PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants in Bin Laden Raid



astralis
15 Jun 11,, 19:10
WTF.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/world/asia/15policy.html?pagewanted=1

WASHINGTON — Pakistan’s top military spy agency has arrested some of the Pakistani informants who fed information to the Central Intelligence Agency in the months leading up to the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, according to American officials.

Pakistan’s detention of five C.I.A. informants, including a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in the weeks before the raid, is the latest evidence of the fractured relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It comes at a time when the Obama administration is seeking Pakistan’s support in brokering an endgame in the war in neighboring Afghanistan.

At a closed briefing last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Michael J. Morell, the deputy C.I.A. director, to rate Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations, on a scale of 1 to 10.

“Three,” Mr. Morell replied, according to officials familiar with the exchange.

The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he travelled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers.

Some in Washington see the arrests as illustrative of the disconnect between Pakistani and American priorities at a time when they are supposed to be allies in the fight against Al Qaeda — instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world’s most wanted man.

The Bin Laden raid and more recent attacks by militants in Pakistan have been blows to the country’s military, a revered institution in the country. Some officials and outside experts said the military is mired in its worst crisis of confidence in decades.

American officials cautioned that Mr. Morell’s comments about Pakistani support was a snapshot of the current relationship, and did not represent the administration’s overall assessment.

“We have a strong relationship with our Pakistani counterparts and work through issues when they arise,” said Marie E. Harf, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. “Director Panetta had productive meetings last week in Islamabad. It’s a crucial partnership, and we will continue to work together in the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who threaten our country and theirs.”

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, said in a brief telephone interview that the C.I.A. and the Pakistani spy agency “are working out mutually agreeable terms for their cooperation in fighting the menace of terrorism. It is not appropriate for us to get into the details at this stage.”

Over the past several weeks the Pakistani military has been distancing itself from American intelligence and counterterrorism operations against militant groups in Pakistan. This has angered many in Washington who believe that Bin Laden’s death has shaken Al Qaeda and that there is now an opportunity to further weaken the terrorist organization with more raids and armed drone strikes.

But in recent months, dating approximately to when a C.I.A. contractor killed two Pakistanis on a street in the eastern city of Lahore in January, American officials said that Pakistani spies from the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, have been generally unwilling to carry out surveillance operations for the C.I.A. The Pakistanis have also resisted granting visas allowing American intelligence officers to operate in Pakistan, and have threatened to put greater restrictions on the drone flights.

It is the future of the drone program that is a particular worry for the C.I.A. American officials said that during his meetings in Pakistan last week, Mr. Panetta was particularly forceful about trying to get Pakistani officials to allow armed drones to fly over even wider areas in the northwest tribal regions. But the C.I.A. is already preparing for the worst: relocating some of the drones from Pakistan to a base in Afghanistan, where they can take off and fly east across the mountains and into the tribal areas, where terrorist groups find safe haven.

Another casualty of the recent tension is an ambitious Pentagon program to train Pakistani paramilitary troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in those same tribal areas. That program has ended, both American and Pakistani officials acknowledge, and the last of about 120 American military advisers have left the country.

American officials are now scrambling to find temporary jobs for about 50 Special Forces support personnel who had been helping the trainers with logistics and communications. Their visas were difficult to obtain and officials fear if these troops are sent home, Pakistan will not allow them to return.

In a sign of the growing anger on Capitol Hill, Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that he believed elements of the ISI and the military had helped protect Bin Laden.

Mr. Rogers, who met with senior security officials in Pakistan last week, said he had no evidence that senior Pakistani military or civilian leaders were complicit in sheltering Bin Laden. And he did not offer any proof to support his assertion, saying only his accusation was based on “information that I’ve seen.”

He warned that both lawmakers and the Obama administration could end up putting more restrictions on the $2 billion in American military aid received annually by Pakistan. He also called for “benchmarks” in the relationship, including more sharing of information about militant activities in Karachi, Lahore and elsewhere and more American access to militants detained in Pakistan.

American military commanders in Afghanistan appear cautiously optimistic that they are making progress in pushing the Taliban from its strongholds in that country’s south, but many say a significant American military withdrawal can occur only if the warring sides in Afghanistan broker some kind of peace deal.

But the United States is reliant on Pakistan to apply pressure on Taliban leaders, over whom they have historically had great influence.

For now, at least, America’s relationship with Pakistan keeps getting tripped up. When he visited Pakistan, Mr. Panetta offered evidence of collusion between Pakistani security officials and the militants staging attacks in Afghanistan.

American officials said Mr. Panetta presented satellite photographs of two bomb-making factories that American spies several weeks ago had asked the ISI to raid. When Pakistani troops showed up days later, the militants were gone, causing American officials to question whether the militants had been warned by someone on the Pakistani side.

Shortly after the failed raids, the Defense Department put a hold on a $300 million payment reimbursing Pakistan for the cost of deploying more than 100,000 troops along the border with Afghanistan, two officials said. The Pentagon declined to comment on the payment, except to say it was “continuing to process several claims.”

ace16807
15 Jun 11,, 19:23
....Thanks for that Pakistan. It's nice to know you're on our side when it comes to tracking down terrorists. Oh wait...

Agnostic Muslim
18 Jun 11,, 20:23
Excellent move by Pakistan.

By the US's own admission it carried out the raid without Pakistani authorization or knowledge. Regardless of the reason behind the raid, the fact is that it was an unauthorized military strike in Pakistan, and Pakistani should investigate, arrest and punish any individuals in Pakistan that assisted in this military operation by a foreign nation on Pakistani soil.

Execute every single one that is found guilty publicly I say. Send a clear message.

Surreal McCoy
18 Jun 11,, 21:59
Excellent move by Pakistan.

By the US's own admission it carried out the raid without Pakistani authorization or knowledge. Regardless of the reason behind the raid, the fact is that it was an unauthorized military strike in Pakistan, and Pakistani should investigate, arrest and punish any individuals in Pakistan that assisted in this military operation by a foreign nation on Pakistani soil.

Execute every single one that is found guilty publicly I say. Send a clear message.

How do you know they assisted with the military operation? From this layman's point of view it is highly unlikely they would be apprised of what would eventually be done with the information being passed.

In fairness, Pakistan missed a great PR opportunity in not feting the alleged informants as heroes in the war against international terrorism. Conversely, the US intelligence services should have whisked them all out of the country the night of the raid as it was only a matter of time before the obvious reprisals came.

zraver
18 Jun 11,, 23:16
Excellent move by Pakistan.

By the US's own admission it carried out the raid without Pakistani authorization or knowledge. Regardless of the reason behind the raid, the fact is that it was an unauthorized military strike in Pakistan, and Pakistani should investigate, arrest and punish any individuals in Pakistan that assisted in this military operation by a foreign nation on Pakistani soil.

Execute every single one that is found guilty publicly I say. Send a clear message.

Wait, and be very careful here AM- the US an ally of Pakistan discovers an ultra high level terror mastermind in your country and because of documented and reasoned fears acts alone in the best interests of both to kill said mastermind who has killed thousands of Pakistanis and you blame the ally?

If Pakistan does not free those men, I say it is time to re-evaluate exactly where Pakistan's government falls along the spectrum in opposing or supporting terrorism.

YellowFever
18 Jun 11,, 23:28
In other words, good job Pakistan!

Forget the fact that the rest of the world is sick of your double dealings and looking like a fool to the rest of the world community.

Forget the fact that when you're in a deep hole, you should stop looking for more shovels.

You've sent a clear message.

Good going.

Parihaka
18 Jun 11,, 23:37
Excellent move by Pakistan.

By the US's own admission it carried out the raid without Pakistani authorization or knowledge. Regardless of the reason behind the raid, the fact is that it was an unauthorized military strike in Pakistan, and Pakistani should investigate, arrest and punish any individuals in Pakistan that assisted in this military operation by a foreign nation on Pakistani soil.

Execute every single one that is found guilty publicly I say. Send a clear message.
Says it all really doesn't it. I think the CIA response should be missile attacks against ISI targets. Start with FATA and Waziristan and work back toward Islamabad

citanon
18 Jun 11,, 23:39
Wait, and be very careful here AM- the US an ally of Pakistan discovers an ultra high level terror mastermind in your country and because of documented and reasoned fears acts alone in the best interests of both to kill said mastermind who has killed thousands of Pakistanis and you blame the ally?

If Pakistan does not free those men, I say it is time to re-evaluate exactly where Pakistan's government falls along the spectrum in opposing or supporting terrorism.

Not to mention that those "informants" were probably assisting Americans on the instruction of the ISI. They probably just didn't know what they had passed on and are now being scapegoated for the embarrassment of their superiors.

S2
18 Jun 11,, 23:52
I concur that it's Pakistan's responsibility to ferret out agents of foreign nations operating on their soil and, where necessary, arrest and charge them. The U.S. has done so even with American agents of ostensibly friendly nations (Israel).

Given the penetration of your military by terror elements, however, your counter-intelligence operatives need to focus their limited resources where most effective. The attack upon your naval air station in Karachi is a clear indication that much is amiss.

Naturally many within your country are convinced we assisted that operation too. Perhaps even you. That's unfortunate and I hope with you not the case.

S2
18 Jun 11,, 23:58
"...Not to mention that those "informants" were probably assisting Americans on the instruction of the ISI."

Possibly. One was evidently a Pakistani army major. In what capacity he officially served is unknown.

Pakstan Arrests C.I.A. Informants In Bin Laden Raid-NYT June 14, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/world/asia/15policy.html?_r=3&hp)

Some of these agents have evidently been released. That's good. Evidently, many of those accused of such, arrested and then released have subsequently gone missing. That's bad-

CIA 'bin Laden informants' released by Pak spy agency 'subsequently gone missing'-ANI June 16, 2011 (http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-bin-laden-informants-released-pak-spy-agency-055108889.html)

Of course, ANI is headquartered in New Delhi so its reporting might be suspect.

Tronic
19 Jun 11,, 00:30
CIA 'bin Laden informants' released by Pak spy agency 'subsequently gone missing'-ANI June 16, 2011 (http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-bin-laden-informants-released-pak-spy-agency-055108889.html)

Of course, ANI is headquartered in New Delhi so its reporting might be suspect.

ANI should be sued for plagiarism. Their article is copy pasted from a BBC report:

BBC News - Pakistan arrests CIA informants in Bin Laden raid (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13773541)

The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad says dozens of people have been arrested and released by the security agencies since the death of the al-Qaeda leader - and at least five of them have not yet been released.

Our correspondent says that the Pakistani authorities appear to be making every effort to unearth CIA informants while showing little interest in arresting Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathisers.

Soon after the killing on 2 May, witnesses told the BBC that two brothers - both cousins of Bin Laden's courier - were picked up from their village in the north-western Shangla district.

A member of the security forces was also picked up from the Ilyasi Masjid area near the Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, according to witnesses. It is not known whether he belonged to the intelligence wing of the police or the army. He remains unaccounted for to date.

The contractor who built the Bin Laden compound, Noor Mohammad alias Gul Madah, a property dealer identified by witnesses as Kaleem, Bin Laden's neighbour Shamrez and his father Zain Mohammad were arrested in the weeks following the killing.

All of them - apart from Kaleem - were later released although they have subsequently gone missing, our correspondent adds.

It is not clear whether these men were among the alleged CIA informants arrested.

notorious_eagle
19 Jun 11,, 01:27
Excellent. Any citizen of Pakistan cooperating with foreign intelligence agency is committing treason against the State and should be punished. PA needs to get tough on assets of foreign intelligence inside Pakistan and also the terrorists and their sympathizers. Go medieval on them, make an example out of them.

notorious_eagle
19 Jun 11,, 01:29
Wait, and be very careful here AM- the US an ally of Pakistan discovers an ultra high level terror mastermind in your country and because of documented and reasoned fears acts alone in the best interests of both to kill said mastermind who has killed thousands of Pakistanis and you blame the ally?

If Pakistan does not free those men, I say it is time to re-evaluate exactly where Pakistan's government falls along the spectrum in opposing or supporting terrorism.

Pakistan should publicly execute these men along with terrorists and their sympathizers. Any citizen of Pakistan cooperating with a foreign intelligence agency is a traitor and needs to be punished to the highest extent.

Parihaka
19 Jun 11,, 01:35
Pakistan should publicly execute these men along with terrorists and their sympathizers. Any citizen of Pakistan cooperating with a foreign intelligence agency is a traitor and needs to be punished to the highest extent.

And anyone supsected of cooperating with the Talibunnies should have their assets targeted with missiles. The obvious is all ISI assets within FATA and Waziristan.

notorious_eagle
19 Jun 11,, 01:54
And anyone supsected of cooperating with the Talibunnies should have their assets targeted with missiles. The obvious is all ISI assets within FATA and Waziristan.

Absolutely, anyone suspected of colluding with Taliban should be executed. There is no strong evidence that suggests Taliban are being supported by ISI, why in the world would the ISI support them when they have killed over 100 agents of ISI and have targeted their offices. This is some weird logic that you are advocating that simply does not make sense. Kinda reminds me of the American propaganda against the Japanese, making the other side look like a complete monster.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 02:13
I concur that it's Pakistan's responsibility to ferret out agents of foreign nations operating on their soil and, where necessary, arrest and charge them. The U.S. has done so even with American agents of ostensibly friendly nations (Israel).
Glad you agree - as I pointed out, the issue is not the justification used by the US for carrying out an unauthorized military operation in Pakistani soil, the issue is the fact that individuals resident in Pakistan assisted a foreign entity in carrying out a military operation on Pakistani soil. That is especially serious from the Pakistani perspective if those individuals were working in institutions that are supposed to be guarding against such adventures by foreign entities.


Given the penetration of your military by terror elements, however, your counter-intelligence operatives need to focus their limited resources where most effective. The attack upon your naval air station in Karachi is a clear indication that much is amiss.
There is nothing to suggest that Pakistani counter-intelligence operatives are not acting against suspected extremist sympathizers in the military - as NE pointed out, the numerous attacks on ISI offices, buses, GHQ, military bases and even on the families of military officers (Parade Lines Mosque attack as well as attacks in Cantonment areas) offer more than enough motivation for the military and ISI to ferret out any extremist sympathisers in their midst.

Saleem Shehzad's last article suggested as much, in that the attacks on the Navy buses and Base were revenge for the Military breaking up an Al Qaeda Cell in the Navy.


Naturally many within your country are convinced we assisted that operation too. Perhaps even you. That's unfortunate and I hope with you not the case.
Am I certain that the US/India assisted in the attack on GHQ and the Naval base? No.

But I am also not at all certain, given the sheltering of Brahamdegh Bugti in Kabul and the continued attacks against Pakistan out of Eastern Afghanistan, that the US/India are not involved in some way.

I find it hard to understand Western suspicions of the ISI/PA, you may just as much find it hard to understand my own suspicions and distrust of your military and intelligence agencies.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 02:19
In other words, good job Pakistan!

Forget the fact that the rest of the world is sick of your double dealings and looking like a fool to the rest of the world community.

Forget the fact that when you're in a deep hole, you should stop looking for more shovels.

You've sent a clear message.

Good going.
That rant has nothing to do with the central issue of individuals resident in Pakistan secretly cooperating with another nation's military and intelligence to carry out military strikes in Pakistan.

This time they assisted in a military raid against OBL, but it could also have been a military strike against strategic installations to weaken the country's conventional and/or unconventional assets.

There is absolutely no defence for inaction against these individuals, if they are indeed shown to have assisted the US (or others) in carrying out unauthorized military strikes inside Pakistan.

They are traitors and a threat to the country, and should be neutralized.

Doktor
19 Jun 11,, 02:27
They helped your ally (on paper) to decapitate an organization responsible for killing innocent civilians in your country. How is that a treason?

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 03:16
Wait, and be very careful here AM- the US an ally of Pakistan discovers an ultra high level terror mastermind in your country and because of documented and reasoned fears acts alone in the best interests of both to kill said mastermind who has killed thousands of Pakistanis and you blame the ally?

If Pakistan does not free those men, I say it is time to re-evaluate exactly where Pakistan's government falls along the spectrum in opposing or supporting terrorism.

I would like to know what the US does to its citizens that collaborate with foreign intelligence agencies. Finally it shows some integrity on the part of the security agencies where law and order and process comes first, dictates from Washington later. The Osama Op however glorified it may be, was an illegal act and should always be treated as such even if the spawn of Satan was caught, Pakistani laws were violated.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 03:22
Oh btw, the US itself has been jailing spies of its ultra-friendly countries. Why not give Israeli spy Johnathan Pollard a pass? After all its Israel, a little bit of spying for the greater good should be allowed right?

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard)


Jonathan Jay Pollard (born August 7, 1954 in Galveston, Texas) is a former civilian intelligence analyst who was convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987.

Of course they have committed treason but would be let off with a slap on the wrist compared to what Americans do to spies of a foreign intelligence agency.

Playing it as retribution in support of Osama is the sort of twisted propaganda something what an AQ sympathizing Mullah would do from his pulpit. For some reasons Americans think its time Pakistan needs to bend over, whereas no crime has been proven to be committed by Pakistan, your deep suspicions are not a reason enough we stop existing as an independent entity.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jun 11,, 03:24
Now, the enforcement of Pakistani Law! Dandy, just dandy. It was the failure of enforcing Pakistani Law that prompted American actions. When you fail to enforce ... or in this case, refuse to enforce your own laws, others will do it for you.

Damned be Pakistan for trying to protect OBL. Pakistan gotten off easy in case you didn't know. The other superpower would have began a systematic bombing and destruction of your country.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jun 11,, 03:27
Oh btw, the US itself has been jailing spies of its ultra-friendly countries. Why not give Israeli spy Johnathan Pollard a pass? After all its Israel, a little bit of spying for the greater good should be allowed right?

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard)



Of course they have committed treason but would be let off with a slap on the wrist compared to what Americans do to spies of a foreign intelligence agency.Pollard betrayed the US. He did NOT killed Western citizens. OBL did. Taliban Afghanistan tried to protect him and we destroyed it. Now, we found OBL near your Officer School. Pray that is the end of it.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 03:36
Now, the enforcement of Pakistani Law! Dandy, just dandy. It was the failure of enforcing Pakistani Law that prompted American actions. When you fail to enforce ... or in this case, refuse to enforce your own laws, others will do it for you.

Damned be Pakistan for trying to protect OBL. Pakistan gotten off easy in case you didn't know. The other superpower would have began a systematic bombing and destruction of your country.

As I said we have to strengthen law n order in our country. For 10 years now we have been giving Americans a pass.

Americans are allowed to carry automatic weapons
Americans are allowed to roam around with fake number plates
Americans are allowed to enter under fake diplomatic duties
Americans are allowed to purchase land bypassing all the procedures
Very recently Americans are allowed to kill civilians and leave.

Yes its high time, Pakistani law came in front. Yes Pollard didn't kill Americans, CIA agents have cases running against them in Pakistani courts and they are absconding from the law... Pakistani citizens are still awaiting justice. You are forgetting the noose around American agents is only going to get tighter now the public demands it. There should be rule of law, not rule of CIA.

Oh and bombing shbombing, Osama op was a violation of international and Pakistani laws. Just because he's SO important to the US doesn't justify breaking laws, US has to be first answerable for that. You should be thankful that a pliant Kayani is at the helm who switches off radars and looks the other way.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 03:55
Robert Hanssen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen)

Robert Philip Hanssen (born April 18, 1944) is a former American FBI agent who spied for Soviet and Russian intelligence services against the United States for 22 years from 1979 to 2001. He is currently serving a life sentence at the Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colorado, a "Supermax" federal penitentiary in which Hanssen spends 23 hours a day in solitary confinement.[2]

Thomas Patrick Cavanaugh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Patrick_Cavanaugh) (Paroled)

Thomas Patrick Cavanaugh is an aerospace engineer who was sentenced in 1985 after being convicted of trying to sell stealth bomber secrets to the Soviet Union.

Brian Patrick Regan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Patrick_Regan)

Brian Patrick Regan is a former master sergeant in the United States Air Force who was convicted of offering to sell secret information to foreign governments.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jun 11,, 04:23
Oh and bombing shbombing, Osama op was a violation of international and Pakistani laws. Just because he's SO important to the US doesn't justify breaking laws, US has to be first answerable for that. You should be thankful that a pliant Kayani is at the helm who switches off radars and looks the other way.You really do not get it. The US is NOT India. The US has no qualms about nuking Pakistan for a man who killed 3000 of her citizens, especially a Pakistan armed with nukes ... and do you really want to measure nukes?

Pakistan maybe able to get by with Mumbai but don't you dare for one second pretend that you can get by with OBL.

This is NOT a nuclear weapons power with an NFU and only 100 nukes or so. This is a 10,000 nuclear weapons power with a dedicated first strike counter-force doctrine and it ain't no demonstration. First strike to the Americans mean all your nuclear facilities and all your major cities going up in a mushroom cloud at once.

YellowFever
19 Jun 11,, 04:45
As I said we have to strengthen law n order in our country. For 10 years now we have been giving Americans a pass.


Let me spell this out in very simple terms AA.

You guys don't have a goddamn choice.

Ten years ago, it was either help us or get your country pulverized.

Things haven't changed that much.

And yes, alot of Americans (me included) are still that passionate about the WOT.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 04:56
Let me spell this out in very simple terms AA.

You guys don't have a goddamn choice.

Ten years ago, it was either help us or get your country pulverized.

Things haven't changed that much.

And yes, alot of Americans (me included) are still that passionate about the WOT.

If you haven't noticed, the Pakistan government doesn't have a choice. The nation has already voiced its opinion to keep Pakistani law n order first, come what may. You will find your passion does not trump our patriotism.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 04:58
You really do not get it. The US is NOT India. The US has no qualms about nuking Pakistan for a man who killed 3000 of her citizens, especially a Pakistan armed with nukes ... and do you really want to measure nukes?

Pakistan maybe able to get by with Mumbai but don't you dare for one second pretend that you can get by with OBL.

This is NOT a nuclear weapons power with an NFU and only 100 nukes or so. This is a 10,000 nuclear weapons power with a dedicated first strike counter-force doctrine and it ain't no demonstration. First strike to the Americans mean all your nuclear facilities and all your major cities going up in a mushroom cloud at once.

It doesn't matter, gone are the days of bullying and threats. If we bow to US whims we are as good as dead and a non-entity. The realization is growing in Pakistan and will only get stronger. Our freedom comes first. When push comes to shove we will all fight to protect Pakistan.

This is not 2001 when you can scare your own public into agreeing to a war without providing evidence. There is no evidence linking ISI to protecting OBL, your secretary of state, heck your President has backed that opinion. Now you want to revert back to scary monster mode just because Pakistan won't listen to you... Your own public won't allow nukes and what not to fly our way.

Just to put things into perspective, tell me where is the Iran op?

YellowFever
19 Jun 11,, 04:58
Our passion doesn't have to trump your patriotism.

Think about it.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jun 11,, 04:58
If you haven't noticed, the Pakistan government doesn't have a choice. The nation has already voiced its opinion to keep Pakistani law n order first, come what may. You will find your passion does not trump our patriotism.Then, enforce your laws! It speaks freaking volumes that you don't spend the effort in neutralizing an obvious OBL network but now going after those, without mercy, who helped the Americans.

S2
19 Jun 11,, 05:04
"But I am also not at all certain, given the sheltering of Brahamdegh Bugti in Kabul and the continued attacks against Pakistan out of Eastern Afghanistan, that the US/India are not involved in some way."

This is an odd comment. Bugti is not in Kabul. Rehman faces threat of attack by American forces daily in Kunar. He's said so to Syed Saleem Shahzad.

This has never been the case with the afghan taliban leadership and their cohorts upon your lands. They've never, ever been attacked. Not once.

"...I find it hard to understand Western suspicions of the ISI/PA, you may just as much find it hard to understand my own suspicions and distrust of your military and intelligence agencies..."

Unlike Pakistan and the afghan taliban upon your lands, we've made concerted efforts to kill Rehman. He's our enemy too. Unlike with Haqqani, Bugti was evicted from Afghanistan. I understand he's long made his home in Switzerland. Am I wrong? If so, please indicate otherwise.

I recall reading how we ASKED Karzai of Bugti's whereabouts. Don't you? That would certainly indicate we didn't know. Karzai's sense of discomfort compelled him to ask Mr. Bugti to surrender the afghan hospitality for other parts. Do you recall that? You should.

Pakistan is welcome to kill him in Switzerland or Dubai...if they can. Killing him, however, in Switzerland might jeopardize all those Swiss bank accounts your ISI leadership likely hold.

You've really no excuse whatsoever for your escaping memory or intentional distortion of fact. OTOH, Afghanistan has every reason to harbor your enemies. It seems both fair and justified to return the dubious favors your government chooses to bestow upon the afghan people.

Pakistan, afterall, makes proxy war upon Afghanistan. That's a ten year long fact.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 05:07
Then, enforce your laws! It speaks freaking volumes that you don't spend the effort in neutralizing an obvious OBL network but now going after those, without mercy, who helped the Americans.

Enforcement of the laws is an ongoing process, breaking the laws is a one off incident. We have busted major king pins of terrorism over the years one guy, the most important to Al Qaeda, the one for whom they must have spend the most amount of resources and cunning, he slipped through. Its not about going after those who helped the Americans, its about going after those who would rather help a foreign spy agency than their own country. As demonstrated with your own country's example they have been jailing people for life - no indication of a life sentence form our side yet. Americans have been throwing people in solitary confinement, the spies that have only attempted to spy.

The nation is in a process of overhauling the ISI, the Army and the government to bow to Pakistani constitution. The ongoing Saleem Shahzad case is quite an example. You would be a frog in a well to think nothing else is going on towards improvement. But we'll be damned if we throw all that on the whims of American suspicions.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 05:12
Our passion doesn't have to trump your patriotism.

Think about it.

Nobody went into this pro-freedom and democracy mode thinking America might not destroy us for thinking independently. The fact that massive American violence may ensue is always a possibility - however continuous amount of American violence in medium dozes is already going on, so either we perish in 10 days or 1, its all the same to us. But we'd be damned if we didn't fight for our freedom.

OoE himself has said, its always the revolutions that win in the end. This is a people's movement and the way we're going its my guarantee Pakistan will be free of all dictators both domestic and foreign.

YellowFever
19 Jun 11,, 05:22
This is a people's movement and the way we're going its my guarantee Pakistan will be free of all dictators both domestic and foreign.

Ha, you really do talk a great game.

However, if what you say is true, the last thing you'd do is defend the idiotic actions of your government right now.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 05:30
Ha, you really do talk a great game.

However, if what you say is true, the last thing you'd do is defend the idiotic actions of your government right now.

The government was not even willing to do that much, this is something we have forced them into doing. We want them to start shooting down drones too, hopefully that will follow next. We want them to arrest American CIA spies as well, not just the Pakistani ones. We want them to restrict American embassy to issuing visas and other diplomatic activities. American have cases registered against them in Pakistani courts we want the liberty to try them.

The government is doing nothing in their desperate attempts to protect Americans.

We warned the government not to release American spy Raymond Davis or else this movement would take a life of its own and that's what has happened. Raymond Davis was a watershed moment for us when we realized that American USG personnel have been given god like powers in Pakistan, if they would've allowed the murderer Raymond Davis to be tried and prosecuted as per the law, all this would not have happened. They were warned.

Nothing about my demeanor is in defence of the Pakistani government, I would like to see it changed. They are the worst enemies of freedom.

S2
19 Jun 11,, 05:37
"Raymond Davis was a watershed moment for us when we realized that American USG personnel have been given god like powers in Pakistan..."

It's quite possibly true. Sadly, it's too bad that harboring foreign agents of an ousted Afghan taliban government hasn't provoked such angst among your people.

Asim, you do know that the U.N. and the Afghan Independant Commission On Human Rights calculated that 3 out of every four Afghans whom died in the conflict last year were killed by the minions of those men whom your citizens make nary a peep about, correct?

Please no Agnostic-like tap-dancing dissemblance. Afterall, it would be disrespectful to all those dead afghans at the hands of insensitive Pakistanis wishing to foist upon others that which they'll not accept for themselves.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jun 11,, 06:17
Enforcement of the laws is an ongoing process, breaking the laws is a one off incident. We have busted major king pins of terrorism over the years one guy, the most important to Al Qaeda, the one for whom they must have spend the most amount of resources and cunning, he slipped through. Its not about going after those who helped the Americans, its about going after those who would rather help a foreign spy agency than their own country. As demonstrated with your own country's example they have been jailing people for life - no indication of a life sentence form our side yet. Americans have been throwing people in solitary confinement, the spies that have only attempted to spy.

The nation is in a process of overhauling the ISI, the Army and the government to bow to Pakistani constitution. The ongoing Saleem Shahzad case is quite an example. You would be a frog in a well to think nothing else is going on towards improvement. But we'll be damned if we throw all that on the whims of American suspicions.Are you really this stupid? The most powerful country on earth demanding a criminal dead who resided on your territory and a criminal by all legal means is wanted dead or alive ... and you're demanding due process according to your Pakistani laws?

Like I said, you may be able to get away with it on Mumbai but don't you dare for one second pretend you can get away with it for OBL ... and that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 07:33
Are you really this stupid? The most powerful country on earth demanding a criminal dead who resided on your territory and a criminal by all legal means is wanted dead or alive ... and you're demanding due process according to your Pakistani laws?

Like I said, you may be able to get away with it on Mumbai but don't you dare for one second pretend you can get away with it for OBL ... and that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

Osama op was illegal since you cannot present a single piece of document authorizing an operation on Abottabad by US troops. Yes Americans did it only because they are powerful enough to break the law and do things illegally to further their means. But it will and always remain an illegal act for which all those involved and caught should be jailed. The ends do not justify the means. We have already dared to do it. The horrendous nature of American actions are not culminated in the Osama op however, it was the Raymond Davis incident, where an American murdered two Pakistani kids and got off scott free. That is the problem in legalizing Osama op, everything becomes legal in the fear of the most powerful country.

Fear of America is a relic of the past in Pakistan. This is just the beginning. Come election time this pliant pro-American government would be booted making way for pro-freedom government. Bravery is always termed stupid, till it works out. I realize how its in your best interest to do some scare mongering, but its falling on deaf ears as its a time for change and nothing can stop it, not 100 not 10,000 nuclear bombs!

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 07:43
"Raymond Davis was a watershed moment for us when we realized that American USG personnel have been given god like powers in Pakistan..."

It's quite possibly true. Sadly, it's too bad that harboring foreign agents of an ousted Afghan taliban government hasn't provoked such angst among your people.

Asim, you do know that the U.N. and the Afghan Independant Commission On Human Rights calculated that 3 out of every four Afghans whom died in the conflict last year were killed by the minions of those men whom your citizens make nary a peep about, correct?

Please no Agnostic-like tap-dancing dissemblance. Afterall, it would be disrespectful to all those dead afghans at the hands of insensitive Pakistanis wishing to foist upon others that which they'll not accept for themselves.

I would like a source of that since I would like to use it in my other discussions. But whereas that angst wasn't there before, it certainly is now. In fact Imran Khan (who observably is leading the charge for a free Pakistani nation) has shifted gears and instead of attacking American actions is now attacking Pakistani actions in the war. Given the chance, he is going to go after terrorist organizations and make sure the AT leave Pakistan, the FATA stops supporting the Taliban and the TTP/AQ are killed.

We really don't want to open up a front against the AT not because they are our friends, its because we do not have the resources for another 20 year battle. However we do not want to give them sanctuary either.

Think about it, your nation has gone the world over harping about freedom and democracy. Pakistan wants the same, once a free-democratic society emerges it will fight to eliminate terror groups with as much vigor as it is fighting American imperialism groups (Government/PA-leadership).

The reason I pointed out Raymond Davis is that it was too blatant, its like we don't already exist any more and 10,000 nukes from there on would make no practical difference we have no will, we are subjects to American will. I kid you not at that point, the government ceased to be a Pakistani government and an in your face defiance of all American imperialism groups was the only thing left for all patriotic Pakistanis to do. This is nothing, why only arrest Pakistani nationals, we want the arrests to expand onto American nationals who are supporting CIA in Pakistan.

Parihaka
19 Jun 11,, 07:59
Absolutely, anyone suspected of colluding with Taliban should be executed. There is no strong evidence that suggests Taliban are being supported by ISI, why in the world would the ISI support them when they have killed over 100 agents of ISI and have targeted their offices. This is some weird logic that you are advocating that simply does not make sense. Kinda reminds me of the American propaganda against the Japanese, making the other side look like a complete monster.
Ah but it's all about perception you see. Pakistan perceives that those who passed intel to the Americans are traitors to Pakistan and should be executed. Americans perceive the ISI as being terrorist supporters, therefore by your own logic they should be destroyed. See?

Parihaka
19 Jun 11,, 08:01
Oh btw, the US itself has been jailing spies of its ultra-friendly countries. Why not give Israeli spy Johnathan Pollard a pass? After all its Israel, a little bit of spying for the greater good should be allowed right?

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard)



Of course they have committed treason but would be let off with a slap on the wrist compared to what Americans do to spies of a foreign intelligence agency.

Playing it as retribution in support of Osama is the sort of twisted propaganda something what an AQ sympathizing Mullah would do from his pulpit. For some reasons Americans think its time Pakistan needs to bend over, whereas no crime has been proven to be committed by Pakistan, your deep suspicions are not a reason enough we stop existing as an independent entity.

Of course that only applies if you regarded Osama Bin Laden as an asset to Pakistan.:biggrin::rolleyes:

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 08:22
Of course that only applies if you regarded Osama Bin Laden as an asset to Pakistan.:biggrin::rolleyes:

It's an offensive assertion, just like equating a law n order issue with Mumbai. Mumbai attacks has an ongoing case in Pakistani courts and Lakhvi is on trial. Furthermore the fundamental link between ISI and Mumbai attacks through Rana has been rejected by none other than a US court of law. Furthermore this proves for Mumbai attacks the US has opted a law n order, due process approach.

The fundamental problem is that of suspicion and that is only partly Pakistani fault. Partly the US is the biggest supporter of the Pak Army's top leadership and its Zardari led Government. The Pakistani people are demanding the US stop giving out aid to these people but somehow the US keeps increasing it.

The best bet for the US is to back off its support to these groups, these informants, these leaders who are only in it for the money, so that the people who are in it to maintain law n order they are able to implement law n order and ultimately aid US's end goals - ending terrorism, ending support to people like OBL.

S2
19 Jun 11,, 08:27
"I would like a source of that..."

Link inside the link.

Parties to Afghan conflict should escalate protection of civilians in 2011-UNAMA March 9, 2011 (http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1741&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=12550)

"...Anti-government elements were linked to 2,080 civilian deaths (75 per cent of all civilian deaths), up 28 per cent from 2009, while pro-government forces were linked to 440 civilian deaths (16 per cent), down 26 per cent from 2009. Nine per cent of civilian deaths in 2010 could not be attributed to any party to the conflict..."

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 08:56
Oh and bombing shbombing, Osama op was a violation of international and Pakistani laws.

What international laws were broken? Name one please, I know a thing or two about international law and the laws of armed conflict and there is not a single law I have found that would show the operation to kill OBL in a negative light.

As for Pakistani law, what laws were broken? Here I will gladly defer to you if you can give me the specific law codes that were broken. Because generally allies don;t need permission to work with allies to attack targets that are mutual threats. Did the US have to get French permission for Operation Overlord? Did the US Armies Green Berets have to get West German permission to run around the German country side near the inter-German frontier making contacts with locals to set up safe houses and networks in case of a Soviet invasion? No they did not.

Pollard was a spy assisting Israel in stealing US secrets, he was assisting say the Mossad in killing the masterminds of the Beirut Barracks bombing.... big difference.I find the level of anger among so many Pakistani Wabbits nauseating..... We told your nation in 01 that Pakistan had two choices with us or against us and that when we found him we were going to get him. For some reason the ISI decided to shelter him in the heart of your nation.

Those 5 Pakistanis who helped my nation kill Bin Laden should be regarded as national heroes. They had the honor to do whats rights when your government lacked the spine to do so. Wikileaks has established the ISI's connections to organized terror, almost every major terror leader caught since 9-11 and many before have been caught in Pakistan, and every nation bordering Pakistan or working in Pakistan except China is complaining about terror coming from Pakistan. Yet Pakistani Wabbits are upset that OBL is dead....

Forgive me but WTF?

Double Edge
19 Jun 11,, 09:04
The nation is in a process of overhauling the ISI, the Army and the government to bow to Pakistani constitution. The ongoing Saleem Shahzad case is quite an example.
Can you define what the bolded bit means and the criteria you use to evaluate progress on said objective.
How to test the bolded bit.
What are the expectations.

Othewise statements alone by leaders are just rhetoric.

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 09:09
Osama op was illegal since you cannot present a single piece of document authorizing an operation on Abottabad by US troops.

UN Security Council Resolution 1268 9/12/01 authorizes the US and the world at large to use all means to combat terrorism..... India is legally justified in waging war on Pakistan for Mumbia so you might want to think about that Pariah status your advocating for Pakistan.



Yes Americans did it only because they are powerful enough to break the law and do things illegally to further their means.

The operation was legal.


But it will and always remain an illegal act for which all those involved and caught should be jailed.

It was not illegal


The ends do not justify the means.

The UN gave the US and her allies in the war on terror explicit permission to pursue those responsible for international terrorism where ever they fled to.



We have already dared to do it. The horrendous nature of American actions are not culminated in the Osama op however, it was the Raymond Davis incident, where an American murdered two Pakistani kids and got off scott free. That is the problem in legalizing Osama op, everything becomes legal in the fear of the most powerful country.

Davis shot two would be murdering thieves (or ISI minders you pick), was extorted by the thieves family for blood money and then let go in accordance with Pakistani law.


Fear of America is a relic of the past in Pakistan. This is just the beginning. Come election time this pliant pro-American government would be booted making way for pro-freedom government. Bravery is always termed stupid, till it works out. I realize how its in your best interest to do some scare mongering, but its falling on deaf ears as its a time for change and nothing can stop it, not 100 not 10,000 nuclear bombs!

Yes because that pliant from Taliban government set up has worked out so well for your nation.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 09:21
UN Security Council Resolution 1268 9/12/01 authorizes the US and the world at large to use all means to combat terrorism..... India is legally justified in waging war on Pakistan for Mumbia so you might want to think about that Pariah status your advocating for Pakistan.
There is not a single resolution allowing military action within Pakistan. Not a single one.


The operation was legal.
Illegal by international and Pakistani laws, if you dig deep its probably illegal by US laws too


It was not illegal
It fails to convince Pakistanis and we will always treat it as such. If you can get a vote from the UN, Pakistan abides by UN security council resolutions, just as it did in the treatment of JuD as LeT.


The UN gave the US and her allies in the war on terror explicit permission to pursue those responsible for international terrorism where ever they fled to.

Not in Pakistan, never.


Davis shot two would be murdering thieves (or ISI minders you pick), was extorted by the thieves family for blood money and then let go in accordance with Pakistani law.
That was also a lie, where are the families today? They have vanished into oblivion.


Yes because that pliant from Taliban government set up has worked out so well for your nation.
On the contrary no dealing with Taliban has worked out well for us, and now that you're dealing with them, it won't either work out for you. In fact as things stand today you're the one making much larger deals with the Taliban.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 09:23
Can you define what the bolded bit means and the criteria you use to evaluate progress on said objective.
How to test the bolded bit.
What are the expectations.

Othewise statements alone by leaders are just rhetoric.

Follow up the Saleem Shahzad case. Pakistani protests have forced, the government to host an independent commission to investigate ISI's role in the killing. ISPR too has voiced support for the investigation. Rule of law is being implemented.

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 09:40
There is not a single resolution allowing military action within Pakistan. Not a single one.

Asim, you are wrong, the US and her allies were given carte blanche in September of 2001.

Resolution

The full text of Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

“Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

“Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,

“1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

“2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;

“3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

“4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;

(page 1b follows)

“5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

“6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

Double Edge
19 Jun 11,, 10:12
Follow up the Saleem Shahzad case. Pakistani protests have forced, the government to host an independent commission to investigate ISI's role in the killing. ISPR too has voiced support for the investigation. Rule of law is being implemented.
So if this commission comes up with the finding that the ISI and by extention the state is innocent then what is the reaction ?

You did say independent, usually that implies a retired judge but there is always govt influence.

When are the findings of this commision expected to come out ?

How credible it the track record of former independent commissions in Pakistan ?

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 11:23
Asim, you are wrong, the US and her allies were given carte blanche in September of 2001.

Resolution

The full text of Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

“Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

“Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,

“1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

“2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;

“3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

“4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;

(page 1b follows)

“5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

“6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

That is flimsy wording and if tried in the ICJ it will never agree with your interpretation and you can't launch attacks into any country just as you see fit. Try to launch an attack into say China and see what happens in response. Till date you have not been able to launch a single attack on Iran, your sworn enemy, the only reason you get away with Pakistan is because our pliant government lets you carry out illegal attacks...

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 12:20
So if this commission comes up with the finding that the ISI and by extention the state is innocent then what is the reaction ?

You did say independent, usually that implies a retired judge but there is always govt influence.

When are the findings of this commision expected to come out ?

How credible it the track record of former independent commissions in Pakistan ?

Right now we are trying to control the government from weaseling out. The effort is to get it started and this would be the first of an independent nature where the ISPR has agreed for its institutions to be investigated from an independent authority.

In that sense the ISPR is so far playing it clean, the government however is trying to crush the investigation.

Moreover if the results are unconvincing (if innocence is unconvincing) then more confrontation would ensue.

So that brings the law n order tally from ISI's role in journalist , to Lakhvi (for Mumbai attacks) and now hopefully American spies. I said this thing from the get go, this movement is not going anywhere and ultimately every power in the world will have to bow to Pakistani public pressure, you have no idea the extent of anger the Pakistani public has over the lack of independence and freedom the nation is currently going through.

Vinod2070
19 Jun 11,, 13:02
^^ If you are counting on Imran Khan to bring about the "revolution", you may have to wait for a very long time.

He does have a way of attracting the middle class Pakistanis but he has no real policies except a lot of rhetoric. His achievements in the decades of politics are nothing to write home about as well.

Of course it pays to sound anti US in Pakistan and he is cashing it to the hilt, when it comes to actually defining his policies, he is mostly a bag of hot air.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 13:05
^^ If you are counting on Imran Khan to bring about the "revolution", you may have to wait for a very long time.

He does have a way of attracting the middle class Pakistanis but he has no real policies except a lot of rhetoric. His achievements in the decades of politics are nothing to write home about as well.

Of course it pays to sound anti US in Pakistan and he is cashing it to the hilt, when it comes to actually defining his policies, he is mostly a bag of hot air.

Only he has always clarified his position of not being anti-US but like US. He says these are the ethics and laws that a modern western society follows for itself

1980s
19 Jun 11,, 13:20
That is flimsy wording and if tried in the ICJ it will never agree with your interpretation

As if you would know. You're not an international judge or lawyer.... What a joke! You cant even name the 'international laws' supposedly broken that zraver asked you to.

Vinod2070
19 Jun 11,, 13:21
Only he has always clarified his position of not being anti-US but like US. He says these are the ethics and laws that a modern western society follows for itself

Well, he certainly blames US for all the terror in Pakistan. He believes that once the US leaves, the terror will take care of itself.

That is certainly simplistic. More likely Pakistan will fall to the Jihadis and people like Imran will be simply swept away.

He is another one of those who want to find an external scapegoat for all the issues in Pakistani society, not realizing that what is happening now is the result of the decades of policy when Pakistan tried to overreach itself and use the Jihadis for its ends at the cost of radicalizing its own society.

He is either extremely naive or extremely cunning. None of it will help when the time comes.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 13:25
As if you would know. You're not an international judge or lawyer.... What a joke! You cant even name the 'international laws' supposedly broken that zraver asked you to.

Violation of international sovereignty, I don't need to name it, its a given.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 13:39
Well, he certainly blames US for all the terror in Pakistan. He believes that once the US leaves, the terror will take care of itself.
That is not true. He only partly blames the US for aggravating the war on terror amongst groups that wouldn't have joined Al Qaeda. He says once you get FATA to quit supporting Taliban AND Pakistan fights the top tier Taliban and AQ groups, the fight will be over relatively sooner. In fact he says within 90 days of actual fighting.


That is certainly simplistic. More likely Pakistan will fall to the Jihadis and people like Imran will be simply swept away.
Very 2001ish scaremongering. More likely AT would be asked to leave Pakistan, TTP and AQ will be wiped off the map without FATA support.


He is another one of those who want to find an external scapegoat for all the issues in Pakistani society, not realizing that what is happening now is the result of the decades of policy when Pakistan tried to overreach itself and use the Jihadis for its ends at the cost of radicalizing its own society.
I repeat once again though he has picked up the drone issue, he has focused his blame upon the Pakistan government, the Pakistan army and the ISI. Yes all these groups are also tagged as American collaborators. More recently the June 25th Dharna in Multan is no longer the Drone Dharna, but its a remove the government Dharna.


He is either extremely naive or extremely cunning. None of it will help when the time comes.
Very broad spectrum - I'll tell you something else. He is honest. He has all his assets declared and his financial statements posted on insaf.pk. Not just him but the rest of PTI's money flow is there for all to see. He doesn't have swiss bank accounts and has used his own earning to help run a Charity cancer hospital.

You can't just give blanket statements out there, prove that he has done anything wrong... He is on a league of its own and will be a heavy weight when it comes to justifying illegal actions against Pakistan.

Wikileaks has Anne Patterson saying that Nawaz, Zardari, Kayani, the Mullah parties all kept currying favors from her and the US. Imran Khan is the only one she described as the one who called her and her team to his house, gave them a 45 minutes lecture and they went without having a counter argument to him.

He is the one who is leading the charge in getting Pakistanis to pay taxes (fully paying his own taxes and publishing those figures as well).

He is the one who pushed the courts to try and declare the voting process as a fraud where 45% of the votes were of voters that don't even exist.

1980s
19 Jun 11,, 13:50
Violation of international sovereignty, I don't need to name it, its a given.

"International" sovereignty? :biggrin:

Please dont talk about things you dont know about.

If it was a breach of this supposed "international" sovereignty that bothers you people so much then you are but a bunch of two-faced hypocrites. So dont even try and cite 'the law' which you dont even value but try to apply selectively when it suits your hollow nationalism.

Was there any outcry from Pakistanis against their establishment when thousands of Pakistani FC personal crossed into Afghanistan during the 1990s to fight alongside the Taliban in taking Kabul in '96 and Mazar-e Sharif in '98? Or when Pakistani jets were violating Afghan sovereignty as late as April 2001 for bombing positions of the Northern Alliance? What a f'n hypocrite. It goes even way deeper than that:

"We (Pakistan) launched a jihad -- holy war -- in Afghanistan (against the Soviets)...We drew Mujahideen from the entire Muslim world...We armed and trained the Taliban...I supported the recognition of the Taliban government in Afghanistan...I was of the view that the whole world should have recognised and had relations with the Taliban government." - Gen. Musharraf speaking at the university of London on June 16, 2011 (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/06/human-rights-pakistan-soas).

Hows that for a violation of "international" sovereignty. :rolleyes:

You're such poor liars, and even worse debaters. You wanabe intellectuals just yap nonsense for the sake of it, dont you? Dont you realize that this isnt some ignorant audience you're talking to? Clearly you dont. What a pitty.

Leave the legal talk aside. You dont know or understand international law and your establishment is by far one of the worst violaters of it in the post-WWII era.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 15:20
Ah but it's all about perception you see. Pakistan perceives that those who passed intel to the Americans are traitors to Pakistan and should be executed. Americans perceive the ISI as being terrorist supporters, therefore by your own logic they should be destroyed. See?
It isn't about 'perception' at all - the people who assisted a foreign military and intelligence agency in carrying out unauthorized military strikes on Pakistani territory are traitors - no question about it.

On the other hand, your claims about 'ISI being terrorist supporters' continue to be nothing but conspiracy theories and hogwash. And if you really want to 'bomb' those sheltering 'terrorists', bomb US/NATO Afghan installations inside Afghanistan first, for sheltering one of Pakistan's most wanted terrorist leaders, Brahamdegh Bugti, and allowing terrorists to operate freely out of Eastern Afghanistan in attacking Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 15:22
Pollard betrayed the US. He did NOT killed Western citizens. OBL did. Taliban Afghanistan tried to protect him and we destroyed it. Now, we found OBL near your Officer School. Pray that is the end of it.

What does any of that have to do with the fact that individuals resident inside Pakistan committed treason by secretly aiding foreign intelligence and military agencies in carrying out military strikes inside Pakistan?

You fail to understand, perhaps deliberately so, that the issue is the fact that these people betrayed their nation in assisting a foreign military in carrying out military operations inside Pakistan - it is not about the specifics of what those operations were for.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 15:29
Damned be Pakistan for trying to protect OBL. Pakistan gotten off easy in case you didn't know.

Yet more unsubstantiated allegations. No Pakistani institution was involved in 'protecting, assisting or sheltering OBL'. There is ZERO evidence or motive to support that claim.

And the following report only solidifies the Pakistani position:




Abbottabad raid: Pakistan knew about increased US activity

WASHINGTON: Pakistan was aware of increased US intelligence activity in Abbottabad weeks before the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, an Arab diplomat with direct knowledge of the events told CNN on Saturday. The diplomat, who wished to remain anonymous, said Pakistan knew what America was doing but “never, never had any idea the operation was about Bin Laden.” The diplomat was approached privately by a Pakistani to inquire about heightened US intelligence-gathering activities. He said it was assumed Pakistan was asking all Arab allies.

The diplomat said he is sure officials in Pakistan “had no idea where Bin Laden was.” He also said “it was always clear (Ayman) al Zawahiri was going to replace Bin Laden.” “It’s not in their culture to go with someone else. They (al Qaeda) value loyalty,” the diplomat said.

Abbottabad raid: Pakistan knew about increased US activity – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/192041/abbottabad-raid-pakistan-knew-about-increased-us-activity/)


If any part of the allegations that Pakistani institutions, or high level individuals in those institutions, were involved in 'sheltering/protecting/assisting OBL' was true, then OBL would have been relocated as soon as Pakistan got wind of increased US intelligence activity in the region.

That US intelligence activities continued unfettered for the most part and resulted in tracking down OBL only indicates that Pakistani institutions were instrumental in allowing the US leeway to operate inside Pakistan and had nothing to hide in terms of OBL.

And it is a measure of US duplicity and treachery towards Pakistan that the US establishment, media and legislature have instead distorted events to vilify and malign Pakistan and its military and intelligence.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 15:34
^^ If you are counting on Imran Khan to bring about the "revolution", you may have to wait for a very long time.

He does have a way of attracting the middle class Pakistanis but he has no real policies except a lot of rhetoric.

Pakistan has the largest Urban population in South Asia - 40% and rising. Some estimate that it may already be touching 50%.

The next census, if done correctly, should reflect that, and the reallocation of legislative seats will challenge the influence of the rural areas and the landed elite. Imran Khan may be limited in his appeal to the urban middle class, but that is the fastest rising demographic in Pakistan, and if he can motivate a significant number of them to turn out to vote, Pakistan's political scene could change significantly.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 15:50
"But I am also not at all certain, given the sheltering of Brahamdegh Bugti in Kabul and the continued attacks against Pakistan out of Eastern Afghanistan, that the US/India are not involved in some way."

This is an odd comment. Bugti is not in Kabul. Rehman faces threat of attack by American forces daily in Kunar. He's said so to Syed Saleem Shahzad.
There are two wikileaks cables indicating US knowledge of Bugti in Kabul under IRoA protection - one is dated 2007, and the other is dated 2009. The first involves Boucher, the second a UN official and Ambassador Patterson, in the context of the kidnapping of Solecki.

US embassy cables: Karzai admits to sheltering Baloch nationalists | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/93284)

US embassy cables: Update on a UN official kidnapped by Balochi militants | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/192891)

That indicates, at the minimum, at least two years of Official US knowledge of the presence of one of Pakistan's most wanted terrorist leaders under their noses in Kabul, likely under the protection of their 'favored' Afghan intelligence led by Amrullah Saleh. It was also under US watch that Bugti somehow managed to take a flight to Switzerland to apply for 'asylum'. And Pakistan had been arguing that Baluch terrorists were being sheltered and supported in Afghanistan for years before the 'official knowledge'.

Given the amount of rants against Pakistan and accusations of 'complicity' just because OBL was hiding in Pakistan, the case against Official US complicity in hiding and sheltering terrorist leaders in Afghanistan is much more clear cut, and should invite substantially more 'condemnation' from those ranting against Pakistan over the presence of OBL.

And mere statements and rhetoric of 'under threat of constant attack' are not enough any more. It has been at least three years since Rehman and others started carrying out large scale intrusions into Pakistan and carrying out attacks against Pakistani security forces. Those intrusions and attacks have only gotten more frequent and deadlier. Your 'threat of constant attack' is meaningless and non-existent, as indicated by the facts on the ground.



"...I find it hard to understand Western suspicions of the ISI/PA, you may just as much find it hard to understand my own suspicions and distrust of your military and intelligence agencies..."

Unlike Pakistan and the afghan taliban upon your lands, we've made concerted efforts to kill Rehman. He's our enemy too.

I'll believe he is a US enemy and that the US is not supporting him and Mullah Fazlullah from Swat when the frequency of attacks out of Eastern Afghanistan decreases or ends, and does not continue increasing as it is currently.

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 15:56
That is flimsy wording and if tried in the ICJ it will never agree with your interpretation and you can't launch attacks into any country just as you see fit. Try to launch an attack into say China and see what happens in response. Till date you have not been able to launch a single attack on Iran, your sworn enemy, the only reason you get away with Pakistan is because our pliant government lets you carry out illegal attacks...

It is not flimsy wording, it is wording that directly allowed NATO to attack Afghanistan and Pakistan. The USA decided to be nice and gave Pakistan the choice to either join with us or get bombed into the "Stone Age". Such was publicly confirmed on Sept 22, 2001 by then Pakistani President Musharraf. That is 10 ten days after the resolution.

There are two keys in the resolution

the word ALL

all Pronunciation (ôl)
adj.
1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: All the windows are open. Deal all the cards. See Synonyms at whole.
2. Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole: all Christendom.
3. Being the utmost possible of: argued the case in all seriousness.
4. Every: got into all manner of trouble.
5. Any whatsoever: beyond all doubt.
6. Pennsylvania Finished; used up: The apples are all. See Regional Note at gum band.
7. Informal Being more than one: Who all came to the party? See Regional Note at you-all.
n.
The whole of one's fortune, resources, or energy; everything one has: The brave defenders gave their all.
pron.
1. The entire or total number, amount, or quantity; totality: All of us are sick. All that I have is yours.
2. Everyone; everything: justice for all.
adv.
1. Wholly; completely: a room painted all white; directions that were all wrong.
2. Each; apiece: a score of five all.
3. So much: I am all the better for that experience.

As you can see the word all leaves no grey areas but means any and everything.

Another key phrase is inherent

in·her·ent Pronunciation (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

Intrinsic means the US and her allies have the natural right to pursue those who attacked them where ever they are found. Borders do not stop a natural right. Infact such is spelled out explicitly in article 51 of the UN Charter

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

If nothing can impair, then borders cannot impair. This was the cornerstone of 1368 when it authorized the US and NATO to wage war on those persons, groups and states responsible for 9/11. 1368 is most definitely not flimsy wording.

The final key is the word combat

com·bat Pronunciation (km-bt, kmbt)
v. com·bat·ed or com·bat·ted, com·bat·ing or com·bat·ting, com·bats
v.tr.
1. To oppose in battle; fight against.
2. To oppose vigorously; struggle against. See Synonyms at oppose.
v.intr.
To engage in fighting; contend or struggle.
n. (kmbt)
Fighting, especially armed battle; strife. See Synonyms at conflict.
adj. (kmbt)
1. Of or relating to combat: flew 50 combat missions.
2. Intended for use or deployment in combat: combat boots; combat troops.

So what we have when taken together is the right to use anything to combat terror where ever it is found.

To further clarify that point, lets compare it to UNSC 83 and 84 which authorized UN forces to go to war in Korea.

Resolution 83 (1950) of 27 June 1950

The Security Council,

Having determined that the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea constitutes a breach of the peace,

Having called for an immediate cessation of hostilities,

Having called upon the authorities in North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel,

Having noted from the report of the United Nations Commission on Korea1 that the authorities in North Korea have neither ceased hostilities nor withdrawn their armed forces to the 38th parallel, and that urgent military measures are required to restore international peace and security,

Having noted the appeal from the Republic of Korea to the United Nations for immediate and effective steps to secure peace and security,

Recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.

Adopted at the 474th meeting
by 7 votes to 1 (Yugoslavia).2

Resolution 84 (1950) of 7 July 1950

The Security Council,

Having determined that the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea constitutes a breach of the peace,

Having recommended that Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area,

1. Welcomes the prompt and vigorous support which Governments and peoples of the United Nations have given to its resolutions 82 (1950) and 83 (1950) of 25 and 27 June 1950 to assist the Republic of Korea in defending itself against armed attack and thus to restore international peace and security in the area;

2. Notes that Members of the United Nations have transmitted to the United Nations offers of assistance for the Republic of Korea;

3. Recommends that all Members providing military forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolutions make such forces and other assistance available to a unified command under the United States of America;

4. Requests the United States to designate the commander of such forces;

5. Authorizes the unified command at its discretion to use the United Nations flag in the course of operations against North Korean forces concurrently with the flags of the various nations participating;

6. Requests the United States to provide the Security Council with reports as appropriate on the course of action taken under the unified command.

Adopted at the 476th meeting
by 7 votes to none, with 3
abstentions (Egypt, India,
Yugoslavia).1

As you'll see the wording in UNSC 83 and 84 was much less stringent than the strong language implied by words like all, inherent and combat.

Furthermore, the laws of armed conflict (LOAC) also known as the laws of war imply a burden on combatants, and neutrals as to what may and may not be done. No restriction in the LOAC exists that restricts an allies ability to operate in the territory of a belligerent (allied or enemy) that makes any distinction between ally and enemy. Since Pakistan is a co-belligerent only those parts of the LOAC dealing with how wars are fought apply. Territorial sanctity and sovereignty only apply to neutrals and to the preservation of territorial claims for those engaging in defensive wars.

The LOAC vis a vis Pakistan and the USA is more concerned with the principles of discrimination and distinction in methods- did the ends justify the means which is a legal concept in war fighting.

So lets see what type of attack would have been legal.

A)The first thing is to determine Bin Laden's value as a target.
1. His reach was global
2. Well over 100,000 had died as a result of his minions
3. A dozen nations had been attacked by him

Roughly speaking, any means that killed less people than he already killed and thus would likely kill again if given the chance is legal.

B)But what about the protection of civilian sites?

Again, civilian targets can be attacked, even obliterated if the desired military value is high enough- Berlin, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Hamburg.....
He had found refuge in the shadow of a military complex of a nuclear weapons state operating in defiance of the NPT.

C) But he was in Pakistan an ally

1.Legally the US could have nuked the place..... Think about that.... we could have turned the city to glass legally and instead we sent SEALS and as a result not one Pakistani died. Pakistan is not party to the NPT and posses nuclear weapons making her a legit target under existing US assurances to NNWS per UN 984 (1995).

Sorry Asim, but the op was legal from every legal standpoint. If Pakistan doesn't want the US crossing her borders she has to do two things- get the UN to rescind 1368 and make sure there are no targets for the US to find there. So long as parts of your leadership feel they can play both sides of the fence then my country will continue to treat Pakistan as if she straddles the fence.

But look on the bright side... your kin are not trying to knap arrowheads from flint. Musharraf should be considered a national hero for preventing that.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 16:17
Zraver:

There was no 'imminent threat' to the US from OBL. He was neither actively involved in raising/providing finances to AQ and its associates, nor was he by any means the major 'thinker' behind the various terrorists attacks plotted by Al Qaeda.

The raid to capture OBL was vengeance, not self-defence. Your arguments don't fly given the reality of OBL's position and role in Al Qaeda, for several years through the time he was killed.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 16:18
It is not flimsy wording, it is wording that directly allowed NATO to attack Afghanistan and Pakistan. The USA decided to be nice and gave Pakistan the choice to either join with us or get bombed into the "Stone Age". Such was publicly confirmed on Sept 22, 2001 by then Pakistani President Musharraf. That is 10 ten days after the resolution.

There are two keys in the resolution

the word ALL

all Pronunciation (ôl)
adj.
1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: All the windows are open. Deal all the cards. See Synonyms at whole.
2. Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole: all Christendom.
3. Being the utmost possible of: argued the case in all seriousness.
4. Every: got into all manner of trouble.
5. Any whatsoever: beyond all doubt.
6. Pennsylvania Finished; used up: The apples are all. See Regional Note at gum band.
7. Informal Being more than one: Who all came to the party? See Regional Note at you-all.
n.
The whole of one's fortune, resources, or energy; everything one has: The brave defenders gave their all.
pron.
1. The entire or total number, amount, or quantity; totality: All of us are sick. All that I have is yours.
2. Everyone; everything: justice for all.
adv.
1. Wholly; completely: a room painted all white; directions that were all wrong.
2. Each; apiece: a score of five all.
3. So much: I am all the better for that experience.

As you can see the word all leaves no grey areas but means any and everything.

Another key phrase is inherent

in·her·ent Pronunciation (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

Intrinsic means the US and her allies have the natural right to pursue those who attacked them where ever they are found. Borders do not stop a natural right. Infact such is spelled out explicitly in article 51 of the UN Charter

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

If nothing can impair, then borders cannot impair. This was the cornerstone of 1368 when it authorized the US and NATO to wage war on those persons, groups and states responsible for 9/11. 1368 is most definitely not flimsy wording.

The final key is the word combat

com·bat Pronunciation (km-bt, kmbt)
v. com·bat·ed or com·bat·ted, com·bat·ing or com·bat·ting, com·bats
v.tr.
1. To oppose in battle; fight against.
2. To oppose vigorously; struggle against. See Synonyms at oppose.
v.intr.
To engage in fighting; contend or struggle.
n. (kmbt)
Fighting, especially armed battle; strife. See Synonyms at conflict.
adj. (kmbt)
1. Of or relating to combat: flew 50 combat missions.
2. Intended for use or deployment in combat: combat boots; combat troops.

So what we have when taken together is the right to use anything to combat terror where ever it is found.

To further clarify that point, lets compare it to UNSC 83 and 84 which authorized UN forces to go to war in Korea.

Resolution 83 (1950) of 27 June 1950

The Security Council,

Having determined that the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea constitutes a breach of the peace,

Having called for an immediate cessation of hostilities,

Having called upon the authorities in North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel,

Having noted from the report of the United Nations Commission on Korea1 that the authorities in North Korea have neither ceased hostilities nor withdrawn their armed forces to the 38th parallel, and that urgent military measures are required to restore international peace and security,

Having noted the appeal from the Republic of Korea to the United Nations for immediate and effective steps to secure peace and security,

Recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.

Adopted at the 474th meeting
by 7 votes to 1 (Yugoslavia).2

Resolution 84 (1950) of 7 July 1950

The Security Council,

Having determined that the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea constitutes a breach of the peace,

Having recommended that Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area,

1. Welcomes the prompt and vigorous support which Governments and peoples of the United Nations have given to its resolutions 82 (1950) and 83 (1950) of 25 and 27 June 1950 to assist the Republic of Korea in defending itself against armed attack and thus to restore international peace and security in the area;

2. Notes that Members of the United Nations have transmitted to the United Nations offers of assistance for the Republic of Korea;

3. Recommends that all Members providing military forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolutions make such forces and other assistance available to a unified command under the United States of America;

4. Requests the United States to designate the commander of such forces;

5. Authorizes the unified command at its discretion to use the United Nations flag in the course of operations against North Korean forces concurrently with the flags of the various nations participating;

6. Requests the United States to provide the Security Council with reports as appropriate on the course of action taken under the unified command.

Adopted at the 476th meeting
by 7 votes to none, with 3
abstentions (Egypt, India,
Yugoslavia).1

As you'll see the wording in UNSC 83 and 84 was much less stringent than the strong language implied by words like all, inherent and combat.

Furthermore, the laws of armed conflict (LOAC) also known as the laws of war imply a burden on combatants, and neutrals as to what may and may not be done. No restriction in the LOAC exists that restricts an allies ability to operate in the territory of a belligerent (allied or enemy) that makes any distinction between ally and enemy. Since Pakistan is a co-belligerent only those parts of the LOAC dealing with how wars are fought apply. Territorial sanctity and sovereignty only apply to neutrals and to the preservation of territorial claims for those engaging in defensive wars.

The LOAC vis a vis Pakistan and the USA is more concerned with the principles of discrimination and distinction in methods- did the ends justify the means which is a legal concept in war fighting.

So lets see what type of attack would have been legal.

A)The first thing is to determine Bin Laden's value as a target.
1. His reach was global
2. Well over 100,000 had died as a result of his minions
3. A dozen nations had been attacked by him

Roughly speaking, any means that killed less people than he already killed and thus would likely kill again if given the chance is legal.

B)But what about the protection of civilian sites?

Again, civilian targets can be attacked, even obliterated if the desired military value is high enough- Berlin, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Hamburg.....
He had found refuge in the shadow of a military complex of a nuclear weapons state operating in defiance of the NPT.

C) But he was in Pakistan an ally

1.Legally the US could have nuked the place..... Think about that.... we could have turned the city to glass legally and instead we sent SEALS and as a result not one Pakistani died. Pakistan is not party to the NPT and posses nuclear weapons making her a legit target under existing US assurances to NNWS per UN 984 (1995).

Sorry Asim, but the op was legal from every legal standpoint. If Pakistan doesn't want the US crossing her borders she has to do two things- get the UN to rescind 1368 and make sure there are no targets for the US to find there. So long as parts of your leadership feel they can play both sides of the fence then my country will continue to treat Pakistan as if she straddles the fence.

But look on the bright side... your kin are not trying to knap arrowheads from flint. Musharraf should be considered a national hero for preventing that.

By that logic, Pakistan has been attacked by the CIA, so now we have Carte Blanche to attack Langley... Its ridiculous zraver, you know it. Utterly rubbish that there is a UN mandate allowing an attack on Pakistan. Total nonsense. You can bend it in anyway you like, Pakistanis are going to reject it. Do what you must, but we will continue to be a pain in the ass forever and ever if that is the way you play it. Rejected.

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 16:47
Zraver:

There was no 'imminent threat' to the US from OBL. He was neither actively involved in raising/providing finances to AQ and its associates, nor was he by any means the major 'thinker' behind the various terrorists attacks plotted by Al Qaeda.

The raid to capture OBL was vengeance, not self-defence. Your arguments don't fly given the reality of OBL's position and role in Al Qaeda, for several years through the time he was killed.

That is utter poppycock, if he was disconnected from AQ operations we could not have followed the messengers back to him.

Julie
19 Jun 11,, 16:49
Do what you must, but we will continue to be a pain in the ass forever and ever ... I have to fully agree with that fact. ;)

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 16:52
That is utter poppycock, if he was disconnected from AQ operations we could not have followed the messengers back to him.

I have yet to hear of any AQ operations he financed, planned or 'led' since the US invasion of Afghanistan.

He was a figurehead, and in the early years in Afghanistan, a source of finances. He was barely the former in the years leading up to his death.

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 16:55
By that logic, Pakistan has been attacked by the CIA, so now we have Carte Blanche to attack Langley... Its ridiculous zraver, you know it. Utterly rubbish that there is a UN mandate allowing an attack on Pakistan. Total nonsense. You can bend it in anyway you like, Pakistanis are going to reject it. Do what you must, but we will continue to be a pain in the ass forever and ever if that is the way you play it. Rejected.

No, your the one bending things- go ahead and try and get a UN resolution to go after Langley. As for being a pain in the ass for ever and ever big words from a non-player matter little. Even if you spoke for Pakistan it would matter little. What exactly is Pakistan going to do? Support terrorist? Same ol', same ol' as far as many are concerned.

Lets look at what is the likely outcome of a total US-Pakistan split
1. The US gets driven into India's orbit as far as regional views are concerned
2. Pakistan loses her biggest market
3. Pakistan loses her only source of truly modern aircraft and armaments. The stuff from China is still a generation or more behind in most cases.
4. Pakistan loses billions in aid
5. Pakistan loses the US shield that likely stopped Indian action following Mumbai
6. The US has no reason not to take out your nukes to make sure they don't fall into the hands of radicals
7. Jihadists get an even louder voice to turn Pakistan into an Arab Wahabist paradise
8. Your hope for eventual democracy goes poof.
9. Your economy collapses
10. worst cases is war where a handful of F-16's and older Chinese fighters get to demonstrate the power of the Super Hornet and Raptor

More importantly as far as this discussion is concerned however, is you have yet to cite a single international law that made the raid illegal while I have provided example after example to show it was. Either put up or shut up about the legality of the operation.

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 16:57
I have yet to hear of any AQ operations he financed, planned or 'led' since the US invasion of Afghanistan.

He was a figurehead, and in the early years in Afghanistan, a source of finances. He was barely the former in the years leading up to his death.

You've heard, you've just ignored. He tapes released after 9-11 were often coded broadcasts that triggered operations like London, Madrid, Aman, Bali etc. It almost looks like your defending him, are you defending OBL?

Double Edge
19 Jun 11,, 18:07
In that sense the ISPR is so far playing it clean, the government however is trying to crush the investigation.
The bolded bit is odd, can you suggest any reasons :confused:

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 18:26
I have to fully agree with that fact. ;)

:D good one. But my strong emotions aside, I do hope as Pakistan's performance increases so will the US's trust. But given a heavy handed approach its in the fundamental Pakistani nature to resist.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 18:41
Lets look at what is the likely outcome of a total US-Pakistan split
1. The US gets driven into India's orbit as far as regional views are concerned

(There is only one concern on Kashmir and while the US has been a champion of freedom, it has already almost always favored India's status quo)

2. Pakistan loses her biggest market (True, but only if the US moves on to place sanctions, in that case the US loses its supply route too, I'm all for Pak-US trade)

3. Pakistan loses her only source of truly modern aircraft and armaments. The stuff from China is still a generation or more behind in most cases. (Blessing, its still 2 generations behind what the US offers India)

4. Pakistan loses billions in aid (Blessing, it removes US control off Pakistan)

5. Pakistan loses the US shield that likely stopped Indian action following Mumbai (Granted, but we don't intend on giving an easy hand to the terrorists either, also Pakistanis are unconvinced India is capable of carrying out any decisive action).

6. The US has no reason not to take out your nukes to make sure they don't fall into the hands of radicals (I don't think its as easy as you make it sound, the day US can take it out, it would take them out).

7. Jihadists get an even louder voice to turn Pakistan into an Arab Wahabist paradise (No, no way! People like me are secularists and we want a secular law in Pakistan. However as things are, lack of freedom in Pakistan inhibits secularism and gives way for Mullahism.

8. Your hope for eventual democracy goes poof. (Democracy is power for the people. The people want to keep the US in her limits and follow Pakistani law n order institutions).

9. Your economy collapses (It really won't. No US money goes into benefitting the Pak economy. If that was true the biggest economic problem of Pakistan's today, that is our energy generation would not be going on. The Powerplants are there, but there is nothing fueling them. Where is the US money going?)

10. worst cases is war where a handful of F-16's and older Chinese fighters get to demonstrate the power of the Super Hornet and Raptor (In any realistic war scenario that you start with Pakistan for the sake of eliminating terrorists, would require you to step on Pakistani soil. If you thought Taliban were bad, you would get a fight from every soul in Pakistan). There won't be any bad guy for you to prop up local support against. There will not be a Northern Alliance. There will be just your guys and 180 Mn of us all armed, Don't take war with Pakistan so lightly.)


More importantly as far as this discussion is concerned however, is you have yet to cite a single international law that made the raid illegal while I have provided example after example to show it was. Either put up or shut up about the legality of the operation.

Actually you were supposed to cite me a UN resolution allowing military action against Pakistan. There is no such thing, you're welcome to try using that flimsy justification, but its not like Pakistanis would say "Oh ok, now its okay". You can justify anything internally, we can reject anything internally. Rest assured your stated end goals would not be met by going to war with Pakistan.

However if you allow Pakistanis to take charge, the good, the pro-freedom, the honest, the non-corrupt, people pushing for this freedom movement they would undoubtedly ask for a government that takes out terror groups. Make no mistake, every Pakistani is very ready to fight the Taliban and the Americans, whoever that dares messes with us.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 18:48
The bolded bit is odd, can you suggest any reasons :confused:

I would be guessing, an independent investigation will reveal who actually was involved. All I know is that this is an extremely pro-US government. I still maintain that the article Saleem Shahzad wrote didn't have anything so damning against ISI, nothing that so many others have not already said so. But somebody did kill him and for once I like to ensure that we reach a logical end to these investigations.

Whoever it is, they should be punished. Personally I think till we can't punish our people for crimes against free-speech the US will continue to treat us like its bitch. The US thinking is, so what there's so much wrong going on in Pakistan a little bit that benefits us shouldn't be so bad. Thats why Lakhvi's case is now gaining interest in Pakistan too and people are pushing that we don't need a never ending trial, conclude it soon.

If Pakistan can punish the Saleem Shahzad killers, the Mumbai attack perpetrators, then that would give us the moral high ground to stand up to the US and take out a drone or two too, since drone attacks are also totally illegal.

Dreadnought
19 Jun 11,, 19:29
Excellent move by Pakistan.

By the US's own admission it carried out the raid without Pakistani authorization or knowledge. Regardless of the reason behind the raid, the fact is that it was an unauthorized military strike in Pakistan, and Pakistani should investigate, arrest and punish any individuals in Pakistan that assisted in this military operation by a foreign nation on Pakistani soil.

Execute every single one that is found guilty publicly I say. Send a clear message.

And I say bomb Pakistan with impunity for hiding Bin Laden and Haqqani network within their borders until they get the message which obviously they have not as of yet.

Yeah, thats a good idea executing those that wish the terrorists to leave their lands along with the US and give intelligence to root them out knowing their own government is playing games where other nations are dead serious.

Thats their reward for standing up and doing whats righteous while their government lies and decieves.

You would make one hell of a replacement.:rolleyes:

Dreadnought
19 Jun 11,, 19:41
I would be guessing, an independent investigation will reveal who actually was involved. All I know is that this is an extremely pro-US government. I still maintain that the article Saleem Shahzad wrote didn't have anything so damning against ISI, nothing that so many others have not already said so. But somebody did kill him and for once I like to ensure that we reach a logical end to these investigations.

Whoever it is, they should be punished. Personally I think till we can't punish our people for crimes against free-speech the US will continue to treat us like its bitch. The US thinking is, so what there's so much wrong going on in Pakistan a little bit that benefits us shouldn't be so bad. Thats why Lakhvi's case is now gaining interest in Pakistan too and people are pushing that we don't need a never ending trial, conclude it soon.

If Pakistan can punish the Saleem Shahzad killers, the Mumbai attack perpetrators, then that would give us the moral high ground to stand up to the US and take out a drone or two too, since drone attacks are also totally illegal.

And why would you want to take a shot at those drones. They are indeed doing the job your government refuses to and thats exactly why Pakistan will never change.

You mention "logical", well wheres the logic at? Were still waiting to see it. Until then you can bet your ass the US wont give up drone strikes and now that the bomb factories have been moved thanks to your intel services, chances are you wont hear about it again until a US drone puts a heat seeker right through the door. Because the US dont trust your government anymore and it has been proven time after time they are untrustworthy. Then you can bitch and whine about soverignty all you want as usual but they will be dead none the less.

It seems soverignty in your view these days takes presidence of right and wrong. Especially when your government does nothing but scream soverignty instead of fixing the problem and the US is forced to act to protect its troops in a country your government shouldnt be involved in. Go figure.

Now lets talk "Soverignty":rolleyes:

IMHO, You just better hope that the POS in charge of Al Qaida right now isi'nt found within your borders.

Do you really not see why Pakistan will never change or progress?

Double Edge
19 Jun 11,, 19:50
I would be guessing, an independent investigation will reveal who actually was involved. All I know is that this is an extremely pro-US government. I still maintain that the article Saleem Shahzad wrote didn't have anything so damning against ISI, nothing that so many others have not already said so. But somebody did kill him and for once I like to ensure that we reach a logical end to these investigations.
It's odd because he did not say anything about the govt in his letter, it was the ISI he was afraid of. What you are suggesting raises the third possibility that it might have been the govt instead of the ISI that wanted him gone if not that then at least moderated.

Or the govt is trying to shield the ISI but ISPR already agreed to the commission so thats ruled out.

Cheema was threatened by the ISI and had to go easy on them AFAICT, not the govt.


Whoever it is, they should be punished. Personally I think till we can't punish our people for crimes against free-speech the US will continue to treat us like its bitch. The US thinking is, so what there's so much wrong going on in Pakistan a little bit that benefits us shouldn't be so bad. Thats why Lakhvi's case is now gaining interest in Pakistan too and people are pushing that we don't need a never ending trial, conclude it soon.
I can understand a bit better Imran's objections now. If he is to articulate a new path that is more accountable to the ppl then it has to cut across the board with no exceptions. Thing is this is the seductive theory, the practice is where the compromises get made. Every politician is like this.


If Pakistan can punish the Saleem Shahzad killers, the Mumbai attack perpetrators, then that would give us the moral high ground to stand up to the US and take out a drone or two too, since drone attacks are also totally illegal.
Yeah, that would be the logical progression assuming the previous stages were done in the right spirit. Then again if you got this far then would not be any need for the drones anyway as you were capable of doing in the first place, isn't it :)

Nobody doubts your ability to police your territory, it always been about your will to do so, to take on the responsiblity.

Surreal McCoy
19 Jun 11,, 20:03
Try to launch an attack into say China and see what happens in response. Till date you have not been able to launch a single attack on Iran, your sworn enemy, the only reason you get away with Pakistan is because our pliant government lets you carry out illegal attacks...

When China or Iran actively harbour terrorists that wantonly kill 3000 of our citizens then maybe we can address your question. I happen to think Americans are fairly resourceful folk who would find a way to get it done.

As for Pakistan allowing the American raid on Abbottabad, well, that's just more wishful thinking...

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 20:23
And why would you want to take a shot at those drones. They are indeed doing the job your government refuses to and thats exactly why Pakistan will never change.
First of all they are doing a horrendous job. Simply put bulk of the people killed by drones should have been arrested and tried.


You mention "logical", well wheres the logic at? Were still waiting to see it. Until then you can bet your ass the US wont give up drone strikes and now that the bomb factories have been moved thanks to your intel services
Actually that has already been proven a sham report, or a faulty intelligence. Either the US intelligence was "incompetent or complicit". We don't know, but there were no bomb factories there to begin with. Pakistan has now openly challenged this US claim and called it a liar, I hope US will produce super duper evidence in proving there really were some bomb factories (easily provable through forensic analysis) there.


It seems soverignty in your view these days takes presidence of right and wrong. Especially when your government does nothing but scream soverignty instead of fixing the problem and the US is forced to act to protect its troops in a country your government shouldnt be involved in. Go figure.
You keep shedding responsibility off this government as if its not YOUR government that funds it, arms it and then goes around in the media defending it against its illegal actions. I too call it a stupid and corrupt government. It should be shooting down drones, it should be reclaiming sovereignty not just talking about it.


Now lets talk "Soverignty":rolleyes:

IMHO, You just better hope that the POS in charge of Al Qaida right now isi'nt found within your borders.

Do you really not see why Pakistan will never change or progress?
Silly talk. If I knew where and who he was I would shoot him myself. So far CIA can't decide if its Saif Al Adel or Ayman Zawahiri that is in charge. I'll do you one better I'll shoot them both. But I'll still shoot down the drones that come to attack Pakistan. If only things were up to me this would be such a nice world. I repeat I have no qualms in stating unequivocally, the US and Taliban and Al Qaida, all three are working against Pakistan and thus deserves full resistence from Pakistan.

Double Edge
19 Jun 11,, 20:27
As for Pakistan allowing the American raid on Abbottabad, well, that's just more wishful thinking...
Did not have any knowledge of makes better spin in keeping the jihadi's of their backs. Not taken into confidence etc basically Pakistan must not have responsiblity or be blamed for OBL's death. From this pov it looks like they are not only trying to rebut the US but the Jihadis as well.

The rest is just PR for the domestic audience. Have to let the ppl vent for a bit before moving on.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 20:29
I can understand a bit better Imran's objections now. If he is to articulate a new path that is more accountable to the ppl then it has to cut across the board with no exceptions. Thing is this is the seductive theory, the practice is where the compromises get made. Every politician is like this.

In very minor things... Imran is the only person who was offered premiership (by Musharraf) and he rejected it himself. The problem is Americans want Pakistanis to implement rule of law on all things except them. This is an impossibility they demand of us, it may work for corrupt and vile people like Zardari that only America finds it conceivable to befriend, but not for people that stick to principles.

If you want Pakistanis to arrest and put away bad guys, you can't expect America to get away while being a bad guy in Pakistan. Either America becomes good, or it gets swooped in the action against bad guys.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 20:33
Freaking 10 years on and you guys are still echoing an idiot "You're with us or against us".

We had already declared
That we are with the workers
We are with the needy
We are with the oppressed
--Aitezaz Ahsan

We're with Pakistan and since neither the terrorists nor America is with Pakistan the natural order of things is that we bring to the book both of them.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 20:36
When China or Iran actively harbour terrorists that wantonly kill 3000 of our citizens then maybe we can address your question. I happen to think Americans are fairly resourceful folk who would find a way to get it done.

As for Pakistan allowing the American raid on Abbottabad, well, that's just more wishful thinking...

Neither has Pakistan, the chronology of the argument was that America would attack Pakistan for not bowing to its demands. Btw, 34,000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 Pakistani soldiers have died as a result of this war, so thank you very much your tragedy pales in comparison. We know why its important to take severe action against terrorists.

Surreal McCoy
19 Jun 11,, 20:42
Neither has Pakistan, the chronology of the argument was that America would attack Pakistan for not bowing to its demands. Btw, 34,000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 Pakistani soldiers have died as a result of this war, so thank you very much your tragedy pales in comparison. We know why its important to take severe action against terrorists.

Of course that has nothing to do with reaping what you sow? I know it's been argued to death on here, but the similarities between that argument and the one made by the Japanese and Germans is uncanny. At some point, don't you feel you (implied you) have to take on a modicum of responsibility? Is it always someone else's fault because the world is simply out to get Pakistan?



We're with Pakistan and since neither the terrorists nor America is with Pakistan the natural order of things is that we bring to the book of them.

Somehow I think that would benefit both parties immensely.

Double Edge
19 Jun 11,, 20:43
The problem is Americans want Pakistanis to implement rule of law on all things except them.
Umm, if you had rule of law then there would not be any of this because you would be doing things anyway. That they want you to do this implies there isn't an adequate response. Then again if you take their aid you are in a way compromised.


This is an impossibility they demand of us, it may work for corrupt and vile people like Zardari that only America finds it conceivable to befriend, but not for people that stick to principles.
So where are those ppl for the last ten years. Its funny your hatred for Zardari is all Imran speak. He thinks Zardari is a puppet. Is that true ? No, Zardari got voted in on a sympathy vote after his wife was assasinated. He was not installed there by the Americans but by your own people. Imran might have some justification on vote rigging but he was never ever going to get enough to be a contender in the last election. Thats why you see him making all this noise, he has sensed the opportunity and he is playing his best game. Best of luck.


If you want Pakistanis to arrest and put away bad guys, you can't expect America to get away while being a bad guy in Pakistan. Either America becomes good, or it gets swooped in the action against bad guys.
Well, arrest the bad guys and it all stops. Thats the way it works. THere wont be any American pressure, in fact they might shower you with rewards for the trouble.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 20:51
Umm, if you had rule of law then there would not be any of this because you would be doing things anyway. That they want you to do this implies there isn't an adequate response. Then again if you take their aid you are in a way compromised.

Of course and I am against the aid. It gives the US the right to be our bosses which is unacceptable.

But I ask a similar question to all those so ready to ditch Pakistan government, why is it that you can't find it in yourself to stop the aid? The first thing... THE FIRST thing Obama did was increase aid to Pakistan. This Osama op blunder has happened, now Pakistan is resisting so much already we're seeing media reports on how Obama should be assisting Pakistan government. More aid will come.

Somehow America finds it in herself to always increase the aid against the people it bitches about. America wants to act all betrayed when things go south and act all heroic when it turns out its way.

Stop the aid, I demand it!

S2
19 Jun 11,, 20:52
Your comment remains astoundingly odd.

Brahamdagh Bugti is not in Kabul. He is in Switzerland. Your beef is not nor ever has been with America. The cables make plain that America acted as an honest broker or interlocutor on behalf of Pakistan with both the Afghan government and the U.N. Both of those entities see your persecution of the Baloch nationalists in decidedly different terms than Pakistan. The U.N. was so deeply concerned with Bugti's safety that they've seeked out and found a nation (Switzerland) willing to harbor Bugti under U.N. auspices.

Afghanistan, the U.N. and Switzerland. Simple. Try those addresses. I doubt the latter two believe Mr. Bugti will get a fair trial.

"...And mere statements and rhetoric of 'under threat of constant attack' are not enough any more. It has been at least three years since Rehman and others started carrying out large scale intrusions into Pakistan and carrying out attacks against Pakistani security forces..."

Those "mere statements" are backed with the sweat expended and blood shed by U.S. soldiers. You've participated in the "Into the Valley Of Death" thread here. I've ran something similar on your board. The articles behind those threads are clear indication that there's far more than statements and rhetoric backing up my comments.

As recently as last month in Kunar our troops lost six men in combat against Rehman's forces.

Nothing remotely similar can be said for the last ten years of your troops against the Afghan taliban leadership whom you harbor today upon Pakistani land.

That's the biggest fact of this war.

Double Edge
19 Jun 11,, 20:57
Of course and I am against the aid. It gives the US the right to be our bosses which is unacceptable.
If you were truly your own boss then this would not be happening.


But I ask a similar question to all those so ready to ditch Pakistan government, why is it that you can't find it in yourself to stop the aid? The first thing... THE FIRST thing Obama did was increase aid to Pakistan. This Osama op blunder has happened, now Pakistan is resisting so much already we're seeing media reports on how Obama should be assisting Pakistan government. More aid will come.

Somehow America finds it in herself to always increase the aid against the people it bitches about. America wants to act all betrayed when things go south and act all heroic when it turns out its way.

Stop the aid, I demand it!
Your opinion on it is fine, let us know when Pakistan officially says no.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 21:56
You've heard, you've just ignored. He tapes released after 9-11 were often coded broadcasts that triggered operations like London, Madrid, Aman, Bali etc.
'Coded broadcasts' doing what exactly? Did his braodcasts 'plan the attacks'? No.

Did his broadcasts 'provide training'?
No

Did his broadcasts 'provide funding'?
No.

The cells perpetrating the terrorist attacks did not need OBL for anything. If indeed, as you claim, OBL broadcasts 'triggered the attacks', then they were only for show - they had no tangible purpose beyonf propaganda.

OBL was no threat in terms of providing 'operational support, financial support or intellectual support' for the terrorist attacks after the US invasion of Afghanistan. He was not by any means an 'imminent threat' to the US, nor was he capable of being one so long as he was on the run and in hiding as he was.

Self-defence does not apply in the case of the OBL raid.

It almost looks like your defending him, are you defending OBL?
I am pointing out the flaws in your 'self-defence' argument - you don't have to resort to a smear campaign to refute my arguments because you disagree with them.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 22:06
Your comment remains astoundingly odd.

Brahamdagh Bugti is not in Kabul. He is in Switzerland.

The links I posted clearly show him as being present in Kabul, and clearly illustrate Official US knowledge of his presence, for ATLEAST TWO YEARS. THe US/Afghans facilitated his comfortable flight to Switzerland to seek asylum. You have offered no explanation of why the US refused to act against Bugti in, at least, those two+ years, and facilitated his escape to Switzerland.

The US therefore sheltered, and helped flee to Europe, a terrorist leader wanted by Pakistan.
The cables make plain that America acted as an honest broker or interlocutor on behalf of Pakistan with both the Afghan government and the U.N. Both of those entities see your persecution of the Baloch nationalists in decidedly different terms than Pakistan. The U.N. was so deeply concerned with Bugti's safety that they've seeked out and found a nation (Switzerland) willing to harbor Bugti under U.N. auspices.

Afghanistan, the U.N. and Switzerland. Simple. Try those addresses. I doubt the latter two believe Mr. Bugti will get a fair trial.
Complete hypocrisy and double standards. Where was US respect for 'interlocutors, due process, fair trial etc. when seeking OBL from the Taliban regime. They did not, indeed most of the Muslim world did not, believe the US would give OBL a fair trial either - that has not stopped the US from maligning and vilifying anyone with the slightest link to OBL, and invading nations to get him.

Get your own nation to follow what you preach before runing out these excuses for US support and sheltering of terrorist leaders and groups.



Those "mere statements" are backed with the sweat expended and blood shed by U.S. soldiers. You've participated in the "Into the Valley Of Death" thread here. I've ran something similar on your board. The articles behind those threads are clear indication that there's far more than statements and rhetoric backing up my comments.Articles and claims of 'sweat and blood' amount to nothing in the face of increasing attacks from the region. The facts do not support your position of 'under constant threat'. It is Pakistani forces across the border that are 'under INCREASINGLY constant threat' from these terrorists. Your troops are quite obvously doing nothing. Facts on the ground clearly refute your rhetoric.


As recently as last month in Kunar our troops lost six men in combat against Rehman's forces.
So? Pakistan has lost significantly more troops than all of NATO in this war - that does not stop you from leveling accusations against her.

If 'the bloodshed and sweat of troops' is to be a measure of intent, then Pakistan is far ahead of the US and NATO combined.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Jun 11,, 22:09
And I say bomb Pakistan with impunity for hiding Bin Laden and Haqqani network Network within their borders
First bomb those officials and institutions that sheltered in Kabul, with official US knowledge, one of the most wanted terrorist leaders by Pakistan, for at least two years, and then facilitated his escape to Switzerland.

End US support for terrorists before leveling allegations against others.

S2
19 Jun 11,, 22:27
"The links I posted clearly show him as being present in Kabul..."

No they didn't. It indicated he'd been in Afghanistan. We didn't hold sovereign authority over that land nor have we pretended otherwise. Afghans did in the form of a government for which Pakistan has very poor relations. Our own relations with the Karzai regime are quite problematic.

"...and clearly illustrate Official US knowledge of his presence, for ATLEAST [sic] TWO YEARS..."

Yes. Somewhere in Afghanistan. So?

"...THe US/Afghans facilitated his comfortable flight to Switzerland to seek asylum..."

I don't know how he found the comfort of his flight but it was facilitated by the GoA, U.N. and Switzerland. We appear to literally have nothing to do with his exile.

"...You have offered no explanation of why the US refused to act against Bugti in, at least, those two+ years, and facilitated his escape to Switzerland..."

I've no need to do so. We've no warrant for his arrest nor do we find him a terrorist. As for his so-called "escape", it was clearly facilitated through the good offices of the Afghan and Swiss governments and under the auspices of the U.N.

Take it up with them.

A.M. your attempts to equivocate Bugti with the hundreds of mid to high level afghan taliban leaders who've found sanctuary by a matter of Pakistani state policy for over ten years is laughable.

Pakistan's sour relations with the GoA has much to do with Bugti remaining out of your tender clutches. The basis for that very sour relationship lies in Pakistan doing all it can to thwart the ambitions of the GoA to assert sovereign authority over its land.

Pakistan has apparently reaped what it sows.:)

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 22:30
Actually you were supposed to cite me a UN resolution allowing military action against Pakistan. There is no such thing, you're welcome to try using that flimsy justification, but its not like Pakistanis would say "Oh ok, now its okay". You can justify anything internally, we can reject anything internally. Rest assured your stated end goals would not be met by going to war with Pakistan.

However if you allow Pakistanis to take charge, the good, the pro-freedom, the honest, the non-corrupt, people pushing for this freedom movement they would undoubtedly ask for a government that takes out terror groups. Make no mistake, every Pakistani is very ready to fight the Taliban and the Americans, whoever that dares messes with us.

I did cite the relevant UN resolution and the supporting statement by your then president that said resolution included Pakistan per what he was told by Ass sec state Armitage.

S2
19 Jun 11,, 22:33
"The cells perpetrating the terrorist attacks did not need OBL for anything."

That's nonsense. If OBL never lifted a finger to participate in any subsequent Al Qaeda operation his presence alone was worth millions of dollars to their organization.

He embodied and personified Al Qaeda before the rest of the world. Do you need further elaboration of that significance? I hope not as it seems obvious.

zraver
19 Jun 11,, 22:39
'Coded broadcasts' doing what exactly? Did his braodcasts 'plan the attacks'? No.

Did his broadcasts 'provide training'?
No

Did his broadcasts 'provide funding'?
No.

The cells perpetrating the terrorist attacks did not need OBL for anything. If indeed, as you claim, OBL broadcasts 'triggered the attacks', then they were only for show - they had no tangible purpose beyonf propaganda.

They got funding, training, inspiration and control from him. He was hardly marginalized, and even if he was it was only through ruthless action. Had the US let him go, or let up he would have rebuilt the network he began building with Pakistani support in the 1980's*. It most assuredly was self defense.

* Bin Laden never had any contact with the American CIA, the same however cannot be said of the ISI. He operated in Pakistan running "MAK" network which recruited jihadist to fight on the side of the Muhajadeen vs the Soviets. He operated In Pakistan with official Pakistani support and blessing and had a relationship with Hamid Gul.


OBL was no threat in terms of providing 'operational support, financial support or intellectual support' for the terrorist attacks after the US invasion of Afghanistan. He was not by any means an 'imminent threat' to the US, nor was he capable of being one so long as he was on the run and in hiding as he was.

Living in a masion for 5 years while using couriers to stay in contact is hardly "on the run". If he was out of the picture who were the couriers talking to? The simple fact is he was in contact, he was directing, inspiring and was active or his couriers could not have been followed back.


Self-defence does not apply in the case of the OBL raid.
I am pointing out the flaws in your 'self-defence' argument - you don't have to resort to a smear campaign to refute my arguments because you disagree with them.

Self defense does apply, it applies from the moment of 9-11 until we win or die trying.

Nor is it a smear campaign you appear honestly upset that he was killed..... your words so its up to you to explain them. Reasonable people would not fault the US for acting alone to kill him benefiting both the US and Pakistan given the way the ISI supports terror groups.

Dreadnought
19 Jun 11,, 23:16
First of all they are doing a horrendous job. Simply put bulk of the people killed by drones should have been arrested and tried.



Actually that has already been proven a sham report, or a faulty intelligence. Either the US intelligence was "incompetent or complicit". We don't know, but there were no bomb factories there to begin with. Pakistan has now openly challenged this US claim and called it a liar, I hope US will produce super duper evidence in proving there really were some bomb factories (easily provable through forensic analysis) there.


You keep shedding responsibility off this government as if its not YOUR government that funds it, arms it and then goes around in the media defending it against its illegal actions. I too call it a stupid and corrupt government. It should be shooting down drones, it should be reclaiming sovereignty not just talking about it.


Silly talk. If I knew where and who he was I would shoot him myself. So far CIA can't decide if its Saif Al Adel or Ayman Zawahiri that is in charge. I'll do you one better I'll shoot them both. But I'll still shoot down the drones that come to attack Pakistan. If only things were up to me this would be such a nice world. I repeat I have no qualms in stating unequivocally, the US and Taliban and Al Qaida, all three are working against Pakistan and thus deserves full resistence from Pakistan.

Yep, I agree a horrendous job indeed.

Yes, I understand that intelligence via live video feeds from drone craft is all nonsense in your view. Just by coincidence the very same way among a few that netted the most wanted on your soil. No escape plan, no bodygaurds, no essentials assembled before an emergency leaving, no destruction to past hard drives names places, dates, etc etc and certainly no plan for "IF" he was found by someone outside of his contacts. The fact is he was comfortable where he was located. I often wonder as many others do how that could possibly happen and for that period of time if collusion wasnt present.

Yes we know, all nonsense in your views but none the less dead because we acted alone as we stated we would if we found him first.

*Anyone with a brain wouldn't pass on that information to Pakistan. You lied before, where does it end? And also why would the US show Pakistan their latest intelligence gathering toys or trades?
In short they wouldn't and wont. The former President Musharraf has come flat out and stated there are those that exist upon Pakistan soil. Was he a liar too? If the former President can come out and state that then does it not make sense that the "Intell" services dont already know this and perhaps briefed him or could they be liars as well?

It happens way to often to be coincidense and not collusion.

*Yes we do fund them as in Pakistans military and other agreements for financial aid (Why we still do I have no idea) but yes we do. We will come there as well which is 1000x better then them coming here and causing exactly what they cause there. Sensless slaughter of the innocent. Thanks but no thanks and so long as they exist on your soil I'm going to go out a limb here and say chances are you are going to encounter US forces at every turn.

*It matters not who leads they are both on the very same list. Dead or Alive works and its only a matter of time.

The US has done nothing but aid Pakistan. Yes, we just enjoy throwing money away funding their military, funding their infastructure etc. Tell US taxpayers that we are allied with these groups in an offical collective manner and just see how fast they act upon their leaders to make it all disappear and not give a shit.

Terror grows upon your soil and you export it and import it knowingly. There is no other way to say it and further no way to deny it and until it changes just enjoy the fireworks and the doormat of soverignty that you seem to hold over everything thing else.

"Soverignty objection" NOTED.:rolleyes:

Dreadnought
19 Jun 11,, 23:23
First bomb those officials and institutions that sheltered in Kabul, with official US knowledge, one of the most wanted terrorist leaders by Pakistan, for at least two years, and then facilitated his escape to Switzerland.

End US support for terrorists before leveling allegations against others.

Not even worth a reply. Just keep diverting and denying.:rolleyes:

Dreadnought
19 Jun 11,, 23:35
First of all they are doing a horrendous job. Simply put bulk of the people killed by drones should have been arrested and tried.

Not the US's view apparently huh? I wonder why that is, dont you?

Doktor
19 Jun 11,, 23:36
My 2 cents.

Since one of the persons leaking intel was PA Major, isn't it possible he was sick Pak army/gov/intelligence is neighboring the person responsible for many deaths of Pakistani people? If so, that Major and the others around him took the only available option to get rid of that evil from your soil, even that be the US military.

Now how are they traitors?

The examples with the treatment of Soviet spies in USA are not really right mainly because Soviets were not allies to USA, but rather an enemy.

Asim Aquil
19 Jun 11,, 23:39
isn't it possible he was sick Pak army/gov/intelligence is neighboring

That would mean the US has evidence PA was harboring OBL and would have long come out with that bit of info... It's more likely he sold himself to the US for money.

Dago
19 Jun 11,, 23:41
"The links I posted clearly show him as being present in Kabul"...........etc etc etc "why the US refused to act against Bugti in..."

AM, why is it in every thread that I read about with regards to Pakistan and complicity within there government with the Taliban, you bring up this insignificant (no pun intended and granted a matter of opinion) character named Bugti? I fail too see how this has to do with the issue at hand, nor does it have the purpose of refuting claims of Pakistani involvement or helping to form or change ones opinion of the matter.

Frankly, the Pakistan government receives aid, for an explicit purpose. If they don't want to carry out that agreement, and instead wish to aide the Taliban, then why do they take the aid? I mean, they are free to aide the Taliban if they so wish, eventually the Pakistani people will see this for what it is, and reject the current Taliban influence it has on your government, and this belief of insecurity from India that began this relationship mind you, and the people will reject this wholeheartedly. Granted it may take time, and Anti-Americanism will still be present, but eventually they will do it for themselves rid themselves of AQ and Taliban. Honestly, I don't think Pakistanis are too keen on a Taliban type of Government, Pakistan is much more advanced with much to be proud of to agree with or support an ideology like the Taliban. Pakistan is a great society of millions and millions of Pakistanis, there ideology is a bit more then being run by tribal groups, and a band of Taliban. Then why support them? Because of this "proxy" with India? I did not know, that the Taliban had such a strategic purpose, of what exactly? Well maybe, there ties too international terrorism, which could be useful against India, correct? I mean, India is the enemy right? sigh

Like I said, they are free to do as they wish, they arn't required to accept the aid. I am sure then, American foreign policy will shift. And put Pakistan on that list at the State Department... maybe eventually reach the Security Council.

Doktor
19 Jun 11,, 23:48
That would mean the US has evidence PA was harboring OBL and would have long come out with that bit of info... It's more likely he sold himself to the US for money.

Well what more evidence you need but a major knowing his whereabout?

Dreadnought
19 Jun 11,, 23:52
That would mean the US has evidence PA was harboring OBL and would have long come out with that bit of info... It's more likely he sold himself to the US for money.

Yeah, you just keep thinking that. Any other great examples?:rolleyes:

Parihaka
20 Jun 11,, 00:05
And again, Pakistan has made great play of the fact they were openly sharing intelligence with the US, including many claims on this forum that it was Pakistan intelligence sharing that lead to OBL being caught.

Why then would some of those providing that intelligence be arrested by the ISI and apparently subsequently 'disappear'?

1980s
20 Jun 11,, 00:31
AM, why is it in every thread that I read about with regards to Pakistan and complicity within there government with the Taliban, you bring up this insignificant (no pun intended and granted a matter of opinion) character named Bugti?

Because he's trolling. That, or because he's either insane or just not able to comprehend the English language with any real clarity. If the latter he could be somewhat forgiven, but i think we all know its the former. In which case anymore Bugti being 'harbored' by the US talk from this guy should be treated as trolling since that is not what the wikileaks cable state and he has had several months of being told that ad-nauseum.

But then this is the same dude that some time back posted an article which either he himself or some other Pakistani inserted some extra sentences in which were not apart of the original to try and deceive other readers into accepting their POV. I remember S2 catching him red-handed doing that. So what else is expected other than trolling like this? Isnt that exactly what his establishment does in their dealings with the US and Afghan governments anyway? Or the media in their country that fuel conspiracy-theories to fool their gullible public because the reality of their establishment's dishonorable and deceptive conduct is just too hard for them to bear?

This guy is a prime example of that shielding themselves away from the truth at all costs and living out their lives in cuckoo-land while over 60% of their fellow Pakistanis live on less than 2 US$ a day without a care in the World or a finger lifted for them by Pakistan's corrupt elite.

So he'll keep spewing crap while his bankrupt country is being kept afloat on US aid and wonder to himself why people like Bugti even took-up arms against the Pakistani state in the first place. Bugti didnt need no US dollars to do that or foreign prodding to do that, unlike Pakistan's military generals who needed to be paid in dollars before they even consider taking selective action against the Pakistani neo-Taliban that declared war on them. How much lower and corrupt can you get?

highsea
20 Jun 11,, 01:33
And again, Pakistan has made great play of the fact they were openly sharing intelligence with the US, including many claims on this forum that it was Pakistan intelligence sharing that lead to OBL being caught.

Why then would some of those providing that intelligence be arrested by the ISI and apparently subsequently 'disappear'?I was wondering that very same thing. One minute they are passing on intelligence and turning off their radars, and the next minute the people who helped are traitors and should be hanged.


Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying.

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
lol. That page should be cross-referenced to Pakistan...

Parihaka
20 Jun 11,, 01:41
I was wondering that very same thing. One minute they are passing on intelligence and turning off their radars, and the next minute the people who helped are traitors and should be hanged.

lol. That page should be cross-referenced to Pakistan...
It's a term I'm becoming more and more used to WRT Pakistan;)

Agnostic Muslim
20 Jun 11,, 03:11
"The links I posted clearly show him as being present in Kabul..."

No they didn't. It indicated he'd been in Afghanistan. We didn't hold sovereign authority over that land nor have we pretended otherwise. Afghans did in the form of a government for which Pakistan has very poor relations. Our own relations with the Karzai regime are quite problematic.
You don't hold 'sovereign authority' over Pakistan either, yet that does not stop the US from carrying out drone strikes and military raids against suspected terrorists, including the 'acceptable collateral damage'.

This is a BS excuse and you know it, and if you don't realize it, read what Ambassador Partterson had to say about 'sovereign authority' when it came to Bugti murdering just 'one American citizen':

"He also urged that the U.S. (through intermediaries) begin to threaten Bugti with extradition to Pakistan in the event something happened to Solecki. Ambassador said in that case Bugti would be extradited to the U.S. to be tried for allegedly murdering a U.S. citizen."

There was official US knowledge of Bugti's presence in Kabul, and President Musharraf and PM Aziz are on record as stating that Bugti was being sheltered in Kabul, in 2007, and Musharraf and various Pakistani officials stated that evidence to this effect had been provided to the US. Of course the US continued to deny all of this until the truth finally came out through America's own 'diplomatic cables'.


Yes. Somewhere in Afghanistan. So?
Musharraf stated precisely where, and also stated that evidence had been provided to the US on that issue. The US ambassador's comments on extradition to the US indicate a degree of certitude, which would only be possible if the US was aware of his location.

The US knew where he was, knew Pakistan wanted him, knew it was exacerbating tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, knew that Pakistan was unlikely to cooperate completely given its suspicions over people like Bugti being sheltered in Afghanistan, yet did nothing except facilitate his exile to Switzerland.

How would the US feel about some nation facilitating Osama Bin Laden's 'exile to Switzerland'?


I don't know how he found the comfort of his flight but it was facilitated by the GoA, U.N. and Switzerland. We appear to literally have nothing to do with his exile.
I am unaware of any UN sponsored negotiations with Bugti - in any case, the UN does not have a military and security presence in Afghanistan, the US does, and the US was and is responsible for the presence and escape of Bugti from Afghanistan.


I've no need to do so. We've no warrant for his arrest nor do we find him a terrorist. As for his so-called "escape", it was clearly facilitated through the good offices of the Afghan and Swiss governments and under the auspices of the U.N.
What 'warrants of arrest' does the US have for the individuals killed in drone strikes in Pakistan.

You double standards and excuses for US duplicity are ludicrous and laughably obvious.


A.M. your attempts to equivocate Bugti with the hundreds of mid to high level afghan taliban leaders who've found sanctuary by a matter of Pakistani state policy for over ten years is laughable.
Bugti is only the senior most leader of the movement - there are/were hundreds of Baluch terrorists being sheltered in Afghanistan, though Karzai may like to call them 'refugees'.

Not to mention the continued presence of a significant number of terrorists in Eastern Afghanistan whose ability to launch cross-border raids into Pakistan in the hundreds only appears to be increasing in terms of frequency and intensity of attacks.


Pakistan's sour relations with the GoA has much to do with Bugti remaining out of your tender clutches. The basis for that very sour relationship lies in Pakistan doing all it can to thwart the ambitions of the GoA to assert sovereign authority over its land.
The basis for the sour relationship lies in Afghanistan doing all it could since Pakistan was created to try and capture Pakistani territory and undermine Pakistan through support for terrorists and insurgents in Baluchistan and FATA.

You have your history arse backwards - Pakistan stepped into Afghanistan to prevent a continuation of Afghan treachery and interference in Pakistan, and to prevent the Indians from joining hands with the Afghans in doing so. The responsibility for what has followed lies with the Afghans in not accepting Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Agnostic Muslim
20 Jun 11,, 03:14
And again, Pakistan has made great play of the fact they were openly sharing intelligence with the US, including many claims on this forum that it was Pakistan intelligence sharing that lead to OBL being caught.

Nice try, but completely fallacious and distorted argument.

Pakistan, or some Pakistani commentators rather, has made 'great play' of the fact that there was a degree of 'official cooperation' from the ISI that resulted in intelligence being developed that led to OBL. Pakistan did not provide any support with the intention of having the US conduct unauthorized military operations in Pakistan.

The issue here, again, is that these individuals are accused of providing unauthorized support to a foreign military and intelligence in conducting espionage and military operations on Pakistani soil. The issue is not one of 'official cooperation' with the US.


Why then would some of those providing that intelligence be arrested by the ISI and apparently subsequently 'disappear'?

See above, hopefully I have simplified it enough for you.

Agnostic Muslim
20 Jun 11,, 03:16
Because he's trolling. That, or because he's either insane or just not able to comprehend the English language with any real clarity. If the latter he could be somewhat forgiven, but i think we all know its the former. In which case anymore Bugti being 'harbored' by the US talk from this guy should be treated as trolling since that is not what the wikileaks cable state and he has had several months of being told that ad-nauseum.

But then this is the same dude that some time back posted an article which either he himself or some other Pakistani inserted some extra sentences in which were not apart of the original to try and deceive other readers into accepting their POV. I remember S2 catching him red-handed doing that. So what else is expected other than trolling like this? Isnt that exactly what his establishment does in their dealings with the US and Afghan governments anyway? Or the media in their country that fuel conspiracy-theories to fool their gullible public because the reality of their establishment's dishonorable and deceptive conduct is just too hard for them to bear?

This guy is a prime example of that shielding themselves away from the truth at all costs and living out their lives in cuckoo-land while over 60% of their fellow Pakistanis live on less than 2 US$ a day without a care in the World or a finger lifted for them by Pakistan's corrupt elite.

So he'll keep spewing crap while his bankrupt country is being kept afloat on US aid and wonder to himself why people like Bugti even took-up arms against the Pakistani state in the first place. Bugti didnt need no US dollars to do that or foreign prodding to do that, unlike Pakistan's military generals who needed to be paid in dollars before they even consider taking selective action against the Pakistani neo-Taliban that declared war on them. How much lower and corrupt can you get?
Ah right, I am trolling, yet it is not my posts that consist of personal attacks, smears and name calling, rather than any refutation of the arguments one disagrees with.

Agnostic Muslim
20 Jun 11,, 03:20
"The cells perpetrating the terrorist attacks did not need OBL for anything."

That's nonsense. If OBL never lifted a finger to participate in any subsequent Al Qaeda operation his presence alone was worth millions of dollars to their organization.

He embodied and personified Al Qaeda before the rest of the world. Do you need further elaboration of that significance? I hope not as it seems obvious.

He was a personality, he was not an 'imminent threat'. He did not assist in raising funds, operational planning, training - anything significant really in terms of perpetrating terrorist attacks.

The argument that he alone was responsible for the channeling of funding to Al Qaeda and its affiliates is a dubious one - only if there is a significant reduction, without any additional action by the international community against the AQ funding networks, can that case be made.

Quite frankly I thought it was obvious that it was AQ's ideology and anti-Western 'Jihad' that attracted recruits and funds, not the personality of OBL himself, though he did play a part in publicizing it. By the time he was killed his personality was a shadow of its past.

zraver
20 Jun 11,, 03:25
He was told in the other thread to answer S-2, he refused..... Until other staff members stop me, I am not going to tolerate double standards that end conversation by either side- period full stop.

Parihaka
20 Jun 11,, 05:11
Nice try, but completely fallacious and distorted argument.

Pakistan, or some Pakistani commentators rather, has made 'great play' of the fact that there was a degree of 'official cooperation' from the ISI that resulted in intelligence being developed that led to OBL. Pakistan did not provide any support with the intention of having the US conduct unauthorized military operations in Pakistan..
Not even a good try I'm afraid. Those individuals had no involvement in an American raid on Pakistan but simply provided general intelligence, as you claim the ISI also provided general intelligence, leading to OBL's killing.

Unless of course you are suggesting the US government informed those local assets of the raid?

Vinod2070
20 Jun 11,, 05:56
He was told in the other thread to answer S-2, he refused..... Until other staff members stop me, I am not going to tolerate double standards that end conversation by either side- period full stop.

As a mod, the decision is yours but I find him a good source of one strand of Pakistani opinion here, even if I personally consider that opinion as duplicitous and too apologetic for the evil for the most part.

I think it is good that we have a few Pakistani voices here in a neutral setting that should be allowed to have their say.

Asim Aquil
20 Jun 11,, 06:01
I did cite the relevant UN resolution and the supporting statement by your then president that said resolution included Pakistan per what he was told by Ass sec state Armitage.

I believe I remember his words were "I give the US my unstinting support", wearing a white casual shalwar Kurta, the image is forever impressioned in my mind. Till then we didn't know who Musharraf was either and it was sort of a proud moment for most of us as we had thought we joined a noble cause.

The feeling no longer exists today and that moment is recalled as a moment where we sold our national existence. There are Pakistan Parliament resolutions condemning the US Osama op, there are resolutions demanding an end to US drone strikes. That is enough to weigh in the legality of military actions against Pakistan.

JAD_333
20 Jun 11,, 06:22
Excellent move by Pakistan.

By the US's own admission it carried out the raid without Pakistani authorization or knowledge. Regardless of the reason behind the raid, the fact is that it was an unauthorized military strike in Pakistan, and Pakistani should investigate, arrest and punish any individuals in Pakistan that assisted in this military operation by a foreign nation on Pakistani soil.

Execute every single one that is found guilty publicly I say. Send a clear message.

AM:

Reluctantly, I agree with you...not on the execution part, but certainly some punishment provided they get a fair trial. The US would have done the same had the tables been reversed.

As for the military operation itself, no doubt it was a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. Again, if the tables were reversed, the US would have protested as loudly as Pakistan.

But I support what the US did on the basis that Pakistan's cooperation in advance would likely have compromised the operation. Pakistan knew that taking Bin Laden out was job number one for the US. Given its record of double dealing with insurgencies based on its territory and the enormous resources the US has expended to eliminate them, its reaction to the operation is somewhat sanctimonious.

S2
20 Jun 11,, 07:40
"You don't hold 'sovereign authority' over Pakistan either, yet that does not stop the US from carrying out drone strikes and military raids against suspected terrorists, including the 'acceptable collateral damage'."

Yeah but Bugti is not charged with violating any U.S. statute.

"This is a BS excuse and you know it, and if you don't realize it, read what Ambassador Partterson had to say about 'sovereign authority' when it came to Bugti murdering just 'one American citizen':

'He also urged that the U.S. (through intermediaries) begin to threaten Bugti with extradition to Pakistan in the event something happened to Solecki. Ambassador said in that case Bugti would be extradited to the U.S. to be tried for allegedly murdering a U.S. citizen.'"

Exactly. So did Bugti assist or abet any crime WRT Solecki? No. Case closed.

"...There was official US knowledge of Bugti's presence in Kabul, and President Musharraf and PM Aziz are on record as stating that Bugti was being sheltered in Kabul, in 2007, and Musharraf and various Pakistani officials stated that evidence to this effect had been provided to the US. Of course the US continued to deny all of this until the truth finally came out through America's own 'diplomatic cables'..."

It's beside the point. You seem to believe that America is YOUR personal lapdog. We've no responsibility to clean behind your messes. Bugti was not a matter of import to us nor charged with any crime by us. Your beef lay with 1.) Afghanistan and then, 2.) the U.N. and finally, now, 3.) Switzerland.

"...Yes. Somewhere in Afghanistan. So? Musharraf stated precisely where, and also stated that evidence had been provided to the US on that issue..."

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Maybe it was accurate. Maybe it wasn't. What's certain is that we interceded on behalf of Pakistan to Karzai. Beyond that it wasn't our affair. You may say "Thank you" for our efforts.:rolleyes:

"...The US ambassador's comments on extradition to the US indicate a degree of certitude, which would only be possible if the US was aware of his location..."

No it doesn't beyond a certainty that Bugti was in Afghanistan and his location likely known by afghan authorities.

"...knew that Pakistan was unlikely to cooperate completely given its suspicions over people like Bugti being sheltered in Afghanistan..."

Let's be clear that your policy of protecting the afghan taliban was WELL in place long prior to Bugti arising as any issue.

"...yet did nothing except facilitate his exile to Switzerland..."

You're proving to be a broken-record on this score. His exile to Switzerland was specifically facilitated by the GoA, Switzerland and the U.N. America played no role of any significance in that matter.

"...How would the US feel about some nation facilitating Osama Bin Laden's 'exile to Switzerland...'?"

You equate Bugti with OBL? Laughable? And the nation accepting OBL would be...Pakistan, perhaps?:biggrin:

"...I am unaware of any UN sponsored negotiations with Bugti..."

Odd. Your own newspapers report such-

Brahamdagh Bugti Seeks Asylum In Switzerland-Express Tribune Feb. 2, 2011 (http://tribune.com.pk/story/112889/brahmdagh-bugti-seeks-asylum-in-switzerland/)

Here's an updated summary from elsewhere. Evidently your own government, while opposing Bugti's Switzerland presence, views him as no threat from there-

Pakistan Opposes Baloch Leader Brahamdagh Plea Seeking Asylum In Switzerland-TopNews March 31, 2011 (http://www.topnews.in/law/pakistan-opposes-baloch-leader-brahamdagh-s-plea-seeking-asylum-switzerland-256968)

"'...Apparently Islamabad is opposed to Brahamdagh's plea, but at the same time it is satisfied that he will not be able to stoke the Baloch insurgency from Switzerland,'" a government source was quoted as saying.

'For this reason we are not demanding his extradition,' he added.

Pakistan had repeatedly said that Brahamdagh was hiding in Kabul, from where he had been spearheading the Baloch insurgency, and the matter was taken up with Afghan President Hamid Karzai during his last visit to Islamabad.

Karzai had reportedly promised to look into the matter, and "under mounting pressure from the Pakistan government, Brahamdagh was forced by the Afghan government to leave the country," the source said.

However, Brahamdagh's supporters in Quetta claim that he left Afghanistan following reports that Pakistani agencies had hired an Afghan journalist to assassinate him in Kabul..."

"...in any case, the UN does not have a military and security presence in Afghanistan..."

Actually, they do. It's called ISAF. Perhaps Turkey or the UAE could have assisted you in this matter.

"...the US does, and the US was and is responsible for the presence and escape of Bugti from Afghanistan..."

I think not.

"...What 'warrants of arrest' does the US have for the individuals killed in drone strikes in Pakistan..."

They are enemy combatants. What warrant is needed? We seek to kill them with drones-not arrest them.

"...You double standards and excuses for US duplicity are ludicrous and laughably obvious..."

Your abilities to cogently argue the facts have deteriorated markedly over time. The U.S. has not been duplicitous in this matter. We approached the GoA on behalf of Pakistan. Their resistance regarding Bugti can be laid at the feet of your sponsorship of the afghan taliban. That issue reaches FAR beyond Bugti and is a far more serious matter involving hundreds of key mid and high level leaders of the ousted Afghan taliban government and thousands of dead afghans.

Pakistan has retained the afghan taliban as a proxy army for nearly a decade to de-stabilize Afghanistan. In so doing, your government is at odds with much of the rest of mankind. You should expect no sympathetic ear in light of this sordid background and received far more assistance from America's diplomats than merited by Pakistan on a matter of no LEGAL concern to us.

No doubt you believe that we should have scooped Bugti up in the dead of night from Afghanistan and delivered him bound and gagged to the doorstep of GHQ, Rawalpindi. You wail about OBL and our so-called violation regarding Pakistani sovereignty but have no compunction here?

Who the fcuk is duplicitous again?

"...Bugti is only the senior most leader of the movement - there are/were hundreds of Baluch terrorists being sheltered in Afghanistan, though Karzai may like to call them 'refugees'."

Then let Karzai know about this matter.

Here's a list provided by the U.S. Dept. Of State regarding those organizations and individuals whom we consider terrorists. Jundallah is among them. Bugti is not.

"...Not to mention the continued presence of a significant number of terrorists in Eastern Afghanistan whose ability to launch cross-border raids into Pakistan in the hundreds only appears to be increasing in terms of frequency and intensity of attacks."

Were I Al Qaeda Amir of Kunar Qari Ziual Rehman I'd not attack the Americans in preference to Pakistanis either.

"...The basis for the sour relationship lies in Afghanistan doing all it could since Pakistan was created to try and capture Pakistani territory and undermine Pakistan through support for terrorists and insurgents in Baluchistan and FATA.

You have your history arse backwards - Pakistan stepped into Afghanistan to prevent a continuation of Afghan treachery and interference in Pakistan, and to prevent the Indians from joining hands with the Afghans in doing so. The responsibility for what has followed lies with the Afghans in not accepting Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Uh huh. Right. Well maybe that'll change when/if the afghan taliban are again in power. Then again, maybe not.:rolleyes:

Asim Aquil
20 Jun 11,, 07:42
AM:

Reluctantly, I agree with you...not on the execution part, but certainly some punishment provided they get a fair trial. The US would have done the same had the tables been reversed.

As for the military operation itself, no doubt it was a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. Again, if the tables were reversed, the US would have protested as loudly as Pakistan.

But I support what the US did on the basis that Pakistan's cooperation in advance would likely have compromised the operation. Pakistan knew that taking Bin Laden out was job number one for the US. Given its record of double dealing with insurgencies based on its territory and the enormous resources the US has expended to eliminate them, its reaction to the operation is somewhat sanctimonious.

Personally the peeving bit is not the Osama op, its all that happened before it. Say this op happened in 2005, heck maybe it would have been okay before Feb this year, when the Raymond Davis incident happened. It wouldn't have felt so bad, but in todays post Raymond Davis incident Pakistan the US looks like it is above the law and killing Pakistanis. It has to end and cannot be allowed since the alternative is to cease Pakistan existing as a country and start living as a colony of America.

In this hopeless scenario, I foresee Pakistanis going towards terrorism since there is no due process to bring America to the book. We all warned the powers that be that this would happen if they cheat on the Davis issue. I am being honest here, there is no way Pakistan is turning back, we will keep pushing and keep being defiant wherever there is a scenario where US says "Just do as you're told". The beginning of which would be when this pliant and corrupt government is overthrown.

S2
20 Jun 11,, 08:20
"...The beginning of which would be when this pliant and corrupt government is overthrown."

Hopefully through elections. That's how it's done in most civilized places. In the military we salute the rank, not necessarily the individual. In civilian life you respect the process, not necessarily the politician.

If democracy matters then protect it by protecting its institutions.

Asim Aquil
20 Jun 11,, 08:25
"...The beginning of which would be when this pliant and corrupt government is overthrown."

Hopefully through elections. That's how it's done in most civilized places. In the military we salute the rank, not necessarily the individual. In civilian life you respect the process, not necessarily the politician.

If democracy matters then protect it by protecting its institutions.

Only through elections. When I say overthrow, it could also mean pressure to make the incumbent leaders resign. Technically Musharraf only resigned, practically speaking he was overthrown. An year or two is anyway needed to raise awareness and make people come out to vote. 30% of the total voter list voted last time. 45% of that is said to have been fraudulent non-existent voters - as determined by the courts. That leaves actual voters mostly just those people who live on the vast lands owned by rich families like Bhuttos and the Chaudharies. Sharifs don't directly own the land, but their party members do.

JAD_333
20 Jun 11,, 13:21
As a mod, the decision is yours but I find him a good source of one strand of Pakistani opinion here, even if I personally consider that opinion as duplicitous and too apologetic for the evil for the most part.

I think it is good that we have a few Pakistani voices here in a neutral setting that should be allowed to have their say.

V:

None of the mods disagree with you that it is good to have all views represented here and that AM represents one of those views. Unfortunately he chose to be provocative when the topic called for reasoned discussion. While no one is required to respond to questions, it is hardly possible to work through a debate by ignoring key ones.

Asim Aquil
20 Jun 11,, 13:54
V:

None of the mods disagree with you that it is good to have all views represented here and that AM represents one of those views. Unfortunately he chose to be provocative when the topic called for reasoned discussion. While no one is required to respond to questions, it is hardly possible to work through a debate by ignoring key ones.

For the record its offensive to be queried if you're with Bin Laden or not. The rigidity of it all is that after 10 years we're still acting like cave man led charge by Bush that if you're not with us then you must be against us. A spirited and logical defence based upon the follies of an attack, be it Bin Laden, be it the spawn of satan - the far reaching effects of bypassing due process is a valid question to be raised and will never be stopped from being raised.

To question if that equates allegiance with Bin Laden is an extremely sad course social evolution has taken us into. Given that the same person is on record to have smacked religious extremists and their rotten sympathizers on countless equations. Not to forget that you guys only talk about a free society, secularism and democracy, he does so under the threat of being killed for it and yet does so, so openly.

Its everyone else's loss who becomes so rigid and does not get to interact with such remarkable people. Truth be told, this topic was never about who a certain individual is, regardless of their political position, we should refrain from commenting upon the debaters personal characteristics. General rule of debate.

Surreal McCoy
20 Jun 11,, 19:22
trolling and racism- do it again at your peril.

Vinod2070
20 Jun 11,, 20:11
Neither has Pakistan, the chronology of the argument was that America would attack Pakistan for not bowing to its demands. Btw, 34,000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 Pakistani soldiers have died as a result of this war, so thank you very much your tragedy pales in comparison. We know why its important to take severe action against terrorists.

I know this is the number generally quoted by Pakistanis but apparently that is not the number of Pakistani civilian casualties.



Civilians

Security Force Personnel

Terrorists/Insurgents

Total
2003

140

24

25

189
2004

435

184

244

863
2005

430

81

137

648
2006

608

325

538

1471
2007

1522

597

1479

3598
2008

2155

654

3906

6715
2009

2324

991

8389

11704
2010

1796

469

5170

7435
2011

1082

408

1177

2667
Total

10492

3733

21066

35290

This would suggest that 21066 of those 34000 were terrorists/insurgents as per Pakistani definition.

Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan 2003-2011 (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/casualties.htm)

Of course, even one civilian killed by terrorists is one too many, one still needs to be correct with facts and figures.

zraver
20 Jun 11,, 22:56
I believe I remember his words were "I give the US my unstinting support", wearing a white casual shalwar Kurta, the image is forever impressioned in my mind. Till then we didn't know who Musharraf was either and it was sort of a proud moment for most of us as we had thought we joined a noble cause.

You did, the US is not the one who hoodwinked you.


The feeling no longer exists today and that moment is recalled as a moment where we sold our national existence. There are Pakistan Parliament resolutions condemning the US Osama op, there are resolutions demanding an end to US drone strikes. That is enough to weigh in the legality of military actions against Pakistan.

Those are Pakistani domestic issues, not international law issues. Under international law the operation to kill Bin Laden was legal via UN Resolution to which the then Pakistani President admitted included using military force against Pakistan for its role in supporting the Afghan Taliban and serving as a transit point for the AQ jihadist who attacked the US, the UN Charter which recognizes no higher right than that of a nations self defense- a right that transcends borders ipso facto, and under the laws of war concerning the conduct of belligerents (principle of discrimination and proportion). Now please support your claim that the op was illegal under international law


Personally the peeving bit is not the Osama op, its all that happened before it. Say this op happened in 2005, heck maybe it would have been okay before Feb this year, when the Raymond Davis incident happened. It wouldn't have felt so bad, but in todays post Raymond Davis incident Pakistan the US looks like it is above the law and killing Pakistanis. It has to end and cannot be allowed since the alternative is to cease Pakistan existing as a country and start living as a colony of America.

By all reliable accounts Davis was attacked by two armed men. It does not matter if those men's fingers were on the trigger or not they brandished a gun and created a life or death situation for Davis. The shooting was self defense. Secondly he enjoyed diplomatic status and was immune to prosecution the same way a Pakistani diplomat would be if they broke the law here- ANY LAW no matter how vile. The principles of diplomacy require that absolute sanctity of diplomats- period full stop. Third- per Pakistani law and tradition the blood price was paid- end of story.


In this hopeless scenario, I foresee Pakistanis going towards terrorism

And many in media and on many forums say that journey began long ago and that claims its a new event are simply the acts of the deranged to seek justification for their derangement..


since there is no due process to bring America to the book. We all warned the powers that be that this would happen if they cheat on the Davis issue. I am being honest here, there is no way Pakistan is turning back, we will keep pushing and keep being defiant wherever there is a scenario where US says "Just do as you're told". The beginning of which would be when this pliant and corrupt government is overthrown.

You've now made another claim of fact- cheat on the Davis issue- what cheating and who cheated?

highsea
21 Jun 11,, 03:06
Pakistan is doing the same thing Iran is doing, which is to conduct foreign policy through proxy groups. Pakistan uses JEM and LET and the Talibans, and Iran uses Hizbollah and Hamas.

Asim- Pakistan has no sovereignty that the rest of Nations can recognize. Pakistan has not been operating in a responsible manner.

Pakistan has lost control of her proxies. That's putting it diplomatically- because If it's intentional, it's all-out war and Pakistan doesn't win that one.

If the US has to go into Pakistan and take out an enemy, that is a mortal enemy to the US- we gave Pakistan the opportunity to join us and take the fight to the terrorists. Pakistan chose to double-deal and try to protect her proxies.

All we hear from Pakistanis on this board are excuses, conspiracy theories, and phony indignation. No "mea culpas"- the good guys are now the bad guys.

We're not sympathetic to your protests.

Wasn't that guy Pasha the General who was in charge of the military academy In Abbotabad when OBL moved in? Then he went on to be the head of the ISI? This guy knew nothing about OBL living next door?

We're supposed to inform him?

JAD_333
21 Jun 11,, 03:15
For the record its offensive to be queried if you're with Bin Laden or not.

Offense was clearly unintended; his comments invited the question.



The rigidity of it all is that after 10 years we're still acting like cave man led charge by Bush that if you're not with us then you must be against us.

Seems like a perfectly logical assumption.


A spirited and logical defence based upon the follies of an attack, be it Bin Laden, be it the spawn of satan - the far reaching effects of bypassing due process is a valid question to be raised and will never be stopped from being raised.

Then let's raises a couple of questions:

From what you now know about the operation, how would you guarantee the same result following due process?

And, what would have been the far reaching effects had due process led to a breach in security and the opportunity missed?



To question if that equates allegiance with Bin Laden is an extremely sad course social evolution has taken us into. Given that the same person is on record to have smacked religious extremists and their rotten sympathizers on countless equations.

Which makes the question all the more pertinent. He downplayed Bin Laden's role such that anyone would be tempted to ask where his sympathies lay. He could have clarified. I understand what lay at the heart of his attitude. He's a patriotic Pakistani angry that his country's sovereignty was not worthy of respect by the US in this case. Or maybe he's angry because he realizes that his country's unreliability as an ally created a dilemma for the US. One that put the US in a position where it had to decide whether to respect Pakistan's sovereignty to the hilt and likely miss an opportunity 10 years in the making, or proceed and suffer the wrath of the likes of AM. The last was the least bitter pill.



Not to forget that you guys only talk about a free society, secularism and democracy, he does so under the threat of being killed for it and yet does so, so openly.

Then he should appreciate the fact that the US acted boldly in the face of inevitable censure by the Pakistani people.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jun 11,, 05:03
For the record its offensive to be queried if you're with Bin Laden or not.Replace Bin Laden with Indian Army and then tell me the same.

I've asked once replace FATA incursion with an Indian Army penetration, then tell me your Army's efforts would be identical.

Get off it, Asim. You support your Army when it suits you ... and you protests when it does not. It's one or the other ... not both.

For the record, OBL was OPERATING IN YOUR TERRITORY! PERIOD. FULL STOP! And your own ISI ignored evidence to the fact, prompting the Americans to recruit people who thought otherwise.

Jimbo
22 Jun 11,, 02:31
I noticed the calling Bush an Idiot for the use of the term "With us or against us" while I'm still trying to judge Bush's presidency as a whole and am undecided, I wanted to comment about this line in particular. You may not be aware, but a major figure in Western philosophy and religion happened to be quite fond of this line, a certain Jesus of Nazareth. So realize that Bush didn't come up with this sort of thinking without influence.

But leave that as it may, let's look at in another way. Assume Pakistan and the U.S. were reverse in terms of power. Now a group of extreme Canadians plot a terrorist attack that kills 3,000 Pakistanis in one day. How would Pakistan respond to that event?

Pakistan goes to the U.N. and gets approval to bring justice to the perpetrators of that act. So Pakistan proceeds to invade Canada. The terrorists flee to the United States. The United States meanwhile is suffering attack by other extreme Canadian terrorists, yet after 10 years the Pakistanis learn that the figure head of this Canadian terrorist group is located close to West Point. Pakistan doesn't trust the CIA because well there have been a number of near misses when involving them. What does Pakistan do?

(Note this is an analogy to try and get some of the Pakistani posters here to realize just how many Americans view Pakistan)

I will say that I would not be tolerant of my gov playing tightrope between a radical group raging war on its own citizens and its citizens. The gov should have the guts to take on those bringing war on its own people. The gov of Pakistan disgusts me. Last I checked it wasn't U.S. troops trying to usurp control in Pakistani Providences. Nope that would be the factions associated with AQ and the Taliban.

Also who cares if it was 10 years since 9/11. When that happened we owed the family and friends of our country men and women who died justice. And not a damn thing would stop the U.S. from hunting down that man. Even a President that ran on a peace platform wanted to nail this guy, what does that tell you?

I for one am very tempted to let my Rep and Senators know just what I think of the Pakistani Gov, and how we could use that money we give that Gov to better use over here. I don't think I am alone on this. One voice may not matter, but we find the new leader of AQ in Pakistan close to Pak Gov facilities and a million voices will.

subba
24 Jun 11,, 21:43
Have read this interesting thread all pages with interest. Just a few points i would like to make.

1. I agree with the Pakistani posters on their loss of Sovereignty. No normal nation tolerates violation of it's sovereignty and there are international laws to the effect. However, Pakistan for sometime which is a very long time which is since it's inception has not been a normal nation. Harboring terrorist organizations and using them as instruments of State policy and aims has been going on for some time which is a long time now. By all accounts it has gotten away not just lightly but been rewarded handsomely all these years it made various groups that target civilians in India.

2. It's really good for India, that many of these groups now focus West and within Pakistan. It brings some pressure off at least in the sense that the West now is beginning to realize how sham of a country this is as far as Truth is concerned. If these groups had solely focused their Jihad on India, i doubt many Americans or Westerners here would have commented at all.

3. Laws are man made. Islamic or secular or UN or any country. Truth is above law. Laws are framed to reflect Truth. Truth and Justice are not separate. Justice is a subset of truth. If you don't believe in Truth, your justice system will reflect falsehood. Truth is Osama was evil. He represented an Evil ideology. He was instrumental in killing people. The US rightfully made it explicit that it will do anything to get him. Truth is Pakistan 'agreed' to fight and help hunt him down. Truth is i always believed he was not in some cave, but in a Pakistani Cantonment. I posted same years back on a forum. i was vilified then for posting that. Truth is that those who assisted in the operation in a general way, helped Pakistan's own stated goals in the so called WOT. So there is no argument to arrest them.

4. I find it disgusting that in the first place a state harbors not 1 or 2, but an entire gamut of terrorists and then points to some rule book on sovereignty. And when someone tries to do something about it, yells sovereignty.

5. India's biggest and most terrible 911 type event occurred in 1993, excerpt from Wiki for those not aware:


The 1993 Bombay bombings were a series of 13 bomb explosions that took place in Bombay (now Mumbai), Maharashtra, India on 12 March 1993.[3] The coordinated attacks were the most destructive bomb explosions in Indian history. The single-day attacks resulted in up to 250 fatalities and 700 injuries.

The attacks were coordinated by Dawood Ibrahim, don of the Bombay-based international organized crime syndicate named D-Company , which had also operated as a terrorist organization.

Ibrahim is believed to have ordered and helped organize the bombings in Bombay, through one of his subordinates, Tiger Memon. The bombings are also believed to have been financially assisted by the expatriate Indian smugglers, Hajji Ahmed, Hajji Umar and Taufiq Jaliawala, as well as the Pakistani smugglers, Aslam Bhatti and Dawood Jatt. The Indian authorities have also alleged the involvement of the Pakistani intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the blasts.

Dawood Ibrahim and most of it's mastermind perpetrators escaped and are safely housed in Pakistan. The ISI link is undeniable. The proof is in the fact that Dawood remains despite Official Pakistani denial in comfort in Pakistan, protected by the State.

6. Pakistani Nukes are meant in the first instance for deterring Abottabad type incidents/ raids from the Indian side. The reason is the State can use these groups to create mayhem in India and if India wants to retaliate, it threatens a Poker type "all in" response.

7. That Pakistan sides Terrorists is undeniable...Indian Embassy bombings in 2008 in Kabul was directly linked to ISI too.


Washington: On the basis of intercepted communication between Pakistan intelligence agency ISI and militants, the US has reportedly drawn a conclusion that Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI was behind the July 7 suicide attack on Indian embassy in Kabul which claimed more than 50 lives, including four Indian staffers.

8. This pattern is too obvious. Plausible deniability and then pointing to laws to show justification. It's happening all the time for 60 plus years as far as India is concerned.

9. The US or any other nation aids Terrorism as long as it arms a state that has such a policy against India. No man made laws can keep up with a Nation that believes in hoodwinking such to achieve it's objectives.

10. Pakistan as a normal state wanting to live in peace is a chimera. Pakistan does not want to live in peace. PA and Al Qaeda motives are the same. Jihad. Whereas AQ wants to focus it's energy West, PA wants to focus East. The Utopian quest is Ghazwa E Hind. The conquest of Hind. India. Islamizing India under the Sharia is the aim and core motivating factor. All actions in Pakistan stem from that. Terror, Lies, Deceit and Nukes are important towards achieving that or working towards that.

11. India presently has a very liberal Govt. People who believe others are just like them and want peace ans such. That's a classic mistake. All people don't have the same value systems. Some do genuinely believe in lies, deceit, untruth. So am glad that the US is involved and learns from the direct involvement in Pakistan and in the process does some dirty work that India cannot do. More important is that the US is learning..what it means to arm a nation like Pakistan. Can expect China to do that, but the US..it lowers itself and it's citizens doing so.

devgupt
02 Apr 12,, 06:34
Details Emerge About Bin Laden's Multiple Residences In Pakistan | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/01/details-emerge-about-bin-ladens-multiple-residences-in-pakistan/#ixzz1qqHsqLtj)

Laden stay in Pakistan was longer than was originally thought