PDA

View Full Version : US had tacit consent of Pakistan military for OBL raid, claims book



Pages : [1] 2

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 03:45
Obama administration had tacit consent of Pakistan military, claims book

Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration seems to have acquired a “tacit consent” of the Pakistani military for the May 2 raid in Abbottabad that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, claims a new book released in the United States on Wednesday.

The book – “Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him” – also claimed that in August 2010, the ISI offered valuable information about bin Laden’s hideout to the CIA.

On page 116, author Richard Miniter disputes US President Barack Obama’s claim that he took a great political risk by ordering a strike into a compound near the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul.

“Far from taking a risk, there are indications that a cover story had been developed with the Pakistani military and that Mr Obama had their tacit consent for the mission,” he writes.

The author, a former reporter with The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, argues that “the Obama administration’s account of Pakistan’s role (in the operation) is misleading and incomplete.”

The author also claims that Pakistan Army chief may have been briefed in December 2010 about the operation, five months before the night-time raid on bin Laden’s concrete castle. “Pakistan was more involved in the bin Laden operation than Obama’s team admitted,” he argues.

Giving a “never-before-reported account” of the Abbottabad raid, the author writes: “When the CIA revealed that an ISI colonel had contacted the CIA in Islamabad and offered information about bin Laden, a debate followed.

“Was this a secret sign that the head of the ISI was pointing out bin Laden’s hiding place or was the colonel actually the patriot who hated extremism that he claimed to be?”

Although Mr Miniter does not explain what information did the ISI provide, he notes that “the CIA found bin Laden’s hiding place within a month of the colonel’s visit” to its Islamabad office.

An official with “second hand knowledge of the White House discussion” on the operation tells the author that “there was talking about devising a cover story that would allow Pakistan to be helpful while keeping its leaders form political harm.”

The story was that bin Laden was killed in a drone strike and that the US later sent in a SEAL team to recover the body.

“That was believed to be less politically harmful than a commando team treading on Pakistan’s oil,” told the author.

According to this official, when the Pakistan Army chief was alerted in December 2010, “no concrete facts about the operation were passed on, but an informal approval was sought.”

When A US helicopter crashed into bin Laden’s compound, the cover story was abandoned. The decision “completely … Pakistan” by leaving it alone to deal with the consequences of a hugely unpopular operation.

The author says that while he could not be independently confirm the information, “it has the virtue of explaining why the Obama administration did not press to end military aid to Pakistan when bin Laden was found 800 yards from its officer training facility.”

The book also gives intriguing details about the walled-compound where bin Laden was hiding, which CIA analysts estimated cost well over $1 million to build. It had no telephone, Internet, cable-television, or electrical wires attached to it.

A CIA team gained access to Pakistan’s official building-permit and ownership records. The paperwork indicated that the building permit for this specially constructed enclave was issued in 2005 and that bin Laden’s courier, Omar al-Kuwaiti, was listed as the owner, under the name Arshad Khan. His brother Abrar was listed as a co-owner.

“The record held another surprise. The land for the bin Laden lair seemed to have been carved out of property owned by the Kakul Military Academy,” Mr Miniter claims.

The book also disputes Obama administration’s claim that the al-Qaeda leader was killed in a forty-minute fire-fight. “Few shots were fired and the mission was completed in less than twenty minutes.”

As the elite US commando team, known as the SEALs, entered the compound, Omar al-Kuwaiti emerged with an AK-47 and was instantly felled by a single shot. The bullet passed through him and killed his wife, who was standing a few feet behind.

His brother Abrar would die within a minute when he, too, stepped out into the night with an automatic weapon.

The book also shows that while the Pakistani military claimed to have no knowledge of the operation until after it was over, OBL’s neighbours were knocking at the door as soon as the raid began.

“With the gunshots and the helicopter crash, the neighbours appeared. In perfect Pashto, (a CIA) translator acted the art of a Pakistani policeman. “Go back to your houses. There is a security operation under way,” he said.

Although the Pakistan Military Academy was only a 1,000 yards away from the compound, no military personnel came to enquire what was happening, not even after a helicopter crashed.

At 4:18 p.m. Washington time, the SEAL’s finally reached bin Laden. Within two minutes bin Laden, his son and his protectors were dead.”

The book also claims that key clues to bin Laden’s hideout, especially the identity of the courier who was his main link to the outside world, were first uncovered in the Bush years.

The CIA found bin Laden’s hideout in the first few months of the Obama administration. “Yet it took the president almost two years to make a decision to act on this valuable intelligence as he deliberated and delayed,” says the author.

“Mr Obama was often disengaged as the bin Laden operation took shape; he left critical decisions to the then-CIA director Leon Panetta, then-Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama feared taking responsibility for a risky raid that might go tragically wrong.”

A single call to al-Kuwaiti, lasting less than a minute, gave him away in 2009. America’s electronic sleuths were tracking al-Kuwaiti through his mobile phone. A technical team mapped the locations of every phone al-Kuwaiti made a call to or received a call from. It showed red dots all over Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A covert ground team eventually spotted al-Kuwaiti himself in the Bilal Town section of Abbottabad. He liked to roam the busy streets of Abbottabad in a white sport-utility vehicle, with a distinctive red rhino emblazoned on its spare tire cover. It made him easy to follow.

Within weeks al-Kuwaiti was tracked repeatedly entering and exiting a mysterious walled compound. Inside the protective walls was a three-story tower with concrete-block privacy walls screenings it balconies.

Mr Panetta had previously ordered surveillance by satellite and drone aircraft. In April 2009, a ground team also began an intense surveillance.

What if it was not OBL? “It does not matter,” Mr Panetta responded, “if it isn’t bin Laden, then it’s another very senior al-Qaeda leader.”

Initially, a drone or a B-2 bomber cruise missile, Mrs Clinton and Mr Gates both supported but another closed Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, opposed.

An undercover ground team was sent into Abbottabad, and they soon learned there was another family living with the couriers and that the composition of that family matched bin Laden’s.

The covert CIA team tried various ruses to learn the identity of the compound residents, including free door-to-door polio immunisation.

President Obama realised that an air strike could kill non-combatants, provoking enormous outrage in Pakistan.

In January 2010, President Obama ordered Vice Admiral Bill McRaven, a former Navy Seal, ran the Joint Special Operations Command, to develop a range of military operations. The SEALs’ Team Six was formed but commander was not informed bin Laden was the target.

At a March 14, 2011 White House Situation Room, President Obama decided Pakistan should be kept in the dark while America made its plans.

Bombing was ruled out. “All it has to be is about 1,000 yards and it hits the Pakistan Military Academy,” said a senior CIA official. Also, bombing would not produce conclusive evidence that bin Laden was dead.

President Obama’s national security team was particularly worried about Pakistan. The allied government was always vocally opposed to operations on its soil, in that nation’s press at least. Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups remained popular in Pakistan and parties allied with them ideologically usually commanded more than one-third of the vote in elections.

In private, Pakistan usually asked for some wiggle-room to deny knowing about a drone operation for internal political reasons.

Obama administration had tacit consent of Pakistan military, claims book | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2012/08/23/obama-administration-had-tacit-consent-of-pakistan-military-claims-book/)

=============


Nah, just his house in a military city, the way joint ops with the ISI tended to go bust, and the doctor put in jail.... If it walks like a duck, likes water and goes quack its a duck.

The above account would appear to somewhat contradict the narrative you and many others have chosen to cling to.

TopHatter
23 Aug 12,, 03:56
The above account would appear to somewhat contradict the narrative you and many others have chosen to cling to.

Two key words there: "would appear".

There's no independent confirmation of that story. It wouldn't surprise me if a few Pakistani officials (military, political, ISI etc) were providing information on Bin Laden's whereabouts.

The fact remains that Bin Laden was residing roughly 1000 yards from the Pakistani Military Academy for FIVE F-CKING YEARS.

Any other straws that you'd care to cling to?

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 04:02
Two key words there: "would appear".

There's no independent confirmation of that story. Is there any confirmation of the allegations that the Pakistani government, military and/or intelligence agencies were aware of OBL's location prior to the US raid?

Why ask for 'confirmation' of Pakistan innocence and blindly believe in her guilt?
It wouldn't surprise me if a few Pakistani officials (military, political, ISI etc) were providing information on Bin Laden's whereabouts.


The fact remains that Bin Laden was residing roughly 1000 yards from the Pakistani Military Academy for FIVE F-CKING YEARS.
So? Is it standard procedure in the US to do random house searches of every residence within a certain radius of West Point every so often?


Any other straws that you'd care to cling to?
No more than the ones that allow some to cling to the narrative of 'Pakistan Army/ISI was hiding OBL'.

The only thing supporting the narrative you cling to is speculation based on location, not even any circumstantial evidence.

TopHatter
23 Aug 12,, 05:26
Is there any confirmation of the allegations that the Pakistani government, military and/or intelligence agencies were aware of OBL's location prior to the US raid?

Why ask for 'confirmation' of Pakistan innocence and blindly believe in her guilt?
Confirmation? From the government of Pakistan? Yeah, I'm sure that'll be forthcoming, just as soon as they confirm that Lashkar-e-Taiba's little vacation jaunt to Mumbai in 2008 was supported by the ISI.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Bin Laden wasn't hiding out in some modest shack somewhere in the Pakistani badlands.

Either Pakistan's military and internal security apparatus was at least tacitly allowing Bin Laden to reside in Bilal Town or they are so incompetent and bumbling, that they had no clue he was living there for five years, as to defy all reason. So which is it?



So? Is it standard procedure in the US to do random house searches of every residence within a certain radius of West Point every so often?First of all, you're comparing the United States to Pakistan? Really? Wow...just wow.
Could you have picked two countries that were more different?

Second, if an out-of-place compound on the scale of Bin Laden's suddenly popped up a thousand yards from West Point, I'm fairly certain there'd be some inquires, even of the most idle and casual kind, made about the residents...especially with their clannish secretive nature.

It's this new thing all the kids are doing called "Basic Counter-Intelligence".



No more than the ones that allow some to cling to the narrative of 'Pakistan Army/ISI was hiding OBL'.

The only thing supporting the narrative you cling to is speculation based on location, not even any circumstantial evidence.
Yeah, such a minor thing, location. Well inside Pakistan, in a major army town, down the street from the Pakistan Military Academy.

Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. :rolleyes:

JAD_333
23 Aug 12,, 05:44
Author Richard Miniter has been accused of factual errors in his account of Obama's handling of the OBL matter.

For what it's worth keeping in mind that this site takes special aim at conservatives.

Miniter's Bin Laden "Bombshell" Is Inaccurate By A Full Year | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/21/miniters-bin-laden-bombshell-is-inaccurate-by-a/189469)

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 12,, 05:47
All this information and Pakistan could not do the raid herself ...

Tronic
23 Aug 12,, 05:50
AM, your Dawn article is taking the quotes from the book and adding its own commentary to it in addition to the quotes.

Remove this side commentary, and only look at the quotes, and it's actually nothing ground breaking, except maybe for the part where it states Osama's compound was actually on Military property.



Book claims Osama’s hideout carved out of Pak military academy (http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3807100.ece)

According to the book, as the CIA found the Abbottabad compound where bin Laden lived along with his family members and started researching on the property, they found out that the land was carved out from the military academy compound.

“The records held another surprise. The land for the bin Laden lair seemed to have been carved out of property owned by the Kakul Military Academy, Pakistan’s answer to Sandhurst and West Point,” Miniter claimed.

“The bin Laden compound was akin to an isosceles triangle, carved out of the property of the Kakul Military Academy, Pakistan’s West Point. The campus’s main building sat some eight hundred yards from bin Laden’s castle.

“The triangular compound was bordered with concrete walls ranging in height from ten to eighteen feet. The main building, a three-story tower, housed the arch terrorist, his wives, and their children,” he wrote.

That is news.

The following, we already knew;


The book also claims that army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani may have been briefed by the US on its operation to kill bin Laden, some five months in advance.

“Pakistan’s Army chief of staff may have been briefed in December 2010, five months before the night-time raid on bin Laden’s concrete castle. Far from taking a risk, there are indications that a cover story had been developed with the Pakistani military and that (Barack) Obama had their tacit consent for the mission,” claims Miniter, a former reporter with ‘The Wall Street Journal’ and ‘The Washington Post’

Bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALs inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan in May 2011.

The book also says a colonel in the Pakistan’s spy agency ISI had provided vital help to the CIA in tracing bin Laden.

“A colonel in Pakistan’s feared intelligence service, the Inter-Services Institute or ISI, provided vital help in locating Bin Laden when he walked into the CIA’s Islamabad station in August 2010,” says the book.

“In a never-before-reported account, Pakistan was more involved in the bin Laden operation than Obama’s team admitted. When the CIA revealed that an ISI colonel had contacted the CIA in Islamabad and offered information about bin Laden, a debate followed,” it says.

“Was this a secret sign that the head of the ISI himself was pointing out bin Laden’s hiding place or was the colonel actually the patriot who hated extremism that he claimed to be? Whatever the motivation, the CIA found bin Laden’s hiding place within a month of the colonel’s visit,” the book claims.

“There was talk about devising a cover story that would allow Pakistan to be helpful while keeping its leaders from political harm. The story, according to an official with second-hand knowledge of the White House discussion, was that bin Laden was killed in a drone strike and that the US later sent in a team to recover the body. That was believed to be less politically harmful than a commando team treading on Pakistan’s soil,” Minter says.

“According to this official, Pakistan’s Army chief of staff was alerted in December 2010, months before the operation. No concrete facts about the operation were passed on, but an informal approval was sought,” he writes.

“When the SEAL helicopter crashed into bin Laden’s compound, the cover story was abandoned,” the official said.

The story could not be independently confirmed, but it has the virtue of explaining why the Obama administration did not press to end military aid to Pakistan when bin Laden was found eight hundred yards from its officer training facility,” Minter wrote.


According to the book it was on March 14, 2011 during a situation room meeting that President Obama decided that Pakistan “should be kept in dark” while America made its plans.



So according to this; a Pakistani Colonel, claiming to be acting alone, passed on information helping to find Bin Laden. The book itself puts a question mark on whether the Colonel was acting on the ISI's behest or alone. Clearly not an official ISI brief to the CIA. It states that the US approached Kayani for a tacit approval for a raid within Pakistani territory, followed up with a cover story, but it also mentions that no details of the Abbottabad operation were passed on to Pakistan.

This is nothing significant.

We are already well aware of Bush having this 'tacit approval' of Pakistan to launch a raid against Osama, whenever he would be located.

My guess is, they never expected America to strike so deep.

Double Edge
23 Aug 12,, 12:25
The above account would appear to somewhat contradict the narrative you and many others have chosen to cling to.
This to me appears a white wash.

Explain why you went after your citizens that assisted the US in the OBL raid, if all the while you were in cahoots with the US.

Why the trumped up charges against those citizens.

Let me see you convince Pari :)

FWIW i used this same line of thought soon after the raid as I could not imagine how the CIA could find a needle in a haystack of 180 million. I would find that position untenable in light of developing events in the weeks after.

It became apparent that the US had over the years constituted their own informer network inside Pakistan. The only Pak contribution in this effort was to look the other way when the raid occurred. Offer token protests after and claim non involvement.

Naturally, its far worse for the Pak administration to be seen aiding the US in this effort than harbouring OBL. I'd expect strenuous denials from them about the claims in this book.

Minskaya
23 Aug 12,, 12:40
The White House has labeled Mr. Minter's account "an utter fabrication"...

Source: USAToday (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/wh-obama-did-not-postpone-bin-laden-raid/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+usatoday-NewsTopStories+(News+-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+Reader#.UDYC6NaPUkr)

It also doesn't even remotely jibe with an excellent book I read a few months ago:

SEAL Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama bin Laden
Chuck Pfarrer / St. Martins Press / 2011 / 240pp

Mr. Pfarrer is a former element commander of SEAL Team Six. For this book he interviewed Adm. William McRaven (Commander/JSOC), Geronimo Mission Commander Scott Kerr, members of the Army Night Stalkers (insertion/extraction) and the participating elements of SEAL Team Six.

Minskaya
23 Aug 12,, 12:49
Explain why you went after your citizens that assisted the US in the OBL raid, if all the while you were in cahoots with the US. Why the trumped up charges against them.
Indeed. The Pakistani doctor (CIA asset) who solicited the compound residents (free flu shots) is still rotting in a Pakistani prison.

Deltacamelately
23 Aug 12,, 12:51
AM,

A piece of real estate belonging to the military is used to construct a building which in turn houses the most wanted terrorist on earth and the same military is unaware who lives in? Are you really convinced yourself?

Doktor
23 Aug 12,, 13:31
Maj, the best place to hide things is right in front of people's noses.

On a serious note Pakistan can't have it both ways, acting full scale state when it comes to relations with other nations, while openly admitting they are unaware wtf is going on it's own turf (Abbottabad, Naval Base, Taliban...).

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 13:55
Maj, the best place to hide things is right in front of people's noses.

On a serious note Pakistan can't have it both ways, acting full scale state when it comes to relations with other nations, while openly admitting they are unaware wtf is going on it's own turf (Abbottabad, Naval Base, Taliban...).

Responses to the rest of the posts later - so where does that place the US when it comes to incidents like the WTC bombings, 9/11 attacks, Fort Hood shootings etc. etc.

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 13:57
AM,

A piece of real estate belonging to the military is used to construct a building which in turn houses the most wanted terrorist on earth and the same military is unaware who lives in? Are you really convinced yourself?
Real estate belonging to the military was allegedly sold - the OBL compound was not the only construction in that area, and certainly not the newest one, so you can't argue that the real estate was sold specifically for that compound alone.

Second, if you believe the account about the real estate, then why ignore the part where the ISI/PA was also providing intel that assisted the US in locating OBL?

Doktor
23 Aug 12,, 14:00
Responses to the rest of the posts later - so where does that place the US when it comes to incidents like the WTC bombings, 9/11 attacks, Fort Hood shootings etc. etc.

Shit happens everywhere, you can go with the same argument about Spain, UK, France... The thing is what happens afterwards. How the state reacts on such events.

And BTW, in none of the mentioned countries, armed formations don't penetrate their borders.

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 14:03
Confirmation? From the government of Pakistan? Yeah, I'm sure that'll be forthcoming, just as soon as they confirm that Lashkar-e-Taiba's little vacation jaunt to Mumbai in 2008 was supported by the ISI.
So you admit that there is no confirmation or evidence to support the narrative you are clinging to - its based entirely on speculation around the location of the compound.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Bin Laden wasn't hiding out in some modest shack somewhere in the Pakistani badlands.


Either Pakistan's military and internal security apparatus was at least tacitly allowing Bin Laden to reside in Bilal Town or they are so incompetent and bumbling, that they had no clue he was living there for five years, as to defy all reason. So which is it?
Again, what reason was there for Pakistani security forces to investigate this particular compound out of the thousands of residences in that area?


First of all, you're comparing the United States to Pakistan? Really? Wow...just wow.
Could you have picked two countries that were more different?

Second, if an out-of-place compound on the scale of Bin Laden's suddenly popped up a thousand yards from West Point, I'm fairly certain there'd be some inquires, even of the most idle and casual kind, made about the residents...especially with their clannish secretive nature.

It's this new thing all the kids are doing called "Basic Counter-Intelligence".
Since when does 'basic counter-intelligence' involve randomly searching residences withing X distance of a military academy? Assuming this compound was next to West Point, what exactly would have tipped off US authorities that OBL was living there?

And yes, in terms of the ludicrous suggestions being made that Pakistani should have somehow just known or suspected this particular compound out of the thousands of other surrounding residences does make me compare the US to Pakistan to see how exactly you expected Pakistan to focus on this compound.



Yeah, such a minor thing, location. Well inside Pakistan, in a major army town, down the street from the Pakistan Military Academy.

Again, would US authorities randomly search residences without any reason for suspicion within X distance of West Point?

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 14:07
Shit happens everywhere, you can go with the same argument about Spain, UK, France... The thing is what happens afterwards. How the state reacts on such events.
Sure, shit happens, and it has happened more often in Pakistan given the war in Afghanistan and the internal dynamics of the country and the weakness of many institutions. How States respond depends on many factors, the amount of resources that can be diverted to address the issue being one of them, and obviously those factors mean that the responses of States will vary, widely in some cases, from each other. So I am not really sure what you were getting at ..


And BTW, in none of the mentioned countries, armed formations don't penetrate their borders.
And none of those countries have a war going on next door - they are all developed countries as well, with strong institutions for the most part, especially strong law enforcement and domestic intelligence institutions.

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 14:10
This to me appears a white wash.

Explain why you went after your citizens that assisted the US in the OBL raid, if all the while you were in cahoots with the US.

Why the trumped up charges against those citizens.

Let me see you convince Pari :)

FWIW i used this same line of thought soon after the raid as I could not imagine how the CIA could find a needle in a haystack of 180 million. I would find that position untenable in light of developing events in the weeks after.

It became apparent that the US had over the years constituted their own informer network inside Pakistan. The only Pak contribution in this effort was to look the other way when the raid occurred. Offer token protests after and claim non involvement.

Naturally, its far worse for the Pak administration to be seen aiding the US in this effort than harbouring OBL. I'd expect strenuous denials from them about the claims in this book.

The reason for posting the account was to highlight the fact that there are several unconfirmed accounts out there - US officials have themselves stated several times, on the record, that they have no evidence of any Pakistani institutional complicity in sheltering OBL, yet, as can be seen, many people continue to cling to a self-serving narrative that Pakistani institutions were complicit.

I don't think I have to explain this unconfirmed account any more than those clinging to the 'Pakistan was complict' narrative have to explain theirs.

TopHatter
23 Aug 12,, 14:45
I can only assume by your answers that you're being willfully ignorant about the points that have been brought up.

What's it like to walk around with blinders over your eyes?

zraver
23 Aug 12,, 15:03
Just want to point out the Elephant, AM's source claims an ISI colonel gave the US the location.... ie the ISI knew the location and kept it secret for some time. Given the fact the property was carved from the military academy it seems likely they knew for FIVE YEARS or more since they built the damn compound for him.

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 15:06
I can only assume by your answers that you're being willfully ignorant about the points that have been brought up.

What's it like to walk around with blinders over your eyes?

TH,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only point that has been brought up to support the allegation of Pakistani institutional complicity is speculative and based on the location of the compound.

Why am I the one with 'blinkers on' when you, as far as I can tell, are basing your entire argument on that one speculative point above?

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 15:08
Just want to point out the Elephant, AM's source claims an ISI colonel gave the US the location.... ie the ISI knew the location and kept it secret for some time. Given the fact the property was carved from the military academy it seems likely they knew for FIVE YEARS or more since they built the damn compound for him.

Or, it took that long for the ISI to track OBL down. As I have already pointed out, that compound is not the only residence in that area and certainly not the oldest, which means that sales of military real estate to civilians was common practice. The property was also sold to an individual named 'Arshad Khan' and not 'Osama Bin Laden'.

Doktor
23 Aug 12,, 15:14
Then why they did not arrest him?

Double Edge
23 Aug 12,, 15:22
US officials have themselves stated several times, on the record, that they have no evidence of any Pakistani institutional complicity in sheltering OBL,
True, as yet, there is no clinching evidence here, its circumstantial.


yet, as can be seen, many people continue to cling to a self-serving narrative that Pakistani institutions were complicit.
Because prima facie thats the way it looks. Guillty by association.


I don't think I have to explain this unconfirmed account any more than those clinging to the 'Pakistan was complict' narrative have to explain theirs.
Hang on a minute.

My reply was to counter the book's claim that the Paks were involved or complicit in the apprehending of OBL. To which i've posed a challenge (Pari's actually) which you've not answered.

It would seem you want to believe Pakistan assisted in capturing OBL and therefore are not complicit in harbouring him but cannot explain why your citizens that were involved in the operation were hunted down and prosecuted after.

Do not in any way construe my post as absolving Pakistan of harbouring OBL as at the end of the day. like it or not that is where he was found.

Triple C
23 Aug 12,, 15:57
AM,

You DO realize that this is presidential election season in the land of the Old Glory and the title of the book indicates that it is written with the intent to dispute Obama's signature achievement in his presidency and the narrative that the White House generated, RIGHT?

Not all that is printed on paper is true. Just sayin'.

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 16:08
AM,

You DO realize that this is presidential election season in the land of the Old Glory and the title of the book indicates that it is written with the intent to dispute Obama's signature achievement in his presidency and the narrative that the White House generated, RIGHT?

Not all that is printed on paper is true. Just sayin'.

I completely understand that, but why then is it so hard to accept the fact stated by US Government and Military officials time and again that there is no evidence of Pakistani complicity in hiding OBL?

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 16:37
True, as yet, there is no clinching evidence here, its circumstantial.There is only speculation based on the location of OBL's compound, not one bit more.


Because prima facie thats the way it looks. Guillty by association.
That same justification, when used by Pakistanis to point to Indian, US and Afghan complicity in terrorist attacks in Pakistan, is dismissed as 'paranoid conspiracy theories'. Why should this narrative be treated any differently?


Hang on a minute.

My reply was to counter the book's claim that the Paks were involved or complicit in the apprehending of OBL. To which i've posed a challenge (Pari's actually) which you've not answered.
Going back to Afridi - not sure why you consider the current charges against him to be 'trumped up'. And yes, I do agree that the charges against Afridi (the treason ones, which are legitimate) do poke a big hole in the argument that Pakistan was aware of the details of the operation, as does the fact that Pakistan would have probably taken him out itself or in a joint operations.


It would seem you want to believe Pakistan assisted in capturing OBL and therefore are not complicit in harbouring him but cannot explain why your citizens that were involved in the operation were hunted down and prosecuted after.
I do believe that Pakistan provided critical intelligence that allowed the US to put together various pieces and track down OBL, but I am not saying that I believe the account presented in this book - I posted it to point out that there are various unconfirmed accounts floating around.


Do not in any way construe my post as absolving Pakistan of harbouring OBL as at the end of the day. like it or not that is where he was found.
He had to be found somewhere - he couldn't exactly vanish from the face of the earth now could he?

The facts are that there is nothing other than speculation and a desire to scapegoat Pakistan that is driving these allegations of complicity.

Doktor
23 Aug 12,, 16:43
Why would Pakistan be scapegoated? :confused:

The impression I got from a half world away is that there are/might be at least 2 fractions in Pakistan which are not coordinated. One that flirts with extremists and another one that is seeing the danger of it. They are somehow interwined and that's why we (abroad) get a picture of Pakistan as two faced country. Once the internal power struggle is over it will be clear where the country is headed.

Double Edge
23 Aug 12,, 19:03
Going back to Afridi - not sure why you consider the current charges against him to be 'trumped up'.
The americans have said Afridi was an important member in the operation. SECSTATE made a statement as well as the house passing a resolution to deduct $30 million out of your aid for each year he has to serve.

All this just for a foreigner ?

So i'd have expected him to be honoured maybe in line for a corresponding award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_decorations_of_Pakistan) and not detained. Afridi was caught trying to leave at the Afghan border in Sept last year. He'd been languishing in a prison until his tribal court hearing in May this year.


And yes, I do agree that the charges against Afridi (the treason ones, which are legitimate) do poke a big hole in the argument that Pakistan was aware of the details of the operation, as does the fact that Pakistan would have probably taken him out itself or in a joint operations.
Good, but AFAIK Afridi has not been charged with treason yet. They got him on something else, had posted the tribal courts ruling from DAWN in the afridi thread earlier. Not a lot of details just what some intelligence people said.

At the time the recommendation had been made that he be charged with treason. That was what made the news and mislead people into thinking he had actually been charged with treason, but it was incorrect. Nevertheless, attempting to charge him with treason is in itself incriminating given what the americans have said.

Going on the assumption that OBL is an enemy(?) of Pakistan who is member of the GWOT coaltion.


I do believe that Pakistan provided critical intelligence that allowed the US to put together various pieces and track down OBL,
You have anything confirmed to support this ? because i've come to believe this was largely an american op.

Not referring to the 300 odd perps you helped apprehend but OBL specifically.


but I am not saying that I believe the account presented in this book - I posted it to point out that there are various unconfirmed accounts floating around.
its a white wash.

Anybody can make up unconfirmed accounts about anything isn't it.


He had to be found somewhere - he couldn't exactly vanish from the face of the earth now could he?
Had he been found at the border you'd have a better chance. But not in Abbotabad.


The facts are that there is nothing other than speculation and a desire to scapegoat Pakistan that is driving these allegations of complicity.
I can't see how you can play those suspicions down. Its a PR loss for you.

And i'm expecting Pakistan to make moves to counter that perception.

This book is the first i've heard about, doubtless there will be more ;)

Minskaya
23 Aug 12,, 19:07
The property was also sold to an individual named 'Arshad Khan' and not 'Osama Bin Laden'.
"Arshad Khan" - a/k/a Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti - was the most trusted bin-Laden courier. He was killed during the Abbottabad raid after he emerged from the guesthouse firing an AK.

He initially attracted the attention of the CIA while in Peshawar and was subsequently followed to Abbottabad. He made a crucial mistake in neglecting to use a "clean" cell phone while contacting a known member of al-Queda. This cell call was intercepted by the NSA. In the conversation, al-Kuwaiti referred to "the tall man". From that moment on, the US intelligence community used all available means - including national assets - to identify the residents of the Abbottabad compound. From satellite imagery, analysts mathematically calculated that a man seen walking within the compound was at least 6'5" tall.

Minskaya
23 Aug 12,, 19:18
He was killed during the Abbottabad raid after he emerged from the guesthouse firing an AK.
Incidentally, al-Kuwaiti's wife, who was standing directly behind her husband as he emerged from the guesthouse, was killed by the same rounds that killed him.

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 20:02
"Arshad Khan" - a/k/a Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti - was the most trusted bin-Laden courier. He was killed during the Abbottabad raid after he emerged from the guesthouse firing an AK.

He initially attracted the attention of the CIA while in Peshawar and was subsequently followed to Abbottabad. He made a crucial mistake in neglecting to use a "clean" cell phone while contacting a known member of al-Queda. This cell call was intercepted by the NSA. In the conversation, al-Kuwaiti referred to "the tall man". From that moment on, the US intelligence community used all available means - including national assets - to identify the residents of the Abbottabad compound. From satellite imagery, analysts mathematically calculated that a man seen walking within the compound was at least 6'5" tall.

Yes, and the land was sold to a man named 'Arshad Khan' and not to a man named 'Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti' or 'Osama Bin Laden' - pointing out their identities after the fact does not support the argument that Pakistan was aware of them prior to the operation.

TopHatter
23 Aug 12,, 20:20
I can't see how you can play those suspicions down.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

Agnostic Muslim
23 Aug 12,, 20:25
The americans have said Afridi was an important member in the operation. SECSTATE made a statement as well as the house passing a resolution to deduct $30 million out of your aid for each year he has to serve.

All this just for a foreigner ?

So i'd have expected him to be honoured maybe in line for a corresponding award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_decorations_of_Pakistan) and not detained. Afridi was caught trying to leave at the Afghan border in Sept last year. He'd been languishing in a prison until his tribal court hearing in May this year.
Why should Pakistan honor a man who acted in concert with a foreign intelligence agency without Pakistani authorization, and allegedly provided some degree of support to certain militant groups?


Good, but AFAIK Afridi has not been charged with treason yet. They got him on something else, had posted the tribal courts ruling from DAWN in the afridi thread earlier. Not a lot of details just what some intelligence people said.

At the time the recommendation had been made that he be charged with treason. That was what made the news and mislead people into thinking he had actually been charged with treason, but it was incorrect. Nevertheless, attempting to charge him with treason is in itself incriminating given what the americans have said.

Going on the assumption that OBL is an enemy(?) of Pakistan who is member of the GWOT coaltion.
He's lucky he has not been charged with treason yet, because that would mean a death sentence, which he deserves for putting the lives of many Pakistanis in danger, both through his fabricated polio campaign and through the risks entailed in a covert military operation inside Pakistani territory that could have backfired and resulted in many innocent civilians and security forces dying.

You have anything confirmed to support this ? because i've come to believe this was largely an american op.
There are statements from US officials that Pakistan provided initial intelligence that the US developed - this point was reiterated in recent interview with ISI officials in the NYT (though I will have to verify the source).

Not referring to the 300 odd perps you helped apprehend but OBL specifically.
All of that, especially the capture of KSM and the intelligence gleaned from him, helped develop the complete intelligence picture.


its a white wash.

Anybody can make up unconfirmed accounts about anything isn't it.
Yes, just like the claims that Pakistani institutions were complicit despite no evidence supporting said claims.

Had he been found at the border you'd have a better chance. But not in Abbotabad.
Only from a PR perspective - looking at this rationally, he had to be found somewhere and he chose to, cleverly, hide in plain site. His presence in Abbottabad is not evidence of anything except for those looking to scapegoat Pakistan.


I can't see how you can play those suspicions down. Its a PR loss for you.
A PR loss because the US is choosing to turn it into a PR loss.

Tronic
23 Aug 12,, 20:33
Yes, and the land was sold to a man named 'Arshad Khan' and not to a man named 'Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti' or 'Osama Bin Laden' - pointing out their identities after the fact does not support the argument that Pakistan was aware of them prior to the operation.

It's military land and even if we excuse the supposed lack of background checks; AQ didn't dig a hole to hide under, but built a mansion with multiple security walls, no internet connection, no telephone lines, burning their own garbage, and the Pak military thought this to be "normal" activity 800 yards from their main building? Are you kidding me?? And this is supposed to be an army under siege from, to quote you, "Indian, US and Afghan complicity in terrorist attacks in Pakistan"? I'd get suspicious, as Osama's neighbours too have aptly reported they were of the compound. And this is a military base we're talking about, of a military facing continuous attacks on its institutions. I'm sorry but its hard to swallow that the Pak military is that incompetent.

gunnut
23 Aug 12,, 20:47
This to me appears a white wash.

Explain why you went after your citizens that assisted the US in the OBL raid, if all the while you were in cahoots with the US.

Why the trumped up charges against those citizens.

Let me see you convince Pari :)

That's easy. It's a show for the locals. Pak army has to put up this front that it's outraged by the invasion of US special forces while at the same time work with the Americans to get handouts.

Minskaya
23 Aug 12,, 21:12
Yes, and the land was sold to a man named 'Arshad Khan' and not to a man named 'Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti' or 'Osama Bin Laden' - pointing out their identities after the fact does not support the argument that Pakistan was aware of them prior to the operation.
The unpleasant facts remain AM. For years, bin-Laden was ensconced very close to the Pakistani equivalent of West Point. What's more, the environs of Abbottabad are filled with high ranking military officers enjoying retirement. Much like Islamabad, this area should have been saturated with ISI agents protecting the connected and affluent from any number of internal threats. I find it inexplicable that in a military cantonment, an area filled with fresh military cadets and general officer retirees, an immense compound is constructed (differently than neighboring villas) with a camera monitoring the entrance way, yet without any telephone/internet/satellite access, and harboring unsociable residents who take pains to burn their garbage... I find it extremely difficult to believe that this very odd situation somehow failed to attract even one iota of ISI scrutiny.

Either way you look at it - criminal negligence in the least, aiding and abetting at the worst, it was a wise decision to keep the ISI out of the mission loop.

Pedicabby
23 Aug 12,, 22:00
So Binny was there for what, 5 years? All the while he has been burning his garbage right? And his neighbours are all retired generals right? Why would these retired generals complain about the smell of burning rubbish? Even in a 3rd world country like Pakistan I don't see how anyone without big connections can burn trash in the posh part of town for a day much less 5 years.

TopHatter
23 Aug 12,, 22:11
It's military land and even if we excuse the supposed lack of background checks; AQ didn't dig a hole to hide under, but built a mansion with multiple security walls, no internet connection, no telephone lines, burning their own garbage, and the Pak military thought this to be "normal" activity 800 yards from their main building? Are you kidding me?? And this is supposed to be an army under siege from, to quote you, "Indian, US and Afghan complicity in terrorist attacks in Pakistan"? I'd get suspicious, as Osama's neighbours too have aptly reported they were of the compound. And this is a military base we're talking about, of a military facing continuous attacks on its institutions.


The unpleasant facts remain AM. For years, bin-Laden was ensconced very close to the Pakistani equivalent of West Point. What's more, the environs of Abbottabad are filled with high ranking military officers enjoying retirement. Much like Islamabad, this area should have been saturated with ISI agents protecting the connected and affluent from any number of internal threats. I find it inexplicable that in a military cantonment, an area filled with fresh military cadets and general officer retirees, an immense compound is constructed (differently than neighboring villas) with a camera monitoring the entrance way, yet without any telephone/internet/satellite access, and harboring unsociable residents who take pains to burn their garbage... I find it extremely difficult to believe that this very odd situation somehow failed to attract even one iota of ISI scrutiny.

In Agnostic Muslim's world, these are entirely normal events, activities and circumstances. Nothing to see here people, please keep moving.


I'm sorry but its hard to swallow that the Pak military is that incompetent.


I find it extremely difficult to believe that this very odd situation somehow failed to attract even one iota of ISI scrutiny. Either way you look at it - criminal negligence in the least, aiding and abetting at the worst, it was a wise decision to keep the ISI out of the mission loop.

And that too is without a response. Criminal incompetence bordering on mental retardation or complicity by at least one faction of the Pakistani officialdom? There is no third option.

So again I ask: Which is it?

gunnut
23 Aug 12,, 23:40
In Agnostic Muslim's world, these are entirely normal events, activities and circumstances. Nothing to see here people, please keep moving.

And that too is without a response. Criminal incompetence bordering on mental retardation or complicity by at least one faction of the Pakistani officialdom? There is no third option.

So again I ask: Which is it?

*ahem* Please allow me...

Pak army lured Bin Laden to Abbottabad years ago knowing that he was the most wanted man on the planet. "Wanted" means a lot of money. He's a valuable piece of commodity. Pak army sold the plot of land next to their academy as "unexpectedly secure" because who inside Pakistan would mess with the army and who outside Pakistan would suspect it?

Pakistan has been gaming the Americans for US dollars for years. Offering token help for large sum of cash, all at the same time setting up the very people that it helps Americans to destroy. It builds credibility among the Muslim world and gets American military gear plus cash.

Just when the Americans were about to run out of patience with Pak army's unwillingness to do something serious about the terrorists along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, the Pak army "leaked" information to the Americans on Bin Laden's whereabouts. Pakistan then works out a deal with the US on how best to get rid of Bin Laden. The details include, but not limited to, flight corridor for American raiders into Abbottabad, a fall guy on Pakistan's side for domestic consumption, details on the security arrangement for Bin Laden, orders for the academy to stand down during the raid (we all know how fast a military academy can react to unexpected foreign invasion in the middle of the night), news coverage for domestic consumption, international version from the US that doesn't embarrass the Pak army too much, and of course, payments in cash and gear.

It's all very simple. This entire episode was orchestrated by the brilliant Pakistani intelligence. Nothing is beyond their capabilities.

TopHatter
24 Aug 12,, 01:07
*ahem* Please allow me...

Pak army lured Bin Laden to Abbottabad years ago knowing that he was the most wanted man on the planet. "Wanted" means a lot of money. He's a valuable piece of commodity.

Beautiful :biggrin:

And see my signature...pretty much confirms your theory.
Although "concubine" is rather polite. I was thinking that "wanton whore" would be more appropriate.

JAD_333
24 Aug 12,, 05:57
To explore the question of whether OBL could have lived so close to the Pakistan Military Academy without the army's knowledge, I pulled up a satellite image of the area. The first thing that struck me is that the area is very built up with many large homes. OBL's compound is one of the few that have a large enclosure and a control-tower like top story, but one can find some with these features in lesser size. His compound would certainly have stood out to anyone who drove around the neighborhood. Whether that would have attracted suspicion, I don't know, not being Pakistani or from the area. The homes all look substantial, and I would expect owned by prominent people perhaps above suspicion. The link is below. See what you think.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...mid=1345775042

This next link is a satellite map of the US Military Academy at West Point. There are fewer homes in the immediate surrounding area. I question I asked myself was, could the number one man on the most wanted list live in one of those homes without the US army knowing it. I live in a rural area with many 3-5-10 acre treed lots with large homes sitting back from the road. It's conceivable to me that a celebrated criminal could hide out in one those homes without US army knowing it, providing he stayed put.


https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&c...ed=0CHcQ_BIwAw

This next link is a satellite photo of the CIA HQ in Langley, Virginia. I know this area well as I lived only a few miles away for 10 years. Many upper scale housing developments, some gated, surround it. Again, the question is, could OBL have lived in one of these up-scale homes without being the CIA learning about it? His getting there in the first place is improbable, but knowing the area, had he occupied a house nearby and stayed put, he could have escaped detection by nosy neighbors.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&c...ed=0CAkQ_AUoAg

Of course, none of this proves the AoP or ISI did not know of OBL's whereabouts. But it does take something away from the argument that they must have known inasmuch as he was living so close to the Pakistan Military Academy.

Minskaya
24 Aug 12,, 08:21
Of course, none of this proves the AoP or ISI did not know of OBL's whereabouts. But it does take something away from the argument that they must have known inasmuch as he was living so close to the Pakistan Military Academy.
It is indeed ambiguous. However, Abbottabad is not Peshawar or Kurachi. This is a military cantonment established by the British. It is home to the many (especially military/ISI) powerful and elite of Pakistani society. I cannot imagine a failure of the ISI to closely vet anyone moving into this area, especially an unusual lot with no apparent military/government ties. Perhaps to understand this properly, one has to be familiar with the endemic Pakistani paranoia vis-a-vis India.

Doktor
24 Aug 12,, 09:04
Such a concentration of "Do you know who I am?" types would leave any CI officer without much means and energy to do the job properly.

Besides someone gave clearance to all those residents there, nothing to worry about.

Double Edge
24 Aug 12,, 11:15
Why should Pakistan honor a man who acted in concert with a foreign intelligence agency without Pakistani authorization, and allegedly provided some degree of support to certain militant groups?

He's lucky he has not been charged with treason yet, because that would mean a death sentence, which he deserves for putting the lives of many Pakistanis in danger, both through his fabricated polio campaign and through the risks entailed in a covert military operation inside Pakistani territory that could have backfired and resulted in many innocent civilians and security forces dying.
Have already used those arguments and more in the related thread, then i hit a wall with the below :)


Firstly, if I were to say here that NZ has no jet fighter capability I would not be committing treason because it is a matter of public knowledge. It requires that I be revealing a secret.
Secondly, were I to announce that my neighbour down the road wears womens underwear that would not be treason, as it requires the secret be relevant to the state.
Thirdly, if I were to announce he was a known criminal hiding out I would be performing a community service, not committing treason.
It only becomes treason if it were a secret the state knew about and wished to keep secret for its own advantage and by revealing that secret damaged my countries interests.

By finding him guilty they have argued that OBL was a secret asset to the state, and by revealing that secret Afridi has damaged the state.
How do you argue against the above ?

This is why i doubt he will be charged with treason.

That Afridi was charged in the first place only adds to long standing suspicions held. Not only him but other informants (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-terrorism-topics/60590-pakistan-arrests-c-i-informants-bin-laden-raid.html) were also hunted down.


Yes, just like the claims that Pakistani institutions were complicit despite no evidence supporting said claims.
No its different, the book is about unconfirmed accounts whereas here there is no doubt where OBL was found.


Only from a PR perspective - looking at this rationally, he had to be found somewhere and he chose to, cleverly, hide in plain site. His presence in Abbottabad is not evidence of anything except for those looking to scapegoat Pakistan.
PR matters when dealing with non-paks and the perceptions they have will determine the quality of your relations with them.


A PR loss because the US is choosing to turn it into a PR loss.
Americans have the benefit of the doubt here.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 13:58
Never underestimate the power of denial.

As in 'denial about the complete lack of any evidence indicating Pakistani complicity in sheltering OBL', correct?

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 14:10
It's military land and even if we excuse the supposed lack of background checks; AQ didn't dig a hole to hide under, but built a mansion with multiple security walls, no internet connection, no telephone lines, burning their own garbage, and the Pak military thought this to be "normal" activity 800 yards from their main building?
1. A background check in Pakistan would have turned up the name of Arshad Khan, what would that have told anyone?
2. It was not a 'mansion', but a rather derelict residence, even by Pakistani standards.
3. Many people in Pakistan, who can afford to, go to great lengths to secure their homes and maintain their privacy, especially if they are religiously conservative, so no, nothing unusual there, even burning garbage since in a country where government services are often non-existent, people do tend to 'burn their own garbage' if they have the means to.
4. This was not GHQ but a military academy, and if you look at the google satellite map of the compound, there is significant civilian residential development in that area, so why be suspicious of one residence alone?


Are you kidding me?? And this is supposed to be an army under siege from, to quote you, "Indian, US and Afghan complicity in terrorist attacks in Pakistan"? I'd get suspicious, as Osama's neighbours too have aptly reported they were of the compound. And this is a military base we're talking about, of a military facing continuous attacks on its institutions. I'm sorry but its hard to swallow that the Pak military is that incompetent.
Again, it is not a military base, it is a training academy and is surrounded by civilian residences - take a look at the map below:

29880

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 14:13
It is indeed ambiguous. However, Abbottabad is not Peshawar or Kurachi. This is a military cantonment established by the British. It is home to the many (especially military/ISI) powerful and elite of Pakistani society. I cannot imagine a failure of the ISI to closely vet anyone moving into this area, especially an unusual lot with no apparent military/government ties. Perhaps to understand this properly, one has to be familiar with the endemic Pakistani paranoia vis-a-vis India.
The comment above reflects a lack of understanding about Pakistan.

Abbottabad is no longer that significant of a city, or the first preference, for wealthy and/or influential Pakistanis to choose as a place of residence. Islamabad is easily first choice, and has the highest land values in the country, followed by the Defence Estates in Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi (Islamabad's older twin city).

The only thing Abbottabad is really known for now is the military academy.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 14:15
Such a concentration of "Do you know who I am?" types would leave any CI officer without much means and energy to do the job properly.

Besides someone gave clearance to all those residents there, nothing to worry about.

The only clearance required would be for the purchaser/owner of the land, and at this point there is nothing to indicate that five years ago 'Arshad Khan' would have raised any suspicions.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 14:27
Have already used those arguments and more in the related thread, then i hit a wall with the below :)

Firstly, if I were to say here that NZ has no jet fighter capability I would not be committing treason because it is a matter of public knowledge. It requires that I be revealing a secret.
Secondly, were I to announce that my neighbour down the road wears womens underwear that would not be treason, as it requires the secret be relevant to the state.
Thirdly, if I were to announce he was a known criminal hiding out I would be performing a community service, not committing treason.
It only becomes treason if it were a secret the state knew about and wished to keep secret for its own advantage and by revealing that secret damaged my countries interests.

By finding him guilty they have argued that OBL was a secret asset to the state, and by revealing that secret Afridi has damaged the state.
How do you argue against the above ?
None of the analogies above apply in this case - the treason charge is based on the fact that Afridi knowingly cooperated with a foreign intelligence agency in conducting espionage within Pakistan. Whatever rationale was given to Afridi by this foreign intelligence agency (Mickey Mouse escaped from Disney and we believe he joined Al Qaeda and is hiding in Pakistan) is irrelevant given that this individual had no way of knowing what the true purpose of the foreign intelligence agency was. That goal/ends don't determine the treason charge, the fact that he cooperated with a foreign intelligence agency without Pakistani government authorization and therefore potentially jeopardized the national security of Pakistan is what determines the treason charge. If this man is let off because of the 'ends' (killing a terrorist) the next time people could be recruited by using his example, and next time the 'ends' might compromise Pakistani national security.


No its different, the book is about unconfirmed accounts whereas here there is no doubt where OBL was found.
Again, he had to be hiding somewhere, Taliban leaders continue to be killed and captured in Afghanistan, does that mean NATO and the Afghans are complicit in the Taliban movement? Mullah FM claims he is in Afghanistan, does that mean the US/Afghans are supporting the TTP? Brahamdegh Bugti was sheltered in Kabul with official US and Afghan knowledge, according to the US's own diplomatic cables - well that certainly shows the US as being complicity in harboring a terrorist and perhaps supporting the terrorist movement in Balochistan.

PR matters when dealing with non-paks and the perceptions they have will determine the quality of your relations with them.
How to change public perceptions is a different issue than the one here, which is that there is no evidence that there was any Pakistani institutional complicity in hiding OBL.


Americans have the benefit of the doubt here.
I disagree - without any evidence whatsoever, claims of Pakistani complicity are nothing but conspiracy theories and paranoia in an attempt to find a scapegoat for the US's failures in Afghanistan.

bigross86
24 Aug 12,, 15:40
A question and an observation:


None of the analogies above apply in this case - the treason charge is based on the fact that Afridi knowingly cooperated with a foreign intelligence agency in conducting espionage within Pakistan. Whatever rationale was given to Afridi by this foreign intelligence agency (Mickey Mouse escaped from Disney and we believe he joined Al Qaeda and is hiding in Pakistan) is irrelevant given that this individual had no way of knowing what the true purpose of the foreign intelligence agency was. That goal/ends don't determine the treason charge, the fact that he cooperated with a foreign intelligence agency without Pakistani government authorization and therefore potentially jeopardized the national security of Pakistan is what determines the treason charge. If this man is let off because of the 'ends' (killing a terrorist) the next time people could be recruited by using his example, and next time the 'ends' might compromise Pakistani national security.

1)From what I understand, he was charged with providing aid and support to militants of the Lashkar-e-Islam, not for helping the CIA. Now, why was he charged with support for the Lashkar-e-Islam when they themselves said that if they ever saw him they would kill him?


Again, it is not a military base, it is a training academy and is surrounded by civilian residences - take a look at the map below:

2)If you believe that your statement that "it is not a military base, it is a training academy" in any way excuses their poor response time, you are mistaken, sir. That, and/or have little to no military experience. Throughout every single stage of my military service, through basic and advanced training as well as actually being in a combat unit in the Armored Corps we had weekly "wake them up in the middle of the night" drills to either attack an "intruder" on the base or to grab our gear and run to our tanks, sometimes up to 1km away from our barracks. If 30 soldiers who have been in the army for a little over 4 months can get a full tank company up and running in combat formation within the required under-7 minutes, I guarantee you that Pakistan's largest training academy for the Officer Corps can get off a response in a similar amount of time. Unless they didn't want to, that is.

Doktor
24 Aug 12,, 15:45
Ben,

1) To my understanding the charges have not been pressed yet.
2) The base/academy was not under attack.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 16:08
A question and an observation:

1)From what I understand, he was charged with providing aid and support to militants of the Lashkar-e-Islam, not for helping the CIA. Now, why was he charged with support for the Lashkar-e-Islam when they themselves said that if they ever saw him they would kill him?

He is being used as a bargaining chip - the current charges allow some leeway to the government down the road. A formal treason charge and conviction (which would be warranted in this case and easy to establish given the official statements by US government and military officials regarding his cooperation) seals his fate.

bigross86
24 Aug 12,, 16:17
Ben,

1) To my understanding the charges have not been pressed yet.

I mean, if you can't trust Al-Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/05/201253015503713861.html)... He was sentenced in May 2012 to 33 years in prison


2) The base/academy was not under attack.

Irrelevant. When I was in basic training forces from our base were alerted due to a possible border crossing from Egypt into Israel. We were 3km away and had tanks rolling in under 10 minutes for what turned out to be a false alarm (some hikers). People are shooting for close to 40 minutes less than a mile away from the academy and no one does anything, aside from F-16's showing up after the US forces already leave the compound? Dunno about you, someone started a 40 minute long firefight less than a mile away from our OCS, or ANY of our military bases, there will be a quick response.

Officer of Engineers
24 Aug 12,, 17:01
Irrelevant. When I was in basic training forces from our base were alerted due to a possible border crossing from Egypt into Israel. We were 3km away and had tanks rolling in under 10 minutes for what turned out to be a false alarm (some hikers). People are shooting for close to 40 minutes less than a mile away from the academy and no one does anything, aside from F-16's showing up after the US forces already leave the compound? Dunno about you, someone started a 40 minute long firefight less than a mile away from our OCS, or ANY of our military bases, there will be a quick response.Academy security, aka the cops, will be the primary response. I would not trust a bunch of kids with live ammo lead by a cadet captain.

bigross86
24 Aug 12,, 18:10
This may be true, but that doesn't prevent them from launching some sort of response, even by Academy Security. I don't know how it works in the Pakistani Army, but in the IDF every base provides its own security and always has a team in uniform and full gear 24 hours a day to respond for whatever purpose.

Even if you don't trust them, a bunch of kids led by a cadet captain is still a response. Besides, what's to prevent them from forming a squad of experienced officers to mount a response? Surely at least those officers training the cadets have some experience. Abbottabad has 3 battalions. Surely out of 12 companies they can scrape up 25 people with combat experience, be they cadets or officers and at least send out a patrol?

Either way you look at it, the lack of response is fishy, especially from Pakistan's equivalent of West Point and Sandhurst. Do you think that if someone started a 40 minute firefight a mile away from West Point the folks there would sit and do nothing?

Mihais
24 Aug 12,, 18:58
If there is a firefight half a mile from my ''place'' I'd say in my mind that those chaps from SWAT really blew it.You don't run amok with guns blazing unless you're under direct attack or you're ordered to.And that order better be legal and your CO has authority over everything in uniform in the area,be it soldiers,cops,gendarmes,firemen and whatever else there is.Israel is different because you have a different legal base and different context.In this case we're talking an academy far away from any threat.
and no,you don't find a platoon of experienced officers and NCO's,because at 1a.m they're asleep,at home.They need to be assembled,and when they come they lead their respective units.Individually they may have experience,but they're not a platoon.

That being said,the academy is an important objective and so are the retired generals.Whoever is responsible for CI work either was incompetent or was ordered not to notice that mansion nor to write any report about it.The academy may not attack anyone in the neighborhood,but terrorists may try to hit the academy.Indian agents may sneak and try to kidnap a former general for whatever purpose,etc... The idea is that the local CI simply has to know everything about everybody.It's basic police work.I agree that CI or the police may not know everything about a slum in Karachi or the back alleys in Peshawar.But this is not a similar situation.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 19:01
Irrelevant. When I was in basic training forces from our base were alerted due to a possible border crossing from Egypt into Israel. We were 3km away and had tanks rolling in under 10 minutes for what turned out to be a false alarm (some hikers). People are shooting for close to 40 minutes less than a mile away from the academy and no one does anything, aside from F-16's showing up after the US forces already leave the compound? Dunno about you, someone started a 40 minute long firefight less than a mile away from our OCS, or ANY of our military bases, there will be a quick response.
1. Suppressors?
2. Most, if not all, of the firefight inside the compound, limiting sound
3. Local residents pacified with native language speaking team member warning everyone to stay inside and that a 'security operation was being conducted' - this would play into any potential delay of the residents contacting local cops
4. Pakistani cops are notorious for their inefficiency and corruption, and would likely be the first point of contact by any residents that were suspicious - so that alone would be a huge bottleneck in terms of response time from local law enforcement.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 19:04
If there is a firefight half a mile from my ''place'' I'd say in my mind that those chaps from SWAT really blew it.You don't run amok with guns blazing unless you're under direct attack or you're ordered to.And that order better be legal and your CO has authority over everything in uniform in the area,be it soldiers,cops,gendarmes,firemen and whatever else there is.Israel is different because you have a different legal base and different context.In this case we're talking an academy far away from any threat.
and no,you don't find a platoon of experienced officers and NCO's,because at 1a.m they're asleep,at home.They need to be assembled,and when they come they lead their respective units.Individually they may have experience,but they're not a platoon.

That being said,the academy is an important objective and so are the retired generals.Whoever is responsible for CI work either was incompetent or was ordered not to notice that mansion nor to write any report about it.The academy may not attack anyone in the neighborhood,but terrorists may try to hit the academy.Indian agents may sneak and try to kidnap a former general for whatever purpose,etc... The idea is that the local CI simply has to know everything about everybody.It's basic police work.I agree that CI or the police may not know everything about a slum in Karachi or the back alleys in Peshawar.But this is not a similar situation.

'Retired Generals' usually don't live in shabby neighborhoods like these.

The Army's retirement program for senior officers usually results in land allotments in the housing estates developed by the DHA (Defence Housing Authority), and most (and largest/most opulent) of those, as I mentioned before, are in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Karachi and Lahore.

Mihais
24 Aug 12,, 19:08
Good for the generals.It doesn't make CI less responsible.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 19:13
Good for the generals.It doesn't make CI less responsible.
CI does not have ESP and X-Ray vision.

bigross86
24 Aug 12,, 19:14
1. Suppressors?
2. Most, if not all, of the firefight inside the compound, limiting sound
3. Local residents pacified with native language speaking team member warning everyone to stay inside and that a 'security operation was being conducted' - this would play into any potential delay of the residents contacting local cops
4. Pakistani cops are notorious for their inefficiency and corruption, and would likely be the first point of contact by any residents that were suspicious - so that alone would be a huge bottleneck in terms of response time from local law enforcement.

1. Even if the SEAL's had suppressors, those inside the compound with the AK's didn't.

2. Trust me, you can hear an AK from a goodly distance away, and within a couple of minutes someone on base would have gotten a report of gunfire in the neighborhood, even if they didn't hear it themselves. 800 meters is not really that far, especially for gunfire.

3. So you mean to tell me that the one person talking to the few people that came out to check out what was going on prevented anyone and everyone from saying anything, including those that stayed inside because there was gunfire, and that's why not a single person called the cops? Don't you think that's stretching it kinda thin?

4. I'm not concerned with local law enforcement, I'm wondering why no one at the academy did anything. Besides, no matter how corrupt or inefficient the police were, that still doesn't mean they couldn't send out at least a patrol. Face it, the armed forces had to get word somehow, or else how do you explain the PakAF F-16 that came at the end of the operation? How were they able to get word to the PakAF to ready and launch an F-16 from who knows how far away but couldn't send 4 fellows in a jeep to drive 800 meters just for a look-see, you know, kind of a "Hey, what's up?"

Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is usually the correct one. You're looking for complications where it's safe to assume there really aren't that many.

Doktor
24 Aug 12,, 19:18
Over here the military academy and he biggest military bases are in densely populated areas within the cities (commies built them that way).

If something goes boom 800m from there, not one boot will leave the compounds, because nothing is happening within their perimeters, all they would do is call the police. I believe firefighters will come faster.

That being said, if two birds land anywhere in the city within 30 seconds you will have all the neighbors, including the kids, on the face of the place to see wtf.

P.S. Gunfire or not, people will surround the birds out of curiosity.

Mihais
24 Aug 12,, 19:34
BR,the airforce is on combat footing,unlike the academy.If somebody violates the airspace they have to move in.

AM,no they don't have x-Ray,nor do they need to.It is basic police work,meaning that you simply ask who lives there.Everybody has high fences,but why that house does not have antennas?Why are they so discrete?Being a cop or a CI officer means that you know the neighborhood like your own room.It's part of the job.And it's not like a discrete guy moves in,which is suspicious enough.It's a discrete guy being discrete for years.

TopHatter
24 Aug 12,, 19:58
AM,no they don't have x-Ray,nor do they need to.It is basic police work,meaning that you simply ask who lives there.Everybody has high fences,but why that house does not have antennas?Why are they so discrete?Being a cop or a CI officer means that you know the neighborhood like your own room.It's part of the job.And it's not like a discrete guy moves in,which is suspicious enough.It's a discrete guy being discrete for years.

Exactly my point that Agnostic Muslim wants to sweep under the carpet: Basic counter-intelligence, the first step of which is simple "snooping around"...which apparently doesn't exist in Pakistan.

That building, the construction and age of it, its occupants and their activities stuck out like a sore thumb to their neighbors...and barely a mile down the road was an important Pakistani Army installation.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 20:08
1. Even if the SEAL's had suppressors, those inside the compound with the AK's didn't.

2. Trust me, you can hear an AK from a goodly distance away, and within a couple of minutes someone on base would have gotten a report of gunfire in the neighborhood, even if they didn't hear it themselves. 800 meters is not really that far, especially for gunfire.

This made me grin, no offense but this is Pakistan we are talking about, where people fire weapons in the air on any occasion that takes their fancy, even in the major cities and upscale neigborhoods :D

TopHatter
24 Aug 12,, 20:25
This made me grin, no offense but this is Pakistan we are talking about, where people fire weapons in the air on any occasion that takes their fancy, even in the major cities and upscale neigborhoods :D

And helicopters? They routinely swoop down onto private homes?

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 20:28
4. I'm not concerned with local law enforcement, I'm wondering why no one at the academy did anything. Besides, no matter how corrupt or inefficient the police were, that still doesn't mean they couldn't send out at least a patrol. Face it, the armed forces had to get word somehow, or else how do you explain the PakAF F-16 that came at the end of the operation? How were they able to get word to the PakAF to ready and launch an F-16 from who knows how far away but couldn't send 4 fellows in a jeep to drive 800 meters just for a look-see, you know, kind of a "Hey, what's up?"

Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is usually the correct one. You're looking for complications where it's safe to assume there really aren't that many.
If you are arguing about why no one at the academy did anything, and believe it was done deliberately, does that not support the theory that the Pakistani military was aware/made aware of the operation.

And whether we argue 'incompetence' or 'deliberately delayed response', are you not in fact supporting the argument that the PA/ISI did not have any idea about the location of OBL, because had they been complicit in sheltering OBL, the compound would have certainly been under surveillance to prevent his discovery which in turn would have meant a rapid response to the US operation.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 20:37
Exactly my point that Agnostic Muslim wants to sweep under the carpet: Basic counter-intelligence, the first step of which is simple "snooping around"...which apparently doesn't exist in Pakistan.
Snooping around every densely populated neighborhood in the vicinity of a military installation? Outside of basic background checks (which would have turned up nothing) I don't see what else could have been done.


That building, the construction and age of it, its occupants and their activities stuck out like a sore thumb to their neighbors...and barely a mile down the road was an important Pakistani Army installation.
The building is pretty shabby looking, nothing like the 'million dollar mansion' Western propaganda has made it out to be. The security walls, in Pakistan, are nothing unusual given the general insecurity due to poor law enforcement and a conservative culture.

Not sure what the age of the building has to do with anything - I am pretty sure that was not the only construction project in Pakistan around five years ago.

The owners (the known ones at least - the two brothers) were seen around the neighborhood, prayed at the local mosque and shopped in the local community. Yes, they were private, but perhaps this is where a cultural disconnect comes into play, where you and some others cannot comprehend why their behavior would not arouse suspicion, whereas to me it is nothing I would have (or would) run to the police about.

bigross86
24 Aug 12,, 20:37
Not necessarily, and not necessarily.

I'm not arguing anything, I'm just pointing out that the fact that a large military installation was 800m down the road and no one did anything is fishy.

And no, it could be that the PA/ISI realized that getting into a firefight with US SpecOps over OBL wasn't worth it, especially if they want to keep getting US aid.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 20:40
And no, it could be that the PA/ISI realized that getting into a firefight with US SpecOps over OBL wasn't worth it, especially if they want to keep getting US aid.
Or, using your own reference to Occam's Razor, responsibility for law and order lies with local law enforcement (Pakistani police), and since this was not a 'sensitive military installation' (not related to the nuclear program, military base, weapons storage facility etc.) the staff at the military academy left the response to local law enforcement.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 20:45
AM,no they don't have x-Ray,nor do they need to.It is basic police work,meaning that you simply ask who lives there.Everybody has high fences,but why that house does not have antennas?Why are they so discrete?Being a cop or a CI officer means that you know the neighborhood like your own room.It's part of the job.And it's not like a discrete guy moves in,which is suspicious enough.It's a discrete guy being discrete for years.
COP: Who lives here?
ARSHAD KHAN: I do, along with my brother and our families.
COP: OK (checks land records to verify ownership - voila! Its owned by Arshad Khan, no known ties to Osama Bin Laden or any terrorist group)

Why does the house not have antennas? Again, huge cultural disconnect - I would not find this unusual because I have acquaintances who grew up in Pakistan without any television because their conservative parents thought it to be 'un Islamic' and a 'corrupting influence'.

bigross86
24 Aug 12,, 20:45
Or, using your own reference to Occam's Razor, responsibility for law and order lies with local law enforcement (Pakistani police), and since this was not a 'sensitive military installation' (not related to the nuclear program, military base, weapons storage facility etc.) the staff at the military academy left the response to local law enforcement.

Be that as it may, even if they did decide to leave the response to the police, where was the police during the 40 minutes of the firefight? Surely they're not THAT incompetent? And why was no one on the base put on alert just in case something does head towards the base?

The base was either A) unconcerned, which means they were lax in their duty, B) concerned but did nothing, which begs the question where were the police for 40 minutes or C) willfully ignorant, which explains why they didn't even increase the watch at the base. The soldiers on the base did absolutely nothing. Which answer of the above three do you think is the reason for that?

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 20:51
Be that as it may, even if they did decide to leave the response to the police, where was the police during the 40 minutes of the firefight? Surely they're not THAT incompetent?
Yes, they are that incompetent - ask anyone who has lived in Pakistan.

And why was no one on the base put on alert just in case something does head towards the base?
It is not a base, it is a training academy, and at most the guards posted on the perimeter would have been asked to stay alert.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Aug 12,, 21:06
For those interested, here are some links to the Defence Housing Authority Estates that are the landing pads for most Pakistan Army officers after they retire:

ISLAMABAD
DHA Islamabad (http://www.dhai.com.pk/photogallery.php)

KARACHI
Defence Housing Authority. Karachi. (http://www.dhakarachi.org/)

LAHORE
Defence Housing Authority - About DHA (http://www.dhalahore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=4&id=17&Itemid=31)

tankie
24 Aug 12,, 21:28
And no one bothered about a crashed US chopper on the wall , it must have crashed and burned silently :whome:

TopHatter
24 Aug 12,, 21:36
I give AM a lot of credit for this much: He's not resorted to shrill and hysterical denials etc. Nor has he denied that Bin Ladin was there in the first place.

Tronic
24 Aug 12,, 22:14
An important point everyone here has missed is that this was not a discreet compound which managed to "sneak past" Pakistani intelligence.

By ISI's own account, they had been well aware of this compound, and suspected it to belong to al-Libbi:


An ISI official told the BBC the compound in Abbottabad where Bin Laden was killed by US forces on Sunday had been raided several years ago.
...........
He told the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones in Islamabad that the compound in Abbottabad, just 100km (62 miles) from the capital, was raided when under construction in 2003.

It was believed an al-Qaeda operative, Abu Faraj al-Libi, was there.

But since then, "the compound was not on our radar, it is an embarrassment for the ISI", the official said. "We're good, but we're not God."

BBC News - Bin Laden: Pakistan intelligence agency admits failures (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517)


However, the US denies any Pakistani raid:


But U.S. Department of Defense satellite photos show that in 2004 the site where bin Laden was found this week was nothing but an empty field. A U.S. official briefed on the bin Laden operation told Reuters he had heard nothing to indicate there had been an earlier Pakistani raid.

There are other reasons to puzzle. Pakistan's foreign ministry says that Abbottabad, home to several military installations, has been under surveillance since 2003. If that's true, then why didn't the ISI uncover bin Laden, who U.S. officials say has been living with his family and entourage in a well-guarded compound for years?

Special report: Why the U.S. mistrusts Pakistan's spies | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-binladen-pakistan-isi-idUSTRE74408220110505)

Now, if Pakistani intelligence didn't know, they didn't know. Why lie claiming to have carried out a raid on the compound?

Unless, this is a cover up for their other wrong doings;


A police officer familiar with Mr. bin Laden's compound in the scenic town of Abbottabad said the location was used by Hizbul Mujahedeen, one of the biggest militant outfits in the disputed territory of Kashmir. Like other groups fighting Indian troops in the borderlands, HM's radical membership has never been rounded up by Pakistani forces and some analysts say Islamabad covertly supports the group.

.........

Still, in the wake of the raid, Islamabad scrambled to ensure that precise ownership of the compound would not become public knowledge.

"The place belonged to Hizbul Mujahedeen," the police officer said. "But the authorities have asked us not to share any information about the exact ownership."

Land-registry officials in Abbottabad, known in the local language as patwaris, were summoned to a meeting on Tuesday and urged to keep quiet.

"The patwaris are meeting right now," a local official said. "They are being instructed not to say anything about the land-ownership issue."

Bin Laden given haven by militants linked to Pakistani security forces - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/bin-laden-given-haven-by-militants-linked-to-pakistani-security-forces/article2009083/)


Is it plausible that Pakistani intelligence was actually turning a blind eye to a safehouse designated for militants fighting India, rather than bin Laden?

Parihaka
24 Aug 12,, 22:48
It's just a shame he wasn't taken alive really. I suspect many questions regarding who helped when would have been answered from the confines of a little white cell.

Doktor
24 Aug 12,, 23:10
I'd rather live blissful life not knowing that, instead of watching pilgrims going to honor the great martyr.

Parihaka
24 Aug 12,, 23:17
None of the analogies above apply in this case - the treason charge is based on the fact that Afridi knowingly cooperated with a foreign intelligence agency in conducting espionage within Pakistan.

In which case he should have been charged for espionage, not treason, thus removing the onus to prove Bin Laden was an asset. Instead they maintained the treason charge but for cooperation with Lashkar-e-Islam, an organisation they allow to control the Khyber Agency. Not very bright at all really.

Parihaka
24 Aug 12,, 23:18
I'd rather live blissful life not knowing that, instead of watching pilgrims going to honor the great martyr.

It's a bit hard to go on a pilgrimage to a supermax, especially when you don't know which one he's in.

Doktor
24 Aug 12,, 23:21
They'd do stupid things just to be there. Not that hard.

Besides, there are enough people alive who know the things, just won't tell us.

bigross86
25 Aug 12,, 01:47
In which case he should have been charged for espionage, not treason, thus removing the onus to prove Bin Laden was an asset. Instead they maintained the treason charge but for cooperation with Lashkar-e-Islam, an organisation they allow to control the Khyber Agency. Not very bright at all really.

Especially since Lashkar-e-Islam denied any connection to him whatsoever and said that if they ever see him they'll kill him. You know, small detail....

Parihaka
25 Aug 12,, 02:02
Especially since Lashkar-e-Islam denied any connection to him whatsoever and said that if they ever see him they'll kill him. You know, small detail....

Everyone in the world is a liar except the Pakistan Government

bigross86
25 Aug 12,, 02:08
Heathen :biggrin:

JAD_333
25 Aug 12,, 05:01
I give AM a lot of credit for this much: He's not resorted to shrill and hysterical denials etc. Nor has he denied that Bin Ladin was there in the first place.

So many good observations on the other side, too, but with one drawback: we don't have AM's intimate cultural understanding of Pakistan.

It's very hard for us not to expect the Pakistanis to act the way we would act in our country. The FBI would be all over a joint like OBL's if it was located down the pike from West Point, but in Pakistan maybe it was just another residence.

I think we'll end up here suspecting the AoP and/or ISI knew OBL was in that house, or in the neighborhood. So far, no concrete evidence exists to prove it. At the same time, Pakistan can't disprove it--ever. That's the price she pays for double dealing.

TopHatter
25 Aug 12,, 05:21
So many good observations on the other side, too, but with one drawback: we don't have AM's intimate cultural understanding of Pakistan.An excellent point. It's fascinating to have that inside look.


It's very hard for us not to expect the Pakistanis to act the way we would act in our country. The FBI would be all over a joint like OBL's if it was located down the pike from West Point, but in Pakistan maybe it was just another residence.
True, there is always a tendency to "mirror" our own beliefs and experiences.

However this where I'm a bit mystified. Incompetent police aside, I was under the impression that, while the ISI wasn't nearly on par with the FBI, MI5 ect, it also wasn't exactly the Keystone Kops...nor did they have to worry about running roughshod over "civil rights".

So, I'm a bit puzzled about why this place wasn't checked out, even just a cursory effort. Despite AM's assurance's to the contrary, the compound and its residents were viewed as odd ducks by the locals. And as AM pointed out, this would hardly be cause for full-blown CI surveillance or raid (in Pakistan or the U.S.)...except for that little building down to the road, the Pakistan Military Academy.

There's just something that doesn't quite add up when you're talking about the most wanted man on the planet.


I think we'll end up here suspecting the AoP and/or ISI knew OBL was in that house, or in the neighborhood. So far, no concrete evidence exists to prove it.
If I was a betting man I would wager a large sum that it was not a coordinated, wholehearted intra-department effort to conceal Bin Laden.

More than likely it was a medium-or-larger faction, most likely of the ISI, that was behind it...almost certainly the puppet masters behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks.


At the same time, Pakistan can't disprove it--ever. That's the price she pays for double dealing.And that's the bottom line. Pakistan is a schizophrenic nation if there ever was one.

Parihaka
25 Aug 12,, 06:45
Heathen :biggrin:

Damn straight :)

Bigfella
25 Aug 12,, 06:58
So many good observations on the other side, too, but with one drawback: we don't have AM's intimate cultural understanding of Pakistan.

It's very hard for us not to expect the Pakistanis to act the way we would act in our country. The FBI would be all over a joint like OBL's if it was located down the pike from West Point, but in Pakistan maybe it was just another residence.

I think we'll end up here suspecting the AoP and/or ISI knew OBL was in that house, or in the neighborhood. So far, no concrete evidence exists to prove it. At the same time, Pakistan can't disprove it--ever. That's the price she pays for double dealing.

Beat me to it. The really funny/sad thing here is that even if everything said about Pakistan helping out is true & even if not a single Pakistani official knew a thing about OBL hiding there no one outside Pakistan is going to believe a word of it. To those who see Pakistan as the eternal victim this will be because of a concertaed campaign by western governments & media. For those in th real world it will be because Pakistani governments & agencies have lied & double dealed so often with so many parties that they have utterly lost the right to expect anyone will ever believe anything they say. Ever.

Double Edge
25 Aug 12,, 08:08
To those who see Pakistan as the eternal victim this will be because of a concertaed campaign by western governments & media.
Imran puts it down to corruption & GWOT. For him its a mix of domestic & foreign. He's playing the victim card big time and getting traction.

The utterly spineless foreign installed govt that bends over and does its master's bidding. Referring to Zardari's rule..

$20 billion in aid over ten years in exchange of $70 billion as loss.

But in this deal i'm still sceptical whether its the Paks that got the short end.

Deltacamelately
25 Aug 12,, 08:35
Real estate belonging to the military was allegedly sold - the OBL compound was not the only construction in that area, and certainly not the newest one, so you can't argue that the real estate was sold specifically for that compound alone.

Second, if you believe the account about the real estate, then why ignore the part where the ISI/PA was also providing intel that assisted the US in locating OBL?
That is the most tricky part. There is absolutely no comprehensive evidence about the ISI/PA providing real time intel about OBL.
Why on earth do you think the US thought it better to do the act alone and NOT involve the PA?

Tronic
25 Aug 12,, 08:50
Imran puts it down to corruption & GWOT. For him its a mix of domestic & foreign.

The utterly spineless foreign installed govt that bends over and does its master's bidding. Referring to Zardari's rule..

$20 billion in aid over ten years in exchange of $70 billion as loss.

But in this deal i'm still sceptical whether its the Paks that got the short end.

Do you trust anything this man says?

He comes to India and promises to eradicate all militant camps operating in Pakistan, yet, he shares the stage in his political rallies with international terrorists such as Hafeez Saeed, one of the masterminds of the 26/11 Mumbai attack, screaming "death to India" and "death to America" in front of thousands of cheering supporters. He endorses the Jamaat-e-Islami and more significantly, the TTP!

I admired his stance when he first came onto the political scene, but over time he has shown that he has no real stance and is merely an opportunist trying to play all sides.

Double Edge
25 Aug 12,, 09:02
Do you trust anything this man says?
Read his interview (http://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/episode-10.html) with JA and tell me what you find wrong with it. His spin isn't too difficult to see but is there anything else.

He has an Obama like aura with a Blair like tongue. We get to find out only when he walks the talk.


He comes to India and promises to eradicate all militant camps operating in Pakistan, yet, he shares the stage in his political rallies with international terrorists such as Hafeez Saeed, one of the masterminds of the 26/11 Mumbai attack, screaming "death to India" and "death to America" in front of thousands of cheering supporters. He endorses the Jamaat-e-Islami and more significantly, the TTP!

I admired his stance when he first came onto the political scene, but over time he has shown that he has no real stance and is merely an opportunist trying to play all sides.
Yeah, pleasing everybody, what exactly he stands for and may do is unclear. He says all the parties have ganged up to keep him out of office. But he's attracting crowds and i can understand how compelling his narrative is to the Paks. He's no longer a one man party any more

Whether the money is for him or not is also unclear. He is anti-status quo so that means not good. But again there is what he says and what he actually does and has agreed to behind closed doors.

On the one hand he could be bad for business on the other he could be the face lift that the Paks desperately need to improve their image. We get to find out in a years time.

Bigfella
25 Aug 12,, 15:45
Imran will say or do whatever it takes. he is probably no worse than the alternatives - which says more about them than him.

JAD_333
25 Aug 12,, 17:28
This should throw a little more fuel on the fire--actually two fires: The one over the operation itself and the other over leaks.




Originally published Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 7:00 PM

SEAL who wrote bin Laden raid book is identified

Former Navy SEAL's book about the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound has ignited another round of arguments and accusations over whether sensitive details about the operation should be publicized.

By Craig Whitlock

Pentagon officials on Thursday identified the former Navy SEAL who anonymously wrote a tell-all book about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but it remained unclear whether he had violated any secrecy rules about the still-classified mission.

The retired SEAL was given a pseudonym, Mark Owen, by his publisher, Dutton, but military officials said his name is Matt Bissonnette, 36, and that he ended his service with the Navy's secretive Special Warfare Command last year after bin Laden's death. Bissonnette's identity was first revealed by Fox News.

His book, "No Easy Day" and scheduled for release Sept. 11, has ignited another round of arguments and accusations over whether sensitive details about the bin Laden operation should be publicized and speculation about the motives of those responsible.

Bissonnette changed the names of the other SEALs in the account, the publisher says.

Special Operations Command spokesman Col. Tim Nye said the retired SEAL could be endangered by being identified, which could also expose those active-duty SEALs the author worked with in the bin Laden operation.

Even though Dutton has said the author thinks "it is time to set the record straight about one of the most important missions in U.S. military history," the publisher urged news organizations not to divulge his identity, saying he faced "obvious risks to his personal security."

Dutton said the author would be donating "the majority" of the proceeds from the book to unnamed charities that support families of Navy SEALs killed in the line of duty.

The publisher declined to answer questions Thursday.

Dutton did reveal a few tidbits about the author, however, saying he grew up in Alaska and participated in the high-seas rescue of Richard Phillips, the captain of the Maersk Alabama, who was taken hostage by Somali pirates in 2009. Two years later, according to Dutton, the same SEAL led one of the assault teams on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and "was present" at the al-Qaida leader's death.

Pentagon and Navy officials said they were unaware of Bissonnette's plans to write the book until Dutton announced its publication Wednesday. They said he did not submit an advance copy to military officials for review.

It was unclear what, if any, restrictions Bissonnette faced. Navy officials said there is no blanket rule requiring active-duty service members or veterans to obtain permission to publish, although they can be prosecuted after the fact by the Justice Department if they disclose classified information.

Bissonnette, however, was technically on assignment for the CIA, which oversaw the bin Laden operation. The spy agency routinely requires personnel to sign nondisclosure agreements, particularly in the case of sensitive missions.

The CIA has said "No Easy Day" was not submitted for prepublication review, but has not clarified whether Bissonnette was required to do so.

Post researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.

SEAL who wrote bin Laden raid book is identified | Nation & World | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018979302_sealbook24.html)

JAD_333
25 Aug 12,, 17:33
Ex-Navy SEAL behind bin Laden book faces threats, investigation - Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-24/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-binladen-bookbre87l16c-20120822_1_bin-laden-book-evan-kohlmann-navy-seal)


By early on Friday, the man's name, photograph and age had been posted on the "the Al-Fidaa Islamic Network" online forum, one of two websites officially endorsed by al Qaeda, according to Evan Kohlmann, founder of the New York-based security firm Flashpoint Global Partners.

It was followed by comments that called for the man's death, including one response that said, "O' Allah, kill every one of them," and another that said, "O' Allah, make an example of him for the whole world and give him dark days ahead."

Double Edge
25 Aug 12,, 17:46
Pentagon officials on Thursday identified the former Navy SEAL who anonymously wrote a tell-all book about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but it remained unclear whether he had violated any secrecy rules about the still-classified mission.

The retired SEAL was given a pseudonym, Mark Owen, by his publisher, Dutton, but military officials said his name is Matt Bissonnette, 36, and that he ended his service with the Navy's secretive Special Warfare Command last year after bin Laden's death. Bissonnette's identity was first revealed by Fox News.
FOX did it.

What were they thinking.

TopHatter
25 Aug 12,, 19:22
FOX did it.

What were they thinking.

According to the idiots that make those political graphics so beloved on Facebook, FNC did it because the author defended Obama in his book.

Fascinating theory, especially when the book hasn't even been released and I'm not aware of advance copies being sent for review (somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that one though).

JAD_333
25 Aug 12,, 19:24
FOX did it.

What were they thinking.

That the cat was already out of the bag?




...multiple sources told Fox News his name is in fact Matt Bissonnette, 36, of Wrangell, Alaska. Bissonnette could be exposing himself to legal trouble, as the Pentagon has not vetted the account.

Read more: Bin Laden raid tell-all author revealed, questions raised whether ex-Navy SEALs have freedom of speech | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/author-bin-laden-raid-insider-account-idd-could-face-legal-trouble/#ixzz24a0FnQQd)

Mihais
25 Aug 12,, 21:30
That the cat was already out of the bag?

We have the ''Eagles'' battalion.One US diplomat thought the same way as you presume about the journos and thanked them in public for whatever they did in A-stan.As a result,the unit no longer benefits from being secret.The moral of the story:you have a culture of not knowing when to shut the frack up.Just because the cat is out of the bag doesn't means you need to become an accomplice.As for the endless violations of OPSEC.in general,better not to start talking.Not only because of what I said before,but also because they're so many they're boring.

Parihaka
25 Aug 12,, 22:28
If he didn't want to be known and if he was worried about revealing his comrades identities, he shouldn't have written the book. 'Majority of proceeds to SEAL related charities'. Uh huh.

Mihais
25 Aug 12,, 22:32
Maybe not,or maybe they do go to those that are left orphans or are mutilated for life. There is a place for pseudonyms.

Parihaka
25 Aug 12,, 23:20
Yeah but why the hurry to put the story out? For many years you couldn't get our politicians to admit we had an SAS let alone where or how it had been deployed. The a leftist asclown named Phil Goff, laughingly minister of defence (and disarmament :rolleyes:) at the time decided to do a few photo-ops with them, started talking about their deployment etc. Next thing you know every idiots pet monkey was demanding to know where they were and what colour undies they were wearing.

The SAS, like the SEALS and all those other special ops units are at war. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow, but all the time. Getting past this guys pseudonym taxed the media not at all, nor will getting past the others I bet. Loose lips sink ships and this guy has loose lips.

JAD_333
25 Aug 12,, 23:30
According to the idiots that make those political graphics so beloved on Facebook, FNC did it because the author defended Obama in his book.

Fascinating theory, especially when the book hasn't even been released and I'm not aware of advance copies being sent for review (somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that one though).

Exactly. I can't find anything on the book other than a comment by the publisher that it is supposed to correct misconceptions.

Besides which Obama needs no defending for his decision to go ahead with the mission. I think we all agree with that whatever our political stripes are. How he uses it for political gain is another matter.

S2
25 Aug 12,, 23:35
I won't wish the author ill but, should it come his way regardless, let it serve as warning to others of his adopted clan as to the reason(s) OPSEC matters most. I strongly doubt much can be revealed that might affect current or future ops. The vengeance factor, however, is very real to those capable of exacting a toll.

Mihais
25 Aug 12,, 23:46
Precisely,Sir. There is a further observation.There is a quite significant number of former SEALS and other SOF that wrote about their units actions in the WOT.I'd say propaganda is good,or at least is seen as good by the higher-ups.On the other there is the perceived need to show the public the deeds of these soldiers.The public is actually the problem.They should be patient,shut up,put up,trust the soldiers with their life,let them a free hand to deal with the enemy as they see fit.After the war is over,10 years from now,the first books and movies should show up,to be there for history.

JAD_333
25 Aug 12,, 23:58
We have the ''Eagles'' battalion.One US diplomat thought the same way as you presume about the journos and thanked them in public for whatever they did in A-stan.As a result,the unit no longer benefits from being secret. The moral of the story:you have a culture of not knowing when to shut the frack up.Just because the cat is out of the bag doesn't means you need to become an accomplice

Right and wrong. What I presume is that Fox first checked with the Directorate for Defense Information or one of its service equivalents to confirm whether the story was true and whether it could be made public without compromising security. Probably there was no hiding it, so it was confirmed. Also, the military may have seen a chance to warn the guy that he should get the book vetted before it's published.

What the media holds back you will never know--obviously. And there is a lot you don't know on account of that. The military often asks the media not to report on things that may compromise security or operations, and the media almost always complies. However, when the leak originates from within the White House (that's anywhere in the administration), as is often the case, the media presumes it's fair game. There have been too many leaks like that in the last year or so.

Chogy
26 Aug 12,, 00:16
I believe the chances of finding something in this book that, when revealed, becomes a security violation punishable by prosecution, to be close to 100%.

That's a convoluted way to say I think he might have screwed up. Stephen King tried to take a pen name for a few years as Richard Bachmann so as to see if his books sold because of his name, or the content. He wasn't even able to keep that secret. How much less likely that this guy could remain anonymous, given the explosive nature of his book.

Witness protection time?

Doktor
26 Aug 12,, 00:19
Witness protection time?

In a remote jail?

gunnut
27 Aug 12,, 19:52
FOX did it.

What were they thinking.

Wait...I thought Faux News lies about everything. So we obviously can't trust anything from Faux News.

n21
28 Aug 12,, 21:53
So many good observations on the other side, too, but with one drawback: we don't have AM's intimate cultural understanding of Pakistan.


Coming from the sub-continent, I can tell you that one thing, the local police are good at, is knowing almost every one in their area of concern. Specially some one with a big house. In subcontinent Rich people have dirty secrets. Police need to know them to profit themselves.

In the sub-continent, your business is every one's business.

It is impossible to assume that your neighbours are not interested in knowing who you are, what you do, what you eat etc etc. And if OBL was leading a life as described in the media, they there will be more curiosity to know who lives there.

The only reason the neighbours would not bother is that they already know whom the house belong to. Ofcourse they may not know OBL lived there, however they would have he idea that the house belongs to some doggy people and it better to keep distance. The doggy kind would include mafia members, politicans, smugglers, etc.


There must have been some solid guarantee of security that the world's most wanted man went to live near the academy, of all the place in Pakistan. He was damm sure that PA will not come looking for him. He still continued to live in Attotabad even after reading about AQ members getting caught in Rawalpindi, Karachi etc.

Why the hell was OBL so sure of his safety.

Oh by the way:



30th April

Something weird going on in the neighbourhood. Can't put my finger on it, but there are some extra antennas on the roof over the road, and that white van on the corner has been there for, like, four days. I got so worried I called ISI, but they said I was just being paranoid.


Osama bin Laden's diary: 'Are dishwashers blasphemous?' | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/osama-bin-laden-diary-blasphemous)

JAD_333
28 Aug 12,, 22:22
n21:

Again, you're confronting us with a cultural difference, but perhaps one not so far removed from our part of the world. Police everywhere are more aware of their surroundings than average citizens, and are naturally nosy to boot. It goes with the job. But I would imagine that a good cover story and the fact that the OBL's house was in a somewhat privileged area would make the police a little bit more reticent than usual. Just an observation in no way intended to overturn your point.

Agnostic Muslim
28 Aug 12,, 23:48
Coming from the sub-continent, I can tell you that one thing, the local police are good at, is knowing almost every one in their area of concern. Specially some one with a big house. In subcontinent Rich people have dirty secrets. Police need to know them to profit themselves.

In the sub-continent, your business is every one's business.

It is impossible to assume that your neighbours are not interested in knowing who you are, what you do, what you eat etc etc. And if OBL was leading a life as described in the media, they there will be more curiosity to know who lives there.
And it pretty much goes without saying that if the local police and the neighbors knew, the US would not have been only '40% sure that OBL lived at the compound'.


The only reason the neighbours would not bother is that they already know whom the house belong to. Ofcourse they may not know OBL lived there, however they would have he idea that the house belongs to some doggy people and it better to keep distance. The doggy kind would include mafia members, politicans, smugglers, etc.
No one in the police (forget the ISI) would bother with 'mafia members, politicians, smugglers etc.' unless specifically ordered to by someone high up in the government or led by your typical Bollywood Supercop.


There must have been some solid guarantee of security that the world's most wanted man went to live near the academy, of all the place in Pakistan. He was damm sure that PA will not come looking for him. He still continued to live in Attotabad even after reading about AQ members getting caught in Rawalpindi, Karachi etc.
For the PA/ISI/Cops to come looking for him anywhere would require some sort of a lead or tip - as long as he covered his tracks well, it really made no difference whether he hid in a remote village in FATA or a compound in Abbottabad, except that the latter was relatively more secure for him since it was not the main focus of the manhunt for OBL.


Oh by the way:
How would Langley react to a phone call from an individual expressing suspicion about 'extra antennas on the house over the road and the White van parked for several days'?

Agnostic Muslim
28 Aug 12,, 23:55
In which case he should have been charged for espionage, not treason, thus removing the onus to prove Bin Laden was an asset. Instead they maintained the treason charge but for cooperation with Lashkar-e-Islam, an organisation they allow to control the Khyber Agency. Not very bright at all really.
Espionage (deliberate unauthorized collaboration/cooperation with a foreign government) for a foreign intelligence agency, by a citizen, equals treason - the reason for the espionage is immaterial.

Cooperating with elements attacking the State of Pakistan (TTP, LeI whatever) equals treason - the reason for cooperating is immaterial. However, as I mentioned before, the GoP likely chose to go with the second charge in order to have some wiggle room down the road.

Tronic
29 Aug 12,, 01:00
The only reason the neighbours would not bother is that they already know whom the house belong to. Ofcourse they may not know OBL lived there, however they would have he idea that the house belongs to some doggy people and it better to keep distance. The doggy kind would include mafia members, politicans, smugglers, etc.

Or, as I posted earlier, Hizbul Mujahedeen:

"A police officer familiar with Mr. bin Laden's compound in the scenic town of Abbottabad said the location was used by Hizbul Mujahedeen, one of the biggest militant outfits in the disputed territory of Kashmir."
Bin Laden given haven by militants linked to Pakistani security forces - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/bin-laden-given-haven-by-militants-linked-to-pakistani-security-forces/article2009083/)


No one in the police (forget the ISI) would bother with 'mafia members, politicians, smugglers etc.' unless specifically ordered to by someone high up in the government or led by your typical Bollywood Supercop.

Or, specifically ordered, not to bother with that location.

We can only speculate either way.

Double Edge
29 Aug 12,, 01:48
Or, as I posted earlier, Hizbul Mujahedeen
Yeah, going with what n21 said that sounds plausible.

A sheikh lives there, the locals don't want to know who.

Parihaka
29 Aug 12,, 04:04
Espionage (deliberate unauthorized collaboration/cooperation with a foreign government) for a foreign intelligence agency, by a citizen, equals treason - the reason for the espionage is immaterial.


Well no, your country has separate charges for treason and espionage, with good reason.

Here's a nice definition of the differences
treason legal definition of treason. treason synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason).

You'll note your country isn't at war with the United States of America

lemontree
29 Aug 12,, 06:50
I mean, if you can't trust Al-Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/05/201253015503713861.html)... He was sentenced in May 2012 to 33 years in prison



Irrelevant. When I was in basic training forces from our base were alerted due to a possible border crossing from Egypt into Israel. We were 3km away and had tanks rolling in under 10 minutes for what turned out to be a false alarm (some hikers). People are shooting for close to 40 minutes less than a mile away from the academy and no one does anything, aside from F-16's showing up after the US forces already leave the compound? Dunno about you, someone started a 40 minute long firefight less than a mile away from our OCS, or ANY of our military bases, there will be a quick response.

Those living in a military base are too use to the sounds of gunfire from the firing ranges. That is why reactions are much slower.

lemontree
29 Aug 12,, 07:09
Or, as I posted earlier, Hizbul Mujahedeen:

"A police officer familiar with Mr. bin Laden's compound in the scenic town of Abbottabad said the location was used by Hizbul Mujahedeen, one of the biggest militant outfits in the disputed territory of Kashmir."
Bin Laden given haven by militants linked to Pakistani security forces - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/bin-laden-given-haven-by-militants-linked-to-pakistani-security-forces/article2009083/)


Interesting news.

But I find it really hilarious for SM to have spent so much time and energy on trying to prove the innocence of Pak Army/ ISI.

All these years Musharraf denied, OBL was in Pakistan, he even claimed that he must be dead.
As I have posted many times before, Musharraf was OBLs buddy. OBL helped Pakistan clean up the mess in Balistan in 1988 (Musharraf was a Bde cdr in FCNA at that time). Musharraf owed it to OBL to protect and hide him.

Now Musharraf is living a lovely life in good old London. I wonder why do the Brits allow warlords and separatists so much freedom.

Here is some more insite on who hide OBL...http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-09/rest-of-world/32603955_1_abbottabad-compound-qaida-video-ninja


SYDNEY: A retired Pakistani military officer, Brigadier Ijaz Shah is alleged to have harboured Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan for years, former head of Pakistan's spy agency, the directorate of ISI, general Ziauddin Butt, has claimed.

According to Sydney Morning Herald, Ijaz Shah was also a dinner guest at Government House in Canberra in June 5 and was one of Pakistan's former president Pervez Musharraf 's staff during the latter's visit to the country. In 2004, Musharraf had nominated Shah to be high commissioner to Australia. He was rejected by Canberra, it is understood, out of concern over his links to terrorists , the paper said.

Butt has claimed that Brig Shah harboured the world's most wanted criminal for years, at the same time that other arms of the Pakistani military and US were hunting him. "The most important and all-powerful person in (the) Musharraf regime was Brigadier Ijaz Shah, then Intelligence Bureau chief," the paper quoted Butt, as saying. "I fully believe that Ijaz Shah had kept this man (Osama bin Laden, in Abbottabad) with the full knowledge of Pervez Musharraf," he added....

Doktor
29 Aug 12,, 07:13
Are there any records how much of his $, £, €, ¥... live in London as well?

S2
29 Aug 12,, 07:35
Do you suggest, sir, that Queen is a tawdry whore easily bought with trinkets and baubles?:biggrin:

Doktor
29 Aug 12,, 07:40
I wouldn't know. Was just asking.

lemontree
29 Aug 12,, 08:04
Are there any records how much of his $, £, €, ¥... live in London as well?

If this article is to be believed....then you will get an idea where his riches are kept (in London and Dubai).
How did Musharraf become a billionaire? - thenews.com.pk (http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-30227-How-did-Musharraf-become-a-billionaire)

Parihaka
29 Aug 12,, 08:18
Do you suggest, sir, that Queen is a tawdry whore easily bought with trinkets and baubles?:biggrin:

Her Majesty is of course above such things. Her Majesty's Government however invented perfidy

Agnostic Muslim
29 Aug 12,, 14:25
Well no, your country has separate charges for treason and espionage, with good reason.

Here's a nice definition of the differences
treason legal definition of treason. treason synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason).

You'll note your country isn't at war with the United States of America
All that matters is how Pakistan defines treason (BTW, was the US at war with Israel when it arrested Pollard?)

From the Pakistani constitution:

6. High treason.
[4A][(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]
(2) Any person aiding or abetting [4B][or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

Afridi's actions fit the definition whether it was collaboration with the US or LeI.

Agnostic Muslim
29 Aug 12,, 14:31
Interesting news.

But I find it really hilarious for SM to have spent so much time and energy on trying to prove the innocence of Pak Army/ ISI.
'SM'? Is that you implying you have a 'kinky sex life' or was it meant to be 'AM'?

And what is the point of a discussion board if you cant have discussions and debate?


All these years Musharraf denied, OBL was in Pakistan, he even claimed that he must be dead.
As I have posted many times before, Musharraf was OBLs buddy. OBL helped Pakistan clean up the mess in Balistan in 1988 (Musharraf was a Bde cdr in FCNA at that time). Musharraf owed it to OBL to protect and hide him.
And all these years the US and Afghans denied Brahamdegh Bugti and other Baloch terrorists were hiding/sheltered in Afghanistan, despite Musharraf repeatedly making those allegations, and then we find out from the US's own leaked diplomatic cables that not only was Bugti hiding/sheltered in Kabul, but he was living there with complete official Afghan and US knowledge and that Afghan, US and UN officials had discussions about him.


Now Musharraf is living a lovely life in good old London. I wonder why do the Brits allow warlords and separatists so much freedom.
The Brits are also sheltering the leadership of various Baloch terrorist groups, and they continue to allow free reign to groups designated as 'terrorist entities' by Pakistan, such as the Hizb-ur-Tahrir, which was most recently linked to the plot by a Brigadier and others in the PA to kill the top military and civilian leadership and take over the country.


Here is some more insite on who hide OBL...?Mushharraf knew of Osama hiding in Abbottabad? - Times Of India (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-09/rest-of-world/32603955_1_abbottabad-compound-qaida-video-ninja)
That would be the same Ziauddin Butt who was removed from the COAS position (which he had for a few hours) when Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif's government - hardly an unbiased source when it comes to claims against Musharraf, leave alone the fact that he has offered no evidence or facts to actually back up his claim.

Agnostic Muslim
29 Aug 12,, 14:35
If this article is to be believed....then you will get an idea where his riches are kept (in London and Dubai).
How did Musharraf become a billionaire? - thenews.com.pk (http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-30227-How-did-Musharraf-become-a-billionaire)
The article offers not a single verifiable source.

As a retired COAS, Musharraf has pretty decent benefits, and he supposedly earns six figures for each appearance on the lecture circuit, which does explains his current lifestyle.

Doktor
29 Aug 12,, 14:38
Even if those are true, there are hardly any billions, I came as up to as US$23mn.

Chogy
29 Aug 12,, 17:39
I have a general question that is at least somewhat related to this thread.

OBL had dozens/hundreds of flash drives and other computer devices which were siezed in the raid. UK's Guardian has written about a number of bin Laden's musings, although I don't know how reliable they are.

Have any of them been published addressing his (and Al Quaeda's) involvement with the 9/11 attacks? Something along the lines of "Our Martyr's on that day did an excellent job" or similar? It'd be nice to reference direct quotes from OBL himself to combat the idiocy that is the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

Khalid Mohammed has openly admitted to involvement (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-2571875.html), but being in Gitmo, his statements would be construed as "under duress" and/or simple fabrications of the US Government.

Come to think of it, along those lines, conspiracists would claim recovered statements off of OBL's data stash would also be fabrications. It's a no-win scenario.

TopHatter
29 Aug 12,, 17:56
'SM'? Is that you implying you have a 'kinky sex life' or was it meant to be 'AM'?

SM = Seine Majestät "His Majesty"

I think he was implying you're a German Emperor? :confused:

(Kidding!)



Have any of them been published addressing his (and Al Quaeda's) involvement with the 9/11 attacks? Something along the lines of "Our Martyr's on that day did an excellent job" or similar? It'd be nice to reference direct quotes from OBL himself to combat the idiocy that is the 9/11 conspiracy movement. Bin Laden is on video multiple times acknowledging it, including releasing a statement directly claiming responsibility for the attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_bin_Laden_video), albeit after years of denials.


Come to think of it, along those lines, conspiracists would claim recovered statements off of OBL's data stash would also be fabrications. It's a no-win scenario.You hit the nail on the head. Conspiracy theorists are pathologically incapable of accepting -or even acknowledging the barest possibility- that their cherished theory could be incorrect.

Double Edge
29 Aug 12,, 18:38
And all these years the US and Afghans denied Brahamdegh Bugti and other Baloch terrorists were hiding/sheltered in Afghanistan, despite Musharraf repeatedly making those allegations, and then we find out from the US's own leaked diplomatic cables that not only was Bugti hiding/sheltered in Kabul, but he was living there with complete official Afghan and US knowledge and that Afghan, US and UN officials had discussions about him.
How can you compare the young Bugti (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/asia/24baluch.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all) to OBL ?

And what is the worst the 'other Baloch terrorists' have done in your country ?


The Brits are also sheltering the leadership of various Baloch terrorist groups, and they continue to allow free reign to groups designated as 'terrorist entities' by Pakistan, such as the Hizb-ur-Tahrir, which was most recently linked to the plot by a Brigadier and others in the PA to kill the top military and civilian leadership and take over the country.
You could make this charge if you had a stellar record in going after groups in your own country. otherwise it just deflecting.

Agnostic Muslim
29 Aug 12,, 19:23
How can you compare the young Bugti (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/asia/24baluch.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all) to OBL ?
His terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the massacres and kidnapping of civilians (educators, settlers, pro-Pakistani Baloch, government employees) as well as attacks against the local police, paramilitary troops, military, government infrastructure etc.

Why wouldn't you compare Bugti to OBL?

And what is the worst the 'other Baloch terrorists' have done in your country ?
What was mentioned above...


You could make this charge if you had a stellar record in going after groups in your own country. otherwise it just deflecting.
The 'charge' is to point out that the US/NATO/GoIRA does not have a 'stellar record of going after terrorists when those terrorists are perceived to serve US/NATO/GoIRA national interests', and that therefore the 'charges against Pakistan' need to be tempered and the regional dynamics better understood rather than resorting to the typical canards of 'Pakistan supports terrorism'.

Double Edge
29 Aug 12,, 20:00
His terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the massacres and kidnapping of civilians (educators, settlers, pro-Pakistani Baloch, government employees) as well as attacks against the local police, paramilitary troops, military, government infrastructure etc.
Ah 'his group', he only took over recently after the death of his grandfather in 2006.

How many killed by the young Bugti's group ?

How many killed by the other groups ?

Have you got any reliable sources as to their attrocities. The NYT article i linked did not have too much to say about it. As in his involvement or responsibility in any attacks.


Why wouldn't you compare Bugti to OBL?
Would you have traded OBL for Bugti :)

Course not, its an exaggerated comparison.


The 'charge' is to point out that the US/NATO/GoIRA does not have a 'stellar record of going after terrorists when those terrorists are perceived to serve US/NATO/GoIRA national interests', and that therefore the 'charges against Pakistan' need to be tempered and the regional dynamics better understood rather than resorting to the typical canards of 'Pakistan supports terrorism'.
Well, that depends how well you make the case. Most people outside Pakistan have never heard of the Bugti's. Whereas OBL is orders of magnitude better known or shall we say infamous.

Pakistan's most wanted terrorist list. pdf | FIA | 2009 (http://www.fia.gov.pk/redbooks/terrorist.pdf)
Young bugti isn't even on this list :rolleyes:

How many of your most wanted are being harboured outside ?

Parihaka
29 Aug 12,, 23:18
All that matters is how Pakistan defines treason (BTW, was the US at war with Israel when it arrested Pollard?)

From the Pakistani constitution:

6. High treason.
[4A][(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]
(2) Any person aiding or abetting [4B][or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

Afridi's actions fit the definition whether it was collaboration with the US or LeI.

How is Afridi's actions an abrogation, subversion, suspension or attempt to hold in abeyance the Constitution of Pakistan? the only real actions I can think of in terms of Pakistan is those carried out by your armed forces.

JAD_333
30 Aug 12,, 02:48
Chogy:

Soon after we ran the Taliban out of A-stan, we found a video in OBL's abandoned camp of him meeting with a visiting mullah and bragging, between praises to Allah, about the attack. It's clear from the dialogue that OBL helped plan the attack. The video was played on C-net with subtitles, but I don't know if it is authentic or if the translation is correct. Some quarters say OBL never openly admitted he ordered the attack, but this video, if accurate, leaves no doubt that he did.


http://youtu.be/AkdFNLqJajM

Agnostic Muslim
30 Aug 12,, 14:38
Ah 'his group', he only took over recently after the death of his grandfather in 2006.
Still his group, given his lineage, those loyal to the elder Bugti will consider him the leader now.


How many killed by the young Bugti's group ?

How many killed by the other groups ?

Have you got any reliable sources as to their attrocities. The NYT article i linked did not have too much to say about it. As in his involvement or responsibility in any attacks.
Whether or not Bugti was on the FIA list, US diplomatic cables and Musharrafs repeated demands for Kabul to stop sheltering Baloch terrorists make clear that the issue was raised with the GoIRA and NATO, and repeatedly rebuffed with denials and accusations of 'Pakistani paranoia' - read the article below that references US diplomatic cables:

WikiLeaks cables reveal Afghan-Pakistani row over fugitive rebel | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-afghan-pakistani-fugitive)

Would you have traded OBL for Bugti :)
Since Pakistan was not sheltering OBL, and was not aware of his location, the question is pointless.


Well, that depends how well you make the case. Most people outside Pakistan have never heard of the Bugti's. Whereas OBL is orders of magnitude better known or shall we say infamous.
Again, you keep resorting to a logical fallacy to make your argument (argumentum ad numerum) - whether or not 'most people' have heard of Bugit is irrelevant to the discussion here or any discussion between the GoP, GoIRA/NATO, since the people involved are aware of the actions of Bugti.


How many of your most wanted are being harboured outside ?
Off the top of my head:

Baloch terrorists: Brahamdagh Bugti (Afghanistan and now Switzerland), Marri (UK), Hizb-ur-Tahrir (UK)
TTP Terrorists: Mullah FM (Afghanistan), Qari Zia-ur-Rehman (Afghanistan)

Agnostic Muslim
30 Aug 12,, 14:48
How is Afridi's actions an abrogation, subversion, suspension or attempt to hold in abeyance the Constitution of Pakistan?

Espionage/anti-State activities in the constitution of Pakistan:

"who is acting or attempting to act in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, security of defense of Pakistan or any part thereof or who commits or attempt to commit any act which amounts to an anti-national activity as defined in a Federal Law or is a member of any association which has for its object, or which indulges him, any such anti-national activity"

By collaborating, without the relevant official authorization, with a foreign intelligence agency, Afrid compromised the integrity and security of Pakistan since the actual goal of the espionage could have been against the national security of Pakistan. A country cannot create a precedent where citizens can argue that they 'collaborated with foreign intelligence agencies because they assumed the goals were in the interest of Pakistan' and be allowed to walk free, because that precedent then allows foreign entities with intentions to compromise Pakistani national security to recruit Pakistani citizens with far more ease.


the only real actions I can think of in terms of Pakistan is those carried out by your armed forces.
Some of the military leadership, when they carried out military coups, yes, but not the entire institution of the Armed forces.

Chogy
30 Aug 12,, 15:02
Chogy:

Soon after we ran the Taliban out of A-stan, we found a video in OBL's abandoned camp of him meeting with a visiting mullah and bragging, between praises to Allah, about the attack. It's clear from the dialogue that OBL helped plan the attack. The video was played on C-net with subtitles, but I don't know if it is authentic or if the translation is correct. Some quarters say OBL never openly admitted he ordered the attack, but this video, if accurate, leaves no doubt that he did.



There is some evidence that it is a fabrication, but that's another thread. Regardless, anything published or revealed by the USG will definitely be labeled a fabrication by the conspiracists, even if it is 100% legit. I don't know why it bothers me as much as it does... I need to let it go.

Agnostic Muslim
30 Aug 12,, 15:07
I have a general question that is at least somewhat related to this thread.

OBL had dozens/hundreds of flash drives and other computer devices which were siezed in the raid. UK's Guardian has written about a number of bin Laden's musings, although I don't know how reliable they are.

Have any of them been published addressing his (and Al Quaeda's) involvement with the 9/11 attacks? Something along the lines of "Our Martyr's on that day did an excellent job" or similar? It'd be nice to reference direct quotes from OBL himself to combat the idiocy that is the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

Khalid Mohammed has openly admitted to involvement (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-2571875.html), but being in Gitmo, his statements would be construed as "under duress" and/or simple fabrications of the US Government.

Come to think of it, along those lines, conspiracists would claim recovered statements off of OBL's data stash would also be fabrications. It's a no-win scenario.

In Pakistan, if not large parts of the Muslim world, anti-US sentiment and a belief that US intentions are to destroy the Muslim world and keep it weak play into a rejection of pretty much any US claim or position. This anti-US sentiment is bolstered by historical US support for Israel along with ultra-conservatives/religious extremists denigrating the US because of its successful adoption of the free market/capitalism, free media, liberal social values and culture - all of which serves to further isolate and dehumanize the US as 'that greedy capitalist, degenerate, anti-Islam Bully'. In the face of such negative perceptions, it is extremely hard to counter extremist propaganda. The 'dehumanization of the other' is not restricted to the US/West - in Pakistan Hindus, Ahmadis and, to a lesser degree, Shia, are similarly dehumanized and that plays into the violence against these groups and why open expressions of hatred and prejudice are becoming more and more acceptable in Pakistani society.

I might have mentioned a personal experience from my childhood in my early days on this forum - one of my parents is Shia and the other Sunni, and growing up my cousins on the Sunni side (when we would get together during summer vacations - we were all around the same age - pre-teens) would tell me not to follow my father and become a Shia (I never cared either way), and to support their arguments they would tell me tales of 'the Shia don't go to their mosques to pray, they go there to have orgies - never eat food in the home of a Shia, they will spit and piss in your food - some Shia will kidnap and slaughter Sunni children etc. Just imagine young children being indoctrinated with this kind of poison and hatred. I did my best to laugh away their tales, 'I don't remember any orgies any time I accompanied my father :D' etc.

This kind of indoctrination, in the case of anti-US sentiment, is much harder to combat since there is not direct contact between Americans and Pakistanis for the most part, and therefore even when Pakistanis may disagree with the tactics of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda/Taliban, they end up taking a position that might appear 'pro-extremism' because they don't want to side with the US.

Parihaka
31 Aug 12,, 05:29
By collaborating, without the relevant official authorization, with a foreign intelligence agency, Afrid compromised the integrity and security of Pakistan since the actual goal of the espionage could have been against the national security of Pakistan. A country cannot create a precedent where citizens can argue that they 'collaborated with foreign intelligence agencies because they assumed the goals were in the interest of Pakistan' and be allowed to walk free, because that precedent then allows foreign entities with intentions to compromise Pakistani national security to recruit Pakistani citizens with far more ease.Which brings us neatly back to this

Firstly, if I were to say here that NZ has no jet fighter capability I would not be committing treason because it is a matter of public knowledge. It requires that I be revealing a secret.
Secondly, were I to announce that my neighbour down the road wears womens underwear that would not be treason, as it requires the secret be relevant to the state.
Thirdly, if I were to announce he was a known criminal hiding out I would be performing a community service, not committing treason.
It only becomes treason if it were a secret the state knew about and wished to keep secret for its own advantage and by revealing that secret damaged my countries interests.

By finding him guilty they have argued that OBL was a secret asset to the state, and by revealing that secret Afridi has damaged the state.

To cover the realisation that treason implied OBL was a known asset, they changed the raison detre of the treason charge to a trumped up one of cooperating with a terrorist group, rather than the CIA.

As I said, not very bright when they could simply have charged him with espionage.


Some of the military leadership, when they carried out military coups, yes, but not the entire institution of the Armed forces.

Don't all your military personnel swear an oath to uphold the constitution?

Tronic
31 Aug 12,, 07:15
In Pakistan, if not large parts of the Muslim world, anti-US sentiment and a belief that US intentions are to destroy the Muslim world and keep it weak play into a rejection of pretty much any US claim or position. This anti-US sentiment is bolstered by historical US support for Israel along with ultra-conservatives/religious extremists denigrating the US because of its successful adoption of the free market/capitalism, free media, liberal social values and culture - all of which serves to further isolate and dehumanize the US as 'that greedy capitalist, degenerate, anti-Islam Bully'. In the face of such negative perceptions, it is extremely hard to counter extremist propaganda.

AM, how high of an importance do Pakistanis really give the Palestine issue? IMHO, comparing Pakistani anti-US sentiment with anti-US sentiment in the Arab world is like comparing apples and oranges. Both exist for entirely different reasons.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but IMO, this amalgamation of two entirely different narratives (the Arab and Pakistani) is a recent construct I'm seeing coming out of Pakistan, usually spun into the mainstream by conspiracy theorists advocating some sorts of a RAW-CIA-MOSSAD alliance against Pakistan.

Regarding Palestinians themselves, fact is, not a single Pakistani protested when General Zia ul-Haq (than Brigadier) was leading the 2nd Division in Jordon, driving the Palestinians out of the Hashemite kingdom. When Syria militarily intervened on behalf of the Palestinians, and Egypt and Iraq were posturing in support, it was none other than the Jordanians, and their Pakistani support, which both went begging to the US to intervene.

On his return to Pakistan, Zia ul-Haq was rewarded for his actions in Jordan and made the Chief of Army Staff. He was further propped up by the Pakistani Islamists after he overthrew Bhutto.

So, I honestly do not believe that Pakistanis hold the same Arab perspective on Palestine. The poorer Pakistanis are oblivious to any such issue and can't even point out Palestine/Israel on the map, while the more educated urban Pakistanis are divided between feeling obliged to support Palestinians in the hope that the Arabs will reciprocate and begin to treat Kashmir as an "Islamic" struggle, rather than a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, while some feel frustrated at the lack of Arab support to Pakistan on Kashmir and wish to establish ties with Israel on the lines of Turkey.


The 'dehumanization of the other' is not restricted to the US/West - in Pakistan Hindus, Ahmadis and, to a lesser degree, Shia, are similarly dehumanized and that plays into the violence against these groups and why open expressions of hatred and prejudice are becoming more and more acceptable in Pakistani society.

I might have mentioned a personal experience from my childhood in my early days on this forum - one of my parents is Shia and the other Sunni, and growing up my cousins on the Sunni side (when we would get together during summer vacations - we were all around the same age - pre-teens) would tell me not to follow my father and become a Shia (I never cared either way), and to support their arguments they would tell me tales of 'the Shia don't go to their mosques to pray, they go there to have orgies - never eat food in the home of a Shia, they will spit and piss in your food - some Shia will kidnap and slaughter Sunni children etc. Just imagine young children being indoctrinated with this kind of poison and hatred. I did my best to laugh away their tales, 'I don't remember any orgies any time I accompanied my father :D' etc.

This kind of indoctrination, in the case of anti-US sentiment, is much harder to combat since there is not direct contact between Americans and Pakistanis for the most part, and therefore even when Pakistanis may disagree with the tactics of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda/Taliban, they end up taking a position that might appear 'pro-extremism' because they don't want to side with the US.

I came to Canada for higher studies after completing my +2 (Grade 12) in India, and have made quite a lot of Pakistani friends here. My ex-girlfriend is also a Pakistani. So, I've heard it all. Even against my own religion, it was amusing to hear some stuff. One Pakistani buddy of mines has tried constantly to convince me that Guru Nanak was actually a Muslim and all Sikhs are Muslim apostates, corrupted by the succeeding Sikh gurus after Nanak. Another asked me, as his grandmother apparently told him, that do Sikhs grow their beards because they swear an oath when being baptized to only shave after they have killed a 100 Muslims? :rolleyes:

Though, it's also important to state that these "biases" do not really affect personal relationships any great deal. I'm good friends not just with my buddies, but warmly accepted by their families as well.

At the end of the day, no matter what the religious differences, the political differences, or even national differences, in our case, Punjabiyat always wins. :cool: Can't say the same for my ex-girlfriend though. She was a Muhajir from Karachi, and the cultural perspective and biases are totally different with the Muhajirs. For one, she disliked Sufis, disliked the fact that people in Pakistan go to Sufi shrines and Dargahs. She seemed to think that the Muhajirs are a class apart simply because they are an Urdu speaking, city dwelling people, as opposed to the rural and "uncivilized" Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, Pashtun. My ex never wore the Hijab or Burqa, was dating me at the time, a non-Muslim, yet she adored the Wahhabis and their orthodox Islam. Observing her views and ideology is what leads me to believe that it is the Muhajirs who most support the spread of orthodox Islam because they lack a native Pakistani identity, and hope that Islamic orthodoxy will wipe away the independent identities of the other native Pakistanis.

A long time back, I had even invited one of my Pakistani friends onto WAB a couple of years ago, but sadly, he was hounded out for being an Ahmadi and driven off this board by the likes of Spartan, Platinum, and the whole list of Pakistani members who used to be active on here at the time.

Double Edge
31 Aug 12,, 09:04
In Pakistan, if not large parts of the Muslim world, anti-US sentiment and a belief that US intentions are to destroy the Muslim world and keep it weak play into a rejection of pretty much any US claim or position.
Imran has been riding this wave of discontent for a while now. Had a good chuckle when he said (http://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/episode-10.html) the below..


You don’t realise the impact your… the WikiLeaks made, not just the impact it made all over the world but in Pakistan – the way they exposed all these two-faced politicians, you know, who were sucking up to the Americans and saying… in private telling them how great they were and, you know, sucking up to them, and in public giving completely opposite statements, so it was a… especially this one religious, er… this guy who’s the cleric who leads this religious party, and he literally told the Americans, he said ‘Look, if you back me to become the prime minister, I’ll do whatever you want me to do’, and he’s conserv… the most anti-American politician here. So anyway, it was a great… it really exposed a lot of people here.


This anti-US sentiment is bolstered by historical US support for Israel along with ultra-conservatives/religious extremists denigrating the US because of its successful adoption of the free market/capitalism, free media, liberal social values and culture - all of which serves to further isolate and dehumanize the US as 'that greedy capitalist, degenerate, anti-Islam Bully'. In the face of such negative perceptions, it is extremely hard to counter extremist propaganda. The 'dehumanization of the other' is not restricted to the US/West - in Pakistan Hindus, Ahmadis and, to a lesser degree, Shia, are similarly dehumanized and that plays into the violence against these groups and why open expressions of hatred and prejudice are becoming more and more acceptable in Pakistani society.

This kind of indoctrination, in the case of anti-US sentiment, is much harder to combat since there is not direct contact between Americans and Pakistanis for the most part, and therefore even when Pakistanis may disagree with the tactics of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda/Taliban, they end up taking a position that might appear 'pro-extremism' because they don't want to side with the US.
What about history and the alliance with the US since the 50's. Your biggest benefactor ever and still. There is ideology and then there is the bottom line.


I might have mentioned a personal experience from my childhood in my early days on this forum - one of my parents is Shia and the other Sunni, and growing up my cousins on the Sunni side (when we would get together during summer vacations - we were all around the same age - pre-teens) would tell me not to follow my father and become a Shia (I never cared either way), and to support their arguments they would tell me tales of 'the Shia don't go to their mosques to pray, they go there to have orgies - never eat food in the home of a Shia, they will spit and piss in your food - some Shia will kidnap and slaughter Sunni children etc. Just imagine young children being indoctrinated with this kind of poison and hatred. I did my best to laugh away their tales, 'I don't remember any orgies any time I accompanied my father :D' etc.
This goes some way to explaining why you have the word 'agnostic' in your handle.

lemontree
31 Aug 12,, 12:08
'SM'? Is that you implying you have a 'kinky sex life' or was it meant to be 'AM'?
My apologies for the typo, S is located rather close to A on the keyboard.


And what is the point of a discussion board if you cant have discussions and debate?
Debate the debatable. Denial of facts is not a debate.

And all these years the US and Afghans denied Brahamdegh Bugti and other Baloch terrorists were hiding/sheltered in Afghanistan, despite Musharraf repeatedly making those allegations, and then we find out from the US's own leaked diplomatic cables that not only was Bugti hiding/sheltered in Kabul, but he was living there with complete official Afghan and US knowledge and that Afghan, US and UN officials had discussions about him.
Hardly comparable to what OBL was and did to mankind. Bugti was a freedom fighter.


The Brits are also sheltering the leadership of various Baloch terrorist groups, and they continue to allow free reign to groups designated as 'terrorist entities' by Pakistan, such as the Hizb-ur-Tahrir, which was most recently linked to the plot by a Brigadier and others in the PA to kill the top military and civilian leadership and take over the country.
If you notice I did accuse the Brits of sheltering all types of vile men...including Musharraf.

That would be the same Ziauddin Butt who was removed from the COAS position (which he had for a few hours) when Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif's government - hardly an unbiased source when it comes to claims against Musharraf, leave alone the fact that he has offered no evidence or facts to actually back up his claim.
You would know better...however we know that the former Chief of ISI Gen. Mehmoud Ahmad, was the man who transfered the $100,000 to the 9/11 hijackers. So it was not OBL but Musharraf who should have got the sea burial.

Agnostic Muslim
31 Aug 12,, 13:39
Which brings us neatly back to this
No it does not - the goals of the alleged espionage activities are irrelevant - the fact that he assisted a foreign government in conducting espionage in Pakistan, without Pakistani government authorization, is what determines the treason charge.


To cover the realisation that treason implied OBL was a known asset, they changed the raison detre of the treason charge to a trumped up one of cooperating with a terrorist group, rather than the CIA.

Nope - the trial in FATA gives Afridi, and the GoP (if they so desire in the future) a way out.

As I said, not very bright when they could simply have charged him with espionage.
They should, and hang him.


Don't all your military personnel swear an oath to uphold the constitution?
It is not the job of the average soldier or lower ranked officers to debate the constitutionality of their orders from superiors - that responsibility lies with the senior military leadership and it is they who are responsible. You cannot have a disciplined and effective military if the soldiers have to debate and vote on the constitutionality of the orders they receive before they act on them.

TopHatter
31 Aug 12,, 13:46
My apologies for the typo, S is located rather close to A on the keyboard.

I stand by my "Kaiser" theory

Agnostic Muslim
31 Aug 12,, 14:38
AM, how high of an importance do Pakistanis really give the Palestine issue? IMHO, comparing Pakistani anti-US sentiment with anti-US sentiment in the Arab world is like comparing apples and oranges. Both exist for entirely different reasons.
The Palestine issue has always been an important one for Pakistanis, for as long as I can remember. Even now, on most Pakistani forums, you'll notice a significant number of Pakistanis opposed to normalizing relations with Israel, despite the lack of any direct threat from her or hostility with her, because of the Palestine issue.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but IMO, this amalgamation of two entirely different narratives (the Arab and Pakistani) is a recent construct I'm seeing coming out of Pakistan, usually spun into the mainstream by conspiracy theorists advocating some sorts of a RAW-CIA-MOSSAD alliance against Pakistan.
I am not sure what 'amalgamation of narratives' you are referring to - if you are referring to Palestine and the Israeli occupation, then I would argue that the current trend in Pakistan is in fact one of decreasing importance of that particular issue as domestic problems take center stage.


Regarding Palestinians themselves, fact is, not a single Pakistani protested when General Zia ul-Haq (than Brigadier) was leading the 2nd Division in Jordon, driving the Palestinians out of the Hashemite kingdom. When Syria militarily intervened on behalf of the Palestinians, and Egypt and Iraq were posturing in support, it was none other than the Jordanians, and their Pakistani support, which both went begging to the US to intervene.

On his return to Pakistan, Zia ul-Haq was rewarded for his actions in Jordan and made the Chief of Army Staff. He was further propped up by the Pakistani Islamists after he overthrew Bhutto.

So, I honestly do not believe that Pakistanis hold the same Arab perspective on Palestine. The poorer Pakistanis are oblivious to any such issue and can't even point out Palestine/Israel on the map, while the more educated urban Pakistanis are divided between feeling obliged to support Palestinians in the hope that the Arabs will reciprocate and begin to treat Kashmir as an "Islamic" struggle, rather than a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, while some feel frustrated at the lack of Arab support to Pakistan on Kashmir and wish to establish ties with Israel on the lines of Turkey.

You are getting back to the point I made about the 'other' - Pakistani support for Palestine/Palestinians is support for perceived 'fellow Muslims under occupation by Jews and the West', it is not support for the 'Palestinians'.


Though, it's also important to state that these "biases" do not really affect personal relationships any great deal. I'm good friends not just with my buddies, but warmly accepted by their families as well.
That is what I meant by 'personal contact' - it is much harder to dehumanize someone when you regularly interact with them, and of course the fact that functioning institutions in Canada/US prevent lynch mobs from beating you to a pulp or forcing corrupt law enforcement into registering blasphemy cases against you.

Observing her views and ideology is what leads me to believe that it is the Muhajirs who most support the spread of orthodox Islam because they lack a native Pakistani identity, and hope that Islamic orthodoxy will wipe away the independent identities of the other native Pakistanis.
I don't agree with you that this drive for Islamic orthodoxy is one led by Muhajirs or even one that they primarily support - I have seen the kind of sentiment you describe in many Punjabis, Pakhtun and Sindhis as well. I think that you can come up with a better 'rationale' (such as yours above about the Muhajir lacking an identity) but I don't see any evidence to support it.

Agnostic Muslim
31 Aug 12,, 17:21
What about history and the alliance with the US since the 50's. Your biggest benefactor ever and still. There is ideology and then there is the bottom line.

Institutional/government relations and pragmatism vs public opinion ...

Double Edge
31 Aug 12,, 17:39
You would know better...however we know that the former Chief of ISI Gen. Mehmoud Ahmad, was the man who transfered the $100,000 to the 9/11 hijackers.
This only appears in Indian sources and isn't corroborated by western media ie no mention in NYT or wapo's archives. It appeared shortly after 9/11 so i'd expect american media to be screaming about it.

Do you have a reliable source as i've not found any.

Given that the ISI gen was in DC chatting with the chairman of the intelligence committee on the very day of 9/11, i'm rather sceptical of the claim.

He was close to the mujahideen and did not want any part in GWOT and resigned in early Oct when Musharaf had a re-org.

Parihaka
31 Aug 12,, 18:11
No it does not - the goals of the alleged espionage activities are irrelevant - the fact that he assisted a foreign government in conducting espionage in Pakistan, without Pakistani government authorization, is what determines the treason so to summarize: you claim Afridi was convicted for passing information to the CIA, not for any cooperation with Lashkar-Islam; and the information he passed was harmful to the state.

Doktor
31 Aug 12,, 18:33
Does anyone in Pakistan has vested power to allow foreign military to conduct a military operation on Pakistani soil?

If not, then how USA had tacit consent for the raid? If USA still had consent from a Pakistani authority without such powers, why on't we hear anything about a trial of such person(s)?

If yes, who is that and was the consent given?

I think this is the purpose of this thread, no?

Agnostic Muslim
31 Aug 12,, 19:31
Does anyone in Pakistan has vested power to allow foreign military to conduct a military operation on Pakistani soil?

If not, then how USA had tacit consent for the raid? If USA still had consent from a Pakistani authority without such powers, why on't we hear anything about a trial of such person(s)?

If yes, who is that and was the consent given?

I think this is the purpose of this thread, no?[/QUOTE]

The government could theoretically authorize joint military operations - I do not know whether that requires parliamentary approval.

Agnostic Muslim
31 Aug 12,, 19:34
so to summarize: you claim Afridi was convicted for passing information to the CIA, not for any cooperation with Lashkar-Islam; and the information he passed was harmful to the state.
No, I am stating that Afridi SHOULD BE convicted for cooperating with a foreign intelligence agency - the facts establishing that are all out there, specifically on camera statements from US government and military officials.

However, given the desire of the GoP to have some wiggle room and use Afridi as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US, Afridi has instead been convicted for a different crime under the FCR.

Agnostic Muslim
31 Aug 12,, 19:39
Debate the debatable. Denial of facts is not a debate.
I am not denying any facts - I am in fact pointing out the complete lack of facts/supporting evidence for the narrative that Pakistani institutions were complicit in hiding OBL in Pakistan.


Hardly comparable to what OBL was and did to mankind. Bugti was a freedom fighter.
Massacring civilians does not constitute being a freedom fighter - how is what OBL did (killing civilians) different from what Bugti and his ilk have done and continue to do?

If you notice I did accuse the Brits of sheltering all types of vile men...including Musharraf.
Good for you, perhaps there needs to be some more pressure on the UK from India and other nations in no longer sheltering terrorist groups and individuals such as Marri and HuT.


You would know better...however we know that the former Chief of ISI Gen. Mehmoud Ahmad, was the man who transfered the $100,000 to the 9/11 hijackers. So it was not OBL but Musharraf who should have got the sea burial.
DE has responded to that quite well.

Parihaka
31 Aug 12,, 19:57
No, I am stating that Afridi SHOULD BE convicted for cooperating with a foreign intelligence agency - the facts establishing that are all out there, specifically on camera statements from US government and military officials.

However, given the desire of the GoP to have some wiggle room and use Afridi as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US, Afridi has instead been convicted for a different crime under the FCR.

So what was it that Afridi did that was so bad? If someone knowingly served a CIA agent a cup of coffee, is that treason?

Tronic
31 Aug 12,, 20:16
The Palestine issue has always been an important one for Pakistanis, for as long as I can remember. Even now, on most Pakistani forums, you'll notice a significant number of Pakistanis opposed to normalizing relations with Israel, despite the lack of any direct threat from her or hostility with her, because of the Palestine issue.

I can't comment on what goes on behind closed doors, but I'm merely pointing out to the fact that if the Palestinian issue has indeed been an important one for Pakistanis, we have never got to see it translated into anti-US sentiment pouring out onto the streets, as pressure on the GoP to cut ties with the US. Infact, as I have pointed it out before, Pakistan actually assisted Jordon in waging war against the Palestinians, and not a single Pakistani protested. The man who waged war against the Palestinians was lavishly awarded on his return to Pakistan and supported by every right wing Islamist party in the country. Can you point out any instance in history where Pakistani-US ties were hampered over Israel? I can't seem to find any.


I am not sure what 'amalgamation of narratives' you are referring to - if you are referring to Palestine and the Israeli occupation, then I would argue that the current trend in Pakistan is in fact one of decreasing importance of that particular issue as domestic problems take center stage.

Amalgamation of narratives means the combining of Pakistan's narrative of anti-US sentiment with that of the Arabs. It's just not the same. Even if we go back to the foundations, the Palestinian issue has largely been one of Arab nationalism, led by left wing Arab nationalistic groups, rather than pan-Islamism. Hamas is a much recent entity into this conflict, ironically, allowed to foster and grow in a poor sense of judgement by Israel, to act as a counterweight to the leftist nationalists. Even the Japanese Red Army, which was operating against Israel in Lebanon and Palestine, had more ideological similarities with the Palestinian groups than the Pakistani Islamists. In all this, Pakistan has never let the Palestinian issue come between its relations with the US, and even in the domestic political domain, it has been an insignificant issue, even after the rise of Hamas post-'80s.



You are getting back to the point I made about the 'other' - Pakistani support for Palestine/Palestinians is support for perceived 'fellow Muslims under occupation by Jews and the West', it is not support for the 'Palestinians'.

Sooo... waging war against Palestinians is alright, as long as it is done by Jordan and Pakistan, but not Israel? :rolleyes: It leads me to my next question, do people with such biases even deserve to be heard?



That is what I meant by 'personal contact' - it is much harder to dehumanize someone when you regularly interact with them, and of course the fact that functioning institutions in Canada/US prevent lynch mobs from beating you to a pulp or forcing corrupt law enforcement into registering blasphemy cases against you.

True, though only for the chaps who actually want to establish 'personal contact' with the "other". ;) I had an Afghan roommate for my first 2 years at university, and he wouldn't allow me to rent out the extra room in the house, which I had leased, to any "white" person. He says he regrets it now and was stupid, but only after I got him to pay 75% of the rent for the room for all the time it remained empty. :biggrin:


I don't agree with you that this drive for Islamic orthodoxy is one led by Muhajirs or even one that they primarily support - I have seen the kind of sentiment you describe in many Punjabis, Pakhtun and Sindhis as well. I think that you can come up with a better 'rationale' (such as yours above about the Muhajir lacking an identity) but I don't see any evidence to support it.

I didn't say that it is "led" by the Muhajirs. I said it is "supported" by them. My ex would hate to wear the Burqa or even the Hijab herself, but she would rejoice over any news she heard that it was being enforced in some nook and corner of Pakistan. Orthodox Islamism brings "Muslims together" according to her. :rolleyes:

Ofcourse, the victims of such hate ideology will be the poor rural Punjabis, Pashtuns and Sindhis who are forced to send their children to radical Wahhabi funded Maddrassas all over Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
31 Aug 12,, 20:19
So what was it that Afridi did that was so bad? If someone knowingly served a CIA agent a cup of coffee, is that treason?
He knowingly helped a foreign intelligence agency conduct espionage in Pakistan, espionage that could have been for any purpose, regardless of what explanation Afridi was given - espionage is significantly different from merely serving a CIA agent a cup of coffee wouldn't you say?

Parihaka
01 Sep 12,, 00:32
He knowingly helped a foreign intelligence agency conduct espionage in Pakistan, espionage that could have been for any purpose, regardless of what explanation Afridi was given - espionage is significantly different from merely serving a CIA agent a cup of coffee wouldn't you say?
Ah but it's the purpose that's the point isn't it. Merely knowingly helping someone from the CIA isn't relevant. You can feed them, rent them a house, pass on all sorts of information to them about local conditions, what buses to take, where they can get their car fixed, who lives where etc as long as that is public knowledge. What you are arguing is that he passed information that was a secret, and that secret was detrimental to the state.

JAD_333
01 Sep 12,, 02:13
Pari:

If you will, put on your lawyer's hat a moment.

If the raid had happened in NZ, the question would be, was the raid in effect an invasion of NZ. That would be a tough one. But if the answer is yes, then would not the following definition of treason in NZ law apply to Afridi?

(d) Incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand...



Just trying to stir up trouble.:)

Minskaya
01 Sep 12,, 08:10
Does anyone in Pakistan has vested power to allow foreign military to conduct a military operation on Pakistani soil?
The fine print... To adhere to US law, ST-6 was on loan to (and under the command of) the CIA for the raid. Technically/legally speaking, Abbottabad was not a US military operation.

S2
01 Sep 12,, 08:37
"...the question would be, was the raid in effect an invasion...That would be a tough one. But if the answer is yes, then would not the following definition of treason... apply to Afridi?"

The evidence and recently accumulated examples to support an American "...invasion..." would clearly argue that Osama Bin Laden was a one-off targeted strike...and decidedly NOT an invasion. Fairly said, when America INVADES a nation we plant our flag, assume the posture of a behemoth hegemon and take on any and all posing a threat.

The devolution of this thread is disheartening to see. Simply but accurately put, we attacked and eliminated a stated target who'd presented a clear threat to our nat'l security. We did so in the certainty that we couldn't trust the host nation this mission with the same commitment as ourselves nor permit the consequences of failure to be borne by any other than ourselves. Afridi appears to have offered assistance to us which we accepted. We commend what Pakistanis generally denigrate in this instance. In so doing we've attempted to support the dignity of his choice as a citizen of Pakistan.

I'm unsure of the limits to our assistance we might provide but it appears to have been reached. His fate, for better or worse, rests with the Pakistani judicial system. We almost certainly know what that means. Whether we continue promoting the facade of a "friendly" relationship with Pakistan or otherwise will likely have no bearing on decisions regarding him rendered by Pakistani authority.

Doktor
01 Sep 12,, 09:30
USA media would have call it "invasion" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13iht-edstamm.4893796.html

What I see Pakistani authorities can be pissed off and seek justice for is their citizen helped foreign service without letting them know. Be it a friendly service or not doesn't matter. What would US courts do if US citizen tips Mossad, MI or BND and not letting FBI know about it?

Edit:

Fairly said, when America INVADES a nation we plant our flag, assume the posture of a behemoth hegemon and take on any and all posing a threat.
Wont that be a "Conquest"?

S2
01 Sep 12,, 09:49
With all due respect, Switzerland's established history of "...invasion..." and America's differ greatly to size and duration. Moreover, I'll beg to differ on the nat'l origins of Mr. Stamm.

"...What would US courts do if US citizen tips Mossad, MI or BND and not letting FBI know about it?"

Regarding what, where and why? Context and circumstance matter and, therefore, deserve consideration. Citizens, particularly journalists, are approached daily around the globe by various intelligence agencies. Those conversations aren't necessarily a matter of interest to host nations nor do U.S. citizens have any particular obligation to report contacts with foreign intelligence services...unless serving in our military. I presume the same for other government functions.

Was Mr. Afridi asked to spy upon and report the secrets of Pakistan? Cynically, some would argue "yes". Was Mr. Afridi asked by an agency hostile to the interests of Pakistan? Officially, "no".

Still, reality intrudes. While OBL was ostensibly an enemy of both Pakistan and America, that we'd presume Pakistan couldn't be counted upon to prosecute the target with the same verve and discretion we might muster indicates that all is not well in that relationship. That Pakistan would treat a man whom we might honor as a hero, instead, as a suspected accomplice to treasonous acts says everything about the realities underscoring our actual relationship with one another.

Doktor
01 Sep 12,, 10:02
With all due respect, Switzerland's established history of "...invasion..." and America's differ greatly to size and duration. Moreover, I'll beg to differ on the nat'l origins of Mr. Stamm.
I posted that link just to show how easily people use the words. The Abbottabad operation was a raid. Period. Anyone with doubts open a dictionary (or Wiki :biggrin:


"...What would US courts do if US citizen tips Mossad, MI or BND and not letting FBI know about it?"

Regarding what, where and why? Context and circumstance matter and, therefore, deserve consideration. Citizens, particularly journalists, are approached daily around the globe by various intelligence agencies. Those conversations aren't necessarily a matter of interest to host nations nor do U.S. citizens have any particular obligation to report contacts with foreign intelligence services...unless serving in our military. I presume the same for other government functions.
The thing is that officially Pakistan had interest to know that Most wanted man on Earth is on their turf. Officially they were not aware of that.
So the question remains, why Pakistan national didn't inform Pakistani structures, while informing the foreigners? And he can be charged for that. At least I can see the logic in that line of thinking.


Was Mr. Afridi asked to spy upon and report the secrets of Pakistan? Cynically, some would argue "yes". Was Mr. Afridi asked by an agency hostile to the interests of Pakistan? Officially, "no".

Still, reality intrudes. While OBL was ostensibly an enemy of both Pakistan and America, that we'd presume Pakistan couldn't be counted upon to prosecute the target with the same verve and discretion we might muster indicates that all is not well in that relationship. That Pakistan would treat a man whom we might honor as a hero, instead, as a suspected accomplice to treasonous acts says everything about the realities underscoring our actual relationship with one another.
The key here is "that we'd presume Pakistan couldn't be counted upon..." while Pakistan wants to sell a story that if they had the same data they would do the raid. We can doubt, reasonably, but we can't know.

S2
01 Sep 12,, 10:30
"...We can doubt, reasonably, but we can't know."

Of course we can't, after-the-fact, "...know..." what Pakistan might otherwise have done. That you'd consider it reasonable to doubt suggests, what exactly, regarding Obama? For myself, it suggests an overwhelming lack of confidence in the reliability of alignment to our objectives within the Pakistani security/intelligence services. In short, this president had far greater confidence in our ability to execute the mission than in trusting Pakistan to both keep a secret and prosecute the target.

His call. Successful at that. The mission was a worthy undertaking for which I've zero regret. That Pakistan views Mr. Afridi's role in this worthy undertaking as counter to their interests underscores how very far apart we are from them. Their reaction isn't surprising, if disappointing. I'm only sorry America couldn't facilitate the departure of Mr. Afridi and his immediate family. If his assistance was integral to our success then he deserves a better fate.

n21
01 Sep 12,, 19:06
Afridi's actions fit the definition whether it was collaboration with the US or LeI.

If we apply the logic, the first bunch of people to face the treason charge would ISI officers! ISI openly says it helps CIA find OBL, while Afridi did not. Yet Afridi's act is treason, while ISI's act isn't?

If a Pakistani(may be ISI agent or CIA asset) comes over to Dr. Afridi and tells him that ISI wants his help to find OBL, would that be a treason? Dr.Afridi would not never know if the Pakistani is ISI or CIA.

The only difference being, if the person was ISI, then Dr.Afridi is a hero, else a traitor. Despite the fact that the objective is same!

Parihaka
01 Sep 12,, 23:39
Pari:

If you will, put on your lawyer's hat a moment.

If the raid had happened in NZ, the question would be, was the raid in effect an invasion of NZ. That would be a tough one. But if the answer is yes, then would not the following definition of treason in NZ law apply to Afridi?

(d) Incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand...



Just trying to stir up trouble.:)

Ask yourself this: did Afridi know who he was looking for and did he know what the outcome, of which his research was a small part, would be?
In other words, did the CIA tell him he was looking for Osama Bin Laden and did they tell him the raid was going to happen?
Here in NZ of course we have our own example of the DGSE bombing the Rainbow Warrior. Several kiwis were aware of who they were, many assisted while they were here, but it's doubtful apart from a couple of SIS agents that any knew why they were here. How many should we prosecute?

In truth Afridi is a low level bit player being scapegoated by the GoP because he is all they can reach. As AgM says, his conviction is false, they simply wish to use him as a bargaining chip against the US, presumably for cash.

Doktor
02 Sep 12,, 01:02
"...We can doubt, reasonably, but we can't know."

Of course we can't, after-the-fact, "...know..." what Pakistan might otherwise have done. That you'd consider it reasonable to doubt suggests, what exactly, regarding Obama? For myself, it suggests an overwhelming lack of confidence in the reliability of alignment to our objectives within the Pakistani security/intelligence services. In short, this president had far greater confidence in our ability to execute the mission than in trusting Pakistan to both keep a secret and prosecute the target.
My doubt is based on several reports (some linked here in other threads methinks) that US troops missed OBL times after they informed GoP, ISI or PA. Sounded like a pattern.


His call. Successful at that. The mission was a worthy undertaking for which I've zero regret.
The result was success. Was big gamble by the incumbent POTUS which at the end payed off. I wonder what if it didn't? What if OBL was not there or if the two birds crashed, if, if, if... a lot of things can go in bad direction. Would Americans be so excited with such outcome?
Frankly, I have a hard time grasping USA not being able to press Pakistan to cooperate. If that's true Hillary should go home. After all, IIRC, the hunt of OBL was one of the reasons to enter A-stan.


That Pakistan views Mr. Afridi's role in this worthy undertaking as counter to their interests underscores how very far apart we are from them. Their reaction isn't surprising, if disappointing.
As I said, IMV, if he knew who is inside and knew who contacted him as a Pakistani citizen he should have notified the authorities, which he didn't. If he was deluded that he has contacts with ISI, or other Pakistani officials, he should go free. It's on the GoP to prove that he knew what he is doing and the possible outcome of that.
The "trial" he got is fishy, in lack for milder word.


I'm only sorry America couldn't facilitate the departure of Mr. Afridi and his immediate family. If his assistance was integral to our success then he deserves a better fate.
Nothing to be sorry there. According to some reports he chose that faith by not getting on the bus. He also had two phone numbers to contact if something goes bad. Your guys did that nice.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Sep 12,, 01:00
If we apply the logic, the first bunch of people to face the treason charge would ISI officers! ISI openly says it helps CIA find OBL, while Afridi did not. Yet Afridi's act is treason, while ISI's act isn't?

If a Pakistani(may be ISI agent or CIA asset) comes over to Dr. Afridi and tells him that ISI wants his help to find OBL, would that be a treason? Dr.Afridi would not never know if the Pakistani is ISI or CIA.

The only difference being, if the person was ISI, then Dr.Afridi is a hero, else a traitor. Despite the fact that the objective is same!

The ISI is an institution of the government of Pakistan, so it acts on the authority of the GoP and is assigned the responsibility of cooperating with foreign intelligence agencies, as needed - Afridi acted on his own, without any government authority.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Sep 12,, 01:03
Ah but it's the purpose that's the point isn't it. Merely knowingly helping someone from the CIA isn't relevant. You can feed them, rent them a house, pass on all sorts of information to them about local conditions, what buses to take, where they can get their car fixed, who lives where etc as long as that is public knowledge. What you are arguing is that he passed information that was a secret, and that secret was detrimental to the state.

If an individual 'feeds the CIA, rents to the CIA, passes on all sorts of information to the CIA' knowing that he is assisting the CIA in conducting espionage and they do not have authorization from the GoP to do so, then they fall in the same category as Afridi - engaging in espionage that could potential harm Pakistani national security and therefore committing treason.

If a CIA officer visits a Tea Stall in Peshawar and has the owner serve him food without knowing who he is serving, then that is a different issue - I took your analogy of 'serving coffee' as falling into the latter category.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Sep 12,, 01:05
they simply wish to use him as a bargaining chip against the US, presumably for cash.
The 'cash' has already been released once the supply lines were reopened.

Afridi is not tied to that, and given that even the brouhaha in the US over his arrest and conviction has died down, I am not sure he serves any major purpose now.

Officer of Engineers
03 Sep 12,, 03:15
If a CIA officer visits a Tea Stall in Peshawar and has the owner serve him food without knowing who he is serving, then that is a different issue - I took your analogy of 'serving coffee' as falling into the latter category.How about military attaches hoping into a cab to goto Pakistani Army HQ?

lemontree
03 Sep 12,, 09:23
This only appears in Indian sources and isn't corroborated by western media ie no mention in NYT or wapo's archives. It appeared shortly after 9/11 so i'd expect american media to be screaming about it.

Do you have a reliable source as i've not found any.
Look up the archives in WAB you will get all the sources you want.


Given that the ISI gen was in DC chatting with the chairman of the intelligence committee on the very day of 9/11, i'm rather sceptical of the claim.
They why did the US demand his resignation??

He was close to the mujahideen and did not want any part in GWOT and resigned in early Oct when Musharaf had a re-org.
He was forced to resign once the facts came out.

lemontree
03 Sep 12,, 09:26
DE has responded to that quite well.

DE is not aware of the facts.

lemontree
03 Sep 12,, 09:32
DE is not aware of the facts. He loves to debate.

But the fact that Pakistan was caught with its pants down with the Abbotabad raid cannot be denied. Nothing can change that.
So if DE want to believe about Gen Mehmoud Ahmad or not, it irrelevant. OBL was being sheltered your nation and it's system.

JAD_333
03 Sep 12,, 09:46
Ask yourself this: did Afridi know who he was looking for and did he know what the outcome, of which his research was a small part, would be?

In other words, did the CIA tell him he was looking for Osama Bin Laden and did they tell him the raid was going to happen?

Hopefully they left him with plausible deniability. Maybe we should give him a share of the reward that was on OBL's head and let him bribe his way out prison.


Weddings Gowns Gifts, The Knot (http://weddings.theknot.com/Real-Weddings/93598/detailview.aspx?type=3&id=93598&STOPREDIRECTING=TRUE&wedding%20details=ceremony%20decor)

Pari, are you proposing? :)

Double Edge
03 Sep 12,, 10:38
DE is not aware of the facts. He loves to debate.
You made a particular claim that i challenged. You're not the only one btw, n21 made the same claim a few months earlier. That's when i researched it and found nothing. He couldn't substantiate it either.

So can you or anybody else for that matter back up the claim of ISI chief transferring $100k with some proper sources ?

The usual routine is when one country claims this or that, you try to see, at a minimum if other reputable sources abroad are saying the same thing as well. Given the americans are the aggrieved party here, i see no reason whatsoever for them to not also say the same that is if they found it to be true. Thing is neither the NYT or wapo has anything to say about it.

This isn't about whether i love to debate or not its about making what you said stand.


So if DE want to believe about Gen Mehmoud Ahmad or not, it irrelevant.
Its relevant if you want your claim to stand. Otherwise i treat it as an unsupported statement and forget about it. If it can't be supported its got no worth.


But the fact that Pakistan was caught with its pants down with the Abbotabad raid cannot be denied. Nothing can change that.
OBL was being sheltered your nation and it's system.
This has got nothing to do with the ISI chief that resigned back in Oct 2001.

Look, i've already said the Paks can't play the perception down. They can try but the man on the street isn't going to buy it, that too despite a lack of any evidence directly connecting the Pak administration with OBL.

lemontree
03 Sep 12,, 11:03
You made a particular claim that i challenged. You're not the only one btw, n21 made the same claim a few months earlier. That's when i researched it and found nothing. He couldn't substantiate it either.

So can you or anybody else for that matter back up the claim of ISI chief transferring $100k with some proper sources ?
You want news reports of inter-agency co-operation on 9/11!!

RAW was tracking Gen Mehmouds cell phone, about 6 months before 9/11. The General ordered Omar Sheik to transfer $100,000, this info was just filed and kept away by RAW. It was only after 9/11 did RAW realise it's significance.


The usual routine is when one country claims this or that, you try to see, at a minimum if other reputable sources abroad are saying the same thing as well. Given the americans are the aggrieved party here, i see no reason whatsoever for them to not also say the same that is if they found it to be true. Thing is neither the NYT or wapo has anything to say about it.
This is not some claim - it was inter-agency info sharing after 9/11. How many sources can corroborate inter-agency transfer of information?


This isn't about whether i love to debate or not its about making what you said stand.

Its relevant if you want your claim to stand. Otherwise i treat it as an unsupported statement and forget about it. If it can't be supported its got no worth.
As I said how many sources can corroborate inter-agency transfer of information?


This has got nothing to do with the ISI chief that resigned back in Oct 2001.
It has everything to do with him and his successors.


Look, i've already said the Paks can't play the perception down. They can try but the man on the street isn't going to buy it, that too despite a lack of any evidence directly connecting the Pak administration with OBL.
That is BS...and you know it.

Double Edge
03 Sep 12,, 11:15
You want news reports of inter-agency co-operation on 9/11!!
TOI mentioned it. If they can do it why not the american ones ?


RAW was tracking Gen Mehmouds cell phone, about 6 months before 9/11. The General ordered Omar Sheik to transfer $100,000, this info was just filed and kept away by RAW. It was only after 9/11 did RAW realise it's significance.
Can you show the americans corroborating that intel.

Wapo places the ISI chief in DC talking to the chairman of the intelligence committee on the day of 9/11.


This is not some claim - it was inter-agency info sharing after 9/11. How many sources can corroborate inter-agency transfer of information?
Appreciate what you're saying but it also makes it very difficult to accept it.


It has everything to do with him and his successors.
he's out of the loop. He did not want to fight against the people he worked with.


That is BS...and you know it.
The americans themselves have admitted it. What more do you want.

Understand i'm making a distinction here between direct evidence and circumstantial. The latter there is plenty of and which goes a long way to forming people's perceptions.

Parihaka
03 Sep 12,, 11:29
Complete 911 Timeline: ISI Director Mahmood Ahmed (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_isi:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmood Ahmed&timeline=complete_911_timeline)

A useful resource, haven't brought these guys up in years.

lemontree
03 Sep 12,, 12:38
TOI mentioned it. If they can do it why not the american ones ?

Can you show the americans corroborating that intel.

I can give you a reverse action proof: money returned to Omar Sheikh (in jail for Danial Pearl's murder) by Mohd Atta.

OK take a look at this declassified CIA report in this link:- DECLASSIFICATION | INTELLIGENCE WORLD (http://www.intelligence-world.org/?cat=131)
Clink on the red colour report dated "2003-06-01"
Open page 58...see time line of 8th September. Here CIA reports that Mohd Atta wired by $2860 and $5000 to "Mustafa Ahmed". This is an alias of Omar Sheikh, you can get the connection in simple google. It's reported in a number of reports.
Omar Sheikh wired Atta the money (on Lt Gen Mahmoud Ahed's orders), and the balance was returned back to Omar Sheikh....

BTW, this is the same Omar Sheikh who was released in the IC 814 Khandahar hostage swap deal.

Here is another FBI whistleblower's report - whatever it is worth.
http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/watedmondssundaytimes.htm

Double Edge
03 Sep 12,, 13:19
From Pari's link (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0summer01mahmoodcalls#a0summer01 mahmoodcalls)


Summer 2000: Saeed Sheikh Frequently Calls ISI Director

In 2002, French author Bernard-Henri Levy is presented evidence by government officials in New Delhi, India, that Saeed Sheikh makes repeated calls to ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed during the summer of 2000. Later, Levy gets unofficial confirmation from sources in Washington regarding these calls that the information he was given in India is correct.
So Levy claims...

heh, did not know that BHL got himself invovled in this affair, first heard about him wrt to Libya.


He notes that someone in the United Arab Emirates using a variety of aliases sends Mohamed Atta slightly over $100,000 between June and September of this year (see June 29, 2000-September 18, 2000 and (July-August 2000)), and the timing of these phone calls and the money transfers may have been the source of news reports that Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 to Mohamed Atta (see October 7, 2001). However, he also notes that there is evidence of Sheikh sending Atta $100,000 in August 2001 (see Early August 2001), so the reports could refer to that, or both $100,000 transfers could involve Mahmood Ahmed, Saeed Sheikh, and Mohamed Atta.
inconclusive


The Times of India will later report that Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed, the director of the ISI, instructed Saeed to transfer the $100,000 into Atta’s bank account. This is according to “senior government sources,” who will claim that the FBI has privately confirmed the story.
This is the TOI source (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-10-09/india/27243646_1_isi-link-evidence-india) i referred to earlier. But they say the FBI 'privately' confirmed it which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. What can be said is india helped establish that $100k was sent to atta. Whether it was on the ISI chief's instruction isn't clear.

The we get to Oct 7 2001 (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0summer01mahmoodcalls#a100701mah moodreplaced)


ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is replaced in the face of US pressure after links are discovered between him, Saeed Sheikh, and the funding of the 9/11 attacks. Mahmood instructed Saeed to transfer $100,000 into hijacker Mohamed Atta’s bank account prior to 9/11. This is according to Indian intelligence, which claims the FBI has privately confirmed the story. [PRESS TRUST OF INDIA, 10/8/2001; TIMES OF INDIA, 10/9/2001; INDIA TODAY, 10/15/2001; DAILY EXCELSIOR (JAMMU), 10/18/2001]

The story is not widely reported in Western countries, though it makes the Wall Street Journal. [AUSTRALIAN, 10/10/2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/australian101001.html); AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, 10/10/2001; WALL STREET JOURNAL, 10/10/2001]
The WSJ one is unavailable. That is the only mention in the US.


In Western countries, the usual explanation is that Mahmood is fired for being too close to the Taliban. [LONDON TIMES, 10/9/2001; GUARDIAN, 10/9/2001]

There is evidence some ISI officers may have known of a plan to destroy the WTC as early as July 1999. Two other ISI leaders, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan and Lt. Gen. Muzaffar Usmani, are sidelined on the same day as Mahmood (see October 8, 2001). [FOX NEWS, 10/8/2001]

Saeed had been working under Khan. The firings are said to have purged the ISI of its fundamentalists. However, according to one diplomat, “To remove the top two or three doesn’t matter at all. The philosophy remains.… [The ISI is] a parallel government of its own. If you go through the officer list, almost all of the ISI regulars would say, of the Taliban, ‘They are my boys.’” [NEW YORKER, 10/29/2001]

It is believed Mahmood has been living under virtual house arrest in Pakistan (which would seem to imply more than just a difference of opinion over the Taliban), but no charges have been brought against him, and there is no evidence the US has asked to question him. [ASIA TIMES, 1/5/2002] He also has refused to speak to reporters since being fired [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2/21/2002] , and outside India and Pakistan, the story has only been mentioned infrequently in the media since.

No american corroboration here at all for what is a pretty incendiary claim.


July 2003: Fired ISI Director Resurfaces as Businessman
Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, who lost his position as ISI Director one month after 9/11 (see October 7, 2001), resurfaces in Pakistan as the head of a subsidiary of a prominent business consortium. The New Yorker notes that it is “a position that require[s] government backing.” Ahmed was considered close to the Taliban, and according to some media accounts, ordered money to hijacker Mohamed Atta. He still apparently has not given any media interviews or been interviewed by US intelligence since his firing. [NEW YORKER, 7/28/2003]
And that is where the caper ends.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Sep 12,, 14:30
How about military attaches hoping into a cab to goto Pakistani Army HQ?
What's wrong with that? I assume these attaches are in the country legally, in an official capacity, and as part of their official functions meet with Pakistani government and military officials as authorized by the Pakistani government.

Doktor
03 Sep 12,, 14:55
DE, are you saying that since it was not in American media it is not true? AFP is not a western source?

Officer of Engineers
03 Sep 12,, 15:04
What's wrong with that? I assume these attaches are in the country legally, in an official capacity, and as part of their official functions meet with Pakistani government and military officials as authorized by the Pakistani government.I'm asking you. Military attaches by definition are spies. They report back to their home countries of their evaluation of the host country's capabilities. The cab driver has no way of knowing if the military attaches are doing actual spying or not.

Double Edge
03 Sep 12,, 17:22
I can give you a reverse action proof: money returned to Omar Sheikh (in jail for Danial Pearl's murder) by Mohd Atta.

OK take a look at this declassified CIA report in this link:- DECLASSIFICATION | INTELLIGENCE WORLD (http://www.intelligence-world.org/?cat=131)
Clink on the red colour report dated "2003-06-01"
Open page 58...see time line of 8th September. Here CIA reports that Mohd Atta wired by $2860 and $5000 to "Mustafa Ahmed". This is an alias of Omar Sheikh, you can get the connection in simple google. It's reported in a number of reports.

Omar Sheikh wired Atta the money (on Lt Gen Mahmoud Ahed's orders), and the balance was returned back to Omar Sheikh....
underlined bit = OK
bolded bit = NOT OK


BTW, this is the same Omar Sheikh who was released in the IC 814 Khandahar hostage swap deal.
Yep


Here is another FBI whistleblower's report - whatever it is worth.
Sibel Edmonds And General Mahmoud - FBI Whistleblower Exposes New Dimensions To 'Pakistan Connection' (http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/watedmondssundaytimes.htm)
I got a guardian op-ed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1266317,00.html) from this one..


Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Why indeed


Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf.

Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?
He was not exposed in the WSJ, there was an op-ed, the only mention by US media about him that suggested it. This guardian op-ed is referencing another op-ed :rolleyes:

You can say anything in op-eds, they are like a magicians show, pull rabits out of hats and more.

An expose in the WSJ would have been a proper article not an op-ed.

Double Edge
03 Sep 12,, 17:34
DE, are you saying that since it was not in American media it is not true? AFP is not a western source?
Forget about true or false. Unless he gets tried we will never know and that has not happened.

So we are left with more true or less true. I would settle for credible and i've not got that yet.

Let's be clear, i'm not disputing that Indian intel did not send whatever. What i'm not seeing is the connect between the ISI chief & the $100k.

Here is a guy who on the basis of Indian intel instructed that $100k be wired to the lead hijacker Atta. We are told that the information has been shared with the US.

It appears in Indian & Pak newspapers and some op-eds.

But no main article in any major US newspaper. Isn't that odd. Why the US does not even talk about it for what we are told is their worst attack since pearl harbour.

Even if it did appear it does not prove any thing, but this is like a minimum requirement to qualify as credible. Can't even show that.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Sep 12,, 23:28
I'm asking you. Military attaches by definition are spies. They report back to their home countries of their evaluation of the host country's capabilities. The cab driver has no way of knowing if the military attaches are doing actual spying or not.
The fact that the 'cab drivers' are not deliberately assisting these individuals in conducting espionage for a foreign government is a key difference between them and Afridi - Afridi knowingly and deliberately assisted a foreign government in conducting espionage inside Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Sep 12,, 23:36
Forget about true or false. Unless he gets tried we will never know and that has not happened.

So we are left with more true or less true. I would settle for credible and i've not got that yet.

Let's be clear, i'm not disputing that Indian intel did not send whatever. What i'm not seeing is the connect between the ISI chief & the $100k.

Here is a guy who on the basis of Indian intel instructed that $100k be wired to the lead hijacker Atta. We are told that the information has been shared with the US.

It appears in Indian & Pak newspapers and some op-eds.

But no main article in any major US newspaper. Isn't that odd. Why the US does not even talk about it for what we are told is their worst attack since pearl harbour.

Even if it did appear it does not prove any thing, but this is like a minimum requirement to qualify as credible. Can't even show that.
You are doing a pretty good job of pointing out the loopholes in the claims that Gen. Ahmed was involved in $100,000 wired to Atta, but if I may add another example of why these claims don't stand up to scrutiny, using your argument of 'the US never pursued a case against him' - AQ Khan, a much more high profile individual and much harder to target in Pakistan given his status and popularity with the public, was the subject of some very strong official, unofficial and media campaigns from the West in terms of his removal and subsequent demands for access to interrogate him. I find it hard to believe that the US would not have put in a similar effort to get access to Gen. Ahmed had there really been any credible evidence that he was involved in the 9/11 attacks, or at the very least called for some sort of 'house arrest' arrangement similar to the one AQ Khan was subjected to.

The US did have some concerns related to Gen. Ahmed's ties with the Taliban and that seems to have played into the reported pressure to have him removed as the DG ISI post Afghan invasion, but other than that the General appears to have been essentially allowed to walk free.

Tronic
04 Sep 12,, 00:25
You are doing a pretty good job of pointing out the loopholes in the claims that Gen. Ahmed was involved in $100,000 wired to Atta, but if I may add another example of why these claims don't stand up to scrutiny, using your argument of 'the US never pursued a case against him' - AQ Khan, a much more high profile individual and much harder to target in Pakistan given his status and popularity with the public, was the subject of some very strong official, unofficial and media campaigns from the West in terms of his removal and subsequent demands for access to interrogate him. I find it hard to believe that the US would not have put in a similar effort to get access to Gen. Ahmed had there really been any credible evidence that he was involved in the 9/11 attacks, or at the very least called for some sort of 'house arrest' arrangement similar to the one AQ Khan was subjected to.

The US did have some concerns related to Gen. Ahmed's ties with the Taliban and that seems to have played into the reported pressure to have him removed as the DG ISI post Afghan invasion, but other than that the General appears to have been essentially allowed to walk free.

There were a number of Pakistani officers embedded with the Taliban at the time of the US invasion and the deal between the US and Pakistan largely seemed to be that the US would allow the PA men to walk free, in return, the PA promises to switch sides over to the US. So, not pursuing a case against Gen Ahmed is not that big of a point.

Now, I agree that there is not much evidence in the public domain to support the assertion that Gen Ahmed had a role in 9/11, but I would just like to point out the different backdrop surrounding him with respect to AQ Khan.

I personally don't feel that Gen Ahmed, despite his Taliban and Islamist leanings, would be that stupid to directly get involved in a plot targeting the US.

Double Edge
04 Sep 12,, 02:28
There were a number of Pakistani officers embedded with the Taliban at the time of the US invasion and the deal between the US and Pakistan largely seemed to be that the US would allow the PA men to walk free, in return, the PA promises to switch sides over to the US. So, not pursuing a case against Gen Ahmed is not that big of a point.
Embedded in the Taliban is quite different to being actively involved in 9/11. There is no way the americans could have let this one slide.


Now, I agree that there is not much evidence in the public domain to support the assertion that Gen Ahmed had a role in 9/11, but I would just like to point out the different backdrop surrounding him with respect to AQ Khan.
I'm thinking they might have demanded more than what happened to AQ Khan. Give him up or else kind of situation.


I personally don't feel that Gen Ahmed, despite his Taliban and Islamist leanings, would be that stupid to directly get involved in a plot targeting the US.
Right, and in the process implicate Pakistan in 9/11. What kind of consequences would that have. That is the biggest problem with the claim.

The simplest explanation i can come up with is the team that plotted 9/11. There is no need for Ahmed to decide to send money those guys already had it, planned it and did everything for it.

lemontree
04 Sep 12,, 05:46
DE, are you saying that since it was not in American media it is not true? AFP is not a western source?

No, DE has not been presented with a copy of the report that RAW gave to the FBI.

lemontree
04 Sep 12,, 05:55
underlined bit = OK
bolded bit = NOT OK
That is your opinion


Why indeed
Now why has Lt. Gen Ahmed and Omar Sheikh not been charged with that crime....Good question?
Why did the Pakistanis keep OBL hidden in Abbotabad for all these years...and not been bombed yet or declared a terrorist state???..can you answer that.
If Omar Sheikh was good enough for ISI to be rescued by hijacking an Indian civilain airline...? then he is good enough to be protected by the Pak ISI.

Your problem is that you are trying to find black and white proof to be used in a court of law, and you are treating terrorism as a law and order problem.
Terrorists leave very little trails to work on, especially if they have the support of an intelligence agency.

In insurgency operations, for example in Sri Lanka. The LTTE would fire and run into villages...they wear no uniform, the weapon is hidden, there is no proof to connect "suspects". What do you do? Now suppose you catch the man after a hot chase, but he has no weapon on him - how would you prove in a court that the arrested man is a terrorist who fired on own troops??


He was not exposed in the WSJ, there was an op-ed, the only mention by US media about him that suggested it. This guardian op-ed is referencing another op-ed :rolleyes:
He would have been exposed, had not Daniel Pearl been killed.

Tronic
04 Sep 12,, 06:38
Embedded in the Taliban is quite different to being actively involved in 9/11. There is no way the americans could have let this one slide.

That's an opinion, DE. We don't know.



I'm thinking they might have demanded more than what happened to AQ Khan. Give him up or else kind of situation.

Again, you're speculating.

I'm not implicating Gen Ahmed for involvement in 9/11, but, neither am I saying that he is innocent. I'm merely stating that we don't know, either way. He was alleged, by Indian intelligence, to have had direct links with Mohammad Atta in transferring money which ultimately got used in 9/11. He was sacked from his job days after this alleged report by Indian intelligence to the Americans. Whether or not this alleged report has anything to do with his sacking is an open question. Everything else too is just speculation surrounding these facts.


Right, and in the process implicate Pakistan in 9/11. What kind of consequences would that have. That is the biggest problem with the claim.

Right. But than, its not as if Pakistan hasn't already been excused for the actions of its "rogue" ISI elements. Do note that the ISI has already been implicated for attacks on the US embassy and NATO HQ in Afghanistan, but, allowed to walk scot free.


The simplest explanation i can come up with is the team that plotted 9/11. There is no need for Ahmed to decide to send money those guys already had it, planned it and did everything for it.

Could be.

Double Edge
04 Sep 12,, 07:33
That is your opinion
No, the problem is i cannot form any opinion on the matter. Because i still can't tell either way. But I am leaning against.

Here's what Dawn (http://archives.dawn.com/2001/10/09/top11.htm) said.


The FBI team, which had sought adequate inputs about various terrorists including Sheikh from the intelligence agencies, was working on the linkages between Sheikh and former ISI chief Gen Mahmud which are believed to have been substantiated, reports PTI website.

Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen Mahmud’s instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta, one of the lead terrorists in strikes at the World Trade Centre on Sept 11, it adds.
It would be very interesting to know what the FBI concluded on the topic. The exelsior says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Sheikh)...


"FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Mahmud Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks, who flew a hijacked Boeing commercial airliner into the World Trade Center. General Mahmud Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."
And they do nothing ? They do nothing because there isn't any evidence. This is the most common reason i've found where nothing happens :)

Ah, but there is more (http://www.usatoday.com/money/attacks/2001-12-19-moneytrail.htm)


Who is the elusive paymaster behind the Sept. 11 attacks? Investigators, court records and other documents sketch an incomplete and sometimes conflicting picture of the man authorities say is a key link between the 19 suicide hijackers and Osama bin Laden.

In papers filed last week to support the first U.S. indictment in the probe, authorities identified the paymaster as Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, an international fugitive. The six-count indictment, which charged a French-Moroccan with being part of a conspiracy by the al-Qaeda terrorism network to kill Americans, named al-Hawsawi as an unindicted co-conspirator.
This is the guy that funded the operation.



Now why has Lt. Gen Ahmed and Omar Sheikh not been charged with that crime....Good question?

Why did the Pakistanis keep OBL hidden in Abbotabad for all these years...and not been bombed yet or declared a terrorist state???..can you answer that.
If Omar Sheikh was good enough for ISI to be rescued by hijacking an Indian civilain airline...? then he is good enough to be protected by the Pak ISI.
How about Ahmed ?

With him in the picture, its no longer non-state actors but a state conspiracy. That is an entirely new ballgame. Taliban did not plot 9/11 their crime was not handing OBL over, providing him with shelter. We saw what happened to them. Saddam was taken out because he was a threat.

What happens to Pakistan in this instance ? Now OBL becomes the little guy who's been directed by the ISI. Musharraf is in charge, no way from him to be out of the loop. See how quickly this balloons out of control. Implication is the Pak state attacking their biggest benefactor over the decades.

It is impossible for the americans to pass this over if it had any credibility. How could they work with the very people that attacked them. Their whole campaign would have to change.


Your problem is that you are trying to find black and white proof to be used in a court of law, and you are treating terrorism as a law and order problem.
Terrorists leave very little trails to work on, especially if they have the support of an intelligence agency.
Looking for corroborating evidence that is all. Proof is waay beyond the scope of this discussion. American actions or rather their lack thereof is very revealing here.

I recall watching OBL's video shortly after 9/11 where he talks about dreaming of planes flying into skyscrapers. All the news channels played it in the US. Very important to know who was behind 9/11.


In insurgency operations, for example in Sri Lanka. The LTTE would fire and run into villages...they wear no uniform, the weapon is hidden, there is no proof to connect "suspects". What do you do? Now suppose you catch the man after a hot chase, but he has no weapon on him - how would you prove in a court that the arrested man is a terrorist who fired on own troops??
You don't have to prove anything in court, in an insurgency area you have the AFSPA to protect you. I presume the Sri lankans have a similar equivalent. You are the judge, jury & executioner. Otherwise its not possible to do your job. An insurgency is a low intensity war.


He would have been exposed, had not Daniel Pearl been killed.
Beause Omar Sheikh is in a Pak jail and the trail ends there. This is how it was put in this report (http://altbib.com/bak/dox/4674.html) from 2002


In November 2001, a secret indictment from an American grand jury charged Saeed Sheikh with the 1994 kidnapping. At the time of his indictment, Saeed Sheikh was in the city of Lahore with his wife celebrating the birth of his son.

Early in February, about 10 days after Daniel Pearl was kidnapped, Saeed Sheikh went to the ISI base in Lahore. It is said he was there for a week working out a deal for how little he would say about the ISI's support for terrorist groups in Kashmir and Pakistan in exchange for not being extradited to the United States. Neither the Pakistani police nor the U.S. Embassy nor the FBI who were in Islamabad investigating the kidnapping were told. The deal done, a brazen Saeed Sheikh gave himself up to police, telling them of Pearl's capture but misleading them on every possible fact — including his ISI linkage.

Double Edge
04 Sep 12,, 07:48
That's an opinion, DE. We don't know.

Again, you're speculating.
Yes but within reason. US went after everybody bar none that was involved with 9/11. So i see no reasons to make any exceptions whatsoever in Ahmed's case, that is if they suspected he was guilty. If the Paks hid Ahmed they'd find him and kill him like they did with OBL.


I'm not implicating Gen Ahmed for involvement in 9/11, but, neither am I saying that he is innocent. I'm merely stating that we don't know, either way. He was alleged, by Indian intelligence, to have had direct links with Mohammad Atta in transferring money which ultimately got used in 9/11. He was sacked from his job days after this alleged report by Indian intelligence to the Americans. Whether or not this alleged report has anything to do with his sacking is an open question. Everything else too is just speculation surrounding these facts.
Agree

Therefore it would be more accurate to say we do not know rather than outright claiming that Ahmed was THE guy that instructed the money transferred.


Right. But than, its not as if Pakistan hasn't already been excused for the actions of its "rogue" ISI elements. Do note that the ISI has already been implicated for attacks on the US embassy and NATO HQ in Afghanistan, but, allowed to walk scot free.
Attacked in a battle zone vs being attacked on home turf.

How many died at the NATO HQ vs 9/11.

Matter much ?

They wouldn't even be in Afghanistan otherwise.

Parihaka
04 Sep 12,, 08:14
Yes but within reason. US went after everybody bar none that was involved with 9/11. So i see no reasons to make any exceptions whatsoever in Ahmed's case, that is if they suspected he was guilty. If the Paks hid Ahmed they'd find him and kill him like they did with OBL.


They haven't gone after Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh despite knowing his current whereabouts

Tronic
04 Sep 12,, 09:33
Yes but within reason. US went after everybody bar none that was involved with 9/11. So i see no reasons to make any exceptions whatsoever in Ahmed's case, that is if they suspected he was guilty. If the Paks hid Ahmed they'd find him and kill him like they did with OBL.

I don't know how much 'within reason' this is. Would the US have gone to war against Pakistan over a 3 star Pakistani general, who arguably held, the second most powerful position in Pakistan, after the Pakistanis had already pledged allegiance to the American led WoT? That, in addition to the many unknowns. Even if the alleged report is true about Gen Ahmed transferring money to Atta, it does not automatically mean culpability in the 9/11 attacks for an organization which is on norm steeped in terror activities and runs terror camps across the country. Was Gen Ahmed linking money through to Atta to specifically target the US, or was that money for ISI's usual terror activities against India?

Gen Ahmed, as well as the ISI, are connected to the 9/11 culprits, directly or indirectly, through their links with various terrorist outfits. Their only saving grace is that they can feint innocence on the basis of 'not being in the loop'.

From the US POV, and taking the above into account, would it be worth pursuing Ahmed and deteriorating their relationship with Pakistan which has just sprung on board to fight against terrorism? Look at this from a 2001 perspective, and without the hindsight we have today.


Agree

Therefore it would be more accurate to say we do not know rather than outright claiming that Ahmed was THE guy that instructed the money transferred.

Point to me where I have claimed anything of the sort.



Attacked in a battle zone vs being attacked on home turf.

How many died at the NATO HQ vs 9/11.

Matter much ?

They wouldn't even be in Afghanistan otherwise.

So if the attack is carried out in a battle zone, that somehow reduces the hostility of an action?

Agnostic Muslim
04 Sep 12,, 13:57
The simplest explanation i can come up with is the team that plotted 9/11. There is no need for Ahmed to decide to send money those guys already had it, planned it and did everything for it.
When were OBL's finances cut off?

The man was a independently wealthy and a millionaire, and even without his wealth his organization had some pretty deep fundraising infrastructure in the Arab word, Pakistan and Afghanistan - why would Gen. Ahmed have to provide money to the hijackers?

Double Edge
04 Sep 12,, 22:20
I don't know how much 'within reason' this is. Would the US have gone to war against Pakistan over a 3 star Pakistani general, who arguably held, the second most powerful position in Pakistan, after the Pakistanis had already pledged allegiance to the American led WoT?
They'd have cut a deal, Ahmed would not be free like he is today, thereby corroborating the connection.


That, in addition to the many unknowns. Even if the alleged report is true about Gen Ahmed transferring money to Atta, it does not automatically mean culpability in the 9/11 attacks for an organization which is on norm steeped in terror activities and runs terror camps across the country. Was Gen Ahmed linking money through to Atta to specifically target the US, or was that money for ISI's usual terror activities against India?
The money made its way to Atta, that establishes a direct link. That the money transfer occurred is without doubt and indian intel played a role in establishing it. Saeed to Atta.


Gen Ahmed, as well as the ISI, are connected to the 9/11 culprits, directly or indirectly, through their links with various terrorist outfits. Their only saving grace is that they can feint innocence on the basis of 'not being in the loop'.
And more importanly nothing directly incriminating has turned up to link them.


From the US POV, and taking the above into account, would it be worth pursuing Ahmed and deteriorating their relationship with Pakistan which has just sprung on board to fight against terrorism? Look at this from a 2001 perspective, and without the hindsight we have today.
I was thinking about this in a reverse manner when you mentioned the NATO HQ attack. An attack that happens many years into a relationship as opposed to suspected links right at the outset.

So soon after 9/11 the pressure was high to act. Whatever the US decided to do there would have been some record of it, american actions would indicate how serious they were.


So if the attack is carried out in a battle zone, that somehow reduces the hostility of an action?
The embassy attack as i recall nobody died. What were the casualties with the NATO HQ attack ?

If casualties were minimal i expect the Paks get grilled about it and that's about it.


Point to me where I have claimed anything of the sort.
You nave not and it wasn't directed at you.

It was directed at anybody that still claims that there was a link between Ahmed & $100k.

That link has not been corroborated yet.

Double Edge
04 Sep 12,, 22:39
They haven't gone after Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh despite knowing his current whereabouts
Saw a Dec 2009 cable that said whilst the details of his transfer were being considered that Pakistan provide written assurances that he remain in their custody during his appeals case. He was sentenced to death in 2002 in Pakistan over Pearl's murder.

So yes, they have gone after him, they've just not got him yet.

Parihaka
04 Sep 12,, 23:18
So yes, they have gone after him, they've just not got him yet.

Nor will they, unless they do an OBL on him. His appeals case will never come to trial so he can be held indefinitely as a bargaining chip.

Double Edge
04 Sep 12,, 23:26
When were OBL's finances cut off?

The man was a independently wealthy and a millionaire, and even without his wealth his organization had some pretty deep fundraising infrastructure in the Arab word, Pakistan and Afghanistan - why would Gen. Ahmed have to provide money to the hijackers?
The claim was made that Ahmed instructed a transfer, not that he provided the money. A mangerial role is implied.

9/11 commision report said the source of those funds still remains unclear.

lemontree
05 Sep 12,, 06:09
No, the problem is i cannot form any opinion on the matter. Because i still can't tell either way. But I am leaning against....

It would be very interesting to know what the FBI concluded on the topic.....

And they do nothing ? They do nothing because there isn't any evidence. This is the most common reason i've found where nothing happens :)
Funny, that you talk of evidence...when Iraq was bombed to hell by The US for making WMDs. Where is the evidence....it is now known that the US intelligence community lied to the world. Looks like they lied in this case too...possibly they feared bombing a nuclear armed Pakistan.


This is the guy that funded the operation.
Why just because the US media reports it! That is poor evidence.


How about Ahmed ?

With him in the picture, its no longer non-state actors but a state conspiracy. That is an entirely new ballgame. Taliban did not plot 9/11 their crime was not handing OBL over, providing him with shelter. We saw what happened to them. Saddam was taken out because he was a threat.
It looks like a complete Pakistani state conspiracy....
There were on the verge of punery and were the pariah of the world after Kargil 1999.
Their econmony was in total collapse....they were no longer the blue eyed boys of the US after the Soviet pull out from Afghanistan in 1986.
The only way they could get free guns and $$ is by being important to the US once again....

It is no secret that Pak army units are supporting Taliban fighters. Which resulted in the US attack on the Pak BoP that killed 24 Pak soldiers.
They are bleeding the NATO units to ensure the Afghanistan remains their playground and retain their "strategic dept"


What happens to Pakistan in this instance ? Now OBL becomes the little guy who's been directed by the ISI. Musharraf is in charge, no way from him to be out of the loop. See how quickly this balloons out of control. Implication is the Pak state attacking their biggest benefactor over the decades.

It is impossible for the americans to pass this over if it had any credibility. How could they work with the very people that attacked them. Their whole campaign would have to change.
The US passed this over and that is the fact.
Who says the US are working with the Pakistanis!!!


You don't have to prove anything in court, in an insurgency area you have the AFSPA to protect you.
AFPSA protects the soldier against accidental deaths of civilains. But you still have to prove that the dead man "had" a gun in his hand.


I presume the Sri lankans have a similar equivalent.
No they dont.

You are the judge, jury & executioner. Otherwise its not possible to do your job. An insurgency is a low intensity war.
It is the same in anti-terror operations.

Tronic
05 Sep 12,, 07:29
They'd have cut a deal, Ahmed would not be free like he is today, thereby corroborating the connection.

An assumption.


The money made its way to Atta, that establishes a direct link. That the money transfer occurred is without doubt and indian intel played a role in establishing it. Saeed to Atta.


And more importanly nothing directly incriminating has turned up to link them.

Nothing directly incriminating has turned up to link them... with the money.

Otherwise, the 9/11 plotters link up with the ISI through Saeed/Sheikh.

As I said earlier, the ISI's 'only saving grace is that they can feint innocence on the basis of 'not being in the loop'.

It doesn't excuse their relationship with terrorist organizations.



I was thinking about this in a reverse manner when you mentioned the NATO HQ attack. An attack that happens many years into a relationship as opposed to suspected links right at the outset.

So soon after 9/11 the pressure was high to act. Whatever the US decided to do there would have been some record of it, american actions would indicate how serious they were.

You're still willing to play pandit despite the Kunduz airlift? :rolleyes:



The embassy attack as i recall nobody died. What were the casualties with the NATO HQ attack ?

Doesn't change the intent.

Infact, the severity of that link up is much greater. It directly implicates the ISI in supporting Afghan militant groups to kill Americans in Afghanistan.


If casualties were minimal i expect the Paks get grilled about it and that's about it.

Apparently.

Double Edge
05 Sep 12,, 09:47
Nor will they, unless they do an OBL on him. His appeals case will never come to trial so he can be held indefinitely as a bargaining chip.
If he's a bargaining chip why does it have to be indefinitely :)

Double Edge
05 Sep 12,, 10:41
The US passed this over and that is the fact.
Look, all I have done so far is suggested one way to test your assertion.

In this case I thought a simple test would be to see corroboration in US media.

I would like to have to known that i've gone out of my way to help you corroborate that. This i have done as a courtesy to you. I was under no obligation to do so at all. I wasn't the one making the claim to begin with.

Its not the only test and failing the test does not necessarily mean there isn't a connection. What it means is the test was inconclusive. That's it.

So now we need a different test. Can you or anybody else suggest some ?

That really is the key. To establish some degree of credibilty. Forget about proving or disproving.

Because until i see ways to test your assertion i will remain unconvinced. As such assertions are like diktats or religious edicts.


It looks like a complete Pakistani state conspiracy....
There were on the verge of punery and were the pariah of the world after Kargil 1999.
Their econmony was in total collapse....they were no longer the blue eyed boys of the US after the Soviet pull out from Afghanistan in 1986.
The only way they could get free guns and $$ is by being important to the US once again....

It is no secret that Pak army units are supporting Taliban fighters. Which resulted in the US attack on the Pak BoP that killed 24 Pak soldiers.
They are bleeding the NATO units to ensure the Afghanistan remains their playground and retain their "strategic dept"
All of this has a degree of truth to it and in the particular contexts much more than that.

The problem as i see it is generalising it to explain everything else.

Double Edge
05 Sep 12,, 11:01
Nothing directly incriminating has turned up to link them... with the money.

Otherwise, the 9/11 plotters link up with the ISI through Saeed/Sheikh.

As I said earlier, the ISI's 'only saving grace is that they can feint innocence on the basis of 'not being in the loop'.

It doesn't excuse their relationship with terrorist organizations.
I think what's being used here is phone records betwen Shiekh & Ahmed. Evidence of which remains to be shown.

This then gets used to link Ahmed up with 9/11.


You're still willing to play pandit despite the Kunduz airlift? :rolleyes:
What does ISI in Konduz have to do with 9/11.


Doesn't change the intent.

Infact, the severity of that link up is much greater. It directly implicates the ISI in supporting Afghan militant groups to kill Americans in Afghanistan.
But is it enough to implicate the ISI in 9/11 ?

How to show the ISI had the intent to do 9/11.

Doktor
05 Sep 12,, 11:04
What does ISI in Konduz have to do with 9/11.
That was in relation to this:

So soon after 9/11 the pressure was high to act. Whatever the US decided to do there would have been some record of it, american actions would indicate how serious they were.
Even I can see it :tongue:

Agnostic Muslim
05 Sep 12,, 15:49
The claim was made that Ahmed instructed a transfer, not that he provided the money. A mangerial role is implied.

9/11 commision report said the source of those funds still remains unclear.

That sort of a role makes even less sense - the planning/plotting was done by AQ/KSM, funding was not an issue for the organization, so why would Ahmed instruct the transfer?

Agnostic Muslim
05 Sep 12,, 16:19
You're still willing to play pandit despite the Kunduz airlift? :rolleyes:

If the accounts of the Kunduz airlift are correct, then the US authorized the evacuation of ISI/PA operatives at the highest level, when they could have used the situation to their own advantage as a 'bargaining chip' if they had any credible evidence linking Gen. Ahmed/ISI to the 9/11 attacks.


Doesn't change the intent.

Infact, the severity of that link up is much greater. It directly implicates the ISI in supporting Afghan militant groups to kill Americans in Afghanistan.

I have yet to see any credible evidence that that the ISI ordered those attacks - what we have is just more speculation and 'guilt by association', with the difference being that this particualar speculation has been forcefully and widely disseminated through the Western media.

Agnostic Muslim
05 Sep 12,, 16:21
It looks like a complete Pakistani state conspiracy....
There were on the verge of punery and were the pariah of the world after Kargil 1999.
Their econmony was in total collapse....they were no longer the blue eyed boys of the US after the Soviet pull out from Afghanistan in 1986.
The only way they could get free guns and $$ is by being important to the US once again....

It is no secret that Pak army units are supporting Taliban fighters. Which resulted in the US attack on the Pak BoP that killed 24 Pak soldiers.
They are bleeding the NATO units to ensure the Afghanistan remains their playground and retain their "strategic dept"


Now that is a conspiracy theory that Zaid Hamid would be proud of! :D

Double Edge
05 Sep 12,, 16:26
That sort of a role makes even less sense - the planning/plotting was done by AQ/KSM, funding was not an issue for the organization, so why would Ahmed instruct the transfer?
It leads to the more general question of to what extent was the ISI involved in 9/11

Another problem with this theory is why would a chief micro manage an like this.

Tronic
05 Sep 12,, 19:39
I think what's being used here is phone records betwen Shiekh & Ahmed. Evidence of which remains to be shown.

Hold on a minute. Are you now casting doubts on Sheikh's connection with the ISI? That goes back a lot further than mere phone records.


This then gets used to link Ahmed up with 9/11.

You're beating a dead horse.


What does ISI in Konduz have to do with 9/11.

That was in response to; "So soon after 9/11 the pressure was high to act. Whatever the US decided to do there would have been some record of it, american actions would indicate how serious they were."

I just gave you an incident where the Pakistanis extracted senior Taliban and AQ out of Afghanistan and the Americans did squat.


But is it enough to implicate the ISI in 9/11 ?

How to show the ISI had the intent to do 9/11.

Again, dead horse.

Officer of Engineers
05 Sep 12,, 20:45
The fact that the 'cab drivers' are not deliberately assisting these individuals in conducting espionage for a foreign government is a key difference between them and AfridiYour cab driver gave the target location of the Pakistani Army HQ to a member of a foreign military.


Afridi knowingly and deliberately assisted a foreign government in conducting espionage inside Pakistan.What specific actions did Mr Afridi do that was of espionage nature?

If you don't understand, I will point it out to you. Mr Afridi did nothing to breach Pakistani class protected assets, unless you count OBL as a Paksitani asset.

Opening a phone book is not espionage.
Locating a wanted criminal by both Pakistan and the US is not espionage.
Talking to a foreign body without breaching Pakistani state secrets is not espionage.
Providing OBL's location to the US is not espionage.

Parihaka
05 Sep 12,, 20:47
If he's a bargaining chip why does it have to be indefinitely :)

"can", not "have". After all, OBL was kept under wraps for a decade and Khan still can't be questioned.

Parihaka
05 Sep 12,, 20:52
Providing OBL's location to the US is not espionage.

Unless of course OBL was a secret state asset.....

Tronic
06 Sep 12,, 00:02
If the accounts of the Kunduz airlift are correct, then the US authorized the evacuation of ISI/PA operatives at the highest level, when they could have used the situation to their own advantage as a 'bargaining chip' if they had any credible evidence linking Gen. Ahmed/ISI to the 9/11 attacks.

And what would be the consequences for Musharaf in Pakistan, had the US allowed the Northern Alliance to lynch those operatives, as well as the Taliban and AQ terrorists, alive?


I have yet to see any credible evidence that that the ISI ordered those attacks - what we have is just more speculation and 'guilt by association', with the difference being that this particualar speculation has been forcefully and widely disseminated through the Western media.

Leon Panetta and Mike Mullen are not credible sources for you? I consider them far more credible than the government of Pakistan.

lemontree
06 Sep 12,, 05:33
Now that is a conspiracy theory that Zaid Hamid would be proud of! :D

Which part...?...about Pakistani on the verge of punery OR Pak Army supporting Taliban insurgents in attacks on NATO troops?:rolleyes:

Agnostic Muslim
06 Sep 12,, 16:48
Which part...?...about Pakistani on the verge of punery OR Pak Army supporting Taliban insurgents in attacks on NATO troops?:rolleyes:
All of it :D

Agnostic Muslim
06 Sep 12,, 16:56
Your cab driver gave the target location of the Pakistani Army HQ to a member of a foreign military.
Did the cab driver provide that information deliberately and knowing that he was assisting a foreign military in an unauthorized operation of some sort?


What specific actions did Mr Afridi do that was of espionage nature?
He deliberately assisted a foreign government in conducting military/intelligence operations (the goals are irrelevant) on Pakistani soil without authorization from the relevant Pakistani institutions.


If you don't understand, I will point it out to you. Mr Afridi did nothing to breach Pakistani class protected assets, unless you count OBL as a Paksitani asset.
Afridi does not have to have 'breached any Pakistani class protected assets', all that needs to be shown here is that he knowingly collaborated with a foreign government to conduct espionage (goal does not matter) without authorization from the relevant Pakistani institutions, and therefore potentially compromised Pakistani national security.

To let Afridi go would allow others down the road to cooperate in espionage operations with foreign governments and use the excuse that 'they did not think they were breaching Pakistani class protected assets' - the act itself is the crime, not the ends that the act was committed for.

Opening a phone book is not espionage.
Locating a wanted criminal by both Pakistan and the US is not espionage.
Talking to a foreign body without breaching Pakistani state secrets is not espionage.
Providing OBL's location to the US is not espionage.
No, no, no, no - but a Pakistani citizen collaborating with a foreign government to conduct an espionage operation without authorization from the relevant Pakistani government institutions is a crime and is espionage.

The disconnect here appears to be that you think the ends (targeting OBL) justify the means (assisting a foreign government in espionage on Pakistani soil) - the ends do not justify the means - the 'means' are a crime committed by Afridi regardless of what the end was.

Agnostic Muslim
06 Sep 12,, 16:57
Unless of course OBL was a secret state asset.....

Doesn't matter if they were claiming to be hunting for Mickey Mouse - Afridi still committed treason.

Agnostic Muslim
06 Sep 12,, 16:59
And what would be the consequences for Musharaf in Pakistan, had the US allowed the Northern Alliance to lynch those operatives, as well as the Taliban and AQ terrorists, alive?
What, technically these 'spies' never existed.

Musharraf had made enemies as soon as he decided to cooperate with the US, the loss of ISI operatives in Kunduz would not have changed the hearts of many more.


Leon Panetta and Mike Mullen are not credible sources for you? I consider them far more credible than the government of Pakistan.
Not they are not, not without evidence to back up their claims, and AFAIK even they have acknowledged that they do not have any actual evidence linking the ISI to any of this.

Officer of Engineers
06 Sep 12,, 18:38
Did the cab driver provide that information deliberately and knowing that he was assisting a foreign military in an unauthorized operation of some sort?The cab driver deliberately and knowingly that he was assisting a foreign military. That was your main point.


He deliberately assisted a foreign government in conducting military/intelligence operations (the goals are irrelevant) on Pakistani soil without authorization from the relevant Pakistani institutions.Excuse me. When do you need authorization to look for criminals? If this was the case, then you would not convict anyone since no one can be a witness because they don't have the authorization to look at criminals.


Afridi does not have to have 'breached any Pakistani class protected assets', all that needs to be shown here is that he knowingly collaborated with a foreign government to conduct espionage (goal does not matter) without authorization from the relevant Pakistani institutions, and therefore potentially compromised Pakistani national security.Again what espionage. Identify the exact crime that he committed. Which of his actions violated Pakistani law? That he sought the $millions reward from the US?


To let Afridi go would allow others down the road to cooperate in espionage operations with foreign governments and use the excuse that 'they did not think they were breaching Pakistani class protected assets' - the act itself is the crime, not the ends that the act was committed for.I really don't care if you let him go or not. What I am saying is that your legal grounds are very, very shaky. If you prosecute him, you will have to prosecute cab drivers driving Indian military attaches around.


No, no, no, no - but a Pakistani citizen collaborating with a foreign government to conduct an espionage operation without authorization from the relevant Pakistani government institutions is a crime and is espionage.What is the espionage? Identify the exact act.


The disconnect here appears to be that you think the ends (targeting OBL) justify the means (assisting a foreign government in espionage on Pakistani soil) - the ends do not justify the means - the 'means' are a crime committed by Afridi regardless of what the end was.The disconnect here is that you cannot identify the crime other than he reported a known criminal to a foreign body which is not a crime by any stretch of the imagination.

Tronic
06 Sep 12,, 19:25
What, technically these 'spies' never existed.

Most of the lower ranks were FF guys embedded in with the Taliban. Every tom, dick and harry knew that much.


Musharraf had made enemies as soon as he decided to cooperate with the US, the loss of ISI operatives in Kunduz would not have changed the hearts of many more.

You're telling me your soldiers lives are worth squat to your higher ranking officers? Although the actions of your generals during the Kargil conflict would support your assertion, I can't imagine the indifference being that widespread.


Not they are not, not without evidence to back up their claims,

You're telling me that the US Secretary of Defence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both lied to the Senate Armed Services Committee because....? Evil plot to malign benevolent Pakistan?


and AFAIK even they have acknowledged that they do not have any actual evidence linking the ISI to any of this.

Sources please.

Doktor
06 Sep 12,, 19:38
Most of the lower ranks were FF guys embedded in with the Taliban. Every tom, dick and harry knew that much.
And I thought Sally was the intelligence oficer :red:



You're telling me your soldiers lives are worth squat to your higher ranking officers? Although the actions of your generals during the Kargil conflict would support your assertion, I can't imagine the indifference being that widespread.
How you got to that conclusion?


You're telling me that the US Secretary of Defence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both lied to the Senate Armed Services Committee because....? Evil plot to malign benevolent Pakistan?
Would you mind quoting or linking their statements? I am surprised there was no action i such claims were made.
What's wrong in having doubts of what officials say? I remember a high ranking US man in the UN showing maps of Iraqi's WMD.


Sources please.
Indeed ;)

Tronic
06 Sep 12,, 20:45
And I thought Sally was the intelligence oficer :red:

Point is, you don't have to be Sally to know that the PA was embedded with the Taliban.

It's an open secret, if a secret at all.


How you got to that conclusion?

I'm questioning, and doubting, AM's assertion that the PA ranks would be indifferent to whether he simply assisted the Americans, or if he assisted the Americans and willingly got his soldiers killed.

The Kargil reference was alluding to the fact that in the past, the Pakistani army has refused to take back bodies of its own soldiers while they were still in denial mode over the incursions. However, Afghanistan is a different ballgame.


Would you mind quoting or linking their statements? I am surprised there was no action i such claims were made.

Here's what Adm. Mullen had to say.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/world/asia/mullen-asserts-pakistani-role-in-attack-on-us-embassy.html?pagewanted=all
“With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” Admiral Mullen said in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We also have credible evidence that they were behind the June 28th attack against the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.” In short, he said, “the Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.”

“They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power,” he said. “But in reality, they have already lost that bet. By exporting violence, they’ve eroded their internal security and their position in the region. They have undermined their international credibility and threatened their economic well-being.”

He also said he did not think he had wasted his time by putting so much effort into improving ties with Pakistan’s government.

“I’ve done this because I believe that a flawed and difficult relationship is better than no relationship at all,” he said. “Some may argue I’ve wasted my time, that Pakistan is no closer to us than before, and may now have drifted even further away. I disagree. Military cooperation again is warming.”

.



What's wrong in having doubts of what officials say? I remember a high ranking US man in the UN showing maps of Iraqi's WMD.

Nothing wrong in having doubts of what officials have to say, but the experience that we have had as one of Pakistan's neighbours, and the Pakistani government's history with terror groups, lies and double dealings; there is also nothing wrong with us agreeing with the US experience and casting doubts on Pakistan's sincerity in the WoT.

Doktor
06 Sep 12,, 21:11
Point is, you don't have to be Sally to know that the PA was embedded with the Taliban.

It's an open secret, if a secret at all.
But you have to be Sally if you wont to be hot :biggrin:



I'm questioning, and doubting, AM's assertion that the PA ranks would be indifferent to whether he simply assisted the Americans, or if he assisted the Americans and willingly got his soldiers killed.
The way I got it from AM's post is it couldn't be worse for Musharaf once he supported Americans. If I was American I'd be pissed, given the status Pakistan still has - Major Non-NATO ally.


The Kargil reference was alluding to the fact that in the past, the Pakistani army has refused to take back bodies of its own soldiers while they were still in denial mode over the incursions. However, Afghanistan is a different ballgame.
"Denial mode" part is crucial.


Here's what Adm. Mullen had to say.
I was under impression you are talking about 9/11. Sorry.


Nothing wrong in having doubts of what officials have to say, but the experience that we have had as one of Pakistan's neighbours, and the Pakistani government's history with terror groups, lies and double dealings; there is also nothing wrong with us agreeing with the US experience and casting doubts on Pakistan's sincerity in the WoT.
Saddam used WMD in the past, yet they were not found.

Parihaka
06 Sep 12,, 21:43
the 'means' are a crime committed by Afridi regardless of what the end was.

No they are not, otherwise everyone in your country who in any way assists any representative of a foreign intelligence agency is guilty of treason. I ask again: what knowledge did Afridi have of the purpose of his DNA sampling?

zraver
07 Sep 12,, 01:03
What is the espionage? Identify the exact act.

He helped the US neutralize a protected Pakistani asset deep inside Pakistan, thus exposing Pakistan's state sponsorship of terrorism to the world at large.

Tronic
07 Sep 12,, 06:48
But you have to be Sally if you wont to be hot :biggrin:

Naah, I'd rather be the one keeping Sally hot... :biggrin:



The way I got it from AM's post is it couldn't be worse for Musharaf once he supported Americans.

AM's asserting that it couldn't get worse for Musharaff once he started supporting the Americans, even if he knowingly got his soldiers slaughtered. I'm just finding that hard to believe, but who knows, he could be right.


If I was American I'd be pissed, given the status Pakistan still has - Major Non-NATO ally.

It's hard to know what the American policy makers are thinking. Cost-benefit?


"Denial mode" part is crucial.

And once its overplayed as much as it has been, it's hard to take anything the GoP or PA says as credible.


Saddam used WMD in the past, yet they were not found.

Dok, that example is a bit off since WMDs were not popping out of Iraq and killing civilians in neighbouring countries. Terrorism from Pakistan is.

Doktor
07 Sep 12,, 07:18
Naah, I'd rather be the one keeping Sally hot... :biggrin:
That would make you Don (the officer):Dancing-Banana:


AM's asserting that it couldn't get worse for Musharaff once he started supporting the Americans, even if he knowingly got his soldiers slaughtered. I'm just finding that hard to believe, but who knows, he could be right.
And yet, the airlift occurred.


It's hard to know what the American policy makers are thinking. Cost-benefit?
Must be something in it for them. Just we can't see what.


And once its overplayed as much as it has been, it's hard to take anything the GoP or PA says as credible.
Officials still meet with them and talk to them. Why?


Dok, that example is a bit off since WMDs were not popping out of Iraq and killing civilians in neighbouring countries. Terrorism from Pakistan is.
Yet they were shown and Iraq was invaded. I can't believe Pakistan is that capable of doing wrong and hiding it that well - Not only they are not attacked, but their status is not changed as well. As I said above, there must be something big enough for US that we are not allowed to be seen. Or just can't see it.

Parihaka
07 Sep 12,, 08:29
Must be something in it for them. Just we can't see what.


Because Pakistan controls access to Afghanistan.

Doktor
07 Sep 12,, 09:11
Because Pakistan controls access to Afghanistan.

There are alternatives, maybe more costly, but there are.

Are the shorter routes incentive enough to keep pretending everything is fine?

30003

Parihaka
07 Sep 12,, 11:06
There are alternatives, maybe more costly, but there are.

Not in the first six years there weren't.

Doktor
07 Sep 12,, 11:11
What would all this mean? Pakistan played all the cards and now will behave?

Parihaka
07 Sep 12,, 11:14
What would all this mean? Pakistan played all the cards and now will behave?

I don't understand your question

Doktor
07 Sep 12,, 11:16
Well you said in the first 6 years they were the only route to Afghanistan and that's why they could do virtually anything.

Now that the routes are sorted and ISAF leaving in 2 years, what other cards they have to avoid reaction if they continue their suspicious activities?

Deltacamelately
07 Sep 12,, 15:03
Well you said in the first 6 years they were the only route to Afghanistan and that's why they could do virtually anything.

Now that the routes are sorted and ISAF leaving in 2 years, what other cards they have to avoid reaction if they continue their suspicious activities?
They still have the nuclear card and they believe that the US, or to that matter, nobody will ever touch them just because they have a nuclear arsenal that is growing by the minute.

Deltacamelately
07 Sep 12,, 15:05
Because Pakistan controls access to Afghanistan.
True, but it seems there's more than what meets the eyes.

Doktor
07 Sep 12,, 15:16
True, but it seems there's more than what meets the eyes.

I was under the same impression and frankly I don't buy the nuclear thing.

Parihaka
07 Sep 12,, 22:22
Well you said in the first 6 years they were the only route to Afghanistan and that's why they could do virtually anything.

Now that the routes are sorted and ISAF leaving in 2 years, what other cards they have to avoid reaction if they continue their suspicious activities?
Ah I see. No, they have very few cards left to play with regard the Americans. Once NATO's kit is out the money dries up and the war gets dirty. Pakistan can't complain, they've made some pretty tidy sums for very little effort.

tankie
09 Sep 12,, 01:31
As im writing im also watching a prog called Bin Laden shoot to kill , its a blow by blow account from start to finish of the assault on his hideout , the recce and planning which took place over many months was brilliant ,(big brother has nothing on it ) all coming about over one chance ,then tracked phone call , the only thing that was a let down was the black hawk crash which was down to rotor power loss because of the flying conditions at the compound , but all in all , salute for a great op . The SEALS performed magnificently along with everyone concerned , if Bin Laden had not been there and Obama admitted it was 50/50 his presidency was kaput , but ,was it 50/50 ? , The op was given 30 minutes to complete , but overran , they decided to destroy the 65 million bucks chopper so as not to fall into their hands but were cagey as they thought it would alert the Pak authority's , i thought it crashing may have done that , make of it what you will , but from the military aspect , Great op . :cool: ,

JAD_333
09 Sep 12,, 04:04
No question it was an extraordinary operation and Obama deserves due credit.

Tronic
09 Sep 12,, 08:15
That would make you Don (the officer):Dancing-Banana:

Obviously you have your Sally's mixed up...



Yet they were shown and Iraq was invaded. I can't believe Pakistan is that capable of doing wrong and hiding it that well -

Actually, they haven't really hidden it well.

All they have really done is deny responsibility. It doesn't really matter if the Pakistani leaders are deliberately ignorant or that they are unable to exert control over subordinate units in their security apparatus from assisting terror groups. The end result is the same. Innocent people end up dead in neighbouring countries. Pakistani actions have just aligned three out of their four neighbours together; India, Iran and Afghanistan.

By Zardari's own admission, the Pakistani government has actively supported the LeT, JeM, HuM, and many other India-oriented groups. These groups continue to function with Pakistani support, albeit, some being temporarily banned after 9/11 before proceeding with their activities with changed names. JuD and it's, UN designated terrorist, chief, Hafeez Saeed continues to openly give speeches in every major Pakistani city in front of thousands of his supporters promising to wage a "1000 year Jihad against India". Is this hidden?

The Pakistani government keeps contact with several other groups, such as the Haqqanis, even assisting them in attacking Indian, American and ISAF targets in Afghanistan.



Not only they are not attacked, but their status is not changed as well. As I said above, there must be something big enough for US that we are not allowed to be seen. Or just can't see it.

Logistics and neccesity seem to have played the big part in calculating the relationship with Pakistan. The US has just designated the Haqqanis as a terror group. The gates to declaring Pakistan as a "state sponsor of terrorism" have just flung wide open.

Parihaka
09 Sep 12,, 10:35
The US has just designated the Haqqanis as a terror group. The gates to declaring Pakistan as a "state sponsor of terrorism" have just flung wide open.

Yep. Lets see what happens in a year or two.

lemontree
10 Sep 12,, 10:16
Doesn't matter if they were claiming to be hunting for Mickey Mouse - Afridi still committed treason.

There is no dboubt, Afridi committed treason against Pakistan. He gave away their golden goose.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Sep 12,, 14:02
The cab driver deliberately and knowingly that he was assisting a foreign military. That was your main point.
Deliberately and knowingly assisting a foreign government to conduct espionage (for whatever reason), without relevant government authorization would constitute treason - so where do we disagree?


Excuse me. When do you need authorization to look for criminals? If this was the case, then you would not convict anyone since no one can be a witness because they don't have the authorization to look at criminals.
A foreign government needs authorization and therefore any Pakistani individuals looking to cooperate with a foreign government need Pakistani government authorization and oversight to prevent the abuse/misuse of that cooperation.


Again what espionage. Identify the exact crime that he committed. Which of his actions violated Pakistani law? That he sought the $millions reward from the US?
The espionage was the assistance he provided, and information he collected, for a foreign government without authorization from Pakistani authorities.


I really don't care if you let him go or not. What I am saying is that your legal grounds are very, very shaky. If you prosecute him, you will have to prosecute cab drivers driving Indian military attaches around.
Legal grounds are fine - most cab drivers transporting foreign military or diplomatic officials (who are in the country legally) from point A to point B are doing nothing wrong (as long as all they are doing is acting as a cabbie taking a customer from point A to point B) since these officials are authorized to travel (with restrictions) and use local services such as restaurants, cabs and movie theaters.

What is the espionage? Identify the exact act.
Deliberate cooperation with a foreign government for, according to now his latest interview, a goal he was not aware of, and therefore potentially compromising the national security of Pakistan.


The disconnect here is that you cannot identify the crime other than he reported a known criminal to a foreign body which is not a crime by any stretch of the imagination.
Again, his goals and the end result have no bearing on the treason charge which is based entirely on the fact that he conducted espionage for a foreign government - he, allegedly, is claiming to Fox news that he had no idea who the CIA was hunting for, which IMO is a damning indictment of his actions since the foreign government he was assisting could have had any number of goals that undermined Pakistani national security.

The act of espionage is the crime here - the goals for which the espionage was conducted are irrelevant.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Sep 12,, 14:07
Most of the lower ranks were FF guys embedded in with the Taliban. Every tom, dick and harry knew that much.

You're telling me your soldiers lives are worth squat to your higher ranking officers? Although the actions of your generals during the Kargil conflict would support your assertion, I can't imagine the indifference being that widespread.
National interest supersedes everything else - lets not get into the typical Kargil canards, its been discussed plenty elsewhere.


You're telling me that the US Secretary of Defence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both lied to the Senate Armed Services Committee because....? Evil plot to malign benevolent Pakistan?
Sources please.
Its not an 'evil plot', just the US SoD and CJCSC fabricating or making claims without any actual evidence to pressure Pakistan into doing US bidding and pursuing deeply flawed US policy prescriptions for Pakistan and Afghanistan- they did it before with WMD's in Iraq after all so there is precedent.

BTW, the recent comments from the US Government after the Haqqani designation made clear that the US SoD and CJCSC had no evidence to back up their claims, since the USG stated that 'not everyone in the Administration shares those views' - the only way that could be possible is if Panetta and Mullen were talking out of their rear ends without any real evidence to support their opinions.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Sep 12,, 14:12
No they are not, otherwise everyone in your country who in any way assists any representative of a foreign intelligence agency is guilty of treason. I ask again: what knowledge did Afridi have of the purpose of his DNA sampling?
No, only those that knowingly assist a foreign government in espionage, without GoP authorization.

The fact that Afridi compromised the health of many of those he vaccinated by never returning to administer the followup vaccines makes clear that he was aware the vaccination program was being run as a cover to gather DNA evidence and therefore makes him a knowing participant in an espionage operation that not only could have compromised Pakistani national security, but did in fact compromise the health of many children who were administered the first dose of the vaccine and thought they were 'covered'.

If an individual wants to assist a foreign government, then there are channels for that - the foreign government needs to obtain GoP approval for any project they are planning in Pakistan and they need approval to hire the necessary local individuals to work on the project.