he works on the side as an informant for the government, said many Pakistani intelligence operatives were in Chak Shah Mohammad on Friday asking whether bin Laden had lived there.

A senior Pakistani intelligence official said he could neither confirm nor deny the report, which cited information from one of bin Laden's three wives who were detained after the raid. He spoke on condition of anonymity in line with the agency's policy.

Bin Laden raid sparks rare criticism in Pakistan - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-05-07-pakistan-criticism_n.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWorld-TopStories+%28News+-+World+-+Top+Stories%29)


This is what pisses off Americans more then anything, Pakistan seems more concerned about their "soverignty" but yet completely ignore the fact that terrorism breeds there and the worlds leading terrorist lived there. Ask us how much we give a shit about their "soverignty" when the man that lived there killed 3,000 civilians here on our soil.

When 911 happend Bush made clear that no matter where he was found he would be taken dead or alive. Obama made that just as clear when he took the presidency.

The "pros" of this (bin laden sleeping with the fishes) are worth 10 times the "cons" of "our soverignty" before something else happened and evidence already shows they were planning more attacks while "hiding" if you want to call it that in Pakistan.

Just be happy the world hasnt really dropped the hammer on Pakistan and held it as a country responsible for all of the terrorists that have bred, trained and funded terrorism from pakistan and killed inniocents in other countries. And the ones that still are which cannot be denied.

If they were so concerned about their "soverignty" then maybe they should have found him first or produced him and none of this would have happened. They didnt and we acted.

Put the blame where it belongs in Pakistan, not on the US for taking advantage of a chance to take him out before something else happened to innocent civilians.

IMO, Your "soverignty" isint going to come at the cost of our lives. Face that fact. The sooner you do the better off you will be. The US will act alone if it feels it needs to.

Agnostic Muslim
08 May 11,, 20:10
If you look closely, I have provided links to the media that even quotes senior Pakistani intelligence comments. These link you will find at the bottom of my posts.
I'm sorry, but I have not seen a single statement by a serving ISI officer (anonymous or identified) that comes even close to suggesting that Pakistani institutions had any idea of where OBL was hiding. If I have missed this, please point me to the correct post or give me the link again.


I have no illusion as too you having a "double identity", Our mods are better then that and would have found that out and banned you faster then you think. What I did point out is that liking ones own posts seems pretty off the wall bordering narcissistic meaning you agree with you own words. If you agreeed with your own words then there is no meaning to you "liking" them. If another poster "liked" them that is completly different.
I really don't understand what you are talking about - I am an Administrator on defence.pk and we use the same vbulletin software so I am aware of most of the features available. I don't believe it is possible for me to 'like' my own posts, and I have not tried. If this board has that feature enabled (thanking/liking ones own posts) then my use of it was completely inadvertent.


It just seems funny that your location changed from Michigan (US) and Lahore Pakistan and then to just Lahore Pakistan. You ip address will tell anyway.
Again, I have no clue what you are rambling about since I have not made any changes to my profile in several months, and my profile still shows my location as 'Michigan/Lahore'. In any case, what does my location have to do with the discussion?


Paranoid? No by any stretch of the word my friend and anyone else here (barring Paihaka ofcoarse:biggrin:;)) will tell you that.
Well. your comments about me 'liking' my own posts and changing my location, when on my end there is no such activity, are bewildering to say the least.


My posts deal primarily with how long Bin Ladens wife was in country, meaning he wasnt far behind no doubt and atleast in communications with his family which in any serious investigation by a countrys intelligence (this case ISI) should have immediately alerted them to the possibility that he was there and has been there for sometime. Otherwise they could have stayed wherever they were and were never in any kind of danger from anyone.
You are assuming that
(a) She came into the country through Pakistani airports
(b) Pakistan was expecting her travel/arrival from Yemen, and tracked and monitored her once she arrived in Pakistan
(c) Pakistan was able to maintain continuous surveillance on her till she reunited with OBL

Take point (b) - how would Pakistan know whether she was leaving Yemen to come to Pakistan? Was the US monitoring her in Yemen? Did they inform Pakistani authorities about her trip?

Agnostic Muslim
08 May 11,, 20:27
Behavior of the US media and US lawmakers?
Yes, behavior of the US and its lawmakers.

Even Levin, who has been ranting and frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog, takes a break between slobbering anti-Pakistan venom to quickly say, 'well, I have no evidence'

Exactly - there is no evidence, not even circumstantial. He was found in Pakistan and Pakistan did not think he was there? So what?


WHAT ABOUT PAKISTAN'S BEHAVIOR?

What about it? I see no evidence to suggest that Pakistan knew anything about OBL's whereabouts.


I'm not the slightest bit interested in your excuses and rationalizations.
I have not the slightest bit of interest in your rumor mongering and inane speculation. Pointing out the glaring flaws in your allegations against Pakistan is not an 'excuse'.


Your military/intelligence services have been harboring OBL for at least 5 years, all the while pointing their finger at Afghanistan.
BS, plain and simple. Our military/intelligence services did not harbor OBL for any period of time. We honestly thought he was in Afghanistan, or more likely, dead.


Wake up and smell the shit you're shoveling.
Err.. that would be you with the shovel and whats on it. You have nothing but rumors and speculation to back your allegations.

And calm down - yelling and swearing is not going to make your allegations and arguments any more valid.

Agnostic Muslim
08 May 11,, 20:33
This is what pisses off Americans more then anything, Pakistan seems more concerned about their "soverignty"

Absolutely - Pakistanis are, and should be, worried about their own nation, their own sovereignty and their own troubles and issues. They have no time or great interest in ten year man hunts for some old coot with a beard.

It would be human nature to worry about ones own issues and troubles first and foremost.

If you don't like it, cut the aid.

Agnostic Muslim
08 May 11,, 20:40
The Worlds most wanted man with $millions on his head and no noticeable high end security does seem odd but then again if there was huge amounts of security he may not have been 'un-observed' by the Pakistani Intelligence for over five years ;)
Whether you were being sarcastic or not, that is a valid observation. The whole point of living where he was living was to 'hide in plain sight' and stay under the radar. Any large presence of 'guards', large groups of men arriving and leaving, weapons etc. would set of 'red flags', not to mention increase the number of individuals who would be aware of his presence, or, at the least, of the presence of something of high value that needed to be protected with such measures, which would then lead to more 'red flags'.


No one in the neighborhood appears to have seen OBL or even suspected his presence. The neighbors have generally had good things to say about the two men who were assumed to be the main owners/occupants. They participated in some neighborhood and social events. From an intelligence perspective, there was nothing to tip off either law enforcement or intelligence, that I can see.

As I pointed out earlier, despite having this specific residence under surveillance for several months, with satellites, drones, CIA observers on the ground etc., specifically to determine if OBL lived there, the CIA was only 60% to 80% sure of his presence. Then how on earth can anyone expect Pakistani intelligence to miraculously figure out that OBL lived there?

Do our intelligence agents have some super special OBL detecting ESP?

nvishal
08 May 11,, 20:44
Karan thapar - Devilz advocate - Musharraf interview post OBL (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/osama-in-pak-was-our-incompetence-musharraf/151635-2.html)

Must pakistan explain itself?

Karan Thapar: General Musharraf, let's start with the fact that Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan. Would you accept that it is deeply embarrassing that he was living in Abbottabad a mile or so from the Pakistan military academy and just about an hour drive from the capital Islamabad?

Pervez Musharraf: It is about one and a half-two hours drive away from Islamabad. But yes it is indeed embarrassing.

Karan Thapar: Now, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, Alain Juppe, French Foreign Minister, said Pakistan must explain what Osama bin Laden was doing in Pakistan. Do you believe Pakistan owes the world an explanation?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, I think more than the world Pakistan needs an explanation to itself that how did this incompetence and failure occur? I think we should answer that to ourself first and nobody has the right to start demanding from Pakistan first.

Karan Thapar: But you are saying that the Pakistan government needs to tell it's own people how what you call an incompetent situation happened.

Pervez Musharraf: Well yes we need to find out ourselves, because I strongly believe that is incompetence and not complicity. Therefore we need to find out who is incompetent and we need to bring those people who are involved in any form, in intelligence in that city Abbottabad or around Kakul need to explain to Pakistan authorities.

Karan Thapar: So, you are calling for a full open transparent and honest account from the Pakistan government to the Pakistan people?

Pervez Musharraf: Well yes, investigate. Let the people know, let Pakistan know and let the world know because here accusations are certainly there that there was complicity. But I reject that theory, I reject it because of certain facts that President Obama has thanked our intelligence agencies, who facilitate leading to the target. So why has he thanked them?

What about osama's wife statements?

Karan Thapar: Let's then General Musharraf come to some key questions that arise. The first key question is that, did the Pakistan authority know that Osama bin Laden was living in Abbottabad and were they happy for him to continue there or were they unaware and therefore ignorant?

Pervez Musharraf: I'm reasonably sure or very sure that they were unaware.

Karan Thapar: Are you absolutely confident on that. That they had no idea whatsoever?

Pervez Musharraf: Yes very confident, because that is not the policy of Pakistan, that is not the policy of the intelligence agency, not the policy of the army. Therefore I cannot imagine that there was complicity involved.

Karan Thapar: Let me tell the problem with that answer General Musharraf, Osama bin Laden's wife Amal has told Pakistan intelligence that Osama bin Laden was living in Abbottabad for five years. Is it conceivable that he can live there for so long without any strong measure of official support?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, I doubt that statement because I have read a statement in a paper that they have come here just about three months back. So, I really now, purely from logical point of view, I don't have any intelligence or information to corroborate for what I'm going to say. I can't imagine that they were living there for five years.

Karan Thapar: Except the statement that I have just made, is from BBC and the BBC have said that infact the Pakistan army high command informed them of this. They themselves revealed to the world that Amal has told the Pakistani intelligence that bin Laden was living there for last five years. This is put out by the Pakistani high command.

Pervez Musharraf: Well, I don't know. I have my doubts. Pakistan high command has not been uttering a word as yet. They have not given any statement. I don't know which BBC correspondent got this statement. But however let's leave it at that. To my logic it doesn't appear logical that he could have been there for five years because the people surrounding that place, there have been umpteen number of interviews and none of them have said that they have seen Osama bin Laden. Now don't tell me that he has imprisoned himself in a room for five years, given himself rigorous imprisonment, staying inside a room not visible to anyone to the people living there 24 hours.

Karan Thapar: At the end of the day General Musharraf, whether he was living there for five years, five months or a shorter period of time, it's actually just a matter of detail. The key question is, he couldn't have lived there for as long as he did without anyone doing anything about it unless Pakistan was either complicit or incompetent. Are you sure this is not a case of complicity?

Pervez Musharraf: Yes! I have said so. I'm sure. I would like somebody to ask President Obama or find out why has he thanked our intelligence agency? My information says because it the lead, the intercept, a telephonic intercept from our intelligence agency was given to CIA. Now, if there was complicity they wouldn't have done that.

Karan Thapar: Except for the fact if you are talking about incompetence then the level of competence is astonishing because it now emerged this morning that the CIA has a safe house in the area which they occupied for at least five months. They were taking photographs, and they were closely monitoring intercepting conversations. So clearly if it incompetence, it is an astonishing level of incompetence.

Pervez Musharraf: Well as big as the Bombay, as big as the 9/11. It is incompetency that happens sometimes.

Karan Thapar: But it doesn't excuse it, even if you compare it to Bombay or 9/11. This is the Pakistan army and the ISI accused of incredible incompetence. Will you accept that?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, intelligence yes, and in intelligence I will like to pinpoint this place. Probably of the intelligence, that commander maybe of a very lower military rank. That is the person who is incompetence. It is not the whole agency which is incompetence. The detachment that is there and I know that place is headed by a junior officer. He is incompetent as his detachments are.

On amarullah saleh

Karan Thapar: While you are pointing the finger at a junior officer, let me tell you what the British newspaper 'The Guardian' has published this morning. They have been told by Amarullah Saleh, the former head of Afghanistan National Directorate of Security, that as far back as 2004, Afghanistan told you (Musharraf), when you yourself was the President of Pakistan, that Osama bin Laden was in Mansehra near Abbottabad and you angrily dismissed the tip off. Do you think with hind side you made a mistake?

Pervez Musharraf: Amarullah Saleh is an anti-Pakistan person. I took him to task in front of President Karzai. Therefore, he will talk all kind of nonsense.

Intelligence ignorance?

Karan Thapar: Alright. Let me put something else that underline the level of incompetence that we are talking about and I'm quoting from things that the Pakistani official have said after Osama bin Laden was killed. First the ISI told BBC that they had this compound in their sight from 2003 and on one occasion they even raided it. Then the foreign secretary of Pakistan told in an interview to BBC that in 2009 Pakistan had tipped off the Americans about the compound. Finally in January this year, just few months ago the Indonesian al Qaeda terrorist Umar Patek was captured and arrested in Abbottabad just two or so mile away from the compound and he revealed that he had come to Abbottabad to meet Osama bin Laden. So how is it that in fact the Pakistan authorities didn't know that Osama bin Laden was there. It's an astonishing level of incompetence.

Pervez Musharraf: Well yes it is. But as I said the people living there 24 hours all this time that he was inside whether for five years or for five months, didn't know about it. How is that possible? If that is possible, then for the intelligence not knowing that he was inside is also possible.

Karan Thapar: Except the ordinary people not knowing anything is the other thing, the ISI and the army not knowing it is quite another.

Pervez Musharraf: The ISI not know or the intelligence detachment not knowing is indeed it is different. But I think, I would say that the people there, they have greater access. They are there day-in day-out and night-in night-out. They ought to have know that Osama bin Laden was inside. Since they didn't knew there is a possibility that intelligence was not focusing there. And there is a very fact that you yourself are saying that in 2009 they did this, in 2003 they did that. So that itself reveal they were cooperating on the intelligence level.

Leon pannetta

Karan Thapar: Cooperating but nonetheless ignorant for what was happening in front of their eyes. Let's come to what American are saying about this operation. Leon Pannetta, the head of the CIA has told Time magazine that the intelligence was not shared with Pakistan because he was scared that they would tip off Osama bin Laden. In other words they didn't trust Pakistan. Now, coming from someone who is your closest ally in the world, isn't that a slap on the face?

Pervez Musharraf: Well that is terrible, because we are fighting terrorism together. I think if there is lack of trust, it is bad. It is bad for our war against terror and it must not be there. In my time, till 2007-2008, I know that all operations conducted in Pakistan, intelligence sharing was there, moving on to the target. But each and everyone invariably was attacked by Pakistan law enforcement agencies. This is the first time that this has happened and I know that there is a lack of trust since the last, maybe, about a year.

Trust

Karan Thapar: But you are not answering my question Mr Musharraf. What about the fact that the Americans didn't trust Pakistan enough to share intelligence that they were scared that rather than treat the intelligence in confidence, you would share it with Osama bin Laden. Coming from your closest political ally in the world, that is a slap on the face.

Pervez Musharraf: Well, there is a lack of trust, that is what I'm saying. It is bad. It must not happen.

Karan Thapar:Just a bad lack of trust, nothing more serious?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, it's a lack of trust and lack of trust will lead to lack of cooperation. Obviously, and it'll have terrible effects on the fight against terror.

Did pakistan knew? Was it unilateral?

Karan Thapar:Let's then come to something else that Leon Penetta and this time also John Brennon, President Obama's chief of Homeland Security have said very loudly and clearly that Pakistan had no idea of the operation until it was completely over and all the American helicopters had left Pakistani airspace. As a former Army chief, do you accept that or do you think this is a lie?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, the possibility is there. But, I think more possible is that during the operation, maybe Pakistan's some agency or higher command may have been told during the operation. But it is also possible that they came in and went out without our knowing.

Karan Thapar: I'm interrupting you but you are saying that it is quite possible that American helicopters violated Pakistani airspace for almost a total of 2 hours, American soldiers landed on a compound in Abbottabad just a mile away or so from the military academy for almost 40 minutes, killed and took away Osama bin Laden without being detected without being engaged, you do believe as Army chief that's quite possible?

Pervez Musharraf:Well, since I don't have access to information, I don't know it. For the whole two hours as you are saying, maybe that may not be plausible, maybe someone in the Pakistan chair of command may have known. But, however, I don't know.

Pakistani sovereignty

Karan Thapar: Let me put it like this. Today as you must be aware, that there is outrage and anger in Pakistan, that its airspace could be violated, its sovereignty could be violated for almost two hours, that American soldiers could descend on a compound and kill Osama bin Laden and disappear without being detected, without being engaged. To many Pakistanis, this raises worrying and serious questions about Pakistan's defence preparedness and its ability to secure its borders. As a former Army chief how do you address those concerns today?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, let me frankly admit that our focus on all these radar information in intelligence is focused more towards your side and on this side, because of the mountains and hilly terrain, inaccessible terrains, the surveillance coverage is not that effective.

Karan Thapar: So what you're saying behind that answer is that Pakistan's army, air force and its defence preparedness was caught with its pants down?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, aren't you enjoying using these terms, slap in the face and pants down etc? Well, it has been an embarrassment already.

Karan Thapar: It has been an embarrassment, you frankly admit that. Many would say that its more than embarrassing, its humiliating because Pakistan is after all, not only a country with an Army, but a nuclear power state. Is it humiliating?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, why are you getting involved in all these adjectives? Let's forget it. It has been embarrassing.

Karan Thapar: Tell me General Musharraf, given the outrage and anger in Pakistan, do heads deserve to roll?

Pervez Musharraf: Yes, I think there is a requirement of enquiring, finding out the people who failed and punishing them.

Who is to blame for all this? The ISI chief? Kiyani?

Karan Thapar: What about General Pasha, there is speculation in Pakistan that he may be considering resigning, the Army has officially announced that is not the case, do you think as head of the ISI he should accept responsibility and resign?

Pervez Musharraf: He is the most competent officer and I don't think he should resign.

Karan Thapar: What about General Kayani? He is Army Chief and if Pakistan's defence preparedness and borders were so blatantly violated, should General Kayani accept some measure of responsibility?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, measure of responsibility comes from, if we go right on top, it comes right from the top to the bottom as I said the detachment commander. Let's leave at these things to the enquiry and actions to be taken later.

Karan Thapar: You are saying on the one hand that heads must roll, but you're leaving out of that tally, the possibility that Generals Pasha and Kayani should resign. Do you think that these two gentlemen owe the country an apology?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, I leave it to them to decide.

Karan Thapar: Now this time you have given a very careful, measured answer that you leave it to them to decide. If you had been in their position, would you have apologised?

Pervez Musharraf: I may have apologised on behalf of the intelligence agencies because this is a great slip up, this is a great embarrassment, to that extent, maybe yes, and then assured the nation that we will investigate and find out how this slip up occurred and convincing the world that this does involve complicity.

Future operations

Karan Thapar: That's a very clear answer and a very telling answer as well General Musharraf. Now, the Americans are letting it be known that should the need arise in the future, they will not hesitate to carry out similar stealth strikes, without informing the Pakistanis and happily and clearly violating Pakistani airspace if required. How do you respond to that?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, this must not be done, the people in the streets already - they do not at all like United States. This will anger them and any agitations in the streets which will increase obviously, if this happens indiscriminately, then it will put that amount of pressure on the government, on the Army, on the intelligence agencies which will not be good in the point of view of cooperating in this war against terror, against al Qaeda or Taliban.

Karan Thapar: I hear you say that this must not happen, but do you think the Americans will listen to that? The Americans did what they wanted to the first time around, surely they'll do it again if they think the need is there.

Pervez Musharraf: Well, no comments, I don't know. I can only say that they must not do it. They must understand Pakistan's sensitivities, specially the sensitivities of the people of Pakistan.

Thapar's TLC session

Karan Thapar: Now the Pakistan Army has announced in an official statement that they want the Americans to reduce their military personnel in the country to an absolute minimum. Many people have interpreted it as an emotional response, others say that the Pakistan Army is speaking out of hurt or injured pride. How do you respond?

Pervez Musharraf: Well, I absolutely support this. They shouldn't have been there in any case, they should never have been there. There is no need of American troops in Pakistan. In my time, we had only cooperated on intelligence level, because we needed to develop technical intelligence to target all these al Qaeda people in our cities, To that extent, we sought cooperation. There were no troops in Pakistan and now if there are troops, they must not be there.

Karan Thapar: In other words, you are telling the Americans that if there are troops, they must not be there, they must get out. A quick Yes or No Sir?

Pervez Musharraf: Yes, they must leave.

Karan Thapar: Yes, they must leave. General Pervez Musharraf, thank you very much for speaking to Devil's Advocate.

Julie
08 May 11,, 23:54
Absolutely - Pakistanis are, and should be, worried about their own nation, their own sovereignty and their own troubles and issues.This "sovereignty" issue I need defined. I was under the assumption that sovereignty meant complete control and authority over a geographical area.

With that said, I fail to see Pakistan's "control" over anything...but aid and funds.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pakistan has no control over who purchases property in their region; Nor do they have control over who crosses their borders, or what enters their "sovereign nation" (i.e. special ops). That to me is not in the best interest of its citizens, nor for the nation as a whole.

Which begs the next question....who protects Pakistan's nukes? :confused:

lemontree
09 May 11,, 14:31
Pak Army and OBL go a long way
1988 - Gen. Parvez Musharraf uses Osama bin Laden and his jihadis to quell the revolt in Baltistan. Hundreds of shia Baltis were butchered (later the Shia servicemen retaliated by killing Zia Ul Haq).

2001 - Phone call of Lt. Gen Mahmood Ahmad, Chief of ISI, was intercepted directing one Ahmed Omar Sharif (killer of Daniel Pearl), in UAE to send USD 100,000 to Mohd Atta. (He was asked to resign under US pressure after Indian intelligence shared this with CIA after 9/11).

2 May 2011 - OBL killed by US Navy Seals in Abbottabad, Pakistan. OBL living there since 5-7 years.

Note - OBL needed dialysis twice a week for his failed kidneys, and was probably treated by a Pak army doctor in Abbottabad.

9 May 2011 - Pak refuses US access to OBL's wives and kids (probably for fear that little secrets will spill out).

Looks like ISI planned 9/11, hid OBL, sucked billions of USD in aid, and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar....at last.

umairch
09 May 11,, 14:43
Then you are just retreating to ignorance/incompetence.

We snatched him from an ISI safe house on an army base.

So yes, Pakistan has to come up with a credible explanation.

This is one ignorant post!
Do you even know Abbotabad's layout, do you know the location of the cantonments in Abbotabad or Kakul?
If you did you would not have said that.
Bilal Town where OBL was captured is less than a mile from Kakul road and actually a full 4 kms from PMA. Can you read that 4 kms? Don't come back to me waving media reports saying I'm lying as I go to Abbottabad every 3rd month or so for office work and have been a regular visitor to Abbottabad since I was a child (vacations, some family here as well. The firm I work for consults for Pepsico which has a concentrate plant in Abbottabad).
Even the town of Kakul is not a cantonment area, only PMA is. Bilal town is somewhat of a mismash of a suburb and a village and does not come under cantonment administration, hence there are no checks over there. Security checks are made only upon entering, within(random) or upon exiting a cantonment here. So your insinuation that it was off a military is a plain white lie Mr.
As for the so called mansion and it's high walls, my own house in Lahore has 3 floors, 6 feet high parapet walls on the roof and 7 feet boundry walls topped with 2 1/2 ft barbed wire concealed in a hedge. Looking around, every other house is similar to mine. Same is the case for Abbottabad and that house was nothing out of ordinary for us.

Julie
09 May 11,, 15:58
Security checks are made only upon entering, within(random) or upon exiting a cantonment here. So how was Osama cleared when he "checked in" to a security cantonment area? Only military personnel could have pulled that off. Please do not insult our intelligence.

Yusuf
09 May 11,, 16:15
Julie, with the bunny the pakistanis have made the US and the world at large wrt OBL, they think they have all the intelligence.

Julie
09 May 11,, 16:15
U.S. Raises Pressure on Pakistan in Raid’s Wake

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s national security adviser demanded Sunday that Pakistan let American investigators interview Osama bin Laden’s three widows, adding new pressure in a relationship now fraught over how Bin Laden could have been hiding near Islamabad for years before he was killed by commandos last week.

Both the adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and Mr. Obama, in separate taped interviews, were careful not to accuse the top leadership of Pakistan of knowledge of Bin Laden’s whereabouts in Abbottabad, a military town 35 miles from the country’s capital. They argued that the United States still regards Pakistan, a fragile nuclear-weapons state, as an essential partner in the American-led war on Islamic terrorism.

But in repeatedly describing the trove of data that a Navy Seal team seized after killing Bin Laden as large enough to fill a small college library, Mr. Donilon seemed to be warning the Pakistanis that the United States might soon have documentary evidence that could illuminate who, inside or outside their government, might have helped harbor Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, who had been the world’s most wanted terrorist.

The United States government is demanding to know whether, and to what extent, Pakistani government, intelligence or military officials were complicit in hiding Bin Laden. His widows could be critical to that line of inquiry because they might have information about the comings and goings of people who were aiding him.

“We have asked for access,” Mr. Donilon said on the CNN program “State of the Union,” “including three wives who they now have in custody from the compound, as well as additional materials that they took from the compound.”
The request had echoes of previous struggles with Islamabad, starting with the days right after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, the United States insisted that Pakistan clearly choose sides and join the United States in fighting Al Qaeda, and Pakistan formally broke ties with the Taliban government, which was still in power in Afghanistan. But ever since, Washington has frequently lost out in its efforts to seek information about the loyalties and actions of top Pakistani officials.
Eight years ago, for example, the Bush administration demanded interviews with Abdul Qadeer Khan, the chief of Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons laboratory, as the United States sought to understand who in the Pakistani military or intelligence apparatus had helped sell nuclear weapons technology and designs to Libya, North Korea and Iran. Pakistan has refused, perhaps because Mr. Khan, while seeking freedom from house arrest, briefly threatened to tell all.
As one American official said after Mr. Donilon spoke Sunday: “Our guess is that the wives knew just who was keeping Bin Laden alive for all these years.” He added later, “It’s the Khan case all over again.” He insisted on anonymity as the United States tries to ease Pakistan’s anger over Mr. Obama’s decision to conduct the raid without telling Pakistani officials in advance, or seeking their involvement.

The Pakistani government has said nothing about allowing interviews of the wives, who were among the handful of survivors of the raid. One wife was shot in the leg by commandos as she tried to protect Bin Laden moments before he was killed.

Pakistan has said it will conduct its own investigation, but American officials doubt it will be credible. For more than two years Pakistan has slow-walked investigations into the 2008 siege in Mumbai, India, by a terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, that is believed to have strong links to portions of the Pakistani intelligence apparatus. To the distress of Pakistani officials, a trial scheduled to start soon in Chicago is expected to reveal evidence about the role in that attack of an officer of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s main military intelligence agency.

The sparring over the investigation about Bin Laden’s support structure threatens to go to the heart of what top American intelligence officials now routinely call the “double game” played by Pakistan. Mr. Obama alluded to that on “60 Minutes” on Sunday evening, saying, “We think that there had to be some sort of support network for Bin Laden inside of Pakistan.”

Mr. Obama added: “But we don’t know who or what that support network was. We don’t know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that’s something that we have to investigate, and more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate.”

The debate inside the administration over how hard to press Pakistan for answers — and whether to make public any evidence the United States possesses — has revived the question of whether it is time to dispense with, or radically amend, the unspoken bargain between Islamabad and Washington.

For years, the terms of that deal were simple: for the sake of getting Pakistani assistance in hunting down Qaeda leaders, Washington funneled billions of dollars to the Pakistani military. And it said next to nothing about its fears that fundamentalists were burrowed in Pakistan’s huge nuclear complex, or about the country’s race to expand its arsenal, one of the fastest-growing in the world, a buildup that American officials fear could put more nuclear material at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists.

But as Mr. Donilon argued implicitly on Sunday, an alternative to that bargain could be even worse. Severing Pakistan’s funds could end the cooperation on counterterrorism — which still works fairly well in some of the tribal areas — and it would mean losing virtually all visibility into the worrisome nuclear arsenal.

“We have had difficulty with Pakistan, as I said, but we’ve also had to work very closely with Pakistan in our counterterror efforts,” Mr. Donilon said. “More terrorists and extremists have been captured or killed in Pakistan than in any place in the world.”
As Leonard S. Spector, the director of the Washington office of the Monterey Institute’s nonproliferation center, said, “It is hard to abandon Pakistan because of the danger of the nuclear program and the need for help in counterterrorism.”

On Thursday, the Pakistani chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, threatened a rethinking of all intelligence and military cooperation with the United States if it ever again mounted an operation similar to the Bin Laden raid. (Mr. Donilon refused Sunday to rule out a repeat.)

But the military council, reacting to widespread fears in Pakistan that a similar American commando operation could seize Pakistan’s arsenal of roughly 100 nuclear weapons, told Pakistani reporters that the country’s weapons and materials were “well protected” and that “an elaborate defensive mechanism is in place,” according to The Frontier Post, a Pakistani newspaper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/world/asia/09donilon.html?_r=1&hp

Julie
09 May 11,, 16:19
Julie, with the bunny the pakistanis have made the US and the world at large wrt OBL, they think they have all the intelligence.LOL...sorry, but I really have to laugh at that..:biggrin:

Look at the last sentence of the article above^^^..Pakistan's military council says "their weapons and materials are "well protected" and that "an elaborate defensive mechanism is in place."

Yep....we seen their "defense mechanisms" Sunday nite.....:rolleyes:

They are sooooo full of crap.

umairch
09 May 11,, 16:29
Did you bother reading the whole post or just jump at a point of interest without looking at its context?
If you had read it, you would have realised the compound was on private not, 'Repeat NOT' on cantonment land hence not on a military administered site, hence no goddamn security check.
What has happened here is that in jumping the gun, you ended up insulting your own intelligence.
Fine by me I guess.

InExile
09 May 11,, 16:53
Did you bother reading the whole post or just jump at a point of interest without looking at its context?
If you had read it, you would have realised the compound was on private not, 'Repeat NOT' on cantonment land hence not on a military administered site, hence no goddamn security check.
What has happened here is that in jumping the gun, you ended up insulting your own intelligence.
Fine by me I guess.


There is some discrepancy on how far the house was from the Academy. I have seen ranges from 100 yards to 4 kms like you said. But most Western reports have claimed a mile or less. Along with a million dollar mansion, and high walls. Maybe thats unfair to the Pakistanis, but thats the narrative here; arguing on a message board isn't going to to change the narrative unfortunately.

Double Edge
09 May 11,, 17:31
Here's an excerpt on the topic from Fareed's show (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/08/fzgps.01.html) yesterday


ZAKARIA: Images from the streets of Pakistan. People mourning the death of Osama Bin Laden and chanting slogans in his support. They made an additional statement by burning the American flag.

Welcome back to GPS. Let's now look at "What in the World" we can do about Pakistan.

We have an expert panel. From Washington, Husain Haqqani is Pakistan's ambassador to the United States; from Lahore, she's (INAUDIBLE) Pakistani governments for years with her witty columns, journalist Jugnu Mohsin; and from New York, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Husain, may I start with you. The dilemma I supposed for the Pakistani Intelligence establishment is to decide which it wishes to plead guilty to, duplicity or incompetence? Either the Pakistani Intelligence Service knew about Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts and was covering for him, or it was sufficiently incompetent that it could not detect that they have - the world's biggest terrorist was sitting in its backyard right next to its version of West Point and Sandhurst? Which is it?

HUSAIN HAQQANI, PAKISTANI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Actually, I do not know the answer and I think the best way to move forward is to wait for the findings of an internal - look at the issue. I do not think that speculation is going to solve any problem. We've had these speculations before on many, many occasions. I think what we need now is for Pakistan's elected leaders to exercise the leadership and get to the bottom of the matter.

At the same time, we need to rally our people, make them understand what the issues are. You talk about these demonstrations, et cetera. The fact of the matter is that a demonstration of 5,000 zealots does not necessarily represent Pakistani public opinion. The people of Pakistan still voted for the people who are running the country. It's just that the people who are running the country or have been elected to run the country have to give a clear direction, and I'm looking forward to that happening.

ZAKARIA: Jugnu Mohsin, how does it look to you? What does the reaction in Pakistan? Is there a sense of - you know, which is more embarrassing? That Osama Bin Laden was hiding in plain sight in Pakistan, or that the Americans entered without telling the Pakistani government?

JUGNU MOHSIN, EDITOR, THE FRIDAY TIMES: Fareed, you have to see and understand that this is a disenfranchised people in Pakistan, and the masses feel completely disenfranchised. They are not part of any decision-making. And so they revert to their age-old sort of security blanket, which is that there's a grand conspiracy and that this is a drama that never really took place and Bin Laden died somewhere in the caves of Tora Bora many, many years ago. And some ulterior motive is being achieved through all of this.

On the other hand, there's a lot of soul-searching going on also and there are people in the opinion making elite in this country, there are people who are columnists in this country that are ordinary people who are asking all the right questions for the first time, Fareed. We're asking why do we have a duplicitous national security policy. Why do we not speak with one voice? Why are we talking with forked tongue? Why is there one slogan for the public and quite another for the United States of America?

And for the first time, people are beginning to see through this, and they want answers and they want honesty and credibility from their national security establishment.

And one other thing, the last thing is that, yes, there is an acknowledgment that a sovereignty has been violated by international terrorists who have found refuge in Pakistan and it is also being violated by the United States of America.

ZAKARIA: Richard Haass, when you look at this, Pakistan is a very difficult national security problem, because, you know, they are - it isn't clear entirely what the best strategy is. One, there are people who say, well, we should abandon them, and if they are playing this double game with us, we've tried that and it has caused more dysfunction in Pakistan, more sense of isolation. The military becomes more unconnected with the - with forces of moderation.

If you provide resources, you have this problem that it feels as though they're taking your aid but not really cooperating fully. How do you look at it?

HAASS: Well, you're exactly right, Fareed. We've tried honey. We've tried vinegar, and we don't have much to show for either. What I would suggest going forward is any honey, if you will, that we provide in the form of military or civilian aid, we have to monitor it closely.

There'll be Pakistanis who will protest and push back, say we're insulting them, what have you. That's simply a fact of life. You would not have domestic political support in the United States and the Congress to give Pakistan a blank check. So any aid going forward is going to have to be conditional.

Secondly, the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that when they do not fulfill the obligation of sovereignty, when they do not police their own territory, when they did not deny it to terrorists, outsiders are going to take action such as the United States did to protect their own interests. So Pakistanis can complain all they want that the rest of the world violated the sovereignty, but the fact is the rest of the world will violate their sovereignty when the Pakistanis, again, are not prepared or able.

And, again, we don't know which it was or some combination of the two, but one - whether - but for whatever reason, when they are not prepared to make sure that their territory is terrorist-free.

ZAKARIA: Husain, what was your reaction to that?

HAQQANI: Well, I would say that this is a moment for introspection in Pakistan, but it's also a moment for reflection in United States. Could the pattern of bullying and then trying to give a lot of honey after having served a lot of vinegar, is that partly the reason why the patient is unwell?

And so maybe it's time to just stay the course. Senator Kerry a couple of days back at a hearing at the U.N. - at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, look, we also have to be realistic. Americans have to be realistic. What we give to Pakistan in assistance is a pittance compared to what we spend in Afghanistan for war purposes.

So let's not just get into cliches. We give so much money, but you guys don't turn the corner. Pakistan is a fledgling democracy. I know there's a lot of criticism sometimes of our democratic leaders, but here's what President Zardari would say to you if he was in this show. He would say, look, since I took over, a lot more has happened.

The people who perpetrated the Mumbai attacks were arrested and brought to book. We are working on turning public opinion around, the sacrifice of the late Salman Taseer and (INAUDIBLE), the governor of Punjab and the minister who got killed standing up for the rights of a poor Christian woman who has been wrongfully accused in their opinion, and that there should be debate about these things.

So what is good about Pakistan right now is, as Jugnu said, people are asking the right questions, and it's not fair, not fair to hold the democratically elected leadership that came in only three years ago responsible for everything that has happened in Pakistan in the preceding many, many decades. But we have to readjust our security paradigm, and we are in the process of doing it. We have good military leaders right now. We have good intelligence leaders right now. We have good civilian leaders right now.

If the Americans can show some patience while remaining engaged with us and help us make that shift, I think we will both benefit.

ZAKARIA: All right. We've got to take a break. We will be back with Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington; Richard Haass and Jugnu Mohsin. Right back.

ZAKARIA: And we are back talking about Pakistan with Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington; Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations; and Jugnu Mohsin, one of Pakistan's most important journalists.

Richard, what about the non - the unelected leadership of Pakistan, which is after all the real leadership of Pakistan, the military? What does this do to the American military's relationship with the Pakistani military intelligence community's relationship with the ISI?

HAASS: It was already at best a limited relationship. Whenever I hear words like ally, it doesn't apply. At best we're a limited partner and often the emphasis should be on the word "limited" rather than "partner." It makes the American Military and the American Intelligence Services incredibly suspicious of their Pakistani counterparts.

It's obviously the reason the Pakistanis were not given advance warning of this operation, because there was zero confidence on our end that this warning not have been passed by someone on to Bin Laden himself.

So I think going forward at best it's going to have to be very case by case and very selective. And we're going - we're going to have to try to rebuild confidence. Don't get me wrong, Fareed. I would much prefer that the United States and Pakistan did have a positive relationship that we could be partners. It's in - it's in both of our interests. It's just not clear to me Pakistan is constituted right now.

The domestic, political, civilian leadership doesn't have a lot of authority. It really does come down to the unelected army and unelected intelligence services. We'll see what kind of investigation they mount into what happens. We'll see what kind of repercussions there are going forward. We're also going to see every day whether they allow these terrorists networks to operate. The proof would literally be in the pudding.

And six months from now or a year from now, terrorists are allowed to operate brazenly in Pakistan, be it against India or supporting their objectives in Afghanistan, the U.S. relationship with Pakistan will only grow worse.

ZAKARIA: Jugnu Mohsin, you said that the central issue here is that the Pakistani people feel disenfranchised, and that this gives rise to conspiracy theories, a sense of alienation. And this is in a way the story of the Arab world, right, that you had these repressive regimes and these dictatorships and had spawned extremist Islamic opposition.

What is the answer in Pakistan? Because you've had elections, but it - you still don't have the genuine democratic process that will allow some of these phobias to be - to be cured.

MOHSIN: Yes. Well, there is a contradiction at work here, Fareed. Just as you have the sultanates of the Middle East where certain families have hijacked whole countries like the Gadhafis have hijacked Libya and the Mubaraks had hijacked Egypt, here you have an unelected coterie of - of the national security establishment in this country that is almost in the same position in this country.

And the elected leadership is a sort of, you know, cosmetic arrangement that is there for their convenience, really. And they don't have much money to spend on the people, because out of half our tax collection - out of our total tax collection, half of it goes into defense spending, and a lot of the rest goes into debt servicing. So there's not very much left to spend on the people of this country. So the elected leadership, really, has a minimal sort of efficacy as far as the people of this country are concerned and - and refreshingly the idea of democracy.

But I would urge you here, I would urge Mr. Haass, I would urge other people who are friends of peace in the world and friends of democracy in the world not to throw the baby out with the bath water. When you say Pakistan and when you say Pakistan harbors terrorists, et cetera, please, I am Pakistan also. Me and people like us are Pakistan also. We do not believe that we can be at war with the world and at peace with ourselves. We do not believe that we can be happy here while making people unhappy in the rest of the world. We are the Pakistan that you should be engaged in. We are the people you should be looking at also.

And I agree that you have your problems with our national security establishment. We'll find a way forward, because this national security establishment has been a long time in the making, Fareed. And it is - has been made during the Cold War, and it has done America's bidding also and it has been so disadvantageous to us, the people of Pakistan. Don't throw the baby out with the bath - bath water. Don't confuse us with what you think is Pakistan. We are Pakistan.

ZAKARIA: An eloquent note to end on. Jugnu Mohsin, thank you so much, Richard Haass, Husain Haqqani. And we will be right back.

Yusuf
09 May 11,, 17:36
“We have had difficulty with Pakistan, as I said, but we’ve also had to work very closely with Pakistan in our counterterror efforts,” Mr. Donilon said. “More terrorists and extremists have been captured or killed in Pakistan than in any place in the world.”


That is because all the terrorists seem to come from just one country. That proves nothing about Pak doing anything about terrorism. It's a freaking breading ground for it.

Albany Rifles
09 May 11,, 17:46
1. Knock off the name calling and swearing, people....not needed.

2. Calm down the rhetoric as well. This is obviously an important topic which can cause tempers to flare. Keep them under check so we do not have to lock the thread.

3. If you are a new member and you have not gone to the new member introductions thread to introduce yourself, do so immediately Member Introductions (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/member-introductions/) Posting without introducing your self is rude and against the rules fo the WAB. Failure to do so and continued posting will result in banishment.

Dreadnought
09 May 11,, 17:46
Interesting piece:

NSNS – Washington – Top officials in Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have known since 2003 that a plot of land was being converted to a villa to hide Osama bin Laden, according to US and Western European intelligence sources.

These intelligence sources say former ISI officers sympathetic to Al Qaeda funneled money to procure the land and construct the large villa in Abbottabad was through several Saudi charities, some with close ties to top officials of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate (GID). According to these sources, ISI has been the go between for the Saudis and the Taliban since the 1990s. Construction of the Bin Laden villa was completed in 2005 with the full knowledge of former ISI officials who actually lived close to the facility.

US intelligence sources tell NSNS that they suspect bin Laden may have been staying as a guest in safe houses provided by several retired ISI officers, all with the full knowledge of the Pakistani government, for years prior to the villa being completed. “It now looks like he was escorted out of Tora Bora to a safe haven amongst the Pakistani intelligence elite and protected all these years,” a US intelligence source told NSNS.

One Defense Intelligence Agency official, who asked not to be identified, said that, in an agreement with the Bush Administration, any suspicious activity inside Pakistan would be investigated by ISI. The official said, “They (ISI) covered their ass by claiming to send a team to the construction site in 2003 that found nothing.”



GID and ISI have worked together for decades supporting the Taliban and played a major role in bringing Bin Laden to Afghanistan to work with the Taliban during its war with the Soviet Union. The United States also aided in that effort and allowed vast amounts of US aid to the Afghan mujahedeen to be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. The Saudi aid to the Taliban and Al Qaeda has continued through ISI. Many members of the Saudi royal family share Osama bin Laden’s devotion to Wahhabism. According to French intelligence sources, ISI agreed to provide Bin Laden shelter if he did not initiate terrorist operations inside Pakistan or encourage attacks against the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

Claims that the identification of a courier for Bin Laden came from the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed are false, NSNS has learned. In fact, according to CIA sources, KSM told his American interrogators in post waterboarding interrogations that the name they had was known to him but was not an Al Qaeda member. It was KSM’s dismissal of the nom de guerre of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti that caused the CIA task force to become suspicious and redouble its efforts to track down the true name of the courier who would end up dying with Bin Laden Monday morning.

Another key Al Qaeda official named Hassan Ghul was arrested and captured in Iraq in 2004. It was Ghul who told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was Bin Laden’s key contact to the outside world. This information caused the CIA to begin a desperate search to find out the courier’s real name and location.

As the compound was being completed, the CIA identified the courier's true identity – a Kuwaiti-born Pakistani national named Sheikh Abu Ahmed. Had the CIA had good relations with Pakistani intelligence, they would have learned Sheikh Abu Ahmed had settled comfortably in the bucolic city of Abbottabad as another important guest of ISI.

In the summer of 2010, Ahmed made a telephone call intercepted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The CIA threw every resource they had finding and following Ahmed. In early August 2010, a drone tracked Ahmed to Abbottabad and the walled fortress that ISI had never told US intelligence about. For DIA and CIA officers, the lack of communications intelligence coming from the villa was another confirmation that this was probably where Bin Laden was being hidden.

Under orders from President Obama, no further intelligence was shared with our allies, including Pakistan, as planning and training for the operation began. The intelligence intranet stopped receiving new entries on Bin Laden’s whereabouts. More calls with Ahmed were intercepted as the Navy Seal Teams and Air Force stealth bomber crews prepared for whatever operation the President would decide.

Bin Laden turned out to be correct about Ahmed’s loyalty. He died defending the Al Qaeda leader.


President obama President with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari during a US-Afghan-Pakistan Trilateral meeting in Cabinet Room. Photo: Whitehouse
The president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, and his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf, both have been quick to deny their country did not do enough to track down Bin Laden. Musharraf had told US officials repeatedly “they should leave Bin Laden to Pakistan.” After the raid succeeded in killing Bin Laden, Musharraf complained about the lack of trust the United States had in its Pakistani partners.

"Although the events of Sunday were not a joint operation, a decade of cooperation and partnership between the United States and Pakistan led up to the elimination of Osama bin Laden as a continuing threat to the civilized world," President Zardari wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post. Zardari said, "He was not anywhere we had anticipated he would be, but now he is gone.”

According to US intelligence sources, Zardari has no real influence over either his military or intelligence service and can hold onto power only with their cooperation. US counter-terrorism Chief John Brennan said in a briefing after the raid that it is "inconceivable" Bin Laden could have lived so close to the heart of Pakistan’s military community without the knowledge of the government.

A source in American military intelligence told NSNS, “The Pakistanis not only offered no assistance to the United States but actually protected Bin Laden by sending the CIA and DIA down a series of false trails for years. The real test came last summer when we were confident we had identified Bin Laden’s real location and ISI continually suggested we refocus in the mountains again.”

Sources in British, French and American intelligence have compiled dossiers on those current and former Pakistani intelligence officers suspected of sheltering of Bin Laden since 2002. Many of these officers live in the Abbottabad area, popular with ISI retirees. Despite repeated complaints to the government of Pakistan that went up to the presidential level, US officials were repeatedly told that pressing the Pakistan intelligence service for Bin Laden’s whereabouts in Pakistan would simply result in violence against moderates inside their government.

Western Intelligence Convinced Pakistan (http://dcbureau.org/National-Security-News-Service/western-intelligence-convinced-pakistans-isi-hid-bin-laden.html)

Dreadnought
09 May 11,, 18:12
(CBS News) When Gen. Pervez Musharraf was the man in charge of Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden was already living in the compound where he was killed.
Amid a growing controversy about how much Pakistani authorities knew about bin Laden, and when they knew it, CBS News correspondent Lara Logan spoke to Musharraf in Dubai, where he now lives. For his part, Musharrak insists that nobody knew.
Pakistan’s ISI gives own take on bin Laden raid
Congress puts Pakistan on the hot seat
Special section: the Killing of Osama bin Laden Musharraf: “I do agree that (the news about bin Laden in Pakistan) is surprising and a lot of people in Pakistan are not believing that. This is unfortunate. It needs to be investigated. Who slipped up? Why this negligence?”
Logan: “You are really asking people to believe that this all happened without the knowledge of the intelligence services and the military and that it came as a complete surprise?”
Musharraf: “Yes, yes, I am saying that and I mean every word of it.”
Logan: “It’s just very hard to believe that Osama bin Laden could have spent all this time in Pakistan, living right under your noses and nobody would have known about it?”
Musharraf: “Why you continuously saying that? I think instead of wasting time on this issue, let us agree to disagree on this point. I don’t agree.”
The general also disagreed when he was interviewed on “60 Minutes” in 2008. He was pressed on what Pakistan was doing to find bin Laden. This is what he said then: “There is no proof whatsoever that he is here.”
After the capture of bin Laden in Pakistan, and the revelation that the terrorist leader had been living there for several years, Musharraf said: “I don’t remember at all having said that he surely will not be in Pakistan.”
Logan: “You said there was no proof that he was in Pakistan.”
Musharraf: “Yes, there was no proof, obviously, and those who were saying he was in Pakistan, I don’t think they were talking with any evidence.”
Musharraf vigorously defended Pakistan’s past efforts to track down al Qaeda leaders.
Musharraf: “We have achieved successes and that should be recognized. If we continuously keep blaming the army and the ISI for what they have not been able to do, well, if they haven’t been able to do it then it’s CIA’s failure also.”
Logan: “Do you know of any other terrorist leaders wanted by the U.S. that are sheltering in your country?”
Musharraf: “Well, there may be more. Yes, there may be. Yes.”Al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are just two of the senior terrorist leaders believed to be based inside Pakistan at the moment.

Musharraf: Bin Laden hideout not Pakistan ISI’s fault (http://rapidsavr.com/musharraf-bin-laden-hideout-not-pakistan-isis-fault/)

Dreadnought
09 May 11,, 18:35
When U.S. President Obama called Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari to tell him the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. citizens in a lightening raid not far from the Pakistani capital last night, he also instructed his team to similarly inform their Pakistani counterparts. The question is, who was surprised when they picked up the phone?

That bin Laden had been living in a specially constructed compound less than an hours' drive from Pakistani military HQ, and in the same town as the country's premier military academy, makes the near constant denials by Pakistan's intelligence agencies that the terror group leader was in the country difficult to swallow. Sure, there are at times a Keystone-cops element to the operational methods of the agencies—those assigned to trail foreign journalists in the country are less than subtle in their surveillance methods: One once asked me my address, as he was sitting in my house, another decided that quizzing my driver about my activities was far less work than actually following me to interviews—but bumbling or not, they are ubiquitous. The crackle and click of telephone lines is the constant reminder that no conversation over the phone is private, the crew-cut men in beige that materialize whenever I start asking questions proof that one is never quite alone in Pakistan. So the idea that absolutely no one but American intelligence knew who was living in that multi-million dollar compound beggars belief.

(More on Time.com: See photos of bin Laden's family album)

Obama was careful to thank Pakistani assistance in the raid, but how, exactly, the Pakistanis assisted will be a key part of understanding the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. going forward. Just a few weeks ago, U.S. Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen told Pakistani English-language newspaper Dawn that the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had a “relationship” with the al Qaeda affiliated Haqqani network:

"It's fairly well known that the ISI has a longstanding relationship with the Haqqani network….Haqqani is supporting, funding, training fighters that are killing Americans and killing coalition partners. And I have a sacred obligation to do all I can to make sure that doesn't happen…..So that's at the core - it's not the only thing -- but that's at the core that I think is the most difficult part of the relationship.”

The Haqqani network is thought to be behind several gruesome attacks on foreign soldiers and embassies in neighboring Afghanistan, including the 2009 attack on the Indian Embassy there that killed 17 and wounded 63. More worryingly is recent evidence that the ISI may have had links to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group behind the 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai, in which 10 well-trained Pakistani militants coordinated a bombing and shooting attack at several landmarks that killed 164. At a trial slated for May 16th David Headley, the Pakistani American accused of assisting LeT in reconnaissance for the attack, is expected to implicate the ISI, confirming long held suspicions by both American and Indian authorities, as well as many Pakistanis. (More on Time.com: See the top 10 defining moments of the post 9/11 era)

Defenders of the ISI say that it is their job to maintain contacts with groups like that as part of their intelligence gathering methods. One spokesman told me that the ISI has infiltrators in the terror groups just like the FBI has people undercover in the Mafia. That may be the case. But either way the ISI isn't going to come out of this well. Either they knew about bin Laden and waited to inform the U.S., or they were oblivious to the presence of a massive, multi-million dollar compound in their back yard, one so secretive that the residents burned their own trash. That doesn't augur well for Pakistan's ability to tackle the next terrorist threat that comes out of the woodwork.

Bin Laden’s Death: What This Means for Pakistan’s ISI - Global Spin - TIME.com (http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/05/02/bin-ladens-death-what-this-means-for-pakistans-isi/)

Bin Laden’s Death: What This Means for Pakistan’s ISI - Global Spin - TIME.com (http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/05/02/bin-ladens-death-what-this-means-for-pakistans-isi/)

Dreadnought
09 May 11,, 19:11
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's national security adviser demanded on Sunday that Pakistan permit U.S. investigators to interview Osama bin Laden's three widows, escalating tension in a relationship now fraught over how bin Laden could have been hiding in Pakistan for six years before he was killed by Navy SEAL commandos last week.

Both the adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and Obama, in separate taped interviews, were careful not to accuse the top leadership of Pakistan of knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts in Abbottabad, the military garrison town 35 miles from the country's capital. Despite the new level of mistrust, the United States still regards Pakistan, a nuclear-weapons state, as an essential partner in the American-led war on Islamic terrorism.

But in repeatedly describing the trove of data a SEAL team had seized after killing bin Laden as large enough to fill a small college library, Donilon seemed to be warning the Pakistanis that the United States may soon have documentary evidence that could illuminate who, inside or outside their government, might have helped harbor bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida who had been the world's most-wanted terrorist.

The U.S. government wants to control the investigation to determine whether, and to what extent, Pakistani government, intelligence or military officials were complicit in hiding Bin Laden. His widows could be critical to that line of inquiry, because they may have information about the comings and goings of people who were aiding him."

We have asked for access," Donilon said on the CNN program "State of the Union," "including three wives who they now have in custody from the compound, as well as additional materials that they took from the compound."

The plea had echoes of previous struggles with Islamabad, starting with the days right after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, the United States insisted that Pakistan clearly choose sides and join the United States in fighting al-Qaida, and Pakistan formally broke ties with the Taliban government, which was still in power in Afghanistan. But ever since, Washington has frequently lost out in its efforts to seek information about the loyalties and actions of top Pakistani officials.

Eight years ago, for example, the Bush administration demanded interviews with Abdul Qadeer Khan, the chief of Pakistan's main nuclear weapons laboratory, as the United States sought to understand who in the Pakistani military or intelligence apparatus had helped sell nuclear weapons technology and designs to Libya, North Korea and Iran. Pakistan has refused, perhaps because Khan, while seeking freedom from house arrest, briefly threatened to tell all.

What Did Pakistan Know About Bin Laden's Whereabouts? : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2011/05/02/135934040/what-did-pakistan-know-about-bin-ladens-whereabouts)

Dreadnought
09 May 11,, 19:45
Even more damaging accounts:

Bin Laden’s Neighbors Say Compound Was Under Surveillance Since 2005
AFPC Terrrorism Monitor ^ | 5/5/2011 | Arif Jamal

Posted on Friday, May 06, 2011 2:39:02 AM by bruinbirdman

Contrary to statements released by Pakistani intelligence agencies denying any knowledge of the occupants of the Abbottabad compound raided by American Special Forces units on May 1, there is evidence that the occupants of the compound housing Osama bin Laden were well known to Pakistani intelligence from the time the purpose-built compound was finished and occupied in 2005.

An official from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) told the BBC that the compound was raided by the ISI while still under construction in 2003 when the agency believed senior al-Qaeda operative Abu Faraj al-Libi was on site. Since then, however, the official claimed the intelligence agency had taken no interest in the facility: “The compound was not on our radar; it is an embarrassment for the ISI… We’re good, but we’re not God” (BBC, May 3). However, in a statement that appeared to reveal the confusion over the incident at the highest levels of the Pakistani government, an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed that the ISI “had been sharing information [on the compound] with the CIA and other friendly intelligence agencies since 2009” (The News [Islamabad], May 4).

The house in the garrison city of Abbottabad where Osama bin Laden apparently lived for several years before he was killed was the focus of neighbors’ attention for several reasons. The most important reason was its size. The house was many times bigger than most houses in the neighborhood and its reclusive occupants also appeared to have money to throw around. If the balls of children playing in the streets accidently landed in the compound, the children were given Rs 50 by the occupants of the house. [1] Several children told Pakistani TV channels that they had started throwing their balls into the compound on purpose. They were never refused the money (Geo TV, May 3).

However, there were also reasons for the people in the neighborhood not to suspect that this house was the residence of the most wanted terrorist in the world. The house had 12 to 16 foot high boundary walls surmounted by electrified barbed wire. There were surveillance cameras fixed on the walls. The human security around the compound created the impression that it was a secret military or intelligence facility, something the people living in garrison towns are quite used to. A neighbor explained the local lack of interest in the unusual building by saying, “Once you know a particular building belongs to the military or an intelligence agency or any law-enforcement department in Pakistan, you stop taking interest in the unusualness of the building or the activities there.” [2] The neighbors’ conclusion that it belonged to some security agency seems to have put any worries at rest.

The compound became the focus of attention soon after construction on the building started sometime in the fall of 2004. The haste with which it was built also surprised the neighbors: “The pace of construction of this house was one of the topics in our discussion with our families and with friends. We used to say either the owner is fairly rich or it is going to be a military facility, which is not uncommon in this garrison city.” [3] In a TV interview after his interrogation by the security agencies, Noor Mohammad, the contractor who built the house, said that the house was built in one and a half years (Geo TV, May 4). However, most of the neighbors’ accounts put the construction period between nine and 12 months. Mohammad noted that, unlike the usual back-and-forth negotiations between contractor and owner at various stages of construction that are typical of the residential construction process in Pakistan, the owners of the Abbottabad house never disputed costs and met all requests for additional funds promptly and without question. He also said that the construction work continued uninterrupted, which suggests some urgency. According to another contractor, it is quite possible to construct such a house in six months if the work is conducted without interruption. [4]

When the house was completed its residents moved in quickly: “Nobody knew when exactly they moved in. They probably moved in the middle of night when all of us were sleeping. The furniture and other stuff were brought in during the day, possibly before they moved in. It took some time before the neighbors realized that there were people living in that house.” [5] The few guests to the house typically arrived in the darkness and were rarely seen by the neighbors.

In a country where neighbors have strong ties and very often visit each other, the occupants of the new house discouraged their neighbors from visiting. “My wife tried to establish contacts with the women in that house more than once but was rebuffed. It was the only house in the neighborhood whose female occupants were not known to the other female [residents of the neighborhood]. I had concluded that some nuclear scientist was living there. Some of the nuclear scientists’ families are also reclusive.” [6] Interestingly, no neighbor seems to have seen another family visiting the Bin Laden family.

The neighbors’ accounts contradict official claims that the house was not on the radar of the intelligence agencies. According to several of these witnesses, the house was under continuous and heavy surveillance by the Pakistani intelligence agencies. A local resident observed: “The compound was continuously under the watch of agents of the intelligence and security agencies. They always looked suspiciously at every unusual interest in that compound by our guests. I always had the impression that it was some sort of an intelligence facility.” [7] However, no neighbor ever saw any uniformed personnel visiting the compound. According to a local journalist, it is unlikely that any of the security agents deputed to carry out human surveillance on the compound would have been given any inkling of who was living there. [8] However, it seems clear those directing the surveillance were aware of the identity of the suspects under watch in the compound, indicating that the residents were under the protection of a Pakistani intelligence agency since occupation began.


Bin Laden’s Neighbors Say Compound Was Under Surveillance Since 2005 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2715886/posts)

rj1
09 May 11,, 20:00
Absolutely - Pakistanis are, and should be, worried about their own nation, their own sovereignty and their own troubles and issues. They have no time or great interest in ten year man hunts for some old coot with a beard.

So why lie to us over all that time? Your statement here pretty much supports what Mihais has been saying in his posts on this subject: that Pakistan was playing both sides of the coin.

If an Indian terrorist shot up Islamabad or Karachi and thousands were dead, and after a number of years he turned up in Georgetown, Pakistanis both in Pakistan and abroad I think would be acting the exact same way as we are here: they would say the U.S. was sheltering him.


If you don't like it, cut the aid.

sounds like a good idea

we should instead give it to the Indians, perhaps they won't stick a knife in our back

Meanwhile what are the supposedly educated intelligent Pakistanis when it comes to these matters discussing?


Us Says It Wants Access To Bin Laden's Widows (wife&children): Should Pakistan hand them over to be Raped & Tortured? http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=93637

The guy that posted this lists his location as "Canuckistan", i.e. Canada, and he also calls us "Zionazis". So that's what one Pakistani not living in Pakistan thinks, and that person is supposedly viewing Canadian-sourced news. So who is really reading the biased news coverage here?

Dreadnought
09 May 11,, 20:08
'She was quiet and confident... and after she married Bin Laden we never spoke of her again': Family of Osama's youngest wife speak out
By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 2:24 AM on 9th May 2011

Early interview describes life with Osama bin Laden after 9/11
Three of his wives currently in custody and being questioned by Pakistan officials

Claims: The wife of Osama Bin Laden, Amal al-Sadah, says she lived with her husband in the same room for the past five years
The family of Osama Bin Laden's youngest wife were too afraid to speak of her after she married the terror chief, it has been revealed.
Amal Al Sadah, the Al Qaeda leader's fifth wife, was a 'quite, polite, easy-going and confident teenager' before she was married off to the world's most wanted terrorist.

A relative named Ahmed has told CNN that the young bride was from a big, conservative family - but that she was in no way extremist before the wedding.

After the arranged marriage - made to shore up Bin Laden's political ties to Yemen - however, Amal's family abandoned her to her fate, too afraid to discuss her in public.

'Her direct family knew the dangers of talking about such topics,' Ahmed told CNN. 'Even if anyone asked about her, they would avoid talking about the issue.'
'She was a very good overall person,' he said. Her family 'was like most Yemeni families. They were conservative but lived a modern life compared to other families.'
The family were established and respectable - but certainly not militant, he said. 'The family had no extremist views, even though they came from a conservative background.'

He claimed the Yemeni government has harassed the family into keeping silent on their terrorist in-law.

The government apparently did not realise that Amal was married to Bin Laden when she was issued with a passport, Ahmed claimed.

Amal was shot in the calf when she charged at the Navy SEALs who stormed the room she had been living in with her husband for the last five years.
As Pakistani authorities took hold of the woman and her young daughter Safiyah, they hoped that questioning her could provide intricate details into the life of America's most hated enemy.
Glimpse: Bin Laden's fifth wife somehow managed to return to her husband in Pakistan after being sent back to Yemen and questions are now being raised over whether the CIA were watching her closely enough
The 29-year-old and her daughter are recovering in a military hospital in Rawalpindi and intelligence are trying to gage as much information from her as possible after she reportedly told them that she and her husband lived in the same room in the compound for the last five years.
They are also holding two of Bin Laden's other wives and gleaning 'valuable information' from them.

According to Time magazine, in 2002 Amal gave an interview to a Saudi woman's magazine, al-Majalla, in which she explained that after the 9/11 attacks, she made her way to Yemen from Pakistan with the help of Pakistani officials.
She also gave a glimpse into the life of a terror chief's wife.
She said: 'When the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan started, we moved to a mountainous area with some children and lived in one of the caves for two months until one of his sons came with a group of tribesmen and took us with them.

Husband: Amal married Osama Bin Laden when she was just a teenager after he showered with gifts of up to $5,000
'I did not know that we were going to Pakistan until they handed us over to the Pakistani government.'
Time said that parts of this account were confirmed to them by an Arab woman - who did not want to be identified - who knew Bin Laden personally in Afganistan. Members of her family were also a part of Al Qaeda's inner circle.
When Amal was handed over at the age of 19, she and her daughter were allowed to fly home to a town close to the Yemen capital of Sanaa.

It is not clear how she was able to rejoin her husband and it has raised questions about whether or not the CIA were watching her closely enough with claims that it could have led them to Bin Laden sooner.

When asked in the interview if she would join her husband again in the future she said: 'Let us see what happens.' Although she leaped to her husband's defence during the attack, an acquaintance of hers interviewed by Time remembers her as 'shy and meek' when she was first brought to Kandahar in 2000, where she stayed with Bin Laden's other wives.
The friend said of Amal - Bin Laden's fifth wife: 'She was new. She was out of place. The Sheikh's other wives were much older than she was. So were many of his sons.'
The Al Qaeda leader's first wife Saada was said to be furious that she married the son of a billionaire who preferred to live in a hut in Afghanistan rather than a palace at home.

Being aware of her disillusionment, Bin Laden sent a trusted Yemeni aide Abual Fida to look for a new bride for him, one which he wanted to be 'religious, generous, well-brought up, quiet, calm and young enough not to feel jealous of his other wives'.
According to Time, Amal's family considered it an honour that their teenage daughter were to marry the Taliban chief - who was already on the U.S. most-wanted list.
Home: She lived with her husband and their children in a room in this compound for the last five years undetected
He reportedly paid $5,000 in jewellery and clothes for her before she was brought to Afghanistan to marry him.
Now that Amal is in the custody of Pakistan's intelligence service - as well as two other Bin Laden wives - it is unlikely that she will be released to U.S. officials or even allowed to be questioned by them.
Asad Munir, a former commander in the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, told ABC News that the wives are facing non-violent interviews: 'We give them a questionnaire, with 20 questions. We change the order of questions every three or four days. For telling lies you have to have very good memory.

'There's a way to find out. No one will tell you the first day the correct answer.'
A senior intelligence official told The Times that 17 people, including four women, were being held, and they have gleaned 'valuable information' from them.
The wives' accounts will help show how Bin Laden spent his time and how he managed to avoid capture, living in a large house close to a military academy in a garrison town, a two-and-a-half hours' drive from the capital Islamabad.
Given changing and incomplete accounts from U.S. officials about what happened during the raid, the women's evidence may also be helpful in unveiling details about the operation.
Explore more:

Read more: Osama Bin Laden's wife talks about moving to a cave with terror chief | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384420/Osama-Bin-Ladens-wife-talks-moving-cave-terror-chief.html#ixzz1LsbC7Vms)

gunnut
09 May 11,, 21:49
What's confusing to me is the absence of committed warriors to defend him and any other way out. No tunnels, etc. Now five years may convince a guy he's safe but somebody (either OBL personally or his advisors) knew that electronic traffic would be a possible tip-off. So that was a concern...and eliminated.

The house itself seemed designed to keep prying eyes out. Without the guards, however, repelling an assault would take more than high walls.

How one could be so seemingly serenely secure is difficult to fathom.

1. Hiding in plain sight.
2. He did have armed guards. They just returned to their barracks about 800 meters away for the night. :biggrin:

Sumku
09 May 11,, 23:52
Gilani asks Karzai to dump USA and ally with China: WSJ (http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=367555&catid=37)

WASHINGTON, 27 APRIL: Pakistan Prime Minister Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani has asked Afghan President Hamid Karzai to dump USA and instead align with China for help in striking a peace deal with Taliban and rebuilding the economy, a media report has claimed.
“The pitch was made at an 16 April meeting in Kabul by Pakistani Prime Minister Mr Gilani, who bluntly told Afghan President Hamid Karzai that the Americans had failed them both,” the Wall Street Journal reported quoting senior Afghan officials familiar with the meeting.
“Karzai should forget about allowing a long-term US military presence in his country,” Mr Gilani said, according to the Afghan officials. The Journal reported that Pakistan's bid to cut the USA out of Afghanistan's future is the clearest sign to date that, as the nearly 10-year war's end game begins, tensions between Washington and Islamabad threaten to scuttle America's prospects of ending the conflict on its own terms.
The report was immediately denied by Pakistani Ambassador to the US, Mr Husain Haqqani.
“Reports claiming Gilani-Karzai discussion about Pakistan advising alignment away from USA are inaccurate,” Mr Haqqani said in his tweet message.
The news report comes within days of publication of secret US cable, released by WikiLeaks, in which top US officials have been quoted as saying that Pakistan's spy agency ISI is a terrorist organisation.
“Afghans in the pro-US camp who shared details of the meeting with The Wall Street Journal said they did so to prompt the USA to move faster toward securing the strategic partnership agreement, which is intended to spell out the relationship between the two countries after 2014,” the daily said.
“The longer they wait the more time Pakistan has to secure its interests,” one of the Afghan officials was quoted as saying.
“Pakistan would not make such demands. But even if they did, the Afghan government would never accept it,” Mr Karzai's spokesman Mr Waheed Omar told WSJ. However, US officials are not taking such development very seriously, the daily reported.
“The US officials sought to play down the significance of the Pakistani proposal. Such overtures were to be expected at the start of any negotiations, they said; the idea of China taking a leading role in Afghanistan was fanciful at best, they noted,” it said.
“Yet in a reflection of US concerns about Pakistan's overtures, commander of the US-led coalition Gen. David Petraeus has met President Karzai three times since 16 April, in part to reassure the Afghan leader that he has America's support, and to nudge forward progress on the partnership deal,” the Journal quoted Afghan and US officials as saying. Mr Gilani led a delegation of Generals and Intelligence chief to Kabul in mid-April. Link (http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=367555&catid=37)


In light of the above, 2 questions
1) What has been China's reaction to US' strike deep inside Pakistan to flush out OBL
2) In light of AM's repeated deliberation that Pakistan can do without US's aid...approx how much has China pumped in Pakistan as hard Currency like US ?

Kasrkin
09 May 11,, 23:52
It is very embarrassing that OBL was found and killed where he was. It is also embarrassing that Pakistanis weren't the ones to do. There is no point denying that this is a low point for Pakistan, and if resignations do occur all the way at the top, it would be apt. I do think though that accusing the Pakistani state of complicity is jumping the gun, even the state's 'incompetence' can be rationalized to a large extent.

The Pakistani military is stretched thin on all accounts, whether or not you agree with the strategic formulation behind this, it is the case. Pakistan's intelligence apparatus is likely to be stretched thin as well, if not more so. Terrorist activity is unfortunately very common in Pakistan, with loads of outfits to deal with, representing different levels of threat to the state in terms of capacity and inclination. Some level of prioritization in the commitment of resources to eliminate them is not only logical, its inevitable. Finding OSL's person could not have been high on that list, because he was pretty much operationally irrelevant. He was a figurehead who had declared war on the Pakistani state, but he did not operate in anyway close to how Zarqawi did in Iraq. He was not out commanding rebels, organizing networks of bomb makers and recruiters, or even chopping peoples head off on TV. We know he probably didn't leave that one house for five years, his neighbors did not suspect anything out of the ordinary whatsoever. He obviously wasn't going out for jogs or driving his kids to school either. It would be impossible to just bump into him and hard for overwhelmed and otherwise committed intelligence agencies to determine his location.

Pakistan has suffered many tens of thousands of civilian causalities, bluntly put thats a lot more than the US did at 9/11. So saying Pakistan has a hundred Osamas to look for would not be much of an exaggeration. The Americans are obviously, understandably emotionally committed to OBL as the Number One terrorist threat, and their opinion counts for a lot in this war. However Pakistanis and Pakistan would not be exactly the same. I'm not saying you have to agree with this, just understand the differences in perception that has led to this feeling of indignation and betrayal from the Americans AND resentment from Pakistanis towards America as a selfishly inconsiderate ally. People in Pakistan with a previously formulated anti-American agenda will use this to call for Pakistan to take a more aggressive stance in the partnership, and they have. Likewise people in the West and in America with an anti-Pakistani bias will use this to call for a tougher policy towards Pakistan, and they have. If Osama chose to locate himself near Kakul in the hopes that US/Pak distrust and friction will make it harder to get him, then he was right. If he hoped this would encourage a rift between American and Pakistan that could weaken the WoT then he was right too.

There is a very prevalent belief that Pakistan was sheltering OSL. But I've had trouble finding logical points corresponding to this. What would Pakistan hope to achieve by taking what is undeniably a MASSIVE risk? Unless you want to attribute the near inhuman immorality of protecting someone who has contributed to killing thousands of your own countrymen for ideological reasons to Pakistani servicemen (some Indians wouldn't be averse to that opinion), I don't see how it would have served Pakistani interests in anyway. The Pakistani Army wants the US to stay in Afghanistan and OBL being alive is one way to ensure that? Thats one theory, but it doesn't stand up. Firstly, that the Pakistani military wants a continued US presence in Afghanistan is highly questionable, even if it does include scornfully given military aid. Secondly, no analyst worth their salt would predict that eliminating OBL will enable the US/NATO to withdraw from Afghanistan, especially with the Taliban, AQ and a host of other groups alive and kicking. If continued aid was the aim, then wouldn't killing him be the single most effective way to boost Pakistan's standing the WoT and enable said aid? Loads more terrorists to fight surely.

From what has been said by the Pakistani side, intelligence was provided regarding this very house to the US by the ISI, and thats not been denied. Would it make sense for the ISI to hide him somewhere they knew is already on American radar? Also, and this is beyond a doubt, Pakistan is responsible for capturing and handing over many AQ members and leaders to the US, much to the consternation of human rights experts. Intelligence from them reportedly contributed to identifying Osama's location. Would the ISI provide the US with sources of intel they knew is likely to lead to Osama if they were protecting him? Even Pakistan's harshest critics acknowledge that AQ is of no strategic worth to Pakistan, unlike the Haqqani and Hekmatyar groups. Proximity does not mean complicity, and frankly it doesn't necessarily mean incompetence either. Pakistan is a country of a 170 million people, and barely has a fraction of the military and intelligence resources the US and its allies have committed to the theater, not to mention the technology. The area he was found was not a military cantonment, there are many many such places in Pakistan in proximity to military areas and home to retirees. And the 'villa' didn't seem worth anywhere near a million dollars to me, it may be worth (both the land and construction included) 10 million Pakistani rupees at BEST (less than 1/6th of a million dollars). High walls are also very common in Pakistan, as are barbed wires. While I understand the anger at some quarters in the US, I cannot agree with it.

cirrrocco
10 May 11,, 01:00
It is very embarrassing that OBL was found and killed where he was. It is also embarrassing that Pakistanis weren't the ones to do. There is no point denying that this is a low point for Pakistan, and if resignations do occur all the way at the top, it would be apt. I do think though that accusing the Pakistani state of complicity is jumping the gun, even the state's 'incompetence' can be rationalized to a large extent.



^^^
The same could be said of Afghanistan in Sep 2001.

a. Country racked by warfare
b. many many people dead
c. no proof that bin laden was involved in 911
d. No actual government

yet the US beat the sh** out of the taleban.

You say that what does pakistan gain by taking such a massive risk by hiding OBL.

Well when the kunduz airlift happened, pakistan right away gamed correctly that the US is gonna be dancing to their tune and they appropriately milked the US of at least 18 billion dollars. They also openly have hafeez sayed, Ilyas Kashmiri, Dawood Ibrahim. I mean they have until now correctly gamed that the US is not gonna do shit..so if they just waited until the right time, they could have exachanged OBL's head for a few billion dollars and some F-16's , missiles and tanks and ships to fight the pakistani taleban.

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 01:06
OSL and Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for 9/11 and intelligence to that end piled up quickly. The Taliban hosted AQ because of very different reasons, OBL gave them finances which they desperately needed. He also helped them in the civil war against Masood through men and expertise. None of that applies to the Pakistan state/military which is a war with al-Qaeda. To think that they were just waiting for the 'right time' to hand him over is very presumptive on your part.

cirrrocco
10 May 11,, 01:34
OSL and Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for 9/11 and intelligence to that end piled up quickly. The Taliban hosted AQ because of very different reasons, OBL gave them finances which they desperately needed. He also helped them in the civil war against Masood through men and expertise. None of that applies to the Pakistan state/military which is a war with al-Qaeda. To think that they were just waiting for the 'right time' to hand him over is very presumptive on your part.

Why not . All of the HVT's were given to the US right before or after a US official came to Pakistan. Sorry I am in a meeting. I will reply in more detail once I am out.

Yusuf
10 May 11,, 03:35
I have this question esp for the Pakistani members. did the Pakistani authorities consider Osama a terrorist, an outlaw who must be caught and tried?

If the answer is yes, then I ask Why? What crime did he commit against Pakistan? None. So why was he a wanted man in the eyes of Pak authorities? I don't think there is any "documentary" evidence to prove OBL did anything against the law of Pakistan. So why?

But my main point is, if Osama who had himself not broken any law in Pakistan and still considered fugitive in Pakistan just because he was Americas most wanted, then Indias most wanted Hafiz Saeed fits the bill as well. For the last three years Pakistan has been dragging it's feet on Saeed asking india for any direct involvement of Saeed in India. Another case that smacks of hypocrisy on the part of Pakistan and a clear case of connivance with terrorists at the highest level.

When it comes to terrorist leadership you will not find any direct involvement like flying planes into buildings or killing in cold blood people in hotels or train stations. But the leaders are the ones who plan, incite and send others to commit acts of terrorism. If Osama based on what he did on 9/11 is a terrorist that had to be brought to justice, the. Hafeez Saeed a d many more like him need to be brought to justice.

Parihaka
10 May 11,, 04:42
Pakistanis disclose name of CIA operative (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistani-pm-failure-to-locate-bin-laden-not-incompetence-or-complicity/2011/05/09/AFKg0nYG_story.html)


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The public outing of the CIA station chief here threatened on Monday to deepen the rift between the United States and Pakistan, with American officials saying they believed the disclosure had been made deliberately by Pakistan’s main spy agency.

If true, the leak would be a sign that Pakistan’s powerful security establishment, far from feeling chastened by the killing of Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani garrison city last week, is seeking to demonstrate its leverage over Washington and retaliate for the unilateral U.S. operation.



Less than six months ago, the identity of the previous CIA station chief in Islamabad was also disclosed in an act that U.S. officials blamed on their counterparts in Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

The new station chief, who runs one of the largest U.S. intelligence-gathering operations in the world, played an instrumental role in overseeing efforts to confirm bin Laden’s location before last week’s raid.

The discovery of bin Laden’s presence in a Pakistani city was considered a huge embarrassment for Pakistan’s military. The United States viewed it as an opportunity to press Pakistan, the recipient of billions of dollars in annual American aid, to crack down harder on militants. Outrage among Pakistanis over the operation was also seen as a rare chance for the weak civilian government in Islamabad to stake its claim in foreign and security policy, areas long the domain of the army.

But the nation’s security establishment has reacted with furor, not humility, people familiar with top Pakistani generals’ thinking said Monday. Their response has been two-pronged: to shift blame for the bin Laden episode to the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, and, according to American officials, to strike back against U.S. allegations that Pakistani spies were either complicit in sheltering bin Laden or incompetent.

The CIA station chief’s name was first aired by a private Pakistani television station on Friday, and a misspelled version of the name was published the next day in the Nation newspaper, which is considered close to the security establishment. The Washington Post does not typically publish the names of intelligence officers working undercover.

Pakistani intelligence officials could not be reached for comment on the U.S. allegation. American officials acknowledged that they had no hard evidence, but a U.S. official said that the suspicion was “based on past history.” The official indicated that evidence has accumulated in recent months that the ISI was behind the exposure of the station chief last year.

In that instance, the CIA pulled its top officer out of Pakistan. But it is not clear whether the agency will do the same now. The prior chief was nearing the end of his assignment in Pakistan when he was recalled to agency headquarters. The current CIA leader in Islamabad has been there only about five months. He was described as a veteran officer known for his blunt manner and extensive operations experience in Russia.

S2
10 May 11,, 04:50
I'd give the ISI station chief in Kabul about six hours before an attempted hit is made if outted.

Two can play that childish but deadly game.

Julie
10 May 11,, 06:03
Pakistan Will Allow U.S. to Question Bin Laden’s Wives

Pakistan will allow the U.S. to question the three wives of Osama bin Laden who were with him in the compound where American commandos killed the al-Qaeda leader, granting a measure of cooperation amid tensions following the raid.

The Obama administration expects to get access to the women soon, based on a response from the Pakistani government, a U.S. official said yesterday on condition of anonymity. The specific timing of the access wasn’t set, the official said.

The decision followed verbal skirmishing between the two countries. Pakistani officials have said that the U.S. should have informed Pakistan of the operation in advance. U.S. officials have questioned how much Pakistani authorities knew about bin Laden’s presence in their country.

The Obama administration said yesterday that it wouldn’t apologize for entering Pakistan to raid bin Laden’s compound, as the South Asian country’s prime minister tried to counter domestic criticism over the military’s failure to detect and stop the U.S. attack.

“We obviously take the statements and concerns of the Pakistani government seriously,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said yesterday, speaking after Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, addressed the Parliament in Islamabad. “But we also do not apologize for the actions that we took.”

U.S. Reliance

The Obama administration, while expressing suspicions about Pakistani aid to bin Laden, aims to preserve a relationship that has allowed CIA drone strikes against militants and at least partly stemmed the flow of fighters into neighboring Afghanistan. The U.S. also relies on Pakistan for transit of supplies from ports on its southern coast for the U.S.-led coalition fighting insurgents in the war next door.

The U.S. will know soon “just how and by whom bin Laden was protected in Pakistan for a decade as it goes through the computers and documents snatched in the raid,” Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and counterterrorism adviser to the U.S. government, said by e-mail. Evidence of ties between bin Laden and Pakistan’s army or intelligence services would move the relationship “from crisis to confrontation,” he said.

The three wives are among an unspecified number of women and children who survived the assault on the compound and were left behind.

Three Wives

Pakistani authorities have said they found the three wives and nine children at the site. In addition to bin Laden, three men and one of their wives were killed during the raid last week. Only bin Laden’s body was removed, according to the U.S. One of the men killed was his son, and the other two were couriers; no other adult males were left behind, the U.S. official said.

While there has been a war of words, the Pentagon says supply convoys to Afghanistan continue to operate and Pakistan has not imposed any new restrictions on the 300 U.S. military trainers and other personnel who have been working with the Pakistani army to improve its counterinsurgency capabilities.

The U.S. also said it had no plans to pull the CIA’s station chief from Pakistan after at least one newspaper and a television station there named someone they said held that position.

Pakistani Investigation

Gilani, the prime minister, said the army would lead an investigation of intelligence failures that allowed bin Laden to go undetected. Authorities also will review why its military failed to react to the U.S. operation that killed the al-Qaeda chief in a house in Abbottabad, near the country’s most prestigious military academy.

President Barack Obama, in an interview broadcast May 8 on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program, said the U.S. suspects that bin Laden had a support network in Pakistan and that the government there needs to investigate.

Gilani said bin Laden’s killing was “justice” for the terrorist attacks the al-Qaeda leader had ordered, including those against Pakistani citizens. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, had provided leads that eventually helped locate bin Laden, he said.

Gilani was less critical of the U.S. than he might have been, said Marvin Weinbaum, an Afghanistan and Pakistan analyst in the State Department’s bureau of intelligence research until 2003 and now a scholar in residence at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

‘Worst Nightmare’

“Pakistan’s political leadership knows this is a relationship that is important” to its survival, Weinbaum said in a telephone interview. The “worst nightmare” for Pakistani leaders is that they push the U.S. toward India, he said.

Obama spoke with India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh yesterday morning about the raid and the “strategic partnership” between the two nations, the administration said in a statement.

Gilani may have been alluding to India when he cautioned against “wrong conclusions” from the raid. India’s military chief, General V.K. Singh, and Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik said last week that their country also had the capability to strike against terrorists inside Pakistani cities, The Times of India reported on May 6.

While ordinary Pakistanis and opposition parties have demanded answers from the government and the military, analysts said the administration of President Asif Ali Zardari was unlikely to be badly damaged.

“The U.S. has yet not blamed the Pakistani government for bin Laden’s presence. Zardari’s biggest challenge now is to control the damage by conducting a transparent inquiry,” said Nasir Zaidi, an analyst at the Institute of Regional Studies in Islamabad.

Zardari’s main opposition, the Pakistan Muslim League led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, will meet in Islamabad today to discuss the U.S. raid.

“Pakistan’s independence has been hurt and Pakistanis are deeply worried,” Sharif told reporters in Lahore yesterday. “The nation may face a crisis if the right steps are not taken.”

Pakistan Will Allow U.S. to Question Bin Laden (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-09/pakistan-will-allow-u-s-to-question-osama-bin-laden-s-wives.html)

Officer of Engineers
10 May 11,, 08:23
You know something? It really does not matter what the truth is anymore. Obama decided that the Pakistanis cannot be trusted and as a result, the Americans have also decided that Pakistan can no longer be trusted. It really does not matter whether Osama stayed in Pakistan by stealth or by trust. The Americans have decided the issue.

In case, the Pakistanis cannot understand this. You've lost the trust of the Americans. And no, you cannot replace the trust of the Americans with the trust of the Chinese. You've lost that trust when Qaddafy published the CICH-4 warhead with AQ Khan's handwriting.

The Chinese gave you an obsolete air force that they don't want because they refuse to give you an army.

Pakistan is alone. Far more alone than you can imagine.

Spagnostic
10 May 11,, 08:37
" Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and PakistanUS forces were given permission to conduct unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew where Bin Laden was hiding, officials say "

Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10*years ago by US and Pakistan | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal)

vsdoc
10 May 11,, 08:49
Pakistan is alone. Far more alone than you can imagine.

So true. And the frankly pathetic rather than amusing sound bites coming out of Pakistan in the wake of this pie-in-the-face is that "Do not isolate us. Cause by doing so you are only pushing us towards greater radicalisation."

As if anyone really cares anymore.

As an army doc we were taught this about battle wounds - triage and save those that can be salvaged first. And when the rot has passed the point of no return, it is better to cut clean and deep and up high enough, than to try to salvage and lose it all.

The incision is near complete. It is time to cauterize. And the US administration knows it.

As does Pakistan.

As does India.

vsdoc
10 May 11,, 11:14
Were I a tax-paying American citizen battling home mortgages and spiraling fuel costs and out-of-reach healthcare and rising white collar unemployment and a myriad other ills that my current Nobel Peace-awardee President had promised a solution to, I would be seriously pissed at my money being spent instead on the upkeep of Pakistan's corrupt and very wealthy generals and presidents and prime ministers and their respective entourages. For zero gains, and a lot of pain, as our young men fight the enemy who is helped by the "ally" whom my dollars feed and arm. Over the past 10 years of our WOT which we perpetually seem to be winning, but which somehow never seems to end. As President after President takes the oath and leaves office, to be replaced by the next incumbent, the next war, the next theater of operations. As support from trusted western allies grows increasingly hard to sustain (or call upon) indefinitely in the face of pressing economic priorities each faces at home first. And a war-weary global-WOT-fatigued America increasingly becomes a military superpower with decreasing economic clout globally, as it loses a march over emerging powers that conserve their military muscle while increasingly flexing their burgeoning financial power over the West. If the past decade has not given you closure, I am sorry to say that nothing really will. Its seriously time for the American people to move on. Or get left behind. Eventually.

Currywurst
10 May 11,, 12:52
A question on Aid to Pakistan..

Leaving the IMF.. and specifically focusing on US Aid(not USAID).. Is the readership of this board convinced to consider this to be significant enough to be able to tilt the behavior of Pakistan towards US interests..

I hear/see a lot on C-SPAN and other media on people raising questions on the Aid.. which they certainly must.. But in real terms the size and leverage it has is minimal(personal opinion) ..

If the above has truth.. Then at-least at some level the Pakistani's must be feeling that they have been successful in squeezing the US by the ***s .. at the cost of losing virginity err Sovereignty now and then..

I don't see US Administration being able to push further.. PAK Army will play the tune of their masses well in the coming days..

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 13:26
If the answer is yes, then I ask Why? What crime did he commit against Pakistan? None. So why was he a wanted man in the eyes of Pak authorities? I don't think there is any "documentary" evidence to prove OBL did anything against the law of Pakistan. So why?

We're jumping off topic here, but to quickly point out that OBL did declare war against the Pakistani state called for suicide bombings and what not, whereas HS did not. There is also direct evidence in terms of Osama claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and attacks on US targets in Africa and elsewhere. HS has not claimed responsibility for the Mumbai attacks, neither have Indian authorities been able to find evidence linking him even remotely to those attacks. Furthermore HS runs widespread charitable activities in Pakistan and he/JUD is popular in that sense. Osama didn't have that support base in Pakistan. I'm not necessarily defending Hafiz Saeed, just pointing out the cases are different. Lastly, HS is a Pakistani citizen whereas OSL was not. Thus it'll be harder to just hand him over or kill him, unlike OSL. If your argument is that just because HS is not being deported or sentenced to death in Pakistan, somehow Osama would've been protected too... doesn't stand.

Blademaster
10 May 11,, 15:24
Were I a tax-paying American citizen battling home mortgages and spiraling fuel costs and out-of-reach healthcare and rising white collar unemployment and a myriad other ills that my current Nobel Peace-awardee President had promised a solution to, I would be seriously pissed at my money being spent instead on the upkeep of Pakistan's corrupt and very wealthy generals and presidents and prime ministers and their respective entourages. For zero gains, and a lot of pain, as our young men fight the enemy who is helped by the "ally" whom my dollars feed and arm. Over the past 10 years of our WOT which we perpetually seem to be winning, but which somehow never seems to end. As President after President takes the oath and leaves office, to be replaced by the next incumbent, the next war, the next theater of operations. As support from trusted western allies grows increasingly hard to sustain (or call upon) indefinitely in the face of pressing economic priorities each faces at home first. And a war-weary global-WOT-fatigued America increasingly becomes a military superpower with decreasing economic clout globally, as it loses a march over emerging powers that conserve their military muscle while increasingly flexing their burgeoning financial power over the West. If the past decade has not given you closure, I am sorry to say that nothing really will. Its seriously time for the American people to move on. Or get left behind. Eventually.

Whether we like it or not, Pakistan does offer something in value, at least in the short term, as long as the Americans stay in Afghanistan, Americans need a reliable land route to Afghanistan. I do not understand. To avoid the nightmare of logistics, why can't US set up shop in the neighboring countries bordering on the north, i.e., set up refineries, munition factories, supplies factories tailored to NATO needs. The cost of setting up those factories and training local people to be reliable trustworthy workers would be far outweighed by the cost of bringing supplies through the land route offered by Pakistan.

Blademaster
10 May 11,, 15:28
You know something? It really does not matter what the truth is anymore. Obama decided that the Pakistanis cannot be trusted and as a result, the Americans have also decided that Pakistan can no longer be trusted. It really does not matter whether Osama stayed in Pakistan by stealth or by trust. The Americans have decided the issue.

In case, the Pakistanis cannot understand this. You've lost the trust of the Americans. And no, you cannot replace the trust of the Americans with the trust of the Chinese. You've lost that trust when Qaddafy published the CICH-4 warhead with AQ Khan's handwriting.

The Chinese gave you an obsolete air force that they don't want because they refuse to give you an army.

Pakistan is alone. Far more alone than you can imagine.

I don't think so. Pakistan requested and China agreed to sell the J-20s to Pakistan to offset IAF's qualitative superiority when the PAK-FA comes online. Moreover, China is just starting to build the third nuclear reactor in Pakistan and enacted a similar agreement to the "123" Agreement between US and India. China knows that Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal, albiet using obsolete plutonium based nukes designs. China is still supplying missiles in violation of the MTRC to Pakistan. Pakistan is far from being alone.

Officer of Engineers
10 May 11,, 15:36
I don't think so. Pakistan requested and China agreed to sell the J-20s to Pakistan to offset IAF's qualitative superiority when the PAK-FA comes online.Was thinking the JF-17 and the J-20 thus far is not all it is crack up to be.


Moreover, China is just starting to build the third nuclear reactor in Pakistan and enacted a similar agreement to the "123" Agreement between US and India. China knows that Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal, albiet using obsolete plutonium based nukes designs. China is still supplying missiles in violation of the MTRC to Pakistan. Pakistan is far from being alone.Think you mean uranium designs but at the moment, that Chinese help is still on paper. Not one brick has been laid and it was supposed to be laid 10 years ago.

Blademaster
10 May 11,, 15:46
Was thinking the JF-17 and the J-20 thus far is not all it is crack up to be.

Still, J-20 represents the latest and best technology that the Chinese has to offer.



Think you mean uranium designs but at the moment, that Chinese help is still on paper. Not one brick has been laid and it was supposed to be laid 10 years ago.

China pushes ahead Pakistan nuclear plant expansion (http://sundaytimes.lk/index.php/world-news/5830-china-pushes-ahead-pakistan-nuclear-plant-expansion)

Yusuf
10 May 11,, 15:56
@ kasrkin
Hundreds of rallies held where he has called upon people to wage Jihad against India. LeT has been implicated even by the US now as the group behind Mumbai.

What you say is nothing but the same excuses Pakistan gives to not act against Saeed. Running charity work which is nothing but a front of LeT and also a way to collect funds. We are only kidding ourselves if we deny that he is not a terrorist.

Next, what about Dawood Ibrahim? All intelligence is available about his presence in Karachi. Obviously Pakistan will deny his presence just like OBL never existed in Pakistan.

What about Masood Azhar who was released from Indian jail in return for the hijacked plane and he later surfaced in Pakistan spewing venom against India.
It is all a pattern. What I have written is not OT but perfectly relevant to the issue in hand about Pakistan being a sanctuary for terrorists with sanction at the highest level.

Officer of Engineers
10 May 11,, 16:10
Still, J-20 represents the latest and best technology that the Chinese has to offer.Let me rephrase. The J-20 is not going to offset the F-22 nor the PAK-FA. It's an attempt to keep up with the Jones with style rather than substance.


China pushes ahead Pakistan nuclear plant expansion (http://sundaytimes.lk/index.php/world-news/5830-china-pushes-ahead-pakistan-nuclear-plant-expansion)Chashma was grandfathered.

Cactus
10 May 11,, 17:46
What would Pakistan hope to achieve by taking what is undeniably a MASSIVE risk? Unless you want to attribute the near inhuman immorality of protecting someone who has contributed to killing thousands of your own countrymen for ideological reasons to Pakistani servicemen (some Indians wouldn't be averse to that opinion), I don't see how it would have served Pakistani interests in anyway.

FWIW, it is not just "some Indians", and in fact it was a Kiwi who got deep into the ideology explanation of the Pakistani policy-making in this discussion:


The actual rulers of Pakistan regard that country not as a defined series of borders but simply a state of mind, a fluid cantonment in which military and financial assets can be mustered until such time as they triumphally return to their 'rightful' place as rulers of all India.

And also fwiw, I would argue that the Iranians, Afghans and Western countries are more worried about the ideological angle than the Indians. Just think about it, Indians and Paks will always have something to fight about (water, land, access east/westwards); the huge population pressures and limited resources will invariably drive natural conflicts where ideology is just a convenient battleflag to rally around. In contrast, Iran fears the Sunni Pakistan working in concert with Saudi Arabia and UAE, Afghanistan fears becoming the battlefield where the ideological war gets fought out, and the West fears the ideology for debilitating the global framework it has built up over the centuries. The first two also fear looking very empty, very inviting, very weak when the Pak get finally tired of the stalemate to the East and turn West for living-space and resources.

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 18:54
Thats an interesting take. But much the same can be said about India, China can fear it working in concert with Russia or the US. India's smaller neighbors are wary of Indian belligerence driven by an ideology based on ambitions for superpower-hood, closely linked with Hindu nationalism. The point I made is that I've so far come across this view only in an Indian perspective, colored as it is by more than half a century of bitter rivalry and contempt. I won't take the quote about Pakistan wanting to 'rule' India seriously, or about Pakistan being solely a military endeavor, simply because it is baseless and it is not up to me to prove a negative. If it is not forwarded by an Indian, it is definitely inspired by Indian rhetoric.

Yusuf
10 May 11,, 19:02
Show me an example of Indias "belligerence" linked to "Hindu" nationalism. Now this thread has gone OT.

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 19:06
I won't be doing that. Don't want this to be another Pakistan VS India thread. Point is, I can make such a rhetorically driven point if I want to.


Hundreds of rallies held where he has called upon people to wage Jihad against India. LeT has been implicated even by the US now as the group behind Mumbai.

Yes there is little doubt that LeT was behind the Mumbai attacks. But the LeT is understood to be a fractured organization now. He may be the founder but there is no evidence that he ordered that attack or even knew about it. Also, his charity work may be contributing to militant ends, but it is genuine as well. The contribution of groups like the JuD was documented and acknowledged even by Western aid workers and observers during the earthquake and flood emergencies. There is absolutely no proof that the presence of internationally wanted terrorists is sanctioned at the 'highest level'. Also, HS is not an internationally wanted terrorist as far as I know.

Tronic
10 May 11,, 19:21
Show me an example of Indias "belligerence" linked to "Hindu" nationalism. Now this thread has gone OT.

Yusuf, we gotta convert to Hinduism to be patriotic these days. :biggrin:

You forget, its preposterous for some that Indian identity is able to go beyond religious lines. Not all of our neighbours enjoy that liberty. ;)

nvishal
10 May 11,, 19:24
@Kasrkin
If india indeed had expansionist ambitions then hundreds of thousands of indian troops would have been in afg today. In fact, if you think about it, there would have been no pakistan to begin with.

If it surprising to see parihaka(a non-south asian) figure out the reasons of the indo-pak hostility with such significant depth because most indians themselves do not understand why it is so.

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 19:29
If india indeed had expansionist ambitions then hundreds of thousands of indian troops would have been in afg today. In fact, if you think about it, there would have been no pakistan to begin with.

I think many in Pakistan would strongly disagree with the notion that Pakistan is only allowed to exist through Indian benevolence. I won't be going into this debate, point I made was that there is always room for such perceptions regarding states in the international system. You cannot substitute such vague rhetoric against any state, even Pakistan, for hard facts.

Tronic
10 May 11,, 19:30
There is absolutely no proof that the presence of internationally wanted terrorists is sanctioned at the 'highest level'. Also, HS is not an internationally wanted terrorist as far as I know.

Saeed is an internationally sanctioned terrorist and his own "aid" organization (according to you) is an internationally sanctioned terrorist organization, as far as the UN is concerned.

UN declares Jamaat-ud-Dawa a terrorist front group - The Long War Journal (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/12/un_declares_jamaatud.php)
Third Mumbai Terrorist Suspect Placed Under House Arrest; Charity a Front Group For Terrorist Organization - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,464730,00.html)

Blademaster
10 May 11,, 19:31
@Kasrkin
If india indeed had expansionist ambitions then hundreds of thousands of indian troops would have been in afg today. In fact, if you think about it, there would have been no pakistan to begin with.

If it surprising to see parihaka(a non-south asian) figure out the reasons of the indo-pak hostility with such significant depth because most indians themselves do not understand why it is so.

That's because we found that governing more than 150 million rabid Islamists is more of a headache than the benefits of the land brings. The creation of Pakistan was a godsend for India because it meant that 99% of rabid Islamists left India and created sh!t in Pakistan as opposed in India.

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 19:39
I'm aware that the UN has declared LeT to be a terrorist organization, and identified HS has one of its leaders. I think Pakistan has done everything required by the resolution, which I don't think includes handing HS to India or eliminating him without a trial or evidence.

'The UN's action against Jamaat-ud-Dawa requires nations to freeze the group's assets, ban the individual terrorists from traveling, and prevent the supply of weapons, technology, and other aid to the group.'

Your first link does also say:

'The group succeeded in providing aid to earthquake-ravaged regions in Kashmir in 2005 while the Pakistani government was slow to act.

The aid they've provided is genuine. Not a 'cover' for militant fund raising, I think you might be confusing the two things.

nvishal
10 May 11,, 19:42
You cannot substitute such vague rhetoric against any state, even Pakistan, for hard facts.
The facts are already there - Partition, Several wars, Cross border terrorist strikes etc. They are a part of history now. And those events need explanations. Sadly, the world thinks it is because of kashmir.

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 19:42
That's because we found that governing more than 150 million rabid Islamists is more of a headache than the benefits of the land brings. The creation of Pakistan was a godsend for India because it meant that 99% of rabid Islamists left India and created sh!t in Pakistan as opposed in India.

See, now you appreciate all the trouble we have to deal with ;)

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 19:45
The facts are already there - Partition, Several wars, Cross border terrorist strikes etc. They are a part of history now. And those events need explanations. Sadly, the world thinks it is because of kashmir.

Your skewed perception of these events does not constitute hard facts I'm afraid.

nvishal
10 May 11,, 19:54
Your skewed perception of these events does not constitute hard facts I'm afraid.
I think you are making statements based on your individual discretion. So its obvious that you'll disagree with me.

You may say that the long history of indo-pak hostilities does not automatically mean ideological hatred. But you will find it hard to convince me that such events in history happened for no reason at all. If you say that such things have happened because of the hindu nationalists ambitions for expansion then you must also explain to us why then this partition was allowed in the first place? If you do not understand why partition happened, then how can you be entitled to label parihaka's ideological explanations as rhetoric?

Tronic
10 May 11,, 19:57
I'm aware that the UN has declared LeT to be a terrorist organization, and identified HS has one of its leaders. I think Pakistan has done everything required by the resolution, which I don't think includes handing HS to India or eliminating him without a trial or evidence.

'The UN's action against Jamaat-ud-Dawa requires nations to freeze the group's assets, ban the individual terrorists from traveling, and prevent the supply of weapons, technology, and other aid to the group.'

Your first link does also say:

'The group succeeded in providing aid to earthquake-ravaged regions in Kashmir in 2005 while the Pakistani government was slow to act.

The aid they've provided is genuine. Not a 'cover' for militant fund raising, I think you might be confusing the two things.

lol. My links say, that a UN designated terrorist organization provided aid in 2005 earthquake. That doesn't make a designated terrorist organization genuine in any sense. I mean hell, how much aid has America provided your country? yet Pakistanis are still screaming their heads off against their drone strikes. Those strikes are far more genuine than those terror fronts. Double standards are we?

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 20:02
Not sure what you're getting at. All I said was the aid was genuine, means it was really meant to help people and it did. Yep, the US has provided aid to our country, but it has a pretty battered image in the Muslim World, particularly in Pakistan, as acknowledged by US officials. Well I'm not sure how you see drone strikes as more 'genuine'-ly humanitarian or self-less than relief aid to disaster victims, but you can make your own call.

Tronic
10 May 11,, 20:13
Not sure what you're getting at. All I said was the aid was genuine, means it was really meant to help people and it did. Yep, the US has provided aid to our country, but it has a pretty battered image in the Muslim World, particularly in Pakistan, as acknowledged by US officials. Well I'm not sure how you see drone strikes as more 'genuine'-ly humanitarian or self-less than relief aid to disaster victims, but you can make your own call.

Like do I need to explain? Or you doing this on purpose? :confused:

In brief, I'll tell you the difference.

On one hand, you are taking a terrorist organization and only highlighting their 2005 earthquake work, putting aside the terror groups they fund and all the civilians they have killed, and are calling the group genuine.

On the other hand, you are pushing aside the fact that America donated billions, and highlighting and equating American drone strikes to a terrorist organization's humanitarian work. I mean, you concede that America's image is "battered" in Pakistan despite the billions in aid which America has provided, yet a terrorist organization, which by no means can ever dream of matching the American humanitarian aid and efforts, is seen as "genuine" to you, in your own words. That is the difference.

But than again, AM has already shown us here that killing civilians of other countries and allowing rogue elements to use your territory to wage war against neighbours is a-ok, as long as they don't turn against Pakistanis. So, I can totally see where you're coming from. :rolleyes:

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 20:19
I didn't say any of the things you've just attributed to me. I didn't call the group genuine, just their aid as a means of saying it was not a subterfuge. I didn't even bring the US into this, you did. And yes for the record their aid is genuine too. But their image is battered, now thats just a fact, and there are a lot of reasons for that, not just drone strikes. I'm giving you facts here, nothing more or less. If you have a point to prove other than misquoting me, I don't see it.

Cactus
10 May 11,, 20:19
I won't take the quote about Pakistan wanting to 'rule' India seriously, or about Pakistan being solely a military endeavor, simply because it is baseless and it is not up to me to prove a negative. If it is not forwarded by an Indian, it is definitely inspired by Indian rhetoric.

I am sure Pari can back up his points with his own references... in the meanwhile, please be more careful dismissing a senior wabbit's arguments so cavalierly.

Just off the top of my head, I remember this quote from a Pakistani scholar from one of your more prestigious think-tanks, Tariq Jan, saying exactly what Pari meant: Beyond Faith - 60 Years of Independence - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1649060_1649046_1649032-4,00.html)


"We [Muslims] were the legal rulers of India, and in 1857 the British took it all from us", says Tariq Jan, a scholar at Islamabad's Institute for Policy Studies. "In 1947, they should have given it back to the Muslims"

Nobody is asking you to prove us wrong on this, or worse, get into a slinging-match with the converse argument of "Akhand Bharat" (Indivisible India). But do note and accept that it is not just "some Indians" or "inspired by India" narrative of Pakistani decision-makers' purpoted ideology.

Kasrkin
10 May 11,, 20:30
I don't wish to be cavalierly dismissive of anyone, but I will hold to my opinion. I'll look into your link, if I find similarly sweeping remarks or views about Pakistan from relatively neutral sources then I will try my best to address it.

EDIT:


But you will find it hard to convince me that such events in history happened for no reason at all.

I'm not going to try and convince you of that. I just don't look at things in polarities like you i.e. Pakistani Islamist extremism OR Indian Hindu-nationalism driven belligerence.

nvishal
10 May 11,, 20:58
I'm not going to try and convince you of that. I just don't look at things in polarities like you i.e. Pakistani Islamist extremism OR Indian Hindu-nationalism driven belligerence.
I fail to see the "polarities" in my argument. All i hear is that you disagree with me and some others.

Maybe you should create another thread and give your "IMO's" about india-pak hostilities.

This is my last OT post.

gunnut
10 May 11,, 21:43
Whether we like it or not, Pakistan does offer something in value, at least in the short term, as long as the Americans stay in Afghanistan, Americans need a reliable land route to Afghanistan. I do not understand. To avoid the nightmare of logistics, why can't US set up shop in the neighboring countries bordering on the north, i.e., set up refineries, munition factories, supplies factories tailored to NATO needs. The cost of setting up those factories and training local people to be reliable trustworthy workers would be far outweighed by the cost of bringing supplies through the land route offered by Pakistan.

Who's to the north of Afghanistan? They are all under Russian's sphere of influence. The closest seaport going north is in the Black Sea, owned by the Russians, and is much farther away than Karachi.

Like it or not, Pakistan is the only game in town. A few billion dollars a year is cheap for renting the land route. Plus we can bully the Pakistanis. Try bullying the Russians.

Albany Rifles
10 May 11,, 21:54
Whether we like it or not, Pakistan does offer something in value, at least in the short term, as long as the Americans stay in Afghanistan, Americans need a reliable land route to Afghanistan. I do not understand. To avoid the nightmare of logistics, why can't US set up shop in the neighboring countries bordering on the north, i.e., set up refineries, munition factories, supplies factories tailored to NATO needs. The cost of setting up those factories and training local people to be reliable trustworthy workers would be far outweighed by the cost of bringing supplies through the land route offered by Pakistan.

Cost and time....and how do you get the crude to the refineries.

Not to mention the northern neighbors have been cutting back on their support over the past few years.

Albany Rifles
10 May 11,, 22:01
Don't let this sink into a Pakistan v India thread....I have my fingered hovering over the Thread Lock button!

Sumku
10 May 11,, 22:02
Pakistan is alone. Far more alone than you can imagine.
Pakistan bungled up big time with OBL.
We know that Ayman Zawahiri has assumed the top position with the AQ and the focus has now rightly shifted towards him.

We also know that Mullah Omar is still somewhere in Pakistan and probably also under the protection of some elements from ISI/PA.

Can Pakistan change its virtual isolation and again enter the good books of US by handing over the head of Mullah Omar to US, while maintaining deniabilty ? Would that count as a Master Stroke on Part of Pakistan ?

Sumku
10 May 11,, 22:04
Don't let this sink into a Pakistan v India thread....I have my fingered hovering over the Thread Lock button!

Absolutely agree...this is not an India-Pak thread so people should not deviate from the main topic

Double Edge
10 May 11,, 22:13
Don't let this sink into a Pakistan v India thread....I have my fingered hovering over the Thread Lock button!
Right, Imma get this in before last call :)


" Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and PakistanUS forces were given permission to conduct unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew where Bin Laden was hiding, officials say "

Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10*years ago by US and Pakistan | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal)

And...


"The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us."

Which begs the question whether the same can be said about congress ie all bark and no bite.

Rumsfeld was on Piers Morgan's show and when asked the question he put it this way

- there are many others on the most wanted list and if they're in the US, we don't know where they are.
- five miles from the potomac there are properties with high gates and we have no idea who could be inside.
- Aldrich Ames hid in open sight and the CIA took almost ten years to find him.

Easy for Rumsfeld to say this because he's out of office rather than in ?

He does however think an investigation needs to be carried out and questions asked. There is enough plausible deniablilty in this affair to make me suspect this hue & cry is insignificant in the long run. A hiccup at best.

Blademaster
10 May 11,, 22:28
Cost and time....and how do you get the crude to the refineries.

Not to mention the northern neighbors have been cutting back on their support over the past few years.

The crude would come from Russia and come through the northern route.

Another question to ask... Would Russia and her neighbors step up to the plate and fill the void and kill the Taliban or just basically write Afghanistan off? Does Afghanistan offer anything in value?

How can we make sure that Afghanistan doesn't become the haven of terrorists and Al Queda again once USA leaves the region?

Is there anyway that America can establish a sphere of power and influence without requiring an huge armed force in the area?

gunnut
10 May 11,, 22:47
The US has more options than you give it credit. The first and cleanest would be to refuse to play a crooked game: As S-2 and others (incl myself) have argued, the US can always walk away from the whole mess with one irrevokable public promise of unrestrained and indiscriminate retaliation if future events again pulled the US back into the area. Messier options involve radically changing the game's rules such that Pakistan is no longer "the only game in town": political geography is not immutable.

The first option is a PR nightmare. I have no problem with unrestrained and indiscriminate retaliation, but what about the weak and soft socialists of the west? They'll scream RACISM!!!

The 2nd option is even more of a nightmare, and doesn't help our guys in Afghanistan right now.

The most sensible option is keep paying Pakistan for the road, gradually draw down our operations in the area, and promise them harm if we see them get out of line.

Bush tried the 2nd option. That's why we are where we are right now.

InExile
10 May 11,, 23:19
I think the Americans will end up doing what the Soviets did after they withdrew from Afghanistan before the Soviet Union collapsed. Mainly hold onto to the cities with Afghan troops and US air power; to prevent the Taliban from ever massing to overthrow the Kabul regime. An arrangement like that could last for years.

The pro Soviet Government outlasted the Soviet Union by several years.

Blademaster
10 May 11,, 23:21
The first option is a PR nightmare. I have no problem with unrestrained and indiscriminate retaliation, but what about the weak and soft socialists of the west? They'll scream RACISM!!!
Fvck the socialists.



The 2nd option is even more of a nightmare, and doesn't help our guys in Afghanistan right now.
Sure it does. How do you think the British kept control of India with only less than 100,000 British soldiers? They played the locals off each other.

The most sensible option is keep paying Pakistan for the road, gradually draw down our operations in the area, and promise them harm if we see them get out of line.



Bush tried the 2nd option. That's why we are where we are right now.
No he didn't. He just left Afghanistan to its own devices when he went into Iraq.

calass
11 May 11,, 00:52
Thats an interesting take. But much the same can be said about India, China can fear it working in concert with Russia or the US. India's smaller neighbors are wary of Indian belligerence driven by an ideology based on ambitions for superpower-hood, closely linked with Hindu nationalism. The point I made is that I've so far come across this view only in an Indian perspective, colored as it is by more than half a century of bitter rivalry and contempt. I won't take the quote about Pakistan wanting to 'rule' India seriously, or about Pakistan being solely a military endeavor, simply because it is baseless and it is not up to me to prove a negative. If it is not forwarded by an Indian, it is definitely inspired by Indian rhetoric.

Er..that would be true if an Indian army chief said something like what Gen Kayani said a week back that the "Pakistan army guards the ideological boundaries of Islam" or something like that.

Seriously,what is the deal with Pakistan and Islam..what makes it special among the 50 odd Islamic countries?..None of the major Islamic cities are located in Pakistan and none of the major schools of Islam have originated from Pakistan(ironically 2 of the major ones are from India).

gunnut
11 May 11,, 00:56
Fvck the socialists.

You're not thinking like a politician. The first priority of any politician is to stay in office. You want those socialist votes.



Sure it does. How do you think the British kept control of India with only less than 100,000 British soldiers? They played the locals off each other.

No he didn't. He just left Afghanistan to its own devices when he went into Iraq.

I see we have a miscommunication here. I thought by changing the game you meant re-arrange the geopolitical power and boundaries, like what Bush tried to do by spreading democracy to the Middle East. What you meant is to use money and influence to keep any one faction in Pakistan or Afghanistan to gain total control, or even majority control, within the border.

Kasrkin
11 May 11,, 01:36
Er..that would be true if an Indian army chief said something like what Gen Kayani said a week back that the "Pakistan army guards the ideological boundaries of Islam" or something like that.

A link to that would be greatly appreciated, so we'll know if he did say that. And if so, in what context.


Seriously,what is the deal with Pakistan and Islam..what makes it special among the 50 odd Islamic countries?..None of the major Islamic cities are located in Pakistan and none of the major schools of Islam have originated from Pakistan(ironically 2 of the major ones are from India).

Well no Pakistanis I know of claim to be superior to any other Muslim countries based on religion. Your straw-man attack notwithstanding, the point I made holds. It is easy to derive a range of strategic/ideological narratives about any country based on biases and partial perceptions.

Albany Rifles
11 May 11,, 01:56
The crude would come from Russia and come through the northern route.

Another question to ask... Would Russia and her neighbors step up to the plate and fill the void and kill the Taliban or just basically write Afghanistan off? Does Afghanistan offer anything in value?

How can we make sure that Afghanistan doesn't become the haven of terrorists and Al Queda again once USA leaves the region?

Is there anyway that America can establish a sphere of power and influence without requiring an huge armed force in the area?

1. Russia has to agree to sell...and it is in their best interest to not do that and cause us problem.

2. They can kill the Taliban....but they have their own problems to deal with with restive minorities. They can ill afford to try ANOTHER Afghan adventure....remember how the last one worked out! The Russian military is a long way from a level of professionalism in their conventional forces similar to Western militaries. Their SOF are very good but are probably busy dealign with their own internal issues.

3. US leaving the region? I won't say it won't happen but we have to stick around some way unlike in 1989-1992. But at the same time we have to have a reason. I don't know if India can have a role to play...at the same time we can not just discard Pakistan.

4. If I could answer #4 I would play the lottery!

calass
11 May 11,, 04:55
A link to that would be greatly appreciated, so we'll know if he did say that. And if so, in what context.



Read about it in Ayaz Amir's column

Mother of all embarrassments (http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=45440&Cat=9)



Barely 24 hours before the Osama assault General Kayani, at a ceremony in General Headquarters in remembrance of our soldiers killed in our Taliban wars, was describing the army as the defender of the country’s ideological and geographical frontiers. For the time being, I think, we should concentrate on ideology and leave geography well alone, the Abbottabad assault having made a mockery of our geographical frontiers.

Every other country in the world is happy if its armed forces can defend geography. We are the only country in the world which waxes lyrical about ideological frontiers. To us alone belongs the distinction of calling ourselves a fortress of Islam






Well no Pakistanis I know of claim to be superior to any other Muslim countries based on religion. Your straw-man attack notwithstanding, the point I made holds. It is easy to derive a range of strategic/ideological narratives about any country based on biases and partial perceptions.

Superior no..more bothered for some reason about reasons involving Islam..yes. Take any hot button Muslim issue today,the Facebook protests,the Mohammed cartoons etc etc. Guess which country has the most violent protests always...for some reason Pakistan!!

vsdoc
11 May 11,, 06:49
Who's to the north of Afghanistan? They are all under Russian's sphere of influence. The closest seaport going north is in the Black Sea, owned by the Russians, and is much farther away than Karachi.

Like it or not, Pakistan is the only game in town. A few billion dollars a year is cheap for renting the land route. Plus we can bully the Pakistanis. Try bullying the Russians.

Sir, the US will realise over time, if it has not done so yet, that were you in need of a muslim ally, with geographical/logistical payoffs, you would have done way better in holding on to and nurturing your hold over Iran than bet on Pakistan. In the days to come, you will realise than alienating Iran was and will continue to be a major error in judgment of your think tank. But then, I do realise that there were other interests at work in that decision, that were not wholly American.

Julie
11 May 11,, 06:57
I don't see us holding on to and nurturing Iran....not in my lifetime anyway. We hold our nose and cross our fingers with Pakistan.

vsdoc
11 May 11,, 07:33
I don't see us holding on to and nurturing Iran....not in my lifetime anyway. We hold our nose and cross our fingers with Pakistan.

Crossing your fingers is not going to help. Not when dealing with a people who are increasingly radicalizing against the cross. And who they see as leading the the crusade against their faith. A faith which they have (unilaterally) taken upon themselves to be the self-proclaimed protectors of, across the muslim world. The more you cross, the more you alienate them, and the deeper your country sinks into the mire. To you it is the war on terror. To them it is the holy war. Its a classic failed marriage, as both parties refuse to let go, locked in the destructive grip of this vicious cycle.

They take your dollar, your alms and arms, yet they strike against you, as their own particular hue of perception management amongst the fundamentals of their world to somehow rationalize away and/or assuage the feeling of impotence and shame that comes from living off this ghairat from the kafir shaitan. You may think this mindset is that of only the radical loonies. But that neat "western" segregation has no meaning on the ground in Pakistan. You would be surprised at how all-pervasive this mindset is in the general populance of your so-called ally. And it is growing by the day. And your dollar only fuels it.

vsdoc
11 May 11,, 11:46
Whether we like it or not, Pakistan does offer something in value, at least in the short term, as long as the Americans stay in Afghanistan, Americans need a reliable land route to Afghanistan. I do not understand. To avoid the nightmare of logistics, why can't US set up shop in the neighboring countries bordering on the north, i.e., set up refineries, munition factories, supplies factories tailored to NATO needs. The cost of setting up those factories and training local people to be reliable trustworthy workers would be far outweighed by the cost of bringing supplies through the land route offered by Pakistan.

Like it or not, America in the days to come will need a strong Shia partner in the muslim world to offset their strong Sunni lean. They already have the Arabs in their pocket. They did not need Pakistan. Pakistan convinced them to believe that they needed them. For decades now. Iran would have always been a much stronger and more stable bet. But the Israeli lobby would foam at the mouth at the very thought. As would the Arab protectorates. So America chose what they thought was the path of least resistance. For what they thought, as you correctly put it, the short term. The part that escapes no one though, least of all the American public today, is that this "short term" has spanned more than a generation now.

S2
11 May 11,, 13:53
Some interesting but false assumptions offered by you underpinning your thesis. I'll try to find time later this evening to address some of them. Of course, you bring your own bias to the offered perspective.

vsdoc
11 May 11,, 13:59
Some interesting but false assumptions offered by you underpinning your thesis. I'll try to find time later this evening to address some of them. Of course, you bring your own bias to the offered perspective.

Of course I do. As does everyone. There are no Mother Teresas here S2. But you will no doubt concede that we know the Pakistanis better than you ever could. We share blood - both in our veins, and that spilt down the decades. I will look forward to hearing your side based on your assumptions and theories.

Cactus
11 May 11,, 17:56
Of course I do. As does everyone. There are no Mother Teresas here S2. But you will no doubt concede that we know the Pakistanis better than you ever could. We share blood - both in our veins, and that spilt down the decades. I will look forward to hearing your side based on your assumptions and theories.

vsdoc, I'll preempt troung in pointing the fallacy of this statement: If Indians could really understand Paks better than anyone else, India would have completely solved its Pakistani Problem by now -- by either making a mutually acceptable peace, or by waging a decisive war. The fact is, most Indians understand the Paks just enough to be insulted by them (and insult them in return). A third-party pov helps in such cases. Alexander of Macedonia had a better "understanding" of the Raja of Ambhi than Porus; ultimately it was the Mauryas who benefitted the most from Alexander's exceptional understanding of both Ambhi and Porus...

troung
11 May 11,, 20:35
I am becoming predictable.

Dreadnought
12 May 11,, 00:24
IMO, What needs to be done is that radicalism must be halted by any means possible. The poor should recieve more aid then what they have been recieving through the government from the countries that give it.

They need to take a stand with the religious radicals and terrorists. They dont want the country to change unless it goes backwards and in turn this will draw more of the piss poor into radicalism and radical teachings which builds their numbers. If money starts making it into the stream such as modern roads, sewage, electrical generation, house building etc then that equates to jobs. Jobs equate to the economy getting better through investment. Close the massadras, this is where radicalism breeds and give the people some real education not some idiots version of what they believe what the good book says and calls for radicalism.

Without the creation of jobs and investment into the country then radicalism will continue as many wont have much to either lose or live for.

Take the youth off the street, make it so they have to spend x amount of years training in the military from 16 up if you have too. Its not like they dont have plenty of border to protect and cannot use extra forces. If not then they will be drawn to other sources of purpose and probably not a good one. The military (once cleaned of the bad elements) will teach them the basics and give them a sense of purpose.

Establish ties with the Afghan Army, work with them to root out the terrorists that cross the borders and hunt down those that train and fund these groups inside and outside of Pakistan.

That country recieves alot of aid, if it doesnt start reaching the people then it shoud be outright cut off with very strick guidlines and milestones.

When the US leaves Pakistani territory and the war closes, the aid is going to dry up no doubt as the US wont need to cross Pakistani territory to supply their troops and will just bomb if need be those areas Pakistan refuses to police. Bombing is much cheaper then boots on the ground and the support chain that follows. You can almost bet that will be first on the list of the Amercian peoples wishes outside of having their troops returning home. The US however will no doubt be asked by the Afghans to have US troops behind for support and training so influence by Pakistan in Afghanistan is going to be curbed, thats a given. The Taliban will never return to power there and neither will any group Pakistan protects and supports.

Pakistan had better soon learn to do more inside their own country to make it grow then focusing their influence in other countries as they do now. And they better also learn that there are bad elements among them and need to be rooted out by any means no matter how high it goes if change is to ever take place.

Above all...Lose the "I have no idea" attitiude and "They dont train or live here" attitude because its getting old with those that support Pakistan and give her aid. Very old.

S2
12 May 11,, 04:38
"Like it or not, America in the days to come will need a strong Shia partner in the muslim world to offset their strong Sunni lean..."

Straying far from the thread topic here. If you wish, take it up to the internat'l politics board and restate your thesis and rationales.

You'll need something more compelling than simply counterbalancing some perceived "Sunni" leanings. We have such warm feelings for Deobandis, Wahabbists, Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood.:rolleyes:

Then there's those poor Sufis. All peace and light...but no leverage worth a damn.

Religious preferences within Islam isn't and hasn't been any basis for our geostrategic outlook.

Tarek Morgen
12 May 11,, 04:48
I would even go so far and say that many, (while of course not all) who actually decides those things, could not even tell the difference between those groups.

Dreadnought
12 May 11,, 05:17
I would even go so far and say that many, (while of course not all) who actually decides those things, could not even tell the difference between those groups.

Agreed, in the very same light, respect ALL religions but not radicalization. It works well for the US and other countries. We allow all to practice but if your radical then your screwed as well.:)

Yusuf
12 May 11,, 05:39
Dreadnought, post 170 of yours is idealistic.

I don't think it's implementable. There is no will to do it. It for some skewed understanding of the powers to be in Pakistan, helps the to stay in power, hedge them against India and gives them "strategic depth".

The basic curriculum in Pakistan is based on hate. That itself is a wrong start and no one wants to change that. It's. Sad story out there.

vsdoc
12 May 11,, 07:17
vsdoc, I'll preempt troung in pointing the fallacy of this statement: If Indians could really understand Paks better than anyone else, India would have completely solved its Pakistani Problem by now -- by either making a mutually acceptable peace, or by waging a decisive war. The fact is, most Indians understand the Paks just enough to be insulted by them (and insult them in return). A third-party pov helps in such cases. Alexander of Macedonia had a better "understanding" of the Raja of Ambhi than Porus; ultimately it was the Mauryas who benefitted the most from Alexander's exceptional understanding of both Ambhi and Porus...

Edited - proven wrong.

A third point of view you say? Alexander, Ambhi and Porus? So who are the Mauryas here then - China?! Are you referring to American "understanding" of the Pakistani psyche perchance? Given that we have been at war with Pakistan from the womb. But America has been Pakistan's closest ally, mentor, saviour, whatever other sobriquet one may choose to insert here, for close to half a century now. And America does not carry the baggage you imply we are burdened with and which colors our logic and perception. So I ask you instead. How well has America understood Pakistan? Is the "peace" that America has with Pakistan mutually acceptable? Or if not, when is America going to flex its military muscle and wage a "decisive war" against Pakistan? After all, America is THE superpower is it not? And is 5000 miles away. And there is no way that Pakistan can inflict pain on American soil.

You talk of peace sir, your post somehow putting the onus of that on us Indians - failure to achieve that implied as not understanding the pakistani psyche. How many wars have we fought with pakistan? How many were started by us? How many were finished by us? And having done so, how often did we keep what we won? We understand the pakistani psyche only too well. We have paid in blood for that understanding. Much much much more than any other country in the world. So when we tell you about Pakistanis, please listen. It is to your advantage, cause it comes from people with much the same values and belief systems as you. And it comes from a people who are not actively courting you or have anything to gain from you or are working to a hidden agenda at cross purposes to yours. We value America's friendship, and truth be told, it was a relief to our generation when America finally softened and warmed up. But please also remember that we did pretty ok without America for most of our independent nationhood - at a time when we were much weaker and way poorer than what we are today.

When you talk of pakistan, you are basically talking about their army. Period. Their politicians will play cameos now and then, pad their pockets, then be banished into exile in some foreign country, or get assassinated. The army will always stay. It will outlast and outlive Pakistan. So for pakistan, war with India is not the existential threat they would have you and others in the West believe. For Pakistan, and by default the Pakistan Army, peace with India is the existential threat. And therefore that will never be allowed to happen.

On our side, India today does not want mutually acceptable peace with Pakistan sir. Nor are we stupid to try for the decisive all-out war you refer to. We will concentrate on what we control - and that is our own soil, our own people, our economy, our growth, our poor, our security. We will attempt to secure our borders. We will further insulate ourselves from the mayhem next door. Yet continue to grow our muscle should our neighbors ever get too frisky. And we will use everything at our disposal to isolate and expose and discredit Pakistan in front of the world. We will not engage. Rather we will actively disengage. Seems to be working well for us wouldn't you say?

You say we need to understand them. I say we do - more than anyone else. But I also say it really does not matter to us anymore. We are not the ones dealing with them on a daily basis. Nor are we the ones pumping in money and hardware to keep them afloat. We have bigger fish to fry - and the hyphenation as it were with a small and insignificant neighbor is only there in their minds.

vsdoc
12 May 11,, 07:32
"Like it or not, America in the days to come will need a strong Shia partner in the muslim world to offset their strong Sunni lean..."

Straying far from the thread topic here. If you wish, take it up to the internat'l politics board and restate your thesis and rationales.

You'll need something more compelling than simply counterbalancing some perceived "Sunni" leanings. We have such warm feelings for Deobandis, Wahabbists, Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood.:rolleyes:

Then there's those poor Sufis. All peace and light...but no leverage worth a damn.

Religious preferences within Islam isn't and hasn't been any basis for our geostrategic outlook.

Two things. You misunderstood. And you are looking at it from an American perspective. And both are connected. I'll take it up wherever you would like me to, but understand what I was trying to say first.

I am not saying that the US's sunni lean is a deliberate geopoliticostrategic socio-religious policy. But it just is. If you want to engage with the Muslim world, you need to understand it first. I am sure you have many brilliant minds working on just that. It just seems to me as an outsider that you are coming across as Shia un-friendly. And if there is one thing we know about the muslim world, it is that there is a strong internal divide.

We both had colonial masters once upon a time who were masters at exploiting and manipulating such divides.

vsdoc
12 May 11,, 08:00
IMO, What needs to be done is that radicalism must be halted by any means possible. The poor should recieve more aid then what they have been recieving through the government from the countries that give it.

They need to take a stand with the religious radicals and terrorists. They dont want the country to change unless it goes backwards and in turn this will draw more of the piss poor into radicalism and radical teachings which builds their numbers. If money starts making it into the stream such as modern roads, sewage, electrical generation, house building etc then that equates to jobs. Jobs equate to the economy getting better through investment. Close the massadras, this is where radicalism breeds and give the people some real education not some idiots version of what they believe what the good book says and calls for radicalism.

Without the creation of jobs and investment into the country then radicalism will continue as many wont have much to either lose or live for.

Take the youth off the street, make it so they have to spend x amount of years training in the military from 16 up if you have too. Its not like they dont have plenty of border to protect and cannot use extra forces. If not then they will be drawn to other sources of purpose and probably not a good one. The military (once cleaned of the bad elements) will teach them the basics and give them a sense of purpose.

Establish ties with the Afghan Army, work with them to root out the terrorists that cross the borders and hunt down those that train and fund these groups inside and outside of Pakistan.

All excellent points Dreadnought. But WHO is going to do it? Assuming they have the means and ability to do it. And if so, WHY would they do it? There are many Pakistanis I have interacted with on boards such as this one who lament the absence of Pakistan's version of Superman who will come and magically clean up their mess. They feebly mouth their wish for "democracy" without ever having understood what it meant or the cost it entailed even once in their 65 year existence. They daydream and ruminate on e-fora and in their drawing rooms about the "stand" and social revolution you talk about. Then when the bombs come thicker and faster, they look to their Army - almost Pavlovian in its trigger. Who in turn point knowingly towards evil Hindu India at the borders frothing at the mouth to enter to rape and pillage and destroy the edifice of Islam on which their nation was built. And the cycle of corrupt politician, coup, corrupt army, "elections," corrupt politician, drones/ST6, coup ..... will continue ad nauseum. You know what they say about Pakistan right? Nations have armies. In Pakistan, the army suffers a nation.

nvishal
12 May 11,, 08:42
@vsdoc
The americans want the af-pak region to return to pre-9/11 stage. Back when the locals squabbled and fought among themselves. It kept them away from the world stage. All things happened as usual until the twin towers fell. So they have gone back to the drawing board.

US bankrolled the pakistani's back when they didn't have any nukes to worry about and they still bankroll them today. Add 1 and 1 together.

The vietnamese don't avenge their ancestors. Can't say the same about the muslim world. India opted out of this macho BS a long time ago. The paks did it with glory and ruined themselves in the process. Let US dig itself deeper. They are pragmatists after all.

vsdoc
12 May 11,, 08:54
@vsdoc
The americans want the af-pak region to return to pre-9/11 stage. Back when the locals squabbled and fought among themselves. It kept them away from the world stage. All things happened as usual until the twin towers fell. So they have gone back to the drawing board.

US bankrolled the pakistani's back when they didn't have any nukes to worry about and they still bankroll them today. Add 1 and 1 together.

The vietnamese don't avenge their ancestors. Can't say the same about the muslim world. India opted out of this macho BS a long time ago. The paks did it with glory and ruined themselves in the process. Let US dig itself deeper. They are pragmatists after all.

Vishal, its been a good 2-3 years since the Americans have realized that there is a serious disconnect between what they want and what they are getting.

nvishal
12 May 11,, 09:14
Vishal, its been a good 2-3 years since the Americans have realized that there is a serious disconnect between what they want and what they are getting.
If the punjabis cannot take control of these tanzims then who will?

vsdoc
12 May 11,, 09:21
The Punjabis at max can take control of Punjab. If at all. Which is what I see as the real pakistan very soon. That's all they can chew on. The rest was lost a long time ago. They just choose to brazen it out to the world as otherwise. The real fight will be against getting landlocked. They are (or will be sooner rather than later) least bothered about their western flank and their grandiose once-upon-a-time strategic depth wet dreams. It is in India's strategic interests to have a strong Pakistan. A strong Pakistan busy on its western flank.

nvishal
12 May 11,, 12:07
vsdoc, the punjabi's have no qualms about using their tanks on balochis or pashtuns.

The punjabi's cannot administer. They cannot guarantee normalcy. They cannot make weapons on their own. They do not have the brains to run an economy. They're intellectually zero. But those are not their concerns. What they do have is "brute force"; which according to their arguments, makes them "true rulers".

They have the boldness and the belligerence to crush the tanzims though they don't want to. Taliban and its offshoots gives them access to control afghanistan and keeps other nations away from this madness.

Sure, thousands of pakistani army men have died battling these tanzims but that is an accepted cost. The PA cannot fight the US directly. But it can indirectly through the taliban. On the top, it appears as if it is fighting the taliban which it substantiates through the thousand dead PA men. But underneath it, it is actually fighting the US.

Look at it this way. In the end, what are pakistan's objectives?
Defeating the taliban would mean an end to its hopes for "strategic depth" wrt afghanistan. Why would it give up those hopes and accept the cost of a thousand something dead PA men? So these men didn't died for no reason. They died battling the taliban but someone had something else in mind.

vsdoc
12 May 11,, 12:34
vsdoc, the punjabi's have no qualms about using their tanks on balochis or pashtuns.

The punjabi's cannot administer. They cannot guarantee normalcy. They cannot make weapons on their own. They do not have the brains to run an economy. They're intellectually zero. But those are not their concerns. What they do have is "brute force"; which according to their arguments, makes them "true rulers".

They have the boldness and the belligerence to crush the tanzims though they don't want to. Taliban and its offshoots gives them access to control afghanistan and keeps other nations away from this madness.

Sure, thousands of pakistani army men have died battling these tanzims but that is an accepted cost. The PA cannot fight the US directly. But it can indirectly through the taliban. On the top, it appears as if it is fighting the taliban which it substantiates through the thousand dead PA men. But underneath it, it is actually fighting the US.

Look at it this way. In the end, what are pakistan's objectives?
Defeating the taliban would mean an end to its hopes for "strategic depth" wrt afghanistan. Why would it give up those hopes and accept the cost of a thousand something dead PA men? So these men didn't died for no reason. They died battling the taliban but someone had something else in mind.

I agree with all you are saying. With the Pashtuns and the Balochis as good as gone, and with no love lost between the Sindhis and the Punjabis either, we are in effect going to be left with a Punjabi Pakistan. Life comes full circle back to 1947. But they will fight (to the last Sindhi/mohajir) for Karachi - of that I am sure. P.S. I hope we are not digressing.

ambidex
12 May 11,, 12:48
India does not spend billions to understand Pakistanis. We are cheap that is why we are not resolving pending Issues, not because we do not understand them well. India understand Lahori Logic better than Americans :rolleyes:.

S2
12 May 11,, 13:49
"...India understand Lahori Logic better than Americans ..."

Sure. Some real rocket science necessary to understand what the Pakistani military are thinking. Money isn't the key to reaching accord either so it's not a matter of cheap or otherwise.

ambidex
12 May 11,, 15:30
"...India understand Lahori Logic better than Americans ..."
Sure. Some real rocket science necessary to understand what the Pakistani military are thinking. Money isn't the key to reaching accord either so it's not a matter of cheap or otherwise.

Sir,

And who wants to reach an accord with Pakistan? Some liberal apologist Indians or Pakistanis? They are minority.
The horns will remain entangle even if Kashmir will be resolved to the likes of both. This is what Musharraf has said, this is what friend of Pakistan will not like to see; horns at ease.

What would you do to reach an accord with them after stopping aid money to Pakistan. B 52 instead of drones or both?
India cannot do either. We wait, it’s cheap. We waited from 1947 till 1971. We are waiting again.

We have patience because we are in neighbourhood and have different intentions unlike rich America. But what is/was common between India and America vis a vis Pakistan?
#Confrontation.
Musharraf avoided it by Lahori Logic. He became ally and rescued Taliban at the same time before first onslaught, OBL home Pakistan in ~2006, so and so forth. A long list of American frustration till date. It’s a rocket science for Americans, i am running short of fingers in my hand counting years USA spent understanding it.

Why Iraq was easy even when it do not have mud houses like Afghanistan and Pakistan (areas of American interest in Pakistan). Iraqi could have bled you longer than AQ/Taliban.

Regards

Dreadnought
12 May 11,, 16:32
What would you do to reach an accord with them after stopping aid money to Pakistan. B 52 instead of drones or both?
India cannot do either. We wait, it’s cheap. We waited from 1947 till 1971. We are waiting again.

We have patience because we are in neighbourhood and have different intentions unlike rich America. But what is/was common between India and America vis a vis Pakistan?
#Confrontation.
Musharraf avoided it by Lahori Logic. He became ally and rescued Taliban at the same time before first onslaught, OBL home Pakistan in ~2006, so and so forth. A long list of American frustration till date. It’s a rocket science for Americans, i am running short of fingers in my hand counting years USA spent understanding it.

Why Iraq was easy even when it do not have mud houses like Afghanistan and Pakistan (areas of American interest in Pakistan). Iraqi could have bled you longer than AQ/Taliban.

If you dont mind, please do explain "Rich Americas" intentions?

ambidex
12 May 11,, 17:47
If you dont mind, please do explain "Rich America" intentions?

I think its 'unlike' not 'Intention' making confusion here. My English sucks.

What i was trying to say that both US and India have different issues with Pakistan and both have different way of dealing with Pakistan.

India's Intention: Fence the borders, Stop infiltration to curb terrorism etc.

America's Intention: Successfully win WOT thousands of miles away from home.

Rich: I could have wrote that US can afford to pay someone who is doing perfidy.

Regards.

PS: Before someone else call me out especially for my Iraqi comment i would like to say that Pakistani complicity has made WOT more laborious. Me not an expert but i would like to know if the 10 years of time spent of WOT is well justifiable.

Vinod2070
12 May 11,, 19:27
Pakistan is dependent on billions of foreign aid from IMF and US and they have the audacity to call Americans "filthy?"

Agnostic Muslim is living in Michigan, receiving education benefits, and freedoms that our US soldiers provide, and AM is talking this filth? Is this typical Pakistani culture?

Isn't willful blindness a survival mechanism in Pakistan?

Why don't Pakistan make al qaeda provide money and education to better Pakistan instead of making it a hell hole? :mad:

Yes, given these people's hatred for the West in general and USA in particular, it is surprising they chose to leave their country to live in a country they so detest.

Vinod2070
12 May 11,, 19:45
vsdoc, the punjabi's have no qualms about using their tanks on balochis or pashtuns.

The punjabi's cannot administer. They cannot guarantee normalcy. They cannot make weapons on their own. They do not have the brains to run an economy. They're intellectually zero. But those are not their concerns. What they do have is "brute force"; which according to their arguments, makes them "true rulers".

They have the boldness and the belligerence to crush the tanzims though they don't want to. Taliban and its offshoots gives them access to control afghanistan and keeps other nations away from this madness.

Sure, thousands of pakistani army men have died battling these tanzims but that is an accepted cost. The PA cannot fight the US directly. But it can indirectly through the taliban. On the top, it appears as if it is fighting the taliban which it substantiates through the thousand dead PA men. But underneath it, it is actually fighting the US.

Look at it this way. In the end, what are pakistan's objectives?
Defeating the taliban would mean an end to its hopes for "strategic depth" wrt afghanistan. Why would it give up those hopes and accept the cost of a thousand something dead PA men? So these men didn't died for no reason. They died battling the taliban but someone had something else in mind.

Actually the Pakistani Punjabis are a lot more noise and shoshabaji than any real worth, intellectually or martially. See the whole history of the region if you need to see the proof.

I remember reading an article by a Pakistani Punjabi writer (Ayaz Amir IIRC) who exposed this clearly, giving examples of how the Punjabis rolled over to every military ruler etc. many of whom were non Punjabis.

Dreadnought
12 May 11,, 21:53
PS: Before someone else call me out especially for my Iraqi comment i would like to say that Pakistani complicity has made WOT more laborious. Me not an expert but i would like to know if the 10 years of time spent of WOT is well justifiable.

IMO, Yep, hes dead and it proves the point that no matter what it takes or how much time passes or how many troops give their lives (Personally I dont think 1000 of THEM is worth even 1 of OUR Troops lives) in chasing him and his followers you wont escape us after attacking the US no matter how far you run or in whose country you hide. His Egyptian friend is next on the list.

And I think its a joke that his son believes the US broke International Law by killing him. People like him never cease to amaze me. Another Idiot.

Double Edge
12 May 11,, 23:59
IMO, Yep, hes dead and it proves the point that no matter what it takes or how much time passes or how many troops give their lives (Personally I dont think 1000 of THEM is worth even 1 of OUR Troops lives) in chasing him and his followers you wont escape us after attacking the US no matter how far you run or in whose country you hide. His Egyptian friend is next on the list.
How many US casualties as a result of pursuing him ? Ain't talking about this latest op but the war. Can we even put a figure to it.

It makes more sense if one phrases as attacking the ideas he represents rather than him per se.


India cannot do either. We wait, it’s cheap. We waited from 1947 till 1971. We are waiting again.
We just got a contemporary lesson in what it takes to get the ppl we want.

Pay up or might as well wait forever. Even paying up leaves much to be desired going by the US experience. Since we offer nothing all we are left with is rhetoric aka hot air. It wasn't always like this. Benazir served up the Khalistani's some time back. Something has changed since then, any idea what ?

notorious_eagle
13 May 11,, 00:28
I agree with all you are saying. With the Pashtuns and the Balochis as good as gone, and with no love lost between the Sindhis and the Punjabis either, we are in effect going to be left with a Punjabi Pakistan. Life comes full circle back to 1947. But they will fight (to the last Sindhi/mohajir) for Karachi - of that I am sure. P.S. I hope we are not digressing.

Please tell me your joking, i am curious to know how you came up with this conclusion. Have you ever been to Pakistan, have you personally interviewed Baloch's and Pukhtuns to arrive at this conclusion?

Pukhtuns are a part of Pakistan's society whether its civil service or military. There have been several COAS and DG ISI in the past whom were Pukhtuns. Right now our current DG ISI is a fierce Pukthun, the men whose name have been floated to replace him are Lt Gen Tariq Khan and Major Gen Isfandiyar Ali Pataudi whom are also fierce Pukthuns. The Pukhtuns are fierce and loyal Pakistanis and have never been afraid to give up their life for their country. Look at the last two soldiers whom received Nishan e Haider, they both were Pukhtuns.

I myself am an ethnic Baloch and i am fiercely proud of being a Pakistani. As the Army increased its recruitment drive in Balochistan, scores of Baloch rushed in to join the Pakistan Army. Baloch as a whole are very proud of being Pakistanis; its only a couple of feudals whom with the help of certain consulates in Afghanistan, are creating problems for the State. But they by no means represent a threat in which Balochistan will be torn away from Pakistan, if today the Pakistan Government announces cash rewards of a couple of million dollars, you will see how patriotic these feudals are.

I will conclude by saying, stop pretending to be an expert on a topic which you have no idea about. Indians have been predicting the break up of Pakistan since its inception, this is nothing new to us. Whether its Balochi, Sindhi, Seraiki, Hazaras, Punjabi or Pushtuns, we are all part of Pakistan.

Double Edge
13 May 11,, 00:42
Look at it this way. In the end, what are pakistan's objectives?
Defeating the taliban would mean an end to its hopes for "strategic depth" wrt afghanistan. Why would it give up those hopes and accept the cost of a thousand something dead PA men?
How can the US leave Afghanistan in that case ?


The United States targeted liquidation of Osama bin Laden deep within Pakistani territory could turn out to be the most defining moment for the United States strategic formulations in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Objectively, it suggests that it is time for the United States to disengage from its tenuous strategic relationship with Pakistan and strongly opt for a continued embedment in Afghanistan.

The salience of this imperative becomes stronger when viewed in the context of the Pakistan-China strategic nexus getting intensified to prompt US exit from the region. Pakistani overtures to enlist Afghanistan in this nexus even as it swears to a strong Pakistan -US strategic relationship should worry policy planners in Washington.
US: Strategic implications of targeted liquidation of OBL-SAG (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers45/paper4465.html)

nvishal
13 May 11,, 08:03
How can the US leave Afghanistan in that case ?
I agree. They won't leave. It was difficult for me to agree on this because i see no achievable purpose left to continue staying in afghanistan.

I think keeping the paks out of afg is a good objective even if it means having an unstable afghanistan.

In the end, this war is a psychological one. The last nine years of battle hasn't broken anyone. The americans need to break pakistans ambitions of "strategic depth" wrt afg once and for all. They need to make the world understand crystal clear that they are ready to occupy afg for the next 20 years if the need be. This declared long term commitment will have a psychological effect on the taliban and its offshoots. It might break their will.

Tronic
13 May 11,, 08:58
Sir,

And who wants to reach an accord with Pakistan? Some liberal apologist Indians or Pakistanis? They are minority.

lolz. who're you kidding? :biggrin:

Theres wishful thinking. Than theres reality.

What was Shimla treaty?

notorious_eagle
13 May 11,, 09:02
I agree. They won't leave. It was difficult for me to agree on this because i see no achievable purpose left to continue staying in afghanistan.

I think keeping the paks out of afg is a good objective even if it means having an unstable afghanistan.

In the end, this war is a psychological one. The last nine years of battle hasn't broken anyone. The americans need to break pakistans ambitions of "strategic depth" wrt afg once and for all. They need to make the world understand crystal clear that they are ready to occupy afg for the next 20 years if the need be. This declared long term commitment will have a psychological effect on the taliban and its offshoots. It might break their will.

What do you think in your opinion 'Strategic Depth' is from Pakistan's point of view? Military and Civilian Government.

Thanks

Tronic
13 May 11,, 09:05
India understand Lahori Logic better than Americans :rolleyes:.

Some people love jumping the gun, but let me quote Cactus again:


If Indians could really understand Paks better than anyone else, India would have completely solved its Pakistani Problem by now -- by either making a mutually acceptable peace, or by waging a decisive war. The fact is, most Indians understand the Paks just enough to be insulted by them (and insult them in return).

vsdoc
13 May 11,, 09:14
I will conclude by saying, stop pretending to be an expert on a topic which you have no idea about. Indians have been predicting the break up of Pakistan since its inception, this is nothing new to us. Whether its Balochi, Sindhi, Seraiki, Hazaras, Punjabi or Pushtuns, we are all part of Pakistan.

I left the fauj long ago. But I have well placed batchmates and other brothers still with the fauj who are experts. Plus I read. Plus I have a TV in my house. Plus there is a boy who comes sharp every morning at 7 and delivers the newspaper. Plus I am connected to the world wide web. Plus I am an Indian who travels and meets people beyond the boundaries of his own country.

I think that should be enough for you. I may be no expert. But suffice to say, you too are really not that complicated to figure out. As S2 so succinctly put it, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand what makes you tick and which buttons to press to get the desired result.

I on my own part will conclude by saying that while I have no wish for a ghisa-pita India pakistan tu tu main main with you, you do need to read up on your history. India and Indians did not leave things at just simply predicting the break up of Pakistan since your inception.

And I will let you in on another secret. I am related by blood to the man who broke you into two.

Cheers, Doc

nvishal
13 May 11,, 10:25
What do you think in your opinion 'Strategic Depth' is from Pakistan's point of view? Military and Civilian Government.
The web is filled with ambiguous interpretations of that term. Whether it is avoiding a two front confrontation or to retreat from a narrow geography. They are creative but they could become possible scenarios if india is finally forced to make up its mind about what it wants to do with pakistan.

vsdoc
13 May 11,, 10:51
I do not believe that the US has much left in the tank - more in terms of the will than the resources, though both are running thin - to stay on in Afghanistan.

I do not believe that the US believes anymore that Pakistan is the entity that will naturally move (or be allowed to move) in to fill that void.

I do not believe that the Afghan state - civil or fledgling military - is in any state of readiness nor will it be for quite some time to take the entire responsibility for their country once the US and NATO forces pull out completely.

I believe the Russians have had this wide vindicated "told you so" grin plastered on their faces for most of this past decade. They have enough on their plate economically to even consider a second innings. Their proxies however will be most active, as will be those of the Chinese.

I do not believe that Iran will tolerate a pakistan hand in Afghanistan - now or ever.

I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the region for the US to be eyeball-to-eyeball with Iran were they to continue to want an embedded interest in Afghanistan, that overrode their prime interests of WOT

I believe that the US would increasingly recognize that basic disconnect as well.

I believe that the US would then have to seamlessly insert and maintain someone there to fill their void.

Someone they could trust, regionally and globally.

Someone militarily strong and financially sound. A puppet would not work - no matter what the external support provided.

Someone acceptable to the Afghans - all sides.

Someone acceptable to at least one of the Afghans' immediate neighbors, preferably both.

Someone not in direct competition with their own interests - at least for some time into the foreseeable future.

The US will increasingly be working behind the scenes to make that call sooner rather than later.

But I also believe that the call would entail a major paradigm shift in strategic policy for both parties. Time will tell.

Tronic
13 May 11,, 11:33
India and Indians did not leave things at just simply predicting the break up of Pakistan since your inception.

And I will let you in on another secret. I am related by blood to the man who broke you into two.

Cheers, Doc

There were several people responsible, the majority of them being Pakistanis.

That said, I don't know how happy that chap, whoever it is that you are related to, would be reading the hate-mongering you are invoking his name for. I happen to be related to General Harbaksh, and he would drill you into the ground for throwing around names of respected officers stamped up on your hate filled ideology. For all the wars General Harbaksh fought (and he fought in every conflict India was ever in since and including World War 2), he only had light hearted stories to share about some of his ex-batch mates, who later on would end up leading the Pakistani army (and also eventually ruling that country ;) ). These d!ck measuring contests are for the sheeps mate, snap out of it!

ambidex
13 May 11,, 12:41
lolz. who're you kidding? :biggrin:

Theres wishful thinking. Than theres reality.

What was Shimla treaty?

Well, You can not see irony in my first post.

Anyhow, Shimla treaty was not something invented by some peace loving south block Indian for Pakistan, It was the only way out following 1971 war. We reached our peak of animosity and objective as well. We didn't went for POK afterwards because we ran out of everything.

@ DD Benazir offering Khalistanis was not a treat extended to Indians but her fear of loosing Balochistan. The deal was done, this is what Raman mentioned somewhere.

Double Edge
13 May 11,, 13:27
I believe that the US would then have to seamlessly insert and maintain someone there to fill their void.

Someone they could trust, regionally and globally.

Someone militarily strong and financially sound. A puppet would not work - no matter what the external support provided.

Someone acceptable to the Afghans - all sides.

Someone acceptable to at least one of the Afghans' immediate neighbors, preferably both.

Someone not in direct competition with their own interests - at least for some time into the foreseeable future.

The US will increasingly be working behind the scenes to make that call sooner rather than later.

But I also believe that the call would entail a major paradigm shift in strategic policy for both parties. Time will tell.
Are you willing to ponder on WHO that 'someone' will be ?


@ DD Benazir offering Khalistanis was not a treat extended to Indians but her fear of loosing Balochistan. The deal was done, this is what Raman mentioned somewhere.
Would Tronic agree with this ?

S2
13 May 11,, 17:48
"I do not believe that the US has much left in the tank - more in terms of the will than the resources, though both are running thin - to stay on in Afghanistan..."

We've far more in the tank than implied above. Our presence in Iraq will be long-term. The form is changing at present. It may change again down the road. So too in Afghanistan. I disagree but not because of resources nor determination.

"...I do not believe that the US believes anymore that Pakistan is the entity that will naturally move (or be allowed to move) in to fill that void..."

I don't believe we ever did. The U.N. mandate is clear in that respect-establish an independant and self-sustaining Afghanistan.

"...I do not believe that the Afghan state - civil or fledgling military - is in any state of readiness nor will it be for quite some time to take the entire responsibility for their country once the US and NATO forces pull out completely..."

This may be correct. "...completely..." is the critical issue. How and what residual elements remain may determine Afghanistan's ability to sustain its near-term defense. There will unquestionably be improvement over the next five years. To what degree is unknown as yet and remains to be seen.

"...I believe the Russians have had this wide vindicated "told you so" grin plastered on their faces for most of this past decade..."

Irrelevant and not necessarily even valid. Circumstances were and remain markedly different. Lessons from one era aren't automatically transferrable to another.

"...They have enough on their plate economically to even consider a second innings..."

They have strategic and nat'l security interests that can't nor will be ignored.

"...Their proxies however will be most active..."

To that end their nat'l security interests may be served. I doubt we'd see direct intervention except by invitation of the GoA. That is very unlikely.

"...as will be those of the Chinese..."

The PRC's security influence is represented by the GoP. The PRC, however, will endeavor to build a second and direct economic conduit into Kabul that avoids fractrous direct association with Islamabad.

"...I do not believe that Iran will tolerate a pakistan hand in Afghanistan - now or ever..."

Concur.

"...I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the region for the US to be eyeball-to-eyeball with Iran were they to continue to want an embedded interest in Afghanistan, that overrode their prime interests of WOT..."

Iran's conduct with Afghanistan and America shall determine how events will proceed. America will go wherever we believe our interests are furthered. Development of CAR and Afghanistan are valid geo-strategic objectives for America. The nature of that development and end-objectives are less clear to me but there's little denying the value of the region. We've the means and possess much that's held of value within those countries so there's some congruence. Iran won't deny our engagement should we choose otherwise.

"...I believe that the US would increasingly recognize that basic disconnect as well..."

We won't accomodate Iran's concerns at the cost of our interests.

"...I believe that the US would then have to seamlessly insert and maintain someone there to fill their void.

Someone they could trust, regionally and globally.

Someone militarily strong and financially sound. A puppet would not work - no matter what the external support provided.

Someone acceptable to the Afghans - all sides.

Someone acceptable to at least one of the Afghans' immediate neighbors, preferably both.

Someone not in direct competition with their own interests - at least for some time into the foreseeable future.

The US will increasingly be working behind the scenes to make that call sooner rather than later.

But I also believe that the call would entail a major paradigm shift in strategic policy for both parties. Time will tell."

I believe India's rather late to the party...by choice. Your level of engagement has been restricted...by choice. To date, India's interests have been served admirably by ISAF/America without great incurred expense.

India will have to pay its own price to the party and hasn't displayed the requisite determination (blood) and ducats to ante up.

That trust isn't complete yet. Judging by those at this board there's no end to self-serving motivation and a very quick limit to Afghan altruism. TRUST, IMV, would necessitate an Indian governmental policy that sees a self-sustaining, self-defended Afghanistan as a good neighbor to all-including Pakistan. Being a good neighbor would entail serving as a common gateway to CAR resources while protecting the territorial integrity of its eastern neighbor.

Of course it's a two-way street but to what end is India prepared to support that end-goal for Afghanistan? To what extent would India endeavor to make transparent to Pakistan the activities she conducts in Afghanistan? Or, heaven forbid, even invite Pakistan as a joint partner?

I read a lot here and elsewhere about Indian regional and global aspirations. When will those nat'l interests be reflected and manifested by a broader vision for regional and global development?

Kasrkin
13 May 11,, 18:12
You talk of peace sir, your post somehow putting the onus of that on us Indians - failure to achieve that implied as not understanding the pakistani psyche. How many wars have we fought with pakistan? How many were started by us? How many were finished by us? And having done so, how often did we keep what we won? We understand the pakistani psyche only too well. We have paid in blood for that understanding. Much much much more than any other country in the world.

Well, I don't think western historians generally look at the history of Indo-Pak rivalry in a way anywhere near as skewed as you. There is bad blood between Pakistan and India, but dumping the blame for all this on any one antagonist's door as casually as you have makes you very partial indeed. And psychologically compromised as far as understanding Pakistan, as pointed out.


So when we tell you about Pakistanis, please listen. It is to your advantage, cause it comes from people with much the same values and belief systems as you. And it comes from a people who are not actively courting you or have anything to gain from you or are working to a hidden agenda at cross purposes to yours. We value America's friendship, and truth be told, it was a relief to our generation when America finally softened and warmed up. But please also remember that we did pretty ok without America for most of our independent nationhood - at a time when we were much weaker and way poorer than what we are today.

Quite to the contrary, India has everything to gain by seeing Pakistan isolated and weakened internationally, least of which is the emotional satisfaction of vindication against an old nemesis. You may try and dress India's political efforts against Pakistan as 'self-less advice' but I don't think anyone with a logical mind will see it that way.


When you talk of pakistan, you are basically talking about their army. Period. Their politicians will play cameos now and then, pad their pockets, then be banished into exile in some foreign country, or get assassinated. The army will always stay. It will outlast and outlive Pakistan. So for pakistan, war with India is not the existential threat they would have you and others in the West believe. For Pakistan, and by default the Pakistan Army, peace with India is the existential threat. And therefore that will never be allowed to happen.

This is a very common myth, but it will never stand up to facts. Firstly, I wonder if you know how convenient this narrative is: that Indo-Pak rivalry is sustained only by the Pakistan military's desire of confronting India to maintain its domestic influence (and not because of any larger geo-strategic issues in which India could possibly share some responsibility) for INDIAN PR purposes. Secondly, this claim is baseless because the Pakistan Army does not need an external rival to be the most organized, respected (relatively), disciplined and thus powerful institution in Pakistan. Countries like Turkey and Indonesia, which are similar to Pakistan in many ways, have armies that are disproportionally influential in all aspects of the country, despite no extraordinary external rivalry. The Pakistan Army, like many others, draws it political leverage from the ineptitude and corruption of the political class and its institutions, when people start looking at it as an alternative. You don't have to believe me, just read any history book on Pakistan NOT written by an Indian.

You'd note, also, it was Musharraf, a military leader, who pushed so hard for peace with India and a resolution to Kashmir, to the point of unofficial negotiations and 'out of the box' thinking, much to the cost of his domestic popularity. If, as president, the institution that was empowering him risked losing everything if peace with India was achieved, why would he even have bothered? It was Field Marshal Ayub who settled the massive dispute of the river waters with India in the Indus Water Treaty rather conclusively, eliminating that flash point. The military as an institution wants peace just as much as anyone else. They have a budget obviously larger than would have otherwise been if India was not an antagonistic rival, but that is not the sources of their political or popular power.

Has it occurred to you that the perception of threat from India in the Pakistani military might be genuine? And that this may be echoed in the larger Pakistani populace, not as a propaganda induced anti-Indian frenzy, but as a genuine concern? Is it not, after all, reasonable for Pakistan to feel threatened by an India with bulging military might, and such corrosive opinions against Pakistan and its institutions? Your theory conveniently precludes even the prospect of peace with Pakistan before its ARMY is eliminated, which is a circular logic leading only to troubled relations with Pakistan and possibly war down the road.


On our side, India today does not want mutually acceptable peace with Pakistan sir. Nor are we stupid to try for the decisive all-out war you refer to. We will concentrate on what we control - and that is our own soil, our own people, our economy, our growth, our poor, our security. We will attempt to secure our borders. We will further insulate ourselves from the mayhem next door. Yet continue to grow our muscle should our neighbors ever get too frisky. And we will use everything at our disposal to isolate and expose and discredit Pakistan in front of the world. We will not engage. Rather we will actively disengage. Seems to be working well for us wouldn't you say?

Yes, India isn't too bothered with making a comprehensive or conclusive peace with Pakistan. Why? Because they feel they're not obligated to. Its not worth losing their control over Kashmir or being seen as capitulating to a 'weaker' and much hated foe (compromises on both sides would surely be necessary). And besides, like you said, India's military power is rising, not decreasing, relative to Pakistan. Would Pakistanis just ignore all these threat indicators, and forget India? Well, you may think they should, but they won't. Thats Pakistani psychology for you that you supposedly understand so well.


You say we need to understand them. I say we do - more than anyone else. But I also say it really does not matter to us anymore. We are not the ones dealing with them on a daily basis. Nor are we the ones pumping in money and hardware to keep them afloat. We have bigger fish to fry - and the hyphenation as it were with a small and insignificant neighbor is only there in their minds.

It is a mistake to think India can ignore relations with neighbors, regardless of how much political/military muscle you think it can accumulate. Eventually, it will need to be settled, and destroying or otherwise coercively changing the Pakistan Army is the very least likely way to do that.

Vinod2070
13 May 11,, 19:14
^^ Well, it is a fact that PA as an institution derives its legitimacy and disproportionate size and influence from keeping the India card alive.

If that card is gone, it will lose its very raison d'ętre. Institutional interests can take a life of their own, beyond the purpose they were created for.

As far as I see, India is improving relations with all neighbors. They are decent to good with everyone except Pakistan.

As long as you keep that Jihadi card alive, I don't think relations are really going to improve. A cold peace and wary cautiousness is the best that can be expected under the circumstances. We will try and wait you out.

Vinod2070
13 May 11,, 19:16
The Pakistan Army, like many others, draws it political leverage from the ineptitude and corruption of the political class and its institutions, when people start looking at it as an alternative. You don't have to believe me, just read any history book on Pakistan NOT written by an Indian.

There are several Pakistani commentators who won't agree with you here.

S2
13 May 11,, 19:19
Nice reply. I'm in disagreement with some of it but it's a well-thought summary.

"Countries like Turkey... have armies that are disproportionally influential in all aspects of the country, despite no extraordinary external rivalry."

There's been significant change WRT Turkey that's not been duplicated inside Pakistan.

"Has it occurred to you that the perception of threat from India in the Pakistani military might be genuine? And that this may be echoed in the larger Pakistani populace, not as a propaganda induced anti-Indian frenzy, but as a genuine concern? Is it not, after all, reasonable for Pakistan to feel threatened by an India with bulging military might, and such corrosive opinions against Pakistan and its institutions? Your theory conveniently precludes even the prospect of peace with Pakistan before its ARMY is eliminated, which is a circular logic leading only to troubled relations with Pakistan and possibly war down the road."

You make excellent points that Pakistan is served by India's own PR campaigns against her. It is part of the prevailing narrative from both sides. Above, however, while not diminishing the threat posed by India in absolute terms, you (like many Pakistanis) seem to fail placing that threat within overall and risk-mitigation context.

India's larger objectives don't seem served by aggressive war made upon Pakistan. Neither does it seem possible under the present correlation of forces nor is it desirable given both risks and overt costs. What's attained from such? If not aggressive offensive war then what threat is posed?

"Well, you may think they should, but they won't. Thats Pakistani psychology for you that you supposedly understand so well."

This is an example of "context". In the absence of proper context there's a certain myopia attached to Pakistani perceptions. An increase in Indian military strength will constitute a threat to Pakistani military capabilities but not in isolation. It is an expression of regional interests reaching in directions other than simply Pakistan. The question becomes to what degree Pakistan honestly considers such or, conversely, uses to fuel anxiety. This is a function of threat analysis and risk-mitigation.

In the end, Pakistan's question must be what is the MINIMAL necessary deterrant to dissuade aggressive offensive action by India and within what context? The only likely scenario I foresee for offensive operations by India against Pakstan fall within the context of counter-terror ops conducted in retaliation for activities coming from inside your border. Another Mumbai may generate just such a response.

It would be viewed globally, foremost, as a "response". To that end, what responsibility would Pakistan hold after-the-fact and how might such be sincerely mitigated beforehand?

"It is a mistake to think India can ignore relations with neighbors..."

Failure to achieve your political objectives in Kashmir or, for instance, a de-militarization of the LOC and Punjab doesn't necessarily mean Pakistan has been "ignored" or that India necessarily ignores the aspirations of other regional entities. Again, such is an example of a myopic pre-occupation.

I agree that India needs to be more magnanimous in pursuing diplomatic solutions with Pakistan but it'll take mutually satisfying efforts to achieve worthy end-goals. In short, it takes two to tango. I'm as unimpressed by the climate for such in Pakistan as I might be with India.

nvishal
13 May 11,, 20:07
S2, I wish nothing but good for afg but you seem to place too much significance to the importance that india has for afg. I only hope that it were like that in actuality.

I don't claim to read minds. But i think we must acknowledge russia for being the bigger man for not reciprocating.


I read a lot here and elsewhere about Indian regional and global aspirations. When will those nat'l interests be reflected and manifested by a broader vision for regional and global development?
There are as many hindu nationalists who argue in favour of akhand bharat as there are who oppose it.

Kasrkin
13 May 11,, 20:28
There's been significant change WRT Turkey that's not been duplicated inside Pakistan.

I'd be skeptical about that. Criticisms still largely correspond, though Pakistan's a more intensive subject presently for different reasons.


You make excellent points that Pakistan is served by India's own PR campaigns against her. It is part of the prevailing narrative from both sides.

I don't think Pakistan is served by India's PR campaigns, in claiming so you're embracing the Indian perspective that Pakistan would prefer perpetual antagonism. There is plenty of distrust, granted. But I don't see Pakistan campaigning with the notion that attempts to achieve a conclusive peace with India are futile.


Above, however, while not diminishing the threat posed by India in absolute terms, you (like many Pakistanis) seem to fail placing that threat within overall and risk-mitigation context.

Thats your opinion. But you'll have to elaborate on it for me to respond.


India's larger objectives don't seem served by aggressive war made upon Pakistan. Neither does it seem possible under the present correlation of forces nor is it desirable given both risks and overt costs. What's attained from such? If not aggressive offensive war then what threat is posed?

There is some merit in this, but not enough to warrant complacency with military planners. India and Pakistan did come VERY close to war after the attack on the Indian parliament in 2003, your logic could've been applied then too. Such wars have happened before, and none of them were waged in particular consideration to the risks and overt costs.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that India has ruled out large scale war, while their shorter war doctrines also constitute enough of a threat.


It would be viewed globally, foremost, as a "response". To that end, what responsibility would Pakistan hold after-the-fact and how might such be sincerely mitigated beforehand?

If you're asserting that Pakistan is ignorant of and/or unwilling to mitigate the risks of war in terms of reining in blatant terrorist attacks on India from its soil, then I'd have to disagree ofcourse. The Mumbai attacks were very embarrassing and damaging for Pakistan, particularly the targeting of foreigners. But I would point out, that this mitigation of risks itself is constricted by threats represented by the Indian military's Pakistan-specific 'Cold Start' doctrine for instance.


Failure to achieve your political objectives in Kashmir or, for instance, a de-militarization of the LOC and Punjab doesn't necessarily mean Pakistan has been "ignored" or that India necessarily ignores the aspirations of other regional entities. Again, such is an example of a myopic pre-occupation.

My response was to that post in specific. But yes these critical issues have been largely ignored, at great cost. They may be the only way to break this cycle of hostility and threat perception, which is in everyones interests. It may not be high on the American agenda, but I don't think that makes it myopic, not to us. No more than the drive to destroy a militarily meek international outfit like al-Qaeda anyway.

Kasrkin
13 May 11,, 20:36
There are several Pakistani commentators who won't agree with you here.

I know. And I've written letters to some of them. Doesn't necessarily make me wrong.

Tronic
13 May 11,, 20:43
Anyhow, Shimla treaty was not something invented by some peace loving south block Indian for Pakistan, It was the only way out following 1971 war. We reached our peak of animosity and objective as well. We didn't went for POK afterwards because we ran out of everything.

"Peace loving south block" Indians? Your bigotry doesn't even spare your own countrymen. You're still a teenager I'm guessing, but you're treading ethnic/racial lines here. There was a Brigadier here who led a South Indian regiment, go confront him with your views.


Would Tronic agree with this ?

I wouldn't know if that deal had anything to do with the Baloch. Benazir may have pulled back support for the Khalistani militants but she allowed the Kashmir militancy to continue. It may have been due to several factors, Punjab's border is an IB, where else Kashmir is an LoC. Khalistani militants crossing Punjab's borders, and hijacking Indian planes and landing them in Lahore, meant it was harder for the Pakistanis to deny their involvement. Where else Kashmir, they still consider an unsolved open game with no International boundary line. Another reason, even if Indian Punjab managed to secede and become an independent state, it wouldn't offer much to Pakistanis except a buffer state against India (where else India would still have Rajastan-Sindh corridor to enter Pakistan); Kashmir on the other hand, offers Pakistanis control over their own water resources.


If, as president, the institution that was empowering him risked losing everything if peace with India was achieved, why would he even have bothered? It was Field Marshal Ayub who settled the massive dispute of the river waters with India in the Indus Water Treaty rather conclusively, eliminating that flash point.

To be fair, India had little to gain from the treaty; and had they wanted they would have starved Pakistan of water the previous 15 years without any treaty, yet they didn't. Indus water treaty materialized because both sides wanted to sit down and achieve some understanding, Ayub Khan could offer very little to India in exchange for undisturbed water sources.


Has it occurred to you that the perception of threat from India in the Pakistani military might be genuine? And that this may be echoed in the larger Pakistani populace, not as a propaganda induced anti-Indian frenzy, but as a genuine concern? Is it not, after all, reasonable for Pakistan to feel threatened by an India with bulging military might, and such corrosive opinions against Pakistan and its institutions? Your theory conveniently precludes even the prospect of peace with Pakistan before its ARMY is eliminated, which is a circular logic leading only to troubled relations with Pakistan and possibly war down the road.

Learnt people from your own country refute that this threat is "genuine". 2:50 onwards, is regarding the notion of India as an aggressor state against Pakistan, some points he raises you may wish to listen to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaRbRvCgy3E

And your own COAS of the Pakistani airforce:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57q_914QAU

Tronic
13 May 11,, 20:48
There are as many hindu nationalists who argue in favour of akhand bharat as there are who oppose it.

Hindu nationalists are not being discussed, nor are they politically powerful to matter a bit. BJP, a supposed Hindu nationalist front, have only shown it to be vote bank politics. In power, they have had the exact same policies as the Congress. Hell, it was a BJP government which, during the Kargil conflict, asked the Indian army not to cross the LoC into Pakistani territory to cut off their supply lines forcing the army to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

nvishal
13 May 11,, 21:03
Hindu nationalists are not being discussed, nor are they politically powerful to matter a bit. BJP, a supposed Hindu nationalist front, have only shown it to be vote bank politics. In power, they have had the exact same policies as the Congress. Hell, it was a BJP government which, during the Kargil conflict, asked the Indian army not to cross the LoC into Pakistani territory to cut off their supply lines forcing the army to fight with one hand tied behind their back.
I was talking about akhand bharat. You just emphasised on the point i was trying to make. The BJP itself rejects it.

Tronic
13 May 11,, 21:05
I was talking about akhand bharat. You just emphasised on the point i was trying to make. The BJP itself rejects it.

Discussing "Akhand Bharat" is as sensible as discussing return of Mughal rule. Both are fantasies steeped in mythology on 2 sides of the border.

Double Edge
13 May 11,, 21:28
S2,

Would like to go to town more with Kaskrin's post #204

Can i do this here or in another new thread titled 'Myths about Pakistan' ?

Sumku
13 May 11,, 22:27
:confused::confused::confused:
Since when has this thread become an India Vs Pakistan thread. If the thread is deviating so much from the main topic, its time for it to be closed down. Soon will start name calling and what not

S2
13 May 11,, 23:01
"Can i do this here or in another new thread titled 'Myths about Pakistan' ?"

Do as you wish or take it up with a mod. I'm no longer exercising such responsibility so it's not for me to say.

Parihaka
13 May 11,, 23:02
I read a lot here and elsewhere about Indian regional and global aspirations. When will those nat'l interests be reflected and manifested by a broader vision for regional and global development?

Aye there's the rub. It's not just the US that Pakistan consumes a disproportionate amount of time and resources of.

Double Edge
14 May 11,, 00:29
Benazir may have pulled back support for the Khalistani militants but she allowed the Kashmir militancy to continue. It may have been due to several factors, Punjab's border is an IB, where else Kashmir is an LoC. Khalistani militants crossing Punjab's borders, and hijacking Indian planes and landing them in Lahore, meant it was harder for the Pakistanis to deny their involvement. Where else Kashmir, they still consider an unsolved open game with no International boundary line. Another reason, even if Indian Punjab managed to secede and become an independent state, it wouldn't offer much to Pakistanis except a buffer state against India (where else India would still have Rajastan-Sindh corridor to enter Pakistan); Kashmir on the other hand, offers Pakistanis control over their own water resources.
I see, so the idea of them having done it in the past does not mean it can be achieved again ?

Leaving out the identity, thought this would be an example of them doing what we want. Transposing that former success into the present day might prove harder.

Double Edge
14 May 11,, 00:38
Ok, S2, if the mods feel like splitting the thread then thats fine.


This is a very common myth, but it will never stand up to facts. Firstly, I wonder if you know how convenient this narrative is: that Indo-Pak rivalry is sustained only by the Pakistan military's desire of confronting India to maintain its domestic influence (and not because of any larger geo-strategic issues in which India could possibly share some responsibility) for INDIAN PR purposes.
Take Kashmir, big issue for Pakistan and i've never figured out why you seem not to budge on it.

The Indus treaty has endured even in times of war, so water is not it. Though i understand this issue is nothing but domestic politics. Its easier to blame the foreigner than accept responsibility.

Reuniting with a muslim majority does not hold water either because we hear very little bout renuniting with the former east pakistan. Am out of reasons now.

Though holding it up is a good way of keeping the army at the forefront of affairs.


Secondly, this claim is baseless because the Pakistan Army does not need an external rival to be the most organized, respected (relatively), disciplined and thus powerful institution in Pakistan. Countries like Turkey and Indonesia, which are similar to Pakistan in many ways, have armies that are disproportionally influential in all aspects of the country, despite no extraordinary external rivalry. The Pakistan Army, like many others, draws it political leverage from the ineptitude and corruption of the political class and its institutions, when people start looking at it as an alternative. You don't have to believe me, just read any history book on Pakistan NOT written by an Indian.
Its not about having an external rival but rather the pretext. Half your budget goes to your army, is it any wonder that your ppl lose out on the benefits. The same happens even with aid. So yes I would agree when your countrymen say withholding aid will not have as detrimental an effect on the ppl of your country because they see so little of it anyway. Only the elites will lose out.


You'd note, also, it was Musharraf, a military leader, who pushed so hard for peace with India and a resolution to Kashmir, to the point of unofficial negotiations and 'out of the box' thinking, much to the cost of his domestic popularity. If, as president, the institution that was empowering him risked losing everything if peace with India was achieved, why would he even have bothered?
To say he tried ? -- and this goes both ways for sure because it collapsed after just two days. Both sides want to claim credit over having tried at Agra but its another question of whether either was genuine to begin with. Parliament attack by the end of the year. Both sides at loggerheads yet again. An excellent outcome for parties that want to paint the other as the antagonist.


It was Field Marshal Ayub who settled the massive dispute of the river waters with India in the Indus Water Treaty rather conclusively, eliminating that flash point. The military as an institution wants peace just as much as anyone else. They have a budget obviously larger than would have otherwise been if India was not an antagonistic rival, but that is not the sources of their political or popular power.
Half the budget, goes to them.

You also go on about antagonistic rival but can't say i've seen that in the last twenty years. Before it was different. Tell me what in the last twenty years has been antagonistic. The nuke test is the only thing that comes to mind and you were not the intended audience. That you replied so soon after is a further vindication.


Has it occurred to you that the perception of threat from India in the Pakistani military might be genuine? And that this may be echoed in the larger Pakistani populace, not as a propaganda induced anti-Indian frenzy, but as a genuine concern? Is it not, after all, reasonable for Pakistan to feel threatened by an India with bulging military might, and such corrosive opinions against Pakistan and its institutions? Your theory conveniently precludes even the prospect of peace with Pakistan before its ARMY is eliminated, which is a circular logic leading only to troubled relations with Pakistan and possibly war down the road.
No, the bolded bit is what i'm having trouble with.

Why don't other neighbouring smaller countries feel the same ?


Yes, India isn't too bothered with making a comprehensive or conclusive peace with Pakistan. Why? Because they feel they're not obligated to. Its not worth losing their control over Kashmir or being seen as capitulating to a 'weaker' and much hated foe (compromises on both sides would surely be necessary). And besides, like you said, India's military power is rising, not decreasing, relative to Pakistan. Would Pakistanis just ignore all these threat indicators, and forget India? Well, you may think they should, but they won't. Thats Pakistani psychology for you that you supposedly understand so well.
No, its because there is low confidence it will produce any positive results. The general public do not know whether to sh!t or go blind. So thats a win of sorts as well.


It is a mistake to think India can ignore relations with neighbors, regardless of how much political/military muscle you think it can accumulate. Eventually, it will need to be settled, and destroying or otherwise coercively changing the Pakistan Army is the very least likely way to do that.
Well, with both powers having a sucessful credible nuclear deterrent why should it matter to Pakistan. You had your test after mumbai, we blinked. Would think you feel very confident right now. And if thats the case then we've reached an equilibrium of sorts. So this means things get easier from now on, but that is not what i sense given events since then ie you're ramping up nuke production.

Therefore there are strong reasons that we are being held up as an excuse for the army to gain the lion's share of your country's resources.

S2
14 May 11,, 01:40
"...Half your budget goes to your army..."

I'd like to see your source please?

Kasrkin
14 May 11,, 01:45
Take Kashmir, big issue for Pakistan and i've never figured out why you seem not to budge on it.

Water is still relevant to Kashmir, highlighted by the recent bitter dispute over India's damn constructions. But water is not the only issue, Kashmir is a bleeding demographical frontier as well. The Kashmiri populace has traditionally had close social, political and linguistic ties with the majority Punjabis. Many Pakistanis do still believe in the cause of Kashmiri right of self determination. Whether you think this is illegitimate or some kind of collective hypocrisy is irrelevant, its just fact.


Half your budget goes to your army, is it any wonder that your ppl lose out on the benefits.

Half the budget is clearly an exaggeration. I think its only ever been that high during wartime. Its actually around 20%. Still higher than ideal, but understandably necessary.


To say he tried ? -- and this goes both ways for sure because it collapsed after just two days. Both sides want to claim credit over having tried at Agra but its another question of whether either was genuine to begin with. Parliament attack by the end of the year. Both sides at loggerheads yet again. An excellent outcome for parties that want to paint the other as the antagonist.

I'm not saying that all of his counterparts in India were not genuine, it didn't come through for reasons that can be debated. But it is widely understood, and logical, to conclude Musharraf did make genuine efforts, that were domestically costly to him.


You also go on about antagonistic rival but can't say i've seen that in the last twenty years. Before it was different. Tell me what in the last twenty years has been antagonistic. The nuke test is the only thing that comes to mind and you were not the intended audience. That you replied so soon after is a further vindication.

Massing half a million soldiers on Pakistan's borders after the Parliament attack comes to mind, as do explicit and implicit threats of war after the Mumbai attacks. The Cold Start Doctrine to name another.


Why don't other neighbouring smaller countries feel the same ?

Theres arguments to be made that they do, in the context of their security concerns with India ofcouse.


Therefore there are strong reasons that we are being held up as an excuse for the army to gain the lion's share of your country's resources.

Well, you can stick to your conclusion, but I don't think what you've said counters my argument. I've seen some of the links, will go through them again. Pakistani intelligentsia has always been very self-critical in our country, this is something I'm proud of. But I don't think they've said anything as clear-cut as you've implied, doubt anyones going to say India is entirely free of blame either. Lastly, even their opinions can be challenged. Might do so if I go over them.

Kasrkin
14 May 11,, 01:54
To be fair, India had little to gain from the treaty; and had they wanted they would have starved Pakistan of water the previous 15 years without any treaty, yet they didn't. Indus water treaty materialized because both sides wanted to sit down and achieve some understanding, Ayub Khan could offer very little to India in exchange for undisturbed water sources.

I'll be a little more critical about India's magnanimity in the matter, but all the same my point remains. It was perhaps the most concrete step towards a permanent peace with India taken by a military leader (arguably the military leader) of Pakistan.

Double Edge
14 May 11,, 02:05
"...Half your budget goes to your army..."

I'd like to see your source please?
See my earlier post of this thread here (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-terrorism-topics/60227-proof-truth-starts-come-about-7.html#post806803)

Its a transcript from the GPS show on CNN, and the person saying it is the editor of the Friday times in the presence of the Pakistani ambassador to the US.

OK, she says 'defense spending', so thats all branches, still quite a bit. In our respective countries its in the low single digits.

HKDan
14 May 11,, 02:24
Saw this on the Wired site, this makes me so happy I can hardly believe it. "Alone in his compound, he is beating it like it owes him cash." hahahahahaha

We Have Found bin Laden’s Porn | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/we-have-found-bin-ladens-porn/)


Osama bin Laden lived for as long as five years in a compound with no internet or phone communications. He found ways to occupy his time.

Intelligence officials sifting through the contents of bin Laden’s captured hard drives have made quite the discovery. “The pornography recovered in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan,” Reuters reports with an admirable deadpan, “consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive.” This is a great day for America.

If this is a CIA information operation — and how could it not be? — it’s the greatest one of all time. In public, bin Laden is the pious, self-proclaimed vanguard of a violent Islamic uprising. Alone in his compound, he’s beating it like it owes him cash.

Just to be That Guy, I tweeted at the Taliban’s English-language Twitter account what it makes of its old pal’s furtive encounters with himself. This is Internet Rule 34 to the Nth Degree.

“Please make it gay porn,” tweets the Washington Times‘ national security correspondent, Eli Lake.

I recommend checking out the hashtag #binLadenpr0n. So much of al-Qaida lore is tailor-made for pornographic parody. I mean, Ayman Zawahiri’s book Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner? Mohamed Atta’s coded message about when the 9/11 attacks would take place? (“Two sticks, a dash, a cake with a stick down.”) Give us your best suggestion in the comments.

Tronic
14 May 11,, 02:34
Water is still relevant to Kashmir, highlighted by the recent bitter dispute over India's damn constructions. But water is not the only issue, Kashmir is a bleeding demographical frontier as well. The Kashmiri populace has traditionally had close social, political and linguistic ties with the majority Punjabis.

No, the main Indian Kashmiris have nothing in common to the Punjabis. The only political connection they have is that they were once ruled by Punjabi Sikhs and later on by the Dogras.

You get confused here because you take one look at the Pakistani Kashmiris and you think that it is the same people across the border. Majority of Pakistani Kashmiris are ethnic Dogris, gujjars, or other Pahari people. Yes, Indian Kashmir also has the same ethnic groups, but those ethnic groups are the Hindu Kashmiris who are dominant in South Kashmir. The pre-dominant Muslim Kashmir valley which seeks secession (and secession does not mean they wish to unite with Pakistan) are ethnic Koshuri/Dardic people. They have nothing in similar with the people of Pakistani "Azad Kashmir", let alone Punjabis.

Double Edge
14 May 11,, 02:39
Water is still relevant to Kashmir, highlighted by the recent bitter dispute over India's damn constructions.
Hasn't breached the treaty though. I've watched debates where your ppl were saying those terms need to be renegotiated and the orginal was done from a position of weakness etc. But thats just cover for present bad management isn't it. We can't stop or adversely affect the water coming through. period. it would be an act of war.


But water is not the only issue, Kashmir is a bleeding demographical frontier as well. The Kashmiri populace has traditionally had close social, political and linguistic ties with the majority Punjabis. Many Pakistanis do still believe in the cause of Kashmiri right of self determination. Whether you think this is illegitimate or some kind of collective hypocrisy is irrelevant, its just fact.
It's not a question of hypocrisy. There has to be a stronger tangible reason to push for it for as long. Something that is critical to Pakistan's interest. Ppl to ppl ties seems somehwat less in that regard. Besides you have a lot more muslims elsehwhere in India, what about them. Why do Kashmiri's have more merit here.

Now, showing Kashmiri's being persecuted will make great PR for the cause, and there's plenty of things you can do to ensure that. But thats after the fact. For lack of better reasons Kashmir appears to be a pretext, a useful one no doubt.


Half the budget is clearly an exaggeration. I think its only ever been that high during wartime. Its actually around 20%. Still higher than ideal, but understandably necessary.
See previous post.


I'm not saying that all of his counterparts in India were not genuine, it didn't come through for reasons that can be debated. But it is widely understood, and logical, to conclude Musharraf did make genuine efforts, that were domestically costly to him.
What were his downsides here ? He wasn't elected to begin with.


Massing half a million soldiers on Pakistan's borders after the Parliament attack comes to mind, as do explicit and implicit threats of war after the Mumbai attacks. The Cold Start Doctrine to name another.
The first two were not unilateral actions and came to nought. Massing those soldiers did not stop mumbai. After mumbai we did nothing, lets see what effect that has.

CSD, i'm not sure even exists other than on the internet :)


Theres arguments to be made that they do, in the context of their security concerns with India ofcouse.
But their reaction seems a great deal muted in comparison wouldn't you say. Why ?


Well, you can stick to your conclusion, but I don't think what you've said counters my argument. I've seen some of the links, will go through them again. Pakistani intelligentsia has always been very self-critical in our country, this is something I'm proud of. But I don't think they've said anything as clear-cut as you've implied, doubt anyones going to say India is entirely free of blame either. Lastly, even their opinions can be challenged. Might do so if I go over them.
It's not about sticking to anything, its about finding a credible reason. There seems to be a gap here which am not understanding. I try to discount for bias but am not getting any further.

What i'm saying is the winner here by far from this situation is your military. The ppl of both our countries don't figure into the equation at all.

Vinod2070
14 May 11,, 03:08
I know. And I've written letters to some of them. Doesn't necessarily make me wrong.

Yes, but it still disproves your claim that this claim of PA benefiting as an institution from the "India as a mortal enemy" is an exclusively Indian one.


just read any history book on Pakistan NOT written by an Indian.

In fact, more Pakistanis think so than Indians.

Parihaka
14 May 11,, 04:37
How Countries Spend Their Money - (http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/)

ambidex
14 May 11,, 06:47
"Peace loving south block" Indians? Your bigotry doesn't even spare your own countrymen. You're still a teenager I'm guessing, but you're treading ethnic/racial lines here. There was a Brigadier here who led a South Indian regiment, go confront him with your views.


Well you are getting personal for no reason. Sign of losing the debate? Your Shimla treaty one liner has gone into dustbin for good. Now you are nit-picking and twisting words to bully around here. I reckon you do not know a squat about which south block i am talking. South block is not south India or South Indian regiment. Go figure it out and then jump into the debate.

Am I a bigot? This is the definition of a bigot a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot). You are the one who has gone to ad hominem attacks because of one bloody discussion. You are utterly intolerant to my opinion, aren't you?

I am not a good debater because it sucks time but i am good reader for sure. I have read your fantastical honest views few a times about role of RAW countering Pakistan etc. You haven't spared our own agencies at time. You are playing safe but at the cost of other Indian posters. My post addressed to you was with opening statement that 'you haven't seen the irony in my post'. You missed it deliberately. I was trying to be dispassionate about this whole discussion because it was going off topic. At the same time i was trying to bring balance by saying that there are more haters on both sides than peace lovers.

Please don't try to teach me, even if you are a grown up not a teenager with ~2k posts, i am responsible for my own fate here on this forum.

S2
14 May 11,, 07:23
"See my earlier post of this thread here..."

What To Expect In Pakistan's 2011-12 Budget-DAWN May 11, 2011 (http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/11/what-to-expect-in-pakistans-fy1112-budget.html)

I'd been of the same mind at one point. Since then I've been led to believe the number is about half your estimate.

nvishal
14 May 11,, 09:51
S2, the PA and its associates own and run unimaginable number of non-military business ventures. They declare profits and losses as per their discretion which they feed back into the economy. These figures are all wrong. Technically, the budget is un-audited (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14996302/Pakistan-Failed-State).


The four key armed-forces run business organizations in Pakistan are The Fauji Foundation., the Army Welfare Trust., the Shaheen Foundation. and the Bahria Foundation.

1) The Fauji Foundation’s businesses include sugar mills, cereal and corn, Natural gas, plastics, fertilizer, cement, power and education and healthcare. The Fauji foundation’s assets have grown from Pakistani Rs. 152 million in 1970, to 9,800 million according to Dr. Siddiqa-Agha, and employs 6 to 7 thousand military personnel, mostly in middle and upper management positions.

2) The Army Welfare Trust has 26 projects including farms, stud farms, fish farms, rice and sugar mills, cement factories, pharmaceuticals, shoes, wool, hosiery, travel agencies, aviation, commercial complexes, banking, insurance and security with many bearing the name Aksari. Aksari aviation was set up merely to accommodate retired army helicopter pilots who could not get a job in the private sector.

Not to be outdone, the Pakistan air force established 3) the Shaheen foundation which is now involved in air transportation, cargo, airport services, pay TV, FM radio, insurance, knitwear and commercial complexes.

That left Pakistan’s smallest force, the navy, to start its own venture, 4) the Bahria Foundation in 1981. The Bahria Foundation deals in commercial complexes, trading, construction, a travel agency, paints, deep sea fishing, dredging, ship breaking, salvage and even a university.
That's all pakjabi

S2
14 May 11,, 10:13
"S2, the PA and its associates own and run unimaginable number of non-military business ventures."

Gosh! Really? This, of course, skews the available data.

Still nvishal, consider your comment in light of "...unimaginable...". Does that lend you insight to exact figures. Do we presume, for example, all these unaccounted enterprises make a profit? Even if so, to what extent? Sufficient to make up fully an additional 100% of their official budget?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You, though, don't know with certainty. There are many skewed perspectives available from which to choose.

One ear hears the drumbeat from Islamabad. Another, just as incessant, beats with similar regularity from South Block. Isn't WAB wonderful?:rolleyes:

nvishal
14 May 11,, 10:52
nvishal,

It appears I've inadvertantly edited your comments in the course of my reply. I'm uncertain how but let's call it "magic", shall we? I'll hold my reply until you've managed to re-state your post. That may prove impossible. If so, please accept my apology.

Tronic
14 May 11,, 11:25
Well you are getting personal for no reason. Sign of losing the debate? Your Shimla treaty one liner has gone into dustbin for good.

What debate?

Shimla treaty didn't go nowhere, the example still stands. So does 1960 Indus water treaty.


Now you are nit-picking and twisting words to bully around here. I reckon you do not know a squat about which south block i am talking. South block is not south India or South Indian regiment. Go figure it out and then jump into the debate.

Sorry matey. You were referring to the Secretariat! Your bigotry towards our neighbours got me on that track regarding you. Anyhow, my apologies! As for the question you raise, than let me answer.


Am I a bigot? This is the definition of a bigot a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot).

Reading your posts,

"Shimla treaty was not something invented by some peace loving south block Indian for Pakistan, It was the only way out following 1971 war. We reached our peak of animosity and objective as well."

Was animosity really a factor? Its end was not some "climax" of animosity as you may perceive it to be. Hence, the impression of bigotry.

"And who wants to reach an accord with Pakistan? Some liberal apologist Indians or Pakistanis? They are minority."

Maybe its just me, but again, reeks of bigotry.


You are the one who has gone to ad hominem attacks because of one bloody discussion. You are utterly intolerant to my opinion, aren't you?

I'm sure we all have our biases to some extent, but I'm sure theres a line between bias and bigotry. In my opinion you are sitting far beyond that line. So yes, definitely a little intolerant of that fact. ;)


I am not a good debater because it sucks time but i am good reader for sure. I have read your fantastical honest views few a times about role of RAW countering Pakistan etc. You haven't spared our own agencies at time.

Spared them from what?


You are playing safe but at the cost of other Indian posters. My post addressed to you was with opening statement that 'you haven't seen the irony in my post'. You missed it deliberately. I was trying to be dispassionate about this whole discussion because it was going off topic.

Need not be passionate or dispassionate. Logical will suffice.


At the same time i was trying to bring balance by saying that there are more haters on both sides than peace lovers.

So, which one out of the two are you?


Please don't try to teach me, even if you are a grown up not a teenager with ~2k posts, i am responsible for my own fate here on this forum.

It was around ~6k actually, guess got warped back in time. No problems. And hey, I wasn't much different in the passionate opinions I held when I first joined WAB back in 2004. Live, learn, and grow. ;)

Double Edge
14 May 11,, 12:22
"See my earlier post of this thread here..."

What To Expect In Pakistan's 2011-12 Budget-DAWN May 11, 2011 (http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/11/what-to-expect-in-pakistans-fy1112-budget.html)

I'd been of the same mind at one point. Since then I've been led to believe the number is about half your estimate.
Yeah, your link puts it at 25.2% ($5.8bn out of $23bn) for FY2011-2012.

So Jugnu may be mistaken but the Ambassador did not see fit to correct her.

Double Edge
14 May 11,, 13:07
How Countries Spend Their Money - (http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/)
Realised later that when i made the comment about defense spending being in the low single digits for US & India that was as a % of GDP. Your link talks about portion of the budget for the year. Which puts US, India & Pakistan at around the same level. If we talk about % of GDP, S2's link says $5 billion spend out of a GDP of $170 bn which again puts Pakistan in the low single digits as US & India.

Am not sure but when we talk about spending isn't it more relevant to talk about what portion defense spending makes up of the current budget rather than as a % of GDP ?

Bigfella
14 May 11,, 13:14
Realised later that when i made the comment about defense spending being in the low single digits for US & India that was as a % of GDP. Your link talks about portion of the budget for the year. Which puts US, India & Pakistan at around the same level. If we talk about % of GDP, S2's link says $5 billion spend out of a GDP of $170 bn which again puts Pakistan in the low single digits as US & India.

Am not sure but when we talk about spending isn't it more relevant to talk about what portion defense spending makes up of the current budget rather than as a % of GDP ?

DE,

What really struck me about those figures was not how much Pakistan spends on defence. What floored me was the tiny spending on health & education. Spending 25% of the budget on defence is not great. Spending less that 2% on education (I think) in particular is just criminal. Talk about robbing the future.

Double Edge
14 May 11,, 13:50
What floored me was the tiny spending on health & education. Spending 25% of the budget on defence is not great. Spending less that 2% on education (I think) in particular is just criminal. Talk about robbing the future.
It says 7.8% on Education for Pakistan.

Health is lower because taxes do not go into it like in the west.

vsdoc
14 May 11,, 13:58
There were several people responsible, the majority of them being Pakistanis.

That said, I don't know how happy that chap, whoever it is that you are related to, would be reading the hate-mongering you are invoking his name for. I happen to be related to General Harbaksh, and he would drill you into the ground for throwing around names of respected officers stamped up on your hate filled ideology. For all the wars General Harbaksh fought (and he fought in every conflict India was ever in since and including World War 2), he only had light hearted stories to share about some of his ex-batch mates, who later on would end up leading the Pakistani army (and also eventually ruling that country ;) ). These d!ck measuring contests are for the sheeps mate, snap out of it!

Is that all you got?!

Speaking of d1ck measuring, my relative outranks yours - and his Pakistani cronies. So snap to it - or not.

Either way - you're dismissed.

Cheers, Doc

P.S. The plural of sheep is sheep - not sheeps. Just thought you would like to know.

P.P.S. I wont even get into the serious concern I feel at your apparent interest in their d1cks and dimensions thereof. Get help.

S2
14 May 11,, 13:59
Pakistan's official expenditures on health, education, housing and the environment are miniscule relative to defense. There's some justification given the security crisis they are experiencing until you realize how much these elements contribute to a nation's overall security in the near and (especially) long term.

Worse, these expenditures don't differ markedly from prior to 2001.

vsdoc
14 May 11,, 14:10
[B]I believe India's rather late to the party...by choice. Your level of engagement has been restricted...by choice. To date, India's interests have been served admirably by ISAF/America without great incurred expense.

India will have to pay its own price to the party and hasn't displayed the requisite determination (blood) and ducats to ante up.

That trust isn't complete yet. Judging by those at this board there's no end to self-serving motivation and a very quick limit to Afghan altruism. TRUST, IMV, would necessitate an Indian governmental policy that sees a self-sustaining, self-defended Afghanistan as a good neighbor to all-including Pakistan. Being a good neighbor would entail serving as a common gateway to CAR resources while protecting the territorial integrity of its eastern neighbor.

Of course it's a two-way street but to what end is India prepared to support that end-goal for Afghanistan? To what extent would India endeavor to make transparent to Pakistan the activities she conducts in Afghanistan? Or, heaven forbid, even invite Pakistan as a joint partner?

I read a lot here and elsewhere about Indian regional and global aspirations. When will those nat'l interests be reflected and manifested by a broader vision for regional and global development?

I see you - and America - still do not get it. You cannot be in bed with Pakistan and India at the same time. Cosy delusions of CENTCOM and PACOM AOR notwithstanding. The trust you speak of is a two way street sir. And will come when you finally see the light. America may have its own agenda in Afghanistan. That does not have to be reciprocated in toto by India, who have their own interests to protect and further. After all, you have the luxury of moving back to your home base thousands of miles away, when you choose to do so. We do not. You seem to imply that we are riding piggy-back on your presence in the area. And allude to not paying our way - in cash or boots. Well, India will pay what it can, towards what it wants to, and what the Afghans want. Speaking of ducats, or tattas as we like to call them out here(?), we have learned from our Sri Lankan experience. I had friends die there. For a war that was not ours to fight. We will use our ducats for our homeland sir - when the time comes. As we have in the past. Till then - there seem to be enough ducats on hire floating around to get the job done - or not. Bottom line - if Afghanistan could have been won by money or ducats, first the Brits, then Soviets, and finally America and its allies would have done so. I am not saying India will come up with the elusive answer. All I am saying is that India is not stupid to know quicksand when it sees it, and still proceed to knowingly walk into it. Not via the same path definitely. And definitely not on its own coin and boots.

P.S. If CAR access is all that is at stake here, then that goal for India is more profitably and way less painfully served by our continuing trade relations with Iran. Both geographically and strategically. And it does not have to be a zero-sum game at the cost of our relationship with Israel either, as has been demonstrated in the recent past.

Bigfella
14 May 11,, 15:31
It says 7.8% on Education for Pakistan.

Health is lower because taxes do not go into it like in the west.

Sorry, working from memory. Still too low given military expenditure. health spending is also criminally low.

vsdoc
14 May 11,, 15:52
Well, I don't think western historians generally look at the history of Indo-Pak rivalry ..... the Pakistan Army is the very least likely way to do that.

Kasrkin, we can go on and on like this. But to what avail? Some of my compatriots have already replied to you, and I do find fragmented point by point inline exchanges so tedious for readers online. I am more into the broad holistic concepts myself and consciously shy away from what I referred to earlier as ghisa pita India Pakistan tu tu main main. I however do believe that I was less than fair to your compatriot Notorious Eagle in a previous reply, and the intervening time has afforded me the opportunity to think and ruminate on the issues at hand still further, so seeing as how much of that is also linked to what you have to say to my post, allow me to combine my responses here.

We have fought many wars against each other. But except for 1971, we have never moved towards consolidating on battlefield gains and pressing home the advantage to take care of you once and for all. There is more than enough angst within the forces on our side on that score, because for us ever 100 meters of enemy territory won has been paid for in the lives of our jawans. But we are a professional fauj. We fight when we are ordered to. And we move back when ordered to as well – even when the red mist is very much there forcing us to do what all victorious forces do once victory has been achieved, the citadel stormed. We also recognize that that our fathers and mothers and wives and sisters and kids would not enjoy the same luxuries were we once to fail in protecting them from you. And that ensures that we never do and never will. Ever.

1971 was us righting the balance. Plain and simple. And it was done by a lady with more balls than any man. Post that, we should have pressed on to wrest Kashmir back. But we did not. The chance was lost and the nuclear tests changed the equation forever. Let me tell you candidly here. From childhood we grow up studying history and geography with maps showing Kashmir proudly on top as our nation’s crown – hamara mukut! Like learning the truth about Santa Claus finally is the end of childhood for most westerners, so too learning about the sad reality of the truncated mukut is the end of childhood for all Indian kids. But we learn to live with that. We do not covet what you have anymore. And seeing what your countrymen are doing to one another, we do not want you back either. No fairytale dreams of re-unification here. We are happy where we are with what we have.

As new generations grow up, there is also a slow but inexorable moving away from what in concept was looked at by the earlier generations as estranged brothers. The generation of my kids today does not have much time for you. All they see on TV or read in the papers is about a series of bomb blasts - in markets, in mosques, in villages, in cities. You have for all intents and purposes coalesced along with Afghanistan into one homogeneous lump of Islamic terrorism and violence and radicalism in the eyes of present day Indians. The lines are blurred, if not totally non-existent, and Pakistan is coming apart at its seams.

The reason is not difficult to fathom. There is simply no glue holding you together anymore. Pakistan was created on the plinth of the two-nation theory and rallying cry of Islam in Peril. The first blow to that theory was when it was delivered still-born as half the Muslims decided to stay with secular India. The shaky edifice crumbled further with Muslim on Muslim genocide leading to your dissection in 1971. What we are seeing today is natural balance asserting itself. With the Hindu angle slowly but surely becoming more and more distant to your masses as they helplessly see India moving away and upward, the glue of Islam that held truncated Pakistan together has lost its remaining stickiness. Now it is increasingly Sunni or Shia. Sunni and Shia on Ahmediya and Sufi. Punjabi on Sindhi. Punjabi and Sindhi on Balochi. Punjabi on Pushtun. Pushtun and Balochi on each other as well as against the rest as it suits them.

As Notorious Eagle said, whether its Balochi, Sindhi, Seraiki, Hazaras, Punjabi or Pushtuns, we are all part of Pakistan. What he omitted to say however was that Pakistan only ever comes together as a unit when it faces India. And that all these factions see themselves in that identity first, as Muslims then, and finally, any loyalty remaining, as Pakistani. A union of convenience that has long since lost its raison d’ętre. Now take the increasingly tenuous unifying Muslim card away, as fundamentalists start imposing degrees of “true” Islam, and you are left with strong sectarian and ethnic polarizations. The true face of "Pakistan" artificially glued together by Jinnah in 1947, and gone along with grudgingly at best by many of the same factions bearing their autonomous teeth today. And these polarizations have traditionally huge overlaps with geographical areas and populations of both Afghanistan as well as Iran.

So the battle moves away from our doorstep, and onto your West, as you fight to hold on to what you still hold, and slowly forget about clamoring for what you never did. Pakistan in effect long de-hyphenated from India, now finds itself increasingly hyphenated with Afghanistan, but as an increasingly strong Iran makes sure that the mess does not spill over on to its side. Once these polarizations play themselves out, you will find that Pakistan, and the Pakistan army, missed the forest for the trees, having always aimed for the unattainable, and doomed the nation to its slide down a very slippery slope. Pakistan will increasingly in the days to come find itself being hemmed in between a rock and a hard place.

If you drop a frog suddenly into a pan of boiling water, it will get scalded but jump out. Much better to cook him on a slow flame instead.

Cheers, Doc

notorious_eagle
14 May 11,, 17:46
S2, the PA and its associates own and run unimaginable number of non-military business ventures. They declare profits and losses as per their discretion which they feed back into the economy. These figures are all wrong. Technically, the budget is un-audited (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14996302/Pakistan-Failed-State).


That's all pakjabi

All these organizations you are talking about are part of the Army Welfare Trust. They create thousands of jobs for both civilians/retired military and pay billions of rupees in taxes to the State. Whatever profits these companies generate; they expense it on the welfare projects by running schools, colleges, hospitals and scholarships for students to go and study abroad. These organizations are public companies, their financial statements are published and they pay taxes to the State. These organizations are not a burden on the economy, budget or the government. Take a look at the books of Fauji Foundation, see how much taxes they paid:

Fauji Foundation (http://www.fauji.org.pk/Webforms/FinancialHighlights.aspx?Id=111&Id2=121)

I dont know how can you possibly claim that these companies tamper with their financial statements, they are publicly traded companies and their financial statements are audited by neutral sources. Compare that to the companies owned by Pakistan Government; Pakistan Railways, Pakistan International Airways, Pakistan Steel Mills etc whom run looses in billions of dollars and have to be subsidized by the State which is more than the aid Pakistan receives from US.

Vinod2070
14 May 11,, 18:46
Seems many Pakistanis have realized the emptiness of the PA "military might" rhetoric.

Its a butt of jokes, many SMS jokes seem to be floating around about its incompetence and cowardice.

Tronic
14 May 11,, 21:01
Is that all you got?!

Speaking of d1ck measuring, my relative outranks yours - and his Pakistani cronies. So snap to it - or not.

Who do you infer to? FM Sam Manekshaw?

If so, than with that attitude I highly doubt you are related to someone as great as him. He was a man of a much higher character and thoughts. A brilliant man! I'm not competing here, General Harbaksh and Field Marshal Manekshaw were both the right men at the right time for India. Its stupid if you think I'm indulging in some sort of my relative is better than yours; they both fought for India, and they both have my highest respects.

Oh, and FM Manekshaw himself had a lot of high ranking friends in the Pak military, his previous regiment, before the country was partitioned, was the Frontier Force Regiment, which now is part of the Pak army.

S2
14 May 11,, 21:07
"I see you - and America - still do not get it. You cannot be in bed with Pakistan and India at the same time."

I see us in bed with neither, sir. We serve the interests of the mission to which we're committed-one in which Pakistan plays a reluctant role and India a peripheral one that's largely self-serving.

"The trust you speak of is a two way street sir. And will come when you finally see the light."

Ah, but that's YOU suggesting we must find a regional and global partner of trusting merit and military and financial strength in "somebody else" (i.e., India)-

"...Someone they could trust, regionally and globally.

Someone militarily strong and financially sound..."

"America may have its own agenda in Afghanistan. That does not have to be reciprocated in toto by India, who have their own interests to protect and further."

America serves the interests of the internat'l community as those interests are in alignment with ours. India? That's for your government to answer but, to date, their response hasn't been sufficient in my view to become that "regional and global partner" to whom you allude.

"...After all, you have the luxury of moving back to your home base thousands of miles away, when you choose to do so. We do not. You seem to imply that we are riding piggy-back on your presence in the area..."

Conversely we also have the burden of fighting an enemy while building a community thousands of miles from our home. It is from Afghanistan that we were attacked so nowhere is too far for our obligation of self-defense.

"...Imply..."? I thought I was more direct than that. You ARE riding piggy-back on our presence there...and the presence of many others who've shed a great deal of blood and money for the same objectives as America and the U.N.

"Well, India will pay what it can, towards what it wants to, and what the Afghans want."

I'm only interested in "...what the Afghans want..." and how India might serve that role as a trustworthy "...regional and global partner...".

"...We will use our ducats for our homeland sir - when the time comes. As we have in the past. Till then - there seem to be enough ducats on hire floating around to get the job done - or not. Bottom line - if Afghanistan could have been won by money or ducats, first the Brits, then Soviets, and finally America and its allies would have done so. I am not saying India will come up with the elusive answer. All I am saying is that India is not stupid to know quicksand when it sees it, and still proceed to knowingly walk into it. Not via the same path definitely. And definitely not on its own coin and boots..."

So much for your role as a trusting regional and global partner both militarily strong and financially sound. Thus, vsdoc (if you're any indication), India may not be ready to assume any burden of regional much less global leadership. That takes sacrifice in all its forms at a scale you've made clear is too costly for too little apparent immediate gain.

"...P.S. If CAR access is all that is at stake here, then that goal for India is more profitably and way less painfully served by our continuing trade relations with Iran..."

Self-serving myopia. My reference was to an Afghanistan serving a community of nations towards such. It is land-locked, if you haven't noticed, and will require connection to both Iran (remember your Zaranj-Delaram road project) AND Pakistan.

"...And it does not have to be a zero-sum game at the cost of our relationship with Israel either, as has been demonstrated in the recent past..."

That's for Iran, Israel and India to determine.

America won't be the chief beneficiary of CAR resources. Far from it. America won't be the chief beneficiary of Afghanistan's development either. Yet it's America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe that have assumed the U.N.'s mandate while India, China, Japan and others count their looming advantages from such and carp on the sidelines.

In sum, vsdoc, your response has largely validated my suggestion that India is hardly prepared to look beyond narrow self-interests in regional development for the global community's greater good. I'll not draw any inference to your government from it, however. That would be unfair.

Tronic
14 May 11,, 23:33
Talk about hurt egos.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/15/world/sub-15diplo/sub-15diplo-popup.jpg

And on the topic of comparing the budgets, even Pakistani masses feel having a large defence budget is the main requirement, not education or health. They are conditioned to think that way.

S2
14 May 11,, 23:40
Sure that isn't a photo from a Pakistani Army veterans convention?:biggrin: