PDA

View Full Version : ISI chief implicated in 9/11



Double Edge
05 Sep 12,, 15:41
We were spinning wheels about this in another thread so i thought we'd look at it with a more narrow focus.

The scenario is there are reliable intercepts that indicate the ISI chief interacting with the 9/11 plotters. The nature of those intercepts is less important than the link they establish. Whilst the information isn't directly incriminatiing it indicates that the chief was aware of the operation even suggest a degree of familiarity with it. And they leave the question of how involved the ISI were in 9/11 hanging. These intercepts are dated to before 9/11. Does not matter how old, a week, a month even more. But they occur before 9/11

This comes to light in late 2001 as a result of coordinated intel efforts with other countries.

The question is how significantly would this knowledge affect US strategy & deployment plans in the Afghanistan or would it continue unchanged as it has.

Also, would it ever be in US interest to ensure that this information never became public ?

If the public know the wiggle room is less. States can have secrets etc.

What complicates this for me is its no longer about non-state actors but state actors that too at the top level.

zraver
06 Sep 12,, 00:26
If the US had reasonable suspicion that Pakistan was in on 9-11 in late 2001, the world may well have seen its first nuclear weapons release since WWII with B-2's and stealthed cruise missiles hitting Pakistani nuke storage sites and air fields prior to a massive conventional air and sea campaign that would destroy the Pakistani military and then a ruthless blockade until all the major players were dead or in custody.

Powell wasn't kidding when he told Pakistan, "You're either with us or we bomb you into the stone age." Those words were delivered with the full support of the American people.

Parihaka
06 Sep 12,, 00:41
Armitage Refutes Musharraf's Claim (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-2035633.html)
comments
17
inShare.0More+
EmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInDigg.PrintDeliciousRed ditStumbleuponGoogle Bookmarks....Former U.S. diplomat Richard Armitage said Friday that an official document detailing his conversation with President Pervez Musharraf's intelligence chief confirms he did not threaten that Pakistan would be bombed back into the Stone Age should the Pakistani leader refuse to join the U.S. fight against al Qaeda.

In a radio interview, Armitage, who was then deputy secretary of state, also said Musharraf had fired the intelligence director shortly after he had relayed the alleged U.S. threat to the Pakistani president.

Musharraf said in an that Armitage told a Pakistani official the United States would attack Pakistan if it didn't back the war on terror.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said.

Armitage has disputed the language attributed to him but did not deny the message was a strong one.

"It did not happen. I was not authorized to say something like that. I did not say it," Armitage said Friday in an Associated Press Radio interview.

Armitage who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's right-hand man at the time said he called the State Department Friday morning to double-check his memory and had an employee read him the cable he had sent after his meeting with the Pakistani intelligence chief, whom Armitage identified as Gen. M.

"I reviewed the cable, or had it read to me this morning from the State Department, and there was in no way that threat," Armitage said.

The exchange occurred during the lead-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to flush al Qaeda fighters out of their bases and to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenants. Bin Laden and al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, remain at large.

"I told him in a very straightforward way this was a black-and-white issue for Americans. You were either for us or against us.

"He started to tell me about Pakistan's history. ... I said, 'You should communicate with your president and see if you are willing to cooperate with us.'"

He said he told Gen. M that if the answer was yes, they could meet the next day and Armitage would tell him the U.S. requirements. "They will be onerous," he said he told the Pakistani.

"The general came back the next day and said they were willing to go along with us. And I presented to him a list of items Secretary Powell and I had jotted down the night before."

He said several State Department personnel were in the room and heard the exchange, and "no one remembers a military threat. And the cable does not reflect that."

"I would note that Gen. M was fired not long after that by President Musharraf," Armitage added.
Armitage said he met with Musharraf on Thursday. He did not discuss their conversation.

Julie Reside, a State Department spokeswoman, said she knew no specifics of the Armitage documents, but department cables generally reflect conversations precisely.

Earlier Friday, President Bush said he was "taken aback" by Musharraf's comments. At a joint White House news conference, Mr. Bush praised Musharraf for being one of the first foreign leaders to come out after the Sept. 11, 2001.

Musharraf wouldn't comment on his statement, saying he has a book coming out and that he's promised the publisher he wouldn't talk about it.

Mr. Bush accepted that answer and told reporters to "buy the book," CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports. Musharraf's book will be published by Simon & Schuster, which is part of CBS Corp.

As for Musharraf, no matter how his relationship with the United States was started, a senior White House official said President Bush trusts him fully as a partner in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, reports CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

Agnostic Muslim
06 Sep 12,, 16:43
If the US had reasonable suspicion that Pakistan was in on 9-11 in late 2001, the world may well have seen its first nuclear weapons release since WWII with B-2's and stealthed cruise missiles hitting Pakistani nuke storage sites and air fields prior to a massive conventional air and sea campaign that would destroy the Pakistani military and then a ruthless blockade until all the major players were dead or in custody.

Powell wasn't kidding when he told Pakistan, "You're either with us or we bomb you into the stone age." Those words were delivered with the full support of the American people.
That would have been the time to do it too, with a degree of certainty that Pakistan would not be able to get off a nuclear response (attacking India, Israel, Gulf bases) given that (according to Musharraf's book) Pakistan did not have a working deliverable nuclear deterrent at that time.

Doktor
06 Sep 12,, 17:26
Z,

What reaction of the Russians and/or Chinese would be when that nuclear arming of the B-2s and the missiles occurs?

zraver
08 Sep 12,, 02:11
Z,

What reaction of the Russians and/or Chinese would be when that nuclear arming of the B-2s and the missiles occurs?

In the days right after 9-11, the Russian's wouldn't say boo, AQ had been supporting operations in Chechnya. The Chinese would scream bloody murder in their press and privately via diplomatic channels but otherwise wouldn't budge, with no mated nuclear weapons they lacked the ability to do anything but chest thump. 9-11 met the stated requirements for the US to use nuclear weapons in retaliation.

That is if they even knew, with a sea borne nuclear strike force and the bombers are kept in close proximity to the weapons, likely in dual use covered hangars like used in Europe. In 2001 the stealthed cruise missiles had not yet been retired either.

zraver
08 Sep 12,, 02:23
That would have been the time to do it too, with a degree of certainty that Pakistan would not be able to get off a nuclear response (attacking India, Israel, Gulf bases) given that (according to Musharraf's book) Pakistan did not have a working deliverable nuclear deterrent at that time.

Pakistan got lucky, if the US knew then what we know now, chances are Pakistan not Iraq would have seen a coalition government imposed.

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 12,, 03:33
If the US had reasonable suspicion that Pakistan was in on 9-11 in late 2001, the world may well have seen its first nuclear weapons release since WWII with B-2's and stealthed cruise missiles hitting Pakistani nuke storage sites and air fields prior to a massive conventional air and sea campaign that would destroy the Pakistani military and then a ruthless blockade until all the major players were dead or in custody.I don't think so.

1) The US won't need nukes. The PGMs were/are that good against non-nuclear hardened targets which Pakistan is not, not even today.

2) Nukes were not used during Tora Bora, the one place where nukes were justified, a hardened target against a mass murderer where no civilians were anywhere close, indicating cold hard calculations, and not emotions, determine the strikes.

3) We don't need nukes to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age.

Parihaka
08 Sep 12,, 04:35
3) We don't need nukes to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age.

Agreed. I doubt they'd even see it coming. There would have to be an invasion of sorts though to secure their nukes. There'd have to be a very delicate political tight-rope walked to placate the Chinese, i.e. their people secretly embedded and China the destination of the removed nuclear devices and material, in just the same way it has to be arranged for the Russians to receive Syria's chemical etc stockpile.

zraver
10 Sep 12,, 18:29
Agreed. I doubt they'd even see it coming. There would have to be an invasion of sorts though to secure their nukes. There'd have to be a very delicate political tight-rope walked to placate the Chinese, i.e. their people secretly embedded and China the destination of the removed nuclear devices and material, in just the same way it has to be arranged for the Russians to receive Syria's chemical etc stockpile.

If Assad is forced out and the CW are removed, the US is the most likely destination. The incinerator in Pine Bluff, Arkansas is purpose built for destroying CW and has an observer network already in place. Russia doesn't want them, they are illegal and would just have to be destroyed anyway.

DOR
11 Sep 12,, 05:21
We were spinning wheels about this in another thread so i thought we'd look at it with a more narrow focus.

The scenario is there are reliable intercepts that indicate the ISI chief interacting with the 9/11 plotters. The nature of those intercepts is less important than the link they establish. Whilst the information isn't directly incriminatiing it indicates that the chief was aware of the operation even suggest a degree of familiarity with it. And they leave the question of how involved the ISI were in 9/11 hanging. These intercepts are dated to before 9/11. Does not matter how old, a week, a month even more. But they occur before 9/11

This comes to light in late 2001 as a result of coordinated intel efforts with other countries.

The question is how significantly would this knowledge affect US strategy & deployment plans in the Afghanistan or would it continue unchanged as it has.

Also, would it ever be in US interest to ensure that this information never became public ?

If the public know the wiggle room is less. States can have secrets etc.

What complicates this for me is its no longer about non-state actors but state actors that too at the top level.


Follow the logic:

“The scenario is there are reliable intercepts that indicate the ISI chief interacting with the 9/11 plotters.”
* Henry Kissinger met with North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho on October 8, 1972.

“The nature of those intercepts is less important than the link they establish.”
* Six months later, the US and RVA launched the Cambodian Incursion.

“Whilst the information isn't directly incriminating it indicates that the chief was aware of the operation even suggest a degree of familiarity with it.”
* Therefore, Le Duc Tho must have known about the Cambodian Incursion.

Deltacamelately
11 Sep 12,, 11:45
If anything, had the US attacked Pakistan with or without nukes, there would be a war India couldn't stop getting squeezed in.
What that would lead to finally is anybody's guess?

Doktor
11 Sep 12,, 12:13
Maj,

Why would India get squeezed? AFAIK, GoI was not backed in any of her wars.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Sep 12,, 13:17
Pakistan got lucky, if the US knew then what we know now, chances are Pakistan not Iraq would have seen a coalition government imposed.

Wouldn't have worked - Pakistan is not Iraq, there is no 'majority sect oppressed by a minority dictator'. A US invasion would have only united the majority of the population of Pakistan, with only the handful of Baloch and Sindhi Feudal controlled groups aligning themselves with a US government.

Your comment illustrates the problem with the thinking in US policy making circles - a detached, simplistic, 'head in the clouds' type of policy prescription for complex problems.

Socrates
11 Sep 12,, 13:53
but the american people would not stand by and watch with a smile they would takeit apone them self to fight or something they did it in ww2 a hole plane team fought with the English with out the goverment

Deltacamelately
11 Sep 12,, 13:54
Maj,

Why would India get squeezed? AFAIK, GoI was not backed in any of her wars.
Doktor,

It ain't no US/Western pressure that might squeeze in India. Its the Paks. They would do every bit to pull in India along, while getting hammered by the US forces.
Once in, it will be a pretty dirty war for all the belligerents.

Socrates
11 Sep 12,, 13:57
it would make the goverrment chosse there peole or the U.S most goverment would chosse to stay in power

Doktor
11 Sep 12,, 14:25
Doktor,

It ain't no US/Western pressure that might squeeze in India. Its the Paks. They would do every bit to pull in India along, while getting hammered by the US forces.
Once in, it will be a pretty dirty war for all the belligerents.

Maj,

Thanks, for clarifying.

This is the same logic with Iran will hit Israel, Bahrain and other nations that are friendly to USA in case of attack from US?

Personally, I have issues with that logic. If a country is being attacked by the US military, their C&C will be hit first and hard. At least this is how I got it from Iraq and Serbia.

How will they launch attacks on anyone after that?

Then, there is the "get the nukes first" addition wrt Pakistan which makes the math weird.

lemontree
12 Sep 12,, 05:19
Wouldn't have worked - Pakistan is not Iraq, there is no 'majority sect oppressed by a minority dictator'. A US invasion would have only united the majority of the population of Pakistan, with only the handful of Baloch and Sindhi Feudal controlled groups aligning themselves with a US government.

Your comment illustrates the problem with the thinking in US policy making circles - a detached, simplistic, 'head in the clouds' type of policy prescription for complex problems.
Pakistan as you see it are the Punjabi muslim sunnis.....the Baloch, Sindhis and Baltis would have sided with the US.
Irrespective of that, the US would have bombed you back to the stone age.

You have to get out of your "head in the clouds" type of belief that Pakistan is invincible.

Deltacamelately
12 Sep 12,, 14:11
Maj,

Thanks, for clarifying.

This is the same logic with Iran will hit Israel, Bahrain and other nations that are friendly to USA in case of attack from US?

Personally, I have issues with that logic. If a country is being attacked by the US military, their C&C will be hit first and hard. At least this is how I got it from Iraq and Serbia.

How will they launch attacks on anyone after that?

Then, there is the "get the nukes first" addition wrt Pakistan which makes the math weird.
The PA Generals, or atleast a section of them are paranoid about India. They want to start afresh, i.e. to compete with India starting from scratch, even if it means starting the race with both sides wielding wooden spears instead of guns and fighters. They don't want to go down alone, rather pull India alongwith.

How/if they manage this is debatable, but they are likely to rush to their eastern borders with the first American bomb dropping on their head.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Sep 12,, 14:25
Pakistan as you see it are the Punjabi muslim sunnis.....
No, that is how you and many other rabid anti-Pakistan commentators see it.

the Baloch, Sindhis and Baltis would have sided with the US.
Only the Sardar/Wadera controlled Baloch and Sindhi tribes would side with the US, and together they make up an insignificant minority. Both Sindh and Balochistan have a significant population of Pakhtun, Punjabis and Muhajir groups, so there would be no 'neat and tidy delineation of warring sides' even in Sindh and Balochistan, and outside of India, no one really buys the argument of the residents of the Northern Areas supporting India or the US.

Irrespective of that, the US would have bombed you back to the stone age.
That was not the point I was responding to, it was the claim by Zraver that an Iraq style transitional government would be in place in Pakistan right now had the US attacked Pakistan instead of Iraq.


You have to get out of your "head in the clouds" type of belief that Pakistan is invincible.
Understanding my posts before you comment would really help.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Sep 12,, 14:28
The PA Generals, or atleast a section of them are paranoid about India. They want to start afresh, i.e. to compete with India starting from scratch, even if it means starting the race with both sides wielding wooden spears instead of guns and fighters. They don't want to go down alone, rather pull India alongwith.

How/if they manage this is debatable, but they are likely to rush to their eastern borders with the first American bomb dropping on their head.

The PA Generals are no more paranoid about India than the US Generals were about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and some conservatives continue to be WRT China and Russia today.

The whole 'start from scratch' canard is based on comments attributed to some retired officer working for some political party - using that to generalize sentiment across the entire PA Officer Corps would be silly.

lemontree
13 Sep 12,, 05:22
No, that is how you and many other rabid anti-Pakistan commentators see it.
Your nation made the world rabid towards your nation, so dont blame us for our views.


Only the Sardar/Wadera controlled Baloch and Sindhi tribes would side with the US, and together they make up an insignificant minority. Both Sindh and Balochistan have a significant population of Pakhtun, Punjabis and Muhajir groups, so there would be no 'neat and tidy delineation of warring sides' even in Sindh and Balochistan, and outside of India, no one really buys the argument of the residents of the Northern Areas supporting India or the US.
That is what you would like to believe.


That was not the point I was responding to, it was the claim by Zraver that an Iraq style transitional government would be in place in Pakistan right now had the US attacked Pakistan instead of Iraq.
I agree with you. When the Pakistanis them selves cannot govern that state, how can a US installed govt govern!


Understanding my posts before you comment would really help
Try sticking to facts and not fairy tale, that would really help.

zraver
13 Sep 12,, 06:31
Wouldn't have worked - Pakistan is not Iraq, there is no 'majority sect oppressed by a minority dictator'. A US invasion would have only united the majority of the population of Pakistan, with only the handful of Baloch and Sindhi Feudal controlled groups aligning themselves with a US government.

Your comment illustrates the problem with the thinking in US policy making circles - a detached, simplistic, 'head in the clouds' type of policy prescription for complex problems.

In 2001 Pakistan had no air force to speak of, no real navy and its best tank was an up-gunned Chicom copy of the T-55 that could not penetrate the Abrams armor or fight at night. Pakistani unity hasn't stopped India, and lately the Pakistani army has been fighting a virtual civil war against the Pashtun part of the country which is only nominally under federal control anyway even at the best of times. Pakistan's unity is so fragile the country has internal passports, the numbers of minorities have been shrinking as they get forced out, extremism not nationalism is the force on the rise...

To this must be added the effects of a US attack. I still say nuclear to make sure the Pakistani nukes stayed dead. That is going to cause shock, to which you must add in the sudden sinking of the Pakistani navy, the collapse of the power grid, attacks on C4SRI assets all on night 1. Then a sustained bombing campaign while the US and UK prepare an invasion force. Tough pickle for Pakistan, any army unit that tries to leave the Indo-pak border gets clobbered by the USAF/USN and leaves its brothers that much weaker if India decides to join the coalition of the willing to teach Pakistan a lesson about supporting terror, after all with the US leading the charge and 9-11 providing political cover at the UN its time for some sub-continental score settling.

While all this is going on, US media outlets interviewing the various talking heads and retired generals start talking about Balouchistan, Pashtunistan and Punjabistan along the lines we see of a new federal semi autonomous arrangement like Iraq (Sunni, Shia, Kurd). Several Pakistani expats along with Bhutto are joined into a Free Pakistan government ready to land in Pakistan and set up a new moderate government.

Bhutto's supporters would be quick to jump on the chance to give the military some payback. Of course the Musharraf (if he is still alive after US air strikes) will probably strike first and repressive measures against Punjabi moderates aligned with Bhutto will certainly not help Pakistani unity.

Deltacamelately
13 Sep 12,, 07:42
Jason. That was mean. :D

Minskaya
13 Sep 12,, 07:53
In 2001 Pakistan had no air force to speak of, no real navy and its best tank was an up-gunned Chicom copy of the T-55 that could not penetrate the Abrams armor or fight at night. Pakistani unity hasn't stopped India, and lately the Pakistani army has been fighting a virtual civil war against the Pashtun part of the country which is only nominally under federal control anyway even at the best of times. Pakistan's unity is so fragile the country has internal passports, the numbers of minorities have been shrinking as they get forced out, extremism not nationalism is the force on the rise....
Pakistan is also a failed monetary state. If the US should entirely cut off all current funding, Pakistan's treasury would be in severe straits within a fortnight.

Deltacamelately
13 Sep 12,, 11:32
The PA Generals are no more paranoid about India than the US Generals were about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and some conservatives continue to be WRT China and Russia today.
Irrelevant. The paranoia has 60 plus years of forensic evidence.


The whole 'start from scratch' canard is based on comments attributed to some retired officer working for some political party - using that to generalize sentiment across the entire PA Officer Corps would be silly.
It would be a canard only if the entire PA Officer Corps would have managed to preserve the secular and professional attributes it inherited from the British Indian Army. However, a significant section, if not the majority have degraded to that of religious zealots swearing Jihad and training/abetting terrorists. You have your own rights to disagree, but then the world opinion is severly tilting away from what you may want to believe.

lemontree
14 Sep 12,, 05:43
Jason. That was mean. :D

...and I thought that I was being mean, Jason outdid me :D

lemontree
14 Sep 12,, 05:47
Pakistan is also a failed monetary state. If the US should entirely cut off all current funding, Pakistan's treasury would be in severe straits within a fortnight.

Yes, but Pakistan can get funding from the Saudi's and teh Chinese. But with the Chineses they will have to sell themselves, and they are pretty good at that anyways.

Deltacamelately
17 Sep 12,, 08:50
...and I thought that I was being mean, Jason outdid me :D
He presented a scenario which I doubt

i) Either AM and his countrymen have not perceived
ii) They wilfully prefer to ignore

What Pakistan should really really worry is a day when the UN, in whatever scenario, gives a green go ahead and I for one do not believe in Pakistan's invincibility.

zraver
17 Sep 12,, 14:04
He presented a scenario which I doubt

i) Either AM and his countrymen have not perceived
ii) They wilfully prefer to ignore

What Pakistan should really really worry is a day when the UN, in whatever scenario, gives a green go ahead and I for one do not believe in Pakistan's invincibility.

My scenario was based on what I felt the US would have done in October 2001 if we had proof then of ISI involvement in 9-11. It was based on US and Pakistani capability then. I added India because in October 2001 the wounds, anger and grief from the Indian Parliament attack were still fresh and raw. It would have been a nightmare scenario for Pakistan. The worlds most powerful military alliance allied with Pakistan's biggest rival both set upon tearing Pakistan apart at the seams for supporting international terrorist strikes.

Deltacamelately
18 Sep 12,, 11:30
He who doesn't learns, falls. I personally wonder why Pakistan continues to push itself towards that dark corner of terror and jihad, hated by the world community, looked down by former allies, whereas it could always become a home for fine talented people, who could embrace and get embraced in return, by the very people it is waging war against. Where are the gains? From what I see, its loss and further loss that they are incurring while killing and getting killed by their own countrymen.

What is even a greater surprise - Why aren't the citizen willing to see through what their rulers are upto? By what seems obvious in the cyber world, 99% Paksitanis themselves justify their masters ill-concieved proxy war against the free world, as justified and consider Pakistan and their own self as victimized.

Agnostic Muslim
18 Sep 12,, 13:49
In 2001 Pakistan had no air force to speak of, no real navy and its best tank was an up-gunned Chicom copy of the T-55 that could not penetrate the Abrams armor or fight at night. Pakistani unity hasn't stopped India, and lately the Pakistani army has been fighting a virtual civil war against the Pashtun part of the country which is only nominally under federal control anyway even at the best of times. Pakistan's unity is so fragile the country has internal passports, the numbers of minorities have been shrinking as they get forced out, extremism not nationalism is the force on the rise...

To this must be added the effects of a US attack. I still say nuclear to make sure the Pakistani nukes stayed dead. That is going to cause shock, to which you must add in the sudden sinking of the Pakistani navy, the collapse of the power grid, attacks on C4SRI assets all on night 1. Then a sustained bombing campaign while the US and UK prepare an invasion force. Tough pickle for Pakistan, any army unit that tries to leave the Indo-pak border gets clobbered by the USAF/USN and leaves its brothers that much weaker if India decides to join the coalition of the willing to teach Pakistan a lesson about supporting terror, after all with the US leading the charge and 9-11 providing political cover at the UN its time for some sub-continental score settling.

While all this is going on, US media outlets interviewing the various talking heads and retired generals start talking about Balouchistan, Pashtunistan and Punjabistan along the lines we see of a new federal semi autonomous arrangement like Iraq (Sunni, Shia, Kurd). Several Pakistani expats along with Bhutto are joined into a Free Pakistan government ready to land in Pakistan and set up a new moderate government.

Bhutto's supporters would be quick to jump on the chance to give the military some payback. Of course the Musharraf (if he is still alive after US air strikes) will probably strike first and repressive measures against Punjabi moderates aligned with Bhutto will certainly not help Pakistani unity.

Again, I was not referring to Pakistani military capabilities nor her ability to hold off a US military invasion - what I was pointing out was that your comment of 'Pakistan having a US backed transitional government instead of Iraq' displayed the naivete and shallow thinking that one has come to expect from US policy making circles. Since you completely missed the point, let me try again - an Iraq or Afghanistan style transitional government would simply not work because Pakistan did not (in 2001), and certainly does not now, have a 'regime' that a significant majority or plurality could rally around (or silently support), like the Taliban or Saddam. Musharraf was a 'popular dictator' and his popularity, outside of the religious extremist constituency, was pretty high in 2001.

All this stuff about 'internal Pakistani fissures' ignores the ground realities - the most violent protests in Pakistan against the anti-Islam film in the US were in fact led by two Shia religious groups, the same sect that the Indians would have you believe are going to 'jump right on board the US bandwagon'. Bhutto might have tried to help but the fact that the US had imposed sanctions in Pakistan after her nuclear tests and had invaded Afghanistan would have meant that any public cooperation with US was a 'death sentence', and would have had minimal support in the face of a US attack on Pakistan.

The problem with US thinking is that too many of you have this 'God/hero complex' - 'The US will ally with XYZ and be welcomed as liberators' - it barely worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would have failed right off the bat in Pakistan. A US backed Bhutto in Islamabad after a US invasion would make Karzai's 'Mayor of Kabul' title look good.

Have you paid any attention to Zardari's poll numbers of late?

Agnostic Muslim
18 Sep 12,, 13:56
Irrelevant. The paranoia has 60 plus years of forensic evidence.
The Pakistani military's concerns about an Indian military threat are just as justifiable as the US military's 'paranoia' over the Soviet Cold War threat.


It would be a canard only if the entire PA Officer Corps would have managed to preserve the secular and professional attributes it inherited from the British Indian Army. However, a significant section, if not the majority have degraded to that of religious zealots swearing Jihad and training/abetting terrorists. You have your own rights to disagree, but then the world opinion is severly tilting away from what you may want to believe.
Preserving secular attributes or not has nothing to do with the the fact that you are choosing to take the comments attributed to some anonymous retired PA officer working for a political party and apply them across the board to the entire PA officer corps without any credible justification whatsoever.

Religious and social conservatism (or being non-secular) does not equate to 'religious zealots and abetting terrorism'. I disagree with your outlandish claims because you have no evidence to support them - if you want to turn this into a popularity contest (majority of world opinion) rather than actually debate and justify your claims, then why not reduce these discussions to posting polling data and survey results and I can stop wasting my time with you?

Doktor
18 Sep 12,, 14:07
Looking on the ground, Iraq's or Afghanistan's provisional governments didn't work as well.

Deltacamelately
18 Sep 12,, 14:08
Again, I was not referring to Pakistani military capabilities nor her ability to hold off a US military invasion - what I was pointing out was that your comment of 'Pakistan having a US backed transitional government instead of Iraq' displayed the naivete and shallow thinking that one has come to expect from US policy making circles. Since you completely missed the point, let me try again - an Iraq or Afghanistan style transitional government would simply not work because Pakistan did not (in 2001), and certainly does not now, have a 'regime' that a significant majority or plurality could rally around (or silently support), like the Taliban or Saddam. Musharraf was a 'popular dictator' and his popularity, outside of the religious extremist constituency, was pretty high in 2001.

All this stuff about 'internal Pakistani fissures' ignores the ground realities - the most violent protests in Pakistan against the anti-Islam film in the US were in fact led by two Shia religious groups, the same sect that the Indians would have you believe are going to 'jump right on board the US bandwagon'. Bhutto might have tried to help but the fact that the US had imposed sanctions in Pakistan after her nuclear tests and had invaded Afghanistan would have meant that any public cooperation with US was a 'death sentence', and would have had minimal support in the face of a US attack on Pakistan.

The problem with US thinking is that too many of you have this 'God/hero complex' - 'The US will ally with XYZ and be welcomed as liberators' - it barely worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would have failed right off the bat in Pakistan. A US backed Bhutto in Islamabad after a US invasion would make Karzai's 'Mayor of Kabul' title look good.

Have you paid any attention to Zardari's poll numbers of late?
AM,

Tell me, are you supportive of your government's stand on all issues being discussed here?
If yes, then my contention that 99% Pakistani citizen believe in the "innocense" of their regime hold true and is a sad reality or rather scarry.

If no, then there is definitely a sizeable population that would rally around the notion of providing an alternate regime, once they get enough men/material support and relieved-off the fear of Islamists/PAs retaliation.

Doktor
18 Sep 12,, 14:15
The Pakistani military's concerns about an Indian military threat are just as justifiable as the US military's 'paranoia' over the Soviet Cold War threat.
I am not very familiar with Indo-Pak wars, but when was the last time India invaded Pakistan?

Deltacamelately
18 Sep 12,, 14:22
The Pakistani military's concerns about an Indian military threat are just as justifiable as the US military's 'paranoia' over the Soviet Cold War threat.
Really? You mass 80% of your forces stratight facing the border. We keep all the Strike Corps deep inside the mainland and you still get paranoid?
Or is it because you know that your acts of love from time to time gets the Indian adrenalin rushing and wanting?

Preserving secular attributes or not has nothing to do with the the fact that you are choosing to take the comments attributed to some anonymous retired PA officer working for a political party and apply them across the board to the entire PA officer corps without any credible justification whatsoever.
Mumbai.
No retired/political General could authorize the unleashing of that marauding hit sqad. Not by a mile.
Your Generals/Officers have civilian blood on their sleeves, hence zealots.


Religious and social conservatism (or being non-secular) does not equate to 'religious zealots and abetting terrorism'. I disagree with your outlandish claims because you have no evidence to support them - if you want to turn this into a popularity contest (majority of world opinion) rather than actually debate and justify your claims, then why not reduce these discussions to posting polling data and survey results and I can stop wasting my time with you?
Incidently, world opinion is indeed a great indicator. How much hostility does a Pakistani citizen confront on international forms defending ISI/Talibans?
If that's an indicator, you have your case closed big time.

Agnostic Muslim
18 Sep 12,, 14:24
I am not very familiar with Indo-Pak wars, but when was the last time India invaded Pakistan?

Junagadh in 1947, East Pakistan in 1971, Siachen 1984.

Agnostic Muslim
18 Sep 12,, 14:28
AM,

Tell me, are you supportive of your government's stand on all issues being discussed here?
That is a broad and generic question. If you have questions on specific policy positions you allege the GoP takes, then we can discuss those individually, starting from whether or not the GoP even takes the positions you claim it does on certain issues.

If yes, then my contention that 99% Pakistani citizen believe in the "innocense" of their regime hold true and is a sad reality or rather scarry.
If no, then there is definitely a sizeable population that would rally around the notion of providing an alternate regime, once they get enough men/material support and relieved-off the fear of Islamists/PAs retaliation.
Again, broad generalizations and shallow questions expecting simplistic and shallow answers - this is hopefully not the direction that Indian policy making circles are moving towards ...

Agnostic Muslim
18 Sep 12,, 14:30
Looking on the ground, Iraq's or Afghanistan's provisional governments didn't work as well.

They didn't, but in both cases there was a temporary 'lull' and 'period of peace' as two widely despised autocratic regimes were toppled. My point is that in Pakistan even that 'lull' would have not have been available, because Musharraf in fact ended up being more popular that both Bhutto and Sharif, at least until 2007-2008, and his regime ended up being far more tolerant and 'moderate' than the previous regimes of Bhutto and Sharif.

Deltacamelately
18 Sep 12,, 14:39
That is a broad and generic question. If you have questions on specific policy positions you allege the GoP takes, then we can discuss those individually, starting from whether or not the GoP even takes the positions you claim it does on certain issues.

Again, broad generalizations and shallow questions expecting simplistic and shallow answers - this is hopefully not the direction that Indian policy making circles are moving towards ...
I gave you a starter. Mumbai.

Your government and military have washed their hands in calling it a "Non-State Actor" operation. Majority of the Pakistani internet warriors believe this to be true.
Your take if similar, is scary. Otherwise, I would have hope in an alternate regime that could be assembled.

Doktor
18 Sep 12,, 15:06
Junagadh in 1947, East Pakistan in 1971, Siachen 1984.

Thanks for the info.

From wiki I could find only this:


On 22 October 1947 the Pakistani armed forces crossed the border with the claim that they needed to suppress a rebellion on the southeast of the kingdom.
Junagadh was in November.


The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a military conflict between India and Pakistan. Indian, Bangladeshi and international sources consider the beginning of the war to be Operation Chengiz Khan, Pakistan's 3 December 1971 preemptive strike on 11 Indian airbases.[21][22] Lasting just 13 days it is considered one of the shortest wars in history.[23][24]


The Siachen Conflict, sometimes referred to as the Siachen War, is a military conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed Siachen Glacier region in Kashmir. A cease-fire went into effect in 2003. The conflict began in 1984 with India's successful Operation Meghdoot during which it wrested control of the Siachen Glacier (unoccupied and not demarcated area).
Arguable if it was actually an invasion.

I am not judging or anything, just trying to understand a bit more.

Firestorm
19 Sep 12,, 02:23
Junagadh in 1947, East Pakistan in 1971, Siachen 1984.

Uh, Siachen wasn't in Pakistan. Neither was Junagadh. The refugee problem and the PA's murderous rampage in East Pakistan had forced India's hand in 1971. Despite that, technically it was Pakistan that struck first with the airstrike. Just like 1947. Just like 1965. And just like 1999.

Tronic
19 Sep 12,, 03:52
Junagadh in 1947,

The irony here is that you cannot claim that India aggressed in Junagadh without accepting the fact that Pakistan aggressed in Kashmir. When the Pakistani army moved into Kashmir, within a month, India secured Junagadh. If you argue that Junagadh belongs to Pakistan, than how can you argue in the same breath that Kashmir does not belong to India? Can't have your cake and eat it too!


East Pakistan in 1971,

It had to happen. Your dictator and army were killing East Pakistanis en mass, resulting in East Paks crossing over to India in their millions and settling in refugee camps. War became a cheaper option than feeding millions of refugees. Pakistan made the argument for war even more easier when they struck Indian airbases in a very poor attempt to replicate Israel's surprise bombing run of Egypt's airbases.


Siachen 1984.

Siachen was not Pakistani territory so the claim of India "invading" Pakistani territory is a farce. After Pakistan's surrender in the '71 war, your government agreed to the clause "(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line."

The problem was with the LoC at Siachen where the line was not demarcated, and the clause was left as;


(d) From Dalunang eastwards the cease-fire line will follow the general line point 15495, Ishman, Manus, Gangam, Gunderman, Point 13620, Funkar (Point 17628), Marmak, Natsara, Shangruti (Point 1,531), Chorbat La (Point 16700), Chalunka (on the Shyok River), Khor, thence north to the glaciers. This portion of the cease- fire line shall be demarcated in detail on the basis of the factual position as of 27 July, 1949, by the local commanders assisted by United Nations military observers.

Now, "thence North to the Glaciers" began to be translated differently in Pakistan, when they started to claim Siachen as their own territory and started issuing visas and sending international mountaineering expeditions to the Glacier! What's more, when the Indian army decided to secure the Glacier, they discovered your military posts were already sitting atop!

Now, take one look at the Siachen map:

30236

"Thence North to the Glaciers", if translated as in India, would be draw a straight 90 degrees line from Khor upwards, 2/3rds of the glacier fall on the Indian side. Pakistan's translation of "thence North to the Glaciers" is a line traversing a North-East trajectory making the Siachen glacier part of Pakistani territory. So, it's up to you whose translation, of a very poorly worded document, you buy.

zraver
19 Sep 12,, 03:55
Again, I was not referring to Pakistani military capabilities nor her ability to hold off a US military invasion - what I was pointing out was that your comment of 'Pakistan having a US backed transitional government instead of Iraq' displayed the naivete and shallow thinking that one has come to expect from US policy making circles.

Its a policy backed by centuries of use and dozens of applications among some of the most fanactic peoples the world has ever seen.



Since you completely missed the point, let me try again - an Iraq or Afghanistan style transitional government would simply not work because Pakistan did not (in 2001), and certainly does not now, have a 'regime' that a significant majority or plurality could rally around (or silently support), like the Taliban or Saddam. Musharraf was a 'popular dictator' and his popularity, outside of the religious extremist constituency, was pretty high in 2001.

Pakistan has multiple separatist/ tribal movements. An imposed government is all these groups have ever had. At the end of the day who ever controls the guns, food and power grid controls the government.


All this stuff about 'internal Pakistani fissures' ignores the ground realities - the most violent protests in Pakistan against the anti-Islam film in the US were in fact led by two Shia religious groups, the same sect that the Indians would have you believe are going to 'jump right on board the US bandwagon'.

Immaterial, there are always people willing to step up.


Bhutto might have tried to help but the fact that the US had imposed sanctions in Pakistan after her nuclear tests and had invaded Afghanistan would have meant that any public cooperation with US was a 'death sentence', and would have had minimal support in the face of a US attack on Pakistan.

She or whoever would have come in under an international standard, not the US and have been backed by NATO, IMF and World Bank.


The problem with US thinking is that too many of you have this 'God/hero complex' - 'The US will ally with XYZ and be welcomed as liberators' - it barely worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would have failed right off the bat in Pakistan. A US backed Bhutto in Islamabad after a US invasion would make Karzai's 'Mayor of Kabul' title look good.

No the problem is liver lillied politicians not willing enforce peace via liberally applied summary execution. In 1945 Eisenhower issued a public proclamation- any Geramn civilian caught under arms would be summarily executed. Not one US or UK soldier was killed by SS holdouts or Nazi dead enders (though those groups did kill numerous Germans)


Have you paid any attention to Zardari's poll numbers of late?

Why would i he is just an army puppet.

Double Edge
03 Oct 12,, 12:00
If the US had reasonable suspicion that Pakistan was in on 9-11 in late 2001, the world may well have seen its first nuclear weapons release since WWII with B-2's and stealthed cruise missiles hitting Pakistani nuke storage sites and air fields prior to a massive conventional air and sea campaign that would destroy the Pakistani military and then a ruthless blockade until all the major players were dead or in custody.
Would an intercept be sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion ?

Suspicion by itself sure, just the fact that the two were talking to each other is in itself damning and sufficient to get a lot of people jumpy. It implicates the ISI chief as having had communications with the 9/11 plotters. The extent of the chief's knowledge about the 9/11 operation then becomes an open question. Not a smoking gun but no smoke without fire sort of thing.

This question would then have to be further investigated to see whether additional corroborating evidence comes to light. Now if that is forthcoming then the case gets stronger and closer to reasonable suspicion. You would then start to hear the intercept on your local news channels and the case would slowly & surely be built to attack Pakistan.

Otherwise its just an intercept. yes, its dodgy, but no better than circumstantial.

The larger point i wanted to establish with this thread is that if ever such a link came to light it would be impossible for the US to ignore even if not adequately clinching. The media there would be busy talking about it and it would be documented.

zraver
05 Oct 12,, 20:12
Would an intercept be sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion ?

Suspicion by itself sure, just the fact that the two were talking to each other is in itself damning and sufficient to get a lot of people jumpy. It implicates the ISI chief as having had communications with the 9/11 plotters. The extent of the chief's knowledge about the 9/11 operation then becomes an open question. Not a smoking gun but no smoke without fire sort of thing.

This question would then have to be further investigated to see whether additional corroborating evidence comes to light. Now if that is forthcoming then the case gets stronger and closer to reasonable suspicion. You would then start to hear the intercept on your local news channels and the case would slowly & surely be built to attack Pakistan.

Otherwise its just an intercept. yes, its dodgy, but no better than circumstantial.

The larger point i wanted to establish with this thread is that if ever such a link came to light it would be impossible for the US to ignore even if not adequately clinching. The media there would be busy talking about it and it would be documented.

But with the passage of time the imperative to act goes away.

Agnostic Muslim
05 Oct 12,, 22:25
Its a policy backed by centuries of use and dozens of applications among some of the most fanactic peoples the world has ever seen.

Yet it has largely failed in Afghanistan and the only reason there is even a semblance of order in Iraq is because the majority community in the country found common cause with the US in overthrowing Saddam and fighting back against AQ - the US does not and will not have common cause with anything but an insignificant minority of Pakistanis were it to attempt to pull yet another 'I am God Almighty come to heal your peoples and lead you to the righteous path' act ala Iraq and Afghanistan.


Pakistan has multiple separatist/ tribal movements. An imposed government is all these groups have ever had. At the end of the day who ever controls the guns, food and power grid controls the government.

Outside of the Baloch and Sindhi groups (that even put together cannot do much in Pakistan as is) there would be no groups to have common cause with the US - this is yet more evidence of the la la land many analysts in the US live in when it comes to analyzing Pakistan and its internal dynamics.

Immaterial, there are always people willing to step up.
Of course, but there have to be enough of them to prevent those that do step up from experiencing the 'Najibullah treatment'. The Shia and Kurds in Iraq and the non-Pakhtun in Afghanistan offered the US that 'significant number of people willing to step up' in order to have some modicum of stability - there would be nothing remotely close to that support base in Pakistan.


She or whoever would have come in under an international standard, not the US and have been backed by NATO, IMF and World Bank.
Doesn't matter who she would have been backed by internationally - given that your hypothetical scenario includes decimating the Pakistani military through military strikes before installing a puppet government in Islamabad, the puppets would have no disciplined and strong domestic security institution to actually defend them and allow them to exert control over the country.

No the problem is liver lillied politicians not willing enforce peace via liberally applied summary execution. In 1945 Eisenhower issued a public proclamation- any Geramn civilian caught under arms would be summarily executed. Not one US or UK soldier was killed by SS holdouts or Nazi dead enders (though those groups did kill numerous Germans)
Whatever excuse you want to come up with, let me know when the US successfully implements your 'solution' in the clusterf*** it has already created.


Why would i he is just an army puppet.
Hardly, his weakness is of his own making - he presides over a corrupt, incompetent, US boot licking regime in Pakistan and therefore has insignificant domestic support. Many of the positions he ends up taking, that are projected as being 'pushed by the Army' are positions that he has to take if he wants to remain relevant to any degree in Pakistani politics. There is broad public support in Pakistan for many of the positions/policies attributed to the Army.

The only reason his party/coalition might actually win a significant number of seats in the coming election is because of the feudal/biradri system of politics in Pakistan.

zraver
06 Oct 12,, 23:57
Yet it has largely failed in Afghanistan and the only reason there is even a semblance of order in Iraq is because the majority community in the country found common cause with the US in overthrowing Saddam and fighting back against AQ - the US does not and will not have common cause with anything but an insignificant minority of Pakistanis were it to attempt to pull yet another 'I am God Almighty come to heal your peoples and lead you to the righteous path' act ala Iraq and Afghanistan.

based on how quickly Pakistan folds when the chips are down, doubt it.


Outside of the Baloch and Sindhi groups (that even put together cannot do much in Pakistan as is) there would be no groups to have common cause with the US - this is yet more evidence of the la la land many analysts in the US live in when it comes to analyzing Pakistan and its internal dynamics.

Really, how about all the people employed in the textiles industry- no access to US markets no jobs. The truck drivers- no fuel, no work.... there are many ways to get cooperation.


Of course, but there have to be enough of them to prevent those that do step up from experiencing the 'Najibullah treatment'. The Shia and Kurds in Iraq and the non-Pakhtun in Afghanistan offered the US that 'significant number of people willing to step up' in order to have some modicum of stability - there would be nothing remotely close to that support base in Pakistan.

When was the last time the people now know as Pakistanis rebelled against a foreign invader?


Doesn't matter who she would have been backed by internationally - given that your hypothetical scenario includes decimating the Pakistani military through military strikes before installing a puppet government in Islamabad, the puppets would have no disciplined and strong domestic security institution to actually defend them and allow them to exert control over the country.

The PA decimated (1 in 10) would still be large enough.


Whatever excuse you want to come up with, let me know when the US successfully implements your 'solution' in the clusterf*** it has already created.

The Pentagon didn't let history write its policies, if it did, things would be far different. BTW the US has battled a lot of Islamic insurgencies, the Taliban might pull off the first win, but the others failed.


Hardly, his weakness is of his own making - he presides over a corrupt, incompetent, US boot licking regime in Pakistan and therefore has insignificant domestic support. Many of the positions he ends up taking, that are projected as being 'pushed by the Army' are positions that he has to take if he wants to remain relevant to any degree in Pakistani politics. There is broad public support in Pakistan for many of the positions/policies attributed to the Army. [quote]

is weakness is because of people like you who support mass murdering terrorist in your desire to be worthy enough to lick the dust off the feet of Arab jihadist.

[quote]The only reason his party/coalition might actually win a significant number of seats in the coming election is because of the feudal/biradri system of politics in Pakistan.

A win is a win...

Agnostic Muslim
11 Oct 12,, 13:43
based on how quickly Pakistan folds when the chips are down, doubt it.

You doubt what? The ability of the US to succeed in Pakistan where it has failed in Afghanistan?

Really, how about all the people employed in the textiles industry- no access to US markets no jobs. The truck drivers- no fuel, no work.... there are many ways to get cooperation.
Then why has that not worked in Afghanistan?

When was the last time the people now know as Pakistanis rebelled against a foreign invader?
The Pakistan of today and the people of Pakistan today are not the same as those centuries ago ...

The PA decimated (1 in 10) would still be large enough.
What was left of the PA (it would stand for Puppet Army at that point, if it chose to support US goals and US puppet regime) would probably fare worse than the ANP. Large scale desertions, insider sources for any insurgency, and subsequently a very large number of well trained recruits for the insurgency against US occupation and US puppets.

The Pentagon didn't let history write its policies, if it did, things would be far different. BTW the US has battled a lot of Islamic insurgencies, the Taliban might pull off the first win, but the others failed.Again, Iraq is barely successful because two major communities in the country, the Shia and the Kurds, found common cause with the US in taking control of governance after years of being massacred and brutalized by Saddam. In Afghanistan it was the non-Pashtun tribes that did so and provide the little stability we see today. The US would not have anywhere close to the kind of support it did in the two invasions and occupations above, Generalized statements of 'The US has done this or that in the past' are meaningless - every war has its own dynamics, and you have offered nothing other than silly talking points from a child's COIN textbook to try and argue in favor of your argument.


Hardly, his weakness is of his own making - he presides over a corrupt, incompetent, US boot licking regime in Pakistan and therefore has insignificant domestic support. Many of the positions he ends up taking, that are projected as being 'pushed by the Army' are positions that he has to take if he wants to remain relevant to any degree in Pakistani politics. There is broad public support in Pakistan for many of the positions/policies attributed to the Army.

is weakness is because of people like you who support mass murdering terrorist in your desire to be worthy enough to lick the dust off the feet of Arab jihadist.
Typical - resort to personal attacks and abuse when we have no arguments left- Where did I support a 'mass murdering terrorist'? Where did I express any support or respect for 'Arab Jihadists?


A win is a win...
Sure, but doesn't mean it'll prevent unrest in the country if the PPP does not start governing.

zraver
12 Oct 12,, 13:35
You doubt what? The ability of the US to succeed in Pakistan where it has failed in Afghanistan?

No I doubt the Pakistanis have the heart for it, they haven't shown it so far in their history.


Then why has that not worked in Afghanistan?

Because Afghanistan didn't have an economy to start with.


The Pakistan of today and the people of Pakistan today are not the same as those centuries ago ...

What, a secret population transfer? Other than forcing put the religious minorities the people are the same.


What was left of the PA (it would stand for Puppet Army at that point, if it chose to support US goals and US puppet regime) would probably fare worse than the ANP. Large scale desertions, insider sources for any insurgency, and subsequently a very large number of well trained recruits for the insurgency against US occupation and US puppets.

Uh huh, sure...... So your admitting the PA is basically training jihadists....


Again, Iraq is barely successful because two major communities in the country, the Shia and the Kurds, found common cause with the US in taking control of governance after years of being massacred and brutalized by Saddam. In Afghanistan it was the non-Pashtun tribes that did so and provide the little stability we see today.

A win is a win


The US would not have anywhere close to the kind of support it did in the two invasions and occupations above, Generalized statements of 'The US has done this or that in the past' are meaningless - every war has its own dynamics, and you have offered nothing other than silly talking points from a child's COIN textbook to try and argue in favor of your argument.

vs your claim of Pakistani might despite the fact that as the battles in SWAT show, Pakistan has failed to kick anyone's ass even its own....


Typical - resort to personal attacks and abuse when we have no arguments left- Where did I support a 'mass murdering terrorist'? Where did I express any support or respect for 'Arab Jihadists?

When you condemmed the US and those who helped the US for tracking down and killing Bin Laden, when you twist yourself like a pretzel to defend the ISI and when you critize your civilian leadership rather than blame the ISI for the evils befalling Pakistan. We all know the tune your singing.

Agnostic Muslim
22 Oct 12,, 19:26
No I doubt the Pakistanis have the heart for it, they haven't shown it so far in their history.

It might be for the wrong reasons, but the current violent Islamist movements in North, West and Central Pakistan negate your assertion.

Because Afghanistan didn't have an economy to start with.
The lack of an economy 'to start with' should have only made it easier after 10 plus years to incentive a significant number of locals to latch onto the bandwagon of the local US puppet in chief.

What, a secret population transfer? Other than forcing put the religious minorities the people are the same.
Ideology changes attitudes and reactions, not genetics. Genetically all humans are theorized to descend from the same tribe in Africa after all.

Uh huh, sure...... So your admitting the PA is basically training jihadists....
Not anymore than the Americans fighting the British during the American War of Independence were terrorists, thugs and criminals.

A win is a win
Sure, but your inability to comprehend WHY the win actually occurred is the point I am making.

vs your claim of Pakistani might despite the fact that as the battles in SWAT show, Pakistan has failed to kick anyone's ass even its own....
- The TTP got its 'ass kicked' in Swat, only an ill informed fool would argue otherwise - Mullah FM and his band of thugs now find sanctuary in, and operate out of, NATO occupied Afghanistan. That said, most Pakistanis, including myself, would argue that PPP/ANP government has failed to implement the follow-up civilian components of a COIN campaign in providing basic governance and law enforcement.



When you condemmed the US and those who helped the US for tracking down and killing Bin Laden, when you twist yourself like a pretzel to defend the ISI and when you critize your civilian leadership rather than blame the ISI for the evils befalling Pakistan. We all know the tune your singing.
Actions by the US that are in violation of international law and endanger the lives of innocent people (and in many cases kill innocent people) should be condemned - I fail to see why you would criticize me, or anyone else, for doing so unless of of course you are blinded by your patriotism.

On the subject of defending the ISI, I don't have to twist myself into a pretzel - I merely have to point out that the allegations against the ISI are essentially based on unsubstantiated speculation and rumors, propagated by sources with a vested interest in maligning Pakistan. We are in fact discussing these allegations against the ISI in other threads, so perhaps you should participate in those discussions and explain why you thing the arguments I have raised in defence of the ISI are invalid, rather than making generalized statements such as the one quoted above.